Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:21, 21 December 2009 editGoRight (talk \| contribs)6,435 edits →Scientific Opinion linking to Opinion ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:41, 17 December 2024 edit undoRCraig09 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users18,891 edits →Section on SCIENTISTS DISSENTING is missing: reply to IP
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{afd-merged-from\|Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature\|Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature\|6 June 2021}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{Talkheader}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|cc}}
			{{Not a forum}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=AFD		\|action1=AFD
Line 5:		Line 8:
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientific opinion on climate change		\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientific opinion on climate change
	\|action1result=kept		\|action1result=kept
			\|action1oldid=215852537

			\|action2=PR
			\|action2date=05:54, 22 December 2009
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Scientific opinion on climate change/archive1
			\|action2result=reviewed
			\|action2oldid=333122277

	\|maindate=		\|maindate=
	\|currentstatus=		\|currentstatus=
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBanners\|1=
			{{WikiProject Science\|importance=mid}}
	{{Environment\|class=B}}
			{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=High }}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High }}
	}}		}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	{{notforum}}
			\|target=/Archive index
	{{Round In Circles}}
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
	{{FAQ\|quickedit=no}}
			\|leading_zeros=0
	<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|indexhere=yes
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 10		\|counter = 25
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(2d)		\|algo = old(60d)
	\|archive = Talk:Scientific ~~opinion~~ on climate change/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
	}} bot temporarily deactivated; please unhide these lines on 2009-01-12 or when Request for comment below closes -->
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
	{{Archives\|search=yes}}
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki>

			}}
	== Proposal #2 ==
			{{section sizes}}

			{{British English}}
	Counter proposal:

	* Article down to semi
	* 1RR limit for all
	* Removal of NPOV tag

	] (]) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

	'''Support'''
	# ] (]) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 21:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] ] 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	# Why are we voting on this? We don't vote. Just do it. --] 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] with the caveat that 1RR shall not apply to obvious ]--] (]) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 13:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
	# ] (]) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

	'''Oppose'''
	# --] (]) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	#: ] (]) 20:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)<small>This editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry, advocacy and edit warring. ] (]) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small>
	# NPOV tag should remain until dispute is settled ] (]) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# Silly proposal, last I saw these eds where ignoring a NPOV dispute. Are they now agreeing to a dispute? If so, then under wiki rules not there own. That's another issue with ], like they can set the rules for a page. I yield no consent to rules from heavily interested parties. Mediators may help set rules. ] (]) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	# Agree with semi, but do not agree with the other standards. Although I am not aware of what the NPOV issues are, I suspect that if the article were renamed to describe "Scientific Organizations stated opinions" or something like that, it would be less subject to NPOV disputes. It would be kind of a sister article to the individual scientists opposing list.--](]) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	# We still have an absurdly pointless set of tags on the ] page, which I'm told need to stay there in perpetuo, because a AfD resulted in stalemate. The same editors arguing that the NPOV tag on this article is pointless edit-war to keep the Watts tag in place. Let it not be thought that a small group of Wikipedians are disingenuous & hypocritical; the tag needs to remain in place until the discussion resolves. ] (]) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	#:: '''Agree''' - Yes ... right on ... renaming (without a single "Opinion" category) and following the structure set out in ] would be simple help here for me and to balance better with the other articles. ](]) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	# Removal of the tag has nought to do with imposing a 1RR restriction. As long as there is a dispute about POV, the NPOV tag is not a stigma on the article, it is only a notice that some people disagree. Which appears to be a fact of life. ] (]) 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	#:Do you think that every controversial article should be tagged indefinitely? ] (]) 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	#::You appear to misread my comment -- which is that where there is apparently substantial active disagreement, that a POV tag is not onerous to an article. It is intended to inform readers, and not be a stigma for the article. In the case at hand, there appears to be substantial and continuing disagreement, which has nought to do with "indefinitely" at all. Is there, in fact, current substantial disagreement as to POV for this article at all? Do you believe that the POV tag damages the article at this point? ] (]) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	#::: The NPOV comment requires a reason. You cannot assert that the dispute over the tag is a valid reason for the tag, we need some actual dispute about the content of the page. Pages cannot be tagged indefinitely for no reason. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	#:::: And the reason(s) have been stated multiple times. --] (]) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::It is not I that needs to point out that there have been a number of discussions on these topics regarding POV. I only point out that where such discussions exist, that the POV tag is proper. Indeed, this section on "proposal 2" is not the one in which to discuss whether POV exists, or what the POV might be. ] (]) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_top \| Discussion of Brittainia's block.}}
	<small>] (])]</small>
	: <small>You can't undue someone's vote retroactively. They obviously weren't blocked when they made it. --] (]) 01:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small>
	::<small>By that standard if one individual voted 100 times using sockpuppets the duplicate votes couldn't be removed if the socks were later discovered. This comment shows more about your editing philosophy than you may intend. ] (]) 01:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</small>
	::: <small>I have raised the issue. If this is indeed a confirmed case of an abuse of a sock I will remove my objection. --](]) 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)<p>Updated: ''"This comment shows more about your editing philosophy than you may intend."'' - Aren't you the one that has been complaining so much about people impugning you with things that you did not state? Please return to your glass house. </small>
	{{collapse_bottom}}
	'''abstain'''
	#While I would be okay with this, I am cognizant of it failing to address the concerns of others that led us here (concerns which, to me, seem at least partly valid, but which do not constitute POV, especially not on ''this'' page.); and I see no reason why we can't resolve those issues, while also simultaneously achieving the outcomes in proposal #2. ‒ ]14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

	=== Motion to close ===
	Yes, there is irony with time invested in Proposal #2 and ''"Procedural disputes block climate accord"'' let the horse go in peace. ] (]) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	== GoRight: "The dispute is over the exclusion of the legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus" which currently occurs on THIS article" ==

	I urge GoRight to drop this point. Because if this article is going to say anything about claims that a consensus does not exist, it can only do that by debunking such claims, as that is the prevailing POV in the literature. There are no two equal sides on this issue. A NPOV wiki article will have to say that the sceptics are wrong when they say that there is no consensus. I'm sure that this is not what GoRight wants to see.

	Another issue is that the sceptic POV should be mentioned here on Misplaced Pages. But because this is a such a minority opinion, you could hardly mention that the Global Warming article without violating ]. That's why we have the Global Warming Controversy article. There is plenty of room to write about claims and counter claims on the scientific consensus there. ] (]) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

	:: Alas, you still don't understand the thrust of the problem. There is an entire body of topics, debates, and controversies surrounding "the consensus" that exist entirely within the public (as opposed to the scientific) domain and they have absolutely nothing to do with "debunking such claims". In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist. To provide but one such example, a discussion of the ''public opinion trends associated with "the consensus"'' is a perfectly valid topic of discussion that is wholly unrelated to "debunking anything" and doesn't rely upon peer-reviewed anything. My NPOV issue is that this article, which given the current configuration of the redirects and wikilinks is the de facto "main article" on any discussion of the consensus, is systematically blocking any discussion of those public domain points of view. So either allow them to be expressed here, or move the "main article" for the discussion of the consensus elsewhere. ] would appear to be a natural choice for such an alternate location. --] (]) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	::: I do understand you, but if you include public opinions on the consensus, then everything that is written about the public opinion, including criticisms of some sceptical opinions is fair game. That will then likely open the door to far more editing disputes which will be fought with wiki policies like ], ], ]. That's why content forking to move sceptical opinions to separate articles were they can be discussed in greater detail is better. ] (]) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	:It's well enough covered in the ] article, to my mind. We don't need to go into it specifically at all, really. --] (]) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

	::Nigel, up a bit you say: "But whether or not greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming is not a matter of opinion. Matters of opinion include issues like (list)" - I would add to your list: "whether or not there is scientific consensus that ''greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming''" as a matter of opinion. As evidence I would offer your local talkback radio station. This is the nub, I think, of GR's concern, and touches on ZP5's key concern I think. Proper coverage, not of AGW science (nominally factual) per se, but of the ''debate around consensus'', is stifled - only one side of the ''debate around consensus'' is permitted on this page, despite the debate around consensus being a hot topic with strongly held and strongly disagreeing opinions held my many. Why can we not cover the consensus issue (both sides) over at ] which appropriatly kicks off strongly with the (overwhelming) majority scientific view - the contested section here is ALREADY duplicated there. ‒ ] 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

	::Also, per ] "''Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.''" - so is it appropriate to cover it in any depth on a page where inclusion criteria is largely driven by the sceintific method? ‒ ] 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

	::Also, per ], "''there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however.''" ‒ ] 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::Would GoRight be happy with a link back to the Global Warming Controversy article? ] (]) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::: No, because there is already a spinoff from that article specifically dedicated to this topic, it is ]. The solution I would prefer is that this article simply include a brief statement and a pointer to that article as the "main source" for this topic, at which point it only makes sense to update the consensus related redirects to point there as well. --] (]) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::::: ''In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist.'' - Since the current article makes no POV claim based on this phrase (it only mentions that it is of interest and that several scientific organizations use it themselves), and since this article is about scientific not public opinion, it seems this argument is redundant. ] (]) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	== Background to RfC ==
	* Yes it is balanced. Given that, no it doesn't need an NPOV tag. Yes, 1RR limit would help avoid disruption ] (]) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	* No, the ] only is unbalanced. The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies. The section is already duplicated at ], and striking the section here and adding a brief pointer, per ], would resolve the POV issue. ‒ ] 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_top}}
	:*Given the current configuration of the two articles, what Jaymax said makes a lot of sense.--] (]) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	::* ''"The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies."'' - I agree. This is in essence the point I have been making and it is the basis of my proposed solution above. My only other related point is that as long as the redirects and wikilinks related to a discussion of "the consensus" are used to direct people here (thus effectively establishing this as the "main article" for that specific discussion) then there is still a problem, IMHO. I have begun the process of trying to rectify that specific point but my efforts yesterday were "hampered". --] (]) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_bottom}}

	* The article topic is too poorly defined to enable any consensus to emerge. The reason is that it is a ] from the article ]. identifying the article as a fork is not hard to do because the form of the title runs contrary to ], as it uses the convention "Scientific opinion on...." in its title which seperates in from ] in name only. I have not seen this done for any other article topic, i.e the "opinions" (aka the sources) are never seperated from the overarching article topic (climate change). --] (]\|] 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	* This hatnote, ''"This article <u>'''does not include the views'''</u> of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor lists of individuals such as"'' demonstrates a POV issue with the article for excluding views and many sources in the article history. The IPCC mission should be included for context. In addition, other opinion categorizes must be briefly included (following ]) to balance the article view. The title should be explicitly objective following category guidance. As is now, the article is a Coatrack for "documenting" .... "scientific opinion" as singly manifested by the IPCC mission. No org mission should be held above Wiki NPOV, non-negotiable. There are sources to reasonably summarize and include other opinions here. Edit wars can be avoided when warriors abstain. No need for 1RR if the warrior(s) acknowledge their waring and abstain. (Thanks for the RFC. Let me know if anyone has questions.) ] (]) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	* (Mostly duplicated from above) As long as this article is being utilized as the "main article" for a discussion of "the consensus", as evidenced by the fact that redirects and wikilinks referring to "the consensus" are bringing users to THIS article, then the discussion of "the consensus" on THIS article must include a discussion of viewpoints (i.e. from the public domain) other than purely peer-reviewed ones. The fact that the peer-reviewed argument is being used to prevent those other points of view from being included is the source of the NPOV dispute on THIS article. So, there are two possible options for resolving the dispute:
	*# Move the discussion of "the consensus" to a page where the peer-reviewed argument won't be used to eliminate discussion of otherwise valid points of view, or
	*# Allow those points of view to be expressed on this page as ] demands.
	: I have been pursuing the first approach as this will enable those who prefer to have a place that describes only the peer-reviewed opinions to continue to do so, although the term''positions'' would be more appropriate. The dispute is not over the listing of the scientific positions of the various organizations represented here. The dispute is not over attempts to undermine the scientific credibility of the positions articulated on this page. The dispute is over ''the exclusion from THIS article legitimate points of view'' from the public domain which focus on "the consensus". --] (]) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_top}}
	:: Agree with GoRight. ] (]) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_bottom}}

	*Here's a thought: The primary purpose of an RfC is ] And as usual, the outside input is being drowned out by the same old folks restating their same old positions. Let's reboot the process and those of us who've already stated our positions ad nauseam agree to back off and let others get a word in. What say? ] (]) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_top}}
	:: Beeblebrox said "''it would be best if each made a '''brief''' statement here summarizing their position''" - some are more brief than others - follow-on discussion (including this entry of mine) is mostly unhelpful ‒ ] 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	:: <s>GR, would you consider removing your discussion reply to me; ZP5 would you consider removing your disussion reply to GR; Curtis, would you consider moving your comment to be its own statement; Jaymax, would you consider deleting your discussion reply to SBHB? Oh, that's me, right, yah sure - I'll do it once it's had time to be seen by the involved parties. ‒ ] 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) </s>collapse in good ‒ ] 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_bottom}}

	* This article is about the scientific opinion on climate change, which is distinct from, and not impacted by (but has impact on) the political or public opinion on climate change. The article does this by describing the views from major scientific bodies, and surveys that try to determine scientists opinion - as such it has included ''all'' viewpoints from these aspects. What this means and what, if any, impacts this view may have on political or public opinion and the debates about it etc. lies outside of the articles purpose, and is discussed at ], ] and to some extent at ]. Perhaps we should have another article as well called ] (seems there is a lot of material), but it certainly doesn't belong here.--] (]) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_top}}
	:: Q: Who's ''"purpose"'' does this article serve? And how?](]) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::{{ec}}It serves the purpose of describing the ''scientific'' opinion on climate change, it does it by documenting every official statement that has been made from major scientific bodies on climate change as well as all surveys that we know of that have been conducted on the subject (including two from Bray & von Storch who are "unofficial" (ie. unpublished)).--] (]) 05:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


	:::: You may have confused "purpose" with "function". "Purposes" serve an intended subject (i.e. a person or org, while "functions" serve another object. You have described, "scientific opinion" as an object here. I have not seen you identify who (person or org) the article serves? Sincerely, ] (]) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	::: Kim, does the article also represent the Pielke's perspectives, he leads a fairly large group of researchers after all, and does it represent von Storch's, Zorita's (yep, there are more bloggers out there these days). Does the article represent the UAH's views (Christy & Spencer)? Does it represent Lindzen's group's views? I think this may be GR et al's point.] (]) 05:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::We do not document individual opinions, nor do we document self-selected lists of specific viewpoints - such as the 1700 british scientists who just signed a statement to confirm that there is a consensus. The reason for this is simple: They do not show what the collective opinion is - but instead how singular (or polar/biased) viewpoints see things. --] (]) 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{collapse_bottom}}


	=== Request for comment ===

	{{rfctag\|sci}}
	*The crux of this debate seems to hinge on two issues:
	:*Is the article balanced with regards to ] and which sources are accepted as ] enough to merit inclusion here?
	:*Is the above problem bad enough to merit keeping a <nowiki>{{pov}}</nowiki> tag on the article?
	::*Since there is already a lot of debate from the currently involved parties, it would be best if each made a '''brief''' statement here summarizing their position, and then let previously uninvolved editors comment for a bit. If you do not feel this summary adequately represents the key points, please note that in your statement. ] (]) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::*Addendum: Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone here by addressing this as well: Should the article be placed on a ] in order to encourage discussion rather than revert warring? ] (]) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::: '''Note:''' in the interests of encouraging ''outside'' participation, I have copied the opening statements to ], above; this method has worked before, but if it is undesirable here please simply undo it and remove this statement. Valued outside commenters, Beeblebrox's opening statement looks like a fair summary of the remaining points of contention, but please review the material in the above section for more detail to this dispute. - ] <small>(])</small> 08:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::::: I have temporarily turned off automatic archiving so that this thread will remain active. Please manually move stale or inactive threads to the archive, and reactivate the bot after the RfC closes on 2009-01-12. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	{{calmtalk}}

	:I'm still pretty new to this page. I can't fully address the editing restriction proposition since I don't know all the details about how that works. However, anything that promotes discussion instead of unilateral editing that is likely to be immediately controversial is a good thing.
	:After some thought, I support the removal of the tag. The proposal to add a discussion regarding the debate on the consensus is an interesting one. I agree with GoRight that that discussion must be included in Misplaced Pages in the interest of completeness. I don't think this article is the right place, and the argument that omitting it from this article violates NPOV is not compelling. I would support it here except that I think it would lead to a slippery slope that would quickly grow and overshadow the specific dynamics this article describes.] (]) 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

	: The only remotely sensible objections are about the Climate Change Consensus page. There is no sensible objection remaining to the current version of this page. If you want to delete the Climate Change Consensus and fork, fine. Propose on that page's talk, and the main page's talk.
	: There is a proposal to keep the tag "while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus"
	:This has been done - "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature".
	:The "Consensus" section merely reports that people want to know what the scientific consensus is and that scientific organizations use this word themselves.
	: The remaining objections to this page boil down to "Are scientific organizations reliable sources for scientific opinion?" and "Public opinion isn't represented on the scientific opinion page."
	: The answer to both these questions is a straightforward "Remove the POV tag now."
	: The POV tag on this article is ridiculous and reflects poorly on wikipedia. Unless, of course, you want to put a POV tag on the evolution scientific consensus pages, and also the relevant cosmology pages - then we can all breathe easy and forget about wikipedia being taken seriously at all. ] (]) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	== What is to be done? ==

	It seems to be there are actually only three choices facing the editors of this article:
	# Find one or more reliable, third-party sources that provide significant coverage regarding the title of this article which be used to define or describe its subject matter of this article in order to comply with the requirements of Misplaced Pages's ];
	# If no reliable, third-party sources can be found to define the articles subject matter, then accept that this article is a ] from the article ] (or some other topic), and arrange the merger of the two topics. For as it stands, this article's subject matter is so ill defined that its existence runs contrary to both ] as well as ];
	# Accept that no conensus can be achieved, and continue to engage in content disputes, edit warring and deletion discussions, which would be symptomatic of this article falling outside the scope of Misplaced Pages's content polices, in particular ].
	The good news is that at least one reliable third-party sources exists that could be used to define this article's subject matter, but what is really needed is at least one more so that it can be categorically "nailed down". This article suggests that this article is about the development or evolution of, or periodic changes in the ''Scientific opinion on climate change'', rather than the opinions themselves, or specific instances of scientific opinion.<br />Once the subject matter of this article can be described or defined by an external source, I think you will find that the content disputes can be resolved without recorse to agruing over whose opinion is right or wrong. --] (]\|] 09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	::Question: What about sources that describe 'Scientific Opinion' in the abstract, rather than GW specifically? Do these help, or are they valueless here? ‒ ] 10:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::Ignore the abstract and read the paper where all the relevant issues are discussed.--] (]\|] 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::''"what is really needed is at least one more"'' ? ‒ ] 10:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::...so there can be no dispute from relying on just one source to define this article's subject matter. --] (]\|] 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::I should have been less obtuse. I read the paper you reference yesterday. You say we need more than one - I am suggesting that another might deal just with the 'scientific opinion' aspect. ‒ ] 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	:Until more sources can be found, I propose dropping the (unsourced) hat note, and adding the following paragraph as the lead:
	<div style="margin:2px 2px 2px 2em;border:1px solid #ffcc00;padding:.3em 1em;background-color:#FFFFF0;">
	'''Scientific opinion on climate change''', as expressed by the United Nations-sponsored ], has repeatedly stressed that ] is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.<ref>Stephen J. Farnsworth & ]: ''The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences'', ], ]. September 2009, p.3</ref>

	Surveys of how scientists view the status of ] research, conducted in 1996 and 2003, demonstrated a significant shift in scientific opinion regarding global warming, though there remains some disagreement about whether humans are responsible. There has been a significant increase in the level of expert confidence in some aspects of climate change research, most notably land surface processes and ], but scientists remain uncertain about the accuracy of ]s that offer predictions for future consequences of climate change.<ref>Stephen J. Farnsworth & ]: ''The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences'', ], ]. September 2009, p.4</ref>
	</div>
	:I feel this source coverage of Scientific opinion on climate change represents a considerable improvement over the existing hat note and lead section. --] (]\|] 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

	Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option. Recommend looking for a source from climate scientists and a consensus opinion at that. Problems with vague wording "some disagreement", whats that then - 1%, 10% of scientific org opinions?.. or "scientists remain uncertain" about what exactly? this blurb gives a nice fuzzy interpretation of climate science as of today, with references to studies from 1996 and 2003, sure why not go back to the 70 and 60 for opinion, might water it down a bit more.. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Problems, problems, problems. I am not saying this citation is perfect, but in the absense of any good source about the title of this article, it has got to be an improvement. If you can come up with a better alternative, all well and good. But in Misplaced Pages, reliable secondary sources such as this are valuable additions to any article. --] (]\|] 21:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
	::I would oppose this change for reasons adequately described already on this talk page.] (]) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::Gavin, please c.f. ]. ‒ ] 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::I don't think we will even find a source that is indicative of what any one or group of editors perceive to be the Truth™, but we can find sources that are verfiable and reliable, and replaced unsourced statements that are not. What ever objections Airborne84 has about this source, he needs to back up his assertions with some sort of reasoned arguement supported by evidence. Alternatively, if he can find a better source, then let him put it before us so we can verify it and check it for reliablity. --] (]\|] 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::GC, you're still operating from the incorrect premise that the hat-note consists of original research and needs changing. I can't count the number of times you've asserted this with no agreement from editors. To make it easier for you to read the paragraph in ] on Tendentious Editing, I'll paste it below for you.

	::::::'''Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor'''
	::::::'''You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.''' If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.
	:::::Cheers. ] (]) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::I think it fair to say that my proposal is the only one sourced by significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that is indpendent. If you have source that is at least as good as or better than this in the sense that it addresses the topic in detail and without original research, then bring it on, but so far we only have your opinion that the hat note is not original research, when what is need are ] to back up your viewpoint. Without a citation to support the hat note, you opinoin carries no weight what so ever. Accuse me of what you will, but the incluison criteria for a standalone article in Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary. So far you provided nothing that suggests that this topic is suitable for inclusion, other than asserting that the hat note is all that is need. To that I say ]. --] (]\|] 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::''"Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option."''
	::::::: (a) The source is NOT a political body, but a scientific intergovernmental body. Unless you want to change the ] page too. (b) How is it NOT the balanced worldwide opinion??

	"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established
	by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the
	world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and
	socio-economic consequences.

	The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic
	information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research
	nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute
	to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective
	and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are
	reflected in the IPCC reports."

	::::::: I submit that the IPCC is in fact the ONE and ONLY expert source that does indeed summarise worldwide scientific opinion, because (i) it is created for that very purpose (ii) its reports contain information supplied by the worldwide scientists ] (]) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I see no "problems" with the source: it is a reliable seocondary source , and it is probably the only one cited in the article whose subject matter matches the article's title in the sense that it is actually commenting upon the subject of ''Scientific opinion on climate change''. Whether the source is biased or not is a matter of opinion only, but what is important is that it is not original research: if the reader can check the source of the statements made, then at least it is ], whereas the old hat note was not. Also it is the only source cited in this article which attempts to establish the ] of the article topic "Scientific opinion on climate change". In fact, it is possible to say that this article is not a content fork, because it cites significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that is independent that address the subject matter of article topic directly and in detail, without original research. I see that as a benefit, not a "problem".--] (]\|] 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

	== I don't have the time to participate in talk page discussions ==

	I just had a quick look now, but I'll be too busy in the coming few weeks to do much here. However, since the discussions here are going nowhere anywhere, I reserve the right to revert the page back to the current version which includes the hatnote defining "scientific opinion". Any inclusion of political opinions (even about the scientific opinion) is i.m.o. unacceptable. There exists a scientific opinion on climate science and it should be possible to have a wiki article that exclusively contains that scientific opinion which is 100% free of political noise, opinions of lay persons etc. etc. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	: So do you support replacing the existing consensus section with a brief comment and then a reference to the corresponding section in ]? I've already shown that . This would move the non-scientific opinion BASED discussions you want left off of THIS page to THAT page leaving this one uncontested (by me at least). --] (]) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::Iblis, I ''think'' all but one editor here pretty much agree with you, including most of those who see a NPOV issue. ‒ ] 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::Count Iblis, your statement is right on the money. GoRight's proposal also seems reasonable in that it:

	::::1. Doesn't represent an attempt to merge article on a huge topic that needs separate, structured articles.
	::::2. Leaves the dynamics of a useful article (this one) intact and undiluted.
	::::3. Directs readers interested in information on the "consensus" to a more complete article - ''adding'' to knowledge, instead of ''subtracting'' from it.

	I'lll admit there were a couple of aspects to the article GoRight mentioned that merit adjustments though. Conversely, if the change isn't necessary to help solve a huge rift between the editors, it may not be warranted. Cheers.] (]) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	: Count Iblis, are you under the impression that you ] the article? --] (]) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::I agree 100% with Count Iblis. The inclusion of political or any other non-scientific opinions is unacceptable. This article is for people who want to cut through all the propaganda ("most scientists agree", "most scientists refute", "there's a consensus", "there isn't a consensus", "the consensus in growing", "the consensus in crumbling", "there's a growing body of skeptics", etc.) This article gives people what the scientific community ''actually'' says and in their own words. I also agree with GoRight and Airborne. If for nothing more than brevity, we should lose the whole consensus section. I've gone back and forth on this, but the word "consensus" is used in 7 of the statements this article quotes, and there's really no point in beating it over the readers' heads. Besides, the whole debate about "consensus" gets rather ridiculous with people arguing whether is means 100% unanimity or simply a vast majority (it actually can mean either). So, yes, the consensus section should go, and non-scientific silliness should stay out.--] (]) 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::: This would go a long way to resolving my NPOV concerns with this page. However, if people are not currently aware of it there is a movement afoot that would make my proposal above moot, see . Now, if the ] article is deleted and split between ] and ] I would find it acceptably NPOV to maintain a "scientific consensus" section in each of the two articles and cross link the two (i.e. the one here points to there and vice versa). Under that scenario the scientific position statements could stay in this article. --] (]) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::That sounds quite reasonable.--] (]) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::: Yes, it's completely reasonable that scientific position statements would stay in this article. If they didn't, this article would be blank. Anyhow, there seems to now be no objection to removing the POV tag immediately. Adding in a "see also" link to a "public opinion" page is fine, but has no bearing on the POV-ness of this page either way. ] (]) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	== I had time to create a new article :-) ==

	See: ]

	This intends to:
	# Keep the purist "Scientific opinion" in a separate article. (With brief acknowledgment and link)
	# Content fork the surveys from here into the new article
	# Merge ] into a section
	# Save ] into a "Historical opinion" section
	# Create space and balance for "Editorial opinion" and 'Advocacy groups" sections

	:: I predict this article will long survive the horde of noise, before the tide rises to swallow the wiki servers and humanity. (Smile it's just humor.)

	Being my last two creations were deleted. Let's talk about this content fork and union here please.
	Sincerely,
	] (]) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	:How does that topic really differ from ], and the more narrowly focussed ]? (just realised abbreviating to CCC in talk isn't such a good idea) ‒ ] 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	:: That one is really called ]. We don't need yet another page from ZP5 at the moment. Settle down ] (]) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::: WMC, as far as I am concerned, you may lead the way to merge in the CCC articles for which you have expressed disapproval. That could help moving things forward here. (smile) ] (]) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::Good work ZuIu, I think it's a great idea that has lots of potential. Various groups of people have made public proclamations of their views of global warming/climate change, business groups, religious groups, etc. The article could become a valuable source for readers who want to know, "Hmm, what does the Catholic Church say about AGW? What do Buddists say? Economists? The insurance industry?..etc. However, you might want to change the title to ''Opinions on climate change''. Your working title kind of sounds like the climate itself holds an opinion.--] (]) 10:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Yes, ''"Opinions on Climate Change"'' would be a better title and that article could serve as a NPOV over-arching article that links to this one for the scientific opinion. Other categories of opinion could start as sections within that article and if they get too big could be spun off like this one. We sould have to reconcile that article with ] and ] so that the purpose of each is clearly delineated. --] (]) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::: {{done}} '''Agreed''', I'll change the tile and post redirects for the draft old title. ] (]) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	Excellent idea, separation of science and all other options (media/political/economic/religious) can only help in adding clarity to this topic, as today there is so much noise generated by the fringe opinions and media opinions that they are presented on even paring with scientific opinions/papers/evidence based theories.<br/>
	How will you divide the article weight for each category - in order of importance to average joe (eg political options first comprising of 25% of article length, next importance my guess is religious opinion 15% etc) ] (]) 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	: Well, let's work with something we already know and can easily quantify. For example, we know that the world's population is a little over 6.5 Billion and we know that some 2,500 scientists have a consensus on the scientific opinion. So, roughly (2,500 / 6,500,000,000) * 100 = ~0.00004% of the column inches should be dedicated to the scientific opinion in comparison to the rest. Make sense? --] (]) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) <small>YMMV on my calculation for the appropriate weight of the scientific opinion. :)</small>
	:: Not sure i follow you GoRight. Are you arguing that each of the 6.8 billion personal opinions are of the same weight as scientific, political, media, religious org opinions, or are you just taking the piss because you dont approve of this new opinion article, that it goes against your own 'personal' opinions on climate change. if so, i suggest you create your own personal reflections blog. ] (]) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::: Opinions must be from reliable sources for wiki, please. The 6.8 billion have a role in addressing the issues, but are off topic forum here. ] (]) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	::: {{ec}}<p>Sorry, I guess I had my tongue planted a little too firmly in my cheek on that one. First, I am generally supportive of the article on opinions so your last bit doesn't seem to apply. As for the rest of my comment I was merely making the (tongue in cheek) point that when determining the relative "weight" of Public vs. Scientific opinion the applicable ratio would be 6.5 Billion to 2,500, roughly speaking. Obviously this is an upper limit, though, there could be other weighting approaches ... in reality there not only ARE other weighting approaches THEY would most likely be the ones actually employed. --] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	Thanks, I will start a talk page with FAQ for the draft article. Also, I believe that if "climate change" issues are going to progress in society for a meaningful purpose, they must be open to all disciplines, and not solely the realm of scientific research. As far as deciding weight, I propose to organize sections along the lines of disciplines found in a university. The weight will work it self out in space in balance to the sources. When necessary, separate content forks can be created for space expansion, as long as a balanced summary remains and the fork itself is balanced. For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place. ] (]) 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	: ''"For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place."'' - Agreed. --] (]) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	=== How this proposal covers this dispute ===
	As stated above, this article would be summarized and content forked in the newly proposed balanced NPOV article. This discussion belongs here. Thank you. ] (]) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	I should place this template ] on the articles in question, yes?] (])
	:No - you shouldn't. Because there is no consensus for such a discussion. (and in all cases it doesn't belong in article space). --] (]) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	'''Please notice''' the 2RR , , with no talk from the 1RR proposer. ] (]) 14:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	: No ] (]) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	'''Question:''' What course of action will folks consent to for including content with the sources listed? ] (]) 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
	:Since most of those sources do not match the article's topic, they shouldn't. It is impossible to determine ''scientific'' opinion from single individuals, and from non-scientific sources, which i guess is a ] that has been beaten to death by now. Some of these sources may have relevant places (according to weight) in ] or other articles, but since they are indications of ''individual'' disagreement (or opinions from non-science sources) they do not belong here. --] (]) 18:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	:: Pardon the persistence, what makes these sources a "Controversy", but for "Scientific Opinion"? ] (]) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::Try carefully reading my comment, you may also want to wander through all the other comments that have been made on this point. I see no merit in explaining the same thing again and again and .... --] (]) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::: I've gone through all the archives and participated in this talk for some time. What I've seen and agree with, is GoRight's assertion that this article requires greater space for acknowledgment of "controversies" to be balanced in a NPOV. My apologies, did you see that in the dispute here? I made several proposals to move forward, perhaps I should now share my draft RfC proposal? ] (]) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, i have seen it, read it, and responded to it quite a lot of times. So have rather a lot of other editors. Making proposals that from earlier discussions have little to no support is a waste of time. You can submit your RfC if that is what you want - but please do not wave it around, whether or not there will be an RfC has no impact (or shouldn't have any impact) on how people see issues. (let me be more specific: If people are acting in good faith, then saying that this will end up with an RfC is not a way to change their views). --] (]) 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	:It seems strange to me that you are creating an article which covers the same area as ]. And as far as I can see the reasoning is that you have some citations for climate change controversy that don't fit into this article so they should go somewhere else. I think you are trying to say they should be in this document but it looks like you've tried to change the name of his article so they would actually fit as they don't fit the current topic of this article. Could anyone explain what is happening here please? One reason for the controversy is because of the scientific opinions but putting it in this article would be completely against ]. There are lots other reasons for the controversy that have nothing to do with scientific opinions - people wanting to keep their jobs, people not wanting to reduce their standard of living, general scepticism and conspiracy theories, religious nutters wanting to end the world or whatever. ] (]) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	: My intention is not to reinforce "controversies', but to present multiple opinions and assume good faith in the reader. To explain, this article is a ] for the IPCC. ] (]) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

	:: <b>Question</b> Are there any climatologists in the Holy See? ] (]) 04:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

	== Scope? ==

	See ] vs. ]. We should use some consistent terminology, otherwise it's unclear what this is about. On a cursory examination it seems mostly about global warming, so I think it should be renamed. ] ] 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	] - increase in temperature
	] - change in weather patterns
	Global warming is a behavioural subset of Climate change.. is the consensus scientific terminology used today, as it incorporates global warming, along with many other topics not mentioned in global warming article. ] (]) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	See "Archive 9" for example ... "How about the title ], since global warming is what is happening on average globally, while climate "change" is the local temporarily current disruptions due to the on average warming (the overarching current event).
	As a side-note, both of those terms miss the broader scope of gases & soot (greenhouse & "forcing agents"), deforestation, mass species extinction, rising oceans (with loss of dozens of small nations predicted), drying of soil & increased rainfall intensity (degradation of agriculture, loss of potable water), ocean acidification, softening of permafrost (buildings and trees falling-over) with methane leaks from the land and lakes (even catching on fire), ocean acidification (corals dying, shell of shelled sea animals softening and the collapse of entire ecosystems), etc ... being discussed at COP-15 by the vast majority of Heads of State of the entire planet. Polar bears dying-off and glaciers melting are minor in the big scope of the trends viewed around the world." ] (]) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
	: So, the guys that promoted ] to FA status were all wrong and misguided? It seems that ] applies here. ] ] 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	== Locked ==

	Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that ] 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 ] and ], the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through {{tl\|editprotected}}.

	The proposed merge target for ] is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might 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 ]. 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 ], ] 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 ] has ], 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 {{tl\|POV-check}} has received input here, and no contrary input at ]. 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 ]; any editor who does so will be ] for a short period to limit ]. Removing any similar tag will be considered ''prima facie'' evidence of ]; any editor who does so will be ] for a short period to limit ]. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to ] at a talkpage section; for example: ''tag removed per ] and ]''. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be ] for a short period to limit ] and ]. 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 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 ] should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly ] (]) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	'''Comment:''' I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --] (]) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) <small>(Obligatory Statement)</small>

	'''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 ]? --] (]) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

	'''Question:''' What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --] (]) 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	* Short version: only edit if ] has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that ] will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow ] 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

	* Unlocked. Please edit only according to clearly expressed ]. Any ] will lead to ], 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 ] and ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

	== hatnote removal ==
	I've reverted gavin.colin's change from the hat-note, to something that is based entirely on a single source. First of all, as we've discussed earlier, i don't believe that there is consensus for such a change. And secondly because the change is to something that is less neutral and more value-based than what we are attempting with this article... We've been through 4 AfD's where this has never been an issue - so i rather doubt gavin's interpretation of policy.

	To be more specific: We are not (and should not be) taking a stand as to what the scientific opinion is, or what it means - but instead just focus on documenting what it (currently) is, per the limitations set out in the hat-note. We can't and shouldn't make statements on what individuals think or whether there is an opposition or not (unless it falls within the scope of the article), since that invariably will make us/the article take a stand, and move away from NPOV. --] (]) 10:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:Is that because you believe the hat note represents the truth, where as reliable secondary sources do not? Don't forget that the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. I belive that is not the consensus in Misplaced Pages, but here as well. --] (]\|] 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::No, it doesn't represent "truth", it represents the limits that we've agreed upon via ''consensus'', over a long period of time. The article is ''entirely'' based upon reliable sources (to rather extreme degree even) --] (]) 11:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::Comments on ] would be appreciated. ‒ ] 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::Then if it does not represent the "truth", why would you want to lead this article with a statement that is ]? I don't see how you can base consensus on original research. --] (]\|] 11:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::I'm not altogether happy with the change but I think it was much better than the hatnote. I think it should be put back in and people try editing it rather than going back to the hatnote. ] (]) 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::: I would have to correct KimDabelsteinPetersen: there is more than one source replacing the hatnote. If there is an objection to those sources, then name then give reasons. Just because you ''think'' it is consensus, is not a valid reason. --] (]\|] 11:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Gavin, what, specifically, are you saying is OR? Can you rephrase the statement that the lead makes that you regard as OR? Is it that ''scientific opinion'' is limited to societies, or what? What I want to dig out, is whatit is that you see, that others don't - getting you to rewrite what you see may make us all go 'ahhhh' (but I'm not betting on it :) ‒ ] 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Since the hat note is not sourced, the statements of opinion it contains cannot be verified. It says ''This article is about formalized scientific opinions on climate change''. What source says this? What is a "formalized" scientific opinion? <br />To be brutally honest, I think this hat note is not about scientific opinion at all: it is acutually acting like a sort of teritorial marker, which says this article is ]. Lets face it, "formalized" scientific opinion is too vague a concept to be meaningful. It is a sort of code, along the lines of "formalized" scientific opinion = Truth™. --] (]\|] 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::For the record, I just changed ''official'' to ''formalised''. Again, how can you source a statement that says 'this article is about ...' - it is illogical. There may be an implicit statement that should be sourced, but, just as it's impossible to source a statement that says "This article is about the bow used to play a string instrument.", it is impossible to source a statement stating what ''any'' article is ''about''. You need to clarify a specific implicit or explicit statement that is not self-referential to the article, that is contained in the lead. ‒ ] 12:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::It is possible. If a reliable secondary source that is independent addresses the subject matter of the article topic directly and in detail, it effectively defines the topic. Look at lead of the article ] for example. It does not say "This article is about...", it simply discusses the subject matter without having to resort to original research. --] (]\|] 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::''"formalized" scientific opinion = Truth™'' is/was not my intent. And I agree it's vague. Aristotle apparently listed (paraphrasing some guy named Otfried Höffe) the weighting criteria for deciding controversy as "wide distribution, a certain amount of justification, venerable age, and the support of recognized authorities". Considering the first and last of those is what gives us 'formalised'; the second of course gives us 'scientific'. ‒ ] 12:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::'This article is about ... ' is standard wikipedia disambiguation template text intended to assist people who might come to an article expecting to find something different. ‒ ] 12:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::There is nothing "standard" about the hat note as it stands. It attempts to define the article's subject matter, without providing any verifiable source for that definition, and because of that, it will always open to challenge in accordance with ]. It may say what you want it to say, but regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong, it is your statement of opinion. Whether your opinion is correct, a matter fact, the truth or divine revelation, I cannot judge. But if I replace the hat note with significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that can be verified, it may not be perfect by any means, but at least it can be verified in accordance with Misplaced Pages ]. --] (]\|] 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::What is my 'statement of opinion'? What the article is about? Is the hatnote at article ] a statement of opinion? I am really trying to work out what you're getting at here. ‒ ] 13:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Your statement that this article is about formalized scientific opinions on climate change is a matter of opinion. What is "formalized" scientific opinion anyway? Does it involve scientists wearing suits & ties, as opposed to white coats and protective goggles? You do realise that "formalized science" is not defined anywhere in Misplaced Pages, let alone "formalized sccientific opinion". What is your source for this statement? --] (]\|] 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::Not still on about this, are you Gavin? I have been through this, at length, with you on your own arguing this exact point, for days, and so have others here. An article's title and its hat note do not need a citable source: As long as there's enough verifiable and cited material to make an article, and the title and hat note describe the content of the article, that's it. It's a sub-article of one aspect of a bigger subject. You're going to have to think of something else to debate with us here, as we can't all just keep debating this forever with you alone. --] (]) 14:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I'm done as well, I have made a genuinely good faith attempt to understand your issue, but I have failed. And all my attempts to reference other examples, so that perhaps an analogy or comparison might, perhaps, enlighten one of us, by some difference or similarity, have gone un-addressed. ‒ ] 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::My parting gift ‒ ] 14:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Forgive me for labouring the point, but whilst an article's title and its hat note do not need a citable source, they can't exist simply as a hook on which to hang original reasearch. Whilst the term "formal opinion" may appear in a Google Search, the fact that does not make it any less the opinion of Jaymax as to how this article is defined.<br />] states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".<br />Since there is consistent disagreement about the title or the scope of article (even the third opinion seems to have his own personal view on the matter), it seems to me that if a "Scientific opinion on climate change" has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, you would want to cite those sources as the start of this article so that it is clear that the article satisfies the ] for a standalone article.<br />Maybe there have been so many title and content disuputes about the article (not to deletion nominations), perhaps any change seems threatening, but I would have thought the addition of high quality sources would be the least of your worries and would actually contribute to resolving all these disuputes. I am not sure how you are going to make any progress without good sourcing. --] (]\|] 15:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::We ''are'' relying on reliable third-party published sources, and it is rather hard to think of organizations with higher reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. And we aren't relying on "opinions of Wikipedians" - in fact we are doing so ''less'' than most other articles, since we are including ''every'' reference that falls within the scope of the article. Your "consistent disagreement" is rather overstated, and seems to be the opinion of a minority of editors. <s>We have been through 4 AfD's which indicate that notability certainly ''isn't'' the problem (all with a ''very clear'' consensus for keep)</s>. Can we please stop beating on this ]? --] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) <small> ] (]) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)]</small> <small>] (]) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)]</small>
	::::::::I think it is fair to say that this article contains lots of reliable, third party sources, but there is still a problem with the key lead section, in that neither the lead not the hat note address the subject matter of this article topic directly or in detail, nor without resorting to original research. If you have a better proposal for the lead, bring it on. However, a hat note based on the opinions of Jaymax, is not as good as reliable, third part sources, I think you will agree.<br />Until earlier today another version of the unsourced hat note existed. Now there is another one. It seems to me that opinion is cheap, and is likely to be changed every time someone takes a dislike to it. If sourced coverage is the currency that buys credibility for an article topic, I would have thought reliable, third party sources that address the articles subject matter directly and in detail are the gold standard which we should all be working towards.<br />] says "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. 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". So in answer to KimDabelsteinPetersen, it is not a deadhorse that I am flogging, I am merely arguing in favour of applying the three core content policies that determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.<br />So far, Jaymax has argued that a Google search is sufficient to justify having the current hat note in the lead section, but I don't think that arguement is worth much in terms of currency that buys credibility. Restore the sourced material and lets take it from there as ] recomends.--] (]\|] 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	===Third Opinion===
	I have never seen this article before and am responding to the request for a third opinion.

	The article was much better without the changes to the lead from Gavin Collins. Those changes miss the point of what the article is about. However, I think it would help if the name of the article was changed so that it better reflected what it is about. I suggest '''''Collective'' scientific opinion on climate change'''.

	] (]) 12:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

	:It is difficult okay. I'm not keen on the formal or collective because it is simply scientific opinion and all the individuals dissenters are not represented because of ] rather than by the definition that removes them in the leader. However without such a word in people will keep arguing for inclusion of all sorts of things that more properly belong in an article like ] or ]. ] (]) 12:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:Though i do appreciate the input from Yaris678 - I've removed the ] tag, since there are significantly more than 2 editors disagreeing on this. The correct venue for getting extra input would be an RfC. --] (]) 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

	::GC, I can't say I'm surprised that you unilaterally changed the hat-note. Please refer to 2/0's comments in an above thread:

	:::''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.''

	::Did you not read that or do you not care? I oppose the change. What consensus have you built? Please address the question instead of launching into another diatribe which will just cause me to repost the section on Tenditious Editing. ] (]) 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::I know Jaymax was making a good faith effort, but I think all (or at least most) of us can agree that we don't need a modifier like "formal" or "official". Although those may be accurate descriptions of the position statements, they're not quite right for the synthesis reports, and they certainly don't work for the surveys. So, can we at least agree on removing the word "formal"? --] (]) 08:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::I've got no objection to it's removal. ‒ ] 08:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

	== Peer review ==

	A peer review has been requested for this article at ]. Since this seems to be an article that is subject to a lot of disputed edits, is it stable enough for a peer review? ] ''']''' 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

	: It has only just come off protection ] (]) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

	== add IPCC context and mission per talk? ==

	I've just removed this . ZP5 added it with an edit comment of ''add IPCC context and mission per talk'' but I don't see the consensus to add it. Per what talk? ] (]) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

	To be clear: this article isn't the IPCC opinion on climate change, and although that has been suggested often it has been rejected often. So over-emphasis on the IPCC in the lead is wrong ] (]) 12:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

	:To de-emphasise the IPCC in the lead, we need a different strong source for the statement of consensus. If IPCC continues to be used as the 'starting point' for separating the article into 'concurring' and 'dissenting' then it's not so terribly wrong to give the context in the lead as well - But it would be better to move most reference to the IPCC in the lead into it's Synthesis Report section? ‒ ] 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

	::I don't see why you need a different strong source. I don't think you will find a better source - unless WMC knows different? However, if you want to de-emphasize the IPCC in the lede, then there is still no need for any citations other than the IPCC report itself. How many climatologists' work is outside IPCC remit? Anyway, the sources in the article itself back up that the majority claim. ] (]) 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	::The IPCC is just an assessment of the state of the science, just as the ] (now USGCRP again). It is the assessment that is most used in this context, but not the only one. If you compare the USGCRP and the IPCC reports they say must the same thing. So the emphasis on the IPCC is understandable, but misleading. And a description of the IPCC seem quite off topic here (thats what wikilinks are for). --] (]) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

	Thanks for talking WMC. This article is lead by the IPCC statements, the IPCC mission provides context for these statements. .... KPD ... "A description of the IPCC seem quite off topic here" ... Folks progress in this article is continues to be obstructed by uncompromising editors who insist they must define the article POV. How unreasonable is it to have a simple sentence stating the IPCC mission? ] (]) 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

	:Anyone who wants to see what the IPCC is about can follow the link. It's not necessary to duplicate this material in every article that mentions the IPCC (or any of the other organizations in the article for that matter). Oh, and calling everyone who disagrees with you "uncompromising" and "unreasonable" really isn't in the Christmas spirit. ] (]) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:: It's reasonable to have greater context then a link. ] (]) 14:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:It is off-topic/unreasonable here because this article has nothing to do with the mission of the IPCC (or the IPCC), thats something that can (and is) described in-depth at the IPCC wiki-article which is linked. --] (]) 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:: Get real KDP ... this article would not exist but for the IPCC mission and statements. And it should be included for context. ] (]) 16:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::It is very likely that an article such as this would exist without the IPCC mission and statements, since the science still would say the same thing (the IPCC still doesn't do science - it assesses the state of the science). --] (]) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::: KDP, I find your arguments to be approaching ], while is a strict sense the IPCC mission may not be the logical subject of this article. In all good faith to wiki humanity ... the IPCC mission is relevant, notable and sourced for inclusion here. Please show faith and allow a compromise so we may move forward. I've added the IPCC mission to the IPCC section. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::We were told not to do any edits here without consensus, and you clearly haven't got a consensus. So i've reverted it. I've already told you my objections (as have several others)... Calling them absurd is not really getting us anywhere does it? --] (]) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: Where would you like to go with this, KDP? ] (]) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


			==Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com==
	Zp5 has made two more changes that clearly lack consenus. I've notified 2/0 ] (]) 15:17, 21 December 2009(UTC)
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Maine/Disrupting_the_Status_Quo-_Social_Justice_in_Technical_and_Professional_Com_(Spring_2022) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2022-01-18 \| end_date = 2022-05-02 }}

			== Section on consensus points ==
	:See ] please. Now discuss your revert, WMD. ] (])

			I've just added this intro sentence to the section on consensus points: {{tq\|The current scientific consensus regarding ] and mechanisms of ], ] and what should be done about it (]) is that:}} but then I realised we are not including any bullet points about climate action. Is that on purpose? I think there are some general statements we could add there as consensus points about adaptation and mitigation, couldn't we? Perhaps it would be useful to give this section a sub-structure so that we can group it broadly along the lines of WG I (causes and mechanisms), WG II (effects and adaptation), WG III (mitigation). Perhaps take from here but be careful of copyright infringement (?): https://en.wikipedia.org/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Synthesis_report_for_all_three_working_group_reports ] (]) 18:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
	:: I think that has already been done. Article is not about IPCC. Science would be the same without the IPCC.
	:: IPCC are a strong and reliable source, but that does not mean the lede need bother explaining who the IPCC are. ] (]) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	::: Please see my point above about ].] (])
	::::There's hyperlinks to them and a bit t the top of the section saying see the article for more about them. The name itself is also pretty self-explanatory so I really don't see why more needs to be said about them here. One of the big advantages of WIkipedia over a conventional encyclopaedia is how much easier it is to click on a link and find the associated information. ] (]) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

			:I think I have already explained this in my December 24th comment at "IPCC/Other reports structure" section, though I'll admit it's now a more than few posts up and can be easily overlooked.
	:::::Links are fine however, this issue requires not to cite the IPCC 'out of context'. Since the IPCC mission takes on a discourse and convention, as to its object of analysis. Reasonable context for the statements will occur when the IPCC statements are placed in their mutual ] relationship between the statements and mission. Without the mission the IPCC statements may be interpreted incoherently. I've seen evidence for this in wiki. ] (]) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
			:TLDR; this clean-up and list of points was about as much as I was willing/able to do for this article at the end of 2023. I'll certainly be adding more points on those subjects once I have the time for it in 2024. Further, I think my decision to cite both IPCC and NCAR (or potentially another gold-standard source) for every bullet point should insulate the article from this; ] is a lot easier to argue when similar phrasing is used in two separate references. ] (]) 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Rate of warming ==
	(outdent) I don't see why the context is needed and it seems out of place in the main text, but as it is my wont to compromise, would others agree that the cited mission of the IPCC be given between "ref" tags as a footnote to the first mention of the organization? ] (]) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

			What exactly exactly is the evidence for this article's thesis that the 20th century warmed more than the 19th or 18th centuries. The tidal gauges don't show that. Is there any evidence for that belief? ] (]) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	== Scientific Opinion linking to Opinion ==

			:The very first image on the page shows the increase in warming - and the '''six''' independent datasets used to establish that. And the whole point of the references is to place "the evidence" a single click away. You should try that. You can also read ].
	I reverted an edit that removed the wikilink to ]. ] should have it's own article. Any good writers want to volunteer to author one? (I've been collecting useful source material at ]). ‒ ] 09:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|The tidal gauges don't show that.}} They do: ] (]) 05:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
			::Your link states there isn't evidence amd that your claims are based on models ] (]) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::"Results from analysis of individual long observational records do not present enough evidence for an unambiguous global acceleration" ] (]) 06:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Section on SCIENTISTS DISSENTING is missing ==
	: Mea culpa. You're quite right. It's the ] article that was the problem, not the link. - ] (]) 09:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

			You cannot talk about "near-consensus" w/o seriously discussing the counter-theories and opinions among dissenting researchers. Grave mistake. A dedicated section is needed, with cross-ref. to mainstream replies to each counter-theory. ] (]) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	:: I have created the discussion page on Jaymax's article: . --] (]) 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
			:You can find those people in the article ]. They are off-topic here. See ]. --] (]) 11:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			::That is paramount to a biased scope. Both agreement and dissent must be equally regarded, proportionally to their preponderance, in order for an accurate appraisal of the general consensus to be made. Relegating such voices to the Climate change denial article (which is treated as pseudosience and conspirationist) tips the scales against those statement's perceived validity. ] (]) 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: What is "proportional to their preponderance" would be determined by peer-reviewed consensus studies, the most recent of which show 98.7% to 100% agreement. See ]. These two positions should not be "equally regarded". —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 19:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This entire page is biased toward an intended outcome rather than a neutral summary of the current science. There are multiple sources to debunk the 97% consensus statement - which was a statement created by politicians over a decade ago, but no one here appears to have done any work to give an honest assessment of consensus. To counter the graph stated above, I will point you to an actual scientific analysis done on the claims made in the Lynas 2021 paper, which was easily discredited as biased junk science, as are most of the consensus papers cited:
			::::https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4313837
			::::If you actual read this paper, you will see that of the 3,000 papers Lynas reviewed, 2,104 had no opinion on climate change. Lynas defined consensus as a "lack of objection to a prevailing opinion," drastically skewing results. The ACTUAL support for the AGW hypothesis was apprpximately 32%, drastically lower than claimed.
			::::This page makes no detailed analysis of the current science and instead appears to be a political page that needs to be noted as biased.
			::::An analysis of dissenting opinions or positions counter to the stated position must be added to validate the actual scientific consensus. ] (]) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That is a two-year-old preprint concerned with only one of the many studies that arrive at a consensus close to 100%. Don't give us such crap. --] (]) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: (after edit conflict) Denial is an affirmative act: a consensus study of rocketry articles could reasonably conclude that rocketry articles not affirmatively denying the earth is round, can be counted toward the consensus that the earth is round. Procedural critiques of consensus studies are themselves not consensus studies, and, further, the critiques are distinct from affirmative climate change denial. The ] article deals with the deniers. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:41, 17 December 2024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 June 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Scientific consensus on climate change. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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.

Article policies

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: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 30, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 22, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Section sizes

Section size for Scientific consensus on climate change (15 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,912	8,912
Existence of a scientific consensus	9,984	9,984
Consensus points	4,194	4,194
Statements by major scientific organizations about climate change	950	950
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change	99	39,505
1970s	2,827	2,827
1980s	452	452
1990s	3,697	3,697
2000–2004	3,646	3,646
2005–2009	9,972	9,972
2010–2014	10,433	10,433
2015–2019	4,538	4,538
2020s	3,841	3,841
See also	261	261
References	9,931	9,931
Total	73,737	73,737

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sylvia.Noralez (article contribs).

Section on consensus points

I've just added this intro sentence to the section on consensus points: The current scientific consensus regarding causes and mechanisms of climate change, its effects and what should be done about it (climate action) is that: but then I realised we are not including any bullet points about climate action. Is that on purpose? I think there are some general statements we could add there as consensus points about adaptation and mitigation, couldn't we? Perhaps it would be useful to give this section a sub-structure so that we can group it broadly along the lines of WG I (causes and mechanisms), WG II (effects and adaptation), WG III (mitigation). Perhaps take from here but be careful of copyright infringement (?): https://en.wikipedia.org/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Synthesis_report_for_all_three_working_group_reports EMsmile (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I have already explained this in my December 24th comment at "IPCC/Other reports structure" section, though I'll admit it's now a more than few posts up and can be easily overlooked.

TLDR; this clean-up and list of points was about as much as I was willing/able to do for this article at the end of 2023. I'll certainly be adding more points on those subjects once I have the time for it in 2024. Further, I think my decision to cite both IPCC and NCAR (or potentially another gold-standard source) for every bullet point should insulate the article from this; WP:LIMITED is a lot easier to argue when similar phrasing is used in two separate references. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Rate of warming

What exactly exactly is the evidence for this article's thesis that the 20th century warmed more than the 19th or 18th centuries. The tidal gauges don't show that. Is there any evidence for that belief? 2600:6C40:0:204E:3681:F966:2A8F:2034 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The very first image on the page shows the increase in warming - and the six independent datasets used to establish that. And the whole point of the references is to place "the evidence" a single click away. You should try that. You can also read Instrumental temperature record.

The tidal gauges don't show that. They do: "Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century." InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Your link states there isn't evidence amd that your claims are based on models 2600:6C40:0:204E:4436:C268:B2A6:265D (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"Results from analysis of individual long observational records do not present enough evidence for an unambiguous global acceleration" 2600:6C40:0:204E:4436:C268:B2A6:265D (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Section on SCIENTISTS DISSENTING is missing

You cannot talk about "near-consensus" w/o seriously discussing the counter-theories and opinions among dissenting researchers. Grave mistake. A dedicated section is needed, with cross-ref. to mainstream replies to each counter-theory. Arminden (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You can find those people in the article Climate change denial. They are off-topic here. See WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is paramount to a biased scope. Both agreement and dissent must be equally regarded, proportionally to their preponderance, in order for an accurate appraisal of the general consensus to be made. Relegating such voices to the Climate change denial article (which is treated as pseudosience and conspirationist) tips the scales against those statement's perceived validity. 37.132.177.37 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What is "proportional to their preponderance" would be determined by peer-reviewed consensus studies, the most recent of which show 98.7% to 100% agreement. See

. These two positions should not be "equally regarded". —RCraig09 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This entire page is biased toward an intended outcome rather than a neutral summary of the current science. There are multiple sources to debunk the 97% consensus statement - which was a statement created by politicians over a decade ago, but no one here appears to have done any work to give an honest assessment of consensus. To counter the graph stated above, I will point you to an actual scientific analysis done on the claims made in the Lynas 2021 paper, which was easily discredited as biased junk science, as are most of the consensus papers cited:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4313837

If you actual read this paper, you will see that of the 3,000 papers Lynas reviewed, 2,104 had no opinion on climate change. Lynas defined consensus as a "lack of objection to a prevailing opinion," drastically skewing results. The ACTUAL support for the AGW hypothesis was apprpximately 32%, drastically lower than claimed.

This page makes no detailed analysis of the current science and instead appears to be a political page that needs to be noted as biased.

An analysis of dissenting opinions or positions counter to the stated position must be added to validate the actual scientific consensus. 174.173.155.67 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a two-year-old preprint concerned with only one of the many studies that arrive at a consensus close to 100%. Don't give us such crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Denial is an affirmative act: a consensus study of rocketry articles could reasonably conclude that rocketry articles not affirmatively denying the earth is round, can be counted toward the consensus that the earth is round. Procedural critiques of consensus studies are themselves not consensus studies, and, further, the critiques are distinct from affirmative climate change denial. The Climate change denial article deals with the deniers. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: