Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change

FAQ POV/NPOV

This seems to be the key area for initial focus. There may be distinct but tightly related 'sub-questions' but my feeling is these might be best answered paragraphically. I'm fairly useless at starting writing from scratch (cop out:) so I'll leave it to someone else to kick off below with some suggested words :) ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(Paragraphically?) I think each distinct claim of NPOV violation has to be dealt with individually. That's why I put the generic NPOV question towards the bottom, and boosted the numbering, so the claims can be grouped together. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointless edit

There are two recent edits by 109.76.173.43, of which the second is rather pointless. Presumably there are no objections (?) to reverting it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NIPCC

I took out the NIPCC. I don't think they qualify as "scientific opinion" within the rules used here William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way does it fail to qualify as "scientific opinion". Please state the rules that you are using here for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scientific body of national or international standing. It's an ad-hoc assembly of the usual sceptics, organized and paid for by SEPP, also not a scientific body. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How can an organizations become a scientific body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any formal rules, but a few obvious criteria should apply: it needs to have some solid professional standing, not be an ad-hoc assemblage with unclear criteria; it needs a decent track record; and clear evidence of respect rather than the opposite from peers or ogvernments or such William M. Connolley (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the main problem. All of your criteria are opinion based so without formal rules you are free to decided on your personal opinion if a group warrants addition. How can you quantify "solid professional standing?" How do you determine if a group is ad-hoc or not? What does a decent track record imply? How can respect be included on the list at all? I don't see the criteria you list as obvious at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because there is gray does not mean we cannot distinguish white from black. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. many optical illusions exist on that principal alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check the archives. This has been brought up before, uncountable times. There is a current consensus of the editors here on this subject. Please familiarize yourself with the previous discussions and the current consensus. Consensus can change, so you could reignite the discussion, but please do so only with the archived discussions in mind as context. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If or not the NIPPC qualifies (in the experts opinions) as a scientific body is irrelevant. The simple fact is they have a notable opinion and relevant opinion the science that would benefit this article. Their exclusion has long been a cause for disruption here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does not qualify. There may be a grey area about whether something is or is not a table but a horse is definitely not a table. It takes more to get a scientific organization of international standing than for somebody to just set up their own group to publish their views when other people don't accept them. Putting in a group like that with the others here would be undue weight to fringe views. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That is my question. What will it take? If you never state what is required then you are free to disregard any groups opinion you disagree with. I am asking for what evidence you want to see so that when I find it you will accept it. I am not going to play the game of finding evidence and you finding fault with it and sending me out to find more until I quit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking for hard-n-fast rules won't work. Similarly, there is no unambiguous defn of a scientist. But just as in that case, there are some examples which are clearly out, and others are clearly in. In this case, NIPCC is clearly out. "you are free to disregard any groups opinion you disagree with" is, I think, wrong. Plus, not terribly applicable - it isn't as if there is a long stream of groups applying that we have to make difficult judgements over each William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is the key to my point. Since you have already made up your mind that the NIPCC is out and can never be in it does not matter who joins them in their work, what publication they make, what other groups say about them. To you the issue is settled for all time. That is why I am asking for what proof you want up front. This forces you to consider what they could do to be included. It is obvious that you do not wish to do this and so should remove yourself to be a bystander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can tell me why a horse is not a table I'll spend some time on your question. If you are not able to do that I can't see that I would stand any chance with answering your question to your satisfaction. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from such useless and unproductive statements. We are not talking about horses and tables here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems once again necessary to remind certain folks that this article is about scientific opinion, not just any allegedly "notable" opinion. That this "has long been a cause for disruption here" (and that the NIPCC is not a scientific body, and lacks any scientific credibility) is because certain editors do not WP:HEAR very well (a variety of WP:disruptive editing). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My question is how can a group that is not currently recognized as a scientific body become recognized as such. I do not see where this has been previously talked about and I have not made the claim that the NIPCC should be considered such at this time. However, I find it appalling that the opinions of the people here are not flexible enough to consider the possibility of a change of status over time for a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer, the original research being applied to constructed the standard must be recognized and the standards must have reasonable source authority. The disruptions can be sourced to the unreasonable standard being applied. It's obvious the NIPCC and others are considered as Scientific Opinion on Climate Change; however, the inclusion standard was constructed to exclude their POV. This article, has by design a NPOV issue. So much so that, even mentioning relevant groups in the article, that don't fit the standard is being excluded. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Anon: ah, I thought you were thinking about other groups: but you actually mean "how could the NIPCC improve". Well, you caould just look at what I wrote that currently disbarrs then: they could earn recognition as a credible group from governments or from other recognised experts; at the moment they totally lack this. They could establish a track record for producing valuable reports; they lack this. Etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• At least one notable climatologist is willing to consider the NIPCC's arguments: see Frames and Narrative in Climate Science, by Judith Curry, in her interesting series of essays exploring the scientific consensus on climate change -- which appears to be discomfiting some editors here. Happy reading, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And that makes it a scientific body? I don't follow your logic here. Guettarda (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Curry has wandered well of the rails there. Falling for the Johnston nonsense loses her cred. But she has done similar before making unsupported arguements that she later retracts or quietly forgets William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious"? Perhaps to you (ZP5), but what basis can you provide for that (other than "here's a bunch of non-scientifc folks that think so")? How about reading Q30 in the FAQ?

The "unreasonable standard" you allude to appears to be the inclusion of "scientific" in the topic title. So your position is that using science to examine matters of objective reality is NPOV? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

67.176.220.219, please use FAQ 30 (in the box at the top of this page) as a start point. The purpose of the FAQ is not to definitively define what xxx is or is not. The FAQ list is designed simply to capture the consensus of the editors here on various topics. Anyway, you can get an idea of what is required of the NIPPC to become recognized as a scientific body—at least within this article—according to the current consensus. You (and others) might disagree that the editors here should be able to determine what will be included and excluded. However, that is how Wikipedia works—through editors coming to a consensus on contentious issues. I hope this helps to explain, even if it does not give you satisfaction. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formulation

Just to make things interesting, I propose the following formulation. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the NIPCC included?

In brief, because the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) is, quite simply, not a credible scientific organization.

The NIPCC is the creation of noted climate change denier Fred Singer. Although it claims to be "an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars", this cannot be verified because it does not release that information. The NIPCC has none of the hallmarks typically associated with scientific organizations, such as: a governing board of persons distinguished in their field; affiliations with other scientific organizations; a substantial (or distinguished) membership of professionals in the field; presentation of congresses, conferences, or other events; funding of research resulting in peer-reviewed publication; or publication of a journal. The NIPCC's only basis for notability is Dr. Singer's critique of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, and a 2009 critique of the IPCC. Both were published by the The Heartland Institute, which is unabashedly politically partisan, favoring "market-based approaches to environmental protection"; it makes no claim to being a scientific organization of any kind.

In summary: the NIPCC has none of the characteristics of scientific organization, it has no credibility amongst scientists generally, its views are of a small minority (less than 3% of climate scientists), and its purpose, agenda, and point of view are not scientific, but political. Quite aside from what is says about climate science, it is not itself a scientific organization.

Unless you think you can get "denier" into hsi bio (good luck) it probably shouldn't be in the FAQ either, no matter how richly he deserves it. I think you've overdone the "in brief"s and "quite simplies"/ also I'd drop the last para: the entry isn't long enough to need a summary William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The old "Standard Navy Lesson Plan": Tell them what you're going to tell them, TELL them, tell them what you told them. Or as my favorite Oxford writer said: "What I say three times is true."  :-) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You're practically foaming at the mouth here. Needs an NPOV treatment if it's to be used. Or are you just trolling? ;-] Pete Tillman (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop trying to defend the indefensible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source for "NIPCC is, quite simply, not a credible scientific organization"? Sounds like original research to me. Try this, under the principles of maximize relevance and minimize redundancy, the NIPCC provide a refreshingly new researched view in to an overly redundant and degenerated article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is stored in this object. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are reasonably well defined criteria for the list of Organisations. There are not well defined criteria for the list of Synthesis reports. The list of 'consensus' statements is a poor third. FWIW, I think the idea of a FAQ entry dealing with a particular organisation is absurd - the FAQ should clarify and explain and define the criteria (for each list independently) in a manner that can be understood and applied to any organisation or synthesis report or consensus quote as required and relevant. ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does this "should" come from? In that the question of including the NIPCC has come up repeatedly (do we need to apply some criterion of what constitutes "frequently"?), why not include it in the Frequently Asked Questions? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the NIPCC has had at least 4 "conferences" where papers were presented and published a collection of those papers, both online and as a dead tree product. In addition, many of the presentations are available online. Q Science (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. The meetings are directly organized by SEPP and/or the Heartland Institute - the NIPCC does not, as far as I know, even have a structure that could handle the organisational and financial obligations. NIPCC is simply a label or a brand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like ZP5 usually complains about a lack of criteria or standards. So here are some criteria – which the NIPCC does not meet. But he wants a sources for ... that which does not exist? In that the NIPCC's status as a scientific organization is questioned I'd say the onus is on those who would include the NIPCC to show specific instances. Of course, they are getting better at quacking like a duck, but their impact is limited to their own, very small pond. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct Steve Schulz, the NIPCC is a brand which is focused on producing "scientific opinion on climate change", which folks have constructed a standard to omit them here. To quote Mark Twain, "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane" in Christian Science. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Brands are just labels, they produce nothing. People or organisations do. And the organisations behind this brand are, as pointed out before, not scientific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Brands are significant for focusing the org mission into service from and by people. There is a science behind brands which you may not appreciate. The NIPCC intended their brand to be scientific. They are working with scientists. Unfortunately, the standard being applied is EXCLUDING them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I fear I fail to understand your point. Yes, there sure is some science to be done about brands. Why is that relevant? There is also science being done about quasars. Branding only serves to change the perception, not the substance. The NIPCC, as we seem to agree, is a only a brand. As such, it has no consciousness or intention - it's simply used. The people behind the brand vert likely try to present the brand as scientific. They have, however, failed. Science is not something you can stamp on after the fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "folks have constructed a standard to omit them here". Wrong. The standard (see learned society, which seems as close as we have for "scientific organization") is pre-existing. The only reason the NIPCC is even being discussed here is because some folks start from a preconceived point of view that the NIPCC should be allowed, and that it is "unfortunate" that it is not. ZP5, what is it that you don't get about that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all in the spirt of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to improve the meaningfulness of this article with the NIPCC view. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So your point of view is that we should ignore all rules where the NIPCC is concerned, but should observe all rules where the IPCC is concerned? (I allude to your previous objections about synthesis of criteria, etc.) So sometimes ignore a rule, sometimes require it, depending who you want in, or out — that is certainly bias. All this being driven by your overriding goal: get the NIPCC's statements in, no matter how. That certainly looks like WP:POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'meaningfulness' you are looking for. It sounds to me like you want some completely different article but have alighted on this one. What would be the topic of the article you have in mind and why do you wish to remove this article and replace it with your own? Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This article will always be controversial. Certain aspects of it will live or die based on the consensus of the editors here. Some editors will never agree with the consensus. That's just the way it is. The only way to change the consensus is to go about getting a new consensus.

That keeps things interesting though! --Airborne84 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In that the question of including the NIPCC has come up repeatedly (do we need to apply some criterion of what constitutes "frequently"?), why not include it in the Frequently Asked Questions? - Okay, I'll accept that - HOWEVER - the question of NIPCC in the organisation list, is DISTINCT from the question of the NIPCC report in the synthesis reports list. The answer for the first part is clear - they are not a learned society, and they don't have standing - the second part is NOT CLEAR, IPCC are also not a learned society. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I may see what they are trying to get at. Why do we include International Arctic Science Committee but not NIPCC for a synthesis report? It seems obvious to me that one is a proper scientific body and the other is just one step away from the Tea Party movement they have in the US but is there a reasonable basis behind that intuition? Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reasonable basis to believe the NIPCC is 1) only faux scientific, and 2) has a political agenda and POV associated with the right-wing ("Tea Party"). For the latter, just read their statements, and note that their only significant reports are published by Heartland (which, as I said above, is "unabashedly politically partisan"), and note the broad cross-linkage with organizations of similiar politcal views. For the former — again, it's like I said above, they do not meet the generally prevailing (and pre-existing!) standards of a scientific organization.

Nonetheless, I think Jaymax has two good distinctions, worth considering. First, does the NIPCC report contain valid views or criticism that ought to be included in "the synthesis reports list"? Well, there may be a little confusion here. The "Synthesis Report" is that of the IPCC, and if they respond to the NIPCC in the Fifth Annual Review, fine, but that is their decision, not ours. And whether, in respect of scientific opionion, the NIPCC's views are a valid minority, I think not, per WP:WEIGHT. Sure, ZP5 will probably claim that thirty thousand "scientist" signatures on their petition gives them weight, but the literature does not bear this out. And all of the bonafide scientific organizations concur with the IPCC.

The second distinction is whether the IPCC is "learned society". (This would be off-topic, except for the context of equal application of standards to both IPCC and NIPCC.) In many ways, yes — they have a governing board of distinguished scientists, they have produced significant (and scientifically accepted) reports, etc. But I think it could also be argued that they do not have a general membership, and are more in the nature of a commission established for a special purpose (which they are) — just like the NIPCC. Here the argument could get a bit squishy. I would say that the IPCC has such stature, and their reports such significance, to deserve consideration. But I think it's time for me to take a breather and see what others have to say. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the contents list on the page, we currently list THREE synthesis reports, of which the IPCC report is (of course) the main one. I may have lead you off track re IPCC being a learned society - The learned society criterion has NEVER been applied to the Synthesis reports section of the article. For my own opinion, I have struggled to come up with objective criteria for the Synthesis reports list section of the article that would exclude the NIPCC report and include the three others - I certainly don't want to give Heartland any favours, but I can't yet see an objective discriminator. AFAIK these people (PDF) are all scientists. (Note I didn't say good scientists.) ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The largest difference between the IPCC and the NIPCC is their mission and funding. The rest is in execution and the standards being applied to keep the NIPCC out. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a completely nonsensical claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Even astoundingly nonsensical. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, you may want to rethink that - the 'mission' of the IPCC vs the NIPCC probably fully covers the distinction, providing an appropriate definition of 'mission' is used. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I get your point, but I don't see how "mission" or "execution" can cover reception ("an admirable description of research activities in climate science" - Richard Lindzen vs. "fabricated nonsense" [1]), composition, longevity, and impact. You might get the difference in production (two think tank employees with "advice" from a hand-picked group of sceptics, few of them with significant scientific standing) vs. hundreds of top-tier scientists with input from a much larger community covered under "execution", but that it's that very execution that makes the IPCC "scientific opinion" and the NIPCC propaganda. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with you. BUT: The 'reception' argument is problematic, perhaps unscientific (we all know of research that was poorly received, but ultimately revolutionary - indeed, I've just returned from a wonderful lecture by the guy who's team proved Neurogenesis in humans (oddly not cited in the article, despite getting the cover of Science Magazine, I'll have to look into that.)); I'm not sure that 'hand-picked' is useful either - IPCC authors are also 'hand-picked'; 'significant' is subjective, or arbitrary. If we can define objective criteria around 'execution' and demonstrate it with sources, then THAT would be a valid basis to discriminate. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The mission of the IPCC is to evaluate the risk of climate change (there is no pre-ordained requirement that warming must be found) and the consequences thereof. The mission of the NIPCC (in practice) is consistent with controverting any finding of global warming, or that it is anthropogenic, or will have any adverse consequence. Sure, they don't actually come out and say that, but a good look at the actual science (which we have on good authority) shows them coming up short. And the most parsimonious explanation is the presence of a controlling point of view — a political point of view. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Steven, by the IPCC releases "propaganda" too. JJ, better check you sources on the IPCC and NIPCC missions. There is a point to be made that one has a better process then the other (the accreditation point, I'll call it); however, with equal budgets we must assume that could be equated too. The difference is in the mission and budget, these rest is scientific opinion. Scientific opinion is expensive. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

With "equal budget", I could be an atomic super power. I'm not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, focussing on synthesis reports, the budget issue is irrelevant. A lone scientist could over a year review the science in a field and compose a synthesis report - when it comes to synthesis, all budget does is increase the breadth and depth of the analysis. ZP, even if were right that scientific opinion is expensive, something I personally feel is 99.9% utter nonsense - synthesis reports don't produce inputs. The question of 'mission' is however very important - if it could be shown, using reliable, non-opinion secondary sources, that the NIPCC (or the IPCC for that matter) had a mission that was primarily political, then that might be a solid basis to exclude the synthesis report. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one it's not a synthesis report - it's at best a weak rebuttal to the IPCC. Has it been billed as a synthesis report somewhere? It claims to look at original climate data, i.e. it claims to be original research, not synthesis. Moreover, please check [2] (page 254): "However, conservative think tanks have stepped up their efforts to manufacture uncertainty by going all out to create the image of of wide-spread scientific disagreement over climate change. The Heartland Institute in particular has begun hosting an annual conference designed specifically to counter the IPCC, and it sponsors publications designed as alternatives to the IPCC assessments - issued by the cleverly named 'Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change' or NIPCC." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The bits I've seen have been synthesis report in nature. Also, from the preface: "We present support for this thesis in the body of this volume, where we describe and reference thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that document scientific or historical facts...." - Are you sure they claim to look at original climate data, or do they claim to look at papers that used original climate data? If you're right about original data within the report proper, then it clearly can't be a synthesis report. NIPCC report front matter is worth a quick read if you havn't already - they pitch themselves as more '2nd opinion to IPCC' than 'counter to the IPCC'. However, I found something interesting when googling for NIPCC synthesis report, see below. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

JJ, I agree with your POV. BUT that's not how we do things on WP (or at least we shouldn't) - to make the distinction as you set it out, you have to (1) define it objectively, and (2) produce sources that objectively stand up against contrary sources. It is inarguable that a significant segment of society believes somewhat the exact inverse of what you and I do, as you expressed above. I am cognisant of this being a Science article - so (eg) if anyone has done a scientific analysis of whether the NIPCC is politically motivated or science motivated (because there are clearly many believers on both sides) then we could shut this down - but to my knowledge, no-one has. We can't rely on what most of us subjectively regard as obvious (eg: political motivation, or comparison with IPCC conclusions), because that is OR. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if there is scientific literature regarding the political nature of the NIPCC, because that is not a scientific matter. (Perhaps political science?) But given attributable statements from the organizations themselves (NIPCC: "we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions"; its parent organization, the SEPP: "declarations/leipzig.html there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide"; and the NIPCC's publisher, Heartland: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", and "we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emission"), as well as the nature of the content on Heartland's website, is it not rather obvious — or at least a fair inference by reasonable persons — that the NIPCC is biased in a political way? Does WP:NOR require us to find documentation for the obvious inference of what the parties themselves say? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup it does - any inference requires sourcing, and because this is a science article, Our sourcing standards have to be high.

What I mean is this, because the inference is obvious, there are innumerable places we could go to find reliable sources stating just such a reasonable opinion. But it would still be reasonable opinion, not science - and it's not right for us to quote 3rd party non-scientific opinions, no matter how reasonable or obvious they might me, on this page. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced here (I think there is some confusion), but perhaps this line of discussion is made moot by your following comment. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this from the EPA:

EPA has reviewed and considered the NIPCC report and found that it lacks the rigorous procedures and transparency required to serve as a foundation for the endangerment analysis. A review of the NIPCC Web site indicates that the NIPCC report was developed by “two co-authors” and “35 contributors and reviewers” from “14 countries” (http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html). The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted. Thus, the NIPCC’s approach stands in sharp contrast to the clear, transparent, and open procedures of the IPCC, CCSP, USGCRP, and NRC.

Useful? ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be a clear statement to the point. (Good work.) Is that sufficient to settle the point? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Still need to define the criteria we will use - while it troubles me to start here at setting out criteria, I suspect that we can agree that for a Synthesis Report to be considered Scientific, it's authorship and review processes must be themselves be published and open to critique by the science community. Are there additional things we could add to that? ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"No scientific body"

(Was "No scientific consensus". Sorry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did look though the archives. Archive 11 reached the conclusion it was not (yet) adequately sourced, and neither of the present sources is clearly both reliable and supporting the conclusion. Archive 12 claimed it was clearly adequately sourced, but there has been no discussion in the talk archives covering it. Tagged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm confused by your header. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm supporting Ed Poor's comment that the reliable sources do not support the statement that "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." The AQMUA editorial letter is not a clearly reliable source, and the book could only be a reliable source for the facts as of the publication of the book, even if it is reliable. If a reliable source reported that AAPG was the only such scientific body with a dissenting opinion, and a different reliable source reports that AAPG reversed its opinion, that would still not provide sufficient evidence that there is no scientific body with a dissenting opinion. But an editorial isn't reliable, and I have doubts that the book is reliable in this instance, except for the opinions of the authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The second page reports it was subject to editing by the forum; however, it still resembles a letter rather than a "paper", and letters, even in clearly peer-reviewed journals, only represent the opinion of the authors. (It also doesn't appear to support the statement made in our article.)— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guessed so much. I'm still confused by your header. As for the substance, the AMQUA "editorial" is an official statement of the AMQUA council, no matter where published. It is of course a reliable source for "AAPG [...] stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming". You have a point in the time issue, of course - we should put in an "as of". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't a reliable source for that. It's a reliable source for "AMQUA states that AAPG [...] stands alone [...]". (As of that point in time, as we are then asserting that AAPG changed its statement.) It would only be a reliable source for the specified statement if it were properly peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A formal statement by a learned society is certainly much more reliable than e.g. a newspaper article. It meets our standards for WP:RS. Sure, a peer-reviewed article would be even better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. A formal statement by a learned society is better than a newspaper editorial, but, if an interested organization, it's still their opinion. But perhaps this should be taken to WP:RSN? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN is a good idea. But why would a non-interested organization ever issue a statement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think they are disinterested? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I think they are disinterested? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You might distinguish between interested/disinterested in the issue itself and in a particular result. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And having made that distinction, are we seriously saying that the AMQUA might publish a lie in an official statement, (without ever issuing a correction), out of their own self-interest, and that we should take account of that in the wording of an article? I think that degree of doubt in their professional integrity would have to be sourced. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, as it's clearly an editorial, they would have no reason to fact-check. If there were a learned society which had a contrary opinion, they could just say they weren't aware of it. Their reputation wouldn't be significantly tarnished; after all, they're a paleontological society, not a sociological one, and couldn't be expected to know of all scientific organizations, even all those expert in the climate change field. Only Michael Chrichton is slandered by the article, if anyone is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we please not start up original research on what organizations say. The reference is there simply to show that it is something somebody thought interesting enough to say. It pretty evidently is true so there is no need to qualify it. If there was some evidence showing they were wrong or reasonable doubt then there might be some point but there isn't. Dmcq (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Unless the book says "no scientific body" (which is unlikely, as its publication year is the same year that AAPG withdrew its opposition), we have no references that support the statement that "no scientific body" .... Some appear to say "no scientific body except AAPG".
2. It's clear WP:SYNTHESIS to combine "no scientific body except AAPG" and "AAPG no longer ..." into "no scientific body", even if "evidently true".
3. It's not clear that we have reliable sources, even for "no scientfic body except AAPG"; AMQUA is not clearly reliable; it's an editorial position of the organization. I don't have a copy of the book, and it's not clear that the book is not POV-pushing; something that reliable sources may do, but only if it's clear there is editorial control. We cannot (in the editorial voice) present opinions, except that of experts under WP:SPS, and then only if there is no WP:BLP violation. (As an aside, the American Mathematical Society took a political position which I consider improper. My only recourse was to write a letter to the editor of the journal in which that opinion was published, and then to resign. If I recall correctly, the position was nominally about mathematical research funding, so the publication would have been considered a WP:RS under this interpretation, which I consider absurd, as they are not political experts.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the American Maths Society put things which were factually incorrect in a position statement, that would be similar to here, or are you just saying you disagreed with their position? Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. They posted a statement as to the effects of funding on research, which was statistically flawed. It may depend on the meaning of "is" "funding", but it was actually wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. I don't mind further discussion, but since the "letter" in question was accepted by a consensus of the editors here, it will require a further, changed consensus to change or remove the source. Because a new consensus has not been achieved, I have removed the tag.

On the other source, I have removed the "credibility" and "verifiability" taqs. I added the source, but that's irrelevant. Please see WP:OR which states: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The MIT Press falls in category two, "books published by university presses." It is, therefore, a reliable source, and does not merit a "credibility?" tag.

Please see WP:V which states: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." In other words, the fact that a Wikipedia editor does not have immediate access to a reliable source in an article, does not mean that the source merits a "verifiable?" tag.

Thus, I have removed these tags also. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't a discussion in the archives about the AMQUA source, and it doesn't meet any of the normal WP:RS criteria except possibly WP:SPS. And I just want to know that someone has verified both the credibility (not all University Press books are even non-fiction) and content of the MIT Press source, as the statement has been edited from "no [...] except AAGP" to "no [...]" without changing the references, making the details of the source suspicious. In archive 11, there's a section in which it is suggested that the statement is not sourced, with reasons; in archive 12, there's a section in which it is stated that it is obviously sourced, without reasons. There's nothing relevant in Archives 11 or 12 which supports the change. I think the tags should remain. But I'm not going to revert. I am going to put a {{content}} tag on the article, though, as both User:Ed Poor and I agree that it's not adequately sourced. (He seemed also to be saying it's false, which is not-at-all relevant.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:SYN argument doesn't hold. Basic math of the type '1-1=0' is specifically allowed in the policy. The best sources we are able to find indicate that there are no such organisations. If you think these sources are insufficient, and cannot find better sources that support your position, then RSN is probably the route to go down, because we've had this debate multiple times before, with consensus always leading to retention. I think we once had 'no known organisations'; but that is inappropriate (known by who?) ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN clearly applies, as we don't know that an organization does not now disagree.

As for consensus, in Archive 11 consensus was clearly opposed to inclusion of the sentence I'm questioning , and gave reasons; Archive 12 was in favor, but not give reasons, and no reasons for the change were given between the sections. I hadn't gone back further than Archive 9. I don't know what you mean about "consensus always leading to retention". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN does NOT apply. Your backwards logic that we do not no something, contrary to the sources we do have, and for which there are no sources notwithstanding. The point you made earlier was that we could not do elementary math across sources, and you are explicitly wrong on that count. As to the issue of the quality of sources, consensus, reflected by the fact that the text has remained in the article despite multiple challenges, with various 3rd parties coming in at different times. Consensus on WP does NOT mean that every single voice agreed, and I would concur that (probably) in every case there was a lone voice or two practising WP:DEADHORSE. Given that context your best approach is to take the issue to RSN and advise us here when you do. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are not disputing the statement even though you say you can spot errors in statistical statements from the American Mathematical Society. However you seem to be arguing now that we may not know the statement is true today because some society might have issued some statement last night. Are you therefore saying that the statement should be dated according to the sources? Or what exactly is it you are trying to say? Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the last reasoned argument on the talk page (in Archive 11) was against inclusion of this statement; the discussion in Archive 12 was not reasoned. I didn't go all the way back to see if there were

I don't know if the statement is correct. However, it clearly is WP:SYN to combine

• Source A: There are no scientific societies other than AAGP which disagree with the statement.
• Source B: AAGP no longer disagrees with the statement.

into

• There are no scientific societies which disagree with the statement,

unless Source A and Source B are the same.

What we can probably say is:

• In (year taken from reference), no scientific body of national or international standing, other than the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAGP), has maintained a dissenting opinion.^[1][2] In 2007, AAGP updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.^[3]

If both reference 2 and reference 3 are the MIT Press book, we could combine them as is presently done (although it should still be dated to 2007), but the earlier AMQUA reference is then unnecessary and confusing, whether or not reliable.

In regard specific sources.

1. I don't think that the AMQUA source is "reliable", and I see no discussion on point in the talk archives here. It's a statement of a professional society, which should be allowed under WP:SPS if it is in their field of expertise. However, the views of other professional societies are not really in their field of expertise.
2. In regard the MIT Press book, I'm asking someone to report exactly what the book says; both "sides" in these debates frequently misquote sources. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept that the book is likely reliable on this point; however, as an example, (hard-)scientific books speaking on political "reality" are often unreal.

Reported in WP:RSN#Scientific opinion on climate change: No scientific body

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

I think what this sentence is really meant to convey is correct and is adequately sourced with the two sources. It is NPOV and there is no serious OR problem. That said, the formulation is defective. For conveying a general impression we are making a specific precise statement that we don't really know to be correct. Collectively we probably have a good overview over the positions of scientific bodies, but we are not technically allowed to turn this into explicit statements of that kind.

Apologies for sticking this in mid-comment, but the point directly relates. On WP, we never KNOW what the truth is, we simply restate what the sources tell us (or at least, that's true when we are doing it right) - In this case, the source A explicitly tell us there was only one, source B explicitly tells us that one went away. WP:MATH says we can combine sources to do simple math. Hence, zero, by the sources - nothing more, nothing less - just relaying what the sources state. ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the following has essentially the same gist, while avoiding the original research:

As of 2006, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only scientific body of national or international standing that maintained a dissenting opinion. In 2007 it updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

In this version we are not saying that there is no other such body, but we are still implying it. That's OK because we can be reasonably sure that what we are implying is true, and we know that it is morally true. The claim that we are not stating but implying has been explicitly in the article for over a year, and if it were false we would know that by now. Per WP:SYN creating novel associations can be fishy. But here the implicit conclusion from the association is essentially (and for the US, where the contention over climate change has its origin, explicitly) stated in the second source.

By the way, the second sentence doesn't have a source in the lead. That's OK because it's covered in detail in the article. Hans Adler 20:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, it doesn't matter if you think or don't think that the AMQUA source is reliable. Wikipedia's policies say that it is. If you disagree that Wikipedia's policies say that, I can cut and paste the relevant sentences for you. You have only to ask.

Likewise, it is irrelevant if you are not sure of the reliability of the MIT Press source. You're entitled to your opinion, but your and my opinions carry no weight here in Wikipedia articles. The only thing that matters is reliable and verifiable sources. I illustrated above that the reference is both—according to Wikipedia's policies. If you would like to research exactly what the book says, I included the ISBN number of the book when I added it as a reference. You should be able to obtain the book with ease.

Finally, this discussion is moot, for the most part. The last consensus was to keep the AMQUA reference. In that light, whether or not the reference can be argued unreliable at this point is simply irrelevant. If you would like to continue to pursue this topic, your best course of action is to try to establish a new consensus, or follow Jaymax's advice above. This may not be what you want to hear, but I hope it's helpful to you. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler, your second formulation does seems reasonable. I'm not sure, however, that even that will avoid POV claims for this section (and the article). Perhaps Jaymax could point to the relevant Wikipedia policy that allows the "simple math" avoiding the WP:SYN issue. I have seen it before (as we've been through all this before), but it may help the editors here to have it laid out clearly. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Apols, I should have done it earlier - I'll confess that this being about the 4th time over the last couple of years making the same point lead to me feeling a bit bloody-minded. My bad. WP:SYN is a section within WP:NOR, which also includes WP:CALC "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." My emphasis.

Thanks. I suspect that would be a useful addition to the FAQ, given that it reflects an acheived consensus by the editors here. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it doesn't yet reflect consensus. As for the point above, we do have some matters which appear to fall under WP:CALC which are clearly not allowed. For example:

1. Poll 1 finds 50% support for position X.
2. Poll 2 (later) finds 70% support for position X.

Hence, support for position X is increasing.

The conclusion does not follow if the questions are phrased differently, the definition of "support" is different in the two polls (Poll 1 is on a 5-point scale, with the top 2 being considered support, while Poll 2 is on a 4-point scale), etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research?

Dmcq, would you care to clarify what you mean (above) about not doing "original research on what organizations say"? Given the context, it sounds like you would not even let us quote an organization's own statements. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We accept newspaper stories normally as reliable sources and an editor was trying to qualify a statement as not being a reliable source when it was from a much better source than that. We are not qualified to question reliable sources and should only do so when there is a discrepancy or problem pointed out. What was being done was original research into the organisation. We are perfectly well entitled to cite reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RSN. At least one of the commentors agreed that it was not reliable. Still, if consensus there is clear that it's reliable, I'll withdraw the objection, except as to the point-of-time problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society

I just removed a sentence on the Royal Society report. It seems fairly unremarkable that the Royal Society would say climate changes were not anthropogenic millions of years ago (before there were people). Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I already answered him here, though this page is probably a more relevant venue. The fact is cherry picked - it's a caveat made in relation to a previous paragraph. Guettarda (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is over-attribution of a well-established fact that nobody seriously disputes. It's a bit like saying, "According to the American Mathematical Society, Albert Einstein is known for having discovered the relativity theory." Wikipedia articles have a tendency to accumulate such random statements with no apparent connection to the gist of the article. Hans Adler 08:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to the deletion (it was from a newspaper). But for what ever it is worth, TeaDrinker mischaracterized the quote attributed to the Royal Society. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I would hope that everybody clicked on the link and read the diff. It's not exactly news that Europe was glaciated several times, and that at other times we had tigers living in England. More short-term events such as the Allerød oscillation are also quite well known, and a fluctuations on the decade scale need no more than a Markov chain as their explanation, i.e. pure mathematics with no physical insight. The part "human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change" is even more obvious. Hans Adler 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intention to misrepresent the source. It seemed like what the Royal Society was getting at, although I would probably have to do more extensive reading to be sure. I was admittedly puzzled as to what the authors of the news piece were suggesting had changed in that sentence, and presumed they simply didn't understand the RS report. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

William K. Stevens

With reference to this edit.

From the article cited:

It would be out of date in light of a potentially historic sea change that appears to have taken place in the state and the status of the global warming issue since I retired from The New York Times in 2000.

--TS 20:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede "For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus." ... misleading.

Undue weight in lede "For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus."; which begins: "Climate change consensus describes the public perception and controversy over whether there is a scientific consensus on recent global warming and on the extent of man's involvement, and the factors driving that perception and controversy"... misleading? The debate of wether there is a scientific consensus is first and foremost WITHIN the scientific community, peer-reviewed. The statement "For debate on scientific consensus ..." sound like the public, politicians, or vested-interest corporations have a say in wether the relevent scientific community has reached "scientific consensus" (or to avoid oversimplification: increasing towards unanimity). The Scientific community doesn't set national policy, law makers do, but the public and the politicians don't do any credible science, and don't determine "consensus". 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)