Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:40, 4 September 2011

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific consensus on climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 30, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 22, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

Science B‑class Mid‑importance

	Science portal 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Climate change B‑class

	Environment portal 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.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific consensus on climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientific consensus on climate change at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions.

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

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?

Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A1)

Q2: Is the section on "dissenting organizations" adequately supported?

The current consensus is that it is. There have been numerous lengthy discussions regarding the AMQUA and AAPG sources. Some have criticized the AMQUA letter as an unreliable reference. Others have stated that the combination of the AMQUA letter and the AAPG statement is against WP:SYN. The most recent consensus on this topic can be found at Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change#straw poll.

Q3: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists?

Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws^[1] To wit:

Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are fictitious characters ("Dr. Perry Mason"), hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell"), and companies.
Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes^[2] or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and many aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One climatologist, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored.^[3] Similarly, Steve Rainer of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous".^[4] The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list. (From GW/FAQ:A2)

Q4: Why should scientific opinion count for more than public opinion?

Because "science" – either as the time-tested methodologies for learning about the world, or as the immense body of knowledge that has been garnered by those methodologies, or even as the international "scientific community" of tens of thousands of highly trained professionals that use these methodologies – has the better track record. Because the science of climate is based on fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, with the conclusions based on factual data, and the consensus "opinion" has been vetted by hundreds of experts. Whereas the contrarian portion of public opinion has a poor track record, being shaped by politically motivated rhetoric (financed by the "interested" industries) that pushes certain points of view in disregard of objective, factual reality. (For an example, see the previous question.)

Q5: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming?

No, they were not – see the article on global cooling. A 2008 paper^[5] in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reviewed "what the scientists were telling us" in the 1960s and 1970s, and found the following.

One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling.

On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional,^[6] based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers.

(See also GW/FAQ:A13)

Q6: Why should we trust scientists that work for the government? ‡

(Discussion)

Q7: Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC?

Because the conclusions of the IPCC, produced through the collaborative efforts of thousands of experts, are the result of the most thorough survey of the state of climate science (or of any science) ever done. There is simply no other organization or effort that is comparable.

Q9: Isn't the IPCC a biased source? ‡

(Discussion)

Q10: Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists?

The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A11)

Q11: Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors?

The IPCC consensus regarding climate change was formally developed by thousands of experts, based on the entirety of climate science research and interpretation. The "several prominent contributors" said to be "critical" of the consensus do not constitute a sufficiently significant minority view to warrant inclusion (per the policy of WP:WEIGHT). Nor has any scientific authority been cited that suggests these criticisms in any way challenge the science of the consensus.

See also the next two questions.

(Discussion)

Q12:There are plenty of scientists who dispute human-caused global warming. Why aren't their opinions included?

Numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. Including those statements here would make the article overwhelming long and cumbersome, and would be granting them far too much undue weight. Public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. (Discussion)

Q13: Why doesn't this article include any dissenting views?

Non-scientific views (whether dissenting or assenting) are not included because this article is about scientific opinion.

There are no "statements by dissenting organizations" because (as noted in the article) "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change".

Views of individual dissenting scientists are not significant enough to be included in the consensus (a 2010 report^[7] estimated the dissenters to be less than 3% of active climate researchers, and their expertise and scientific prominence "substantially below" that of their peers); to include them here would violate the policy of undue weight.

(Discussion, discussion, discussion)

Q14: Why doesn't this article mention the Oregon Petition or other lists of dissenting scientists?

See Question #2. (Discussion)

Q15: Where is the Scientific Opinion against Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming?

What "Scientific Opinion against AGW"? The synthesis of scientific opinion — that is, the view that best represents all climate science research and interpretation, and particularly whether there is, or is not, AGW — is that most of the observed increase in global average temperature is very likely (probability greater than 90%) anthropogenic.

It would be more sensible to ask, "what is the scientific case that global warming is not anthropogenic?" But this case is so overwhelmed by the evidence, and held by so few scientists (if any!), that it simply lacks sufficient weight for consideration. (The argument that there is no global warming, that it is not human caused, and that the expected effects are only "alarism", is prominent only in non-scientific venues, and this article is about scientific opinion.)

(Discussion, discussion)

Q16: Is this article slanted or biased because it presents only one side of the debate? ‡

(Discussion)

Q17: Is this article a prohibited synthesis of the opinions of the listed scientific bodies?

No. The synthesis of scientific opinion on climate change (based on the primary sources) was done by the IPCC (a reliable secondary source). The statements of the various scientific organizations are affirmations of the IPCC's conclusion; their inclusion in the article establishes the IPCC as a reliable source, and affirms the synthesis it reached as a consensus view. (Discussion)

Q20: What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?

An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, for academies or societies that produce scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered to be among the world's most influential and prestigious.^[8]^[9]^[10] (Discussion)

Q21: What are the criteria for including organizations? ‡

(Discussion)

Q22: Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed as supporting are undecided?

No. It is fairer to ask, what organizations? It is more likely that any "organizations not listed" simply do not exist, as a reasonable search has not found any. Even easing the definition of a scientific organization to a point that became questionable did not find any undecided organizations (aside from the AAPG). An earlier form of the question noted that the listed organizations are predominately American or British Commonwealth (which is what might be expected for the English-language Wikipedia), and questioned whether there might be smaller, non-English speaking nations with scientific societies that are undecided on the issue. This is a possibility, but unlikely; the InterAcademy Council that represents the world's scientific and engineering academies affirms global warming and its dangers. (Discussion)

Q25: Given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV?

Because the purpose of a tag is to alert other editors to a possible problem, but in this case the other editors are already aware of the alleged problem.
Because per WP:General sanctions/Climate change probation you could be sanctioned for just adding a tag.
Because the general consensus is that the article is NOT an WP:NPOV violation (see next question).

Q26: Does this article violate the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy? ‡

(discussion, discussion, discussion)

References

^ Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009.
^ Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal
^ Today: George Waldenberger. Grist.org. December 3, 2007.
^ Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
^ Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
^ Crichton, M. (2004), State of Fear, Avon Books.
^ Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
^ AAAS - AAAS News Release
^ AAAS Annual Report-Science
^ The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor PNAS Retrieved on 2009-11-16

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Lawrence Bodenstein

Seems relevant to note who this Lawrence Bodenstein is, as we don't have an article 'bout him. Therefor restored the pediatric surgeon bit w/ ref. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The professions of everybody else are not listed, why this one and why the bio? There is nothing about this which says they are particularly relevant. He seems like a reasonable enough person to analyse a survey for statistical problems to me. Are you thinking that only climate scientists are qualified to analyse the statistics of a survey of climate scientists? You don't get an involved person to do such a job. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... lots of name dropping in headers around. It would be nice to be able to see who all those names are ... though mebe not very relevant to the article. Vsmith (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if he was the MD Google turned up.... He does seem to know his statistics. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just run a copy edit through the new material.

You 'draw' conclusions, not 'result in' them, so I altered the original wording there.
This is a challenge to the paper, but a rebuttal is a much stronger term. When you rebut something, you "drive back or beat [it] back; to repulse."[1] The conclusions of this paper are not driven back unless every word of Bodenstein's have been proven true, which is scientifically unlikely to happen.
I chose some more informative quotes from the abstract. Instead of giving the author's opinion on the political atmosphere or environmant, or his suspicions, I tried to focus on the actual body of his argument - that citations are largely given due to "an upward spiral of self-affirmation", rather than due to the expertise of the cited author in scientific discourse.
I removed the description of four people as 'scientists', partly because if we don't bio one author, we shouldn't bio others in the same breath, but mainly because it is such a naff description of anyone here. We all know from published lists of 'scientists', that these can include anyone who simply enjoyed their science classes in high school. This whole article is about scientific opinion - being called a 'scientist' here is really damning them with faint praise. Unlike Bodenstein, they are all linked if people want to know their biographies. --Nigelj (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel: thanks for making this more specific, and pulling better quotes. I meant to come back & look for a full, free text, but got busy. Better now. Quite a controversial paper! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "manufactured consensus"?

There's an interesting draft, The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin of Iowa State University [2], currently being discussed at Judith Curry's blog, here. Curry concludes her comments by remarking:

Goodwin makes a strong argument that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus that has been reached by intent. As such, Lehrer argued in 1975 that such a consensus is conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.

The IPCC needs to lose the emphasis on consensus and pay far more attention to understanding uncertainty and to actual reasoning. I’ll close with this statement by Oppenheimer et al. (2007):

"The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty."

Premature for here, but very interesting. Happy reading, -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It seems a bit pejorative to call it a manufactured consensus, I wonder why they phrase it that way? Yes the IPCC knew its target would be policymakers more than scientists and so talked about consensus. We all know it isn't a purely scientific body but one which gives an assessment to governments. That's its job. If you don't phrase what you have to say in the language of the person you are talking to then you're just wasting your breath. Dmcq (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of name change

This article would be better titled "Scientific findings on climate change". Opinion is subjective and therefore by definition unscientific. Scientists make findings, lawyers and blokes down the pub give opinions.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It isn't about the scientific findings. The article Global warming is about that. It is actually about the scientific opinion about global warming, whether it is happening or not and whether people are causing it. That's quite a notable subject because a lot of people say that scientists are very divided on the question. Various scientific bodies have given their considered opinion on the subject and surveys have been done of scientists in the field. Did you look at the opinion article? It has a small section about scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reasons as Dmcq comes with. Scientific opinion is an important aspect of science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We usually talk about scientists presenting their "findings" at conferences, not their "opinions". The wiki link the opponents cite lacks citations, and what is described in that article as "opinion" is actually the definition of what scientists present at conferences - "findings".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of stuff at Global warming could be presented at a conference, but what in this article could be presented at a conference? The closest would be the survey results but then you'd be presenting the results of the surveys of scientists opinions rather than a finding about global warming. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't seeing these statements as conference material because you're looking at it in a 2011 context, when the forest is widely known and conference material tends to be about the individual trees. Turn the clock back far enough and these statements about the overall forest would be new and timely material to many people.NewsAndEventsGuy 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I know that the word "opinion" is probably most often heard in the phrase "that's just your opinion," where an "opinion" is degraded as something baseless and whimsical, but the distinction here really is more like a legal opinion, which is based on the facts in evidence. Isn't the difference between "findings" and "opinion" the difference between "data" and "interpretation"? So this would be a question of whether the article simply presents "findings" in a fairly discrete manner (as an assemblage of information about studies of CO₂ levels and such), or whether it seeks to present what various scientific bodies state in overview as a result of the findings of individual scientists. It seems to me that the article does the latter. Is this the correct impression? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think the analogy is a good one. Scientific opinion can even be opposed to the latest and best results unfortunately and it may take some years for this to be rectified as in the theory of plate tectonics. Dmcq (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy fails for many of these statements because when you have a trial and then the court enters its "opinion", the first part of the the opinion is usually a section where the court lays out its "Findings of Fact". This is common legal knowledge, for example [here is New York's rule of civil procedure on point. Later sections in judicial opinions apply the law to those facts, make conclusions, and decide what to do about matters. At least some of these statements (most?) are more analogous to the court's "findings of fact". Where these bodies also make policy recommendations, that would be more like the later sections of a court opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does fail, as most analogies do, when pushed ad absurdum. The point was simply that "opinion" can have a respectable meaning as founded on evidence; the proposer of the move had mentioned both juridical opinion and barstool opinions, which need to be distinguished. I don't work on science articles, so I was leaving an, ahem, opinion as a totally lay person as to how a user might respond to these words. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another analogy could be 'medical opinion', which you might seek if you had a mysterious illness. You might even seek a 'second opinion' in that case. I don't think we'd seek 'scientific opinion' on Newton's Laws (maybe scientific education), but we may on some strange illness (of the body or the planet <- stretching my own analogy, so you don't have to!). --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per editors Dmcq & KDP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article isn't about findings, it's about the opinions of various scientific bodies as based on findings. "Opinion" in this sense is like a legal opinion, not the guy on a barstool. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see my reply about legal opinions above

Oppose. This is the right word, although there may be people trying to pervert the normal meaning, perhaps for rhetorical purposes. --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for all the various reasons cited. In addition, it should be noted that the statement "Opinion is subjective and therefore by definition unscientific" is quite wrong, being based on a very naive view that "science" consists of "facts" that are provably true or false. In fact science is based on evidence, often ambiguous or even conflicting (as we have seen), which takes a fair amount of analysis and interpretation to properly weigh (just like in WP:WEIGHT) to form any useful or "true" conclusion. Here "opinion" is the overall assessment of whether the purported results are likely true. Done scientifically it is properly scientific opinion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infograph - is it relevant?

The infograph accompanying this article is more polemical. Scientific theories are not proved by the number of scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, believing them. If 996 out of 1000 scientists believe in God, will it be a conclusive proof of God's existence? This picture needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.251.2 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like soapboxing by a possibly clueless anonymous user, with no relevant comments. I suggest we not waste any time on this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought his comments were relevant. He made some good points. There is no need to resort to name calling. Must I.P users wouldn't even be willing to discuss changes a talk page. Cut the guy some slack. Just my two cents. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that the graphic itself has been hacked around since it first appeared. It no longer matches the Anderegg paper's results. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like it myself. There's far more than 75 or 77 or 79 or whatever climate scientists who have been polled. Even if it was okay it should be with the result if anything, it doesn't illustrate the overall topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use some more images. If it reflected the results of the study it's supposed to represent, I'd support moving it next to that study in the article.--Airborne84 (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed in more detail at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I removed the silly picture from the article. Maybe some better images relevant to the article could spruce it up a bit! If any disagrees feel free to revert. Have a great weekend!

All the best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't add anything and emphasises a particular bit unnecessarily. I don't see the point of it and think it detracts from the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the infographic is being deleted from the article with the justification "Removed as per discussion on talk page." Where is that discussion? Is this it? The graphic illustrates the central point made by the article: Scientific opinion has reached a consensus, if not quite 100% unanimity, on this issue. The counterarguments for the image given here are pretty thin. Perhaps people should see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and then suggest a better lead illustration for this article if this one can be improved. --Nigelj (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a discussion, but it's not much of a graphic. Why do we need a (mis)lead(ing) illustration at all? Since the range was 97-98% (except in the smaller samples), perhaps 1/40 rather than 3/100 would be more appropriate. Even then, the latest caption also mentions 90%. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this image removed?

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped this being a new section as it is exactly the same topic as the previous section. It was removed because it's not very good, emphasises one survey unnecessarily and doesn't add to the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put the image next to the related survey(s) lower down in the article? It doesn't have to go in the lede. Just an idea. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, as long as the image actually reflects that survey. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate the communicative power of a good image. And this is a good image for this article. Consider: the central message of this article is the weight of scientific opinion pro and con AGW. It is not a matter that this image "emphasizes one survey unnecessarily" -- it's more that the key datum from this survey (supported by similar surveys) epitomizes the key issue: the "unsure" (skeptic??) scientists are clearly a small minority. To the extent that this (or a similar) image is a fair representation of the situation I think it should go in the lede. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Anderegg, William R L (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". PNAS. Retrieved 22 August 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Doran consensus article 2009

[1] Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009.

[2] Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal

[3] Today: George Waldenberger. Grist.org. December 3, 2007.

[4] Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09.

[5] Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.

[6] Crichton, M. (2004), State of Fear, Avon Books.

[7] Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.

[8] AAAS - AAAS News Release

[9] AAAS Annual Report-Science

[10] The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor PNAS Retrieved on 2009-11-16

[11] Anderegg, William R L (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". PNAS. Retrieved 22 August 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[12] Doran consensus article 2009

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 ::Why not put the image next to the related survey(s) lower down in the article? It doesn't have to go in the lede. Just an idea. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 21:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 :::Fine with me, as long as the image actually reflects that survey.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
+Never underestimate the communicative power of a good image.  And this ''is'' a good image for this article.  Consider: the central message of this article is the ''weight'' of scientific opinion pro and con AGW.  It is not a matter that this image "emphasizes one survey unnecessarily" -- it's more that the key datum from this survey (supported by similar surveys) epitomizes the key issue: the "unsure" (skeptic??) scientists are clearly a small minority.  To the extent that this (or a similar) image is a fair representation of the situation I think it should go in the lede. - [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)