Talk:Public opinion on global warming/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scope?

See climate change vs. global warming. We should use some consistent terminology, otherwise it's unclear what this stub is about. Pcap ping 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Think GW is more fitting. GW is associated with the current change in climate, while climate change seems to be more general in nature. I'll move it if no one objects. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The ambiguity of the two terms on Wikipedia reflects the ambiguity in the larger world. I think it would be better to keep this article as "...climate change" so that it parallels Scientific opinion on climate change. Also, while it's logical to suppose that "climate change" is the general term and "global warming" is more specific the distinction in actual use is not so clear. For example the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change uses "climate variability" for natural variations and "climate change" for anthropogenic changes. "Global warming" is the common term in the U.S. but in the U.K. "climate change" and "global warming" seem to be used more or less interchangeably (e.g., compare [1] with [2]). So my view is that we should keep the current title for now, but have a redirect (or an alias, or whatever it's called) so that "Public opinion on global warming" also points here in the same way that Scientific opinion on global warming points to Scientific opinion on climate change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Badly in need of editing

Assuming forks like this remain (and I have no objection in principle), this is badly in need of editing. For example the following statment should be paraphrased with an internal link to Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

"while many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, ... just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic."

Perhaps that's a small issue. The article is organized as follows:

1. Opening paragraph

2. U.S. information

3. Information on the rest of the world

4. More U.S. information

The U.S. information should be consolidated, not split up. I would suggest that the more important information is "the rest of the world," and the U.S. is a subset of that - which suggests the order they should be in. There is an argument that the U.S. info is more relavant to U.S. readers on an English Wikipedia page, but I think weight is probably more important.

There's a lot more room for improvement, but I'm not going to invest it right now if this stub is going to be deleted. Airborne84 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regional variations are only one piece. There needs to be consolidation, but by country seems arbitrary and naive. Some countries are very homologues, and we can describe them in less than a paragraph. Others, especially the western world, diverge themselves over a wide-range of indicators: education, gender, socio-economic status, and on. Which I think are better predictors of their opinions than which country they belong to. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of public opinion related to the scientific consensus.

I've removed the section "Public Opinion as Represented by Editorials in the News Media", which GoRight added. This seems to be primarily about the CRU mails and not about the topic. (coatrack) Instead of describing what media says and using a variety of sources, it quotes in length sections that seem to be about emails and CRU rather than the topic at hand. (quote-farming).

I also removed the section on scientific opinion - which is off-topic here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the opinions. They are well sourced and relevant. If you would like to propose alternate versions here, perhaps we can come up with a compromise version. ATren (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not relevant to this article at all and indeed nothing more than a coatrack as Petersen pointed out.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way is a discussion of public opinion regarding the scientific consensus not relevant to "public opinion on climate change"? --GoRight (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I also removed the section on scientific opinion - which is off-topic here." - What section would that have been. I created no section on the scientific opinion. I created a section to discuss public opinions regarding the scientific consensus. How can public opinions on such a topic be off-topic on this public opinion page? --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"This seems to be primarily about the CRU mails and not about the topic." - Your perception is clearly flawed in this case. The CRU emails and the scientific consensus are both matters for which public opinion exists related to climate change. You are being ridiculous to claim otherwise. As for these being focused on just Climategate, well I have to start someplace. How do you expect this article to grow if not by adding material incrementally? --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being "ridiculous" and having a "flawed perception" - but a discussion about the CRU emails belong in the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident where it would be on-topic. If you can find high-quality research material that examines a change in public opinion on climate change caused by the CRU emails, then it may be relevant - but that isn't what your section did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But this section is NOT about the emails. It is about the impact of the emails on public opinion which IS on topic here. --GoRight (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok - lets go with that for a bit.. Lets take this quote:

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start

Please tell me what this specific quote tells about the Public opinion? Be specific. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It summarizes the primary substance of the article and how the emails affect public opinion. But since this seems unclear to some, perhaps we should append the following closing remark from the article as well:

"The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."

Note that the last sentence provides the tie to public views, so in retrospect I should have included that bit as well. Apologies. --GoRight (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Funny that neither the word "public" nor "opinion" can be found in those quotes.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  And this is relevant how? --GoRight (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Err? Because that is the topic of this article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  But of course it is, are you suggesting that it is impossible to discuss a topic relevant to public opinion without including those words explicit? --GoRight (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hmmm - moving the goalposts i think. Who determines whether this is relevant to the public opinion? Do you have any basis for this other than opinion articles? And what public are we talking about? The US? Or the worlds? Lots of things may be "relevant" to the public opinion, including whether it is snowing or not - but that doesn't make it relevant to an article on public opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  "Hmmm - moving the goalposts i think." - How so? You are the one claiming that the fact my original quote didn't contain either the word "public" or "opinion" means that it was off topic. You, in effect, simply asserted this as prima facie evidence of such. So, again, is it your position that it is impossible to discuss public opinion WITHOUT using the words "public" and "opinion"? If not I then return to my original question, the relevance would be what?

  "Maybe i'm just confused here? (please note that Public opinion isn't a single view - but an aggregate of opinions held by the public)" - Yes, I would agree. This is likely the case. As you point out, Public opinion is not a single view. It represents a multitude of such views. I am beginning the process of including those views in the article. As I told WMC, if you believe that some views have been under represented please point them out so that they might be addressed. Simply deleting properly sourced material is disruptive and not conducive to a congenial environment in which a consensus can be formed. Please try to be constructive rather than destructive. --GoRight (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Sorry but you seem to be mistaking me for someone else - i never stated that it was original research since the words "public" and "opinion" weren't mentioned. Look again. You are attacking a strawman.

We aren't here to do an aggregation of opinions ourselves - that we leave to reliable sources. The difference between the scientific opinion article is that there we can present all opinions without taking a stand. Which isn't possible here (too many newspapers in too many countries). Aside from that the editorial opinion of a newspaper is rather seldomly an aggregate of anything other than the editors personal opinions (not even the demographics of its readers) - you could start an article on "Editorial opinions on climate change in major US newspapers" if you really want such a thing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

These opinions are relevant because they discuss how public opinion has been affected by climategate. Why is this so contentious? Why does every conflict involving KDP and WMC wind up being a fight? ATren (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since "the public" isn't mentioned even one time in the quotes - can you be a bit more specific as to what you think they tell about the "public opinion"? Maybe i'm just confused here? (please note that Public opinion isn't a single view - but an aggregate of opinions held by the public) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist on being argumentative. From WSJ: "They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science." "We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. He's right that it doesn't look good..." "The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim." Do you really assert that this article is not relevant to the effect climategate had on "public opinion" of climate change? Really? You're actually quibbling about the absence of the actual words "public opinion"? OK, then let the dispute continue. Every time we have one of these conflicts, we accumulate yet another twist in the Rube Goldberg machine of arguments Kim has constructed to keep out all material unfavorable to his POV, so this will just fatten the evidence in the inevitable arbcom case to come. ATren (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but could you please try to direct your attention towards the topic at hand, and leave uncivil comments and threats about Arbcom elsewhere? If you want to refactor - you have my permission to remove this line as well.

Your first quote (which wasn't in the material cited) is a statement of belief, it doesn't tell us anything about the public opinion. The second one is a statement about Dr. Jones not public opinion. The third quote is a call to the public - not an assessment or comment on the public opinion.

While the WSJ editorial might represent an aspect of the public opinion (or at least an aspect of the US opinion) - it is still just the editorial boards opinion. Public opinion is an aggregate of the adult populations opinion. And yes - i really really dispute that this article has relevance here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You got the wrong quotes. Look it up in the article or take a look a little bit further up this page where Petersen posted one for your convenience.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This lot [3] is so blatantly obviously POV pushing I'm surprised even he has the face to put it forward. There isn't even a pretence of balance William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The POV pushing is from those warring to suppress relevant and well-sourced opinion which they happen to not agree with. ATren (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please commit yourself: do you regard GR's addition as balanced? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What's unbalanced? It includes the skeptic's POV as well as a self-proclaimed supporter's POV. As I said earlier, if you feel that some opinions are not being represented, please add them. Or, if you prefer, point them out here and I will dig up material to include for those that are significant. --GoRight (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the public don't care/understand what a "scientific consensus" is. Funny story, it's the third graph down in the section Is There a "Scientific Consensus"?.[4] Well, rather than using "scientific consensus", which few people understand what it entails (let alone what an IPCC, or PNAS, is), Gallup asked if people believed "most scientists believe global warming is occurring." I think this discussion is kind of moot. In public opinion, "scientific opinion", isn't that important. In terms of GoRight's additions, you can quantify public opinion, which is a much more reliable indicator of what people actually believe than what an opinion pieces out of a tabloid will say. In terms of article size and scope, I'd doubt we'd get that detailed as to specific pieces. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In public opinion, "scientific opinion", isn't that important.

I find this statement fascinating. A few months ago when I decided I should look into global warming to see what the fuss was about, my first thought for research was "what do scientists say about it"? How can you say that scientific opinion isn't important to the public? Am I an extreme outlier? Airborne84 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The post was also about the oldversion of the article, IMO the issue's fixed now. People don't get a lot of their sources from scientists, that's all. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

External links.

Why has this section been removed? --GoRight (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask the reverter. I think it had something to do that only three of the two dozen or so polls were about Global warming. I don't we should do an EL, they always end up being the targets of drive by spamming, both for and against. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Fork

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public opinion on climate change.

---

This article appears to be a POV Fork from Global Warming and Climate change consensus. The title is contrary to Wiki naming conventions. "AfD anyone" Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem there is another article that covers this [5] -- I'd be interested in what the rationale behind the new page is? jheiv (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like the article is progressing well with good faith. However, I still suggest the title be changed to a conventional plural opinions (count noun with various ranges) and reserving the singular opinion as a mass noun for a unified opinion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the present title is fine. What do opinion polls and such measure? Public opinion, not the plural. --Nigelj (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting point

I talked with Oren0 a while back about this; a good starting point might be to make a chronological sequence of climate-related polls, each of which lists the question(s) asked and the respondent percentages. My view then (and now) is that while I have insufficient drive to begin such an endeavor, I'd be happy to assist in it. This might then provide a decent chronological framework in which to discuss various events (e.g., email hacking, maybe IPCC report publication dates, etc.) (Note: I will be happily fleeing all areas of controversy on Wiki on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day... so if you start it then, don't expect my assistance until later :-).) Awickert (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be happy to pursue such a presentation. In fact I was beginning to head down that direction when I added the external links from which I was planning to pull material over time. But unless people stop reverting everything before we have a chance to improve the article it seems unlikely to do anywhere. --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you could at least pretend to be balanced you might meet with a better reception William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with the naive "count the polls" approach: the vast majority of polls cover only the USA. Even as it stands with two US polls and one that covers over a score of countries we're in danger of imbalance. This wouldn't be such a problem if American opinion on climate change were not such an anomaly. --TS 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"There's a problem with the naive "count the polls" approach: the vast majority of polls cover only the USA. Even as it stands with two US polls and one that covers over a score of countries we're in danger of imbalance." - Well, not by the weight of the relevant WP:RS it would seem by your own observation. Is that not the standard we should be promoting here? --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard you promote above is emphatically not what we do in Wikipedia. If 10 polls of public opinion are in one country and just 1 is across a host of countries, the latter is to be given more weight, all other things being equal, because it alone gives a reliable account of public opinion. The other 10 can only speak about public opinion in a single country. The same would apply even if there were 100 polls in America to 1 across a collection of different countries. --TS 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard I am promoting comes directly from WP:UNDUE:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Assessing prominence is inherently linked to frequency with which the various views are published in the WP:RS. So again, by your own assessment of the state of the WP:RS we cannot be in danger of imbalance and any attempts on your part to skew things away from that weighting would actually introduce imbalance as it is defined in WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If this article were about American public opinion on climate change, you'd be right. It isn't. The naive notion that we can just robotically count up polls without paying heed to the sample populations is both statistically illiterate and fundamentally incompatible with the very principle of due weight that you seem to believe requires us to do that. --TS 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't make the rules around here, I just try to make sure people apply them evenly. You can wave your hands all day but WP:UNDUE still says what I quoted. The standard to be applied is the relative weights as found in WP:RS. If you believe that WP:UNDUE does not properly reflect actual community practices then perhaps you should go modify it accordingly rather than waving your hands about over here where it doesn't do you any good.

If there are insufficient reliable sources (as you claim) to verify the state of the world as you seem to see it, what would you have us do? Make stuff up to match your personal world view? --GoRight (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You fail to read further in WP:UNDUE where this particular aspect is mentioned:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The US is an small aspect of the Worlds public opinion - and thus must be treated that way. [you are treating undue as a hammer, not as a spirit to follow] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but then my question remains. What do we do about it? If there are NO suitable sources for some points of view what would you have us do? Make them up out of nothing? The lack of suitable sources for some points of view is not a valid argument that we can't discuss those points of view for which we DO have suitable sources, correct? Or are you arguing that because some POV lacks a source none of them can be discussed? --GoRight (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

True. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We've seen this particular type of hammering quite a lot lately. It's a strange and self-serving argument, effectively saying that because there is a glut of similar information about public opinion in region "X" we should discuss mostly or solely region "X". That's a good argument for starting a distinct article giving a lot of detail about public opinion in region "X", but is not to be used to deter us from writing a global article based on what we know about worldwide public opinion. As I've remarked the article already contains details of one very large poll with international scope, and the results were so startlingly different from results in American polls that writing this particular article mostly about the results of American polls would deliver a very distorted impression of public opinion on this subject. --TS 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll thank you to NOT misrepresent my position. I have absolutely no problem writing a global article, nor do I have any problem including any points of view for which we have WP:RS. What I do object to is you using your lack of WP:RS as an excuse to keep me from writing an encyclopedia using the sources we DO have. --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been sitting back and reading this, and I haven't found a good solution. The goal that I posit is to get a reasonable idea of world opinion on climate change via polls. However, there are some issues that I can't figure out how to overcome:

• It is very difficult to get such polls from some countries, and especially from undeveloped countries that have more immediate issues to care about; this is a natural sampling bias that we can't do anything about.
• If we include, for example, only 1 poll per year from as many countries as we can manage, then we have to pick which polls to take from the countries with many polls for that time period. This will lead to endless angst.
• If we try to avoid the aforementioned angst by compiling a great many polls to get some sort of average, there will be issues in that the polls do not all ask the same questions.

But in spite of these three issues, I also feel that not including public opinion polls in some way in an article on public opinion is absurd. But what to do? I think that my initial proposal should be changed to use assembled poll data from 3rd party sources, for example, Gallup. This will allow us to both be more evenhanded globally and to reduce our personal workload. Thoughts? (Or more likely, objections :-) )? Awickert (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's patently true that an article on 'public opinion' has to be based on opinion polls. There are other measurements, like focus groups and such like, that may be useful too. In some countries where opinion is never or rarely measured directly, we may have to rely on turnout at various events, voting on other matters, or statements by 'community leaders' or 'elected representatives'. These are all potentially unsatisfactory, so, while we should make every effort to provide something from as many countries as possible, we must be careful to qualify what we say if it was not obtained from reliable opinion polls. The point about heavily editing, or averaging, copious results from highly-polled countries is also true - we can't let a few countries dominate the article. To keep things manageable, it might be better to think in terms of continents rather than countries, when structuring the article - we can't have 200 sub-sections. --Nigelj (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't start with the beginning bias that we have to cover everyone equally. I'd rather block the polls by gender, socio-economic status, and issue—because "by country" or "by continent" seem arbitrary. I can describe Africa in a sentence: lowest awareness, lowest support. Asia strongly aligns themselves with their leaders. It's in the western world where there's an actual "debate" in the sense that that opinion is divided. Because opinions are divided, the concept is much more complex, and much more notable in a political and public context. So the develop western world will be covered much more than the undeveloped. We'll go over the undeveloped world of course, but there really isn't that much to say. Literally.You guys probably already know, I like Gallup, they describe concepts in context, which makes them a great place to start. Awickert has the source to what I think should go in the lead, here's the one's I'm looking at: the squeal[6], alternative energy[7], education[8], and the search[9]. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting close to exhausting Gallup as a source. Oh well, Rasmussen you're next. I've restructured the article, and I think it's worth mention. Trying to see the big picture. There are two sections, "Variations by individual circumstances" (which could be renamed) it describes who or which individuals hold what view, "Variation by issue" is about prioritizing or which issues owe the greatest support/awareness. Of course the two are related, however, this division is more with how polls are managed. For example, pollsters often only block once: "of those aware... believe it's a serious concern", or "of those who support cap-and-trape... are more likely republican"—not twice "Of those aware... believe it's a serious concern... will support cap-and-trade". My take is that if you know who supports what, then what policies will receive whose support may be partially implied. Another way of looking at it is which direction you're coming at, people to policy or policy to people. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can "describe Africa in a sentence", please have a look at some of the statements made by G77 representatives during the Copenhagen conference, for a start. --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can help with Europe in this article (beyond what I've provided), and will be happy to do so since I have been doing mostly commenting on this topic and not very much writing and editing. However, it'll take me about 7-10 days. Airborne84 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right Nigelj, it took more than a sentence. :P. You know, what I'm interested in is how opinion has changed in Europe. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Import section from Climate change denial#Effect of climate change denial

This section does not seem to be related to the subject of that other article, other than perhaps being a place to try to list the successes and progress gained by the denial movement within US politics. As it is an isolated section describing public opinion on climate change in one country inside that article, it is difficult to justify giving it the space there for a more balanced coverage of public opinion issues in general.

In this article, any interesting facts or references that it highlights could be given more proper weight, and the coverage that is worth retaining put into a more worldwide and balanced context. I would have moved it here myself, but I was a little confused by the heading structure here - 'Variations by individual circumstances' and 'Variation by issue' - to know where to put it. If this article had a 'Opinion in the US' section, it would a more obvious candidate. --Nigelj (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It should go under "Variation by issue", specifically subsections "Politics" and "Science" where appropriate. How this organization comes from how polls are thought out, you concentrate on who holds what belief or whether an issue has support. I'm thinking of a better name, how about you? Anyways, "Denialsim" resides mainly in the US and UK, although I would imagine the middle east as well, because for denialism (to actively reject GW) to occur, you need both a high level of awareness and a low level of belief in GW. I'll import the section it unless you want to take the lead. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Belay that import. This needs to be thought out. There simply is no proff of any impact of "denial"; there's just liberal commentators spouting conspiracy theories and conjecturing that the effects are real. Hard facts showing that inaction on AGE legislation bears directly on the relevance of the (unspeakably POV; Wikipedia's shame) "denialism" article. • Ling.Nut 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the sources, not the text in this merge. In the section we're merging into this article, there is one poll, and a couple news articles. Did some extra research and found two more reliable polls, and some better news sources that would add a little more context. I don't give news source a lot of weight, interested only in the main idea. In the end, I used "denial" once. It isn't the focus of this article. Haven't gotten to legislation, which seems to be the focus of your contention. Other than that here's the diff.[10] There are some areas where I might've tried to compress the prose too much, or messed up a bit, let me know. If you object to any part, I want the quote from the article or the objectionable source. Nothing less. Under article probation, I don't know if its acceptable to accuse GW as a liberal conspiracy in climate change denial, but I know it's not here. Let's make this article better. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph merits merging into this article. Under the currently defined definitions of denialism within the Climate Change Denial article and its listed sources, the second and following paragraphs should remain there. Note that I am not supporting or condemning the Climate Change Denial article topic (discussion over which belongs on that talk page). I am simply stating where the respective information should reside considering the current dynamics of both articles. Airborne84 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Some of the text is difficult to understand as it is. I've been making some edits that should be relatively non-controversial, but the following sentence might be:

A scientific consensus exists recognized by the community's primary authoritative bodies,[8] despite objections from individual scientists, which concluding that: there has been an increase global temperatures from the mid-twentieth century to the present, the current change can largely be attributed to the release of greenhouse gases,[9] and that natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[10][11]

I don't understand the portion of the sentence beginning with: "which concluding that." Besides consisting of a poor choice of words, is the following text an explanation of the objections of individual scientists, or the "consensus recognized by...authoritative bodies"? It's not immediately apparent to me.

I recommend deleting everything after "despite objections from individual scientists." Both keywords in the preceding are "linked" and provide a way for people to investigate the positions of both elements discussed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The "which concluded that" and what follows are the scientific community's conclusions. It doesn't make sense, IMO, to say that there are conclusions without saying what those conclusions are. Don't like the block quote, it's not over four lines (MOS:QUOTE). Good job copyediting, I should of taken a break and reread what I was writing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not emotionally atached to the block quote. I just thought that the original quotation was better used as stated instead of paraphrased. However, it could certainly go just as well inside the paragraph as opposed to set off "block style."

For me, a relative newcomer to climate change, the sentences after "objections from individual scientists" were a bit confusing - maybe ambiguous is a better word. Perhaps it would be better condensed? Airborne84 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I inserted a paragraph on "European Opinions on Climate Change." There was quite a bit of data summarizing "socio-demographic themes," which I condensed into the one paragraph. First, I'm not sure if it's in the best spot inside the first section (although I believe it belongs in the first section), and second, portions of the demographics could reasonably be split out or expanded into follow-on sections depending on how the article develops. With data from similar polls in other areas of the world (some of which are already listed) that socio-demographic data could be synthesized into other useful sections. Airborne84 (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You've read WP:MOS right? It's not long enough for a blockquote. I think paragraphing it would be better, the fact that it's Nick Pidgeon isn't important, it's the idea that the "Europe tends to be debate the appropriate response while the US debates whether it's happening." For the new source, break it up into the appropriate subsections. "Socio-demographic themes" should be explained, we have sections for education and financial status (we call it Socio-economic status), create a new subsection for age. You can use a reference more than once, have the first be <ref name="AuthorYear">...</ref> and the remaining <ref name="AuthorYear" />. If you want to cite specific page numbers, we need to start another section called a "Bibliography", place the full reference there and page numbers in "References". ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the block quote formatting. Not a big issue. It doesn't need Pidgeon's name for emphasis - that's just how I'm used to attributing ideas. If you feel strongly about taking his name out, that's fine. It's going to take me a few days to separate out the rest of the European items - especially since it took me about 30 minutes to figure out how to build the endnote. I'll look into starting a bibliography to allow use of page numbers - I'm just not comfortable yet throwing a source in without noting specifically from where I pulled the idea. I'll have to read the Wiki guidelines on that, since I don't know what the Wiki standards are, although I'm familiar with general academic practices. It'll take me a bit of time since I keep getting lambasted every time I start the computer... Airborne84 (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread the source, thinking about it.www.naturalnews.com/021444_climate_change_global_warming_United_States.html The article was about different levels of political engagement between Europe and the United States, not necessarily what people thought about the science. Moved it to politics. Rewrote the paragraph. Wikipedia's standards is actually based off of a lot of academic standards. In fact, in the discussion, editors often cite MLA, APA, Chicago, CSE, and on—when proposing change to the MOS. Created the Bibliography section, all you need to do is add:

<ref>{{harvnb|TNS Opinion and Social|2009|pp=page numbers here}}</ref>

It's the {{harvnb}} system. Got the author and year set up, just enter the page number (p=) or page numbers (pp=). Example uses page numbers. ChyranandChloe (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks C&C. It's time for me to start giving back to Wikipedia, so I'll invest some time into this to help in the "Europe" area. It'll take 7-10 days though. Many thanks for the assist on the references and Bibliography. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

C&C, where did you move the quote from the reworked paragraph? It's an excellent quote (in that it's applicable and sums up the political/public opinion of a large and relevant portion of the developed world), but you're right that it needs to be located in the most relevant spot. Actually, when I first started reading this article, I had that quote in mind as a possible useful addition, and was surprised to see it already included. I think I have a few other sources that say the same thing but relate it to public opinion more directly - so it may still be applicable here. Perhaps its better where you placed it though. Or maybe in both. I'll have to go back through some of my references to check what I have. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why? Don't I get Christmas off? Well, a gift of knowledge counts. :P. I turned the quote in a paraphrase, and moved it down to the second paragraph in the section "Politics". The main idea is that in the US GW is less of a priority than in Europe, and one explanation is what the debates are about (appropriate response or whether it's happening). I use quotes to communicate controversial opinions (that way it's not rephrased or moved out of context). When a summery may be better, non-quotes work best (see WP:QUOTEFARM). ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a while. I see you broke down the "Europe" section into the below categories. That's probably the right thing to do, but "Europe" may also deserve at least a passing mention in the "regional" section. However, I can't complain until I actually get the time to help improve this article - which might be a few weeks. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! Quite a bit has happened. Let's get you up to speed.

1. While putting Eurobartometer in "Regional" seems obvious, there's a problem. "Regional" compares awareness, belief, and concern across different parts of the world. Eurobarometer is restricted to Europe, and can only reliably compare the differences among European countries.
2. The second problem is the questions the survey asks. It's issue centered. They're asking whether Europeans believe the EU is doing enough (pp 19-31) and prioritizing concerns across member countries (p 7). They go over "socio-demographic themes", which warrants the two paragraphs in "Educational" and "Demographic"; but most of the poll is about the politics: what politicians should do and whether the people will support their decision; which is explained in the article.
3. There's really only one or two sections that's really serious about regional distributions (pp. 15-17). Central Europe seems to be the most concerned while Eastern Europe the least. However, to describe details at this resolution doesn't seem that notable. They aren't the top-five emitters of greenhouse gases, significantly polarized, or homologous—and there are other parts of the world that warrant a similar attention.
4. This is what I think. The article's prose is valuable. Describe what's important: trends, top emitters, anomalies. When describing areas of less notability: make a list, make a map. If the reader wants to go into detail, take them to another new article that'll tabulate all the data (List of countries by opinion on climate change). Put a heat map in "Regional", it'll describe all the variation while taking little space. Here's the lists, there's three of them.[11][12] I can make the map when data's in the table.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Made sweeping grammatical and readability adjustments. Most were not intended to change the meaning, so check to make sure they have not. I did replace the first sentence under "Demographics." I could not decipher its intended meaning. I put a simplistic replacement in, but it could easily be improved I'm sure.

I changed the sub-heading "Political Identification" to "Domestic Politics." It seems like the content in that section is better described by that header, and I think it offers a more clear way to expand that section ahead. It's an arguable point, so I'm open to a riposte (editorially speaking, of course). I suspect that you used the title "Political Identification" to keep it separate from the "Politics" section. Perhaps the "Politics" section should be combined with "Domestic Politics" and a link provided to the Politics of Global Warming Wiki article (as is already there in the Politics section)? There are a few ways to do it, to be sure.

I'll take a look at the Eurobarometer poll again. Although it does discuss political concerns, many of the questions were simply "what is your position on this aspect of global warming"? That seems to fall into a straightforward public opinion category rather than most of the definitions of Politics that I am aware of. However, even if that is right, that begs the question of where that information would best fit into the article, if not in the regional section. If "regional" is to remain "differences between regions" (which seems a reasonable approach), then given sufficient development of the article it could be possible to break that section into more than one part. 1. Differences between global "regions" 2. Viewpoints within regions.

I have some more material that I can use to help in the Europe area. It's coming. It may take a bit. Airborne84 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, have that problem when writing article prose. See we're not suppose synthesize sources (WP:SYNTH), but we've got to make them coherent at the same time. It's tricky, so when I first enter the prose, it's a quick write where I only check the meaning against the source and forget the grammar. If we fail at meaning, then grammar will be in vain. So I do grammar later. It looks good, but in "Demographics" you lost the idea that "People living in urban areas are more likely to be aware of global warming and believe it caused by human influences than those who do not."

"Political identification" is correct, if it were Politics of global warming, it'd be called party politics. I don't like "Domestic politics" at all. Domestic relative to who? If it's the US, we have a WP:CSB problem. Now, the difference between Political ID and "Politics", is how surveys are thought out. You concentrate on the who hold what opinion and what kind of people are they, or whether an issue has support and what's the nature of the issue. There's some overlap of course, but to completely bridge the gap would make a survey really big, really expensive, and rather rare. Think of it this way. Public opinion is a very large topic, it's easier to come at the problem both ways.

Differences between global "regions" & Viewpoints within regions? It's hard to describe a difference without knowing what viewpoints there are in the first place. I think you need to develop this one a little more, and tell me what you think. Beyond that, I need to step back and let you develop the article, we can trade off when you're done. There are only two things I'd like to ask of you in the mean time: (1) look for the big picture, this article isn't done and you have a lot to describe, give appropriate weight; (2) always question the article, whether it be relevance, weight, or the accuracy of your interpretation, because if you don't, others will, and others will not be gentle or nice. Good luck, I expect good things out of you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I had already agreed with you (after some thought) on the "Political Identification" and changed it back.

No worry about the prose. At least you're writing and contributing. I'm happy to help. If I lost the meaning of something under Demographics, just adjust it back.

The "viewpoints within regions" isn't a big deal. I know quite a bit about Europe and there are big differences on public opinion on climate change within Europe - mostly between "east" and "west," but also in other ways. There's no good way to fit that in right now as the article stands. Of course, the questions are "can variations within other global regions be identified?" and "how much does that contribute to the article?" I don't know the answers yet. Airborne84 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Variation by Individual Circumstance - History?

Does this article need a "History" section? The scientific opinion on this matter has developed over the past 150 years. Certainly the public opinion has also developed/matured/changed. I have some data on the progression of the public opinion in the past 20-30 years, but not sure whether it's needed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

History? We're not History of climate change science (although we should link to it in the {{Seealso}}), and usually the article can describe it within appropriate sections. I have some data also on party politics and media exaggeration. Anyways, I'm glad your questioning the article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant how public opinion has changed or developed over time. Maybe "history" is not the best word. Airborne84 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep the lead short

Keep the lead short, second paragraph (beginning "Public opinion impacts on the issue of climate change because governments[...]") should go in the "Politics" section, usually I wouldn't write touch the lead section until the article is done. Makes summarizing easier. It's good Airborne84, but you're leading this article's development now, and I expect better. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I put the lead in like that since I found a reference that seemed to adequately summarize why this article is important. Certainly each of the three sentences could be split out into the article, but it seems that they make more of an impact (and are relevant also) together at the beginning.

I have no issue with saying the same thing in a more concise manner. I'm sure that when the article is further developed that a much better lead will be apparent. I'm not emotionally attached to the lead as it stands.

I can't pretend to be leading the article now either. I made a push yesterday since I promised to "give back" to Wikipedia and this seemed like a reasonable area to do so. But I'm trying to finish writing two books and another large project right now and my time to work on this article will be minimal in the future. I'm happy to help out however I can though! Airborne84 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to address systemic bias

I carried out this edit by moving some detail to Climate change in the United States but my edit was reverted. The main reason for the edit was to avoid systemic bias towards the US but we also have try and accommodate public opinion on climate change from many other countries on this page. Therefore it is best to keep this page within tight constraints with respect to specific country info to avoid it getting messy. The page is primarily about generic info on public opinion on climate change with individual country data being secondary. In retrospect there is more information that can be moved to Climate change in the United States than what I had initially done.

The page may lend itself to a table of selected countries and their opinion on climate change. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I fear discussion of public opinion on climate change being fragmented across dozens of articles on "Climate change in {region X)" with no coherent overview. So let's add to the other parts of the world in this article instead of deleting the material on the U.S. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is every need for an overview article. There is no argument there but we must avoid systemic bias. Looking at the article a bit more closely it has an excessive amount of US bias that should be moved out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't start with the beginning bias that (1) where you're from is the most important determinant of opinion or (2) we have to cover everyone equally.

1. Where your from is only one dimension, and rather arbitrary as well. In fact, education is a better predictor of awareness than location.
2. Although a few such as GlobeScan try to capture the big picture by sampling a few specific countries from each continent, there has only been one major survey with near complete comprehensive coverage.[13] In that survey, a third of the world is unaware that GW even exists, if they don't have much to say and we don't have much to say, then it is by no means a leap of logic to allocated less weight.

Under the Template usage notes, I'm asking review your claims in terms of "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist." ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that there is data for all countries. Most of the data would be from OECD/EU/"developed"/"Western" countries. The stipulation you mention in the tag usage is exactly why I added the globalize tag. The data that you have mentioned shows that global perspectives do indeed exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Most of the global polls are already in the article, and Airborne84 is getting more on the Europe. A global perspective does exist, and the article is already adequately describing it in "Regional" and in other sections. If this is still about your edit to "Ideology", I'm going to tell you to just improve the section or wait, because to tag the whole article for one case seems ridiculous. List any other specific issues. I expect nothing less. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think article reasonably and adequately represents a worldwide view, removing tag if no one disagrees. If you disagree, give specific examples, isn't helpful without. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting discussion. Some thoughts:

It's an english Wikipedia article. Most readers will be American, although certainly there are many english-speakers throughout the world that might reference it. The U.S. information is probably relevant to many visitors, although this doesn't address the argument about where that U.S. information should be, I agree.

I agree that there is more data available (at least probably to the present contributors) on the western world and the U.S.

I concur with the statement that people should build up the parts of this article that are lacking instead of chipping away at the parts that are less lacking. This article is a work in progress, it's not an FA. Airborne84 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument completely contrary to WP:WORLDVIEW and the goals of WP:GLOBALWEIGHT. Do I understand that you are saying that since most readers speak English and so will be American, it is to be expected that most of the article will be about opinion in the US? Is this the discussion as to why the 'Globalize/US' tag was removed? --Nigelj (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Those were Airborne84's reasons. But he didn't remove the tag, I did, and I believe you should read the rest of the thread before commenting. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I phrased my earlier comments badly. There are two main points that I should have stated more clearly:

1. The current U.S. data in the article is likely very relevant to those that visit this article - for anyone that speaks english, whether they be American, British, Australian, etc. (It's arguably less relevant for a reader of a Russian Wikipedia article.) However, this is where I wasn't very clear before. This is not an argument that there should be more U.S. data in the article relative to other areas. It's simply an argument that the U.S. data that has been built so far is not necessarily out of place as far as we can tell yet. I would argue that the U.S. data should not be "trimmed" or the article merged and the subject matter reduced simply because there is plentiful U.S. data present at the current time - in this article which is still under development and needs more of a global viewpoint.

2. I completely agree that more global viewpoints need to be added to the article. You might notice that nearly all of my "substance" additions to the article have been on Europe to help round out the article in an area with which I familiar.

There may be some data that fits on other pages as well. That doesn't mean it's not relevant here. I believe that before we move U.S. data out, we should first try to fill in the data for the "rest of the world." If the article nears a completion stage and still seems out of balance, then it might be useful to reengage this discussion. Of course, if material seems like it doesn't belong in this article altogether, that's a different matter.

No one here WP:OWNs this article, but since there's disagreement, let's just discuss before removing information - especially given the contentious nature of these articles. Airborne84 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Need a table along these lines

To accommodate all the data from different countries it may be best to summarise it in a table:

Public opinion in selected countries

Country	Percentage awareness/urgency/whatever	Further information
Australia	xx	Climate change in Australia
Canada	xx	Climate change in Canada
New Zealand		Climate change in New Zealand
United Kingdom		Climate change in the United Kingdom
United States		Climate change in the United States

Need to use the same data for all countries. May be best to list the result from multiple surveys in separate columns. A similar schem seems to work well at Scientology status by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, already got plans are to create another article (List of countries by opinion on climate change). Already got the data.[14][15] ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If all that data is to be put on WP I guess a new page is justified. I would prefer the article name as Climate change opinion by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quarter of the way done. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Prose could use some work, I'm holding off for a day or two, need to look at it with fresh eyes. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have assessed it as class=A. Is that alright...? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) That's about good. Just talked with Anita from Gallup today, found Qatar at 39% although they do ask you to register. Don't like the columns in the References, they make the refs wrap in an inconvenient way, and there are only four of them. Other than that, I don't think we need an EL. Looks good, thanks for the copyedit. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

Did some reorganizing. Airborne84, think we could merge the last two paragraphs in "Political Identification" along with a little summarization. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - haven't been here for a while. Been busy...

A case could be made to combine or leave as is. The second para. changes topic slightly in contrasting Europe/U.S. as opposed to the prev. which is mostly internal to Europe. With some wording changes, it could certainly be combined though. If you've got an idea, run with it! Think it's OK as is otherwise, but don't mind either way as long as we don't lose useful data. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Public Opinion by year?

It seems like it would be helpful to show the changing tide of public opinion on AGW through the years. Recent polls have shown that belief in AGW theory has gone off a cliff, and almost no one supports taking action to prevent the supposed threat of global warming. [16] [17] [18] JettaMann (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be tough to do. The lion's share of AGW scepticism comes from America, although not all certainly. Also, the first two articles you mentioned were primarily on how important the issue was, not whether it was true or not (although I did see a figure on "belief"). I'm not sure about the reliability of the "China" article either... Anyway, that's not to say it couldn't be done, and the "importance" of the issue is also part of public opinion. The key issue would be listing it by year, by topic (importance, belief, etc.), and by country. You could try continents or some other political "region" but that would be problematic. It could be useful, but it would probably be so large that it would require it's own page (e.g. "List of Countries..."), and linked to this one. It would also take a lot of time. But no one will tell you "don't do it"! Put it together and post it! Airborne84 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This more recent poll by Scientific America indicates that the public is moving away from the IPCC and AGW [19]67.176.220.219 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a link to vote in a Scientific American online survey as to whether Judith Curry has "gone off the scientific deep end, hurling baseless charges at a group of scientists" or not. --Nigelj (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Krosnick

Here is an interesting analysis of recent developments in public opinion on climate change in the United States.

Jon Krosnick is professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University. Recently he presented a detailed, methodical analysis of a public opinion poll on US public attitudes to global warming--perhaps the first of its kind to take a scientific look at the effects of the CRU hacking incident on public perceptions of climate change. Krosnick's paper is discussed in the following articles:

• Some scientists misread poll data on global warming controversy, USA Today, Dan Vergano
• Stanford Researcher: Data Show That ClimateGate Has Had Limited Impact on Public Perceptions, Matthew Nisbet, Framing Science blog.
• Majority Of Americans Continue To Believe That Global Warming Is Real, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University.

Krosnick's data was gathered in late 2009, but he says that from his experience US opinion is unlikely to shift much on a two-month scale. --TS 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Opinion in Europe

I am revertion one attempt to delete my comment on the EU surveys published in December 2009 at [20]. Theer were 3 surveys reported which show quite clearly that the percent of the respondees dropped substantially from 2008 to late 2009. The first histogram in the report shows the effect very clearly. Peterlewis (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But I took this out [21] as unsourced William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence citing Savillo's comment Removed

“ Without the universal acceptable scientific definition (including its function and purpose) for climate change, this may hinder progress in undertaking research, writing and publishing of scientific papers especially for third world country researchers where they are dependent mostly on (the controversial) IPCC's findings as a primer for climate change in their respective countries. ”

I removed the edits that added this for the following reason: cites unreliable source from a forum post (WP:RS). --CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion sidebar bias

Ref: Proportion responding yes when asked, "Temperature rise is part of global warming or climate change. Do you think rising temperatures are [...] a result of human activities?" This is a biased question. The first sentence biases the result. And what's this [...] mean? Had the first sentence not been provided, the results would have been different. You could just as easily have stated that "Temperature falling is part of global cooling or climate change." and what would the results have been? Whoever did this is a professional.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Public opinion is political

Just to remind readers, that public opinion is political, manipulated, and not scientific. E.g. the truth of a matter is not necessarily rested in popular opinion. Seek the facts and not the opinion. IMO, this article is worthless as a reference. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'Scientific American' article on this topic

"Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed on the Topic of Climate Change? Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus among research organizations that humans are warming the globe". http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill I think we can use this here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? Scientific American

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus among research organizations that humans are warming the globe" by Robin Lloyd February 23, 2011 99.109.127.154 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is in there now. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So it is! 99.119.128.35 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Politics of global warming (United States)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.150.243 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Politics of global warming is already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Expert credibility in climate change in 2010 PNAS?

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) or maybe http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full?sid=da90c7de-bedc-4c21-b247-2a2ca1fa758a ? Excerpt:

"... estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC."

Also see Global warming controversy. 99.19.44.88 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is outside the "public opinion" domain and firmly in the expert opinion domain - so i'd say No. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See the word public in the excerpt above. Read slowly and carefully please. With all the crazy writing one can see in wp-land, sanity is all too easy to miss when going too fast. 99.181.155.6 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Offhand comments, about the American public in an article that is entirely about expert opinion, doesn't mean that it has relevance in this article. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Add A City Prepares for a Warm Long-Term Forecast quote

A City Prepares for a Warm Long-Term Forecast

Across America and in Congress, the very existence of climate change continues to be challenged — especially by conservatives. The skeptics are supported by constituents wary of science and concerned about the economic impacts of stronger regulation. Yet even as the debate rages on, city and state planners are beginning to prepare.

by Leslie Kaufman Published: May 22, 2011 New York Times.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition doesn't seem warranted, but please provide the text to be supported. The quote ranks as a probable copyright violation, we don't Wikilink within quotes, and the choice of Wikilinks is a clear WP:NPOV violation, if not outright inaccurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism ≠ "wary of science", please correct. Otherwise \\(^o^)// ... 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Similar to Technophobia ? 99.56.123.78 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Would this belong in a Chicago or History of Chicago wp article? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it, somewhat the opposite. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Global warming controversy

Add Global warming controversy due to public opinion does not match Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the controversy the discrepancy between opinions? 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the global warming controversy article The global warming controversy is a variety of disputes regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. So yes there is controversy here. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How many of these IP addresses, 209.255.78.138, 99.181.128.253, 108.73.113.97, 99.119.128.35, 99.109.127.154, represent the same person? I'm not debating anything with an echo-chamber. Either this person (/these people) creates a user account, or count me out. --Nigelj (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too. <sad puppy dog face> 99.19.43.164 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But most of them are the same person human. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding Global warming controversy somewhere is a no-brainer. The controversy has been in the news in America for years, if not decades. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer to me also. Help me understand why you wrote inappropriate (and only that) Mr. Rubin. How are these article total unrelated? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course you IPs have the same opinion. You're the same person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying "All IPs look alike"? Wikipedia:IPs are human too 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have confirmation bias, but "All IPs who repeat the same type of mistakes edits, giving sea of blue edit summaries" look alike to me, and to a number of other editors, some of whom generally agree with your content edits, if not your style edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Add Global warming conspiracy theory

Add Global warming conspiracy theory. 99.181.146.108 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that addition. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You two are almost certainly the same person. If not, you form a "conspiracy" to edit Wikipedia to support your point of view. Still, if it worked into the text, for example, if some survey actually asked the question of whether they thought there was a "conspiracy" to create an illusion of global warming, it would be appropriate. I really don't see it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this an attempt a humor, Absurd humor? 99.181.140.200 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. If you IPs are not all the same person, you do form a conspiracy, and are a documented example of a global warming conspiracy, albeit a minor one. However, I don't see a documented relationship between the two topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a start: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/01/a_new_nasa_temperature_analysi.html and http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/conspiracy-theories-finally-laid-to-rest-by-report-on-leaked-climate-change-emails-2021222.html . Here is a pdf from Yale: http://environment.yale.edu/leiserowitz/pubs_assets/ClimateRiskCommunication.pdf Here is one a quote from Prince Charles; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/10/prince-charles-climate-change-sceptics ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. The first is the personal opinion of the author, the second mentions the conspiracy theory, but not in the context of public opinion, the third may be appropriate, if published, which I cannot determine, and the fourth is notable, but not reliable, whether or not it establishes a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n7/full/embor201084.html Nature (journal)? 108.73.113.246 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) More: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Conspiracy-theories.html , http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/category/conservatives-and-science/ , http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/gop-pollster-luntz-tells-enviros-stop-talking-climate , http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/same-as-he-ever-was-2/?scp=1&sq=conspiracy%20global%20warming&st=cse , etc ...

Still none which are both reliable and on point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not reliable Mr. Rubin. 99.181.141.126 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not reliable or notable, for the most part. I, at least, might qualify for list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming if I had recent publications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been published also, but not related to Public opinion on climate change, have you? If yes, please post that here or if User:Arthur Rubin is Arthur Rubin as implied with your See also add those/that there. If if User:Arthur Rubin is "Arthur Rubin" then why not prove that also? 99.35.13.248 (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am Arthur Rubin, but I don't know why you expect proof. I can't claim to be an expert on public opinion, but it's still the case that none of your sources are reliable, related to public opinion, and supporting your point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the linked articles Mr. Rubin? Sorry to have to ask but you have commented before without reading the references completely I have seen ... 108.73.114.19 (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been a comment by other editors on other wp pages also, for example on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. 99.181.135.85 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Something specific on Fox news

I see that the Media section here quickly focusses on the American media, and wondered if there was anything in the following secondary-source reference that may be of use. My eye was caught by the following passage.

According to recent polls, Fox News viewers are the most misinformed of all news consumers. They are 12 percentage points more likely to believe the stimulus package caused job losses, 17 points more likely to believe Muslims want to establish Sharia law in America, 30 points more likely to say that scientists dispute global warming, and 31 points more likely to doubt President Obama's citizenship.

— http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/10/roger-ailes-fox-news-murdoch

--Nigelj (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If of interest, the article in July/August Environment, mentions Steven Milloy of the Advancement of Sound Science Center (funded by ExxonMobil), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (funded by the tobacco industry, see Merchants of Doubt), who is presently a "junk science commentator" for the Fox News Channel and runs www.junkscience.com (footnote 6). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

More July/August 2011 Environment magazine resource

Climate Change: A Disinformation Campaign by Steven A. Kolmes who holds the Rev. John Molter, C.S.C., Chair in Science in the Environmental Science Department at the University of Portland, Oregon; introduction excerpt ...

The January/February 2011 issue of Environment was upbeat with its presentation of collaborative place-based environmental work being done on the Mexican-American border of the Sonoran desert (Laird-Benner and Ingram), the sorts of advances that would be possible with partnerships between institutions of higher education and their neighborhoods through Urban Sustainability Extension Services (USES) (Molnar et al.), and a policy option proposed for reducing carbon emissions and inspiring people through personal carbon trading (PCT) (Parag and Strickland). These are all good, energizing examples that Alan H. McGowan (January/February 2011) rightly celebrates in his accompanying editorial “Building on the Good News.” Constructive ideas like these are wonderful to read for those of us who have been in the “trenches” of environmental education for a long while, and a great resource to direct our students to when they ask what they can do to move our society toward sustainability.

In print, on page 34 the article continues ...

However, there ought to be a comment on the beginning of Alan McGowan's editorial where he says: "... data from the National Science Board indicating that few Americans feel comfortable about their knowledge of science, a scant eight percent of Americans feel they have more than a superficial knowledge of the issue.

(bolding is mine) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Resource July/August 2011 Environment magazine "Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change: A Call for Research"

Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change: A Call for Research by Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt, Thomas Dietz, Stan A. Kaplowitz, and Aaron M. McCright (Michigan State University Department of Sociology); Rachael L. Shwom Rutgers University Department of Human Ecology), Riley E. Dunlap (Oklahoma State University Department of Sociology), Sammy Zahran (Colorado State University Department of Economics).

Excerpt:

There is strong scientific consensus concerning the reality of anthropogenic climate change (CC) and its potential consequences.[1] However, increased confidence among scientists has not translated into a public consensus within the United States.[2] Indeed, numerous polls indicate a decline in public acceptance of CC over the past two to three years (although some polls show a slight uptick since mid-2010). For example, Gallup Polls, trends for which appear in the figure here, show substantial declines from 2008 to 2010 in the percentages of Americans believing that global warming is already occurring (61 percent to 50 percent); that it is due more to human activities than natural changes (58 percent to 50 percent); and that most scientists believe it is occurring (65 percent to 52 percent).[3] Even prior to the recent decline in Americans' acceptance of CC, cross-national surveys consistently found that the U.S. public was less likely to believe that CC is occurring and poses a problem than do citizens in most other wealthy nations.[4] This uniquely high level of skepticism and the recent decline in public acceptance of CC are a challenge to the scientific community and call for increased examination of the factors influencing public opinion on CC. Although certainly a lack of public understanding is part of the problem, assuming more information will lead to greater public acceptance of the reality and seriousness of CC and greater support for CC policies[5],[6] is overly simplistic. Rather, a more nuanced analytical framework is required to meet this challenge. We know a great deal about the public's views of CC, but for effective communication and development of public support for climate policies we need to know far more.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See Climate change policy of the United States. 99.181.134.19 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why why? 99.181.136.35 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration #Climate change and Environmental policy of the United States also. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

These do relate to Energy policy of the United States. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And Category:Climate change policy in the United States 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In print, page 39, ...

More likely, views about climate change (CC) are formed via a less cognitively intensive process where people search for clues to map CC into more general beliefs and core values, relying substantially on framing offered by information sources they trust.

References from excerpt above:

• T.Dietz and P.C.Stern, 1995, "Toward Realistic Models of Individual Choice," Journal of Socio-Economics, 24: 261-219.
• D.Kahneman, 2003, "A Perspective on Judgement and Choice," American Psychologist, 58(9): 697-720.
• A.Leiserowirtz, 2006, "Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values," Climatic Change 77: 45-72.
• M.NIsbet, 2009, "Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement," Environment 51(2): 12-23.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While some people trust scientists [43], environmental groups [44], and regulatory agencies [45], others do not. Also, which sources one trusts is substantially associated with political orientation.[46]

• [44] T.Dietz, A.Dan, and R.Showom, 2007, "Support for Climate Change Policy: Social Psychology and Social Structural Influences," Rural Sociology 72(2): 185-214.
• [45] M.Lubell, S.Zahran, and A.Vedlitz, 2007, "Collective Action and citizen Responses to Global Warming." Political Behavior, 29(3): 391-413.
• [46]
  • A.Malka, J.A.Krosnick, and G.Langer, 2009, "The Association of Knowledge With Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking," Risk Analysis, 29(5): 633-47.
  • E.U.Weber, 2010, "What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1: 332-342.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is "J.A.Krosnick" Jon Krosnick? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, D.Kahneman is Daniel Kahneman. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Add controversy over definition on "skeptic" and "denier" within wikipedia?

Add controversy over definition on "skeptic" and "denier" within wikipedia? Small example of the battle over wording ... Talk:Climate_change_denial#Clarification_needed_..._.22skeptic.22.

• See also Fossil fuels lobby. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• See CRU hacking incident 144.230.82.41 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Infographics

Does anyone really think these "infographics" wouldn't be better served as pie charts? Especially since the colors are wrong; if "red" is doubting/opposing the concept of anthropogenic global warming in one, it should be in the other one. In addition, the question illustrated in the "public" infographic is quite different from that in the "climate scientist" one, and is phrased broadly enough that it's likely that most scientists would believe the question as written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

About replacing this pic with a pie chart, that is being discussed at [on this other article's talk page] and I have made my comments in that thread. In sum, I am opposed to making a decision either way until a proposed pie chart with title and caption is available for our talk page discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

POV challenge to the "somewhat likely some scientists may have done some fraud" graphic because it fails WP:WEIGHT

Per WP:WEIGHT I propose to delete the 2nd infographic about how 69% of Americans think it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists did some amount of fraud. That's a ridiculous POV survey question. For example, let's take the group of wiki editors who work on climate articles. Answer the following YES or NO:

• Is it at least somewhat likely that some wiki climate article editors have told at least one fib when trying to get a hot date?
• Is it at least somewhat likely that some wiki climate article editors have received at least some child porn at their computer workstations?
• Is it at least somewhat likely that some wiki climate article editors have at some point in time cheated on their income taxes?

The survey question is so broad it has no relevance and measures no useful information, therefore it fails WP:WEIGHT and should be deleted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh duh, this is worse POV than I thought. While the result reported (69%) is the figure for how many americans think it is :*somewhat likely that

• some scientists did
• some amount of fraud,

the actual title of the cited source as well as the URL for that page are POVishly titled "69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research" How egregious can you get? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Said better than a subsidiary point I made in the section above; not only are they not parallel (as I said), but the question posted to the public is absurd. If it were "members of Congress" or even "scientists in the employee of" (choose country), the figure would be much higher, even among scientists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

i have restored the graphic as it is properly sourced. the content is from a respected and reliable source of public polling information with no history of bias on this topic. the content of the graphic reflects the results of an actual polling question. thus it is a simple fact. facts have no pov. the content of the graphic properly reflects the content of the source. the subject of the graphic has more weight for inclusion in an article on public opinion than does a graphic discussing the scientific opinion of a small fraction of the population. it would appear that newsandeventsguy simply doesn't like the fact being conveyed but that is not a valid reason for removing properly sourced content. if most people want the graphic converted to a pie chart i will be happy to make that happen. if most people want the file name to change i will be happy to make that happen as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.8.112 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Both "infographics" deleted. The first is not relevant to this article, giving too much weight to the "Science" subsection, and the second is misleading, per the above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That was overly bold, Arthur. At least when I deleted #2, the only opinions then posted agreed with deletion. In case my opinion about Image 1 wasn't clear before here it is: Image #1 is relevant to this article because this article discusses the public perception of a scientific issue. Without any context about the nature of the scientific issue AND THE STRENGTH OF CERTAINTY, a discussion of what the public thinks is moot, thus meriting article-deletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

disagree. if people want to know the scientific opinion on climate change there is an article on that which includes your graphic. a see also link to that article is prominently displayed in the science section. a discussion of what the public thinks on an article about public opinion is not moot. public opinion shapes public policy which is why this article exists. your graphic is given too much weight on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.213.70 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The new image, the pie chart version of those thinking about fraud, does accurately reflect that particular source, I admit that. Are you an equally big enough guy to admit the one you deleted accurately reflects IT'S source? (You're likely a guy according to wiki stats, but if not my apologies.) If not, then good bye. If yes, then we agree they are both accurate representations of their respective sources, and the argument comes down to relevance. How is a graphic about the public's perception regarding scientific fraud relevant if the degree of scientific knowledge is not clearly identified to provide some context? On this article, they either sink or swim together, seems to me. And we need a third graphic that shows how many investigations have been done (and come up empty). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

i have never claimed your graphic was inaccurate. that is not the point. the question is how much weight to give a graphic describing the opinion of a tiny fraction of the population on an article about public opinion. the current text and the see also link provide sufficient context for the reader already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.213.70 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

False. Both or none, for reasons stated. How long you wanna repeat ourselves and undo each others edits? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RESOLVED I started this thread, and I agree the new image (the pie chart) accurately represents the source and reports significant information regarding public perception. In no way should my comments be interpreted one way or the other as to what I think of the question posed in the survey. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)