Jump to content

Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.80.196.141 (talk) at 16:44, 30 January 2013 (→Sub-discussion on whether prior discussion is SOAPBOXing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2008Articles for deletionKept
December 22, 2009Peer reviewReviewed

I think this page is heavily biased

I think this page is heavily biased. This disappoints me, because wikipedia is normally so unbiased. This page only talks about the scientists and organizations that DO believe in climate change, and it completely ignores the other side. It is simply not true that there is a consensus on this theory, the same way there's no consensus on evolution, the "big crunch" theory, the theory that the earth came from the sun, or countless other theories. Don't believe me? 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying that global warming is not man made. You can google it if you don't believe me. I've tried editing this page, but it appears as though no one likes any sources except government agencies, which are incredibly biased and unscientific. Somebody has GOT to mention all the hundreds of thousands of scientists that don't believe in climate change. Oh, and by the way, don't think I don't know about the famous "98% consensus". I looked up that study and found they only ended up asking the opinions 77 scientists that they had "approved", rather than the 30,000 that they claimed to have asked. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS YET. To say there is a consensus is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.216 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

his page only talks about the scientists and organizations that DO believe in climate change - wrong. It doesn't talk about individual scientists at all. It only talks about recognised scientific institutions. If you can find one with a contrary opinion, not some op-ed, then do feel free to include it.
31,000 scientists signed a petition - wrong, obviously so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead says, This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion . . . and the section, "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature" cites polls of individuals.
The IP must be referring to the Oregon Petition. Including that with all the proper caveats is worth considering. Yopienso (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support that. This article currently doesn't provide enough context about how scientific consensus is created and how it differs from public opinion on climate change annd the opinions of individual scientists, and how it relates to the overall global warming controversy. Expanding on those themes (which currently are only addressed as wikilinks without explanations) would help achieve a better NPOV tone and lessen the appearance of biased coverage that bothers the IP editor. A good article should not only describe its topic in detail within narrow bounds, but also place the topic in relation with its broader, overarching subject. Diego (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble. I signed the Oregon Petition, as being an expert enough in some of the scientific disciplines involved to see that some of the statements quoted as being made by the "warmers" were incorrect. Since then, I discovered that some of the statements were misquoted, and some were later (probably before I signed the petition) re-explained or corrected. And, I suppose, there may be a difference between "scientific opinion" and "opinions of scientists"; Linus Pauling, for example, is known for serious mistatements outside of his specialties. (With USENET, and with open source journals, probably many scientists are now known for serious mistatements.) Because of this, I question whether I could objectively edit a section on the petition; however, I question whether many of the major contributes to global warming articles would be able to do so, as they do not accept the possibility that some of the early papers had the reported data edited to match the theories, or had then-clearly-incorrect theories to support their conclusions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble. People are writing unfounded twaddle like they do not accept the possibility that some of the early papers had the reported data edited to match the theories. Put up or shut up William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregon Petition reports results from some papers which were demonstrably false at the time. (Regardless of whether it was prepared by or signed by "scientists", the document speaks for itself.) Whether it was (in each case) improper analysis, selective data collection, or a simple mistake, is difficult to determine, as you (and I mean, you, specifically, rather than "alarmists" in general) are unwilling to admit that the papers were in error. [If it was misquoting, that is possible to determine, and it seems to have been, in at least one case.] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't put up. "results from some papers" is intolerably vague. And inconsistent with our wiki page on the OP wot says, and I quote: The text of the petition reads, in its entirety:[4][7] “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
So I say your reported data edited to match the theories is offensive twaddle. If you're being deliberately offensive, fine, leave it. Otherwise, strike it out William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the Oregon Petition you are referring to is different than the one that I signed (or they changed the text after signature, which is also not impossible), you seem to have omitted the text of the supporting material of the Oregon Petition, which specifically notes that some of the papers then had conclusions inconsistent with the data available. I confirmed one of those at the time I signed; the conclusions of that paper were inconsistent with the data available at the time[note 1] I don't know the cause of the error. Because of the analysis I made, I don't think data falsification could not have been the cause in that case, although data selection bias (willful blindness) could have been. It will take me a while to dig up which paper it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're backing away from had the reported data edited to match the theories with a very weaselly I don't think data falsification could not have been the cause in that case, although data selection bias (willful blindness) could have been. You haven't got a clue which if any papers are supposed to have done this. And you're still not backing up your slurs, but are putting it off to some indeterminate future date (It will take me a while to dig up which paper it was). You should delete your slur until such time as you *are* able to back it up William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(restore from edit conflict), Or, more likely, you could have made a mistake since you aren't an expert in that field (which is what I gather from "as being an expert enough", even I would probably qualify under that criteria) and didn't have your work peer reviewed by anyone from what you have stated. You've also been very vague about the details. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I lost track of indent levels, and they seem to be changing as I edit

(ec/ec/ec) It appears my signature isn't on the list. Perhaps they couldn't read me name, or it was one of the Internet signatures which wasn't confirmed by mail. In any case, the text of the petition doesn't look familiar, but the supporting pseudo-review document does. Perhaps there was more than one "Oregon Petition".
(ec) It was clear that the statistical analysis method used in the paper, if applied correctly to the data presented in the paper, would have produced a different result. That doesn't require climatology expertise.
I don't know if there was data falsification. The pseudo-review document claimed specifically that there was falsification; I can only assert error. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So come on, don't be coy: tell us exactly which paper you're talking about and tell us exactly what's wrong with it. And WTF is a "pseudo-review document"? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know on which precise hook you are trying to hang your hat. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the "pseudo-review document" refers to the fake "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" that was presented to give the impression of a PNAS paper, but was only fairly transparent crap self-published by OISM. As a historical note, reading a couple of these horrible fake sceptic documents probably did more to turn me from a sceptic to a supporter of the current consensus position than reading the supporting primary literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of climate change denying ORGANIZATIONS. (not that "scientific opinion" necessarily MEANS organizations!)Global Climate Coalition, George Marshall Institute, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Greening Earth Society, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.216 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Arthur Israel Rubin listed as a signatory here.
This article, AFAIK, is intended to inform the public on what scientists think about climate change. We could expect most readers to be coming to WP to get the facts. Imo, it's a good list, but would be better with a section at the bottom that lists denialists, with a proper assessment of their opinions and links to their sites, along with normal WP blue-links. Professionals ignore such opinions, but the general public wants the low-down on them.
If that were to happen, I would include on the assessment of the Oregon Petition that it was presented with false assertions, that it is dated, and that many signatories would not presently sign. Yopienso (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People don't seem to understand: if you want the real "scientific opinion" you shouldn't ask scientific organizations...especially not the IPCC, which is extremely corrupt and ignores evidence against them. If you want to know what scientists REALLY think, you should ask INDIVIDUALS. If this article was titled "scientific organization's view on climate change" I wouldn't mind. My problem is that they call it "scientific opinion" as if the opinions of individual scientists don't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.216 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I for one didn't understand that. If that's what you mean, you will be disappointed, because we see the IPCC as mainstream science (because it is!) and all Wikipedia articles in whatever field adhere to mainstream views. The IPCC is composed of individual scientists who shape the organization's opinions and craft its statements. Yopienso (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IPCC is not at all scientific. It is not run by scientists, but left wing politicians. They don't even do their own research (see the IPCC website). They are extremely scandalous, and they are known for exaggerating their computer graphs. Among the many scandals associated with IPCC, there are the climategate emails, the lie about Himalayan glaciers, the lie about north african crop production, and countless others. We need to keep politics out of science...that's why I say we should abolish the IPCC, and leave it up to individuals to figure stuff out. (by the way, if Wikipedia was all "mainstream", it would probably all be biased too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.216 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse people of being "corrupt" or behaving "scandalously" unless you can support those assertions with solid sources. Please abide by our policy when writing about living people, whether in articles or on talk pages. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Both all the data avaiable at the time, and the data used plus the data avaiable a year before, to allow for publication delay.

Title Change Idea

I think this title ought to be changed to "scientific ORGANIZATION's opinion on climate change"...that way no one would have to mention any individual scientists at all. However, it seems that so many people are watching this one particular wiki page (for whatever reason), that if I change, someone's bound to change it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.216 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific societies are professional scholarly societies whose pronouncements generally reflect the opinions of their members - in fact, if the (elected) leadership failed to reflect good science, they would either be voted out of office, or the society would see a mass exodus of its members. Individual scientists speak only for themselves. Professional bodies speak for their membership at large and consequently are generally much more credible than individual scientists. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the lead, synthesis reports and surveys are also used to determine scientific opinion. To excise them would be a radical change of the article, which, lacking consensus to do so, would be most properly reverted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have two responses: first of all, scientific organizations cannot be trusted, because, believe it or not, NOT ALL OF THEM ARE RUN BY ACTUAL SCIENTISTS! Most of them, the IPCC included, are boards of politicians that review whatever scientific papers they feel like reviewing. Government agencies are not as good sources as individual scientists, because they are often politically biased, and don't really care about science.

Besides, many scientific organizations DO reject climate change! (see Wiki list.) All other wiki pages I've read have titles like "scientists that reject global warming" or "scientists that uphold global warming." this article actually contradicts the other Wikipedia articles, because it is merely called "scientific opinion" on climate change, and it only talks about organizations and scientists that DO believe in climate change, and not those that DON'T. We can keeping talking about how "scientific organizations are better that scientists" all day, but my point is, some organizations disagree and this article does not list them.Cybersaur (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No scientific organization of any repute currently disagrees with the mainstream opinion. If you have a counterexample, please list it with good sources. OISM is not a scientific organization. Neither are the Heartland Institute, the Creation Research Society, or Disneyland. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Cybersaur is unfamiliar with WP:WEIGHT policy, and doesn't realise that the IPCC reports are written by scientists, but as set up by Reagan the wording is subject to agreement with representatives of governments. Thus effects tend to be understated due to the concerns of Saudi Arabia, the U.S., etc. And of course real scientists don't operate on "belief" and political bias, unlike the fringe scientists who have signed up to the Cornwall Alliance petition. . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a "Wiki list" of "many scientific organizations" that reject climate change you had best display it, as the rest of us don't believe you. Otherwise you are just WP:SOAPBOXing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improper hatnotes

The hatnotes at the top of the article are follow an improper use according to the hatnote editing guideline; linking to related topics should be done in the article body with summary style. I'll move them to the most adequate sections in the next days. Diego (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)72.80.202.235 (talk)

"Statements by dissenting scientists" section doesn't make sense

Soapboxing

I don't understand...this section is supposed to be about DISSENTING organizations. The only citation it has is from a SUPPORTING organization. Why not just remove this section? it doesn't make any sense!72.80.198.233 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main heading is 'scientific opinion on climate change' and the sub heading 'dissenting organisations', so if there are no dissenting scientific organisations it should be an empty section. Perhaps the authors are making this point! There are political lobbyists masquerading as scientific organisations such as the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, or those promoting Conservative Libertarian values such as The Heartland or CATO Institute, but they don't belong in there --Andromedean (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh...making a point? I call that biased. organizations that dont believe climate change are just as good as, say, the IPCC, which isn't even run by scientists and is able to review whatever they like.72.80.198.233 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the majority of IPCC participants are unpaid scientists, although there are economists & engineers as well. The executive committee are mainly from scientific backgrounds. It may be politically influenced though, I hear George Bush lobbied for the present head Pachauri since he was considered to be more business friendly. --Andromedean (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Organizations "that don't believe climate change" are NOT "just as good" as the IPCC. The fact of climate change — and more particularly, that current climate change is globally warming — is so thoroughly demonstrated that denial amounts to incompetence comparable to belief in a flat earth. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear then that anyone who disagrees with the beliefs of Johnson is no true Scotsman! Readin (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AOBF. --Nigelj (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out a logical fallacy is not an accusation of bad faith. Readin (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fallacy in pointing out that some sources carry more weight than others.... It is in fact WP policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 31,000 scientists that disagree with this "fact"? you've got to stop refuting everything I say without actually arguing. I keep coming up with arguments, and all anyone does is say they are "factually incorrect" or "silly" without bringing up opposing arguments. I realize you guys all believe that the earth is warming, which is just fine, (and by the way, I DO TOO!) but you've gotta give the other side a chance. there is a wiki list of scientists and scientific organizations that disbelieve in climate change. there's a link to it at the top of this article. But this article contradicts that article saying there is a consensus. This is unacceptable. You can call these 31,000 scientists "flat earthers" if you like, but you can just as easily call people who believe in climate change "flat-earthers". And you can find tons and tons of scientists who believe in global warming, but hat doesn't make it a "fact". What you can't find is any actual PROOF that all warming is anthropogenic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.252 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "arguments" suck. Could you provide some sources? I'd be glad to explain why that crazy blog you read isn't a scientific journal. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregon petition you are referring to was poorly vetted, and it is unclear how many of the 31,000 are practising scientists. Whilst 31,000 sounds large it is small in relation to the millions of scientists which work in the US, and tens of millions worldwide. It isn't surprising that a well organised campaign could muster 31,000 signatures, hardly any of which were climatologists.--Andromedean (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "31,000 scientists" argument is no more credible than the thousands of architects and engineers who signed a petition saying the twin towers were brought down by the government. — ThePowerofX 13:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with that, although I still think I signed the Oregon Petition, and one of the papers seemed to be legitimate (and properly referenced) at the time. There is no credential check done, and, although the Oregon Petition has more signatures, it cannot be used as anything other than evidence of the opinion of the individuals when they signed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know what, guys? I personally don't believe the twin towers conspiracy theory...however, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia! maybe 31,000 scientists isn't a whole lot, but, first of all, they are not the ONLY scientists who disagree with it, because not ALL dissenting scientists signed the petition, and second of all wikipedia should have ALL SIDES of the argument! If you look on the "IPCC" wiki page it has a huge section on "criticism". In fact, if you look at nearly any page it shows every view on the subject,not just the one most people happen to agree with. This is the ONLY Wiki page I have EVER seen only present one side of the argument, and this is unacceptable and unethical. It ought to be changed, especially since this "statements by dissenting organizations" is only there to be ironic. Wikipedia shouldn't be ironic! its making fun of minority groups. And by the way, there are a WHOLE lot more people (and scientists) who disbelieve climate change than twin tower conspiracy people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.252 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon petition is on Wikipedia! --Andromedean (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This anonymous poster obviously does not understand that "sides" of an issue are presented in proportion to their WP:WEIGHT, and that in regard of scientific opinion on climate change the deniers are a diminishing minority, the Oregon Petition having absolutely no weight in respect of science. But never mind that. Perhaps the simplest answer for the initial question is that having a section ("dissenting organizations") without any members demonstrates that it is a null set (at least regarding scientific organizations), whereas just leaving it off would suggest we just weren't showing "the other side". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that I'm anonymous, my user name is "Cybersaur" (not that that will help you much.) Anyway, no matter how you look at it Wikipedia is contradicting itself: First it says "list of scientists opposing the mainstream view" and then it says "no scientists oppose anthropogenic global warming." This is a contradiction! This article is incomplete, because, unlike other Wiki articles, it contains no opposing side. However I didn't start this because I wanted to have some political debate, I just thought maybe someone should remove this useless and misleading section, but it appears that everyone here is so attached to their personal views that nothing I say will change this article. I will say, though, that I am thoroughly disappointed at this article. 72.80.201.252 (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true you're getting a lot of mindless partisan hate thrown your way, there is at least one editor, Andromedean, who appears to be giving you fair responses. Ratio-wise that's better than I had a few months ago when I wanted to discuss some minor modifications to a related article. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. If you want to include something, you'll need to find some reliable sources and be prepared to defend their reliability. Although honestly, even if you do find a perfectly reliable source you still have probably about a 10% chance of making any progress with this crowd. But until you have a source you have no chance. Readin (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AOBF. I suggest you either suggest a specific improvement to the article, or drop it. --Nigelj (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funnyl you should mention accusations of bad faith. That was 90% of the reaction to my proposed specific improvements. It is also what J. Johnson did earlier when he wrote below "Was your asking a question really in good faith wanting an answer? Or just a ploy to engage in a debate?" (J. Johnson was also front and center in the attacks on my motives). I won't propose those specific improvements again. The insults and ridicule worked. I'm not a machine and I do have feelings and it's just not worth it to try again. Readin (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
then it says "no scientists oppose anthropogenic global warming." - this isn't true. You've made it up. We're not going to get anywhere in this discussion if you make things up. If you put things in quotes, make them exact quotations. Now, *exactly* what have you read that you are misunderstanding as then it says "no scientists oppose anthropogenic global warming."? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Was your asking a question really in good faith wanting an answer? Or just a ploy to engage in a debate? Because you got an answer. (The number of dissenting organizations is -- zero. Every bit as good a three, or 30,000.) You just don't like the answer, so you are bitching about it. Well, that sounds like a personal problem. And since you seem to have all the answers that you want, there doesn't seem much point in further explanation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this inappropriate talk must stop...we shouldn't be having a heated argument, and we certainly shouldnt yell at each other. In resonse to your "sources" argument, I'm not trying to add anything, so I don't need any sources. All I want to do is remove this useless redundant section.72.80.201.252 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"All I want to do is remove this useless redundant section."
Pronoun "this" = "Statements by dissenting scientists", since that's what you wrote in this thread's heading
Since there is no such section in the article, this discussion is disruptively moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  And if by chance you meant dissenting organizations, you have already been answered: that section shows the number of scientific organizations that dissent. That number happens to be zero (the null-set). Establishing that point is important for people who might think otherwise, or might think that (!!!) we might be suppressing an answer we don't like. Since you have offered nothing for improving the article any further argument is inappropriate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An example of what I was talking about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to improve this article by removing this useless section. The number of organizations that don't believe in climate change is NOT zero. Whoever wrote that made it up. Here are some examples of scientific organizations that do not believe in climate change:

Global Climate Coalition

George Marshall Institute

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Greening Earth Society

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

Heartland Institute

American Enterprise Institute

Competitive Enterprise Institute

International Climate Science Coalition

Science and Public Policy Institute

Climate Audit

Friends of Science

NIPCC

If you don't believe my "sources are reliable" then look up the websites of these organizations, and you'll see what they do and what their beliefs are. Also, not that one is called the "International Climate Science Coalition" and the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change", which are organizationa of INTERNATIONAL STANDING, contrary to unsquoted statement that editors put in this article.72.80.202.235 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) None of those organisations are scientific bodies of national or international standing. (2) If you want to add one of them to the article, it is up to you to find the URLs and the quotations that establish both their stance and their standing (per (1) above), not us. See WP:BURDEN. --Nigelj (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As the founder, member and unanimously elected executive director of the International Society on Crappy Pressure Group Observation, I declare the above collection on advocacy groups and blogs to not contain a single scientific body, wether of national or international standing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I []'d them for convenience William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Global climate Coalition was disbanded in 2002 after their scientists issued this statement (which was leaked)
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,”
There is list of the activities and links of most of those organisations here--Andromedean (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"These organizations are not scientific"-Response: Well, that's a VERY interesting opinion of yours, but I'm afraid Wikipedia just has nothing to do with opinions. The NIPCC has hundreds of scientist researchers from around the world, and the International Climate Science Coalition also has scientists. Both are scientific. Both are international. If you want an example of an organization that is NOT scientific, look no further than the politically controlled, politically motivated, IPCC. One of the IPCC chairmen actually admitted that climate change is a political issue, not a scientific one:

Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer 2010. (PhD economics; co-chairman of Working Group 3 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) 14 Nov 2010 Interview originally in German with German news agency NZZ AM SONTAG at this site: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy. English translation published by journalist Noel Sheppard in "UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' " on 18 Nov 2010 at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

“(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

If you want to find REAL scientific bodies, the government is not the place to look. I hope you will not respond by saying "you need better sources" or "your statements are factually incorrect" or "these organizations are not scientific". If you do so, you will simply be arguing, not discussing, because you've said all those things about a hundred times in this article, without actually responding to what we are saying. And by the way, I would go to the trouble of finding actual sources for all these organizations, but everyone here is so attached to their own personal views on climate change, that I'm sure you would find some new bone to pick with whatever I came up with. In response to your Global Climate Coalition argument, its true that they admitted man had a very small effect on global temperature, but they did not believe the IPCC's predictions, and they said that man had so little effect it wasn't even worth bothering about.72.80.202.235 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion on whether prior discussion is SOAPBOXing

I have uncollapsed and split off part of the prior discussion for Readin's sake. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources, please do so. Somebody has to. As was mentioned a few times earlier - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources and reliable sources only. If you have the sources and can defend them, you have a case that you can bring to administrators. Without the sources you don't even have a right to complain. I'm not saying that that with reliable sources you'll get good changes. Administrators aren't perfect and this is a rough crowd. You've taken an important step by listing specific examples to include in the article. But without the sources you have nothing. Readin (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the organizations 72* has proposed for inclusion are so notably unscientific (though a couple try to maintain a scientific facade) that the chances of finding a reliable source with sufficient weight to counter that are effectively nil. To maintain otherwise amounts to advocacy, which is prohibited per WP:SOAP. What you call "moving [the discussion] in a more productive direction" looks more edit-warring to me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of finding reliable sources to support the change has been placed squarely on the IP editor asking for changes. He should be given a chance to find such sources. Attempting to pre-empt discussion and simply declare the IP Editor "wrong" based on your opinion rather than on your own reliable sources does not further the discussion and is itself soapboxing and unhelpful. Becoming more specific on the talk page as the IP Editor has done is not "edit warring". Readin (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP Editor: If you can find sources, he do so. Somebody has to. As was mentioned a few times earlier - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources and reliable sources only. If you have the sources and can defend them, you have a case that you can bring to administrators. Without the sources you don't even have a right to complain. You've taken an important step by listing specific examples to include in the article. But without the sources you have nothing. Readin (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, have a look at NIPCC and you'll find that he's not a reliable source for anything other than his own views. . . dave souza, talk 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72*: Don't do it. Readin is right about one thing: if you don't have sources you have no basis to proceed, and will be properly rejected. What you (and Readin?) seem to not understand is, first, that as the article states, "scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists", and second, 'none of the organizations proffered amount "scientific bodies of national or international standing". So, you have offered nothing valid. That that is my opinion is quite beside the point; the chances of the contrary being true is so vanishingly small that it does not warrant wasting time discussing, and has currency only in a very partisan point of view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JJ and Dave are right. I already said that none of the organisations listed here so far is going to cut the mustard as a "scientific body of national or international standing". However, the 'null set' we have under "statements by dissenting organizations" is only logically valid if everyone feels free to try to bust it by finding one. 72* is not the first to try, and everyone is welcome to play along at home. The odds are a much less now than they were, say 5 years ago, but you never know - just the exercise of trying to find one will teach anyone who thinks there must be loads out there a thing or two... "Don't believe everything you read in the popular press", for example. --Nigelj (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the 'null set' we have under "statements by dissenting organizations" is only logically valid if everyone feels free to try to bust it by finding one. Exactly! Thank you for saying it so clearly. This is the main reason I didn't want the discussion cut off just as the IP editor (and presumed newbie) was getting specific. Talk pages should be relatively open and free. It costs very little to leave discussion open and the bar for closing it down should be pretty high. Readin (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the IP will be back any day now. Keep reaching for that rainbow. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. I think that after hearing so many comments like, "...denial amounts to incompetence comparable to belief in a flat earth", "Your "arguments" suck.", This anonymous poster obviously does not understand ...", "Was your asking a question really in good faith wanting an answer? Or just a ploy to engage in a debate?", "You just don't like the answer, so you are bitching about it. Well, that sounds like a personal problem" he's likely to want to avoid further abuse. Why should he expect civil discussion after what he's read? Readin (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that all that talk was abusive, but it was all said by different people, not one anonymous user.72.80.203.214 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  What's anonymous? The "sucks" bit was from TippyGoomba, I believe the rest of those comments are mine. You don't like it? Well, I really don't like it when someone starts a discussion with "I don't understand". and seems to ask a simple question ("Why not just remove this section?"), but doesn't really mean it. I, assuming good faith, took it as a simple, innocent request for clarification. SURPRISE!! S/he doesn't want clarification, he wants to argue the point. That was not a good faith request for civil discussion, that was an ambush. So we have a seemingly clueless poster insulting our intelligence with his denialist soapboxing and our civility with his deviousness; what's civil about that? I point out that WP:Competence is required, and it is not abuse to point that out. (Though I am inclined to think that TG's three word response had the great merit of economy.) Can we now return to the issue of soapboxing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has the sources but is too butthurt to come back? Such a loss. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the above two abusive comments are proof that this indeed WAS soapboxing. They contain crude, rude remarks insulting me, rather than discussion. For your information, Isaid from the start tat we should remove this section because it is simply false. It may be your opinion that the ICSC is bad, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, and it certainly doesn't call for any rude, obnoxious insults.72.80.203.214 (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Abusive? Crude? Rude? Obnoxious? One of the many things you need to learn is to make specific references (which remark?). As a matter of fact you did not state "from that start" that the section should be removed, you asked a question. But all that is not directly relevant to the sub-discussion here regarding soapboxing.
  That you consider your listed organizations "scientific bodies of national or international standing" is uncredible from the outset, and evinces a definitely non-neutral point of view. It is your advocacy of this which constitutes soapboxing.
  As an aside: several editors have offered you tips (e.g., at User_talk:72.80.201.216), but possibly you have not noticed because you come in from a dynamically assigned IP address, which scatters such responses over several IP addresses. You really should login on your Cybersaur account. And if you would heed those tips you would avoid a lot of bumps. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get one thing straight: I was not soapboxing. I told you from the start that I BELIEVE that the earth is warming! however, not everyone does. NASA has begun to have second thoughts, and many other national and international organizations don't believe this, including government run ones (although not many). I was not trying to have edit wars, and I was not trying to bug everyone with my own view. Here's all I know: I have researched, and researched, and researched some more on this topic, and ONE THING IS CLEAR: PLENTY OF PEOPLE, including SCIENTISTS and SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS don't believe in climate change! I realize that most Wiki editors believe otherwise, but there are still LOADS of scientists who don't believe it. While you may personally believe them to be uncredible, plenty of people say that IPCC is too, so you can't go by personal opinions. I was not looking for trouble when I started this, I simply didn't understand...and now that I do understand, I realize that whoever wrote that section was trying to make fun of "skeptics".

How were you abusive? How were you crude? here's how: "bitching", "sucks", "butthurt", "sound like a personal problem", "crappy pressure group foundation", and countless others. You guys need to stop trying to argue. I was only discussing, and everyone turned it into an argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersaur (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but if you do not recognise the difference between e.g. the Royal Society, and the NIPCC, I find it hard having a serious conversation with you. The Royal Society has been around for more than 350 years, has 1300+ members with a broad range of backgrounds, despite an extremely competitive membership process, has its own funds, buildings, and a long history of excellence in science. The NIPCC, as far as I can tell, does not even exist as an legal entity (it's just another front to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and hence has no defined membership. It was invented by one man, is (largely) funded by one pressure group, and has maybe 40 people associated with it, all from the same small pool of "scientists" which also make up the other single-issue "sceptical" organisations. One has credibility and standing, the other is a fake front. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cybersauer, you are not "only discussing" the point, just as you were not sincerely just asking a question. Your advocacy of a thoroughly discredited partisan point of view is what amounts to WP:SOAPBOXING. If you insist on blatting nonsense, and object to catching flack for it, you might find Conservapedia more congenial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to start another argument by using more arguments from outrage and offensive language? Nice try, but I'm not that stupid. As for the Royal Society argument, I don't know exactly what you mean. I never even mentioned the Royal Society, nor do I know what it is. I was simply stating that, indeed, there ARE scientific organizations that don't believe in climate change. Maybe they're scandalous. Maybe they shouldn't exist in your opinion. Maybe they're all run by lugheads. However, they still EXIST, that's the point. And they're also scientific. if you look at the ICSC board members, nearly ALL of them have PhDs in some form of science. If you're going to trash these organizations, at least don't get mad when people criticize the IPCC. And I know what your thinking...you're going to reply saying "the IPCC is SO much better than that stupid ICSC, they have a million more documents and scientists!" Well, guess what: that's your opinion, it doesn't matter.

72.80.196.141 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion at least conforms to factual reality, while you not only don't recognize one of the most respected scientific societies of international standing (I believe that qualifies as ignorance of an essential element of this topic), you apparently do not understand just what a scientific society is. Dr. Schulz — whom I suspect has written more science than you have read — has explained above why the NIPCC and other organizations you espouse are not scientific. Readin also explained that you need to support your opinion with sources. As you have not done so, but are only recycling your views from above, your comments in this sub-discussion are just more "soap". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This thread in a nutshell:

  • (A) 72.80.196.141 stated (comment above, 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)] that "there ARE scientific organizations that don't believe in climate change"
  • (B) Only thing anyone needs to say in reply is, Dear IP 72.80.196.141, please write some draft text, including what wikipedia defines to be reliable source(s) that you believe will improve this article, so we can consider your proposal."
  • (C) Go back to B and remember WP:DNFT

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure all of you that I only started this discussion in the first place because I wanted to change the change the article. At first, I ought that the "statements from dissenting" was some sort of mistake, so naturally I thought it should be removed. When I understood why that wierd piece of evidence was in there I realized that it ought to be removed, and that is what I was saying should happen. Thus, I admit that the main point of the section bunny trailed, but that was just as much anyone's fault as mine. I will start a new section suggesting that the "statements from dissenting" section ought to be improved, and I will offer ideas for fixing it. I hope this will make everyone happy. However, I also hope that people will refrain from offensive language such as "nonsense" and have civilized discussion.72.80.196.141 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change&oldid=535711034"