Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change

The Text on Scientific Consensus

Stephan Shulchz, last night I amended the text to show the following additional information.

"A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. The existence of a scientific consensus on the extent and causes of climate change is controversial. While several scientific organizations have used the term "consensus" in their statements (as indicated below), none of the currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "

You deleted it. Would you please explain why you think it does not belong there and/or which part of it you believe is not factually correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Stephan but I can say why I would have reverted. (1) Your text asserts that the existence of a consensus is controversial without any source; and I would emphasize that we would need a scientific source since this article is about scientific opinion not popular / media / political opinion. (2) Your phrasing might imply that individual scientists are the ones with knowledge of climate change, to the exclusion of scientific bodies. (3) As for the surveys, Oreskes' 2004 survey of abstracts does support an overwhelming consensus. Bray and von Storch's survey did not use rigorous methodology, and even so it mostly supports the mainstream view. The others are all quite old. So, while your text implies that the surveys contradict the scientific bodies' statements, all of the rigorous recent evidence that we have from surveys actually supports the statements. (4) You may be setting a subjective and misleading standard by requiring "an overwhelming consensus". The definition of (overwhelming) consensus might be hard to nail down precisely, so it is in my opinion a much better and less POV strategy to simply quote reliable sources that use the word "consensus" explicitly, which is what we have done. --Nethgirb (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The question was for Stephan, since he is the one who reverted it. But I will address your reasons anyway: (1) There is an entire wikipedia page dedicated to showing how global warming is controversial. This page includes a large section on the existence of a scientific (not media/popular/political) consensus. At best, my phrasing may have needed to be updated to include a link to the wikipedia on page on global warming controversy. (2) Individual scientists ARE the ones with knowledge of climate change. "Scientific bodies" are just groups individual scientists (as well as non-scientists.) A survey of individual scientists is a better measure of scientific consensus, because a statement made by an organization might not reflect the opinion of every individual member of that group. Nevertheless, the whole argument is moot, since my phrasing does not even mention "scientific bodies". (3) The Oreskes study was not a survey of scientists, it was s survey of papers written about global warming. (4) The main page on global warming uses the phrase "overwhelming consensus". Are you willing to make the same argument there? Nevertheless, we can eliminate the word "overwhelming" if you wish. The phrasing is still factual and accurate without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both Stephan's and Nethgirb's comments can be summarized with the wikipedia policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Scientific consensus doesn't ride with individuals, but the individuals as a group, and the published research. The global warming controversy page describes the non-scientific controversy (ie. political and other), that cannot be integrated into the main global warming articles, precisely because they are minority opinions (and thus out per undue weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that scientific consensus does not ride with individuals, but with individuals as a group. Thus far, all of the references being used as proof of scientific consensus of AGW (on both this page and the Global Warming page) are statements written by individuals. The actual surveys of individual members of the group, which are the only way to truely measure the opinions of the entire group of all scientists with knowledge of climate change, do NOT indicate a consensus. The global warming controvesy page very specificly discusses scientific controversy. Please refer to the section labeled "existence of a scientific consensus". Nevertheless, the entire argument of whether or not this proves the existence of consensus is moot, becuase my phrasing remains neutral as to whether or a scientific consensus does or does not exist. It merely makes a factual statement that none of the actual surveys or polls taken of scientists with knowledge of climate change reflect a consensus. This statement is strictly limited to facts (not opinions) which are currently irrefutable--Sirwells (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The statements from the various academies and scientific organizations are not written in a void. They are supposed to represent the views of their members, and we have no indication or reason to suspect that they do not. As for the survey's they are as pointed out, very old and in many cases quite suspect. The Oreskes review is actually the most reasonable one, since it tries to examine the actual published opinion of the scientists who do the research. And i'm sorry to tell you that every survey published since 2000 also shows that a consensus exists, even though they aren't actually a valid way to examine a scientific consensus (as pointed out before). You seem to think that a scientific consensus is equivalent with a unanimous opinion. And that is not the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which part of this is supposed to be a refutation of the fact that none of the actual surveys or polls of scientists knowledgable about climate change reflect a consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which part of all the survey's since 2000 actually do support a consensus did you miss? ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't play games with me. I don't argue about survey's I have not seen. If you know of a survey proving your point, give us a citation. (and it better meet the same standards you demand of others) --Sirwells (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is one survey of scientists on the article done since 2000. It's results did not show a consensus. To be blunt, your claim that all surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change done since 200 show a consensus, is utter nonsense. That is, unless you are playing games with words and trying to twist this argument to include a survey of papers about global warming, which is not the same thing, not what I have been arguing and not part of the phrasing you so quickly reverted. Since you seem to have a tendency to change topics, let me restate. My phrasing specifically said:"...none of the currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. " Thus far, none have refuted this statement. I would like to hear a logical and FAIR reason why KimDabelsteinPetersen, Stephan Schulz, and Dawn Bard are so aggressively reverting this phrase, which remains unchallenged (except of Kim's word manipulation games), factual, accurate, and non-opinionated. --Sirwells (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you call for a request for comment? If you need help with the process, let me know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What a second, did actually just say that a poll is not a valid way to determine consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes i did. Surveys are a highly inaccurate tool. Too much depend on the way questions are asked, instead of the actual context and background for the question. For instance ask people if they want to raise taxes and they will answer No. Ask them instead if they would raise taxes, with the context of a specific issue, and the answer will be different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So all they have to do is write the survey to be specific, accurate and in the proper context. Am I to understand that you think it's more accurate to accept on blind faith, a statement written by an individual, and in mainy cases getting paid under the assumption that AGW is an issue, claiming there is a consensus of all. Now I see why the call it the Global Warming Religion. --Sirwells (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn how the IPCC reports are created and who pays the scientists. Very many of the contributors are tenured and have unlimited job security, especially with the aim of making them independent from political and other pressure. And most of the members of e.g. the Royal Society actively compete with climate scientists for research funding - can you explain their motivation for supporting the IPCC unless they think the science is sound? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to explain it. It reflects only the opinion of a small group of individuals, not a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change.--Sirwells (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

♠ Save your energy Sirwells, you're dealing with fanatics. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. Why would all the National Academies and other scientific bodies which primarily consist of scientists from competing fields support the IPCC for financial gain? It cuts into the funding for other fields. As for "very small numbers": The Royal Society has 1300 members. The IPCC has thousands. Very many reported surveys about the population in general work with a sample size of about 1000. In fact, the council of the Royal Society has 21 members - that alone is half of the total number of people on our List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

♠ Tenured means nothing, they can be just as agenda driven and corrupt as anyone else. Face it, you miss the point Stephan, you are the architect and high priest of "the consensus" religion on this page. It doesn't matter if your list reaches the moon, that doesn't make it right. We don't know everything there is to know, and rushing to judgment (which human caused global warming is) requires a helluava lot more evidence than there is. If you're that worried, then sell your home and move into a cave using only a knife to survive. I'll start my SUV and rev the engine real loud a few times in your honor. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I rent. I'm also continuously astonished by people who confuse science and politics. I don't like falling on my nose, but when I stumble, I don't argue with gravity. But if you want to argue from the effects and like your SUV, check the recent development of fuel prices and consider what that implies... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Stephan, I hear some are arguing about gravity too. Maybe global warming is having an affect. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But regardless of whether dark energy or Modified Newtonian dynamics is a better refinement of general relativity, and even if we get a well-tested theory of quantum gravity, I will still fall in a manner that is quite adequately described by Newton's law of gravity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Until you can demonstrate what is an adequate "consensus", we'll just have to assume that you're guessing at what is "possible" or "likely". I don't know how you can assume that a "consensus" of scientific opinion (ranging from 51% to 100% approval, I presume) demonstrates that something is true. Even a "likely" consensus (66% support) is insufficient in scientifc circles to claim that something is true. Anything short of "extremely likely" (95+%) really doesn't prove anything conclusively. A lot of the fanatics' arguments here in support of AGM are really just dwelling in the high-school realm of wishful thinking. Bushcutter (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't assume that "consensus" demonstrates that something is true. Scientific consensus just makes it likely that we have a good model of reality. Science can never prove something true, and I never claimed so. And in this case, I don't need to identify scientific consensus, as several extremely reliable and competent sources have done that. If your use of "likely" and "extremely likely" refers to the IPCC use, you don't understand them. These are not levels of support, but rather probabilities of certainty. 100% of competent scientists will agree that it is "likely" (66.6...%) that I roll 3, 4, 5, or 6 on the next throw of a normal 6-sided die. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?

Is the following acceptable?

"A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. The existence of a scientific consensus on the extent and causes of climate change is controversial. While several scientific organizations have used the term "consensus" in their statements (as indicated below), none of currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "

• "While many scientific organizations claim that AIDs is caused by HIV, there are no currently documented surveys or polls of scientists that support this notion."
• "While scientists generally consider the Earth to be roughly spherical, this opinion is not supported by any published survey among scientists."

...

Not to mention the fact that the von-Bray/Storch survey, generally criticized as likely compromised by denial ballot stuffing, still has only 20% disagreeing with the explicit statement that the IPCC reports represents the consensus opinion. We have a large number of extremely reliable sources for the consensus. We have no single reliable source claiming a lack of surveys is a problem for gauging consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty indication that there is a scientific consensus and it does not appear to be controversial. The proposal above would be directly misleading in my opinion.
— Apis (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, you did not answer the question. It has a "yes" or "no" answer. Your response is basically subterfuge. Apis, there is an ENTIRE wikipedia page documenting why it is very controversial. But if it makes you happy, we can take the sentence about it being controversial out. --Sirwells (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of geophysics, which relfect an a consensus as to whether the shape of the earth is approximately spherical? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, nor is there any need for one since the shape of the earth not controversial. That is an inane argument. (But I suspect you knew that.)--Sirwells (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. It was a serious question that is relevant to the issue at hand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice. So why will no one give a direct answer to my question. It looks pretty straight forward to me.--Sirwells (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright Sirwells, asuming you are seriously interested in this, take a look at this essay by Naomi Oreskes, published 3 dec 2004 in the academic journal Science. It shows the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer reviewed articles on "global climate change". [1]

Look theres even a section on it in this article.
— Apis (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read that essay before. First of all, it does not address my question, which was "Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?". The essay references a survey of papers about global climate change, not a poll of scientists, therefore it is irrelevant to my question. That being said, Oreskes survey does not even prove there is a consensus. Only that most papers written about anthropogenic caused global climate change assume anthropogenic climate change exists. I could just as easily look at a sample of 928 article with the key-word "golf" and conclude that most articles written about golf assume a love of golf. This would not mean there is a consensus of all sports fans who love golf, only that the most people who wrote articles about it do. As a skeptic, if I were I scientist, I would have no interest whatsoever in doing research on one of the many facets of AGW theory. (nice try though.)--Sirwells (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you asked for a survey and it's a survey of papers on the subject, which reflect a consensus. She didn't search for "anthropogenic caused global climate change" she searched for "global climate change". I don't agree with your assumption that only proponents would publish papers on the subject. Maybe you wouldn't, but If I where a scientist (in the relevant field) and highly skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, then I'd do some good science to prove that everyone else was wrong and I was right, then I'd get famous, get lots of funding for other research and have my career secured for the future. Not only that, I could also feel tremendously satisfied that I saved billions of people a lot of unnecessary effort to reduce ghg emissions. If you're only going to accept a poll in which all scientists on the earth in the relevant fields express their opinion on human caused climate change then I suspect you are going to die still wondering.

Raymonds question is also valid I think. Consensus on climate change isn't controversial either, or rather it's not controversial within the scientific community.
— Apis (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do I begin? First off, I didn't just 'ask for a survey'. I very specifically asked if there were any polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change showing a consensus. Since I've yet to receive a direct answer to this question. Let me answer it myself. There are none. Secondly, any search of papers written about 'global climate change' essentially is the same thing as a search of 'anthropogenic climate change'. Of course, you are welcome to try and prove me wrong on this point. Just go to Nature's website and try to find any paper on 'climate change' where the paper is not specifically about man's theoretical influence on it. So yes, the Oreskes person is essentially looking at only papers written about AGW to try and prove there is a consensus about AGW's existence. Third, if you were a skeptic interested in doing research, you would not be able to write a paper unless you had your own alternate funding source because government does not give grants for research projects aimed at proving AGW wrong. Fourth, a poll is the only way of proving a consensus, whether you like or not. And yes I absolutely do question an authority figure such as the IPCC if they say there is a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change since they have not taken a poll of all scientists with knowledge of climate change nor do they have any valid basis of claiming so. Skeptism is healthy. Fifth, you and the others here seem to be the ones in serious denial when you say it's 'not controversial'. I understand the OISM petition is now up to 32,000 names of scientists who are skeptic. How many scientists are in you 'elite' group of IPCC authors? --Sirwells (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you end? About the existence of surveys, I'm aware about at least two polls, one of which I cited above (the von-Bray/Storch survey). Your second point is simply bizarre, not to mention weirdly limited. I just typed "global climate change" into Google Scholar, and it came back with e.g. [2], [3] (which is in Nature), [4], [5], [6]. What terms would sceptics use? There are also tons of papers on climate change that acknowledge the current anthropogenic model although the paper would be perfectly able to stand without this, as e.g. [7] (in Nature). As for third, you should be aware of the fact that very many scientists are employed as professors at universities, and that, by design, many of these have tenure especially to be free to research whatever they want without outside interference. And very many of them produce high-quality published science without any additional funding. Fourth is plain wrong. Argument by "because I say so" may work in your usual surroundings, but it does not convince me or many other people here. And fifth, that you bring up the Oregon Petition shows your desperation. It does not say what you claim it does, it's been running for nearly ten years, its been described as fraudulent and denounced by the National Academy of Sciences, and it apparently lists spice girls and comic book characters. Independent attempts to verify it gloriously failed. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The von-Bray/Storch survey does not reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change. No offense, but the rest of your reply is just more subterfuge. --Sirwells (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that your case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU has become worse again. I'm willing to let this subthread stand and let the reader decide on the value of either position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. Also, please try not to be judgemental of others simply because you do not agree with thier opinion. I am listening, and in my opinion all of your arguments are subterfuge to the main point, which is that there are no documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change . The von-Bray/Storch survey, which you imply above is a survey reflecting a consensus, in fact shows a result more or less of an evenly divided opinion on the subject. [[8]]. I am not sure how this makes me be the one who is not listening as the facts are quite plain. Also, with all due respect, you seem to be the one who accepts the argument of "because I said so" as you place far more weight on the word of a handful of scientists who claim there is a consensus, but have no proof, while apparently choosing to ignore the results all of the actual polls. As for the Oregon Petition being a fraud, again you are relying on a 'because I said so argument' to try and undermine the entire list, which is not surprising considering the controversial nature of the debate. The Oregan Petition is quite transparent, if you believe some of the names on it are fraudulent, please point them out to us with links. Then I will gladly reduce my above comment from 32,000 scientists by whatever number you find. EDIT: Here's a list of all the 'S' signers. [9] Sorry, Spice Girls aren't on it, no comic book characters either. (I prefer to to right to the source and verify the facts for myself, not rely on 'because I said so' arguements...)--Sirwells (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of country you live in, but where I live the government certainly do not give grants only to those who support their opinion on GW. And if they did, it would only be to skeptics, since the government would benefit a lot more if the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was negligible. (Not saying that governments have no influence over research though, but at least thats what most people are striving for). If what you say is true about political influences then other countries scientific organizations wouldn't agree with the view of scientists in your country. But it looks like the majority of the worlds scientist agree on this (e.g. as reflected by the UN IPCC (which you conveniently don't trust of course)). I presume you think there is some global conspiracy involved? And if you want a poll made by climate scientists then you are going to be very disappointed, because climate scientists don't make polls, they do climate research.
— Apis (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

More subterfuge. The question was "Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?" The obvious answer of 'NO, there are not." remains unchallenged.--Sirwells (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the question was "Is the following acceptable?" – No, its not. There have been surveys, although personally, I'm not aware of any that meets your specific requirements other than whats already mentioned (that doesn't mean there isn't any of course). Is that the only way to know if there is a consensus? – No, of course not. One can never be entirely sure about anything, an exhaustive poll might be better (I'm not saying it is, I don't really have an opinion on that, I guess it would depend on the nature of the poll), but it's certainly not a requirement.
— Apis (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems extremely logical to me that an exhaustive poll should be considered a much better measurement of whether there is or is not a consensus than blindly accepting the word of the IPCC and a few other organizations. I would personally like to see a poll taken by an equal number of skeptics and believers, to help establish reliability. --Sirwells (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely such a poll would just produce a 50-50 split? 195.27.12.230 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant a poll administered by both skeptics and believers. (sorry for the confusing wording.) Of course it's obvious to to me that any poll which fails to support the so called 'consensus' argument (as is the case with every poll taken to date) is going to be critisized by the alarmists as not 'credible', one way or another. --Sirwells (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

....take a breath....okay, Part 2

I'm beginning to question how effective this RFC thing is. I'd love to hear from someone who is NOT already a "regular" on the global warming articles. Anyone?--Sirwells (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fully accept that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and the impact of humans on climate, as supported by the various scientific bodies. Not a regular editor.--205.200.179.72 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also fully accept that there is a scientific consensus, as defined on the page of the same name. A scientific consensus does not need a majority vote or poll to prove it's existance, nor does it's existance prohibit dissenting viewpoints. In my opinion, the scientific consensus is what would be written on the topic in a school science textbook, and you can be sure that school textbooks the world over back AGW. The consensus doesnt mean AGW is definitely true, it doesnt mean no scientists disagree, and it certainly doesnt mean noone is doing research into alternative theories. What it means is that it is currently the theory which best fits the evidence, in the opinion of major scientific organisations and journals worldwide. 195.27.12.230 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An obvious case of distorting the definition of consensus to your advantage. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine the meanings of words to best suite your arguments. Here is the Webster definition of consensus: 'general agreement; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned' I think it's safe to say that 'most of those concerned' in this case would be all scientists, which I specified above as 'with knowledge of climate change'. The only way of establishing this would be via a poll of scientists with knowledge of climate change. --Sirwells (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I realise this specific debate has been raging for many years now, so I dont expect to change anyone's mind. I mainly posted as an example of someone who wasnt a regular but beleived there was a consensus, as requested.

That said, I was using the Wikipedia definition of 'scientific consensus', as mentioned in my post. It's an example of the scientific use of a word being different to the common usage. For instance, in most articles the word 'similar' would mean 'having characteristics in common', whereas in a mathematical article 'similar' would mean identical to (in shape). Additionally, there has been no poll on evolution, no poll on gravity, no poll on any subject to statistically prove that a numerical majority of scientists agree. If it's possible to have a scientific consensus, it must be possible without a poll.

The school textbook example, I admit, was a manipulation of the definition and is entirely my viewpoint. However, in my opinion the broad contents of nationally-available curriculum-sanctioned textbooks provides some indication of that nation's scientific standpoint on those subjects.195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT - just noticed that you weren't asking for people who beleived there was a consensus, but for people who knew of a survey. Well you can have my two cents anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sirwells you are encountering a concerted effort to bend the truth by the usual suspects of global warming alarmists. This mythical "consensus" is continually referenced, although no other legitimate areas of science proceed in this way. Other fields of science are content to publish facts and let them speak for themselves. However, the alarmists rally around the "IPCC" as if it were some deity. Welcome to the alternative universe of climate "science." Climate modeling is not on par with band theory, thermodynamics or any other legitimate line of inquiry. Climate modeling is really more akin to Vegas slots than science.209.59.62.112 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What amazes my is how simple facts such as the one above must be blocked from being displayed on the article at all costs. Anything to prevent folks from getting the 'wrong impression'....--Sirwells (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think we should give readers the wrong impression then?
— Apis (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know what the quotation marks mean.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying hes insinuating that anyone is deliberately trying to sabotage the article? I prefer to assume good faith.
— Apis (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist. But statements about the absence of something look like attempts to push a particular point of view, unless the something missing is something that could reasonably be expected (not, surely, the case here). N p holmes (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My answer would have to be a double “No”. No, I am not aware of any poll or survey of scientists that reflect a consensus on AGW. No, I do not believe the suggested paragraph should be included on this page, because the it’s based on a faulty premise. In the world of science, consensus, or prevailing opinion, is not determined through polls or surveys. Please see Scientific consensus.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) an answer which address the question directly. Although I do not agree with you as to how consesnus is determined. I followed your link to Scientific consensus. Now please click on the following link to this very interesting bit of edit-history. [[10]]. Notice what it used to say on the bottom, that in cases where there is significant controversy, other methods 'such as polling are used to establish consensus.' Then it got changed (with no citation) by someone who is well known to be a 'gatekeeper' who edit-wars on the global warming sites, and from there, it appears that many of the same names I see around here have also inserted themselves on the 'scientific consensus' article edit-wars. (How convenient.) Looks to me like the whole network of articles are rigged. I prefer to use common sense. A polls is better for controversial issues because it's the only way of getting to the bottom of the raw numbers,and numbers don't lie.--Sirwells (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If polling is accepted as a useful tool for gauging scientific consensus, then it would be helpful to have examples of polls in other scientific fields for context. Anybody care to give some examples from physics, geology, or other fields? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that helpful or relevant? There are no other areas in science where the existence of a 'consensus' is being debated. Unless you want to include topics which overlap with religion, such as evolution (as an example) in which case, yes polls 'are accepted' as ways to establish consesnus for controversial issues. [11]--Sirwells (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the link that you yourself provided? It discusses polls as only one of several ways to show consensus. Notably, it mentions statements by scientific bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences -- which is on record as accepting the scientific consensus on global warming. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. Yes, I read the link. It was provided as an example in response to your question about whether polls are accepted as a useful tool in other areas of science. The link gave the specific results of a poll. It used these results as direct evidence as to whether or not there exists a consenus of scientists who support evolution vs creation. The article did not reject polls as a useful tool, nor does it place more weight on scientific organizations over polls. With all due respect, Raymond, you asked a question and I gave a simple answer. I do not see why it is necessary for you now to twist the argument into something else. (We already know you think the NAS and IPCC should be regarding as the codex of knowledge on global warming). Please stop with the filibustering. I would really like this debate to move forward.--Sirwells (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then move it forward. What's next? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I move that we agree on the fact that there is no poll of scientists showing a consensus view and move on with debating why simply saying so on the article is being aggressively blocked from appearing. The argument has been made here that counting up papers is a better indicator of whether there is a consensus of scientists than counting up scientists. I believe that 1) such an argument is nonsense. and 2) it's not our job to judge what is better. My understanding is that wikipedia is supposed to have neutral POV. 3) The text in question is merely a statement of fact. --Sirwells (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I had taken it that the appropriateness of the statement was the question. Obviously it is inappropriate. I looked around on the policy pages of Wikipedia to see if they included a request not to add statements along the lines of "The queen has not denied Icke's accusation" but couldn't find it. There ought to be one. One can always make up some desideratum, and then point out that it is missing. With a little skill one could even find a plausible one. It doesn't say anything. The positive statements in the article make perfectly clear what the evidence is for consensus. Readers can see for themselves. N p holmes (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

....take a breath....okay, Part 3

As an outsider, I have to admit that I too don't see the relevance of an opinion poll of scientists. Typically, the statements by national academies of sciences are trustworthy indicators of the current consensus. If not, then scientific consensus can be gauged by assessing the stated or implied positions of papers that have been published in the top venues of the relevant academic discipline. What gets easily published is more in tune with the opinion of the programme committee or journal editors, which is the most significant indicator of what the community is currently thinking.

Sirwells said above that if you were a skeptic interested in doing research, you would not be able to write a paper unless you had your own alternate funding source because government does not give grants for research projects aimed at proving AGW wrong. Well, that settles the matter, if you can't get funding, you are fringe and irrelevant. If you can't get your papers published, you are not a scientist! Doing science means getting paper published. It is therefore quite clear that there is scientific consensus for AGW. Merzul (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"The relevance of an opinion poll of scientists", is a very interesting notion. Merzul, I'm kind of glad you brought that up. It's akin to the MSM making allegations in news articles prior to the outcome of events, in order to make news or sway opinion. Many sheople a swayed by poll results, as all pollsters know, because they feel that there must be validity to a premise if many or most people believe or support it. Therefore a poll can be used to give the impression that a certain premise is valid.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. --Adolf Hitler
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise. --Adolf Hitler
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. --Adolf Hitler
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.

--Adolf Hitler

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And another example of Self-Godwinization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good, but this article would serve you better. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TFI, if it is the case that scientific bodies are abusing the term consensus, and engaging in propaganda, then for us to point this out we need reliable sources with some authority. Even if you convince me that you are right, the only way a statement disputing the NAS is getting on this page would be if you provided us some independent sources, e.g., maybe a science magazine giving an overview of the debate saying that this notion of consensus is controversial. Could someone point me to such independent reliable sources, so I could have a look? Merzul (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just follow the money. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true authoritarian. --Sirwells (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Strawman? 195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an outsider, here via RfC. I've read a good portion of the RfC responses. The proposed paragraph is inappropriate: scientific consensus is not determined by polling, and it's fatuous to suggest in any way that "surveys or polls" are a common, accurate, or adequate metric of the merits of a scientific paradigm. Science is decidedly not democratic; that there's a demostrable consensus is readily apparent without the help of a Gallup poll.
The anti-AGW opinion that the consensus is unreliable/nonexistent may be important to convey, but (per WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE) needs to be done carefully and intellectually honest. Alleging that "none of currently documented surveys or polls of scientists...reflect an overwhelming consensus..." is not intellectually honest, in my opinion, as it equates polls & surveys with scientific consensus, which is highly inaccurate. — Scientizzle 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but in my view the fact that this article exists on Wikipedia is inappropriate, because it is the basis for a political agenda. An article on the scientific opinion (consensus) on climate change and then listing science organizations is in itself a poll that is presented as a bonafide article. It's a sham, a disgrace and a stain on Wikipedia; and that goes for every other article like this, related or not! Those on high in Wikipedia should come down here and pluck this tick off the hindside of Wikipedia. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then propose it for deletion. WP:AFD is → thattaway. — Scientizzle 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't deserve deletion! How in any way does this have a political agenda? It is an article on scientific opinion, not political opinion for starters, never mind that it has sections that are for, neutral and against the concepts existence. It is not the article's fault if there are no scientists against the consensus (technically there are but their opinions have been shown to be not without bias). This article alos deserves it's existence because it's a topis of note that a lot of people like to have information on that there is scientific consensus or not, and as the article says, "A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.13.81 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that you want to delete the opposing article, speaks for itself. It proves my point that these articles are agenda driven, period!!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that I admire the flexibility of your concept of "prove/proof". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Look either quit your WP:OWN policy and allow other points of view, or delete the article. The fact that other views have to go in another article is ridiculous and you know it. It is open bias to not allow alternative opinions in this article.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony is unbelievable... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with The Founders Intent. The fanatacism shown here by some who seek to control the article has become absurd. I made a simple addition yesterday quoting the opinion of the Nongovernmental Panel of Climate change. It was reverted with the reason give that the NPCC "doesn't exist"?!?!? I support removal of this article. Honest viewpoints which don't match those of the fanatics who seek to control it are systematically blocked. This article has become a tool for some to use to control information. It needs to be removed. --Sirwells (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's great when you have a student of mathematical and marine ecology to swoop in and save your "Man is the cause of global warming" article from deletion. I love the NPOV aspect of that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

....take a breath....okay, Part 4

Sigh Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest closing this RfC. There is no point asking for community input, when those asking are not interesting in hearing anything other than their own opinion. My impression is that the "ownership issues" here is nothing more than some editors preventing the inclusion of speculation from the article.

Also, I suggest asking on WP:AN/I for uninvolved admins to do something about the disruption caused by editors who don't respect Wikipedia's sourcing policy. It doesn't matter, who is right or wrong, but for an open encyclopaedia to function, we need people to respect the consensus process and our content policies. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfc tag removed (replaced with a more appropriate rfc below), but I would like to suggest Merzul stop with the juvenile taddletale style of behavior. This is a controversial article and thus we can expect heated debates. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion, whether you agree with it or not. No one is being disruptive except for you, by the incivility and personal attacks being made in your previous post.--Sirwells (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked for sources, and was called authoritarian; how do you expect me to react? Merzul (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you an "authoritarion". --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your apology. Let's see if I can be more mature in the discussion below. At least I promise I will try my best to fully understand your position. Merzul (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

climate change is not happening and will not happen for another fifty years

Older Surveys

I added a reference for FAIR and changed the numbers to what I read there. They gave the date of the survey as 1992 (as does the Heartland Institute further down), but it seems clear it must be the same one. Which date is right? N p holmes (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Several people here have tried without success to find first-hand reports of the survey. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle story (at second hand in the FAIR article) is supposed to be reporting a press release from Gallup, which should be close enough, I'd hope. Sadly the paper's web archives only go back to 1995, and if I understand the ref., the article is on 27 September, 1992. If someone in America (I'm not) could visit a library sometime, that would answer the question (and allow Wikipedia to more briefly and directly dismiss any conflicting reports). N p holmes (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking through the links that were already there, I've found what looks like the answer to the date question (commissioned 1991, published 1992). I'm curious about the commissioning organisation, particularly when they chose the Center for Media and Public Affairs to do their research. But they hardly show up on Google except for this report. The paper by Stewart et al. (already referenced in the article) gives a title for the report, but I can't find it in any library catalogue. The survey apparently had 18 questions, which perhaps allow the discrepancies (picking figures favourable to a particular opinion). N p holmes (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Heartland Institute dead link

For the Heartland Institute's claims about the Gallup poll, the current link is dead (for me at least): this link [12] from an early stage of the Wikipedia article seems to work (the quotation is on p. 55). The work is dated 1994 there, not 1993. N p holmes (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the existence of a properly run poll or survey relevant for determining whether or not a "consensus" of qualified scientists exist over controversial scientific issues?

In a previous RFC, it was asked whether or not a poll exists showing a consensus of scientists with knowledge of climate change. Very few of the responses actually addressed the question, but none were able to identify any poll establishing a consensus of scientists. At this point, it occurs to me it is safe to consider the matter of whether or not there exists any such poll of scientists showing a consensus as settled. There are none.

However, the main argument coming from the editors who actually stayed on point and addressed the question has been that whether or not such a poll exists is "irrelevant", and that the only "true" way of measuring scientific consensus is to look at whether a 'reliable source' says there is.

I believe this premise is flawed and contrary to Wikipedia's core content policies for the following reasons:

• Per wikipedia policy on verifiability, a citation should "directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". None of sources being used as evidence of a scientific consensus as to the causes and extent of global warming makes any attempt at doing this. (except for the Oreskes survey, which I discuss below) Instead, these sources convey one or more individual opinions and do not directly supported these opinions with any evidence, nor have they undergone any level of scrutiny by third parties. (the sources are typcially self-published documents such as web pamphlets) Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity makes it quite clear that "the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

• It has been argued that the so-called Oreskes survey is a peer-reviewed document proving that a consensus exists. This is very misleading. The Oreskes paper, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER Essay written by Naomi Oreskes, was published as an essay, not a scientific paper. As such it also must be considered as commentary (in fact, it is included in ScienceMag's "commentary" section), and therefore the opinions being presented in the essay have not undergone any scrutiny in the form of fact checking of the evidence and arguments being made. Furthermore, the Oreskes survey is not a poll of scientists, rather it is a survey of scientific papers. Therefore it does not take into account the majority of scientists who have not written papers related to climate change.

• Notwithstanding the above, logic and common sense dictates that if one were trying to establish whether or not a consensus exists, the most logical method of doing so would be to look at the results of a poll. And the least logical way of doing so would be to listen to the opinion coming from individuals, who offer no evidence to support thier opinions.

--Sirwells (talk) (updated 12:07pm MST, 1 June 2008)

• You can rephrase this as often as you want (although the people on the RfC pages may eventually get annoyed), and you can keep misreading policy (hint: A citation is something different from the cited source), but that does not change the fact that we do have a large number of extremely reliable sources directly supporting the existence of a consensus on current climate change. Polls are extremely rarely used to gauge scientific consensus, as they are very bad tools for interpreting complex situations. When they are used, its usually by the fringe trying to give a misleading impression about an issue, as e.g. in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is not about "hints". If you have a point to make about citations vs source, please just spit it out. (You might want to go look how wikipedia defines 'source' first.) I just did, and I'll say again with confidence, other then Oreskes' commentary, none of your sources regarding scientific consensus are published in third-party journals, they are all self-published and they have undergone no scutiny for verification of facts and evidence. And none of them make any attempt to support any claims being made of the so-called consensus. Both of these are core content policies accepted by a consensus of wikipedia authors. Regarding your opinion about how polls are "usually by the fringe trying to give a misleading impression...", please give us a better example, the Darwinism link does not even mention polls. Thanks--Sirwells (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls in science may be rare, but settled scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will not lead to major changes in national policy. 99.999% of scientists agree about the 2nd law, not all scientists agree about GW. Global warming discussion is about a prediction about what may happen in the future, and policy makers are basing decisions about issues such as carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc. on these predictions. It is humourous how the the POV pushing GW alarmists have made it seem like a simple poll on such a controversial issue is such a crazy idea. Sirwells is correct.Medallion of Phat (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sirwells, you write: "In a previous RFC, it was asked whether or not a poll exists showing a consensus of scientists with knowledge of climate change. Very few of the responses actually addressed the question." The actual question at the head of the RFC section was "Is the following acceptable?" and most people were addressing that. On the subject of wording, shorter titles would leave room for an edit summary. N p holmes (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources, please

Responding to Medallion of Phat... Well, I think it is an outrageous idea, but you think it isn't; so what we need are reliable source that have suggested a poll is relevant. Why do we have to fight about this, I asked to be pointed to background information about this issue. Some coverage in independent reliable sources would settle the dispute. Why not just point to some sources? Merzul (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We agree. For a controversial issue, the need for a poll is a default position when claiming a consensus. So, where are the sources showing the polling data for climate scientists showing it is "an overwhelming majority" that agree with the GW alarmist position?Medallion of Phat (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For a controversial issue, the need for a poll is a default position when claiming a consensus.. Can you point to any field of science where polls are used to show a consensus among scientists?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's putting it very mildly. When just about every scientific body is saying there is evidence for AGW, and some even use the word "consensus", if we want to dispute the Scientific Academies, which normal people accept as the authority on scientific consensus, we surely need some reliable sources. Merzul (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to provide a citation. You need to provide one. By definition, "consensus" means >50%. There is no reliable source that proves >50% of all climate scientists agree with the global warming prediction. I am not the one claiming a consensus, you are. So provide a citation the proves a consensus, as defined (i.e., >50% of climate scientists), exists. Apart from a poll, there is no way to do this. If YOU say "just about every scientific body is saying there is evidence for AGW" = consensus, that is original research/synthesis. Medallion of Phat (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"By definition, "consensus" means >50%" — Really? Is it 50%, or maybe 70%? or 85%? Does this have to be documented using polls of climate scientists or with surveys of statements in the research papers that they wrote? My point is that one can't take the definition so lightly. I made that mistake myself when we had surprisingly long discussions somewhere in the old archives over here trying to agree on what "consensus" means. The solution is just Wikipedia's standard policy: we don't try to prove a consensus ourselves. That would be nontrivial original research, requiring determining the "right" percentage of support, determining where this support needs to be stated (in abstracts or surveys), finding surveys that support it, etc. Instead of all that mess, we cite reliable sources which state that there is a consensus. Done.

(But by the way, we do have reliable sources, though not polls, stating >50% support. Check the article for the statements by the US National Academy of Science ("In the judgment of most climate scientists...") and the European Geosciences Union ("the vast majority of science researchers and investigators". Maybe others...) --Nethgirb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) We are obviously not making progress, so let's try to restart this discussion. I'm requesting a source for the change suggested above. Now, I apologize, if I was quick to argue without listening carefully first. What do you request a source to back up? Can you patiently explain what exactly on the article page you find offensive and what claims are made, which you think requires sources to back it up? Merzul (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open leaving the specific change "up in the air" for now. The part I have problems with (at least for this discussion.) Is the undue weight being placed on the word "consensus" being used in web-pamphlets, self-published documents, etc written by members of certain scientific organizations. None of these sources (currently being used in the "consensus" section) meet any of the criteria I mention above. (no supporting evidence offered, not published in third-party publications, etc.) Some of them are even being quoted out of context. In order for them to meet wikipedia criteria for credible sources, at the very least the sources need to include some sort of supporting evidence showing that there exists a consensus of scientists. (and how else to do this other than by showing the results of a poll.) --Sirwells (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"In order for them to meet wikipedia criteria for credible sources, at the very least the sources need to include some sort of supporting evidence showing that there exists a consensus of scientists." — I think a lot of people will disagree with you on this. Can you be more specific about the wikipedia criteria you're referring to? (But BTW, supporting evidence does exist, just possibly not the very specific type of evidence you're demanding) --Nethgirb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would also help to be a bit more specific about where the term "consensus" is given undue weight. Is it a matter of wording, section title, or do you object to something deeper, like the underlying premise of this article? As far as I see, no source is used to allege that there actually is consensus, rather this page just compiles official statements. I'm not sure I can see the problem with that. As Nethgirb anticipated, I'm not aware of policy demanding that the source should demonstrate the truth of the statement in question. Merzul (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" is defined as "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." Check out Webster's and you will see. The minimum threshold for "most" is >50%. Therefore, simply provide a source which quantifies the number of climate scientists out of all climate scientists who agree with the GW alarmist position to support the term "consensus" and you will be fine. Simply having a source that says "there is a consensus" is not sufficient without facts. Otherwise, it would not meet WP:RS.Medallion of Phat (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have your logic mixed up. If a reliable source explicitly states "consensus" (and several do), that is enough to support "consensus". Indeed, arriving at this from poll data or similar would arguably get us into hot water with respect to WP:OR. Simply repeating reliable sources is entirely uncontroversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much debate here about whether or not a consensus exists? The title of this article is “Scientific opinion on climate change.” It is NOT “Scientific consensus on climate change,” and at no point does the article assert that a consensus exists. The statements asserting that a consensus exists are made by scientific bodies of national or international standing, not by the editors of this article. The purpose of the article is to document the expressed opinions of scientists regarding AGW, and that’s exactly what it does. If you disagree with statements made by the various scientific bodies, your argument is with them, not with the editors of this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To anyone in may concern, I sent this question by email to the NAS. I'll post the reply (if there is one) on this board:

Dear Sirs,

I have read over the booklet, "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change." On page 2, it says "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." I have read statements such as this used alot by scientific organizations. However, I have not been able to find any survey, poll, or other such study showing that "most scientists agree..." Would you mind explaining where this statement comes from? Is it based on a poll or survey? Or is it more from anecdotal evidence? Or is it simply based on the current body of "peer-reviewed" papers? I understand the "peer-review" process is typically used to further scientific knowledge. However, I also understand the peer-review process does not necessarily gage the opinion of all scientists, just the ones who are involved with scientific publications. I ask this because I am interesting in knowing whether a consensus exists of scientists with (qualifying background) as to the causes and extent of climate change. Thank you in advance for your time.--Sirwells (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The ones who are publishing are the ones who matter most. As for the others, it's hard to define whether they're scientists or not, and to find them and survey them. --Nethgirb (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nethgirb, please don't take this personally, but I sincerelly hope that when (if) the NAS replies to my email, they do not display the same intellectual snobbery you just did in your post. What you and the wiki-AGW company continue to not get, is that organizations, groups and individuals are not 'sources' that you can simply bestow elitist status on and assume every word ever written by them be considered 'credible' and 'reliable'. A source is a document, not a person or group. And credibility is measured by verfification, especially by how many independent third parties have scrutinized it for facts. Please read WP:V and you will find this is precisely how wikipedia decides what to include in articles. I would argue that at least half of the sources being used by wiki AGW-company do not measure up as credible sources since they have not been peer-reviewed, do not support the statements being made with evidence, and have not been scrutinized by 3rd parties. (certainly not all are guilty of this, but a great many are.) I've started a conversation about this over on WP:RS/N. There are varying responses, but it's interesting that the only ones who try and claim that an organization's "authoritiveness" get's them essentially a free-pass to not have to meet wikipedia's other content policies are the ones who followed me over there from this talk site.--Sirwells (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how what you said is related to what I said. I'm not talking about wikipedia RS issues, I'm talking about hypothetical surveys of scientists which is what your email was about. You said "peer-review process does not necessarily gage the opinion of all scientists, just the ones who are involved with scientific publications" which is true, but the standard measure of whether someone is a scientist is whether they are doing scientific research, and the standard way of determining whether someone is doing scientific research is if they are publishing it. You can call that elitist if you want, and yes it excludes the intelligent and knowledgeable people who do novel research in their basement and write it up only in their private diary, as well as the ones who got every one of their papers rejected from publication, but it's the practical reality. And BTW, putting scare quotes around "peer-reviewed" is not likely to increase your chances of a response from the NAS :-) --Nethgirb (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trolling Template:RFCsci list as I often do when I saw this RfC and thought to myself, "that's still active?!" Instead I find just a nitpicking rework of a previous point that failed. To answer the RfC, the (non)existence of a "properly run poll or survey" regarding a scientific consensus has no effect on the actual developed consensus. Such a poll, if it exists, may be relevant for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, with due editorial discretion to be applied, as always. Any assertion that challenges a readily-sourced scientific consensus on the basis of a lack of such a poll is at best ignorant of the scientific method, at worst preposterous special pleading. Polls do not determine scientific consensus. Full stop. — Scientizzle 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

while I'm not sure I agree with Scientizzle's tone - <smirk> - I do think that he is quite correct. opinion polls are, well... a collection of opinions, and no scientist worth his salt would confuse his opinion on a matter with the consensus developing out of evidence and research. if any such poll exists, they (at best) would demonstrate that there is (or is not) a growing concern in the scientific community that this scientific issue needs to be resolved through further research. the unfortunate fact of this particular topic is that it has become highly politicized, and scientists who would not normally involve themselves in the scientific debate feel that they do need to involve themselves in the political debate in order to preserve the sanctity of the scientific process. it makes for a bit of a mess... I'm not certain that it's a mess we wikipedians should involve ourselves in. if there is a well-sourced poll, it can probably be cited, but only to show the extent to which climate change issue has become a concern (and frankly, the mere fact of a poll would seem to show that, regardless of the results of the poll...). --Ludwigs2 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All Scientizzle is saying is that polls do not determine consensus. As a side note, polls are very easy to manipulate and it would be best to keep them out of this. As you say, the only reason to speak of a poll would be to show that climate change has become political (polls are heavily used in politics) but that might be original research. Brusegadi (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm responding to the RfC now that I've hopefully found the right place amongst the exchanges here. To respond to the exact RfC question as it was phrased: my answer would be yes, if a reliable poll of scientists did exist, it does seem like that would have some relevance, and that it could be included as one source of evidence. But I also agree with the view above that the article only seems to be reporting that some scientific authorities on these matters are stating that there is a scientific consensus. And that this seems very normal and in line with Wikipedia policies, and in line with the way these things are generally judged. If someone believes there is a particular reason to doubt the reliability of these authorities to judge the consensus in this particular case, I assume they would be free, in the interests of NPOV, to add a sourced counterpoint outlining that reason. EverSince (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. and to try to respond to the exact phrasing more precisely, if a reliable poll did NOT exist, again yes I would say that has some relevance, because it's one line of evidence that isn't available (and the claims of consensus are not being based on that). But whether that's noteworthy in a given article, or is implied by the fact that such a poll is not described in the article, is a different matter. Anyway I see there have been partial surveys of various sorts. EverSince (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Scientific consensus" section?

The section in this article headed “Scientific Consensus” seems rather redundant to me. Yes, several of the scientific bodies explicitly use the word “consensus”, and others use such wording as “…accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community” (NRC), “…the vast majority of science researchers and investigators” (EGU), and “few credible Scientists now doubt…” (AMQUA). However, one can read that in the main section of the article, and I see no value in reiterating the statements under another heading. Let us simply document the official statements of scientific bodies, and let readers draw their own conclusions. Additionally, the presence of the “Scientific Consensus” section may give some readers the impression that we are pushing a particular POV. I believe the article would be viewed with more credibility if we removed the entire “Scientific Consensus” section. There’s no point beating them over the head with it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was about time someone addressed the consensus issue! I'm amazed noone has ever expressed an opinion on it before...195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it useful. This is a frequent claim that is also frequently questioned, so it deserves to be discussed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, I can understand your points. I haven't decided yet on your main suggestion, but I'll say that I do think there is value to the section in terms of organization: it lists statements about the extent of agreement with the science, rather than mostly statements about the scientific conclusions themselves. I'd also note that there doesn't appear to be too much overlap in content between the first and second sections.

One option would be to broaden the Consensus section to list not just mentions of "consensus" but statements on the extent of agreement more generally. (Maybe this would address some of your POV concerns?) Actually, I see the Consensus section as being topically similar to the Surveys section in that both attempt to document the extent of agreement. --Nethgirb (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The section in question worried me slightly. For the question "What is the consensus on climate change?", statements of (for instance) the Royal Society about climate change tell us the line they take on the issue and are by definition good evidence for the Royal Society's "opinion" (if you'll allow a Society to have an opinion). Statements about "the consensus" are not of the same kind. "The Royal Society thinks that man-made global warming is taking place" would be a piece of evidence for consensus. "The R. S. thinks that everyone else also thinks that man-made global warming is taking place" would also be evidence, but less valuable (the informed opinion of whoever wrote the statement). A more reserved intro to the section would help, if it's to be kept. N p holmes (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an Original Research issue here. We could go through each scientific society looking for statements like "Society X thinks GW is happening" and somehow aggregate all these into a conclusion about the extent of agreement in the scientific community. I agree this is a good thing to do if you are a pollster but it is not reasonable for a Wikipedia editor. Instead we have to cite a reliable external source that has done the aggregation for us. That's what I see as the purpose of this section. --Nethgirb (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Actually, I think I agree with everyone in this discussion. I can't yet form my own opinion; but thanks, Curtis, for bringing this up as I find this discussion quite valuable. I will maybe make a more informed comment after some thinking, but I wanted to say that I'm following this with interest, Merzul (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz. As long as the section is well sourced (and to me, it looks like it is) I think it should stay in the article. It seems like this is of interest for many, and having the readers do more work and read more statements/sources is counter productive isn't it? The information is there if they want to more carefully inspect the basis for this claim and form their own opinion.
—Apis (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What about this poll? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1718 ~~MikeHunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.9.15 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I click that link I end up at a page on "Preventing Child Abuse and Domestic Violence: Another Benefit of the Human Empowerment Paradigm" - I don't know how that is relevant... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Add 2008 U.S. Scientific Assessment?

The Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States was released May 29, 2008. It is a report required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and it has been released four years late. I would think it would be a significant report as it is deemed the official stance of the United States Government.--Diafygi (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The US Climate Change Science Program already appears to have a listing on here under Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), which is where such a report should be listed. However, I'm actually going to remove what is already listed. I wouldn't consider a federal program to be a scientific academy or professional society. If my assessment is wrong, please rv and let's discuss. Jason Patton (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it could stay. It's not a scientific academy or professional society but that text was not the definition of all that is in the article. It probably fits under either "synthesis reports" or "scientific bodies of national or international standing", to quote the intro. To me, the important criteria for inclusion in this article are (1) giving the opinion of a significant group of scientists and (2) the group is not selected because they support one side or the other. --Nethgirb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My particular problem with the program's inclusion is that it's not a collective voice of (climate related) scientists. The scientists that contribute to the program are selected, though not to support any "side" as you mentioned. The program is exclusive rather than inclusive like the other societies listed on the page, so I don't see how it can count as a scientific body or a significant group of scientists. In other words, I don't see how the program is any different from a think-tank other than that is sponsored by the government. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. While I'm glad the report concurs with the IPCC (though I don't see how it could not being that the IPCC is cited so often), I'm not sure it belongs here. Jason Patton (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparison to a think-tank doesn't seem right. I can't say I know exactly how the authors of the FCCSP report were selected and I'm only assuming, without verifying it myself right now, that they were (almost?) all scientists. But a think tank is not composed of mostly scientists, and its goal is a political agenda, rather than finding the factual answer to a question using science. Actually the comparison with the IPCC seems more apt: both are scientific bodies (it seems) created by governmental organizations. It seems FCCSP sponsors research too [13]. Anyway, it is all a question of where you draw the line: yes, it's smaller than the IPCC, but does that matter and where is the threshold? Yes, it's probably more politically-associated than many other groups on the list, but what's the criteria for exclusion? I'm happy to learn more about the FCCSP but it seems to me that based on what I know, and based on the criteria stated in the article, it fits as a "synthesis report" and likely as a "scientific body of national standing" and as a "significant group of scientists" (the latter being my phrasing above which is not in the article). Note that "significant" and "scientific body of national standing" do not necessarily require "large and inclusive". --Nethgirb (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacking other comments, I went ahead and replaced the FCCSP statement. Happy to discuss more, though. And if it does stay we should consider the new statement noted by Diafygi. --Nethgirb (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was away for a while. I agree with your assessment that it fits as a synthesis report and to leave it in the article. Thanks! Jason Patton (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: "It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases." [[14]]

Press release: [[15]] Gmb92 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

International Council for Science

The quotation for this organization is partly at second hand. The speaker cites (with implicit approval) the opinion of the UN Secretary General. In any case it's largely an ornamental preamble before describing the council's own work in such research. Could the article do without it? It only provides its agreement incidentally. If kept a clearer quotation might help. N p holmes (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have an opinion I'll remove the section. If you want to put it back in, I hope you'll bear in mind my remarks above and at least rephrase. N p holmes (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Physics & Society - A Forum of the American Physical Society

Anyone interested in having a discussion on the item instead of just posting and removing? I went to read the publication and it seems that this is indeed the statement of the position of the APS. Their position is that there is a significant amount of disagreement among their members and so they are starting a debate. This is being stated by the editor of the publication in the publication. Their position is that there is uncertainty. Would this not be a valid position of an organization?--JAMWebMonk (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This page already has the APS position statement on it. Perhaps you might try reading it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone else attempts to add the editorial comment to the page again, I suggest going to the APS's website and reading the statement they posted on the front page. Jason Patton (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that it's appropriate to add the statement, provided it's cited appropriately. (To the editor of the Forum on Physics and Society, rather than the APS proper). I'll also note that the two statements are not mutually exclusive... just because the position of the organization is that human-caused CO2 is the cause of climate change, doesn't mean that there is not "a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion". — PyTom (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

American Physical Society

Speaking of the American Physical Society, they have now reversed their position on manmade global warming. Here is a link, and I have already removed their section from the groups supporting section. http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Some pundit with a blog referencing the newsletter mentioned in the preceding section. Restored stated policy. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Sorry about that. Looks like I jumped the gun a little. I'll do a little more thorough research next time.SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (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)

APEGGA survey

Kim reverted the following addition from the section "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature" with the justification "Not a scientific society":

A 2007 survey of professional geologists and geophysicists [16] found that 68% of 1,077 surveyed scientists did not consider the science of climate change settled. While nearly all respondents agreed that the global climate is changing, a clear majority disagreed with the statement "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." [17]

First, I don't see how this isn't a scientific society. Second, I don't see why it has to be. We include the state climatologist survey, what's the difference? Oren0 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding this to global warming controversy but I believe it belongs here also. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of petroleum geologists from Alberta.... William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

From their website, they seem to represent all licensed engineers, geologists and geophysicists in Alberta. Other than the results of this survey, what makes you think that any significant number of the membership or survey respondents are petroleum geologists? Oren0 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They almost certainly are (there's no mining in Alberta aside from coal), but I don't see how that's relevant. They're scientists. --Llewdor (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Page 26 [18]. The most significant part of the organization are engineers (~90%), less than 10¤ are geologists or geophysicists. Its not a scientific organization, but rather an organization (union?) of people working in the engineering profession - the are not scientists or even researchers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a professional association (not a union) of engineers, geologists, and geophysicists, but I understand the survey was a survey of the geologists and geophysicists in the organisation - the SCIENTISTS. There's no way this doesn't count. The people surveyed may well be biased or uninformed, but they are a group of scientists with a clear opinion. There's no way this doesn't belong here. Are you just making up criteria? --Llewdor (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Any claim to exclude this because they are "petroleum engineers" or anything like that doesn't fly. It's not up to us whether the survey is reliable, it's up to reliable sources like the Canada.com story. Of course, if other reliable sources discredited the survey that info would merit inclusion as well. The only argument to be had is whether this has enough weight to merit inclusion. Oren0 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article states that it includes scientific bodies of national or international standing. Granted some of the Canadian provinces have murmured about breaking away, but I don't think Alberta counts as a nation yet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)