Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change

Dissent from consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors

To highlight dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors, I thought we should add the following:

"Several prominent contributors to IPCC reports are critical of the claims of consensus on global warming. One contributor, Dr. Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France stated in testimony to the United States Senate "…such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.". Similarly, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, indicated “Claims of consensus…serve to intimidate the public and even scientists” and are “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”"

Thanks. Istranix (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. See the lead section "[This article] does not document the views of individual scientists" - and in particularly not any issued in political statements and blogs, and not in a proper scientific venue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes...this should include those challenging the "consensus." Not sure how this crept in there (BOLD EDIT). Thanks.Istranix (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Boldly reverted. Maybe you should consider why we do not include individual scientists. And you should certainly understand that Inhofe's joke blog is not a WP:RS for anything, much less for scientific opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Istranix- Quoting individual scientists is no way to asses the scientific opinion on anything. There are millions of scientists in the world, and anyone can easily find "scientists" who support such concepts as intelligent design or even the existence of Bigfoot. However, you are correct in that there is a small minority of scientists who do not endorse AGW. Their views are documented in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which this article links to.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to off-load the 'consensus' section from this article. The only consensi [go on latinarians] appropriately covered here are formal consensus statements of scientific organisations (incl, of course, the consensus position of the IPCC) - but NOT whether there is an INFORMAL overall 'scientific consensus' - let the body of significant scientific opinion (as reflected through the FORMAL, published, consensus opinions of organisations of national standing, surveys, etc...) speak for itself. --Jaymax (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific_consensus or some other section? Because that one contains only formal statements referring to the consensus... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the section I mean - I've long felt uncomfortable with it here - as, while they are formal statements (or small parts thereof) - it's a bit of a mishmash of stuff that includes the word 'consensus'. And as yet, I havn't seen any 'scientific test' to establish whether there is overall 'scientific consensus'. I think this article stands stronger doing what it says it does in the title and intro. If this article seeks to address the much more fickle (and much less scientific) question of whether there is a universal scientific 'consensus', then it can do so only by acknowledging and report the notable (however unscientific, or incorrect) sources which say there is not. But to do so here would dilute horribly the quite precise collection of formal 'scientific opinion' we have gathered.

To put it another way - if Scientific Entity X states their opinion is Y, well, that IS their position. - If Scientific Entity W states that there is consensus between them and everyone else that Y is what everyone agress, well, they're still only speaking for organisation W - it's qualitatively different, and qualitatively less authoritative.--Jaymax (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the “Consensus” section from the article is something we discussed about a year ago (see archives 6, section 20), and we decided to keep it. I actually proposed removing it myself, because, like you, I thought it was redundant. However, I have come to appreciate it, and I believe it does have value. It gives readers a quick and easy summary of what scientific bodies say about the level of acceptance AGW has within the larger scientific community. I believe that’s what many readers are looking for when the come to this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm the 'you' above - I don't think it's so much redundant, as misplaced in THIS article. I haven't engaged on this before, because I wasn't aware of the existence of a separate 'consensus' article. Anyway, I'm still arguing with myself on this one as well.

In that vein, and closely related - it occurred to me that surveys of climate/earth scientists goes to Scientific Opinion (covering off the net-individual-scientists aspect), whereas surveys of the published literature goes to support Scientific Consensus - perhaps - just thinking atap here.--Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

medical associations

I just read through this article, and I'd just like to mention that I struggled rather to understand the inclusion of both the American and Australian Medical Associations as important organisations supporting the consensus of scientific opinion on climate change. Should the relevance of the particular scientific opinion come into play a little? I had to stop and wonder to myself, what about the Australian Writer's Guild. Don't they also believe in the consensus on global warming? These days ExxonMobil's policy is to support the consensus. So why not add them too? Normal people would see this as a transparent attempt at inflating the number of scientific organisations that can be said to support the consensus. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ExxonMobil is an energy company and the Australian Writers' Guild is a professional society of, well, writers. Neither one is a "scientific body of national or international standing", whereas the AMA and all the other medical groups listed certainly are. Are the medical groups qualified to speak about climate change per se ? No, but they certainly are qualified to speak about the impact of climate change on human health, and that is exactly what their position statements focus on and why they are included in the article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would think a writer's guild as a unique body of experts on social media is qualified to comment on social impact as well, by the logic you apply to the physicians. I find the reference to physicians unconvincing for the reason it is cited -- namely, as one of the forty-odd "scientific bodies of national or international standing," whatever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.186.202 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well either the meaning of the word "scientific" is evident to you, or it is not. --TS 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, medicine is a science, but whether or not it's relevant to the whole climate change issue is a legitimate question. The answer is "yes", given that one of the major concerns about AGW is that our changing climate is having, or will have, an increasingly negative impact on humanity, including human health. After all, if climate change didn't negatively impact humanity, there'd be little cause for concern.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the meaning of "scientific bodies of national or international standing", that's also a legitimate question. To find the answer, you have to click on the internal links to science academies and scientific societies, and do a little reading. Whether a particular scientific body has "national or international standing" is a little harder to discern, and requires some familiarity with the scientific community. But, in general, I think it's safe to say an organization's standing has to do with how well regarded they are by other scientists, how broad their membership is, and how far afield their research goes.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if you click on Australian Writers' Guild , you'll find that they're "writers for film, television, radio," etc., What they have to say on the issue, if anything, may be pertinent to Climate change in popular culture, but certainly not to an article cataloging scientific assessment.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

'Scientific opinion' is an oxymoron

"A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"*. opinion is not science and this article should be deleted.

(*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.7.180 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks or your opinion. Wikipedia documents verifiable statements, not the WP:TRUTH. There are at least 168000 people out on Google who use the term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Google hits do not measure anything. There's a WP: page that details that IIRC, but I can't remember where it is. Probably the Notability criteria, but still. PT (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for WP:GOOGLE. Of course Google hits measure something - the question is whether they measure what we are interested in. In this case, they provide ample evidence that "scientific opinion" is indeed a widely used and notable term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Width of use does not, however, cover whether a term is oxymoronic, or whether such a topic is encyclopaedic. I would suggest this article be merged/redirected into Global Warming Controversy PT (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest that, an AfD with suggestion "merge" would be the proper venue. You might look at the last attempt, though. I suspect a new attempt will be WP:SNOWballed again. This is a very useful, quite comprehensive, and extremely well-sourced article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Stephan. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

By "scientific opinion", I'm sure it is talking about "the opinion of scientists", which really "people that use scientific method to find out facts' ideas on what those facts mean". A mouthful and a little confusing, which is why the term "scientific opinion" is much better for use here. Aeonoris (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, last attempt for AfD was by someone who gave no rationale and was probably by someone who disagrees with the whole concept of climage change, hence the "Speedy Keep". An AfD based on WP policies regarding NPOV and the oxymoronic properties of the title would likely have a result of "keep" or "merge", and I think that it is an option that should be left on the table:)Mrathel (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; maybe Stephan needs to read WP:SNOW again himself before citing it; just because there is a bad argument for something does not prevent the existence of good arguments for it. Anyway, I have linked the list of dissenting scientists and the Controversy article from the introduction, as the article states that it specifically deals with institutions and not individuals, so 'individual scientists' may as well be a link; and because 'scientific opinion' may be ambiguated with 'scientific opinions' or 'scientific arguments' about the existence or causes of CC/AGW. PT (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't link the list of septics to "individual scientists", unless you're under the impression that all individuals dissent from reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the way you say "reality" there presumes the conclusion you want - let's have none of that. More importantly though, the article as it stands gives the impression that no-one dissents from the AGW 'orthodoxy'. There needs to be a link to some kind of list; and there isn't a list for those scientists who accept AGW as well because it would be considerably longer (as I freely admit). So how about if it goes "individual scientists (but see the [[the_link_whatever_it_was|list of dissenting individuals]]), individual yadda yadda...", would that do? Also, why did the other bit, the link to the Controversy article, get cut too? PT (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article does contain a link to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming under the "Statements by dissenting organizations" section. It's also in the "See Also" section, where the link to Global warming controversy is as well.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "climate change" assumes that climate is static, which it's not. Also, there is no information in this piece about the switch in 2008 from "global warming" to "climate change." That switch is important because it highlights an attempt to refocus what had been a debate with actual parameters ---- it's either getting warmer or it's not ---- into a debate with no parameters: the climate is changing, which it always has.

This whole article is ridiculous. It is a pretentious POV piece by those staking a claim to victory in a public debate. It has no other purpose. This is not encyclopedic knowledge. It should be deleted.--SandyFace (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow a comment posted on the Wikipedia of a parallel universe ended up here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I must be some kind of crazy Republican to think this is a POV article? --SandyFace (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The title may not be oxymoronic per se, whilst it can be easily understood that it is corrupt and misleading for this article where "scientific opinion" is used as a general colloquialism to blur the line between the political statements of scientific bodies and the scientific opinions of individual scientists, and to create the illusion that they are one and the same. This article is a "List of scientific statements issued by scientific bodies", no more no less. There is no way to assess how this encompasses the opinions of the many thousands of individual scientists in the world, members or not of these bodies, nor is there a way to assess who between the bodies or individual scientists taken as a whole should carry more weight in assessing "scientific opinion" about something.

Besides, it is assumed that my local politician is my representative. I can although tell you that I do not share a large part of his opinions. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the whole article, you'll see that it contains a variety of surveys of individual scientists involved in climate related research, a survey of the scientific literature on climate change, and the most recent synthesis reports on the matter as well. If you know of a more comprehensive way to document the scientific community's opinion on climate change, please let us know. We're always looking for ways to improve the article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have hit bullseye with your last comment. The problem is exactly this; there is no way to comprehensively document the scientific community's opinion on climate change. Oreskes' methodology, for instance, was sent into the memory hole right after the newspaper headlines were printed. And the surveys in this article have been cherry-picked, as you probably know, just like it's been decided to not include open letters by scientists... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you falsely claim that another person "probably knows" something that is nothing more than your own unsupported opinion? Please avoid dishonest debating tactics. --TS 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also false - the surveys have not been cherry picked. If there is a survey of earth scientists on climate change you are aware of that is not included, please add it.--Jaymax (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you mean the editors of this article have cherry-picked data from the surveys in order to push a particular POV, then you are free to edit those entries so they more accurately reflect the results of those surveys. As for Oreskes's survey of the scientific literature, are you asserting that the Bush Administration euphemistically relegated it to the place where "government officials deposit politically inconvenient documents and records to be destroyed"? I wasn't aware of that. But, I am aware that some people, like social anthropologist Benny Peiser, have asserted that Oreskes' methodology was flawed. However, others have found flaws in Peiser's critique. And, her piece was not only published in Science, it's been cited in more than a few other peer-reviewed journals as well. So, it can't be simply dismissed. As for not including "open letters by scientists"...public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. Whereas, surveys and position statements made by reputable bodies encompass the opinions of much larger groups of scientists.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Science as a an apparatus for neutral objective truth is kind of an obsolete engineers view (IMHO), see the pretty obsolete logical positivism versus critical realism, Karl Popper, and Imre Lakatos. Science, according to my gut feelings, uses mass evaluations and an intensive and systematic opinionating and criticism in order to get a verifiable mean opinion of all observing/measuring guys called "scientists". There is no democracy in science, so there are no votes, instead there is a "ballot by evolution" where opinions are put under an intense evolutionary pressure. If the system is somehow cut off from observation and measurements, it stops being science. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

I've removed the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, as it is neither a science academy nor a professional society, but an agency of the European Union, and at this point in time, we are not including government agencies. Whoever added them to the article should have been more careful. Oh wait, that was me. My bad.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GSA heads up

The Geological Society of America is proposing a new climate change statement. They are not changing their position, but some updating will be needed, likely right after the GSA annual meeting in October. Awickert (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion

Who claims that since 2007 there has not been a dissenting opinion amongst scientists? Any reference available? This seems to be a rather bold statement and rather questionable without reference. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Dapa22 (talk •contribs) 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement is clearly about "scientific bodies of national or international standing". This statement in the lead is merely condensing the fact that no such statements appear in the body of the article, because (since 2007) there are none to include.--Jaymax (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

...and that is supported by the reference in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This [[1]] reference was used in the lead as a citation for the line in question, "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion". The reference is editorial in nature and not scientific and does not make the claim that there are no dissenting opinions. I have removed the reference. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article says "AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming" (emphasis added). After this was published AAPG -- the "lone" scientific society -- revised its statement from opposing the consensus to noncommittal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article? That comment is clearly not meant literally. The article is not a scientific article, it's an editorial article complaining that Michael Crichton got the award. They didn't do a poll or study on all the different scientific bodies in the world to see where they stand, that comment, stands alone among scientific societies is hyperbole. You cannot just hunt through articles looking for quotes that support your opinions, you must take into account the context (and tone) in which the article is written. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it's "hyperbole"? What is your evidence for that assertion? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, as I keep explaining but you don't seem to understand, this is an editorial article. Please notice that the author spends the whole time editorializing and there are no citations. The general tone of the article is outrage and it is far from unbiased. I will not be making further comments or edits tonight; so, before you make further arguments based on the content of the article please take this opportunity to reread the article, perhaps reviewing the content of this article will help you to understand my point of view. Much more important, [heartland institute], their opinion on climate change here, http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ conflicts with the human caused version of things. So that is at least 2 "scientific societies" that deny the "human-induced effects on global warming." Ergo AAPG does not "stand alone". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Heartland Institute is a scientific society? Even they don't say that they're a scientific society. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Even they don't say that they're a scientific society." Where is your evidence for that? Their members conduct research and they publish a respected peer reviewed journal, what more do you want? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean in social or political "science" journals? Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Heartland explains what they are on their About page: "a nonprofit research and education organization"...who's "mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". Nowhere do they claim to be a scientific body. The fact that they conduct research doesn't make them a scientific body either. Anybody can conduct research. Research, as defined by Websters, is simply the gathering of information. And what "respected peer reviewed journal" does Heartland publish? Is it in the Science Citation Index or MEDLINE/PubMed? I think not. No, the Heartland Institute may incorporate a little science into their advocations for certain policies, but they are a think tank.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about this journal too; though of course the HI isn't a sci soc William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We've wondered off-topic. Is or isn't the [agu.org] source actually saying that "no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." or is the author merely taking editorial liberties to prove a point. I would like to hear from some of the other editors. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the AMQUA reviewed article quite clearly states that the AAPG (at the time) stood alone in disputing AGW - since the AAPG doesn't do so anymore, the equation is obvious (1-1 = 0). Furthermore there are no documented instances of a scientific body that disputes AGW, so it gets even more obvious. If you want to dispute this - then please find any scientific body that does so, and it obviously would change the intro. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reference is valid. The statement, by a significant number of earth scientists, and 'presented by' AMQUA, is well positioned to be authoritative regarding the positions of scientific bodies. Being a 'scientific article' is not required to meet WP:RS. And calculating 1-1=0 does not constitute WP:OR.--Jaymax (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to try to find a scientific society that's issued a dissenting opinion, I recommend the Scholarly Societies Project. They have links to literally thousands of scientific and professional societies, unions, federations, associations, etc. You can search by subject, scope, country, or language. It’s very well organized, and easy to use. Good luck.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is not and never was that the AMQUA article is not wp:rs. Rather the article is not authoritative in saying that AAPG is the only dissenting scientific society and that claim is being misrepresented and used out of context in the wikipedia article. Show me where AMQUA did a survey or study of scientific societies about their views of global warming and this comment can be viewed in a different light; Otherwise these statements need to be represented only as the editorial opinion of AMQUA, to do otherwise violates wp:undue. Further, 1-1=0 is not wp:or but taking content from two different sources, and putting them together is wp:syn, and that ignores the point that, as I keep pointing out, the quote from the AMQUA article is taken out of context. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have a point there about wp:syn. However, I don't see the AMQUA quote as being taken out of context. The whole point of their piece is not so much that Crichton's "distorted view of global warming" is wrong, but that the AAPG is wrong for "lending its stamp of approval" to his views. The bulk of AMQUA's piece points out flaws in Crichton's work in order to support the conclusion that AAPG "crossed the line" in honoring him. The "stands alone" line is in reference to the AAPG's own 1999 policy statement which refuted AGW. No, there's no indication that AMQUA did any kind of formal survey or study of scientific societies. There doesn't have to be. As Kim has pointed out, AMQUA is authoritative and knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.

However, I want to thank you for pointing out that there may be a Synthesis problem here. The article does kind of do that by taking A: "AAPG stands alone", adding B: AAPG revises their policy statement, and concluding C: "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." But, I'll leave it to more experienced editors then I make that determination.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Further down WP:SYN "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." The reference is perfectly suitable IMHO. Incidentally, WP:SYN is just a sub-type of WP:OR --Jaymax (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. I think we can consider this discussion settled.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to reignite that disscusion as you can see in this edit there are dissenting opinions from national stance scientific bodies. Please let me know why this edit was reverted, and if it shouldn't consider changing contents of 'Statements by dissenting organizations' so it does reflect reality. Forest001 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything new compared to Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_7#Polish_geologists? The committee is not only illiterate in climate science, it also is not a "scientific body of national or international standing" - the respective body is the PAS, which has issued a statement in support of the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well again as you can read here they are scientific body of national standing (i may translate it for you if you want) and there is no reason to not include theirs opinion or at least acknowledge it. And tell me please how is it more illiterate than European Geosciences Union for example? Is it because it has different stance?Forest001 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The page is about PAN, not about its Committee of Geological sciences. If you read the discussion I linked to, you will find plenty of evidence for their illiteracy of climate science. EGU has not given us a comparable sample of stupidity - and even if they had, they would still be a scientific body of international standing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what is your expertize to judge Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences stance? And PAN is polish for PAS and site from my link explains that all Committees are national bodied. So why is Geological Society of Australia national body and ommittee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences is not again? Because you think that they are stupid?Forest001 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting discussion. Certainly, the question of weight comes into play, as well as the tricky problem of discerning what exactly is a scientific body of national or international standing. PAN definitely qualifies, and that's why their statement is included in this article. However, PAN's Committee on Geological Sciences is just one of 70 hard science committees within the larger body, and surely the statement from the larger General Assembly of PAN supersedes that of the smaller internal committee. Their dissenting statement appears to be theirs alone, and not even representative of PAN's Earth Sciences Division (of which the Geo. Sci. committee is just 1 of 10, others being Quaternary, Geophysics, etc). Now, I certainly don't consider myself to be an expert on the scientific community, but it seems to me that the Geo. Sci. committee can't be considered a scientific body of national or international standing, even though they may be comprised of "researchers from the whole country."[2]. As far as I can tell, they are not an entity unto themselves, but simply a sub group of a larger body. They're not at all on par with stand-alone organizations like the Geological Society of Australia or the EGU which maintain their own membership and publish their own peer-reviewed journals. So, giving them space here would most likely be a violation of WP:UNDUE. But wait...we do include a statement from the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, which is basically the same thing isn't it?...a sub of a larger body? Given that, I think we have only one of two choices: (A) If we keep the Stratigraphy Commission, we have to include PAN's Geo. Sci. committee...or...(B) don't include either of them. I believe (B) is best, that way we avoid giving undue space to little internal sub groups. Fair enough?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. this is reasoning that does make sense and i'm greatfull for that. will wait then for some other institusions to break 'consensus'. Cheers and have good day! Forest001 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. And, we'll just wait a few days to see if anyone else has a good reason for taking a different course of action.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was coming to the Talk page to say exactly what the first comment said. I've now read all of the above, and understand the logic behind the first statement, but am still concerned that to the average reader it sounds very much like an unreferenced fact. This concerns me because not only is that statement copied onto numerous other websites which pull content from Wikipedia but also because I use it in various conversations that I have and yet feel uneasy about having no source for it. I think if the statement is meant to be a summing up sentence of the below, then it should be clear that this is the case, either by at the minimum, appending an extra bit to the sentence which says something like "As evident in the list below, ..." or even better, actually including what you have written above that says that the AAPG used to be the only dissenting organisation [incl ref to article] but in 2007 changed their statement, and therefore there are no longer any dissenting orgs. To do that would make it much clearer to readers of the article that the statement is valid and can be trusted. Without some sort of reference/clarification it is too easy to engender distrust. Normally, I would just go in and make such a clarifying change, but given that I have not been involved in this article so far I hope that someone will take this suggestion on board. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The reference for that is actually in the Statements by dissenting organizations section. So, I just inserted an internal link so readers can jump right to it. Thanks for the suggestion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to introduction

Please provide sources that establisht the need for the extraordinary parameters explicated at the opening of the aricle. This seems to be a very unusual (unique?) format and it's not clear why it's need or helpful. It seems to distract from encyclopedic coverage of the subject and may violate NPOV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand this tagging [3]. There can be no doubt that the article does indeed do exactly what that says. In what sense can it be considered dubious? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading this article, I am not sure why these parameters are there. Perhaps someone should make a bold move and delete it. Yearston (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The parameters are there to clearly mark and describe what the article is about, nothing extraordinary about it - if you want it deleted then the correct way is to do so via WP:AfD. (this seems to be the strangest argument i've yet to hear). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is considerable relevant discussion in the archives over time showing the evolution of these parameters. They have been reached through consensus, and largely define what this article is about.

It makes no sense to ask for 'sources' that establish a need to properly describe the article. That an article defining the boundaries of it's subject at the start seems unusual to you is, well, unusual. No valid basis has been made for their modification, let alone removal. Hollow (as in, unreasoned) statements that they might be NPOV are unconvincing (to put it politely)--Jaymax (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER)

I've removed [4]. We've been through this before, though I forget where William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in the page or talk history since Jan 2009, when the report was initially released. Are you disputing the existance of JSER, or the translation I referenced? Treedel (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For prior discussion, see archive 6 section 33 from back in March. Additionally, although JSER states they are "an academic society", they are not listed in the Scholarly Societies Project, or even in a list of Japanese Academic Societies. Nor can I find their journal Energy and Resources in Science Citation Index [5] (but maybe I just don't know how to look). Even if JSER turns out to be a legitimate learned society, the document you referenced appears to simply be a report they published, and not a position statement issued to express the views of the organization as a whole. Also, a discussion about the reliability of The Register can be found here (it's not).--CurtisSwain (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The archived talk isn't exactly meaningfull discussion...

It's hard to find out anything substantial about the organization, which makes it doubtful as a "scientific body of national or international standing". And the Register's reporting is so horrible that I cannot even make out what has happened - it seems as they issued a 5 author report, and 3 of these authors doubt the IPCC. The Register has published selected parts of a horrible translation - apparently only parts from the sceptics. I would suggest to simply ignore this until substantial evidence arrives. There are some suitable documents linked from http://www.jser.gr.jp/index.html, but my Japanese is a bit rusty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 4 March

The other discussion you referenced concludes that The Register is of debated value. Nobody there claims that they have a pattern of factual inaccuracies. However, the reliability of The Register isn't the key point here. Treedel (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[6] refers William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#Japan_Society_of_Energy_and_Resources_and_Global_Warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize, based on an independent source that clarifies that that report was published by the JSER, not written by it. The question I now have is: can that site be considered reliable? If so, we only have some scientists, one of whom did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewerwho have published a dissenting opinion. Those are a dime a dozen nowadays. Treedel (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still overpriced - scientists with consenting opinions go for around two-dozen a penny.--Jaymax (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that the price differential was so great. I suppose that's why the pro-warming faction is able to afford more scientists. Treedel (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer as puffery is generally a sign of the septic. It is amusing how, despite their dislike of IPCC, they still recognise it as the gold standard to be associated with William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer Treedel's question, I'd say this bit here from Watts Up With That (WUWT) that Stephan Schulz alluded to is reliable since it contains a clarifying letter from one of the participants in the discussion JSER published. However, I think The Australian with this article would probably be a better choice. And, I wouldn't consider WUWT reliable for much of anything else, certainly nothing for this article. But, some of the names from the JSER piece could probably be added to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would WUWT be reliable for this information, and not in general? If they regularly publish inaccurate information, they are unreliable in general, right? Not just 'unreliable when they disagree with me." Treedel (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WUWT is just news and commentary, mostly from a former television meteorologist. It's not a Scientific journal. But, if you want to explore the reliability of WUWT more, I suggest using the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, when they publish something along the lines of "X journal published theory Y", they would be accurate, but when they said "Theory Y is true", it's commentary... Just like any other news source?Treedel (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More or less, yes.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has been moved?

Wasn't this article previously called Scientific consensus on climate change? Why was it moved? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a good way to search the move log to see when it was last moved back here, but it was renamed Scientific Consensus on Climate Change for a few hours in 2007. I can't find any evidence it was actually named properly Scientific consensus on climate change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also Climate change consensus which was created in March 2009.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you - that is what I was thinking of. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair to assume

that organizations not listed in support are undecided?

for example, Polish Academy of Sciences is listed. well, there are almost 200 countries in the world. where are almost 200 of other academy of sciences? i think that this list may be perceived as a cherry picking, if no note about the whole set of institutions from which those are chosen are at least mentioned. so my proposal is to place somewhere before the list something like:

of so and so scientific institutions having more than so and so scientist, following ones support/oppose ...

212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, we've listed all significant credible organistaions that have made a statement. If the Poles don't care to say anything, we could more plausibly assume that they agree with the ones that have spoken out. What makes you think they are undecided? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: assuming such a thing would be WP:OR. On the other hand: assuming anything at all about their stance would be WP:OR ... of course unless reliable sources can be found. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

i disagree. here is an example from my country [7] stating global warming effect has been even underestimated. so similarly, there are probably dozens of other academies that made statements, either supporting or opposing the IPCC statement. anyhow, this list seems to be arbitrary, and may in fact in part be WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS (no reliable sources presenting such a list). or there may be such sources. in any case, making this list more comprehensive would be a good thing. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That PDf is just a conference flyer William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As with EVERY OTHER article, this one is only as complete as the user base has made it. There is a bias here, as with most other articles in the English wikipedia, towards sources that are readily available to the larger english-speaking populations. Both of these are, perhaps unfortunate, but totally unavoidable. The backstory to the Polish society is an intresting one, uncoverable in the archives - basically a small sub-committee released an ambiguous statement, which was briefly included as being the societies statement - that was later clarified, and a passing Pole, as a result of our erroneous statement that the society had not made a statement, translated the key passages from the polish societies statement for us (there did not seem to be a readily available translation)

It is not WP:SYN because there is no intent here to do anything OTHER than document, per the lead paragraphs, as far as possible. Lists are explicitly allowable on WP.

The PDF from Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts doesn't seem to quite contain a statement of opinion - but if we can obtain one from Serbia OR ANYWHERE that passes WP:RS and the article scope, it will be included, regardless of what the opinion actually is. --Jaymax (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Jaymax. And, I have to agree with WMC as well, we can't assume anything. Personally, I've searched the web sites of literally hundreds of scientific societies through the Scholarly Societies Project, and from what I've seen, most societies don't issue position statements about anything. Having some sort of "note about the whole set of institutions" would be meaningless, because a lot of scientific societies have nothing to do with AGW or its effects. The fact that the All India Ophthalmological Society or the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence have yet to issue a statement about AGW is irrelevant. As for the Academies of Sciences, yes, there are nearly 200 countries in the world, but not all of them have a National Academy per se. Some of the smaller countries are represented by organizations like the Network of African Science Academies and the Caribbean Academy of Sciences both of which have issued concurring statements. More importantly, the InterAcademy Council pretty much represents all of the world's science academies. So, I think we got that pretty well covered here.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! Obviously every American who is not on the record of publicly condemning the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse is tacitly approving what happened there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're being facetious, and I assume you're agreeing we shouldn't assume.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

introductory sentence

i strongly object to the very first italicized sentence. never before in over 6 years that i use wikipedia did i see such a DISCLAIMER at the beginning of the article. in only confirms the cherry picking impression that i described above. i think this totally arbitrary statement should be removed, as it meets no wikipedia policy. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a disclaimer - it defines the content and subject matter of this article, which is hardly uncommon. Furthermore you will often see italiciced text at the top of Wiki articles stating what the article is not. It has been discussed many times, and evolved through a consensus process. You can find the rationalle for the specific, evolved content by looking through the archives - in short, to be meaningful, there needs to be some criteria for inclusion, otherwise we end up with a gigantic, useless and meaningless article which value my neighbour Fred's opinion to be as scientific as the formalised, published consensus opinion of the World Meterological Organisation. If you have an argument for modifying, extending or further restricting the criteria, please offer it here for debate.--Jaymax (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

what does it mean self-selected? categories seem to be invented so that certain groups of opinions could be excluded from the article. Reminds me of WP:CFORK 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See Self-selection. If by categories you mean the headings, these result form the organisations which have been added, not the other way around. If you come up with a scientific organisation of national or international standing that has released an optinion/position and that organisation doesn't fit one of the other headings, then a new heading would be created for it. --Jaymax (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why American Chemical Society statement is relevant for the climate change issue? Also, i saw on their website that it has 160,000 members. I am curious to know what role all of them had in writing the society's statement? So why is the statement of this society more relevant than the statement of 60 scientists whose training seems to be more relevant to this issue? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because that list of 60 scientist is self-selected, and therefore not scientifically significant. As before, please view the archives for previous consensus debates around whether non-earth-science societies should be included or not.

what about ACS? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

is it not scientifically significant if dozens of nobel prize winners write a statement? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No - it is only scientifically significant if you poll living nobel prize winners and report the results. Which is why when 20 Nobel laureates said "We must recognise the fierce urgency of now. The evidence is compelling for the range and scale of climate impacts that must be avoided, such as droughts, sea level rise and flooding leading to mass migration and conflict. The scientific process, by which this evidence has been gathered, should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action." it had no place in this article. --Jaymax (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

even if they are chemists and not climate researchers? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To repeat please view the archives for previous consensus debates around whether non-earth-science societies should be included or not. I didn't partake in the last round of those debates, so I don't know how it was argued - but I know it was, and I know that ACS is still in there, and so the consensus was apparently to keep the criteria unchanged and not excluded scientfic organsations of national standing such as the chemists. I would point out that atmospheric chemistry and ocean chemistry are hugely significant earth sciences, critical to climate change research. But really, we've been through this before - your shifting argument strongly suggests you have an agenda - please review the archives, formalise precicely what you propose should be changed and why, so there is something to debate. --Jaymax (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

i didn't find relevant discussion in archives, but anyhow, since you pointed out to these branches of chemistry, i see now why ACS is relevant for the topic. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a FAQ below to make it easier to find answers to such questions. Another article contributor 216.169.82.243 commented on letters in the ACS publication - and I confess to assuming that was you and being frustrated. For the sake of that editor - the reponses that editor linked to were reponses to an editorial in the "Chemical and Engineering News" journal - NOT! reponses to the publication of the official public policy position of the ACS of their website - which was (I assume with confidence) a democratic process. This pertains to your (212.200.205.163) question above re how the ACS membership were or were not involved - see below for further. --Jaymax (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

N.B. my IP is serbia, 216 is USA. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know - I realised about a couple of hours ago when I did the traceroutes - I apologise. I just assumed because that IP was continuing the ACS stuff - my bad. --Jaymax (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant, but here is where you need to go to research how ACS develops policy http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=259&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=df4f9c38-5951-4192-a54f-8d42ed625dc1 --Jaymax (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We need a FAQ

/discuss --Jaymax (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree. there should definitely be an explanation of the rationale behind the very fist sentence. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea!

Here are some suggestions for the FAQ, in no particular order of frequency or importance:

• Why are no dissenting organizations included?
• What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?
• Why are there statements by organizations like the American Statistical Association or the Australian Coral Reef Society and others that don't have anything to do with climate science?
• Why doesn't this article include the views of individual scientists, universities, or laboratories, or any petitions or open letters from scientists? The criteria for inclusion seems arbitrary (or purposely designed to exclude descenting opinions)?

There's probably a few more, but that's all I can come up with right now. I look forward to reading how other editors think these questions should be answered, and I'll start drafting some responses myself.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to the second question, some time ago I wrote:

"...click on the internal links to science academies and scientific societies, and do a little reading. Whether a particular scientific body has "national or international standing" is a little harder to discern, and requires some familiarity with the scientific community. But, in general, I think it's safe to say an organization's standing has to do with how well regarded they are by other scientists, how broad their membership is, and how far afield their research goes."

That might be a good start, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient for the FAQ.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion above:

• Why isn't such-and-such 'national-subcomittee's' opinion included. --Jaymax (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ 2

This is the best I could come up with for What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?''. I welcome any comments, edits, or alternatives.

An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, in general, this can be determined by the impact factor ratings of the body's journal as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered amoung the world's most influential and prestigious.[8][9][10]

That's better, and it also answers the question about subcommittees with the phrase about maintaining a membership. I think that question has only come up once so, that should do. Anybody got anything better?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also asked for feedback on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration some feedback I got here on the ref desk, I think the 3rd sentence should read:

However, for academies or societies that produce Scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports.

That's a little better. Not all reputable sci. orgs. produce journals.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the FAQ box is up and running. I had to use the "quick edit" set up, because that's the only way I could get the ref box to show up on this page. Maybe after we get it fleshed out we can go to the "no quick edit" set up like the one on Talk:Global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of non-committal organisations

CurtisSwain has reverted my change to the lede in the area where it summarises the 'Noncommittal statements' section. If I were to summarise that section, one of the first things I'd note, other than that there are 'few' such statements, is that they all originate from North America. We have two American Associations, two American Institutes and one Canadian Federation. Listing them in that way is too much detail, but simply noting that they are all from the same continent is surely relevant - no Asian, European, African or South American organisations maintain such a stance, that we know of.

I could understand being reverted for adding too much detail to the lede, but it is not over long and CurtisSwain's reason for the revert was 'Most are international', which I think is just patently wrong, given the cited references in the main body of the article as above.

What do other editors think? --Nigelj (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find more telling is that one is an organization of political appointees (and really out of date) and the other four are all geologist organizations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I said most are international because as far as I can tell, the State Climatologists and the Canadian Federation are the only two who's membership is strictly limited to their home countries. While the other three may be based in North America, the AAPG is actually an international geological organization with members in over 116 countries around the world [11], the AGI is a federation of 46 geoscience societies including the Geological Society of London and the International Basement Tectonics Association [12], and the AIPG is an "international organization" with "more than 5,500 members in the U.S. and abroad" [13]. So, calling them "North American organisations" is a bit inaccurate, although, admittedly, not terribly egregious. --CurtisSwain (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-removed 'North American' as per membership info above. --Jaymax (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So an American organisation, if some of its members work and live overseas, becomes an international organisation? I'm not going to argue with you guys about that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd spin it this way - an organisation that started in the US, and so has 'American' in it's name, but due to realgeopolitik and cultural dominance became the pre-eminent 'western' professional body in it's specific discipline is not fairly described as 'North American', even if the bulk of it's members are indeed, still American. --Jaymax (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

It seems the article doesn't distinguish clearly about what is the question:

Q1: is there a global warming? - the article statistics implies that the sources say: yes,

Q2: is the global warming anthropogenic? - the article isn't as clear on this as on Q1, but I think I can read that the citations used in the article implies this in about 50-70% of the cases.

Q3: is IPCC an evil cult ... no forget it, just kidding!!

... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A real third question: sources in "Biology and life sciences" doesn't add own arguments to Q1/Q2, instead they warn:

global warming seems to occur, but then this evil will happen!

so they don't present causes or arguments, they warn for consequences. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Q2 is unclear. There is near unanimous agreement that humans cause most of global warming. There is no organisation denying that. Does your 50-70% refer to the amount of warming (50-70% of the warming is anthropogenic) or to the support (50-70% of organizations support AGW). The first depends very much on the time frame. The second would be simply wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. my question Q2 is quite clear if we reformulate it "do the humankind cause the global warming?",

2. the question regarded what the article explains, not whether I believe the global warming is anthropogenic (which I happenstance do, but now I'm a Wikipedia editor acting Mr Neutral). The article should clearly state the questions, especially Q2, and illuminate by citations. About 70% of the citations happenstance tells us very clearly that humans cause the global warming, but the rest mumbles, so that it is not unambiguously clear that they state whether anthropogenic or not. F.ex., the Geological Society of Australia:

Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature

Yes, "concern" yes! But is the human burning of fossil fuels the major contributor to global warming? Some of the citations must be reviewed as regards to sources. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article documents the opinions of qualified scientific bodies in regards to the subject matter. Readers are free to interpret those expressed opinions any way they choose, pedantically or otherwise. However, it stands to reason that the GSA would not bother to issue a position statement, nor recommend "strong action be taken...to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions" if they didn't view humanity's impact as significant. As for the Bio and life sciences orgs., you're right, they don't add their own arguments as to the causes of recent climate change. Although they are respected scientific bodies that can be expected to be informed about recent developments in science, their main contribution is in confirming the observed and predicted effects of global warming. And, yes, the IPCC is an evil cult.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Would this count?

A statement released by the heads of these organization released a letter last month on the consensus scientific view: American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Meteorological Society American Society of Agronomy American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Botanical Society of America Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/pdf/Climate_Letter.pdf

Should this be worked into the article?

MutantChair (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Some of the orgs. are already in the article. For the others, you'd need to check to see if the org. has some sort of formal position statement, or if the statement is only the opinion of the President/CEO. I believe American Institute of Biological Sciences concurs as a body. So, you can slap them in. Good find, MC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It belongs here Climate_change_consensus --Jaymax (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey of American Meteorologists

I guess this cant go in the article because it was not peer-reviewed by the CRU or some other reason, but in any event : [14]. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It would indeed be worth reporting on how TV weathercasters are so poorly informed about the state of the science (which was the whole point of the AMS article, in case you missed it). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I so much agree with every word you said. They are simply not in line with climate science. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting study. And, yes, it actually was peer-reviewed, having been published in BAMS. But, no, it's not relevant to this article which deals with scientific opinion. People who give weather reports on TV can hardly be considered scientists. Half of the survey respondents don't even have CBM Certification.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I have inserted reference to the recent controversy on temperature data, since this concerns the integrity of the scientific issues involved. Deletion is surely censorship of a very live problem. Peterlewis (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on this article. There is a nice description on top of it saying:

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Perhaps you should have read the edit-comments for the removals? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition by SanAntonioPete

Several editors have already reverted this addition, which reads as follows:

In November of 2009, the integrity of the IPCC (as well as its definitive and seminal research on global warming) came into question after hundreds of private e-mail messages, illegally hacked from computers at Britain's University of East Anglia, were posted on the internet. Even staunch supporters of the global warming community were dismayed at what appeared to be the IPCC's efforts to prevent publication of work by global-warming skeptics. George Monbiot, one of the most astute ecological cartographers of his time and a strong advocate for global warming theory, commented on the hacked emails in the Guardian.co.uk: {{quote|It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate skeptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists] Monbiot, George for The Guardian.co.uk, November 23, 2009</ref>}}

Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia, named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change between 1999 and 2009” was particularly distressed by the involvement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was quoted in the New York Times as saying:{{quote|It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.<ref>[http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377] Revkin, Andrew C. for The New York Times, November 27, 2009</ref>}}

This seems to place an extraordinary degree of weight on statements made by a single scientist and a single environmental campaigner. --TS 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with TS's assessment of the reverted paragraphs. Additionally, it's not a synthesis report, position statement of a scientific body, nor a survey of climate scientists. Therefore, it doesn't belong in this article, which clearly does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories. --CurtisSwain (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The incident seems relevant and notable to me. Seems like the passages should be paired down to a NPOV and included here. Unless someone has a recommendation or a better place to include. Where do individual scientist views get mention in this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are individual scientists mentioned? Where their particular opinion is relevant to the article. An article on Mike Hulme, for instance, might carry information about his opinion of the affair. My concern here was mainly that just one scientist's opinion was being used to support the notion that the IPCC reports have been called into question. --TS 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hear you ... reviewed the talk, the Article Title mislead me. This article has a POV issue, becasue it doesn't adequately represent individual scientists views or where to go to read them. This article, by design, gives undue weight to organizational views. The title is misleading, becasue it doesn't help the reader see that the "Scientific opinion" comes from the organization not an individual. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Science is inherently collaborative. Scientists share data, review methodology and conclusions, and a consensus view emerges. In such a scenario, the opinion of any one scientists is worth little. The important question is what conclusions qualified experts have reached on reviewing the available published data. --TS 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point ... so is wiki, which has qualification standards too. It's a false premise to assume any one scientist has an dissenting opinion. My experiences are that learning occurs where there is dissension and organizations have the Principal-agent problem. American democracy and jurist prudence values the dissenting opinion, with appeal, greater than you do. Dictators and tyrants are most commonly accused of suppressing the reasonable individual. This article has an organizational bias. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a controversies section.

As a starting point, I offer up the following: [15]. While it is in the opinion section of the WSJ, it is NOT the opinion of an individual writer but rather appears to be the opinion of the paper itself since no author is listed.

I invite others to find related material to be included as well. I see that there is some additional material listed above as well. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the opinion of an as-yet anonymous opinion writer in a newspaper. What do you expect us to do with it that bears relation to this article, which is not about the opinion of anonymous journalists and editorial writers but of scientists? --TS 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better link: [16].

"It's the opinion of an as-yet anonymous opinion writer in a newspaper." - Since the piece is not attributed to a specific author that means that it is a piece written by the editorial staff of the paper and represents the official opinion of the paper in question, namely the Wall Street Journal ... a publication of some note.

"What do you expect us to do with it that bears relation to this article ..." - Well for starters, I expect us to include a controversies section which is intended to document controversies related to the subject of this article, i.e. the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a notable piece directed at those ends. The fact that this is the opinion of the journal, not some individual, is significant and makes it noteworthy here. In general, the whole ClimateGate incident points directly to the fact that the purported scientific consensus may be contrived ... or at a minimum was artificially influenced by key individuals such as Jones and Mann. --GoRight (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As GR notes (and as I saw in my paper copy), this was the lead editorial in that day's paper. These are customarily unsigned in all (English language) newspapers (ime), and are meant to express the editorial opinion of the paper. As the WSJ is one of the two major national newspapers in the USA, a WSJ editorial carries considerable WP:weight.

I support the idea of a "Controversies" section. WP:Be bold! Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a starting proposal:

In the wake of the Climategate revelations, the Wall Street Journal summed up the potential impacts on the public perceptions regarding the scientific consensus on global warming as follows:

"The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start." -- WSJ, 27 November, 2009

and then cite the indicated article above. --GoRight (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that certainly sounds like NPOV .... not. Using an editorial (which is opinion - no matter if its from the WSJ or another source) as authoritative on public perception is POV, and rather extreme undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [as well as completely off-topic in an article about scientific opinion --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)]

It isn't scientific opinion. It's the stated opinion of some journalists. --TS 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is discussing the controversy surrounding the subject of this article. It is not being used to establish or state any scientific facts. --GoRight (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is relevant to the Scientific opinion, then it is valid. It does not deserve undue weight however, the article requires a NPOV on the scientific opinion. The source can be attributed. Must start this section somehow. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with User:ZuluPapa5. This seems like a reasonable start. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinions are not sourced from non-scientific sources - and certainly not from editorials and other opinion articles. The editorial is reliable for only one thing: The opinion of the WSJ editorial board (assuming that its the main editorial). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to push non-scientific views into this article is likely to fail messily. --TS 08:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is good to see so many newbies take an active interest in this article. However, it needs to be pointed out that a topic such as Climate change is so huge, no single article can possibly incorporate all pertinent and important information. Therefore, large complicated topics will usually branch off into smaller articles where pertinent and important aspects can be covered in more detail. When you have something you think is important, the trick is to find the appropriate place for it. If you click on "Category:Climate change", or "Category:Global warming" at the bottom of the article, you'll find there's hundreds of articles covering various aspects of the topic. This article, as stated in the first sentence, documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document what newspaper editors or other laymen have to say about scientists' opinions. What the editors of the WSJ or any other newspaper have to say would be more appropriate for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and/or maybe Global warming controversy. --CurtisSwain (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no push when the proper qualifications are WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the article must serve these. Readers and editors are not being helped as to the proper place to place views that come from reliable editorial boards. TS, I would appreciate your help, over threats. CurtisSwain Wikipedia is not a place for "documentation", it is for NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GR's climategate suggestions are a joke and don't really merit discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a legitimate controversy which warrants mention in this article. It is not a joke. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, William M. Connolley. Last I checked, climate gate was reliably published and relevant to controversies with this articles subject. NPOV clearly says: "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Why do you wish to negotiate this? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there are now reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the CRU’s temperature history and the fact that they “lost” the source data for it, a controversy section is entirely appropriate. WVBluefield (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper journalists are not reliable sources for scientific research. If the UEA, the CRU or any other scientific body of national or international standing issues a statement saying that they have changed their opinion as a result of what's in these e-mails, then that would be worth covering. --Nigelj (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated ... this article is not scientific research and it must have a NPOV. It is about the organizational scientific concensious. Reliably sources about this subject are valid. Somehow, I get the impression amateur wiki scientists are working WP:OR here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

ZP5 hits a home run, this article isnt purely scientific, and as such all notable POV's should receive consideration. WVBluefield (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WVBluefield-"this article isnt purely scientific" ? Where? Where in the article is any space given to non-scientists?--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is scientific - sorry. And all notable POV's amongst scientific organizations are included. What you (and others) are proposing is public opinion/opinion in editorials which has absolutely zero context/meaning in an article about scientific opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

citation is needed for "“lost” the source data" - as far as i know the source data is still available at the individual stations, and at NOAA. As for "reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the CRU’s temperature history" that is a scientific area, and thus journalists and opinion writers aren't reliable sources to it. As for having a controversy section - such sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and the reasons for it are fairly simple: they are prone to be used as coatracks for criticism without due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point about coatrack, it can be managed. NPOV is the issue at hand. The criticism has valid weight. It is always best to properly attribute and let readers decide. Unless you are in denial, there are many sources criticizing the scientific organizations. They have a valid voice on Wiki.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"many sources criticizing the scientific organizations" - sorry but if they are the usual rabble of opinion articles, pundits etc. then they aren't relevant as to the scientific opinion. If you are talking peer-reviewed critique, then its another thing - but then it isn't, is it? Criticism on an article about scientific opinion must be scientific. And due weight must be addressed which is why individuals criticizing is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is not restricted to scientific discussions only. I will repeat this in case you somehow missed it above, the article I am using (a) is NOT from an individual but rather is the editorial opinion of the WSJ itself which gives it plenty of weight for inclusion, and (b) it is not making any scientific claims (which does not disqualify it from inclusion since this encyclopedia covers both the scientific and political aspects of any topic. If you prefer, we can point out that this is a political point and not a scientific one, but it is clearly an appropriate one for this page. --GoRight (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, the article restrictions demand a NPOV. Rules must be balanced too. This is no game ... folks can not trump NPOV with article rules. The rule makes a NPOV even more obvious. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, in this corner we have the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Royal Society of the U.K., the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the European Geosciences Union, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the World Meteorological Organisation.

And in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have... an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

I almost feel sorry for you guys. No, I take that back. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the WSJ is NOT being lined up to either support or refute the science as your (false) analogy would suggest. The WSJ editorial is discussing relevant public perceptions and opinions as they relate to the topic of the article. This is not the same thing, nor does it require any scientific background to formulate so all the grandstanding about "scientific opinion" is irrelevant to the point being discussed. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

all the grandstanding about "scientific opinion" is irrelevant... I forgot -- now, what's the title of this article? Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? If a controversy erupts concerning the topic described in the title of this article, where exactly is it to be discussed if not in this article? --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ is not a "scientific opinion". The editorial doesn't even talk about "scientific opinion" it talks about a specific issue, and "public opinion". It is completely off-topic in this article. And while this may be the editorial opinion of the WSJ - it is still opinion. (and not a scientific one) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the informed scientific opinion on climate change should be balanced by ill-informed, non-scientific opinion. That isn't how neutral point of view works. --TS 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, that may be how some see it ... that's not what I am saying. I am saying wiki has NPOV standards that include "all significant" views. It is largely irrelevant, that they are "scientific" or "non-scientific" what is relevant is that they apply to the organizational "scientific opinion" from reasonably reliable sources. No OR, coatracks or undue weight is necessary. Now please hear this carefully. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED. (Being bold, so folks can address this issue, please.) The attribution takes care of many wiki policy concerns and balances NPOV at the same time. It is simple magic, right!! (Now I only wish the scientists get the source attribution correct, they likely have the same issues we do ... smile). BTW, I believe it is presumptuous to imply folks are "ill-informed, and non-scientific" just because they are not inside the official scientific process. The Philosophy of science holds that all humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. (Please lets not talk about philosophy further in this thread, start an new one). Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The views of non-scientists are not relevant to scientific issues. This is why we don't put nonsense about Genesis and Noah and talking snakes into the article on evolution. --TS 22:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The public perceptions of the process by which this "scientific opinion" has purportedly been reached are clearly relevant to this article. The issue at hand is not a "scientific issue", as I know you are perfectly aware, so your apparent repeated claims that you didn't hear that are disrespectful of your fellow editors and are not at all helpful in the process of consensus building, IHMO. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it is your personal original research that the scientific opinion is based in any significant part on what the WSJ is talking about. Not to mention that you yourself are suffering from a bad case of i didn't hear that when you both ignore the intro sentence to the article, as well as several people pointing out that this isn't the correct article. Public opinion is not scientific opinion, and the opinion of the WSJ and other editorials are not appropriate sources for or about the scientific opinion. The article that you do want is Global warming controversy, where it would be relevant, but might not be sufficiently notable (yet) to merit inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "it is your personal original research that the scientific opinion is based in any significant part on what the WSJ is talking about" - Let me repeat the quote here and highlight the part that ties it to this article:

"The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start." -- WSJ, 27 November, 2009

Is the highlighted portion not EXACTLY what this article is about? Hopefully that clears things up for everyone. --GoRight (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clear anything up. The highlighted sentence is the only statement in that editorial that talks about scientific consensus. Its cherry-picked. And you may also want to note that while they say that its a discussion on how the scientific consensus is arrived at, they aren't saying that it is based on that. And it is still only the opinion of the WSJ editorial staff, which for all their credentials aren't in any way or form authoritative (or even interesting) on scientific opinion. Not only is it off-topic, its also a cherry-pick and undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a cherry pick, it is clearly the primary point of the entire article. Your personal POV concerning the WSJ editorial staff, while amusing, isn't really relevant to determining whether they are noteworthy. They clearly are. There is not undue weight here despite this being the typical last ditch argument in these types of discussions. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not a "personal POV" that the opinion of the WSJ staff isn't a scientific opinion, nor is one that the WSJ aren't experts on scientific opinion. As for "clearly", well then it seems to be rather strange that its hidden all the way in the middle of the editorial. As for "notable", well that always is determined by context, and in the context of scientific opinion the WSJ doesn't even come close to being notable. For now this will be all, since i've repeated myself sufficiently. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that folks can only point out absurd examples to make their points here. Let me make a simple logical case, they are entirely relevant, because (Set A) and (Set Not A) are required to have a balanced view in any valid process to verified truth, that is scientific or wiki standards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. You can't shoehorn non-scientific viewpoints into an article about scientific views by saying that non-scientific viewpoints are needed to "balance" the scientific views. And that's the way it is. There are articles about the political controversy surrounding global warming, about the email hacking incident and its fallout, and even one about global warming conspiracy theories, and that isn't an exhaustive list. This particular article is about another subject: scientific opinion on climate change. If and when there are significant developments there, this article may change. --TS 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So stop repeating yourself on irrelevant points. Non-scientists can certainly form opinions about the processes by which scientific ones are formed, as is being shown in this example. There is no wikipedia policy that allows a given page to be artificially restricted to one POV as you are attempting to do. WP:NPOV demands that all significant points of view be represented, and the POV of how the public perceives the credibility of this purported scientific consensus is clearly relevant to this page. --GoRight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-scientists can certainly form an opinion on the processes. But no matter how you turn that - it is still not a scientific opinion, and while you seem to ignore it, that is the topic of the article. (not: non-scientific opinion on what scientific opinion is or how its arrived at). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! This article is "restricted to one POV", a scientific one. Unfortunately, some people just can't accept the fact that, other than a tiny handful of marginal scientists, the entire scientific community completely supports human-caused global warming. --CurtisSwain (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro guidance to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I added this [17] to help prevent folks from posting individual scientist opinions here, so this article can focus on the organizational views. I appreciate that folks must have qualifications along side their opinions. As well, it takes more that one to obtain opinion objectivity. Removal seems like editors are suppressing established, notable, reliability sourced dissension, (for their own qualification standards), as well as disrupting a direction to a wiki article to focus on individual opinions. This instruction aims to maintain civility. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

...and your addition was quickly reverted. As Boris pointed out, the list is not one of "individual scientist opinions", but only one of dissenting opinions. As stated in this article's FAQ, numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world. Collecting and organizing their individual statements on the topic would an impossible undertaking, and would be like conducting our own survey. Fortunately, others have surveyed individual scientists, and their results are summarized in the Surveys section. Additionally, nothing is being suppressed here. This article links to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming in the Statements by dissenting organizations section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ and the initial directions are not adequately helping to prevent disruptions to this article. The list is buried down deep and should be brought up front and center too. It's a qualified list. No one is asking for the impossible. It is possible to put the link near the instructions. "For individual scientific opinions, options see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" on a separate line would be adequate. This is a common approach on Wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is not a list of "individual scientific opinions" but a list of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific opinion" - there is a large and not very subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please help us find the right list. The difference may be the title to the list article is misleading us. Seems like directions at the top of this page, to see the drop-down boxes (or whatever they are called) Is an appropriate civil solution. Some kind editors are better organizing these. Still in favor of a controversies section (per discussion above). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a list doesn't exist (and probably never will). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, would you deny the right for such a list to exist? Would any other editor like to declare their intentions with regards to preventing such a list? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor is entitled to argue the case for the deletion of a particular article through the deletion process. There's no reason why a Wikipedian should support the existence of every conceivable article on a subject. On the other hand, creating a stub article on this subject would be the work of a few seconds. --TS 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Let's hope the servers have enough space... Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I give you an A for Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent I pray you do not encounter prejudice on its existence. I'll abstain from editing because these views are given undue weight (smile)Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No i would not "deny" such - i've simply taken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming into account. A "list of scientists supporting..." wouldn't be significantly different from a "list of scientists." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to NPOV vs on topic

I suspect this article is offensive to WP:NPOV. The issue seems to be what is on topic and what makes a NPOV. Does anyone have relevant guidance to point to in this conflicting matter? I could not find the on topic guidance. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are scientific organizations not listed here? Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. How is that relevant? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for the off/on topic wiki guidance. Did you WP:IDHT with feigned incomprehension? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not the correct answer to this question. -5 points. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this your idea of good faith discussion? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit, not on the editor. Hope this helps. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, are these edits consistent with good faith discussion?  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets try again. Have you read the line on top of the article? The one saying:

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

That is the topic of this article. And Boris' question about whether there are scientific organizations not listed here - is entirely on point with regards to NPOV of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why yes I have. No one is disputing that that is the topic of the article, which is precisely why the WSJ article needs to be referenced here because it is discussing a public controversy ABOUT that very topic. Should I start a new article titled "Public controversies surrounding the scientific opinion on climate change?" I guess I could and cross link the two, but under other circumstances I would expect that (unidentified) people on your side of the discussion would claim that I was creating a POV fork. So, what's your preference? A section in this article or a whole new article with cross linkages? --GoRight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Public controversies surrounding the scientific opinion on climate change wouldn't be such a bad idea, but then we already have Global warming controversy. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"but then we already have Global warming controversy" - Nope, it's not the same topic. --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think the encyclopedia is missing an article, please create it. --TS 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An article about controversies over scientific consensus on climate change already exists. Its summarized on the controversies page (from which it was forked when that article got too big). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, to what specific page are you referring (that specifically discusses controversies over the scientific consensus)? --GoRight (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It takes very little time to go over to Global warming controversy and checking which articles that are summarized in the section called "consensus". But i will help you: Climate change consensus is the article you seek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did go there as you say and found that specific page. However that page is NOT discussing the controversies surrounding the scientific consensus. That's why I was confused by your comment and sought clarification. That page reads a lot like this one, actually. This page has become a POV fork and should be deleted, IMHO, as discussed below it should be merged into Climate change consensus. Much of the material between the two is redundant and therefore is being given WP:UNDUE weight. --GoRight (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern Summary

Thanks, sure I've read the intro directions by now. I even tried to improve them with 2 solutions offered and 2 others in mind. I am still looking for guidance to support its existence. Let me summarize my concerns. The directions create a NPOV issue. Wiki is not a place to "document" a POV ... it is for NPOV. The article has structural issues that do not help the reader or editors maintain NPOV. I seek to be civil and help folks reach a NPOV. "non-scientific" and individual scientists views are not adequately covered in this article. I suspect the structural issues are going to be easiest to address. (see: Wikipedia:STRUCTURE) I guess the FAQ require work too. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "NPOV issue"? You really haven't clarified what you mean by that. Surely it's not a simplistic "some say the Earth is flat, while others believe it is round," but it isn't at all clear what you do mean. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"What do you mean by "NPOV issue"?" - I would assume they mean that you are excluding legitimate points of view from the article as they relate to the scientific opinion on climate change. Is there some other interpretation that you are thinking of that I am not seeing? Please elaborate on why you find this so confusing. --GoRight (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair ... This is abstract and simple. The directions specify View A. Folks are excluding (Not A) and focusing NPOV on A only. In reality A and (Not A) exist in View B. It the NPOV for View B that has issues. This can be fixed with reasonably attributing the existence of (Not A) and helping the reader find (Not A) articles. NPOV always applies to A and B. Seems like folks claim (Not A) is the same as (Not B), which is false. Arguing with (Not B) seems to be absurd right now. I can't find guidance to support A only views. Breaking for a few. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand the concept you are describing here but I am having trouble mapping the A and B back to something specific in our current context. For the sake of this discussion, A = ?? and B = ?? in your view? --GoRight (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, A = the directions specification. Not A = is other relevant WP:RS pertaining to A. B = the universe of reasonable opinion with an editorial board per WP:RS, on both the issue of A and (Not A). So, B is made NPOV whole by addressing Not A. Not B is irrelevant. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but I'm of good solid hillbilly stock and have trouble with all this symbolic logic stuff. Is it possible to lay it out in plain language? Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been said above in this talk in plain language, adding the guidance context would be productive. The abstraction diffuses the POV folks are attached to. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the guidance?

These [18], [19], [20], [21], revisions require guidance support for the on/off topic issue and for the article instruction/directions. These edits were made for a WP:NPOV and then reverted. Someone should kindly provide wiki guidance on these reversions to maintain them. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the POV intro dispute tag. This is an issue Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression, the directions have constructed an unsupported POV rule to suppress information. I'll give it some time. My intentions are to change the intro to better support a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong section. You meant Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Expertise. -Atmoz (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is NPOV supression by strawman experts. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro directions are a Strawman fallacy issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? You've raised lots of objections, but have made no recommendations for an alternative to the present wording. I'll remove the tag absent such. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you offer any consensus? The first one [22] I made you reverted without adequate guidance support. I discussed them above here in this talk page at least two times and you still don't hear them ... do you?. Now I fear, you disruptively reverted the POV tag without resolution [23]. The onus is on you, my friend to find guidance on your unsupported reverts. My proposals are made. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have a suggestion: Hat notes following the description of what is in the article in the form:

Notable non-scientific opinions on climate change are located here.

Disputes as to what the scientific opinion on climate change is are located there.

etc.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the actual articles you'd like in the hat notes? Having a link to XYZZY is probably an improvement to the current article, but I don't think it's on topic. -Atmoz (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

great suggestion. let me cool off some, they are in the Template section for controversies. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where it might be. KDP made a suggestion for the second link, but I don't see that one as appropriate. Some surveys seem to be here (in the article), but I don't know where they should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see [24]. Thanks this would help, but does not solve the NPOV issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary, as well as other comments on this? You said "individual scientist views," without further qualification. As we have pointed out to you that's obviously wrong. Had you said something like "the views of individual global warming skeptics" there would have been no problem (at least for me). Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple fix to hat notes (adding the POV term is provocative and uncivil, you with many provocative names), lets cool off a bit and return. (BTW, if the POV-Tag is being reverted, that's a good sign the article has POV issues.) Cheers Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Proposing solution to concerns

It sounds like what some editors really want is to make this article more like Climate change consensus. Which is probably a good idea, merge the two articles to create one that's a bit more inclusive and comprehensive. Maybe say some something in the lead like various commentators, politicians, bloggers, etc. have made a wide variety of assertions about the degree of validity human-caused climate change has within the scientific community. Then give some examples with proper refs: There's a consensus. There is no consensus. A growing number of scientists doubt it., etc. Then go into how the article documents (or summarizes) current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, but also include petitions and open letters like Climate change consensus does. Of course, we'd still have to be careful to avoid undue weight, so the article still wouldn't include individual universities, or laboratories (which tend not to issue position statements anyway). Statements made by individual scientists would still be excluded, again to avoid undue weight, but the article could still provide a link to the List of scientists opposing... for those readers who want to take a trip out to The Fringe. I think this would greatly improve the article, and (hopefully) reduce the number of POV accusations it gets. How do y'all like that idea?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My immeadiate reaction is no. I don't much like Climate change consensus. This article is about the *scientific* opinion on climate change, which is the bit people ought to care about. Leave the bloggers out of it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a vast difference between the scientific opinion on climate change, and the public opinion on climate change, they are completely separate - and should stay that way (since that also reflects the real world). Here we describe the expert opinion, and in the other article we describe the philosophy/controversy/individual views etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a useful page documenting exactly the scientific opinion on climate change, and it does this quite well. It also has a simple and clear structure that makes it easy for readers and editors to use. Note how comparatively little of the usual bickering we have had here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think we're actually in agreement here, in so far as what is most important is to describe the expert opinion. What I'm saying is that this article should briefly acknowledge that all kinds of non-scientists make all kinds of wacky assertions about the scientific opinion on climate change, and then give them the real deal (synthesis reports, position statements, surveys, etc). --CurtisSwain (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I love this story: There are two ways to find the distance to the moon. Either you set up a radar system and measure it, or you go into the street, ask a thousand people how far they think it is, and average their answers. With more people taking Media Studies than Physics at university, some may want to explore the world via the blog, the focus group, and the talent show. There is no way that wishes, opinions and prejudices should be weighed seriously against facts and the combined consensus of the world's climate scientists. If Wikipedia were to decide to go that way, I suggest the movement start at Lunar distance (astronomy); we'll see how far they get with that first. --Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"ask a thousand people how far they think it is, and average their answers" - Ironically, you have just described how the scientific consensus on climate change has been arrived at. That's pretty much what the word consensus means. --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Briefly acknowledge is the right way to go. Good proposal, but the articles are too big to merge. Consensus in fixing the hat notes should help folks find Climate change consensus and others with high relevance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of no consensus that the hat note needs 'fixing' - there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe what we need is some kind of Climate Change info box or link box or whatever you call it, like the top one in the right-hand margin on OOXML? --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be adequate. The dispute over what is "scientific" and what is "mainstream scientific consensus" (in other articles) means that we'd need an additional phrase, or possibly sentence, covering each of the related articles. That would seem to me to make it too large for a disambigbox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cease-fire on POV template

Okay, all of you. Quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header. Rather than full-protecting the article, I will block editors that insert or remove it for WP:3RR/WP:EW. Consider this your warning, I won't be leaving warnings on editor talk pages. tedder (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I protest. You have issued your warning with the article in the wrong state. Please issue your warning after the POV tag is restored. --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WRONG, and as ZuluPapa5 said, the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't. tedder (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

GET REAL FOLKS.... THERE IS A POV DISPUTE HERE ... NO NEED TO DENY IT. Warning given and taken. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If thre is a POV dispute, it is presumably under "Offensive to NPOV vs on topic". But I see no coherent explanation there of what the dispute is supposed to be, let alone an attempt to resolve whatever that dispute might be William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again please ... there are reverted diffs and proposals. It is pointless to challenge NPOV with out supporting guidance, good sir. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is nothing more than a POV fork from Climate change consensus. It should be AfD'd on that basis. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really think so, then the course is obvious. May i btw. point out that Climate change consensus is a very recent article (created March 30, 2009), whereas this article originates Sep 2003 . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter how they came into existence, my use of the term "POV fork" was meant figuratively and not literally. But for those who wish to focus on the literal definition, I stand corrected. The substance of the point remains, however. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim is right. Climate change consensus was created as a content fork from Global warming controversy. This information is readily available via the "history" tab at the top of every article. Editors should do a bit of research before posting comments on talk pages. That way they may avoid looking like they don't know what they're talking about.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's any more nonsense on this article, I'll be suggesting some kind of administrator action. That probably won't be further protection in this instance. --TS 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm here in a mop role only. If anything beyond blocking and protection is needed, it'll probably need to go to WP:DR. tedder (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're considering admin action, I'd like to point out that several of us have asked for a clear statement of quite what the POV controversy is over this page. WVBluefield, GoRight and ZuluPapa5 have all added the POV template - presumably any of them should be capable of explaining why they have done so (in fact, any of them should be able to point to existing text on the talk page that justifies the template); but none of them have.

My best guess would be that the tagging is "revenge" for not being allowed this edit [25]. That edit (a) introduces non-science opinion into an article about scientific opinion, and (b) deliberately uses the "climategate" redirect for POV-pushing, which is why it is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but you have correctly identified my reason. It has nothing to do with revenge, though. It has everything to do with only allowing this page to present a single POV when it's content so closely mirrors that of Climate change consensus. I don't care which article came first. My use of the term POV fork was figurative and not meant to be taken literally. The fact remains that the two articles share significant amounts of content and should be merged, and all significant POV should be addressed per WP:WEIGHT. This obviously includes things like a discussion of the public perceptions of the so called scientific consensus on climate change.

"(a) introduces non-science opinion into an article about scientific opinion" - No, it introduces a relevant discussion of a controversy surrounding the exact topic of this article. The refusal to allow this discussion to be introduced is the source of the POV controversy, which has been perfectly obvious from the start. Responding to your query about what is the source of the controversy would have (as is now obvious) been redundant and a waste of everyone's time.

"(b) deliberately uses the "climategate" redirect for POV-pushing, which is why it is unacceptable" - Well, if this is the only thing holding up inclusion of this discussion I would be happy to instead use the CRU email incident link instead. I only used the Climategate redirect for brevity, as well as the fact that it is also quickly becoming the most widely recognized moniker for the incident in question. --GoRight (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of that edit grossly misrepresents the nature of the 'crisis' that was engendered by the e-mail hack. The crisis is one that may affect the future career prospects of some senior employees at the university; it may affect the standing of the university in the academic community; it may affect the way scientists feel able to communicate for years to come. These are serious issues. What it does not do is make one ha-peth of difference to the science of climate change, the projections, the causes, the necessary CO2 cuts, the consequences of going over a 2 deg C rise since pre-industrial times etc etc. All of this is easily sourced by reading the article on the hack. See [26] for just one. --Nigelj (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of that edit is a verbatim quotation from an editorial written by a major news source of considerable note which directly discusses the topic of this article. The rest of your statement has no bearing on this particular discussion. --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good that GR has finally stated (or rather, agreed that I have correctly stated) the reason he added the POV template. It would be graceful we he to admit that he was wrong to add the template prior to such a justifiaciton being on talk. Furthermore, I'd like to note his comment "I can't speak for others, but you have correctly identified my reason" - this, accurately, points out that it isn't possible (as I and several others have said) to guess why WVBluefield and ZuluPapa5 added the template. I'm confident that no-one would consider accusing either of adding a template that they hadn't bothered to read, so they must have noticed The neutrality of this introduction is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page - which means, as I and several others have been saying, that they were incorrect to add the template.

GR's objection, however, is spurious. He asserts that It has everything to do with only allowing this page to present a single POV but this is not true. The page presents scientific opinion. Were there several, we would be happy to present them. But there aren't. GR seems very hung up on Climate change consensus. He made the bizarre suggestion that This article is nothing more than a POV fork from Climate change consensus. It should be AfD'd on that basis. When it was pointed out that in fact the situation was reversed - Ccc is the younger article - GR, logically, should have proposed AFD of that page. He hasn't. The solution to this otherwise puzzling problem is trivial - GR is a POV pushing GW skeptic (this isn't a secret - he admits it) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"GR is a POV pushing GW skeptic" - I'm curious, WMC, where have I ever admitted to this? You can label my suggestions any way that you wish, which is obviously just a distraction from the substance of this discussion. These two articles clearly share significant overlap and should be merged, and one of the AfD'd. Since the other article has already been described as including discussion of controversies surrounding the scientific consensus on climate change it only makes sense to retain the other article. This article clearly suffers from the problem that people seem to be resisting the introduction of legitimate content pertaining to the topic at hand. Regardless of how you try to distract people with labels, this remains true. --GoRight (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly - an editorial opinion piece is only a valid source as to the opinion of the author. The author is not a scientist, his/her opinion is not subject to proof or evidence or open to peer review. This is an article on scientific opinions, as it should be. There are many more op-eds in the world mainstream press that take the opposite view, as I cited above. No scientific body has issued a statement retracting any previous AGW position in the light the hacked e-mails. Etc etc. This is not a POV issue, it is a non-issue for this article. There are other articles where such journalistic and public opinions are laid out, end-to-end with due weight and balance. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, I added the POV template because this page is full of POV dispute. My specific issue is the hat notes (direction, instruction) as discussed above and in my diffs presented. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues with the hat notes

Before advancing a proposal, let me clarify the NPOV issues with the hat notes that are causing a POV problem. These issues are a serious offense.

1. Editors are acting as if they OWN the interpretation of the hat notes.
2. Editors present as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance.
3. Editors are entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it not credible to this article subject. In disagreement with the actual source read.
4. Editors are ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms, but claiming it may not be admitted to this article.

Would anyone disagree that this is occurring when enforcing the hat notes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see ... strike a NPOV dispute with a yes, and yet reverted and deny my NPOV tag, then change the signature. Please consider abstaining from this article, your corruption to NPOV is disruptive to honorable qualifications. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)