Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 30, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
December 22, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
          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.

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature[edit]

This section is waay too long for something that says "Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change". It ought to be chopped down William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what links are for. --Nigelj (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It came up before with the same consensus, just no one took time to execute it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unequivocal-meaning cannot be questioned?[edit]

Should "unequivocal" be changed to a different word or words? for example to: "there is no doubt" A fine point in wording here.

Reason:The American Physical Society changed its wording from "incontrovertible' to "critical issue" for the reason "incontrovertible" has a meaning "not able to be questioned", which irritated the scientists, so they revised the wording.

"Unequivocal" has a similar meaning "cannot be questioned". Jcardazzi (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

"Unequivocal" comes from the IPCC reports, the most comprehensive and widely accepted consensus documents. They chose this word with care and after several cycles of review. It refers to the measurable increase in temperature, which is indeed beyond reasonable questioning. Also note that the new leading sentence of the APS statement is not about the reality of warming, but about the importance of the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz- Thank you for the information!Jcardazzi (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Earth[edit]

@Vsmith:: Hi, I saw this diff: [2]. I admit I haven't been paying close attention to the article or its talk page. Is there any reason other than a blocked IP making it that its undone? Seems like it might be an improvement to the lead anyways. I didn't see anything already on the talk page nor it being linked elsewhere in the article, though I admit, I didn't look too thoroughly. Thanks. ― Padenton|   11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My revert there was only for the block evasion, that sock made many rapid fire mostly trivial edits. You are welcome to make that edit your own with an appropriate edit summary. Vsmith (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

daily mail[edit]

Stephan_Schulz, what makes you think the Daily Mail is unreliable? Just asking. Scaravich105nj (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For your information and delight, User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec)It's a tabloid newspaper, well known for getting things wrong. See e.g. Daily Mail#Libel_lawsuits. For scientific topic, there are much better sources available - for climate science in particular the IPCC reports, which integrate all relevant research into their reports. You can see the unreliability of the Daily Mail the article you linked to - the "topsy turvy" box consists of careful cherry-picking, and half way down the article, the "eminent scientists" miraculously morphed into "some scientists", which tell a very different (and more sensationalistic) story. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note:Scaravich 105nj was blocked for personal attacks, and it has now come out that he was but one part fo avery large sock farm, so you can safely ignore their comments and edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)