Wikipedia

Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 24

< Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change
Latest comment: 5 years ago by VSatire in topic Let's not play loose with statistics
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

198 Worldwide Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

198 Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action
  1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
  2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
  3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
  4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
  5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
  6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
  7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
  8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
  9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  10. Académie des Sciences, France
  11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
  12. Academy of Athens
  13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
  14. Academy of Science of South Africa
  15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
  16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
  18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
  19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
  21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
  23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
  24. African Academy of Sciences
  25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
  26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
  27. American Academy of Pediatrics
  28. American Anthropological Association
  29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
  31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
  32. American Astronomical Society
  33. American Chemical Society
  34. American College of Preventive Medicine
  35. American Fisheries Society
  36. American Geophysical Union
  37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
  38. American Institute of Physics
  39. American Meteorological Society
  40. American Physical Society
  41. American Public Health Association
  42. American Quaternary Association
  43. American Society for Microbiology
  44. American Society of Agronomy
  45. American Society of Civil Engineers
  46. American Society of Plant Biologists
  47. American Statistical Association
  48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
  49. Australian Academy of Science
  50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
  51. Australian Coral Reef Society
  52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
  53. Australian Institute of Physics
  54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
  55. Australian Medical Association
  56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
  58. Botanical Society of America
  59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  60. British Antarctic Survey
  61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  62. California Academy of Sciences
  63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  64. Canadian Association of Physicists
  65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  66. Canadian Geophysical Union
  67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
  69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
  70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
  71. Center for International Forestry Research
  72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
  74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
  75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
  76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
  77. Crop Science Society of America
  78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
  79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
  80. Ecological Society of America
  81. Ecological Society of Australia
  82. Environmental Protection Agency
  83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  84. European Federation of Geologists
  85. European Geosciences Union
  86. European Physical Society
  87. European Science Foundation
  88. Federation of American Scientists
  89. French Academy of Sciences
  90. Geological Society of America
  91. Geological Society of Australia
  92. Geological Society of London
  93. Georgian Academy of Sciences
  94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
  95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  96. Indian National Science Academy
  97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
  99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
  100. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
  101. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
  102. InterAcademy Council
  103. International Alliance of Research Universities
  104. International Arctic Science Committee
  105. International Association for Great Lakes Research
  106. International Council for Science
  107. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  108. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
  109. International Union for Quaternary Research
  110. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  111. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
  112. Islamic World Academy of Sciences
  113. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
  114. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  115. Korean Academy of Science and Technology
  116. Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
  117. l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  118. Latin American Academy of Sciences
  119. Latvian Academy of Sciences
  120. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
  121. Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
  122. Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
  123. Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
  124. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
  125. National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
  126. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
  127. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
  128. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  129. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  130. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
  131. National Association of State Foresters
  132. National Center for Atmospheric Research
  133. National Council of Engineers Australia
  134. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
  135. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  136. National Research Council
  137. National Science Foundation
  138. Natural England
  139. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
  140. Natural Science Collections Alliance
  141. Network of African Science Academies
  142. New York Academy of Sciences
  143. Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
  144. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  145. Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
  146. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
  147. Organization of Biological Field Stations
  148. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
  149. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
  150. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
  151. Polish Academy of Sciences
  152. Romanian Academy
  153. Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
  154. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
  155. Royal Astronomical Society, UK
  156. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
  157. Royal Irish Academy
  158. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  159. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  160. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  161. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
  162. Royal Society of Canada
  163. Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
  164. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
  165. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  166. Russian Academy of Sciences
  167. Science and Technology, Australia
  168. Science Council of Japan
  169. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
  170. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  171. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  172. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  173. Slovak Academy of Sciences
  174. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  175. Society for Ecological Restoration International
  176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
  177. Society of American Foresters
  178. Society of Biology (UK)
  179. Society of Systematic Biologists
  180. Soil Science Society of America
  181. Sudan Academy of Sciences
  182. Sudanese National Academy of Science
  183. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  184. The Wildlife Society (international)
  185. Turkish Academy of Sciences
  186. Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  187. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
  188. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  189. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
  190. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  191. Woods Hole Research Center
  192. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
  193. World Federation of Public Health Associations
  194. World Forestry Congress
  195. World Health Organization
  196. World Meteorological Organization
  197. Zambia Academy of Sciences
  198. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
This list can't be considered as some sort of defintive list. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed article deletion

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
This is going nowhere. Thanks for everything. Please tip your waiters and waitresses. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Aristotle held the view that maggots spontaneously formed on meat, rather than adult flies laying eggs on rotting food, and for centuries nobody questioned how the maggots got there, simply because Aristotle was so well-respected that if he said so, it must be true. I see many of the same issues in this article, where much focus is placed on the number of scientists who support the view that climate change was caused by humans, almost as if this was evidence. However, "because those people think it's true" is not scientific evidence, and such nonsense should be kept to a minimum. Additionally, a lack of "recognized" scientific bodies who dissent to these opinions does not constitute evidence, particularly when so-called "climate deniers" are persecuted worse than even holocaust deniers, and forced out of the scientific community, where their research is quietly swept under the rug. Additionally, this article strongly implies that if climate change is caused by humans, then we need government to spend money and tell people what to do more, to stop it. That's completely off topic and doesn't belong in this article in any form. Additionally this article should be DELETED because it needs to be combined with the article on Climate Change. You don't get a separate article just to sling dirt at people who believe differently than you do. Just like I am not allowed to create an article dedicated to how horrible people who disagree with some conspiracy theory are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.37.230 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To delete the article, see WP:AFD NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
By "persecution", do you mean those people are being forced into high government positions against their will, like Mike Pence, Scott Pruitt and so on? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also note List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability for the policy about setting up articles. This topic of this article is notable because a lot of sources in reliable sources have talked about whether climate change is happening is supported by most climate scientists or not. Editors have tried to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to make it as objective as possible reporting what is in Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the topic. If you disagree with what is written here then find reliable sources of about the WP:WEIGHT or better of the ones in this article that say otherwise. As to proposing government action if you read the article you will see that scientists do not consider that a science question but a political and economic one. If you feel strongly about it then vote on it as you wish, but your wishes don't change the scientific diagnosis. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is ridiculous and beyond hope. Science does not operate based on consensus nor is there is a consensus on the future climate of earth or the various factors contributing to the current climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:C1DF:EAD3:AD99:C354 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not a fan of argument from authority, but, especially if the authority is an authority on the topic, it beats argument from Because I Say So by a mile. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I know what Lex Luthor meant in Superman the Movie when watching Otis "It's amazing that brain can generate enough power to keep those legs moving." Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2017 (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.

Hatnote

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The hatnote said, This article is about scientific consensus on the current climate change. For public perception and controversy, see Public opinion on climate change and Global warming controversy.
I modified it to, This article is about scientific consensus on the current climate change. For scientists who disagree with the consensus, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. For public perception and controversy, see Public opinion on climate change and Global warming controversy. Dmcq reverted my addition with the edit summary, No point putting fringe before the main consensus.
I don't understand what you mean by that, Dmcq. In what sense did I put the fringe before the consensus? The first sentence tells what this article is about--the consensus. The second sentence points the reader to the article that presents the opposite viewpoint. The third points to what the public--not scientists--think about the topic. What's wrong with that?
I've added "For scientists who disagree with the consensus, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" to the end of the hatnote as a gesture of good will. In my view, it's important to direct readers to the disagreement, and it seems more logical to place it immediately after the first sentence as a contrast to it. Afterwards, branch out to public opinion. YoPienso (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please self revert per WP:RELATED, WP:LEGITHAT etc. Its well-established that the scientific opinion is that which is stated here. No one ever talks about the "skeptnier" viewpoint as "THE" scientific opinion on climate change, thus no confusion is likely, and the body of the article can deal with wikilinking the minority WP:FRINGE viewpoint in the text... just as we have already been doing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for educating me on this. I've self-reverted. YoPienso (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
No prob thanks for prompt response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The article does point to the list in the 'Opposing' section but I've no objections to it being repeated in the see also at the end. I think people tend to be a bit too dogmatic about not repeating links. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Opinion"

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is "opinion" the the proper title of this article? It seems that word would objectively be replaced with "theory" or "consensus" to reflect a plethora of data. - Sleyece 12:10:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The consensus has become stronger since the article was set up but I still prefer the current title. Putting in consensus into the title feels to me like prejudging the issue rather than reporting with a neutral point of view what reliable sources say. The article is about the scientific opinion. There is a consensus in the scientific opinion. It is a non-judgmental descriptive title per WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Sleyece, See the paragraph on Scientific opinion generally, and article on Scientific consensus generally NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Reconstructed temperature

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Looking at the description for File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png, everything seems pretty well cited and explained.

This bit probably falls under WP:CALC: "For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average". Although admittedly, it is a pretty damned complex calculation compared to the kind that normally falls under CALC. But it seems to be more of an artistic decision rather than a fundamental material change to the data.

However, this bit does give me pause, mostly because I don't really know what it means, and I'm not entirely sure if it is in fact a material change to the underlying data: "Also, each reconstruction was adjusted so that its mean matched the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap." TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. @DHeyward: The talk page is not a suggestion put here in case you decide to use it one day.
  2. I don't think you understand what is meant by a Temperature Anomaly. TimothyJosephWood 17:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand it quite well. "A temperature anomaly is measured against a reference value or long-term average" is a good start. The data is presented as an anomaly but the datasets have varying years. To overlay them requires a reference point or range. It is not exactly trivial especially considering some datasets are from the northern hemisphere only. Reading HADCrut4 methodology, they use different weighting for their NH vs SH vs NH+SH. Is the reference point solely 2004? Is it a range like the GISS graph? Is it the same range as GISS or is it HADCrut4? The methodology may be sound but we usually have a source that says it is sound rather than synthesize our own graphs from 10 papers that all use different methodologies. --DHeyward (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's ask User:Dragons flight and see. Although as long as there is a source for the metric used, it's still pretty much WP:CALC and not WP:SYNTH, and people make original charts and graphs for Wikipedia all the time. There's nothing out of place about that. TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As a side note, just a glance at the longest series in red shows that the "anomaly" is below 0 (i.e. below the "mean") for nearly 2000 years. In a dataset that long, I'd expect the dataset to be centered on 0 and reflect that over 2000 years, with the vast majority being pre-industrial. The medieval warm period and little ice age should be above the mean and below it respectively showing the natural fluctuation around the mean. But it doesn't. It shows the the pre-industrial era from 0 to 1800 to be largely colder than the mean. That reeks of trying to linearly fit the data to the anomaly of the measured 2004 datapoint at the expense of establishing the long past as the natural mean. The graph lacks rigor and is quite a bit more than WP:CALC if 2000 years of anomalies to the mean isn't centered around 0. --DHeyward (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The image description page says that the mean of each has been adjusted to match the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap. This will tend to give a very similar result to that obtained if the reference period for each series were the same as that used for the instrumental record, namely 1961-1990. This will of course tend to give a long pre-industrial period where the anomalies are almost always negative. There is no claim that the anomalies are differences from the long term mean, and the fact that it is not centred on zero in the period average is not a problem in itself. I do think that a graph of this nature is helpful as a summary of the various reconstructions. Nonetheless, I share the concerns that there is a bit too much original input involved in this figure (in terms of selection of datasets, smoothing them, and applying offsets to the means) for it to qualify as "routine calculation". If, on the other hand, a graph of this nature could be found in a review paper in the published literature, and maybe recalculated according to the method described in that paper if necessary in order to avoid issues of copyright on the original image itself, then I think it would be a very welcome addition. However, that is a job for others because I would not know where to start looking. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm against having a second temperature graph at the top. This article is about the scientific opinion not about graphing temperature. The illustration should be about the topic. We don't need discussions about smoothing graphs or anomalies. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 
Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change. Click to see a more detailed summary of the sources.
Ah. This is actually an elegantly simple argument that avoids the thing all together. Maybe to heck with it and replace them both with this image from farther down the article? TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that paleoclimate anomaly graph should be removed entirely. I don't really care whether the lede has the opinion chart or instrumental record graph. --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Too easy. Everybody's happy maybe. If DF comes back (looks like he's been having some health issues) and can clarify we may be able to fix it for other articles it's used in. TimothyJosephWood 20:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scientific opinion on climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The lead still talks about the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. We should update to the Fifth Report. I however just deleted an attempt to update to the Fifth Report because it removed a lot about the future and put in a lot about current weather which really isn't a strong part of the evidence. I think we should just fix what is there and only change or add as the Fifth Report has been seen by a reliable source to change emphasis. That is it should be updated but with care. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well something a bit better than the previous attempt has been put in now. There seems no clear reason for what has been included or excluded. The synthesis report has 4 major threads and this has seven bullet points, the headline points in SPM 2 don't seem to be included for instance. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The bullets From IPCC AR5 are the direct quotes from the Synthesis Report (SR). The SR is a Summary from the 3 other working groups. I have retained the content from AR4 under the AR4 subsection. AR4 is outdated and the AR5 update is well past due. I have also been trying to add a table from the AR5 WG1 that summarizes the assessment about past present and future. Please edit. don't just blindly delete. Climatechangescience (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
We're not supposed to just copy bits out of other places. And you didn't copy out SPM 2, what's the point of saying what you did and ignoring what you're supposed to be replying to? Well it is better that you now have text rather than an image but i think that sort of detail would be better off in the specific article about the fifth report. This is supposed to be about overall judgement rather than the specifics. There are other articles which deal with specifics of climate change -- this is more about scientific opinion and the consensus and whether it really does have widespread support among climate scientists and putting that table here rather misses and obscures the point. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at [1] the report is copyright and we shouldn't be copying chunks verbatim. We should put things in our own words, something we should be doing anyway. Dmcq (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The IPCC is a reflection of the "scientific consensus". it is a multinational organization run by the UN and hundreds of scientists to produce science on climate change. Working group 1 is about the Physical science behind climate change, the SCIENTIFIC OPINION on the cause and effect of climate change. Why are you resisting putting up the most recent version? As for Copyright, here is the IPCC's statement "Reproduction of limited number of figures or short excerpts of IPCC material is authorized free of charge and without formal written permission provided that the original source is properly acknowledged, with mention of the complete name of the report, the publisher and the numbering of the page(s) or the figure(s)"[1] My table is cited as per their guidelines. My comments from the report are cited. If you want to put them in your own words, that's great. do that! stop suppressing this information. Also the Synthesis report has 3 main threads and one summary/overview. The 7 bullet points are the main points from the summary as noted by the highlighted boxes in the report. If you feel they are insufficient please edit them but holding on to AR4 is old news.Climatechangescience (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. You have to follow Wikipedia's policies. The material from the IPCC does not come under a CC-BY-SA compatible licence and is not public domain. It conflicts with WP:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. Copying it verbatim except in small quotes is forbidden. This is a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. If you put this in yet again I will be reporting you to WP:ANI for action. Dmcq (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is it ok to quote AR4 and not AR5? According to the standard you are holding, most of the content on this page shouldn't exist. You have a very loose claim with the chart but my update to AR5 is well within the rules. "Permission can only be granted to use the material exactly as it is in the report."[2] If you keep removing my content you are not abiding by Wikipedia policy either. AR4 IS OUTDATED AND I AM TRYING TO UPDATE. I would appreciate help doing that. simply removing my information is not helpfulClimatechangescience (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I have replaced the summary of IPCC AR4 with a summary of IPCC AR5. I have included 2 quotes from all 3 working groups and each source has been carefully cited. The original IPCC AR4 summary has been retained in the IPCC ar4 sectionClimatechangescience (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not against including a summary of AR5 and the AR4 one should be deleted as soon as a reasonably okay summary of AR5 is included. The problem I have is with you not following Wikipedia policies and with the summary not being reasonably well done and with the edit warring to put in the changes and this discussion where you don't read what is said. Please read WP:5P, editors can normally get along very well by just trying to follow that without needing to know anything else about Wikipedia.
We can take the summary for policymakers as being a reliable edited summary of the various work but we would need other sources before taking bits from the individual working groups. As to summarizing the summary it itself has summaries of its various sections so I would have thought a neutral point of view summary could start from there. Dmcq (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Aside from arguable copyright concerns, maybe the following observation will change peoples' perspective: the chart seems a bit "dense" and its content might be better included in a friendlier narrative form in the specific article IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, if it's not there already. The present article should only have summary of contents of detailed reports. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
We can't use that table directly, As WP:3P says "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" Images can have copyrights attached because of fair use but not text and we can't include it as an image. The copyright condition specifically excludes editing. It does not follow CC-BY-SA. The short quotes are marked out by quotes and we are just about okay with them but they are at the excessive end. Overall I'd feel better having a secondary source mentioning the table before summarizing it at the IPCC AR5 article. It shouldn't go here at all unless a source mentions it in the context of scientific opinion or consensus rather than just being their conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ipcc.ch/home_copyright.shtml
  2. ^ https://www.ipcc.ch/home_copyright.shtml

U.S. Climate Science Special Report

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

AP news; a comprehensive review by 13 US federal agencies concludes that evidence of global warming is stronger than ever and that more than 90% of it has been caused by humans. ....human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92% and 123%. "US report finds climate change 90% manmade, contradicting Trump officials". AP report in the Guardian. 3 November 2017. Retrieved 4 November 2017. Doesn't seem to have a link to the report. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thinkprogress has link to .gov page; Climate Science Special Report Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I – This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. – U.S. Global Change Research Program . . dave souza, talk 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC) – formatted dave souza, talk 10:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian sounds good enough to me, ThinkProgress just sounds like the other side of the coin to Fox News. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I was acknowledging finding the link in ThinkProgress, itself probably a questionable source. The Climate Science Special Report itself is a reliable source with a summary and sections giving a lot of detail, the Graun / AP article has comment on the report from some scientists in the field. . dave souza, talk 09:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC) – I've formatted ThinkProgress small and put more emphasis on the .gov source . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Scott K. Johnson (5 November 2017). "US government climate report: Climate change is real and our fault". Ars Technica UK. Retrieved 5 November 2017. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Overuse of quotes and bulleted list in the lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a definite overuse of quotes in the lead. The bulleted list should become integrated with the rest of the lead (duplication is also there) and only small quotes should be used. Galobtter (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Lack of timescale in lead's definition of global warming

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I have twice tried to introduce a date of 1950 as the scientific consensus of the time since when global warming is generally agreed upon to be happening. Unfortunately two editors have removed the date, saying I am misquoting the consensus.

There are two problems with the editors' attitude. Firstly they are wrong: the date 1950 is specified twice in the consensus statements just below in the lead ("1950s" and "1951-etc").

Secondly they are wrong not to specify any date. Warming is by definition a time-dependent process. It is not useful to speak of warming without referring to the timespan under consideration. My point is not only basic physics, but basic logic.

I invite the editors to put their point across here. Please begin by stating what, in your understanding, is the consensus timespan during which global warming is happening. And then we can discuss how to place that timespan or date into the lead. Thank you. 86.170.121.181 (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I do agree. Both "has been warming since the 1950s" and "is warming" are true, but the first is more specific. The statements about scientific consensus should be prosified (like I said above) and merged. If it is not 1950s then some other timescale should be specified, like since the 1900s or whatever. Galobtter (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree. The implication of putting in 1950 like it was in the article is that it was not warming before. The mention of 1950 is unnecessary in the context of what is currently happening. I see no justification for the inclusion. There is not some point about it being 1850 or 1900 or 1950 or 1970 or whatever in the current consensus. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is what the 2013 summary for policymakers says for instance 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.' It did not say it was unequivocal since 1950. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dmcq. You have partly convinced me (that the quoted text does not directly state that warming refers to post-1950), but I insist my insertion of 1950 remains, because the full quote from the climate report clearly implies that 1950 is the reference date:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes  are  unprecedented  over  decades  to  millennia.  The  atmosphere  and  ocean  have warmed,  the  amounts  of  snow  and  ice  have  diminished,  sea  level  has  risen,  and  the  concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased."
Earlier in the report, the authors quote lack of data prior to 1950, which is presumably the reason for lack of consensus prior to 1950. 86.170.121.181 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You really need to figure out the difference between these two statements:
  • The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming.
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia
Or in simpler words: Warming (even before 1950 is unequivocal) - but since 1950 it is unprecedented, and extremely likely that it is dominately caused by humans.
--Kim D. Petersen 12:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in Kim. As explained immediately above, I have conceded the point that the shortened 1950s statement, which you replicate here, is insufficient to justify my edit. It is the longer excerpt from the climate report (also above) which is my justification for the edit. By the way, your interpretation "in simpler words" is clearly wrong precisely because it does not contain a time reference. The Earth was hotter during the Miocene, so if we were to take the Miocene as a reference time, then we have been experiencing climate cooling. Hope this silly example clarifies my point. 86.170.121.181 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that my simplified statement was wrong, but not in the way that you presented. It talks about "warming" not about how "warm" it is/was, ie. delta-temperature vs. temperature. --Kim D. Petersen 13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Galoppter, Kim and Dmrc. Thank you for your contributions, but as I now see another registered editor has simply barged in and made edits without participating in the Discussion. I am therefore pulling out of this Discussion and also pulling out of the editing, and leave it in your good hands to ensure that the reference timespan for global warming (1850? 1950? 1970?) is specified in the lead, as per the scientific consensus. Good luck and goodbye.86.170.121.181 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC) @86.170.121.181: I'd say it's correct to have the long-standing version stay while the discussion is occurring; once it concludes then the text can be changed. Galobtter (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate what Kim said, that (in the source text presented) "since the 1950s" refers to unprecedented changes. IP86*'s "silly" reference to the Miocene is bullshit, as the problem with AGW is not that the world can't adapt to warmer temperatures, but that adaptation can't keep up with the current unprecedented rate of warming. Perhaps that needs a little more emphasis in the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is a current and growing problem for people, not dinosaurs. Fixing some starting point is more for a article about the science rather than about scientific opinion about the current ongoing problem. I suppose something about it being unprecedented since 1950 might be okay, I'm not exactly sure what that refers to though and I get the feeling it was put in by somebody in the IPCC being driven to put in some date. Dmcq (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of the scientific history – distinct from the physical trends themselves – is that it was the Keeling Curve from the 1950s that brought scientific attention to the matter. Svante Arrhenius had shown what would happen if sufficient CO2 entered the atmosphere, but apparently no one appreciated that was really happening until Keeling's work. So it would be accurate to say that the prospect of GW – unprecedented or not – was not recognized until the 1950s. Subsequent measurements show the unprecedented increase of CO2 goes back at least as far as World War One. However, the first paper to be accepted as successfully measuring actual GW (despite most everyone's expectation it was happening) is right around 1995. Unfortunately I've forgotten who it was. In Science, I believe. Any of you remember it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Scientific opinion on climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago36 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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 move. Consensus is clear that "climate change" should not be moved to "global warming". There was not enough discussion on other proposed options for a consensus to emerge. Either way, the article will remain at its present title. Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


Scientific opinion on climate change → Scientific opinion on global warming – As the article makes clear, it is about manmade climate change, of which the common name is global warming, not about climate change in general. This move to a more specific title will better follow WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Reject - Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. The main reliable sources for this article, the IPCC and Oreskes, say climate change not global warming. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename/move. I agree with Dmcq, plus: global warming causes climate change, the latter concept being broader and of greater concern to references than warming per se. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Global warming is caused by climate change, not the other way around - humans don't emit warmth en masse, they emit gases that cause climate change, which leads to a warming effect. Additionally, it's rather clear that the IPCC use "global climate change" as another term for global warming, as there would be a slight cooling effect without the effects of manmade gases.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Temperature is one aspect of climate, and global warming is one aspect and one specific instance of climate change. One of them causing the other is a category error. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Which shows you do not understand the nature of "scientific", or that, in a sense, all knowledge is opinion. Scientific refers to the means of obtaining knowledge that is more certain, and more reliable, or to the knowledge that is obtained by scientific means. The nature of scientific opinion is how it is obtained, not whose opinion it is. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Which shows that you are a fool, albeit in popular company. Science and scientific is a methodology. Start with existing knowledge and theory, extend from it make make falsifiable predictions, test the predictions. “Opinion” is not even at the level of hypothesis, and is decidedly outside the core scientific process. “Opinion” frequently hinders science. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you, like many, and like this article, confuse science with knowledge. Systematic review is knowledge processing, it is not science. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not a fool. (At least not totally.) Nor do I confuse "science" as "knowledge"; it is a basis for obtaining certain knowledge. Regarding your quite limited concept of "opinion": sorry, I see no point in debating this with you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Good. You are not a fool, and I have some understanding of “scientific”. I didn’t want to dispute anything about opinion or knowledge, just the use of “scientific”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It is like 'medical opinion' which is also a real thing, it is the considered view of scientists. This article describes the consensus in scientific opinion about what will happen to the climate in that scientists believe global warming will happen - that's called a scientific consensus like a medical consensus when a number of doctors agree on a diagnosis. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
By “medical opinion” do you mean “doctor’s opinion”? Opinion is not necessarily the same thing as “considered view”. “Scientific consensus” is a weird term. The scientific method is not consensus decision making. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry you consider it weird but that is the correct term . Do a Google search for the terms "medical opinion" and "doctor's opinion" and you'll see that medical opinion is a far more common term. The medical in "medical opinion" means they have applied their expertise to determine what they think is likely, not that they have given an opinion like some member of the public who has been told about it by some friend and applies what they read in some newspaper or their own experience. Nobody said that "scientific method" was the same as "scientific consensus". We can't perform a whole host of experiments on thousands of identical earths and wait a hundred years to apply some statistics to the results. Same with medicine - they give their considered opinion on what's wrong and how to treat you, they don't just wait for an autopsy! Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I definitely dispute that “scientific opinion” is the correct term for “consensus opinion of scientists”. Scientists generally understand science, and their opinion (especially where singular!) is to be expected to be well informed, but that doesn’t make the opinion scientific as opposed to expert or knowledgeable. Mecinine is different, it is the job of a doctor to make a diagnosis on the basis of available information, and medical diagnoses, and medical practices, should not be confused with medical science. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
You've got it the wrong way around, a consensus in scientific opinion is called a scientific consensus. Scientific opinion especially when in a consensus is expected to be correct and reliable. That's the reason for processes like peer review for instance. The terms 'scientific opinion' and 'scientific consensus' are common ones in English and have clear meanings, and they are the terms used in the sources. It is evident I can't change your mind to see your way to being happy with them, but even if I agreed with you I wouldn't change them because it is not the job of Wikipedia to fix the ills of the world - WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes under tendentious editing and is a bad thing to try and do. Dmcq (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Your reasoning why it should be called something else does not matter. If the reliable sources call it that, that's what we call it, because it is the name for this thing. To give an analogous case: will you go to the Talk page for Sea lion and argue for renaming the article because the animals commonly called "sea lions" are not really lions? You would have a far better point than you have here: they really are not lions, everybody agrees on that. But that is beside the point, and what you are doing here is also beside the point. What is the common name is the point. What reliable sources call it is the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. But, there is an answer: The reliability of the sources. I did a quickly look, only, at the sources at the lede of the article. The most reliable sources do not use the term “scientific opinion”. Yes, other sources, less reliably secondary sources, use them term. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I presume you are talking about reference number 1. The first sentence in the lead describes the topic, that reference in the second paragraph cites one survey on recent studies about it. The IPCC was set up thirty years ago and its reports are the most important reference about the topic. The IPCC tried to assess scientific opinion and see what kind of a consensus there was in it so it could give reasonable advice. 'Climate change' is the common name for WP:NAME in this area whatever about whether you think it is right or not. Besides that I don't think putting the conclusion that there is a strong scientific consensus into the title would be a good idea, that would verge on violating WP:POVNAMING "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue". Dmcq (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Dmcq, I think you’re right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Publishing climate scientists’ consensus on global warming, although more work is needed on that, but the consicion drive that produced the current title crossed the line into inaccuracy. The notion that there is a single scientific opinion on climate change is absurd, something typical of the science illiterate popular media, and not reflecting any scientist’s statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe's post of 04:23, 20 May 2018 is essentially his second 'vote' and attempts to give his conclusion improper weight in this discussion.
Substantive responses:
- Regarding referencing, in what is probably the most authoritative body, the IPCC, the "CC" stands for Climate Change; it's not IPGW.
- Factually, it is grossly inaccurate to claim there's "no interesting dispute about climate change"(!) Climate change is what we and our planet actually experience (changes in weather events, floods, droughts, etc.); in contrast GW is expressed as an abstraction—a number series of annual global average temperature.
- Grammatically, the word "opinion" is obviously to be interpreted along the lines of a collective noun, and is accurately used in the context of this article's title.
—RCraig09 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Opinion on climate change is obviously the collective noun. Now supporting the current title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

How about Scientific consensus on climate change instead? Consensus is what the article really is about, right from the first sentence which mentions "overall agreement". The term "consensus" also is directly supported in reliable sources, as shown in the article's section on "scientific consensus," and thus addresses the occasional complaints of WP:OR that sometimes arise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pertinent observation, Boris. The problem is, a specific consensus was arrived at after much peer review and debate. The present consensus is a specific conclusion. Conceivably, more evidence could theoretically pop up tomorrow morning that blows Scientific consensus... out of the water (invalidating such an article-title), whereas Scientific opinion... would continue to be validly descriptive of this article even if countervailing evidence were found (content would change to reflect the new evidence, of course). Sticking to the broader term "Scientific opinion..." seems best. Interesting idea though. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
You put this alternative proposal in immediately after I said above saying consensus in the title tended against WP:POVNAMING. Did you read that and if so why did you think that it was a good idea to go against that? Dmcq (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would support moving the article to "Scientific consensus..." as it's fully consistent with the reliable sources and avoids casting facts as opinions. I disagree with RCraig09's reasoning as I don't think we should be choosing a title based what might hypothetically happen in the future...and I might add that the consensus has been pretty solid, getting more solid as more evidence comes in, and exceedingly unlikely to change. I'm now watching this page so someone please ping me if I'm needed for a future !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The topic is the scientific opinion. There is very good evidence for a consensus in the scientific opinion, this article describes the scientific opinion and why it amounts to a consensus. See WP:POVNAMING, we're better off with the conclusions being explained properly using the sources rather than being put into the title. Wikipedia is not a forum, it is an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Dmcq's reasoning, disagree respectfully with DrFleischman's reasoning. Dr. Fleischman's policy citation to avoid stating facts as opinions is explicitly limited to "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions", a high bar that even a 97% consensus does not meet. Also, there is actually some disagreement as to consensus itself, so it's most objectively correct to retain the term "Scientific opinion"; Dmcq's reliance on WP:POVNAMING is essentially a concise policy statement of what I described earlier. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I just basically agree with how the various science institutions cited in the article do it. I know some people think it is namby-pamby to not shout out like newspaper headlines do but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and do things a bit quieter with readers expected to at least read the lead. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2018 (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.

Lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The lead no longer summarizes the article. The title 'scientific consensus' is used twice. I haven't taken out the 'scientific consensus' title at the beginning as I thing there should be a much shorter lead. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As the foregoing formal discussion on renaming illustrates, it's not accurate to write that "scientific opinion" is "also known as scientific consensus" (there is a subtle but important distinction between opinion and consensus). Also, importantly, the lay reader should definitely be presented with a summary of this 141KByte, 150-reference article. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. Let's work together to write a succinct lead, including distinguishing between "scientific opinion" and "scientific consensus".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I made some edits to the lead (diff), including adding a more up-to-date image. As always, please improve on my initial effort, i.e., edit away, as I'm sure what I added can be improved. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I took the liberty of changing the title for this Talk page section so other editors will see/find the discussion more readily. I hope that's OK. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

"Opinion" vs. "evidence"

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

In my opinion (!) the term "opinion" does not really fit in the title of this article. Scientific work is not about having certain opinions but about finding scientific evidence. Politics or journalism might be about having an opinion, but that does not really fit to the idea of science. I suggest to move this article to Scientific evidence on climate change. 80.71.142.166 (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Scientific opinion is a standard phrase - it's an "opinion" because everything in science is preliminary. "Evidence" is not the same - evidence it the input creating the opinion. That said, I'm not firmly opposed - I think I prefer the current version, but I possibly could live with the other title. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the same as used elsewhere. The doctor gets evidence and then forms a medical opinion of what is wrong with you. Two doctors can have different opinions even though they have the same evidence. Dmcq (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the other responses. "Evidence" in this case would be instrumental and proxy data. That said, I'm not totally thrilled with "opinion." Perhaps we could replace it with "findings", "conclusions" or the like, but not evidence. On a related note it could be useful to have an article on climate change data. We do have instrumental temperature record but that's only one piece of it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep as-is. Here, "opinion" is a collective noun, and even though the consensus opinion is circa 97%, it's more than raw evidence but less than mathematically proven conclusion. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This article really is about people's opinions; well, about people's opinions expressed through organisations. If you want the evidence, it's in articles like global warming. Though Boris's suggestion of CCD isn't totally implausible William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Columbia Glacier photo

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The Columbia Glacier did melt rather dramatically. I was there, as it happens. But while climate change may have been an initial or fundamental cause, the dramatic melting had much more to do with glacier dynamics than any dramatic change in temperature (source). I think the use of the image is misleading. 67.189.13.137 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems good grounds to remove it so will do. We should try to be reasonably careful about things like that. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's quite right. The point they're making seems to be that a warming climate has caused the retreat of the Columbia Glacier but that the mechanism by which it responds is more complicated than simply warmer air or water temperatures making the ice melt more rapidly. This says (my emphasis):
A case in point is the well‐studied Columbia Glacier. Columbia Glacier's terminus was anchored on its Little Ice Age moraine until the late 1970s... A series of deep embayments then began forming seasonally at the calving front, causing parts of the terminus to retreat about 1 km from its 30 m deep anchoring moraine into 200 m deep water. The formation of these embayments is directly correlated with increased glacier runoff... and a 1–2°C increase in Gulf of Alaska water temperatures... This suggests that submarine melting served as a trigger for the catastrophic retreat of Columbia Glacier, which had reached an unstable advanced state. Once in deep water and on a reverse slope, terminus ice velocities and calving both increased significantly... and glacier dynamics likely became the predominant process controlling retreat
So, yes, this is more complex glacier dynamics and mechanics than simple melting of a block of ice, but they don't say that this wasn't ultimately caused by the warming climate. This supports this view too.
Unless there's a source that more explicitly rules out this retreat as being an effect of climate change, then the image could be re-instated. TimOsborn (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
(A) For the average cookie baker who shows up at this article it wasn't really a good picture anyway. Those sorts of images are unfamiliar and weird. Until you teach your brain to comprehend all the pretty colors its cheaper than mushrooms but imparts about the same wisdom. So I favor removal just because it isn't really helpful to cookie bakers. Or school crossing guards either, for that matter. Smart assery aside, the point is we should be writing an easily accessible article for a very wide non-science audience. That image wasn't helping.
(B) I agree with Tim. There is no glacier, anywhere, whose behavior is all climate or all "natural" glacial dynamics, whatever that means. Like extreme weather events, each one's behavior is a mix of phenomena what would happen anyway combined with climate change in a complex set of interactions. Said another way, we're not just trying to illustrate the technical definition of global warming (increasing average temps at earth's surface) instead we're trying to illustrate the complex web of interactions in the five parts of earth's climate system. That includes the cryosphere, and that includes glaciers that are poised to fall through their own internal dynamics if they get just the right shove. But of course we need to convey it wasn't strictly warm-so-the-melted, we need to convey it's a bygod system, baby!.
(C) Alternative pics.... Another way to do this is with one of the many side-by-side comparison photos from, say 1920 and again today from the same spot. Someone with more time and a particular desire to include a glacier pic might find excellent candidates at Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and sources cited therein. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I've no objection to some other glacier but the cite the poster gives clearly indicates in the particular case of that glacier that most of the retreat was due to mechanical reasons and it is a good reliable source. We wouldn't have put it in originally with that information and it doesn't acquire reinstatement privileges' by being in for a while, just the 'right' to be discussed a bit on the talk page before removal.
By the way and funnily enough, even if every glacier retreat could be mainly attributed to mechanical reasons I would still consider an overall retreat as due mainly to climate change as being the common cause of them happening together. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop reverting my additions!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been accused of taking sides and supporting "climate skeptics" and taking one side. This is false.

Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Nor did I "take sides". Everything I added was factual and revolved around a review and analysis of the seminal Cook study. Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural). What I added directly reviews the actual Cook study which is 100% on point to the purpose of this article, which cover the scientific consensus and controversy.

I urge you to follow Wiki's rules if you're to disagree with edits rather than summarily reverting changes.

PS - I have been accused of violating Wiki rules regarding an "edit war". This is very Orwellian, because the person reverting my content has not followed Wiki's own rules regarding how and why edits may be reverted. They have not supplied any foundation or rational reason why they reverted my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenUSA (talk • contribs)

That is simply false, I gave you the reason of undue weight (22:06, 20 April 2019), whereas Kb03 gave you the reason of NPOV (22:07, 20 April 2019). El_C 02:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead is now just confusing

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The lead was changed dramatically without consensus. The first sentence:
Scientific opinion on climate change is a judgment of scientists regarding the degree to which global warming is occurring, its likely causes, and its probable consequences.
Then this article is about instances in which there is a group of scientists and they make a form of judgment? Clearly this article was made with the general scientific opinion and consensus of climate change in mind. I don't know why this needed to happen. For one, climate change denial tends to attack the 90-100% consensus statistics, but these are vital to the article. There's no reason to leave them out. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit of a mess. I think this diff [2] where consensus was removed from the first paragraph is where the rot really started. The second edit by the same ip was reverted but not the first. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too against what is there now, and it does explain the difference between the terms a bit more, but it does need some good copy editing for style as it is just clumsy. Also it should link to scientific consensus like the original did. The distinction between opinion and consensus is well known as in legal or medical opinion and consensus. I think the title is correct in being about the scientific opinion and that there is a consensus in the opinion shoold then be described in the article. The lead needs more on how the existence of a consensus in the opinion was determined, that could substitute for some of the definitional waffle there currently. Dmcq (talk)
Good discussion y'all. I've struggled with this article too. (i) Dmcq wrote: "I think the title is correct in being about the scientific opinion and that there is a consensus in the opinion should then be described in the article." I agree. I moved the "consensus sentence" from the lead to the first paragraph of the body (diff). See what ya think. (ii) William M. Connolley removed the last bullet point under "The current scientific consensus is that:" (diff). Although I don't think removing the entire sentence was necessary, his edit summary contained an astute observation and rationale for removing "manage": "... the 'manage' bullet point: I don't think this is part of any consensus and the word 'manage' jars".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That last point is a bit worrying for me. It is verging on policy and as said in the policy section that is a human decision not science, but I suppose it is okay science to assess whether people could do something rather than that they should do something. Dmcq (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
To make sure we're talking about the same thing, I assume you are referring to this sentence:

People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.

If that's correct, I agree that there's a legitimate debate to be had about where science ends and policy-making begins. That sentence (or a similar one) was included because such a statement is included in either the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014 report or the United States Global Change Research Program reports (or both). And those folks substantiate the statements.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

97% Myth

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

According to the Scientific Consensus section one of the most cited studies is a 2013 one of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990. Of these only a third expressed an opinion, and of these 97% agree that global warming is happening and human caused. As it stands the current phrasing doesn't make clear that only 31.6% of papers (roughly 3,780 articles) endorse AGW. Worse, UN IPCC lead author Dr Richard Tol analysed Cook's data and found that results were inconsistent and biased whilst the sample was unrepresentative and the data quality low: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045. According to one site only 64 of the roughly 12,000 papers actually support the consensus. Since I can't access the original paper I can't confirm this, but if true, it puts a radically different slant on the alleged consensus. One point not mentioned, and which should probably be added to this piece, is that by presenting climate change claims as a matter of scientific consensus it is possible to radically mold public opinion whereas arguing positions that directly threaten people's worldviews causes a negative response and further entrenchment in their worldviews. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, Cook's early (2013) study has been supplemented with other studies of consensus, making it improper to call the conclusion a "myth". Plus, Tol's 2014 paper has been responded to by Cook et al. at "Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: a Re-analysis’" (archive) which claims "Reanalysis without (Tol)’s errors confirms 97 ± 1% consensus on AGW." Cook et al quotes Tol et al: "“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the sentence after ' One point not mentioned, and which should probably be added to this piece' as it seems to be saying one can both mold views and also entrench people's views. Irrespective of that it seems irrelevant. A core principle of Wikipedia is to present things with a neutral point of view, we should just do that without trying to twist things to try and achieve some good in the world. I know people think that getting people act better would be a good thing for Wikipedia but that would act against Wikipedia being a reliable encyclopaedia and there are quite enougt unreliable sources on the web already. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dmcq:: Yes but neutral point of view, not neutral. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't not need to give a soapbox to climate change denial. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't give a soapbox to anyone. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:TENDENTIOUS. We should present the facts by weight in reliable sources, biasing that because we think we might mold public opinion for good or because we want to avoid entrenching peoples worldviews would be to act against the reliability of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Another thing worth noting is that "two-thirds of papers expressing no opinion" is largely irrelevant for quantifying a consensus, at least in this particular case. Cook's study was focusing solely on endorsement of anthropogenic influence, but the only criteria regarding the articles chosen was the mentioned of the words "climate change" or "global warming". Many of the "no opinion" studies might have focused on the effects of climate change rather than the cause, and the author thus felt it unnecessary to give any mention anthropogenic influence since that wasn't the focus of the study. These studies were therefore still included in Cook's meta-analysis and labelled as "no opinion". The consensus was based on whether the author gave an actual endorsement or rejection of anthropogenic influence. As one user said above, most studies on whales wouldn't explicitly mention that they are mammals, but that doesn't alter the "consensus" that whales are mammals. VSatire (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's not play loose with statistics

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

The inclusion of Cook et al (2013) in the Surveys section box listing claims of high % of agreement is deceptive and embarrassing. That article's own abstract stated:

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."

In other words, 2/3 of the abstracts reviewed by Cook, Oreskes, et al in their 2013 article expressed no opinion. Within the 1/3 who did express an opinion, 97% endorsed anthropogenic causes. This is a glaring example of selection bias, which the researchers had the honesty to admit, but others have echoed endlessly as "consensus". It is more accurate to say "a majority of climate scientists agree" than to hype a "consensus" close to 100% which omits a large fraction of undecided researchers. This type of politicized hype is precisely what turns fence-sitters into opponents. Martindo (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have source/evidence for your claim that the researchers who authored the 66.4% of papers whose abstracts expressed no position on AGW are “undecided”? Without source to support this, you can’t impose your claim by editing the article to imply that. TimOsborn (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Here you are: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Climate-Consensus-and-%E2%80%98Misinformation%E2%80%99%3A-A-Rejoinder-Legates-Soon/71ef600aecbb0cf3afba2dec58ce6edfbefe952e. Only the abstract and meta is for free, but that is enough to cast a shadow of a doubt at the "97% consensus" claim.
I just had a look at the abstract but it doesn't sound to me like it supports what you say, it seems to be more about promoting confusion. Considering the amounts the first two authors have got from ExxonMobil it is interesting to see they mention the "assertion that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus" in the synopsis. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, in case you missed it: "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.". I read it as follows: "We looked into the work of Cook and others and have refuted the 97% claim; what we found is 0.3% consensus in the original (Cook et al.) data of the standard definition of the consensus". If you read that differently, care to break it down for me please?
Building off of what Dmcq said, the abstract of that article seems less about the legitimacy of climate change and more about the misuse of partisan-based evidence for climate change. Given that only the Abstract is available free of charge, I don't know for certain what conclusion they arrive to regarding the consensus, nor whether it offers convincing evidence disputing the consensus. However, given that both David Legates and Willie Soon are outspoken climate change skeptics, and they each received enormous amounts of (at the time) undisclosed funding from fossil fuel industries during the same timespan that this study was published, the possibility of conflict of interest does more to raise question about how objective this article really is. VSatire (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
How many scientific studies of whales do you think actually affirm they are mammals? It would be he ones who don't think they are mammals that would be more likely to say anything like that. I don't see why the results fr climate change would be much different and I've see no evidence otherwise. If you have some reliable source saying otherwise or which puts a different complexion on Cook et al then that could be useful in improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Martindo makes an interesting point for thought, but I don't see citing the Cook et al. 2013 survey as being misleading. The second phase (re self-rated papers) also arrived at essentially the same bottomline number (~97%), a finding that rebuts any accusation of selection bias. Especially since the title of this Wikipedia article is "Scientific opinion ...", it is valid to omit those papers and authors who do not express an opinion. At most, for completeness, it might be good to mention the "no-opinion" numbers within the footnote or citation. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
If we do that (I am saying we should), please do not call them "no-opinion". "No-statement-of-opinion" is truer, for reasons given above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Or just "unexpressed opinion"? While such statements might be correct strictly speaking, it demonstrably results in statements like "only 32% of[unexpressed caveat: of a certain category of expressing] scientists endorsed the consensus". Which in many minds will certainly sound like only 32% of scientists endorsed the so-called consensus, undermining the fact that for nearly all climate scientists the consensus is so strongly supported, so obviously "blue sky", that it does not – or rather, should not – require expression. It is (as Tim notes) incorrect to equate "unexpressed" as "undecided". More accurately, the 32% is not a measure of endorsement, but of the scientists who feel that endorsement still needs to be expressed. Yes, let's not "play loose with statistics". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
If anything the number of scientists expressing an opinion would normally be an indication that it wasn't generally accepted. It is only as high as it is because of all the climate change deniers in the general public. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change/Archive_24&oldid=1025150094"