Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/FAQ
![]() | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Scientific consensus on climate change. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
- Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
- Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
- Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are fictitious characters ("Dr. Perry Mason"), hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell"), and companies.
- Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes[2] or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
- Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and many aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One climatologist, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored.[3] Similarly, Steve Rainer of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous".[4] The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list. (From GW/FAQ:A2)
One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling.
On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional,[6] based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers.
(See also GW/FAQ:A13)See also the next two questions.
(Discussion)- Non-scientific views (whether dissenting or assenting) are not included because this article is about scientific opinion.
- There are no "statements by dissenting organizations" because (as noted in the article) "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change".
- Views of individual dissenting scientists are not significant enough to be included in the consensus (a 2010 report[7] estimated the dissenters to be less than 3% of active climate researchers, and their expertise and scientific prominence "substantially below" that of their peers); to include them here would violate the policy of undue weight.
It would be more sensible to ask, "what is the scientific case that global warming is not anthropogenic?" But this case is so overwhelmed by the evidence, and held by so few scientists (if any!), that it simply lacks sufficient weight for consideration. (The argument that there is no global warming, that it is not human caused, and that the expected effects are only "alarism", is prominent only in non-scientific venues, and this article is about scientific opinion.)
(Discussion, discussion)- Because the purpose of a tag is to alert other editors to a possible problem, but in this case the other editors are already aware of the alleged problem.
- Because per WP:General sanctions/Climate change probation you could be sanctioned for just adding a tag.
- Because the general consensus is that the article is NOT an WP:NPOV violation (see next question).
- ^ Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009.
- ^ Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal
- ^ Today: George Waldenberger. Grist.org. December 3, 2007.
- ^ Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
- ^ Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
- ^ Crichton, M. (2004), State of Fear, Avon Books.
- ^ Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
- ^ AAAS - AAAS News Release
- ^ AAAS Annual Report-Science
- ^ The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor PNAS Retrieved on 2009-11-16