Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class)
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Social science section[edit]

The social science section Serten included was not very comprehensible but it looked to me like there might be something worthwhile in it that was relevant to this article or some closely related one. I think better than just removing it we could have a copy here and try and figure out what can be salvaged and made readable from it.


== Social Science findings about the IPCC process==
=== Shaping Worldwide Consensus ===

There have been various studies about the IPCC process and the impact of its findings from a social science standpoint. An early one was published Aant Elzinga in 1996, where he discussed the process as an global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research.[1]

According Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture at King's College London and formerly professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and its public marketing of the consensus has had mixed blessings. The mere idea of a need for a global consensus based science assessment has been challenged rather vocally recently.[2] Hulme therefore recommends for the future IPCC process to include dissenting or minority positions to allow for a better correlation between scientific evidence and public policymaking.[2]== Social Science findings about the IPCC process==

Shaping Worldwide Consensus[edit]

There have been various studies about the IPCC process and the impact of its findings from a social science standpoint. An early one was published Aant Elzinga in 1996, where he discussed the process as an global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research.[3]

According Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture at King's College London and formerly professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and its public marketing of the consensus has had mixed blessings. The mere idea of a need for a global consensus based science assessment has been challenged rather vocally recently.[2] Hulme therefore recommends for the future IPCC process to include dissenting or minority positions to allow for a better correlation between scientific evidence and public policymaking.[2]

Climatologist Judith Curry doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties.[4] She acknowledges the existence of the IPCC consensus findings but doubts scientific assessments need to be consensual.[4]

Comparision with the Ozone Layer Challenge[edit]

Reiner Grundmann, a former Max Planck society researcher dealing with the social, political, and cultural dimensions of climate change and now professor at the University of Nottingham compared the effectiveness of the solution finding process for the ozone depletion problem and the IPCC process on climate change.[5] In case of the Ozone layer, the scientific consensus was reached after (sic!) efficient global regulation was already being installed by the Montreal protocol. In contrary to the broader approach of the IPCC scientific opinion findings, the ozone case was basically built on the work of just three scientists, Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. They faced comparably resistance by the global industry and governments in question but succeeded in making themselves heard in the global public, and shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry. The ozone controversy had some influence on the IPCC mandate, as its architects started earlier a unified consensus based assessement process on the science findings for government agencies.[5] However, Grundmann assumes that the global science consensus approach actually hindered the IPCC to provide feasible solution proposals beyound a set of mimimum consented goals.[5] The ozone dispute was settled after alarming signals were being identified, so during the 1988–89 North American drought, which, according Grundman, have not been found or accepted for the climate controversy.[5] As early as of 2000, Grundmann speculates that the "armistice", as it had been built up with the IPCC consensus process before, had then been broken and an open scientific controversy were being fought since.[5]

Climatologist Judith Curry doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties.[4] She acknowledges the existence of the IPCC consensus findings but doubts scientific assessments need to be consensual.[4]

=== Comparision with the Ozone Layer Challenge ===

Reiner Grundmann, a former Max Planck society researcher dealing with the social, political, and cultural dimensions of climate change and now professor at the University of Nottingham compared the effectiveness of the solution finding process for the ozone depletion problem and the IPCC process on climate change.[5] In case of the Ozone layer, the scientific consensus was reached after (sic!) efficient global regulation was already being installed by the Montreal protocol. In contrary to the broader approach of the IPCC scientific opinion findings, the ozone case was basically built on the work of just three scientists, Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. They faced comparably resistance by the global industry and governments in question but succeeded in making themselves heard in the global public, and shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry. The ozone controversy had some influence on the IPCC mandate, as its architects started earlier a unified consensus based assessement process on the science findings for government agencies.[5] However, Grundmann assumes that the global science consensus approach actually hindered the IPCC to provide feasible solution proposals beyound a set of mimimum consented goals.[5] The ozone dispute was settled after alarming signals were being identified, so during the 1988–89 North American drought, which, according Grundman, have not been found or accepted for the climate controversy.[5] As early as of 2000, Grundmann speculates that the "armistice", as it had been built up with the IPCC consensus process before, had then been broken and an open scientific controversy were being fought since.[5]


  1. ^ Aant Elzinga, ”Shaping Worldwide Consensus: the Orchestration of Global Change Research”, in Elzinga & Landström eds. (1996): 223-255. ISBN 0-947568-67-0.
  2. ^ a b c d Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Mike Hulme, in (eds.) Doubelday,R. and Willesden,J. March 2013, page 142 ff
  3. ^ Aant Elzinga, ”Shaping Worldwide Consensus: the Orchestration of Global Change Research”, in Elzinga & Landström eds. (1996): 223-255. ISBN 0-947568-67-0.
  4. ^ a b c d Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Curry, JA and PJ Webster, 2012: Climate change: no consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, in press, 2012
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösung, (eng. technical trouble shooting, negotiating and generic problem solving capability) in Gesellschaftliche Komplexität und kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit (Societys complexity and collective ability to act), ed. Schimank, U. (2000). Frankfurt/Main: Campus, p.154-182 book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft

Social science discussion[edit]

Basically this seems to me to be a couple of people saying the IPCC process and it wanting to find a consensus position is wrong or unhelpful. The weight of the studies is pretty light compared to the rest of the article and they are rather tangential but they are about the consensus position and maybe something can fit under the section 'Scientific consensus' in the article. I think for starters the ozone stuff could be cut drastically. A link to a person is sufficient instead of saying where they are a professor of. Phrases like 'as early as' when one is just talking about a date can be removed, we would need a reason to suppose an early date was a good thing. There's lots like that, it sounds to me like some blog post but even if it is spam for them that doesn't mean it is all worthless. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much of what S is adding is just his personal opinion, coupled to a few sources from unbalanced reading. The stuff about the ozone stuff being just the work of three people, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for removing his hatchet job at scientific consensus where he was just pushing his opinion and removing others work. I see there they think that a "broad and overwhelming scientific consensus is being proposed" and then they stuck in their buts! Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Just try grundmann climate consensus on google scholar, its providing about 1400 entries. The first is Ozone and Climate Scientific Consensus and Leadership, doi: 10.1177/0162243905280024 I take the occasion to challenge Connolleys offensive claim about "unbalanced reading" via quoting the abstract:

This article compares the cases of ozone layer protection and climate change. In both cases, scientific expertise has played a comparatively important role in the policy process. The author argues that against conventional assumptions, scientific consensus is not necessary to achieve ambitious political goals. However, the architects of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operated under such assumptions. The author argues that this is problematic both from a theoretical viewpoint and from empirical evidence. Contrary to conventional assumptions, ambitious political regulations in the ozone case were agreed under scientific uncertainty, whereas the negotiations on climate change were much more modest albeit based on a large scientific consensus. On the basis of a media analysis, the author shows that the creation of a climate of expectation plus pressure from leader countries is crucial for success.

I am willing to discuss wording, but I do not accept a WP:dont't like it position. I believe Grundmann has a say and a intersting opinion which is worth while mentioning for all sides of the debate, wether you want to see action on climate or not. As the article is to discuss the scientific opinion on climate change, suitable social science viewpoints have to be involved. The funny thing is that wikipedia has only orphan articles about post-politics or the work of Erik Swyngedouw, while the actual political science community does whole conferences (as. e.g.the DVPW-Kongress 2009 in Kiel) where the lack of impact of climate change policy is the main topic. That said, the three are only the tip of the iceberg, there is much of current social studies around. Serten (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
There a number of social scientists who have studied the politics surrounding climate change. You selected specific ones you like. I'm happy enough with that, there's probably somewhere in Wikipedia where the various opinions can be summarized as the topic or part of a topic. Someone else can come along and make the stuff more balanced rather than one sided, I believe in giving things a bit of room to grow rather than immediately removing something because it has a non neutral POV. The complaint here is that what you have written puts in too mush of the internal argument that has nothing to do with the topic rather than summarizing something relevant. Have we got a summary somewhere of what various people like Grundmann have said on the subject? Tht could be very useful as a secondary source and would give a much better basis to start from. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I dont get the point on mush... please reword it.
I have had chosen Grundmann, since he is someone with a very high impact. He is the person providing the statements and the overview about the field in question you ask for. Take the Max Planck summary of the Schimank book where Grundmanns chapter about Ozone versus Climate comes from, which I had quoted. Rough translation of the review "The book sets theoretical milestones in the current debate about ... problem solving capacity and democratic legitimation with regard to different forms of governance. The authors have provided major contributions to the current discussion ..."Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).
That said, better accept that he is quite senior. I was rather angry when Connolley came up with the "minor" tag - he's offending a Max Planck Society social science fellow's research which been part of the most prestigeous basic research organization in Germany. Maybe it doesnt ring a bell over the channel but it should.
The article quotes some scientists (Nuticelli e.g.) which tried to assess the reach of consensus. the actual vast array of research is about the consensus claim as means of knowledge policy, Grundmann has reseached that himself.[1] Its not about social scientists, that studied the politics surrounding climate change, it is about social scientists that study climate change from their perspective.[2]
You ask me for very detailed reasoning why I want to change the article. Sorry, pleae use your ambition as well on the current, rather poor state. The article so far contains two large lists of academies and scientific organizations that used the term "consensus" in whatever statement. OR based and completely useless. Why? One could reduce that to two sentences. You havent included any serious social science study so far, which actually benchmarks wether those committments are serious or wether it is useful to have them. In so far I see my contribution as an important improvement. I am not willing to justify my contribution if they get regularly erased, as it is the case with Connolleys erratic reverts and hounding whereever I dare to edit. This has to stop. Serten (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I just did a quick google scholar search on 'climate change scientific consensus study" and Grundmann was on the fifth page and most of the ones before were actually about the consensus, so I put in the word 'social' that you use and they came up to the bottom of page 2. So yes they have some importance but your choice of them as representative is undue. That is what I am saying about what you have in and the way others can then come along and fix POV stuff like that. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking the effort. Your own search does not include any source, which currently is in the article, on the higher ranks, right? A section about social science studies makes sense, right? I found Michael Oppenheimers chapter "The limits of consensus", [3] in Donald Kennedys Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009 highest on the list. Take the abstract of the separate paper in science: The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty and check the discussion in the book. So that has to change. You have not assessed Grundmanns credentials per se however. I have included Grundmann not just since he is an outstanding scientist but since I found the comparision with the Ozone layer problem is an eye opener putting things into perspective. OK, our common friend Connolley claimed he's of no importance and erased my contributions. If one however tries, on scholar, the words consensus global ozone climate you get again Oppenheimer on top (position two, top is a 1989 paper) but Grundmann is on place three. Thats said, I will ask to restore the edits I did on ozone depletion and I will do some changes on the draft you inserted here on the dicussion page. I suggest you or others insert changes in wording etc as well and we then come to a common version then. OK? Serten (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course you found what you wanted if you stuck 'ozone' in. But that isn't a relevant search criteria for this. It is something that interested you but is tangential to this topic. We are supposed to work with a neutral point of view. That means going by the weight of what is out there, not by what strikes our fancy. As I indicated before a secondary or tertiary source about the subject that discussed the opinions of the various people who have written about the subject would be a good source of structure instead of us trying to assess weight neutrally using a source like google. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If Connolley were right, putting Ozone in would not help, since Grundmann is so minor. But for the tertiary source take the discussion in Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy as a starter[4]. Maybe you will be surprised who has written it ;), Stehr and Grundmann, the latter being among the coauthors of the The Hartwell Paper. As said, Grundmann himself is providing parts of that assessment already, you still avoid taking him serious. What I intend is to insert social science studies, that compare the IPCC process and its consensus based approach with other global environmental challenges. Thats would tell us and our readers much more about the IPCC proceess than stating hall of fame credentials by academies. Serten (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That is him debating with another one. It is not a survey which is what I was saying could be used instead of Google searches. Why should I be surprised at your choice of him? Why did you not cite the Constance Lever-Tracy paper if you are citing some response to it? Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but why not take the debate as a base? Grundmann defends his point on an assessement of the mainstream of sociology, as he doubts it being worth while to jump on an alarmist bandwagon. He doubt it being worth while for professional sociologusts to support climatologists, which have been acting as ‘lay sociologists’ themselves, with personal opinion based ideas of human behaviour and further outdated social science concepts. Neither is ‘modeling’ of social processes being possible or seen as a scientific task nor is a primitive linear of policy-making of more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be valid, to the contrary, it has been debunked again and again and is not in line with the Social constructionism based mainstream of sociology. He provides quotes bfor that btw. I think that Michael Oppenheimer top ranked assessment in "The limits of consensus" confirms Grundmann, will say the IPCC is being asked to address less what we know about climate but provide better data about the uncertainities. Thats the line along which I will rework the entry. Serten (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)



  1. ^ Environmental Politics limate Change and Knowledge Politics REINER GRUNDMANN Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007 Quote of the abstract: This paper addresses the paradox that although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached a broad consensus, various governments pursue different, if not opposing policies. This puzzle not only challenges the traditional belief that scientific knowledge is objective and can be more or less directly translated into political action, but also calls for a better understanding of the relation between science and public policy in modern society....
  2. ^ Further reading e.g. Der Klimawandel: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven (social science perspective on climate change) Martin Voss Springer-Verlag, 11.02.2010 or Nico Stehr, Reiner Grundmann: Expertenwissen. Die Kultur und die Macht von Experten, Beratern und Ratgebern book review about Grundmanns and Nico Stehrs book about the role of expert knowledge as means of power.
  3. ^ Michael Oppenheimer et al, The limits of consensus, in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009: with a Special Section on Energy and Sustainability, Donald Kennedy, Island Press, 01.12.2008, separate as CLIMATE CHANGE, The Limits of Consensus Michael Oppenheimer, Brian C. O'Neill, Mort Webster, Shardul Agrawal, in Science 14 September 2007: Vol. 317 no. 5844 pp. 1505-1506 DOI: 10.1126/science.1144831
  4. ^ Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy, Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, doi: 10.1177/0011392110376031 Current Sociology November 2010 vol. 58 no. 6 897-910

The point about three scholars only is itself somewhat interesting. In case of the Ozone depletion it was just a trio of scientists that got effective global regulation through, against considerable odds, while the IPCC attempts to move governments to act have been a failure, instead of the famous consensus. ;) The reason for that is of scientific interest and as well important for the article. Serten (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New draft[edit]

== Social Science findings about the IPCC process==

There have been various studies about the IPCC process and the impact of its findings from a social science standpoint. An early one was published Aant Elzinga in 1996, where he discussed the process as an global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research.[1]

However, the role of sociology studies in the climate change discussion and the political conclusions has been smaller than expected. [2] While e.g. Constance Lever-Tracy argued that climate change should be at the heart of the discipline[3] sociologist Reiner Grundmann was much more cautious. He assumes that the politicization of the debate, anthropogenic climate change evolving from a mere science issue to a top global policy topic did not help to attract social scientists. [2] Grundmann defends what he sees a legacy of social constructivism worth while keeping and refrains from short term alarmism and ecological determinism. Furthermore, he claims that climatologists and other actors in the field have acted as ‘lay sociologists’ using various personal opionion based assumptions about human behaviour and outdated concepts which are not along the mainstream of sociology which .[2] E.g. few sociologists hold ‘modeling’ of social processes as being possible or intend to take part in such endeveaours.[2] Sociology as well no longer claims a linear model of policy-making of more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be as being valid.[2]

Cass Sunstein and other scholars[4] in legal and social sciences have tried to put Climate change and other international environmental problems into comparision. Sunstein directly compared the case of the Ozone depletion, where global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol has been successful while in case of Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol failed.[5] In case of the ozone depletion challenge, there was global regulation already being installed before a scientific consensus was established.[6] The ozone case was basically built on the work of just three scientists, Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland, which researched the athmospheric chemsitry and suggested as well feasible solution proposals on a case by case basis.[6] The stepwise mitigation of the ozone layer challenge was based as well on successfully reducing regional burden sharing conflicts.[6] In case of the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, cost-benefit analysis of some countries and burden-sharing conflicts of the distribution of specified climate emmission reductions remain an unsolved problem.[5]

The apparently paradox or lockstep[3] situation of the IPCC having built a broad science consensus while states and governments still follow different, if not opposing goals is therefore not based on a lack of scientific knowledge about the issue in question.[7] A possible answer might be to look for a better understanding of the relation between science and public policy instead.[7]

Ungar (2000) asks in his comparision of global warming versus ozone depletion to put scientific ignorance rather than knowledge as main starting point and norm.[4] He points out important differences between the public opinion on climate change and the lay persons understanding of the ozone threat, which "resonated with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture" and hinted to "immediate risks with everyday relevance".[4]

Michael Oppenheimer confirms in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009 the limitation of the IPCC consensus approach and asks for concurring, smaller assessments of special problems instead of large scale consensus approaches as in the previous IPCC assessment reports.[8] He claims that it is more important for the IPCC to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties.[8] Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions[9] or to improve statements about uncertainties.[10]


  1. ^ Aant Elzinga, ”Shaping Worldwide Consensus: the Orchestration of Global Change Research”, in Elzinga & Landström eds. (1996): 223-255. ISBN 0-947568-67-0.
  2. ^ a b c d e Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy, Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, doi: 10.1177/0011392110376031 Current Sociology November 2010 vol. 58 no. 6 897-910, see Lever Tracys paper in the same journal
  3. ^ a b Global Warming and Sociology, Constance Lever-Tracy, doi: 10.1177/0011392107088238 Current Sociology May 2008 vol. 56 no. 3 445-466
  4. ^ a b c [Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole, by Sheldon Ungar, doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306 Public Understanding of Science July 2000 vol. 9 no. 3 297-312 Abstract
  5. ^ a b Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols by Cass R. Sunstein 38 ELR 10566 8/2008
  6. ^ a b c Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösung, (eng. technical trouble shooting, negotiating and generic problem solving capability) in Gesellschaftliche Komplexität und kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit (Societys complexity and collective ability to act), ed. Schimank, U. (2000). Frankfurt/Main: Campus, p.154-182 book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft
  7. ^ a b Environmental Politics Climate Change and Knowledge Politics REINER GRUNDMANN Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007
  8. ^ a b Michael Oppenheimer et al, The limits of consensus, in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009: with a Special Section on Energy and Sustainability, Donald Kennedy, Island Press, 01.12.2008, separate as CLIMATE CHANGE, The Limits of Consensus Michael Oppenheimer, Brian C. O'Neill, Mort Webster, Shardul Agrawal, in Science 14 September 2007: Vol. 317 no. 5844 pp. 1505-1506 DOI: 10.1126/science.1144831
  9. ^ Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Mike Hulme, in (eds.) Doubelday,R. and Willesden,J. March 2013, page 142 ff
  10. ^ Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Curry, JA and PJ Webster, 2012: Climate change: no consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, in press, 2012

None of this is about the scientific opinion on climate change, so doesn't belong. You clearly want to talk about sociology; have you considered editing sociology pages instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It does seem to be drifting even further away from the topic here, but what would you think about it in Politics of global warming? Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. That article even has some ozone-GW comparisons in it already William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If you confine the "scientific opinion" to the IPCC Physical Science Basis reports, you might have a point. The inclusion here depends what you consider as "scientific opinion" on climate change. the IPCC itself has already some social science aspects in scope, quote The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Your understanding requires to strictly reduce the intro of this article. You then may NOT claim the whole IPCC reports and credentials. With regard of my draft, the studies involved what Scientific opinion on climate change is, wether it is useful at all to collect it or wether the IPCC shouild change its approach. As Grundmann says, the strong believe -of some of the IPCC actors - in a strict Nature–culture divide, in knowledge as a means of decision making and in modeling complex problems is completely out of fashion. Connolley: Maybe you start better reading what the IPCC actually does instead of reverting stuff.Serten (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC) PS.: I have used the draft to improve the IPCC section about the processes. I think its more appropriate there, but ask you to confine this article to the physical base. If so, and if Connolley behaves, we can close this discussion. Serten (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This article does not say that, you're probably talking about another article and confusing it with this. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

%

Just be so kind and clarify wether scientific opionion includes all aspects of the IPCC Assessment Reports or not. If so, social science is already being included. Serten (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
'Whether' not 'wether', when you get an underline it means a probable misspelling. The 'socio-economic' bit is about assessments of the social and economic effects of climate change. That has nothing to do with any assessment about their processes or anyone's response to their reports. It basically covers their assessment that climate change will be very costly economically overall though some places might gain a benefit. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there is a difference between the IPCC methods and the IPCC findings, right.
Look on the current Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Policy section, thats were some points from my sources belong to. "Some places might gain a benefit" is just not enough. If you read Grundmann or Sunstein, its rather clear that the Ozone people were much better at policy. The IPCC is neither in position to provide regional loss-benefit patterns nor to indicate a just distribution of burden sharing. Kyoto failed. The ability to come up with such patterns, provide feasible case by case oriented solutions and to communicate risks properly to individuals was crucial for the success of Montreal. Serten (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't about their success or otherwise in getting their point across to politicians or the general public. Kyoto and Montreal or anything like that is just not relevant here. Dmcq (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The IPCC gives recommodations for policy which are consensus based and part of it? Already the previous version ("ongoing debate") of the policy section conceded that the IPCC solution proposals are not being consented. Hoever half of the article lists credentials of the IPCC getting its point across to science academies, so failing to getting their point across to lay people or polticians is of importance. According the sources I have provided, the consensus concept prevents suitable solutions and was reason for the political failures, including Kyoto. PS Connolley keeps on claiming spam. He should try reading instead. Serten (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy section[edit]

I erased my social science section and inserted the contents that fitted in the policy section, which already claiming an "ongoing debate" and discussed the amount of social science involved. If that stays, the dis is closed. Serten (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And I've removed it because of its practically total irrelevance to the topic of the article. You left in a relevant bit which shows the irrelevance and then disregarded it:
The question of whether there exists a "safe" level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because it would require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of the world, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. In general, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.
What is your problem with understanding what they are saying? All the stuff you want to stick in is about values and convincing people and not working properly. It i just not relevant to this article. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the real world - and scientists - care about wether he IPCC policy recommondation are worth their money or not. Thats part of the policy and there is more to say than quote one association refering to value judgments. Serten (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What scientists would like to happen is not part of the topic of this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As long youb claim the "opinion" includes the IPCC policy recommondations, it is part of the topic.Serten (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is about 'scientific opinion on climate change'. The IPCC is a intergovernmental agency the main aim of which is to give policy recommendations based on the science of climate change. The section on policy in this article makes it very clear that what you are talking about is not included in the science part. That is why it is short and points to other places about that sort of thing and says the policy part is not included in this topic of this article. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you got any sources for your claims? Do the academies exclude the the recommondation for policy makers as being not part of the consensus of science? As already asked what is meant by "scientific opinion" Do you have a source for your claim? It hs not been explained so far in the article nor in the section. It may be put in comparision with the Ozone case, where they were much less clumsy, and succeeded. Serten (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The bit you removed said as much - who are you to say you know better? You are the one who needs proof of their view. And stop edit warring to stick your stuff in. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The IPCC has no statement at all that excludes its recommondations from the consensus. To the contrary. Do the academies exclude the recommondation for policy makers from the consensus of science? As already asked, what is meant by "scientific opinion"? Do you have a source for your claim? It hs not been explained so far in the article nor in the section. The policy approach may be put in comparision with the Ozone case, where they were much less clumsy, and succeeded, why not? Serten (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) PS.:
The section is there to tell people who don't understand the difference between science and policy that policy is not included and give the reason why. For instance evolution is a generally agreed bit of science. Whether we should euthanize babies with genetic problems is a policy matter and scientists opinions there do not count as scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As to your ozone business. It has no relevance to the science here. But I would guess personally that the difference is that firstly that people could see a much more clear and present danger rather than one fifty years in the future, and secondly and more importantly people's lifestyle would be affected far more by costs of driving around. Americans in particular count that as a basic of their lifestyle. As Roosevelt put it "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". If you love driving a car you'll have an inclination to dismiss global warming. Same sort of way the gun lovers in the gun lobby manage to dismiss concern about all the gun deaths. Changing how shaving cream and fridges work hadn't the same sort of impact. The idea that if the IPCC changed how it went around things that it would make much difference to the various 'skeptics' is I feel rather naive. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
First: I have to apologize for erasing one of your comments while clarifying my statement.
Second: The whole activities of the IPCC are based on providing the recomondation for policy makers, however already the consensus assessenent is a highly politized affair. In so far the policy section has been neglected so far but has to mirror the importance of that part.
Third: Your points about naivety are basd on your opinion. As Cass Sunstein has pointed out en detail, the american goverment (the Bush adminstration) rejected Kyoto due to cost-benefit calculations and unwillingness to let Carbon dioxide reductions impair the american way of life. However thats an important issue to state.
its a major interest for social science studies to check why environmental challenges of similar global complexity (acid rain, ozone, carbon emmissions) fail in one point to be regulated while others succeed, the Merchants of Doubt have been active in all cases. With regard to Ozone, Grundmann and others assume that in case of the ozone case, lay people agreed with regulation since the image of the "Ozone shield" and the fear of scin cancer met much better with indiviual gut feeling. So your opinion is based on your gut feeling, but I provided the research that really has the evidence. With regard to evolution, its as well of scientifioc interest to compare the strong doubts of American conservatives towards gun control and evolution with the absence of such doubts with continental european conservatives. It has more to do with the role of social darwinism and eugenics, compare de:Michael Hochgeschwender, american religion or more polemical [Lindzen about eugenics and climate change. I think we better start reworking the policy section based on real sources. Serten (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
All of that has nothing to do with the topic of this article. I hope you understand the difference between policy recommendations and scientific opinion now and will cease wasting time here. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The topic is about scientific opinion piled together to achieve a common global consensus and recommodations for policy makers, right? I provided studies, that deal with the pro and cons of scientific opinion based on a consensus in gaining political regulation enforced. So its about the core of this article, the reason for its existance. Serten (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are doing comes under WP:COATRACK. Please stop. Dmcq (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What I am doing is improving and writing articles absed on quality sources, see Ozone depletion and global warming. Coattrack would be about a biased point, which one? Instead of wikilawyering, you should try to accept that Wikipedia:I just don't like it and denial of facts of life out of the real world is not helppful. Scientific consensus doesnt help to get politics provide regulation, to the contrary. Scientific activity has shown it. Serten (talk)
Whether the consensus is useful or not is irrelevant to this article. Politics is irrelevant to this article. Facts of life are irrelevant to this article. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at that Ozone depletion and global warming. It is pure WP:OR and WP:COATRACK on your part. Has it ever occurred to you when people complain and revert your stuff that you might be doing something wrong? Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I think Oppermann and Watson are interesting people and I found some nice aspects of their actual work, I believe those former or acting chairmen of the IPCC know much more about the uncertainities of their own work as you dare to concede. As long most of the Climate change articles contain outdated stuff with not much link to the real world, I dont care much about the opinion of authors that try to keep them in that state. Wikipedia is for the readers, should be about writing articles and expanding them, based on good sources- not about definding them against surmised enemies. The worst part of it is the incomprehensible bullshit out of the Depletion article. Serten (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC) PS.: Whether the consensus is useful or not is irrelevant to this article. Politics is irrelevant to this article. Facts of life are irrelevant to this article. funny, isnt it? I believe in Rumsfeld instead
No not kidding. However reading there again I see there is a notable topic just the title is allusive rather than descriptive, in Star Trek terms "Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra". My assessment of the OR which I stand by is due to the high percentage of references that mention only one or other of ozone or climate or warming and plus a couple which mention none. You are writing a paper with your own sources rather than abiding by Wikipedia policy, that is WP:OR. You seem to feel strongly that it is important to get your points across whatever about Wikipedia's policies. That comes under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If I raised a a request for comments in deciding if your contribution was within the scope of this article would you abide by its result if the consensus was against you? Or does 'I dont care much about the opinion of authors that try to keep them in that state' more accurately describe what you would do? Dmcq (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As you start with Star Trek, I am not your father, Luke ;) I would like to point out, that the OR resp coattrack or Disruptive editing aspect applies to both sides. See Grundmann, Cass, Ungar and others deal with central aspects of the topic here, since they assess wether a heap of science collected does help at all to make politicians or citizens act. The tell us, from comparing different human-nature-regulation topics that a science consensus doesnt matter as much, as tiny dots on Ronald Reagans nose and graspable Hollywood metaphors have a bigger effect on actual policy then all unreadable egghead stuff combined. So if you exclude valuable secondary sources about the very core and motiviation of orchestrating scientific opinions, you make me angry. Article quality may suffer. Make me happy by allowing Grundmann and others here and I improve my stuff as well, since you make some valid points about it. Serten (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That is Star Wars, not Star Trek. You have not answered about whether you would follow a WP:consensus determined by a request for comment. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
First you seem to claim that writing an article with scientific sources I is a breach of WP:OR. Lol, its just expanding WP, just editing along the rules. I already requested comments about my contribution, as I asked the sociology portal to comment here, after there was tekkie resistance against social science input. Serten (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are unable to work within Wikipedia's policies you shouldn't be editing here. I see no point in setting up an RfC if you are just going to ignore it. If you really believe you have a point that will pass consensus then you would be happy to go with that. So I ask you for the last time would you follow a consensus determined by a WP:request for comment about your policy addition here? Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not at all excluded an RFC and I am working very well along WP rules. However I am not willing to discuss it under your terms so far. This is a low quality article based mostly on outdated primary sources - Synthesis reports, IPCC hall of fame credentials from "anno tobacco" and a tiny entry about "policy matters". I am willing to start providing secondary sources to the article and to improve it. Serten (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I would be willing to go by whatever came out of an RfC but it doesn't seem you are able to say you would so I can't see the point of setting one up. I'll simply revert your addition if you stick it in and depend on enough editors agreeing with me to keep it out of the article. If they agree with you instead you'll get it in. Not my preferred mode of work deciding content. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Take "Controversy about the policy part of..." would be a RFC topic title I am in line with. Serten (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC Controversy about the policy section[edit]

The article so far has a small section about "policy matters" which should be expanded based on secondary sources. The IPCC and other associations attempt to use various science consensus oriented synthesis reports to provide, among others, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the basic rationale for the credentials menioned at length in the article. There is dispute about the insertion of social science topics at the talk page however. Therefore the RFC. Serten (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide reliable sources for your claim that there is a dispute? prokaryotes (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Goodness, if you doubt there is a dipute, we can close it. Serten (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The policy section is there simply to show people who think that policy is part of the scientific consensus why the policy recommendations are not considered part of that. It also points to places where related topics people looking at policy might profitably look. I'll quote the relevant bit here from the US National Research Council:

    The question of whether there exists a "safe" level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because it would require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of the world, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. In general, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.

The article topic as expressed in the lead is whether scientists have a consensus opinion about global warming. The title is no excuse to stick in everything and anything related to how the IPCC tried to get a consensus or why some sociologist thinks it is a bad idea or that the problem of the ozone hole was handled better. That is more suited to the IPCC or politics of global warming articles. Dmcq (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that there has been significant discussion above, but I don't have time to sort through it. And the outline above doesn't clearly identify why this section should be expanded. If the requesting editor could explain (concisely), that would be helpful. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
See #New draft for the sort of stuff they want in. An earlier version is at #Social science section. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Why to expand the already existing entry of policy aspects here? It already contains some deliberations about social science contributions and studies on it, but they are neither sufficient nor based on real studies
The rationale of assessing "the scientific opinion" is to provide the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and to get governments to act. That applies to the other synthesis reports mentioned. Policy is the base of the opinion finding, policy is base of the IPCC, policy has layed out the architecture of the process. In so far the policy section should be the core of this article.
The statement "The policy section is there simply to show people who think that policy is part of the scientific consensus why the policy recommendations are not considered part of that" is a rather funny misunderstanding what WP is about and uses an articles section to play WP internal politics. An article section is not to be part of an WP internal policy to deny improvements. Compare the article on the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, where all the credentials listed in this article are being repeated (in a summarized statement) to make clear that the policy statement suddenly has all the blessings. You cannot eat the cake here and have it there.
The sources I have provided assess wether an ""the more we know bout basic (natural) science of the topic, the better the policy will be" model is helpful at all. It is not. They compare the (different) approach of other human-nature-regulation topics (e.g. ozone, one might use acid rain as well). Either with ozone and acid rain regulation was introduced long before scientists had a unified opinion. Regional cost/benefit calculations seem to be better than global, rather generic assumptions. They sources in question conclude as well that its better to understand science uncertainities and the interaction between science and policy making than to provide one streamlined opinion in a clumsy process. That said, the people behind the studies are far from the sceptical cloud. Cass Sunstein study tried to have Bush staying in Kyoto, Michael Oppenheimer is the core person of the IPCC AR 5 process, Mike Hulme a former CRU geographer, Reiner Grundmann one of the sociology experts in the field and so on, even Judith Curry may have a say. I think therefore I might do a favour, by providing real sources for the entry and question and get out of the old fashioned septical-oil-shills-against-saints-of science debate, that make the discussion here so difficult and made arbitration /sanctions being imposed.Serten (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose with caveats. As a side note, if the article were titled "Scientific consensus on climate change" (which I think it was at one time), the material noted on the draft page would be off topic as it doesn't point to a scientific consensus on what policy positions should be assumed. However, since the article is called "Scientific opinion on climate change" it is arguable about wheether there needs to be agreement between scientists on this and I don't see why there can't be a short discussion about scientific opinions on policy here. My opposition to expansion in the manner suggested is based primarily on the fact that this is already a long article. My measurement of size (which could be off) is about 61kb. WP:Splitting says that articles over 60kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." It also notes that "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects," which may be applicable to this article. To me, the material suggested in the draft is better in a separate article. There are some that exist, but another could be created for this material, as it seems notable at first glance. In short, the material may well be of use for some readers, but this is not the best place for it. Airborne84 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Airborne84, with regard to the name, I have suggested a move as well, with no success. Scientific consensus on climate change or Scientific opinion on climate change are much to generic. It would have to involve much more than just the tekkie stuff, as science means "all science", including sociology or STS. There is a difference between the mainstream of (climate modeling) science covered by the IPCC and science as in history or Science, technology and society STS science, the latter describes the broader picture. Its much more of importance to know, why nothing happened, since its years ago that 34 national science academies and and and ... have made formal declarations confirming the science and urging nations to reduce greenhouse gases than to state and repeat them inn a hall of fame style. That said, the length could easily be cut down, as the whole entry with "Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing" can be reduced to three sentences. Serten (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason it is called scientific opinion rather than consensus is because it is about the scientific opinion. There is a scientific consensus but sticking that into the title would exclude ones that disagree and we'd have to know what the consensus if any was in the first place. As the current policy section shows policy is not generally considered part of scientific opinion because it includes value judgments. Also individuals and their papers have far too little weight to be included in this article compared to national institutions and surveys of scientists and the literature. Dmcq (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
First: The orchestrating of the Consensus(es) in question is a major endeavour but not at all being described here. Tbd Second: Statements of the parties involved (National institutions etc) are not Wikipedia:Third-party sources and neither neutral. a) You have to ask for the interpretation respectively the reason for the surveys, not the result as such. The surveys given here are as ridiculous as not neutral, We dont publish political surveys of political partioes, we should provide assessments of survveys by third party social scientists. b) If someone started to use the original treaty of the high parties committments wording to describe the common military policy process in NATO, he would be kicked out soon due to primary sourcing. That said, I ask to split the content, as the whole academy statements are something Wikisource might use or just a separate list will do, they support the consensus, the do not describe it. Third: The concept of a scientific consensus has shown its limitations, especially with regard to the IPCC, the article has to cover that via secondary sources, in the case here STS studies. Serten (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment My goodness, this discussion is as old as science itself. The title reads "Scientific opinion...", if someone wants to limit the opinions to those of specific sciences, then please change the title to reflect which sciences are being included. Social sciences are science and STS is not JUST secondary sources (see, for example, Bruno Latour's Science in Action and others who study how scientists conduct science). Stop squabbling among yourselves while the planet burns. Regards, Meclee (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Their input has been taken account in the assessment of things like the places where the economic impact would be greatest. That isn't what the RfC is about. The proposer seems to think that social studies of the consensus process is what the main topic should be and that scientific opinion about the effect of climate change as assessed by national scientific bodies should be split off as subsidiary or even just moved to WikiQuotes. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
First I am about having a policy section that points out that the linear model of using a science consensus by means of "the more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be" is a sort of Phlogiston theory - it has been dominant once but is debunked.[1] The IPCC hall of fame has some historical value as a list but didnt get Kyoto alive. So what? If someone has a problem with the length of the article, a split is the answer.
That said, awith regard to the linear model, the credentials of the IPCC might still apply, that debunking is relatively young, but the apparing paradox of the credential list being not able to get governments to act on the Big Consensus is being explained easily by that. Second I strongly disagree about the notion that "their input" does assessment of economic impact only and social science stuff is not a part of the consensus effort. No one would bother to do the giant unified opinion building effort of the IPCC for global climate research as Art for art's sake. Possible negative effects for society are the main reason behind the mandate of the IPCC to provide the assessment. The IPCC assessments go deep into that, based on social science e and policy aspects. Second, as being mentioned already, the whole (imho Coattrack) argumentation to keep policy out here is not applied at the article of the IPCC policy summary - that article suddenly keeps policy in, including the credentials.Serten (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I admit I keep getting lost among the indefinite pronouns they & their and the respective referents. If I understand the argument, perhaps it might be solved by changing the title to "Scientific recommendations on climate change policy". One can then talk about scientific opinions which in turn are adopted (or not) and recommended by scientific organizations to policy-making bodies like IPCC. There seem to be components of both in the article as it stands. Policy studies of this opinion-adoption-recommendation process would then be a separate article. I think this addresses the problem... Regards, Meclee (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I use they to refer to other editors to avoid referring to a gender as people can get annoyed about that. A better word would be nice but I don't know of one. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't about recommendations or policy. Recommendations and policy involve value judgments. That's what the current policy section explains and is practically its whole point. What people should do with the scientific opinion is their business. The IPCC's main job is to make policy recommendations to governments, its assessment of the scientific opinion feeds into that. The scientific opinion on smoking is that it is a major cause of lung cancer. Whether people should give up smoking or the governments should put out warnings is not part of that particular question.
This article is not about the IPCC or its processes or policies. It simply answers the question of is there a scientific opinion on climate change and what is it. It does not deal with climate change mitigation or suchlike. What is the point of hijacking this article to deal with something quite different? Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Coffee break
The article claims to be about (global) scientific opinion on climate change" and parades the IPCC credentials. If its not about the IPCC as Dmcq says, then split the hall of fame and change the contradicting outlook on the IPCC summary for policy maker article. Either eat the cake or have it. As Meclee said, the court is out wether a (global) streamlined scientific opinion on any topic does exist and so far not taken into account cy the article. Bruno Latour's Science in Action was mentzoned by Meclee, but Benoit Godin (2006) ‘The Linear Model of Innovation’ is more specific as refered to Grundmann. The IPCC assessments work predomantly on "global climate change", there is no approach at all (and no mandate) to assess regional climate change. So the article is a coattrack to claim a unified opinion on all aspect of climate but leaves out the actual limitations of the IPCC process on global issues. Thats the reason for the RFC. Serten (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You've lost me there. What does your "contradicting outloook on the IPCC summary for policy makers" refer to? Are you saying that because the IPCC's primary purpose is to give policy recommendations then its assessment of scientific opinion is a policy recommendation? Or are you trying to make out that its policy recommendation is a scientific opinion even if it includes value judgments e.g. that recommending that one doesn't smoke is a scientific opinion rather than a value judgment? Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to confuse you. Look on the article IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It uses all those credentials listed here to underline the IPCC policy outlook. Therefore one cannot claim that the IPCC opinion finding isnt't about policy or restrict the credentials here to natural science. Better split the credentials in a separate list. The rest of the article should have a short section saying a) that the science assessments are being used to word the IPCC summaries for poliymakers b) that they are confined to global (not regional) )climate change (but trying to take all aspects, including economic and social ones into account) and c) that this approach got a lot of laurels but have some limitations, see the failure of Kyoto and the points from Oppermann, Grundmann and others. Serten (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I really wish you could answer something simply. So as far as I can understand it you are saying that because the IPCC presented the scientific opinion along with the policy recommendations then the policy recommendation is a scientific opinion? Basically that when a scientific advisor for the government is asked about their recommendation about smoking and they say scientific opinion is that 'smoking causes cancer', the recommendation of the panel is that 'therefore we should have big warnings on the pack' that the 'we should have big warnings on the packs' is part of the scientific opinion rather than a value judgment given the government tends towards protecting citizens aka the nanny state as opposed to laissez-faire aka unbridled capitalism. Is that right? A yes or no would be quite sufficient. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Mu (negative)#In_popular_culture. The policy recommodations are the reason why the opinion is being collected. To use your example, if a UN body would be asked to come up with a assessment of the medical risks of smoking and told to the UN, that smoking is not very healthy and the behavior should be cut down. OK. Now there is a rather big difference wether the UN or the local governments or other organizations areor should play nanny and if, how. A social scientist may refer to the Bootleggers and Baptists challenge and (the Ozone case of smoking) the failure of US abolition or the war on soft drugs. He might as well point out that reasonable taxes on tobacco and banning smoking inside buildings are more helpful than putting the death penalty on smoking, as Murad IV did, since we all die anyway for natural causes. He might compare smoking with other bad habits, which do shorten peoples life but still allow them to have kids and fun and rocknroll. Therefore he might mock medical experts (the James Hanses) which, based on all their heap of unreadable tekkiemedical stuff, in the meanwhile started soapboxing "smoking is bad, based on science stop it for once and now". Serten (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You are basically saying 'the behaviour should be cut down' is scientific opinion. The policy section here cites a science institution of international importance as saying that is not so. That is why your RfC is based on a basic misunderstanding on what scientific opinion is. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The more I read the more it sounds as if Dmcq wants an article about scientific opinion that makes no mention of policy while Serten wants the article to include information on the interaction between such opinions and the policy bodies who receive them. As an aside, I must note to Dmcq that there is no such thing as scientific opinion that is 100% pure and devoid of value judgements. If that is the crux of the difference here, I recommend separate articles: one that makes no mention of policy and one that examines the interaction between scientific recommendations (which themselves are policy statements of the scientific community) and public policy. If I still haven't grasped the argument I will continue to read but may not comment again. Regards, Meclee (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
To Dmcq. I used cut down, since the IPCC suggest CO2emmission to be cut down so less than 2 warming results. "The IPCC is about scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." So its not about climatology per se, its about impact from and towards human societies. Serten (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
To Meclee - just have a look on Why We Disagree About Climate Change. I think thats shows my point better. Serten (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think what Meclee says is pretty close to the issue. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I encourage Dmcq and Serten to let the RfC run its course, let editors leave their judgments/opinions, and refrain from additional explanation here unless absolutely necessary. If the initial explanation needs to be adjusted, please do so. I suspect that the length of the discussion within the RfC and the lack of clarity in the initial explanation will be a deterrent for editors commenting here. I almost avoided it myself for these reasons; it's just a lot to wade into. That said, the current comments from editors seem to suggest that there should be two articles from the material at hand and the proposed material: (1) the current article focused on the climate science directly addressing the IPCC's statement in the lede, and (2) a separate article focused on policy. However, other editors may feel differently; so, again, please let the RfC run its course. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Grundmanns deliberations about social science role on climate change quotes Godin, Benoit (2006) ‘The Linear Model of Innovation’, Science, Technology and Human Values 31(6): 639–67. on that.