Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deceased?[edit]

In the past, I believe there was a consensus to only including living people on this list. The broad rationale being that only living people can actively engage in "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment", and that deceased persons are no longer capable of changing their minds in response to new evidence. I bring this up because two of the names recently added by Prhartcom (talk · contribs) are deceased: Zbigniew Jaworowski (since 2011) and Frederick Seitz (since 2008). Personally, I agree with leaving off people who are no longer living. Dragons flight (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the recap, which jives with my recollection and opinion of what we should continue to do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Dragons flight and NewsAndEventsGuy, thank-you, I was wondering about that; it was dawning on me that most everyone on the list seemed to be alive! I dismissed it as, "Well, global warming wasn't a thing until recently, so that must be it." But the reasons you two give are a bit silly, it seems to me. I'm pretty sure this lot won't be changing their minds. And "Being Alive" isn't one of the things the list says you must be to be on it, so I've got you there. And then there's Frederick Seitz: If there was ever a person who deserves to be on this list it would be him; he truly set the bar. It's a bit beyond logic to disqualify him for dying. (Stephan Schulz hilariously said while reverting me that the rule is, "no stiffs".) We now have a new category on Wikipedia called Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists), and the only people that can be on it must first be in this list, so if you rule out these folks then what about their appearance in that category? Of course, I wasn't around when all the creators of this list discussed this before, so what do I know. Shall we fire up the discussion right here and see what comes of it? Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
By coincidence, I asked just this last question at Category talk:Climate change skeptics (scientists) -- my specific question being re Judith Curry, a perennial nominee here.
I also agree that this list should be only live ones. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right that it isn't mentioned on the main page. Not sure if it ever was or not. It certainly has been discussed a few times in the archives. I agree that Seitz certainly was a poster child for skepticism. The question though is whether the goal of this list is to document all skepticism that ever was, or to focus on skepticism that is relevant to the scientific and political questions as they exist today. If the latter, then some form of current relevance criteria is needed. One part of that is that the list criteria mentions the third IPCC assessment (2001), so presumably climate change skepticism expressed before that isn't grounds for inclusion. I think another manifestation of relevance is removing people who have died. (At one point, there was also a requirement that evidence of opposition occurred during the last five years, but I think that criteria was removed a long ways back.) Personally, I'd be open to retaining people for a while after death (up to some small number of years), but that at some point drawing a line makes sense to keep this article useful and timely. Global warming is an evolving topic and so are the skeptical replies to it. At some point, some of the critical arguments will have simply fallen so far out of date that they are only relevant from an historical perspective and not to the modern discussion. In the past, I believe the consensus was to immediately remove anyone who was died. Personally, I don't feel strongly about whether a line should be drawn right at death or sometime latter, or if an alternative recentness criteria is used (e.g. opposition expressed in the last five years), but I do think the list is more useful if it is kept somewhat relevant to global warming as presently understood and so I wouldn't let dead people linger here indefinitely. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
There was recently a general agreement that we should update to AR4 (2007) and exclude entries based on earlier statements; but we haven't yet agreed on the details of exactly what bullet points we'd include in the lead. As it is not possible for a dead person to be oppose-ing (as stated in the title) they should not be included, regardless of cut off date. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The category afd discussion may solve this issue as well.

  1. With regard to excluding people who are no longer living, thats not in line with the basic guidelines. Wikipedia doesnt work like that. The list should include (Quote Prhartcom) people who are on record according to reliable sources as someone who is a climate change skeptic. Will say, we just need to find good sourcing claiming certain scientists are being deeemed sceptical about a certeain starte of mainstream global warming consensus in any given time. Be it 1983, 1998, 2003, 2010 or now, if its being sourced properly, they're in. Full stop. The list lede has to be rewritten according basic WP rules, problem solved.
  2. As long as the category is based on a list of scientists, it insofar applies only to scientists. It has nothing to do with political persons or managers. IT MAY NOT BE USED to categorize politicians. A "sciencist" is someone who professionally works or has worked in science (including of cause sociology and humanitites). That would do for a person doing research in a think tank, research institution or university, a freelance researcher like McIntyre is a fringe case, but politicians or managers (Carenholt, Allegre, Evans etc.) with a science background have to be left out.
  3. Of cause Frederick Seitz stays being a climate sceptic, dead or alive, he won't be categorized different, just due to the list having a lousy defintion. 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten II (talkcontribs)
I deleted another editors query about Serten II's user name; and I have already asked Serten and Serten II about this at their respective talk pages where it belongs.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The title of the article answers the question: it says opposing - present tense. If we were to include every scientist who opposed earlier versions of the science, but never lived to see the present state of knowledge and evidence, it would be a mess. Having a complex cut-off point like a small number of years, exactly how many depending either on how famously or how vehemently they opposed the mainstream science, then it would be unnecessarily cumbersome. If someone wants to start another article "List of all scientists who ever opposed the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming," let them do so, and let's see what they put into it, and how it fares at AFD. As for categories, I'll leave that to people who are interested in categories to comment on those talk pages. --Nigelj (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The title of the article is to be changed then. WP is NEVER EVER about the present, even articles on recent events have to be source based, will say are a thing of the past. There is a need for a useable base for the category climate sceptics, from all sides of the debate, which has to take into account the past as well. Thats a basic requirement, which can be done for any science controversy in ther historical past, take plate tectontics or the Hutton/Werner Plutonism controversy. or history I am currently writing an article about the large uncertainities in the IPCC scientists admitted by its chief project manager, thats much more interesting btw ;) Serten II (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Prhartcom and Serten II are exactly right, using "deceased" as a criterion for exclusion is silly. If the goal is to avoid having the list become obsolete, that should be made by giving it a time range and creating a new list should a major development happen, not by using a totally unrelated criterion like whether they're alive or not. People oppose public discourse by making public statements, and those don't go away merely because the person dies. Diego (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Last time we debated this (see archives) it was observed that the mainstream scientific assessment is not static - new research is constantly being published. Evidence is constantly accumulating. New tools are constantly being devised to analyze it. Dead people are not privvy to any of that, are are incapable of changing their minds. Thus, we can not claim that dead people are oppos-ING (present tense) the current mainstream assessment. At most, Dr. X might disagree with a big bullet in an IPCC report, and then after five years of new material becomes available they might change their mind. Science is self-correcting, and it is that possibility for each individual that precludes listing stiffs. I trust no one wants to say
Dr. Deadasa Doorknob held a contrary opinion and died before deployment of the Argo buoy system and launch of GRACE. Even though all this new data came in subsequent to his cremation, he has not yet retracted his contrary opinion.
If we started doing that we would be padding the list of people who are oppos-ING (present tense), and might as well list dead garbage collectors too. After all, such people, had they lived, could have returned to school to earn PhDs in astrophysics, which is just as relevant as what dead PhD's might have said, given the same opportunity to review contemporary research. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, "opposing opinion to fact X was held during the XXth century" is exactly what we want, it's called a "timeline of opposition to global warning". I agree that it doesn't need to be part of a "current opposition" list, but it also should not be lost - merely because more knowledge appears, we don't delete the old one, we document it as "historical". If we deleted every bit of scientific knowledge that gets outdated, History of mathematics would be empty.
The best solution would be to have "List of scientifics opposing GW (2000-2013)", "List of scientifics opposing GW (2013-2018)"..., probably linked to the dates of major publications affecting scientific consensus. If we're going by an arbitrary criterion, better make it one that makes sense and allow readers to assess the evolution of knowledge about the topic, rather than deleting history. And inclusion in one list or the other should be based on their latest known RS-published opinion about global warning, not because they "died", which is utterly irrelevant to their public stance. The idea that "they can't be opposing because they're dead" was made obsolete with the invention of written words. Diego (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── see my comments (in this same DIFF) in the following subsection under "alternative" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to keep a timeline of opposition to global warming, including dead people[edit]

In summary, rather than delete well-sourced opinions of merely because they're not here to defend them, we should archive them, in the form of "timeline" lists that worked as snapshots of this article at various stages throughout the decades. Per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and coverage of a topic that once was notable for the encyclopedia should not be removed merely because of new knowledge ; documenting the ideas that people held in the past is as important for the project as it is documenting modern ideas. Also, it is a real shame that all the hard work put in compiling content from reliable sources is lost merely because it's no longer newsworthy, when we can simply move it to a place where it's most relevant - such as a historic almanac that documents how the knowledge about global warming has evolved. Diego (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Its possible we could decide that deceased scientists should be put in their own section rather then totally removed. --Obsidi (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this would work as well. Let's do that. Diego (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient data you'd have to change the article name to change the present tense; and I might have other questions/comments too once you clarify how you would do that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative is to go back to listing people who qualified based on existing criteria but subsequently died. We started doing that in 2010 and I deleted the entire section in Sept 2012 under the same reasoning I previously expressed in this thread. But so long as we're purging the dead ones along with the live ones when we updated to the next AR I suppose that works too. I have already restored the section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The criterion being used for what counts as "opposing" is that they have published after each major revision of the IPCC Assessment Reports, so I think the best bet is to use it for the structure of sections as well. So, let's group scientist by when their latest stance on the topic was published, rather on their status as living or dead. That would give us sections like "scientists with last publication before AR5", "before AR4", "before 'AR3'"... With the given criterion, a scientist who is still alive but hasn't published anything recent is also obsolete in terms of opposition, for the same reasons as one who can't publish them.
This would make each section more stable, to be updated only if the scientist makes further refined statements (which is related to the topic of the list), not when they die (which is unrelated).
If the number of sections keeps growing with the years, we could merely split older sections as WP:SPINOUTs. Diego (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Opposed. Regardess of the glue we write, the very structure will convey a suggestion that Dr.Soandso, who made an opposing statement in 1991 following the First AR in 1990 and has been silent on the subject since, is a scientist who is oppos-ING (present tense). So far this is a PRESENT tense article, as indicated by the article title. I'm oppposed to creating the accidental suggestion that ancient comments (and subsequent silence) has relevance to the subject of the article title, which currently is in contrast to the contemporary consensus . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand your opposition to a structure that keeps old entries in the current article; though keeping them at this article is not an essential part of my proposal. Your position applies to the topic of this article understood as "as-of-today opposition", but it wouldn't apply if the structure was kept at a separate article (which was my initial proposal) where the topic was "timeline of opposition to climate change consensus". What would you think of such structure if used at an article were it was topically relevant? Diego (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Still opposed at least in part due to lack of balance-of-sources; When A shoots of his mouth it makes an RS, but RSs generally don't occur when A produces a silence for some undefined period of time for some unspoken mystery reason(s). When the subject is FRINGE and FRINGE-like views and the latter type of sources are less available than the former, the very notion of "timeline" is out of balance and therefore creates WP:UNDUE emphasis on whatever they initially said.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you. A list compiled from reliable sources can't give undue weight to something not covered by reliable sources; and we shouldn't care about anything that is not covered by them. I don't see the relevance of reliable sources not reporting about a person for some time; the last reliable source that we can find is the one that would establish that person as opposing science during that period. Diego (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
We can return to the UNDUE arguments after you show notability of historic opposition as opposed to notability of current opposition. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn't Dead a bit harsh, perhaps a breach of BDP policy? Suggest something more sensitive, such as Norwegian Blue. More historically, perhaps when updating to AR5 the current content of this article could be moved to List of scientists who opposed the 2007 mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and a new list formulated excluding all who have ceased opposing, rest them in peace. . dave souza, talk 14:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You joke, but my proposal amounts to exactly that, and I'm making it with a straight face. Not only that, I believe WP:NTEMP is at my side on this; if the "List of scientists who opposed the global warming consensis in 2007" was notable in 2007, it should be always considered notable ever since, without a "need to have ongoing coverage". All I'm asking is for you to acknowledge that you understand my concern, that of losing content that all editors at one point agreed was reliably sourced and merited inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Could you at least do that? Diego (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
To best of my knowledge we have never debated the alleged NOTABILITY of a list of nerds who opposed the mainstream X years ago in the past. You are correct that once gained, notability is not lost. However, that applies to the article's topic and not to its content. The article's topic is a list of those currently opposing. You'd have to establish that those opposing ___ years in the past is notable as well.
No doubt someone will start arguing about notability for even this current list and all I can say is.... please at least have the courtesy to include some links to the repeated notability debates in the archives, and flag any new perspectives you have that weren't raised before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I accept the challenge of proving the notability of opposition to science X years ago; my evidence will be the reliable sources that were used at this article X years ago. I'll take a look at the archives to take a peek at how notability has been discussed; I'd venture to predict that the criteria of establishing "current opposition" as a major part of what defines the topic (understood in a way that also excludes "previous opposition") is not something that was based in the content of the available reliable sources used to establish the topic as notable, but something that was introduced by the Wikipedia editors. Diego (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There's little value in debating based on predictions so I'll wait for your followup report. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does this list exist? It's of interest because of claims (such as the Oregon Petition or Tea Party accounts) that multiple real genuine scientists currently oppose the UN communist world government IPCC consensus. If we want to have a record of stiffs or others who once upon a time opposed the then consensus, it should be a new article with a title such as history of opposition to the climate science consensus position. Even in that case, it would need a [summary style] statement of the current position. . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Such a history would be redundant, I think. Aren't we already doing that elsewhere?. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Just noticed the section heading, Proposal to keep a timeline of opposition to global warming, including dead people. Well, such a timeline would perhaps start with figures such as James Hansen who remains very much alive and opposed to global warming. However, it would exclude most or all of those listed in this current article, who are by and large opposed to opposing global warming. Usually on the grounds that global warming doesn't exist, or it's good for you, or if we try to oppose it that would hurt fossil fuel industries the poor... dave souza, talk 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh my aching ribs.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Update to AR4 criteria[edit]

The policy of this list has always been to use the IPCC Assessment Report before the last as the source of criteria for inclusion, that is as the source of what constitutes "the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". The main reason for this, as I understand it, is that at a time like the present when the latest IPCC Assessment Report is fairly new, there has not been much time for scientists actively to "oppose" it. The publication of IPCC AR5 was completed during 2014, so that now as we move into 2015 I think it is a good time to update the description of the mainstream here to be based on AR4 (2007) rather than the TAR ('AR3') (2001).

I don't imagine that this update will have much substantial impact on the list of names itself, as climate science as summarised by the IPCC has become pretty stable in recent years, and the main summary points have not changed much from TAR to AR4. Nonetheless, many eyes will be needed to check each entry to make sure that we remain consistent and accurate. Luckily, we do have many eyes here.

As a first attempt at re-writing the bullet-point list of 'the main conclusions on global warming' I looked at the AR4 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers (SPM), and here have extracted the text of the blue-font main summaries of each of the first three sections, '1. Observed changes in climate and their effects', '2. Causes of change' and '3. Projected climate change and its impacts'. Here they are:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
  • Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
  • Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

Notice that I have omitted criteria based on sections four and five, '4. Adaptation and mitigation options' and '5. The long-term perspective', as this article is a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and so politicians and economists who may wish to disagree with these parts of the IPCC's assessment are out of scope IMHO. For completeness, here is the relevant text from these sections:

  • A wide array of adaptation options is available, but more extensive adaptation than is currently occurring is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change. There are barriers, limits and costs, which are not fully understood.
  • Determining what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue, including by providing criteria for judging which vulnerabilities might be labelled ‘key’.

It is hard to 'oppose' the IPCC's assessment that some things 'are not fully understood', or their view that determining something 'involves value judgements'. Even if someone did, saying that they believe that it is fully understood, or that no value judgements are involved, saying so would hardly represent 'opposition' to the mainstream scientific assessment.

Comments and suggestions welcome on the adoption of the three items in the first bullet list above in the lede of this article. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the large number of highlighted bullet points in the AR4 SPMs, how do we decide this one or that one are THE bullets that represent the entire scope of the mainstream assessment, while the other highlighted SPM bullets do not merit listing? Isn't that WP:OR? When we last debated this a couple months ago, someone suggested using the distillation in the joint science academy statement, as a secondary source for what IPCC AR4 said, instead of doing the selection ourselves. In my view, that's the only way to avoid continued WP:OR attacks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I chose the top, headline, one in each section, i.e. the summary of the section. Are you saying that it is now impossible to summarise the main points of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? That AR4 is impossible for Wikipedia to summarise, so we have to stick with the summary we have of TAR? I don't see how that can be a constructive position to hold. --Nigelj (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds in line with the Wikipedia way of using secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For convenience here's the link to the Joint Sci Academy statement, and I should have said that any comparable source would work too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's a two page document with no summary bullet points defining the state of the science per AR4. What were you planning on doing? Pasting it all in? Are you saying that we are incapable of summarising a source without OR now? (Losing patience here) If you have suggested article text that you think is better than the text I have suggested please follow WP:TPG and say what it is. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I applaud your effort and I apologize for the frustrating nature of the beast. Your request for draft text reminds me of friends who were arguing about paint colors before they knew if they could get a building permit. Picking paint is like choosing words. That's premature until you know the parameters within which one is going to labor. The last time this came up we deadlocked on whether we can pick and choose from among the scores of top-level bullets throughout the various SPMs in AR4, or whether we need to look to secondary sources that have already done that. The discussion petered out and got archived, and here we are. @Kim, still reading? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
So you think that if ever anyone ever brings it up again, your best course of action is to make sure it peters out again? Choosing parameters to open negotiations before going into labour is not the way Wikipedia progresses. Suggesting article text, or WP:BOLDly inserting it anyway is the way articles get written. --Nigelj (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have any suggestions for article text improvement, I suggest that your comments get hatted or removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. --Nigelj (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
e/c
Option A - Discuss what we want to say and choose the sources we use that way
Option B - Discuss the best sources on the subject and then present what they say
From where I sit, Option B can not be dismissed as mere WP:FORUM.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we take from the page Scientific opinion on climate change's view on the important parts of AR4 (with minor modifications). Ideally we would just link to that page, but that page is going to update to AR5, while we will be staying on AR4 for the reasons given above. Here is what that page describes the summary of AR4 as:
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[1]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[2]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[3] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[3] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[3]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[4]
  • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[5]
The only thing I would like to change from that list, is an addition of a bullet "Climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 concentration is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C.".[6]
The reason for including this extra bullet is that it is probably the most disputed of any part of the AR4, and it includes hard numbers that are easy to include/exclude people from (which makes our jobs in keeping the list accurate easier).
--Obsidi (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've said every other time this has come up at either article, the leads of both articles purport to tell readers what the mainstream assessment is. Despite vigorously chastising comments in my direction, no one has provided a dispassionate RS-based argument why
At Article A we say the mainstream is XYZ
At Article B we say the mainstream is CFQ
So I appluad your suggestion to synch them!
However that does not cure the problem I am complaining about in earlier comments in this thread. Surely we can find a way to follow NPOV without engaging in OR. In my opinion the only way to do that is to stop relying on the IPCC (primary source) for these leads and instead focus on the best secondary sources that summarize the IPCC's findings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable secondary source that does a good job summarizing the points of AR4 I would appreciate it. Frankly, I looked, and I have access to a variety of private paid news archives and even I couldn't find anything in the press (the most I could find was really bad or by unreliable sources like greenpeace). Maybe some book out there does it. If you can find it, great, but at this point, I'm of the opinion that doesn't exist and as such we have to rely on primary sources. --Obsidi (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Any subject for which good secondary sources do not exist fails WP:NOTABILITY and should be purged; fortunately, this is not such a subject. What about the link I already provided in this thread? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Which link is that? if you are talking about the Joint Sci Academy statement, that doesn't exactly summarise it in clear bullet points, and it is about IPCC 2001 (ie AR3), not AR4. --Obsidi (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, you're right! Thanks for pointing that out. There might be a problem with the way footnote 10 is used at Global warming. After AR4 there was this one; there is no requirement that a secondary RS present its text in bullet point format, so that's rather a non-issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The bullet point text is just an issue because it means that we now have to pull out of that the claims are we going to make as to what the mainstream view is. It just isn't succinct enough to do that effectively without the same kind of OR complaint with using the IPCC. --Obsidi (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
References
  • By the way, what exactly is the OR complaint? We are summarizing the source, that is what we do all the time with all the sources. We don't include any facts, allegations, and ideas that are not included in the source. Any analysis we do does not reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. It is using a primary source (Which should be avoided if we can), but that is about the only problem I can see. At worst you could accuse us of WP:Cherrypicking the parts that we think are important, but I don't think anyone is really making the claim that we are leaving out some important part (if so what is that part?). Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary: Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. --Obsidi (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The question was, "what exactly is the OR complaint?"
Of the scores (few hundred?) of points found in the various AR4 SPMs, to which IPCC itself assigned a top-flag bullet, we Wikipedia editors declare these (1, 2, 3) as defining the breadth and scope of the "mainstream assessment of global warming". And by the way, we wikipedia editors report 123 here, but we use 235 over on that other article.
Yeah, at wikipedia we summarize sources. But I still don't see how we pick and choose one way over here and a different way over there and say at both places that what we said is the mainstream assessment of scientific opinion. At a minimum they need synching. The OR problem would be reduced if we at least picked and chose from a smaller secondary source, such as the sci acad statements, and when we tell readers that "X" is the scientific opinion that we use "X" wherever we say ___ is the scientific opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the IPCC is a primary source. They neither made all this up, nor did they do any science themselves; they summarise the present state of the scientific work across the whole topic and publish it assessment reports. --Nigelj (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting, and a good point. I'll think about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
By god, you're right (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Thanks for the correction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
If we consider the mainstream a function, we need sources that describe the derivative of the function, not the fonction as such
Point is, currently the lede tries to construct an an easy to grasp summary of "the mainstream". Nigelj is asking for a secondary source which does so, to avoid WP:Cherrypicking. My point is different, if we want to list relevant scientists, who deviate from that mainstream, we dont need summaries of the mainstream, we need sources that allow to assess the deviation. I inserted a Differential calculus graph to make that more understandable for the tekkies ;) Serten II (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC) (ERRATA - Strike "Niglej" and insert NAEG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
That maths simile is rubbish. It puts me in mind of the old joke about the intestines consist of the stomach and the bowels which are A E I O and U. Just avoid trying to stick in things like that and say it simply in your own words. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Just if you don't grasp basic math, don't get abusive, as you been before Dmcq. Serten II (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You obviously have no feeling for maths, what I gave you was good advice. There's no need to ping me unless it is something important. Dmcq (talk)
Oh boy, Dmcq, youre a true defender of the true faith against a sceptic - gishgalloping by rethorical tricks and abusiveness. Your advice is noted. Serten II (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I still believe, as I offered in Archive 35, that we can summarize the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming in a manner suitable for categorizing skeptical scientists, and that we can do this without being guilty of WP:OR, for the reason explained well by Obsidi, above: "Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy." My summary proposal is similar to the suggestion, above, but is much shorter, simpler, and aimed at helping to refine the list of scientists.

  1. The earth's climate system has warmed significantly over the past century.
  2. Most of the recent global warming (since the middle of the 20th Century) was very likely caused by human activity increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
  3. Global warming is continuing and will very likely accelerate in the coming decades.
  4. Unless adequately mitigated, the consequences of global warming will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic.

I believe these statements accurately, and adequately, summarize the mainstream scientific assessment as represented in all of the IPCC reports, not just AR4, as well as in numerous other sources. Importantly, putting this summary in the lede (or one very similar to it) would give us a neat, easy-to-follow way to group skeptics: The few (if any) who dispute proposition #1 can be grouped in a first section regardless of their opinions about the other three propositions. Those who accept proposition #1 but dispute proposition #2 can be grouped in a second section regardless of what they think about #3 and #4, and so on. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

specific AR4 thing to debate In my earlier comments I made reference to "the various SPMs" of AR4. Overnight it occurred to me that IPCC itself has already started the distillation process, by producing the comprehensive synthesis (SYR) after all 3 Working Groups had submitted their contributions. So if we do use IPCC, it might make sense - as Nigelj has done above - to focus on the final, total SYR instead of contributions from individual working groups. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
So what is the purpose of this summary? I can see two possible purposes:
  1. For WP:FRINGE we need to talk about what the mainstream view is.
  2. To help us decide who is and who is not on the list (what disagreement with the mainstream view is).
The problem with using your criteria for my #2 above is that there may be people on this list that agree with EVERY one of the points you made above, but still strongly disagrees with the basic argument of the IPCC. Pretty much everyone aggress with your #1. #2 is disputed, but the question is how much is "most warming"? Are you saying that 51% of the warming was caused by humans that's enough for agreement with this point? If that's the case there will be some people that agree with this and significantly disagree with the IPCC as to how much warming is occurring. #3 is very similar to #2 (basically if you agree with #2 you are going to agree with #3, because everyone agrees we are putting out more greenhouse gasses at a higher rate then we did before). #4 is more tricky, I doubt any skeptics/deniers would call not mitigating "potentially catastrophic", but there may be some that would call it "mostly adverse." The problem is that there are people who would be left off the list, but are actually scientist and do actually strongly disagree with the IPCC, and it would be wrong to suggest they don't. If our only purpose is to do a high level overview of the IPCC AR4 but not use it in any way to select who is on the list, then I could be ok with your summary. --Obsidi (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we're better off having a discussion when a hard case comes up as we might come to a different decision than some up front preciseness. They normally are pretty straightforward in what they say. Judith Curry has been a difficult case but life just can be difficult in corner cases. Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So, it looks like the consensus is that it's too hard to summarise the IPCC source I cited at the start of this thread, and that no one wants to even agree on why we would try to do so, so it's best to stay with the existing text based on 2001 sources, and deal with who to put on and off the list on a case by case basis only. Is that right? --Nigelj (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be very nice to update it, but it's not the end of the world. There has been little debate for most entries as they have been pretty obvious whatever criteria one uses, and for the ones where there has been debate I'm not sure changes on these lines would have made much difference. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The List we are discussing is of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Therefore, of course!, the lede must at least summarize what the mainstream scientific assessment consists of. Otherwise, how can we say who does and does not belong on the list? Additionally, the mainstream scientific assessment does indeed have the four elements that I listed above (does anyone here disagree with this?), and so by numbering those elements we can logically divide the list into four sections according to what part of the mainstream scientific assessment the person disputes. Those are the two simple purposes I had in mind. And this is not a major change from what we are doing already. I am proposing only a much simpler wording and a split of the current #3 into its two components (continued warming and adverse consequences).

But Obsidi objected that there may be "people on our list that agree with EVERY one of the points you made above, but still strongly disagrees with the basic argument of the IPCC." Seriously? I just don't see how that's possible! The four-element summary (see above) is essentially: 1) the earth has warmed; 2) we are the major cause; 3) the warming will accelerate; 4) the consequences will be bad. So how on earth could someone agree with all four of those points and yet still be said to disagree strongly with the IPCC's "basic argument"? Am I missing something here? This apparent disagreement only highlights the important purpose of the summary: If not those four, then what on earth is the basic argument of the IPCC?

Obsidi points out that someone might well ACCEPT #2 that most (51% or more) of the recent warming is anthropogenic, and still disagree fundamentally with the IPCC. Well, sure! And so, in that case, such a person would be on the list but in a different section of the list. We'd list the person as disagreeing with #4 that consequences will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic, or as disagreeing with #3 that the warming continues and will very likely accelerate, or as disagreeing that with #1 that the recent warming has been significant. But there is just no way that someone could agree with all four of those elements and still deserve to be listed among "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

With regard to your claim, Jonathan Lane Studeman, thet there "has not been much time for scientists actively to "oppose" it" (the AR5), I made a IPCC AR5 opposition science scholar search with about 800 results. I dare to say that that counterclaims your assumption. I agree with your and Obsidis notion, there is a difference between IPCC conclusions, process and findings, and I have taken that in account in my rewording proposal. But to use actual science opposing the three aspects of the IPCC work would allow for less OR based inclusion criteria and instead base them on actual science. Serten II (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make that claim. I don't think AR5 v. AR4 matters, really. The mainstream scientific assessment of global warming hasn't changed. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Nigelj made that claim in the first paragraph of this section. Michael Oppenheimer seems to be of complete different opinion with regard to the differences between AR4 and AR5. How about starting reading and skip believing? 09:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten II (talkcontribs)


IPCC AR4 SYR[edit]

  • IPCC's AR4 is not, as I previously claimed, a primary source. Thanks Nigelj.
  • The issue is not, as I previously claimed, picking and choosing from among the multiple parts of the report. To some extent, IPCC has already done that, by producing a synthesis from all three working groups, and then they boiled their synthesis into a "Summary for Policymakers".
  • There are 28 highlighted take-home points in IPCC's summarization of the AR4 SYR. After extracting all the supporting text, figures, and so forth, here they are

1. Observed changes in climate and their effects

a. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}
b. Observational evidence4 from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2}
c. There is medium confidence that other effects of regional climate change on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers. {1.2}

2. Causes of change

a. Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).5 {2.1}
b. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}
c. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
d. Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influences extend beyond average temperature to other aspects of climate. {2.4}
e. Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {2.4}

3. Projected climate change and its impacts

a. There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. {3.1}
b. Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century (Table SPM.1, Figure SPM.5). {3.2.1}
c. There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and sea ice. {3.2.2}
d. Studies since the TAR have enabled more systematic understanding of the timing and magnitude of impacts related to differing amounts and rates of climate change. {3.3.1, 3.3.2}
e. Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems. {3.3.5}
f. Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised. {3.2.3}
g. Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. {3.4}

4. Adaptation and mitigation options

a. A wide array of adaptation options is available, but more extensive adaptation than is currently occurring is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change. There are barriers, limits and costs, which are not fully understood. {4.2}
b. Adaptive capacity is intimately connected to social and economic development but is unevenly distributed across and within societies. {4.2}
c. Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels (Figures SPM.9, SPM.10).15 While top-down and bottom-up studies are in line at the global level (Figure SPM.9) there are considerable differences at the sectoral level. {4.3}
d. A wide variety of policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and sectoral context (Table SPM.5). {4.3}
e. Many options for reducing global GHG emissions through international cooperation exist. There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to climate change, stimulation of an array of national policies, and the creation of an international carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress has also been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCC and additional international initiatives have been suggested. {4.5}
f. In several sectors, climate response options can be implemented to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with other dimensions of sustainable development. Decisions about macroeconomic and other non-climate policies can significantly affect emissions, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. {4.4, 5.8}

5. The long-term perspective

a. Determining what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue, including by providing criteria for judging which vulnerabilities might be labelled ‘key’. {Box ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Article 2 of the UNFCCC’, Topic 5}
b. The five ‘reasons for concern’ identified in the TAR remain a viable framework to consider key vulnerabilities. These ‘reasons’ are assessed here to be stronger than in the TAR. Many risks are identified with higher confidence. Some risks are projected to be larger or to occur at lower increases in temperature. Understanding about the relationship between impacts (the basis for ‘reasons for concern’ in the TAR) and vulnerability (that includes the ability to adapt to impacts) has improved. {5.2}
c. There is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change. {5.3}
d. Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels. Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. {5.3, 5.4, 5.7}
e. There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers. {5.5}
f. The macro-economic costs of mitigation generally rise with the stringency of the stabilisation target (Table SPM.7). For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average.22 {5.6}
g. Responding to climate change involves an iterative risk management process that includes both adaptation and mitigation and takes into account climate change damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and attitudes to risk. {5.1}

-- Highlighted statements in IPCC's summary of IPCC AR4 SYR 2007 (the comprehensive one that combined the work of all 3 working groups). Pdf here

The question I still have - and haven't finished thinking about - is whether it is possible for us Wikipedia editors to summarize these 28 points so as to tell readers what the "mainstream view" is. But I wanted to get the list of 28 points up for discussion while I do my thinking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, I believe we can indeed (and should) accurately and adequately summarize the above in just four overarching propositions (well, five, if it's felt we must cover the entire Synthesis Report). Here they are again, roughly corresponding to the synthesis sections you've listed:
"1. Observed changes in climate and their effects"
1. The earth's climate system has warmed significantly over the past century.
"2. Causes of change"
2. Most of the recent global warming (since the middle of the 20th Century) was very likely caused by human activity increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
"3. Projected climate change and its impacts"
3. Global warming is continuing and will very likely accelerate in the coming decades.
4. Unless adequately mitigated, the consequences of global warming will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic.
"4. Adaptation and mitigation options" and "5. The long-term perspective"
5. Adverse consequences can be avoided or substantially lessened at acceptable cost by government policies aimed at reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions.
Personally (though I proposed it myself a while back), I would leave out that fifth summary statement because it goes too much into the policy arena and away from the pure science. Nonetheless, I think for the purpose of this page (listing scientists who disagree with the mainstream assessment of global warming), I think the above propositions sum it up accurately and usefully. Disagreement on just one or a few of the thousands of statements made in the IPCC report does not matter if the scientist still comes down in support of these major summary statements. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that. I even would have problems with a bit of 4 on the same basis as for 5 though not all of it. And it isn't a catechism where if someone prays the wrong number of times every day they should be killed. There isn't what science is about, they'll always be finding some problems. We're talking more evolution versus creationism rather than whether some fossil is for a neanderthal or a modern human. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's an excellent way to make the point. And I think I can see, and agree, with the concern about #4. But it's important to the overall scientific assessment, so perhaps a slight re-wording would be in order: 4. The consequences of continued global warming will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, as an aside, I'd like to respond again to Obsidi, who wrote in an earlier section, "if you agree with #2 you are going to agree with #3, because everyone agrees we are putting out more greenhouse gasses at a higher rate then we did before." I don't believe that follows. Yes, indeed, everyone does agree that greenhouse gases are being emitted at higher rates. But everyone also agrees that climate change is also strongly effected by natural forces. Therefore the mere fact that anthropogenic warming has been the dominate influence over the past century may not convince all scientists that warming will continue over the next century, even at higher greenhouse gas concentrations. Some skeptics will argue that warming caused by higher concentrations of CO2 and water vapor is self-mitigating due to increased vegetation and cloud cover. Such views are well outside the mainstream of course, but that's the point of all this. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you talk cloud cover, take Lindzen, is he in or outside the IPCC assessments and at which time? The last decade saw no warming but a much CO2 and Lima tthis week saw no interest at all in the science assessment. So its a litte bit more complicated. Serten II (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Outside. And even if the forecasts are wrong that doesn't mean he agrees with the IPCC. It is possible he is right, after all he is a very good scientist, however he pretty definitely opposes the mainstream consensus and that is what this article is about. And by the way as to your continually trying to push social scientists and the policy bits of the IPCC report as part of the science, perhaps you would like to take notice of Lindzen who said the IPCC summary is the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Important parts of the IPCC assessments refer to his work. Point is, if you take Lindzen's assessment of the political influence conclusions for serous, wha not include social scientist who might have the better background to do that? 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten II (talkcontribs)
That would be a list of scientists who disagree with the conclusions and policy recommendations of the IPCC. None of the sources are about that, so this article isn't about that. Instead of trying to change articles to be about what you think is important what you should do is write up what you are thinking about outside of Wikipedia and have secondary sources comment on it. Then someone in Wikipedia will I'm sure be glad to write it up. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"That would be a list of scientists who disagree with the conclusions and policy recommendations of the IPCC." How you dare to say thats not part of the science assessment? Its the main goal the IPCC was built for. Your claim "not mentioned in the sources" is pure slicky rethorics. Google scholar provides about 28.000 counterclaims. Serten II (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
See PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies." The IPCC distinguishes between them and between the climate science and technical and socio-economic factors.. Plus this article isn't about the IPCC anyway. Dmcq (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahm this article and this section may argue 100% based on IPCC findings, but is not about the IPCC. When will it start trying to fullfill basic WP rules and have to anything with reliable sources? Serten II (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't about the IPCC.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's true. But it also isn't (just) about scientists who disagree with the very strong ("95%") scientific consensus on the mere fact of recent global warming being mostly attributable to greenhouse gas emissions. This article is about scientists who disagree with the "mainstream assessment of global warming," which is represented by the IPCC reports, and which is a (very, very) notable subject because it goes beyond that consensus on the cause of recent global warming to say, also, that such anthropogenic warming will very likely continue and accelerate over the coming decades and will have consequences for human civilization that are mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic unless something is done about it.

I think we spend too much time worrying about whether we need to summarize, whether we need to summarize using the exact same words as in the main articles, whether we need to cite sources to back up our summary, and whether we need to cite a particular source that does the summarizing for us. It's not that difficult! Of course we need to summarize what the mainstream assessment consists of, and of course we need to cite a source or sources that a reader can examine to assess whether or not our summary is correct. But that's all! The recent IPCC reports (take your pick among them; it really doesn't matter because the main points have not changed) are not the only source but they are clearly the best source.

And it's easy to summarize the mainstream assessment based on those reports (and on multiple other sources); so easy that we don't need an outside reliable source to do the summarizing for us. So I'll offer again that the (notable!) mainstream scientific assessment of global warming based principally on AR4 and AR5 is this: the earth has warmed significantly over the past century; most of the recent warming is due to mankind's greenhouse gas emissions; anthropogenic warming will likely continue and accelerate over the coming decades; and unless something changes the consequences will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic. Is there anyone who disagrees with this summary? If so, why? Is there anyone who thinks we can't tell which scientists dispute which parts of this summary?

And, finally, if we adopt such a summary, then I think the issue of whether or not to include the social sciences will take care of itself. Social scientists do not belong here if they are cited as disputing the first three elements. These are the province of natural science. However, they do belong here if they are taking issue with the fourth element (adverse and potentially catastrophic consequences.) The IPCC cites their work, doesn't it? We should cite their skeptical opponents, as long as they otherwise qualify as scientists. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So a scientist thinks that the earth has warmed, and that is because of human's greenhouse emissions, and they think that warming is likely to accelerate. But they disagree with how severe the consequences will be (in terms of increased heat, they predict a lower sensitivity). Does that mean they do not fit in #4? Are we defining "mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic" as being ALL the other predictions of the IPCC (including CO2 sensitivity, etc.)? --Obsidi (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Its quote interesting that at the time of establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC, there was as yet no clear signal of anthropogenic warming in the observations, as per the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; it wasn’t until the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1995 that the IPCC consensus maintained a ‘discernible’ human influence on global climate. Since then the expression of more of a ‘discernible’ human influence has been raised, however actual uncertainities in the IPCC process have been dealt with as well. The point is, if "mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic" outcomes may happen in Haiti or Bangla Desh, while the Netherlands stay safe, what does it mean for a Dutch scientist not caring at all? 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten II (talkcontribs)
A big difference over climate sensitivity is definitely a disagreement over the science. The science academies seem to agree that the consequences are likely to be adverse and worse the larger the effect but they have stopped from assessing any of the probable economic consequences the IPCC have detailed. We can only really say that the bits that the science academies have generally agreed on are mainstream science. We can't say the IPCC assessment of the economic effects is mainstream science. Dmcq (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq, I too would say that what the science academies generally agree upon is the mainstream science.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, the IPCC itself ascribes various confidence levels to its warnings about future adverse and potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming, and the science academies do agree with this. That's why so many have issued statements in support of the IPCC's conclusions. And importantly, the potential future impact of global warming is precisely what makes this list of dissenting scientists such a notable subject. If a scientist argues (and some do) that higher CO2 levels and resulting warmer winters will likely have mostly beneficial effects and no potentially catastrophic effects, surely such a scientist would fall outside the mainstream of scientific opinion and deserve to be listed here.

Obsidi, regarding the level of climate sensitivity, please see Dmcq's excellent analogy to evolution (far above): You wouldn't include a scientist within a list of evolution-deniers merely because he calculates a rate of genetic mutation lower than most other scientists. Similarly, Judith Curry is not listed here merely because of her study showing a lower sensitivity level than that cited by the IPCC. She is listed because she went on to argue against the IPCC's central conclusions. And, claiming higher CO2 sensitivity is not at all the same as claiming an "adverse consequence." My "#4" refers only to the IPCC's conclusions about flooding, violent weather events, droughts, disease, and so on, assuming that warming continues and even accelerates. A scientist who claims that climate sensitivity to increased CO2 is actually very, very low compared to natural variability would more likely be taking issue with #3, "anthropogenic warming continues and will very likely accelerate in the coming decades." It has much less to do with #4, "the consequences will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic."

Serten II, the issue here is only whether a scientist disputes the mainstream assessment that continued global warming would have widespread adverse or catastrophic consequences for human civilization, not whether some regions may benefit such that a scientist in those regions might not care. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorrym, but the failure of the IPCC getting its message across with politicians has to do with that global approach (all politics is local) and it is as well mentioned in the scientific literature about the IPCC consensus, take the Martin Voss (ed) handbook of climate change from a social science perspective. That said, its being discussed in scholarly literature. If you want to ignore it here, I keep involving the real world elsewhere, in line with WP basic guidelines. Serten II (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a list of failures of politicians to get messages from the IPCC, this is a list of scientists who disagree significantly with the central physical findings of IPCC assessments. From your social science viewpoint the physical science may be irrelevant, but in the context of this article you're offtopic. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Spot on. And, for the record, it seems to me now that I was wrong to suggest that social science belongs here with regard to adverse and potentially catastrophic consequences. I was thinking about economics, sociology and political geography, but (thanks, Dcmq, Dave souza, NewsAndEventsGuy, Obsidi, and even Serten II himself) that looks like it would be off-topic (no such thing as a mainstream assessment among social scientists) and quite messy. Better to stick to the natural/physical sciences and what they, only, have to say about drought, storms, sea-level rise, disease and so forth. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Narrow the publication criteria?[edit]

I think we should tighten our measuring stick for identifying who we can list without promoting FRINGE views or giving UNDUE weight. Our goal has always been to list only qualified experts in natural sciences, and we've tried various measuring sticks to accomplish that objective. Consider....

  • Once earned, WP:NOTABILITY is never lost.
  • Even undergrads occasionally get published in the professional literature

Taken together, those criteria expose us to potential campaigns to list people based on flash-in-the-pan ancient glory, despite possibility they've been doing other stuff the last 30 years. That's hardly in keeping with the anti-FRINGE/anti-UNDUE goals of listing only active qualified (read "true") experts.
Proposal - Put a time limit on the publication criteria so we would add in the last ____ years.
The reasoning is similar to the reasoning that currently omits dead people. This lists scientists who are oppos-ING (present tense), not ex-scientists.
What think you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposer NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Can't see the point and what is it based on besides your own ideas? Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Say what? FRINGE, UNDUE, and the ARTICLETITLE are not my idea.... consider....
Step1 - As an undergrad, JoeShmo is listed as a co-author on a 1990 geology paper
Step2 - But he dropped out and joined NASCAR.
Step3 - Until now he's done poorly but he suddenly sweeps the 2015-2020 national champs, thus gaining lots of WP:NOTABILITY for a wikipedia article
DOH! Our current criteria appears to allow an argument that JoeShmo should be listed here as an opposing scientist, even though he's done zip science since 1990 (as a junior in college). Of course we'd look over that record, and have paragraphs of debate whether he complied with the criteria enough or just barely or at a superficial glance but not really. All of which would be avoided if we restrict potential listing to people who are - present tense - working scientists. Not dead people. Not undergrads 40 years ago who got on a paper and got notability for something else later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to JoeShmo being in the list if the paper passed peer review. If there's going to be some debate then so be it. Perhaps I'll be overruled. I see no point in proactively making up criteria that have no correspondence in the real world. We can deal with the problem when it comes up. Dmcq (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't a list of who WP consider "experts" (in which we have to do OR to figure out if they are "expert" enough). Are they a scientist in a relevant field? Do they oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? Then they should be in the list. Technically, we are not required that everyone on the list be notable, but it is our option and we have chosen to use that. WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Given how potentially large this list would be without that limitation, it makes sense. And this is also a common selection criteria. --Obsidi (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly... "Are they a scientists in a relevant field?"(present tense). While a publication helps determine that they did some science at some point in time, the date of that publication is what determines whether they are a scientist or merely were' NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Not all scientists publish peer reviewed journal articles (yet alone doing so all the time). --Obsidi (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support - as last time, and the time before that. There are too many people on the list who aren't scientists - Bellamy, for example - and who are only there because they just about squeak through the criteria William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever about him having just squeaked in he seems to have demonstrated good competence in using the scientific method. I see no reason for people for people to doubt his ability to assess the evidence. I have absolutely no problem with his appearance in the list. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sort of amused aboput the notion Our goal has always been to list only qualified experts in natural sciences, and we've tried various measuring sticks to accomplish that objective. This is wikipedia, and WP is not about trying to Original research, as in trying to construct "measuring sticks". This is about climate change, and as in any pollution issue, its about an interaction bertween society and nature. That said, the ongoing attempt to exclude the social sciences is contentious and does not reflect tha actual scientific discussion. Skip that restriction once and for all.- Serten II (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not stop your OR? The lists that were drawn up were supposedly of scientists who were qualified to assess the science and who disagreed with it. As in that they didn't have to worry about SUVs pumping out lots of CO2 because there was no problem or it was grossly exaggerated. That is the notable topic the article is based on. Not as in that the processes used by the IPCC or their policies advocated for mitigation were wrong. Your topic is not notable. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Youre far from having a real word notion of the word science, boy. SUVs pumping out lots of CO2 is a political slogan, cows keep doing the good work. No problem with that. I keep on working on my own articles, both the IPCC consensus and real science according the Humboldtian education ideal and prefer to deal with people with a mindset beyound barricading lousy WP entries. Serten II (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I was talking about why the topic was notable, not about the science. Holistic views have nothing to do with the Heartland Institute listing out scientists it said disagreed with the science. You should not be trying to shove your ideas into this article. Original though is not what Wikipedia is about. Dmcq (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that limiting the criteria to natural science is wholly a creation of editors here, why not more of he same if it suits whatever purposes the editors here are driving? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at this [1] for istance. Read through the qualifications of the various people they quote. Spot any economists social scientists or the like in the list? They are all in the natural sciences. Those are the ones that they considered as being appropriate for the topic. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ronz; If you AGF and read what the proposer (i.e., me) has said, I'm open to the possibility of including SOCIAL SCIENTIST; what you call in your edit summary as "bullshit" is merely a requirement that the people oppos-ING (present tense) are practic-ING (present tense) science. After all, this is not a List of Retired Scientists Opposing, nor is it a List of Former Scientists Opposing. It is a list of current scientists opposing. Applying a date criteria to their publication is at least as acceptable as applying criteria about the type of publication, and a date criteria can just as easily be applied to SOCIAL scientists as those doing NATURAL science. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy, the Heartland institute deserved to loose its zeal on climate issues after the misguided May 2012 billboard campaign ;) and doe wise, Al Gore all tops it lightly with three to one digit million budgets. I am not at all guilty by association, as I doubt the Heartland or Anthony Watt despise for social sciences either. That saidm, why not use the US senate list and confine it to those that have actually provided research based doubts and controversies? I have suggested a similar approach above. Serten II (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
At least if we restrict it to that list, we're avoiding a good portion of the original research here. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't improve the article in any meaningful way that I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This makes sense. "Scientist" is a job description, not a title. If you last did research in the 1970s, your perspective on climate change science is likely to reflect an outdated understanding of, for example, our understanding of the climate system. Things develop so quickly that a 1990s understanding is nearly stone-age. Guettarda (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI AE complaint[edit]

FYI, editors here may be interested (or not) in these other threads

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Updating to AR4 - restart[edit]

This is a continuation of another thread. Please add comments in the break out subsections. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

SPM from AR4 SYR section 1 observed changes[edit]

1. Observed changes in climate and their effects

a. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}
b. Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2}
c. There is medium confidence that other effects of regional climate change on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers. {1.2}
Source - IPCC's summary from AR4 SYR (the comprehensive one that combined the work of all 3 working groups). Pdf here

In the opening post at the top level Nigelj (talk · contribs) proposed we summarize this by saying

(Option A) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

In a subsequent post in that thread, Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk · contribs) proposed we summarize this by saying

(Option B) "The earth's climate system has warmed significantly over the past century."

What do you think? (If you add other options please continue with the letters so we can reference the proposals easily) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Option A - It's simple language, easy to understand, and includes important big picture detail. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option B - shorter, simple, precise. Option A does have the advantage of being a direct quote from the IPCC, but I see its big picture detail as unneeded argument/evidence, and I would not say that the word "unequivocal" in this context qualifies as clear, simple language. It's been pointed out before: People can equivocate; statements can be unequivocal; but facts/evidence can only be significant or insignificant; they never equivocate. "Significantly," in Option B, means to an extent that is alarming and suggestive of an underlying cause that was not present in earlier centuries. No reputable scientist would dispute the fact that the climate system has warmed, as shown by the full degree centigrade rise in land-ocean temperatures since 1900 and the rising sea levels. And nobody in his right mind can doubt that the IPCC and the major Science Academies have all made many "unequivocal" statements to that effect. But some scientists do indeed argue that climate has always changed under natural influences and that the modern rate of temperature rise is not unprecedented nor alarming nor suggestive of never-before-seen influences. So it is truly only the significance of the modern observed rise that is at issue here, if anything. That's why I would prefer a simple statement that the earth has warmed significantly over the past century. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

SPM from AR4 SYR section 2 causes of climate change[edit]

2. Causes of change

a. Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).5 {2.1}
b. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}
c. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
d. Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influences extend beyond average temperature to other aspects of climate. {2.4}
e. Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {2.4}
Source - same as section 1

In the opening post at the top level Nigelj (talk · contribs) proposed we summarize this by saying

(Option A) "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

In a subsequent post in that thread, Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk · contribs) proposed we summarize this by saying

(Option B) "Most of the recent global warming (since the middle of the 20th Century) was very likely caused by human activity increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."

What do you think? (If you add other options please continue with the letters so we can reference the proposals easily) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Option B Comparing the first sentences, Option B says pretty much the same thing but in much more accessible language to the non-nerd climate newbie 10th grader. Also, the 2nd sentence in option A, while taken from the IPCC text under 'cause' - is really more of an observation.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option B - Again, words taken directly from the IPCC are an advantage of Option A. But Option B says the very same thing in a single easier sentence. And the second sentence of Option A really just says the same thing that the first sentence says, adding only that Antarctica may be an exception to this likely and otherwise-global anthropogenic warming. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

SPM from AR4 SYR section 3 projections and impacts[edit]

3. Projected climate change and its impacts

a. There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. {3.1}
b. Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century (Table SPM.1, Figure SPM.5). {3.2.1}
c. There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and sea ice. {3.2.2}
d. Studies since the TAR have enabled more systematic understanding of the timing and magnitude of impacts related to differing amounts and rates of climate change. {3.3.1, 3.3.2}
e. Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems. {3.3.5}
f. Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised. {3.2.3}
g. Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. {3.4}
Source - same as section 1

In the opening post at the top level Nigelj (talk · contribs) proposed we summarize this by saying

(Option A) "Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

In a subsequent post in that thread, Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk · contribs) proposed we summarize this by saying

(Option B) "Global warming is continuing and will very likely accelerate in the coming decades."

What do you think? (If you add other options please continue with the letters so we can reference the proposals easily) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Placeholder (still thinking) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Option B modified to include part of Option A - Option B is shorter and simpler and to the exact same point as Option A, but Option A states the important assumption of "continued GHG emissions at or above current rates." So I would add that to the end of Option B, so as to say something like, "Global warming is continuing and will very likely accelerate in the coming decades, more so if greenhouse gas emissions continue at or above current rates." Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Additional statement - Option A and Option B address only the impact of GHG on global temperatures, and neither addresses the impact of global warming, which is the main subject of Section 3. Therefore, we need an additional (fourth) statement: "The consequences of such continued anthropogenic warming will be mostly adverse and potentially catastrophic." Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

SPM from AR4 SYR section 4 Adaptation and mitigation[edit]

4. Adaptation and mitigation options

a. A wide array of adaptation options is available, but more extensive adaptation than is currently occurring is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change. There are barriers, limits and costs, which are not fully understood. {4.2}
b. Adaptive capacity is intimately connected to social and economic development but is unevenly distributed across and within societies. {4.2}
c. Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels (Figures SPM.9, SPM.10).15 While top-down and bottom-up studies are in line at the global level (Figure SPM.9) there are considerable differences at the sectoral level. {4.3}
d. A wide variety of policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and sectoral context (Table SPM.5). {4.3}
e. Many options for reducing global GHG emissions through international cooperation exist. There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to climate change, stimulation of an array of national policies, and the creation of an international carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress has also been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCC and additional international initiatives have been suggested. {4.5}
f. In several sectors, climate response options can be implemented to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with other dimensions of sustainable development. Decisions about macroeconomic and other non-climate policies can significantly affect emissions, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. {4.4, 5.8}
Source - same as section 1

Unless I missed it, are no current proposals (in the form of draft text) regarding this section. Should we or should we not attempt to summarize mainstream "science's" contribution to the assessment of adaptation and mitigation options? Please try to explain with reference to IPCC's bullet points in the grey box instead of just relying on general principles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No summary needed - Policy options for reducing GHG emissions go beyond the scope of what we need for this list of scientists who dispute the mainstream scientific assessment. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

SPM from AR4 SYR section 5 long-term perspective[edit]

5. The long-term perspective

a. Determining what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue, including by providing criteria for judging which vulnerabilities might be labelled ‘key’. {Box ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Article 2 of the UNFCCC’, Topic 5}
b. The five ‘reasons for concern’ identified in the TAR remain a viable framework to consider key vulnerabilities. These ‘reasons’ are assessed here to be stronger than in the TAR. Many risks are identified with higher confidence. Some risks are projected to be larger or to occur at lower increases in temperature. Understanding about the relationship between impacts (the basis for ‘reasons for concern’ in the TAR) and vulnerability (that includes the ability to adapt to impacts) has improved. {5.2}
c. There is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change. {5.3}
d. Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels. Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. {5.3, 5.4, 5.7}
e. There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers. {5.5}
f. The macro-economic costs of mitigation generally rise with the stringency of the stabilisation target (Table SPM.7). For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average.22 {5.6}
g. Responding to climate change involves an iterative risk management process that includes both adaptation and mitigation and takes into account climate change damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and attitudes to risk. {5.1}
Source - same as section 1

Unless I missed it, are no current proposals (in the form of draft text) regarding this section. Should we or should we not attempt to summarize mainstream "science's" contribution to the assessment of the long-term perspective? Please try to explain with reference to IPCC's bullet points in the grey box instead of just relying on general principles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)