Talk:Public opinion on climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
December 16, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept

Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a rough consensus against the merge. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At present the section "Global_warming_controversy#Public_opinion" rattles off results of various surveys, but does not contain text that elaborates on the nature of any controversy. Those survey results belong in this article, not the article about any of the subsidiary "controversies". Besides being not directly related to scope of the "global warming controversy" article, that recitation of survey results adds 14,000 off-topic bytes and ~1700 off-topic words to that article, while ironically pointing to this one as the "main article". To avoid the possible appearance of a POVFORK (whether one exists or not), and to reduce redundancy and/or mis-filing of that text in the wrong article, I propose cutting out Global_warming_controversy#Public_opinion" from that article and merging the text here, where it belongs.

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the title of the Global warming controversy article is that it lends (false) credence to the idea that science behind climate change is, itself, controversial. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a controversial subject, but the underlying science that shows that the climate is changing in unnatural ways is not. The controversy is then what the politicians do to mitigate the worst scenarios and adapt to whatever changes are inevitable. As is now, the article is somewhat confusing because on the one hand it defends the science behind climate change but on the other hand counterpoints that with a public debate on whether climate change is real (it is) or a hoax (which it is not). I feel that the article would be greatly improved by focusing on the political responses to the science and how public opinion is either driving or following political responses to climate change. There should not really be any need to defend the science of climate change, because there are (anyway) already copious Wikipedia articles that do that very well.
The focus here should be more on discussing what different governments have done, or not done. Discuss the debate between third world nations who stand to loose most from climate change and the first world nations who will, at least initially, suffer (relatively speaking) less. However, all nations will suffer. For example, the pivotal role of the relatively weak group (economically) has made a profound impact of the debate at the United Nations and, indirectly, on the national dialogue of many first world nations.
Enquire (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't merge. 10stone5 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The reason outlined, makes sense, therefore i support a merge, ofc there should be kept a small section (without the polls) and a link to this article. prokaryotes (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't merge. 10stone5 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't merge, erase. Thats nearly useless unscientific stuff. "Public opinion" is - in social science terms - quite different from "controversy", as public opinion may be positive or neutral. Second the global warming controversy is real, and its less about "the science" but predominantly about the conclusions from Climate change or anthropogenic climate influences. Wether you close down coal plants in China or enhance fracking in Europe is not decided by the IPCC reports. Serten (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I find it very useful there. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; It is no different that the scientific opinion article; which while well source uses a lot of statements and panels rather that experimental data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.54.241 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per others. Moonraker (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Request for comment[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus against including the Rasmussen poll. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NEWSBLOG, those sources are reliable enough to show that the poll was widely covered. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Not by a long shot. The non-reliable sources you presented are a- minimal in number, b- WP:NEWSBLOG: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.". You've failed to prove that any of those bloggers are professional journalists/scientists/anything. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No Because, 1.) Not properly cited/sourced. 2.) It is unclear why this poll should be included, since it gives undue weight to a biased/motivated poll. However, if this is indeed a legit poll from a credible polling company, this may be mentioned as a bias example or something like that. Also the entire coverage in regards to noteworthy needs to be looked at. prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    How is simply asking people whether they believe some climate science has been fabricated biased? It is not a leading question. The respondents either think yes, or no, or indicate that they don't have an opinion. Rasmussen merely reports what they got for responses. --184.69.53.98 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If questions are designed in a certain way, i call that bias (favoring a certain response). Anyway, can someone provide a source for the poll? prokaryotes (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Found the source now. Unfortunately it is not possible to draw a lot of conclusion from the scarce info there, a secondary source would be better. Found the secondary sources now. However, this poll belongs into Media coverage of climate change, as an example of motivated media campaigns, false impressions and fabricating controversy,l see Merchants of Doubt prokaryotes (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A 2009 Climategate takes off, with Dr Mann a key figure in media stories; thereafter a steady stream of events and investigations and reports produced a steady stream of media accounts
B By the time of the 2011 poll, there had been thousands of stories about it.
C The suggestive & leading question was "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?" The sources that popped up here don't mention the give-me-the-answer-I-wanna-hear opener.
D The Fed Dist Court (DC) ruled on a procedural matter in Mann v National Review saying

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

E Plausible deniability should not allow wikipedia to do assassination by innuendo, and I think the foundation should harken.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes Mr/Ms Shines has shown sources that indeed discuss Rasmussen's poll, and opinion pieces / newsblogs / straightforward reports are media coverage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Your argument fails to acknowledge the entire history of Climate change denial, ie. manufactured controversy. prokaryotes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: Prokaryotes rather vacuous retort and borderline personal attack to one side... you really think numbers in response to the leading question In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data? have NPOV meaning for us? Really? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See this post and how sources cited above were highly misleading, build upon the supposed Climategase controversy. prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: You're right that the introductory words could cause skew in one direction or another. But quoting the whole question would enable readers to decide whether it's fair. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Single poll from an ideologically-biased and unreliable polling organization which by its own admission skewed its sampling and weighting toward older white men during the time period of the poll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No It would be WP:UNDUE weight on a small poll, from an unusual organisation, from some years ago. The only time such a thing would be interesting enough to include years after the event would be if several other mainstream secondary sources have later confirmed that it marked part of a sea-change in opinion or other currently interesting aspect of the subject. There is no such secondary coverage of this poll at the present time, and it did not in fact mark any particular moment in the history of American public opinion on climate change, as far as anyone has been able to show. --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Most definitively the type of meaningless poll based on confirmation bias - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Pretty obvious POV issues with this, as evidenced by the fact that it's mainly covered by a limited number of right leaning sources. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Rasmussen has been accused of biased polls that use leading questions and has a history of denialism. To include it would be undue based on the limited number of right-wing newsblogs that cite it. We should focus on maintaining a higher standard than this. I'm not saying that every opinion poll needs to be peer reviewed in a scientific journal, but we should avoid biased polls that have little penetration in the mainstream media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No - POV issues, and coverage is minimal outside marginal sources. Kingsindian (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Kyoto and US "withdrawal"[edit]

The article claims that the Bush administration decided to withdraw from Kyoto. IIRC, Kyoto was never ratified by the Senate. Our article on Kyoto_Protocol#Ratification_process seems to validate my recollection. The treaty was signed by President Clinton but was never ratified by the Senate. (In the US, Presidents have the power to negotiate a treaty, but the Senate must ratify it.) I'm not sure how the US can withdraw from a treaty in which it was never a participant. Also, the article seems to blame the Bush administration for this "withdrawal" when in reality it was the Senate's fault for failing to ratify the treaty. (In fact, according to our article on Kyoto, Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.) I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to figure out how best two correct these two mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's my understanding also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Noting Bush's "foot in mouth" disease, we need to work carefully. My understanding is that, as AQFK noted above, Clinton didn't submit the treaty for ratification (possibly because it was toward the end of his term), and Bush (intended to) explicitly state that he was not going to submit it for ratification. It could easily be the case that Bush falsely believed that Clinton submitted the treaty, and Bush was going to withdraw that submission. It could also easily be the case that Clinton agreed to abide to some of the terms of Kyoto, and Bush withdrew that agreement.
On the other hand, if the treaty wasn't submitted to the Senate for ratification, it's not its/their "fault" that it wasn't ratified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Kahan recentism[edit]

I just reverted an edit by Vgy7ujm for two reasons. First, the relevant article was only published 4 days ago, and so it is too recent for the rest of the academic community to have chewed it over and responded in any way. The articles in Wikipedia are not random newsfeeds of the latest events in each topic, but are encyclopedic summaries based mainly on secondary sources, that give a balanced overview of their subject. Primary research sources published in the last few days rarely make an article, and should never be used at the end of a section implying that they may represent the 'last word' on a subtopic. Secondly, the abstract of the referenced paper actually says that, by setting experimental subjects "“science comprehension” tests", that it has detected "the contamination of the science-communication environment with forms of cultural status competition". This is a long way from the much more even-handed coverage that Vgy7ujm gave it, by saying "that global warming skeptics are as familiar with the relevant science as their opponents. They simply arrive at different conclusions." - as if this gives their antiscience views equal validity. I think we need to give things time, and if necessary, add a more balanced view of this research if, in time, it turns out to be notable. --Nigelj (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)