Talk:Public opinion on global warming/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

See also links

This article has only one See also link. I've been trying to add a few more, but have had some difficulty, and was last reverted here. Public opinion on nuclear issues appears to be causing a particular problem, yet nuclear power is a climate change mitigation strategy, and both articles cover public opinion issues, so they are closely related. Please allow this and other relevant links to be added. Johnfos (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Have again added relevant links. Johnfos (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's better than the 99.* anon's spam, but it's not good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

add for USA?

• Culture splits climate views, not science smarts 2012-05-29 USA Today

99.181.138.56 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested translation of Norwegian polls

The numbers I have inserted is from something called TNS Gallup Klimabarometer, which is a reputable extensive poll on Norwegian attitues to climate change. The presentation of the 2013 poll was followed by a public debate by leading politicans, business people and enviromental actists. I got the percentage for those who believe in climate change directly from the presentation. The number 17% is also there and is also in many news articles.

To find the numbers in the presentation, go to this site and open the Pdf where the numbers are at page 29 (in translation): Two of three believe climate change is caused by humans I believe that climate change is caused by humans (n=1001) Percentage that fully agree or disagree: (graph that shows numbers from 2009 to 2013, with 66/17 in 2013.)

As for opinions and political affiliations, this is covered in the Vårt Land article, Typical Norwegian to be a climate sceptic.

"Why are Norwegian climate sceptics? This has been studied by Marthe Hårvik Austgulen and Eivind Stø at the State Institue for Consumer Research. They think values and ideology influence our opinions on climate. Polls do confirm that political stance means a lot for what we choose to think about the climate change. Among those who vote for the Liberal Party or the Socialist Party, the great majority think that humans are behind climate changes (89 and 92%). Only 41% of those who vote for the Progress Party agree, while the number for Conservative Party voters is 60%."

Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I see there is a third statement where translation is requested: This can be found in the NRK article Norwegians do not fear that climate change will harm Norway. "Questioned about what the consequences of climate change will be for Norway, a majority say that the consequences will be both positive and negative. One out of five believe the consequences will mainly be negative." I should have inserted that this relates to what people think will be the consequences for Norway, I didn't notice that qualification when I read the article.

Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for quotes and the fix once you became aware of the error. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

PS In reference to the third request for a quote you mentioned, I deleted that whole sentence from the article for the reason stated in my edit summary, and look forward to a repost of article text when you have a chance to study the translation you are offering more carefully. Read my edit summary here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of summary of scientific opinion

In this edit, a few sentences summarizing the scientific view were deleted (for the second time, after I restored it the first time). I do not think Iselilja (talk · contribs) intended to start an WP:EDIT WAR, and but I think (s)he should take a look at the ARBCOM ruling relating to climate articles, especially the part about discretionary sanctions.

So now that we are here talking about this article text....

In my view, public opinion about this subject divorced from the scientific assessment is rather like eye candy. Do we have an article on public opinion about the color of Bambi's toenail polish? No, we don't. So the notability of this article is only really established by a short summary of the mainstream scientific assessment. HOWEVER, after this text is restored, I think the article would be improved by moving that text to the lead, as part of our coverage that public opinion is not tracking scientific opinion. We can include links about things that influence public opinion, including media, the various "list of" articles, climate change denial, and climate change conspiracy theory.

Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Harmonize with corresponding section in Global warming

Global warming has a section on public opinion that links to Public opinion on climate change as the main article. In the section, the content of the first two paragraphs and parts of the rest of the section, more than a third of the section overall, isn't present in the main article here. This content in the section should be integrated into the main article here. –Temporal User (Talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Public opinion on climate change → Surveys of public opinion on climate change – Since this article reports the results of surveys, and does not really get into the detailed ins and outs of any of these opinions, we should say "surveys" in the WP:TITLE to make this article "recognizable to readers [and] unambiguous". Other articles do get into the details of the various "public opinions on climate change" so we should say "survey" here to be unambiguously clear that this article reports how researchers have tallied the distribution of opinions thru the use of "surveys". Note that I have explicitly refrained from suggesting a second change (replacing climate change with global warming) and I consider that a separate question which I at least have not proposed at this time. This proposal is only about adding "Surveys of" at the start of the article title. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Surveys are the usual way of gauging public opinion, and if there are other methods to be discussed, they can be included here anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal - we agree that this article reports on the numbers returned by "gauging" public opinion... but there are many ways to talk about public opinion that go beyond such metrics. For that reason, this article title is ambiguous. This article talks about the relatively narrow topic of these metrics, but doesn't go deep into details of the sorts of things the public believes. People should instantly understand the narrow scope of the article by its title. If metrics are produced by "other methods to be discussed" we can address any needed changes at that time - but we don't have examples now, so the uncertain possibility that they might - maybe - arise later is a non-issue now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're on different wavelengths. What other methodologies do you have in mind? What do you propose to do with the current title after the move? Why would a more specific title, against the Conciseness point of WP:CRITERIA, constitute an improvement here? --BDD (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

re A) "What other methodologies do you have in mind?"

Whatever ones you had in mind (I think "none") when you predicated your reason for opposition on the possibility that some unknown methods might surface someday (see your first comment in this thread, above). Since neither of us had any other methods in mind, this is a moot point.

re B) "What do you propose to do with the current title after the move?"

Simple redirect to the new name.

re C) "Why would a more specific title, against the Conciseness point of WP:CRITERIA, constitute an improvement here?"

We will remain on different wavelengths if you don't acknowledge my prior remarks on this point.... for the third time, public opinion can be discussed in terms of metrics (as in this article) or in terms of

• the details of various viewpoints,
• what influences those viewpoints,
• how those viewpoints express themselves, and
• the impact they have on policy

For examples, see the various subsections in Global warming, Global warming controversy, Climate change denial; Politics of global warming; Media coverage of climate change to name just a few. There is a fair bit of redundancy in these pages. This rename effort is one small step towards an effort at collation. This article zeros in on the metrics and does not discuss all these other aspects of public opinion. Your concern with WP:TITLE#conciseness is appreciated, and I'm all for being concise. However, it is possible to be so concise that a title fails the WP:TITLE#Precision test, and that is the case here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, if you're saying other articles discuss public opinion on climate change, I understand. But if you'd still take the old title and redirect here—i.e. if you'd do nothing but move this page—the outcome is nonsensical. Better to develop the base title into an overview article on public opinion on climate change, and linking out from there to this article and the others you've discussed. "Collation" is a good idea, and would constitute an improvement to the encyclopedia. But if the only change you want to make is lengthening this title, I see no benefit and can't support. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been at least watching if not actively editing all the pages I mentioned for a couple years... it doesn't change the workings of WP:CONSENSUS a twiddle, but I don't really recall seeing you active in this topic area. Now that an ed (me) wants to work in small bites towards collation, it's odd that something so small is sticking in your craw. Gramps used to say "Sweat or get out of the way", and I'm reminded here of MIT Technical Review's recent article "The Decline of Wikipedia".

Anyway, no, this is not the only thing I have in mind. But this topic area is contentious and unwieldy. You can never get consensus to do global anything. At best you have to nibble small bites; this is one reason we have an insane amount of overlap. I've floated a few ideas at Talk:Global warming controversy. This is one component that seemed to have favorable preliminary support so I took this official action first.

Hopefully that supplies missing context; a commitment to sweat going forward would be very welcome. Fleeting procedural opposition, not so collaborative. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please. If you're saying something about me instead of the topic, you probably shouldn't be. Anyway, I'm still trying to pin down what you mean by collation. Presumably that means you want to discuss public opinion on climate change in a centralized place, drawing on now disparate sources that discuss it. If so, that's great,^{(not sarcasm)} but I don't see how making this move accomplishes that if you still want to leave Public opinion on climate change as a redirect to "Surveys on..." I read the discussion you linked to and this remains unclear to me. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't given this question the attention it deserves, but my initial reaction is opposition. Granted, much of the content of the article is, not surprisingly about the results of surveys. But not all. When I think about the two options, I would expect that Surveys of public opinion on climate change would contain discussion of public opinion, as well as discussion of survey methodology. There is nothing on the latter point, unless I missed it. The present article contain a subsection titled "Economics". I see nothing in it about survey results. For that matter it isn't referenced, so it needs some work. The Media subsection has some content about survey results, but some content is not about survey results. Is it the intention to excise that material if the article title change is made?

The Ideology subsection is an odd duck. It is almost entirely about ideology generically, with a reference to global warming included almost as an aside. Needs work, but that's a different issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it might be the case that the encyclopedia would be better off if we had an article on climate change surveys. It might be the case that the present article is a hodge-podge, including things that do not belong, and missing things that do belong. However, that discussion is broader than simply proposing a new title.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone understands! Bless you my son. A two year veteran of the Climate pages, I've learned to work at these things in small pieces. Discussions of broader changes almost always go nowhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a dilemma. At the risk off veering off the narrow topic, it reminds me of the concern that Sue Gardner expressed once (she was talking about policy, but it applies to articles as well). There are obviously some advantages to the bottom up article creation process. However, we lock ourselves in to a particular set of articles, subject only to merge or split, which are useful tools, but not well-equipped to surveying a broad topic, and rethinking how it should be organized. Were we to start from scratch, and decide, for example, that we should have 100 or so articles on the general subject of climate change, we almost certainly would organized the material differently than we have in the existing articles. It is conceivable that we would decide we ought to have an article on surveys of public opinion. However, it isn't trivial to get from here to there. This can be a challenge even within a single article; it is quite a bit of work to rewrite an whole article, and keep everyone happy, although it occasionally happens. That task is exponentially harder if we are talking about a subject comprising dozens of articles. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Query 1) Do you share my belief that there is a huge amount of overlap between the various branches in the global warming tree of articles?

Query 2) Do you share my belief that our global warming coverage would be improved if we tried to sort it out?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - interesting & thoughtful suggestion. However I think the current title of the article is the most appropriate one for its content; it is, or should be, broader than only surveys, though it may draw extensively on the latter. In the future if/ when there is sufficient information on 'Surveys of...' I would be supportive of a separate article, or spun-off article on that topic. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the first half of your answer... so far I hear "IDONTLIKE" but I'm still listening... to make a complete answer, please specify what "broader" scope this article should have, in your opinion. If there is just a teensy bit that is related to one of our other articles that bit could easily go to its proper place leaving just the survey-related stuff behind, if that's how we conceive of well-organized and concise coverage, making max effective use of our branching-tree structure for articles. You seem to think this article should have both surveys and "broader-something" but haven't specified the nature of the "broader-something". Can you supply more info to convert DONTLIKE into a tangible reason? Thanks, and apologies if I sound snippy - I don't mean to; just trying to get to the crux. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure... Echoing BDD, above, the broader subject is 'Public opinion...'; surveys are one approach to trying to measure that. There has been much discussion about changes in public opinion on climate change, particularly in the US, drawing largely on surveys. Surveys are arguably good at taking a snapshot of public attitudes about a topic, however they don't necessarily provide us with the basis for understanding what is 'behind' (or 'underneath') apparent shifts one way or another in public attitudes. For this, other methodologies such as in-depth interviews or focus group discussions may be more helpful in giving us insights... This is not to downplay the importance or significance of surveys on this topic; that is why I think it may merit its own/ spun-off article at some point; such an article would necessarily be more narrowly focused, however, and would likely get into discussions of methodology, testing, sampling, interpretation of results, etc. Hope this is helpful... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Those things already have articles, I think.... Politics of global warming; Media coverage of climate change; Global warming controversy; Climate change denial; Individual and political action on climate change ..... and the list goes on. You keep saying maybe we should spin off an article on surveys specifically but you haven't commented on the fact that nearly 100% of this article is already about surveys, specifically. The overlap strikes me as inappropriate redundancy that reduces the impact of our presentation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Might as well rename most topics to "scientific research on x". And what if this page quotes a qualitative study? No. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

October 2013 edits

Fluff. Smithery. Run-on. Christmas tree. Too vague. These are opinions, not policies. So too with your claims of weight and synth. But let me clarify my position. I have no problem with you trying to clean up the text and to improve the article. I encourage you to do so. My complaint with your latest changes is the removal of long standing, on topic, properly sourced material. I don't care if you shuffle things about but I do care about you wholesale removing all mention of some existing references. For example, the graphic indicating the percentages of the public which believe scientific research may have been falsified. --174.238.164.64 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You were reverted three times by three different editors which should give you a clear idea where consensus is. I agree with the full changes made by NewsAndEventsGuy. Please explain one by one your disagreements with them or self revert your blanket reversal and edit by parts as he did. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored all my edits, except I have preserved the single specific issue you have identified for discussion, i.e., the graphic based on the (questionable) Rassmussen survey. Repeat.... I first reverted the IP to restore all my edits, and then I put back the Rassmussen Reports poll and graphic (though it may not be formatted the same way).

The Rassmessen Reports poll should be deleted due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. They are the group that grossly flubbed a prediction for a GOP sweep in USA 2012 election by ignoring the numbers. The main guy who was in charge for both of these surveys has been forced out left the firm, and it has been shown that his standard procedure was to only poll cell phone users, which heavily biased those polls in favor of the GOP. Accordingly, this claim is dubious at best and of very little weight, IMO. It should be wasted. But since you want a chance at bat to defend Rassmussen polls as rigorously conducted, and sufficient to meet our test for what wikipedia calls a reliable source, even though (so I'm told) media outlets willing to cite Rassmussen have greatly declined, well.... have at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no need to enter into some debate over whether Rasmussen meets the RS threshold or not. That ship has already sailed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=www.rasmussenreports.com

I agree that a lot of the rework you have done is an improvement so I am happy to avoiding throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you review the comment archives you will be reminded that you yourself have already acknowledged that the graphic adds value to the article. So from a WEIGHT perspective it seems OK to leave it. This certainly isn't a bloated article where we need to find things to delete. And from a content perspective the graphic itself presents all of the applicable viewpoints according to their weights so there is nothing to complain about there.

As long as you are willing to leave the graphic which had already been discussed previously and included for a year now I'll agree not to quibble further on the rest.

Assuming that we can agree to leave the current version in place I would only point out that the reference for the graphic is currently duplicated. I would fix it to remove the duplication but I am editing from an iPhone and such a complex edit would be difficult. If some else is so inclined could you please clean up this little nit? --174.255.64.234 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have other complaints about my edits other than the graphic, state them now please. You essentially did a WP:ROLLBACK and the original reason was WP:IDONTLIKE. This is your chance to list the tangible reasons for which you originally said "Not an improvement". I will reply on the merits of each, taken separately. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no value to be gained from a point by point review of your modifications. Most of what you have done is, from my perspective, inconsequential "smithery" as you have called it that basically boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. Since I don't care to debate the finer points of your "smithery" I am basically neutral on those changes. You obviously consider them net positive as do some others.

With the prior wholesale removal of content I considered your changes, taken as a whole, to be a net negative to the article and so I said it was not an improvement. I reverted back to the stable version prior to your changes to avoid any concern that I was trying to introduce bias by selective editing. Now, with my primary concern addressed I remain neutral on the value of your other changes and you and others consider them net positive. Given this I am ok to leave well enough alone and move on. --174.252.192.251 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you just said the single point you wish to argue in the "discussion" phase of WP:BRD is whether the Rasmussen survey should stay or go. Is that correct? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was merely trying to move things along to the end of the BRD and thus avoid a long drawn out discussion, but the formality of this response seems to flag that you are placing great significance on moving out of the "discuss" phase of the BRD process. Since it seems important to you that we formally complete the "discuss" phase let me back up. I would also like to discuss any changes that you plan to make beyond simply restoring the graphic. Can you please list any additional changes you plan to make to the article after we move beyond the formal "discuss" phase of BRD? --174.252.192.251 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears you reverted many edits that you didn't actually find objectionable in order to use them as bargaining chips to keep the Rasmussen survey in. "I agree that a lot of the rework you have done is an improvement.... As long as you are willing to leave the graphic which had already been discussed previously and included for a year now I'll agree not to quibble further on the rest." I'm not interested in playing that game, so you got a formal response. Do you want to debate any of the edits you reverted other than the Rasmussen survey on their own merits? I'm just asking for the second, maybe third time: is the Rasmussen survey the only edit you reverted that you want to debate on its own merits? At WP:DISRUPT it says something about repeated failure to answer simple direct questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I explained my edits. I provided a direct response to every query you made. It appears you want to pick some sort of fight. I decline to oblige you in that. As I have said clearly multiple times I am happy with the article as it currently stands and am ready to move on. That is unless you have additional modifications you wish to propose at this time. --174.255.49.77 (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Suppose I still want to delete the Rasmussen survey? Would that cause you to argue over unrelated edits I made that you reverted? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert

You can't link to another wikipedia article as your RS, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated poll information.

From Rassmussen in 2014

2014 Eurobarameter on Climate Change

Autumn Eurobarameter

These are all more up to date than the current information on this page. I would add but others seem to object. Perhaps other could have a try.

--216.36.172.107 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Claims of libel

The content in question is long standing and predates any lawsuit that you claim exists. Clarify how this poll is related to a lawsuit. Clarify how a poll result can be libelous? Who is committing the libel? --184.70.36.178 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, example

1. Said X to media: Mr. Y raped my daughter.
2. Media newscast: X says Y raped X's daughter
3. Poll: Do you think anyone raped X's daughter?
4. Defamation lawsuit filed
5. Statute of limitations would have expired if suit had not been filed

Here the poll essentially measures whether people heard the media broadcast and whether the reputation of "anyone" (code for Mr. Y) was negatively impacted as a result.

Whether libel exists is a legal question, which measures the basis X had to believe the statement was true, and if not, measures X' intent in making the statement anyway.

If the courts say no reasonable basis exists, and the intent was to harm Mr. Y via "defamation", then X is culpable.

Advertising the results of the poll simply compounds the gossip

Mere fact that poll happened after the facts in the case but before the case was filed is rather irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't do gossiping (See WP:BLP and everyone even mildly knowledgeable of Climategate knows claims about Mann's work are central to that media debacle, which this poll is all about.

See Michael_E._Mann#Defamation_lawsuit; He's got (or had) another one against Timothy Ball but I've lost track of that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Where in the poll does it mention Michael Mann? If it doesn't it can't be libeling Michael Mann as you are claiming. You get points for being clever in your POV pushing but this after the fact, made up excuse does not hold water. --184.70.36.178 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Having read your reference I don't see where this poll is mentioned. Does Michael Mann claim anywhere that this poll libels him personally? --184.70.36.178 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this poll is notable. We're quoting the thing itself - which isn't public - rather than a reliable source talking about it. Looking, I couldn't see any reliable sources talking about it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point seems off topic for this section. However, is Ramussen not itself considered a reliable source for collecting and reporting on public opinion? The mere fact that they as a reliable source asked the question makes the topic notable. --184.70.36.178 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at the BLP noticeboard in [thread]

I don't think it's a BLP issue, but I also don't think it belongs in the article. It's a single poll from a firm that is notably described as unreliable and biased toward Republican/conservative interests. I'd like to see much more of a polling consensus before we cherry-pick one poll as exemplary of "public opinion" on an issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

An opinion piece is not RS. I see nothing at all wrong with this content being included, and note that NAEG seemed to want to remove it last year as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a perfectly reliable source - it's a blog post by a notable expert on polling and was published by The New York Times. If you don't like that one, there's this article from The New Republic. Scott Rasmussen has left Rasmussen Reports, one of the least accurate pollsters of the last two elections. From that perspective, you might expect that Rasmussen was fired for bad surveys. His polls were biased toward Republican candidates in two consecutive cycles, outrageously so in 2012. He refused to interview voters with a cell phone, even though mounting research confirms they tilt toward Democratic leaning groups. He weighted his samples to a fantasy electorate where there are millions more white, Republican voters. And unlike Gallup, which is in the middle of an extensive post-election effort to improve its polling, Rasmussen's post-election rethinking involved reweighting their tracking poll to the 2012 exit polls, even though you really, really can't do that. Really embarrassing stuff. Rasmussen has a noted reputation for partisan bias, has had a number of significant and widely-publicized failures and the cherry-picked use of a single one of their polls here is, at best, questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This being a BLP issue is debatable (thought I tend to agree with NAEG) What is not debatable is that it needs to be removed from the article. The addition to the article of a cherry picked biased poll about a since proven to be false event is not acceptable. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that climategate is not even mentioned right? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously insinuated. Furthermore, this stands nonetheless: The addition to the article of a cherry picked biased poll (...) is not acceptable. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In what way was the poll cherry picked? Are there similar polls available covering the same topic that have conflicting results? I am not aware of any. This page is about public opinion. Surely the public's opinion regarding the scientific opinion is an important topic here. If you are aware of additional sources then point them out. --184.69.53.98 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If there are no other polls on the issue, that would suggest that perhaps it's not considered a significant or useful question by any other polling firms, particularly those without Rasmussen's noted ideological bias. That is as opposed to the many other questions discussed in this article which are widely and commonly asked by a variety of different polling firms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kyoto and US "withdrawal"

The article claims that the Bush administration decided to withdraw from Kyoto. IIRC, Kyoto was never ratified by the Senate. Our article on Kyoto_Protocol#Ratification_process seems to validate my recollection. The treaty was signed by President Clinton but was never ratified by the Senate. (In the US, Presidents have the power to negotiate a treaty, but the Senate must ratify it.) I'm not sure how the US can withdraw from a treaty in which it was never a participant. Also, the article seems to blame the Bush administration for this "withdrawal" when in reality it was the Senate's fault for failing to ratify the treaty. (In fact, according to our article on Kyoto, Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.) I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to figure out how best two correct these two mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's my understanding also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Noting Bush's "foot in mouth" disease, we need to work carefully. My understanding is that, as AQFK noted above, Clinton didn't submit the treaty for ratification (possibly because it was toward the end of his term), and Bush (intended to) explicitly state that he was not going to submit it for ratification. It could easily be the case that Bush falsely believed that Clinton submitted the treaty, and Bush was going to withdraw that submission. It could also easily be the case that Clinton agreed to abide to some of the terms of Kyoto, and Bush withdrew that agreement.

On the other hand, if the treaty wasn't submitted to the Senate for ratification, it's not its/their "fault" that it wasn't ratified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes the poll was discussed widely in the media. Forbes, Nature, Fox, Washington Times, E-The Environmental Magazine, Star Tribune Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, the topic is appropriate material for this page and has nothing to do with Michael Mann. --184.69.53.98 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• No, the poll was in fact not discussed widely in the media. The links presented by DS are: an opinion piece, a blog, a simple note replicating what the poll said, another blog, one more blog, and another one. This is a poll by a known biased organization about scientists supposedly falsifying global warming research. It's not about the public's opinion on climate change itself. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NEWSBLOG, those sources are reliable enough to show that the poll was widely covered. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not by a long shot. The non-reliable sources you presented are a- minimal in number, b- WP:NEWSBLOG: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.". You've failed to prove that any of those bloggers are professional journalists/scientists/anything. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• No Because, 1.) Not properly cited/sourced. 2.) It is unclear why this poll should be included, since it gives undue weight to a biased/motivated poll. However, if this is indeed a legit poll from a credible polling company, this may be mentioned as a bias example or something like that. Also the entire coverage in regards to noteworthy needs to be looked at. prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  How is simply asking people whether they believe some climate science has been fabricated biased? It is not a leading question. The respondents either think yes, or no, or indicate that they don't have an opinion. Rasmussen merely reports what they got for responses. --184.69.53.98 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If questions are designed in a certain way, i call that bias (favoring a certain response). Anyway, can someone provide a source for the poll? prokaryotes (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Found the source now. Unfortunately it is not possible to draw a lot of conclusion from the scarce info there, a secondary source would be better. Found the secondary sources now. However, this poll belongs into Media coverage of climate change, as an example of motivated media campaigns, false impressions and fabricating controversy,l see Merchants of Doubt prokaryotes (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• No It's promoting results of a Push poll.

A 2009 Climategate takes off, with Dr Mann a key figure in media stories; thereafter a steady stream of events and investigations and reports produced a steady stream of media accounts

B By the time of the 2011 poll, there had been thousands of stories about it.

C The suggestive & leading question was "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?" The sources that popped up here don't mention the give-me-the-answer-I-wanna-hear opener.

D The Fed Dist Court (DC) ruled on a procedural matter in Mann v National Review saying

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

— Ruling by the court

E Plausible deniability should not allow wikipedia to do assassination by innuendo, and I think the foundation should harken.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Mr/Ms Shines has shown sources that indeed discuss Rasmussen's poll, and opinion pieces / newsblogs / straightforward reports are media coverage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your argument fails to acknowledge the entire history of Climate change denial, ie. manufactured controversy. prokaryotes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Prokaryotes rather vacuous retort and borderline personal attack to one side... you really think numbers in response to the leading question In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data? have NPOV meaning for us? Really? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See this post and how sources cited above were highly misleading, build upon the supposed Climategase controversy. prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: You're right that the introductory words could cause skew in one direction or another. But quoting the whole question would enable readers to decide whether it's fair. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• No - Single poll from an ideologically-biased and unreliable polling organization which by its own admission skewed its sampling and weighting toward older white men during the time period of the poll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• No It would be WP:UNDUE weight on a small poll, from an unusual organisation, from some years ago. The only time such a thing would be interesting enough to include years after the event would be if several other mainstream secondary sources have later confirmed that it marked part of a sea-change in opinion or other currently interesting aspect of the subject. There is no such secondary coverage of this poll at the present time, and it did not in fact mark any particular moment in the history of American public opinion on climate change, as far as anyone has been able to show. --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• No - Most definitively the type of meaningless poll based on confirmation bias - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• No - Pretty obvious POV issues with this, as evidenced by the fact that it's mainly covered by a limited number of right leaning sources. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• No. Rasmussen has been accused of biased polls that use leading questions and has a history of denialism. To include it would be undue based on the limited number of right-wing newsblogs that cite it. We should focus on maintaining a higher standard than this. I'm not saying that every opinion poll needs to be peer reviewed in a scientific journal, but we should avoid biased polls that have little penetration in the mainstream media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• No - POV issues, and coverage is minimal outside marginal sources. Kingsindian (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2014 (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.