Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific consensus on climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific consensus on climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientific consensus on climate change at the Reference desk. |
Frequently asked questions
Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?
Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A1) Q2: Is the section on "dissenting organizations" adequately supported?
The current consensus is that it is. There have been numerous lengthy discussions regarding the AMQUA and AAPG sources. Some have criticized the AMQUA letter as an unreliable reference. Others have stated that the combination of the AMQUA letter and the AAPG statement is against WP:SYN. The most recent consensus on this topic can be found at Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change#straw poll. Q3: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists?
Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws[1] To wit:
Q4: Why should scientific opinion count for more than public opinion?
Because "science" – either as the time-tested methodologies for learning about the world, or as the immense body of knowledge that has been garnered by those methodologies, or even as the international "scientific community" of tens of thousands of highly trained professionals that use these methodologies – has the better track record. Because the science of climate is based on fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, with the conclusions based on factual data, and the consensus "opinion" has been vetted by hundreds of experts. Whereas the contrarian portion of public opinion has a poor track record, being shaped by politically motivated rhetoric (financed by the "interested" industries) that pushes certain points of view in disregard of objective, factual reality. (For an example, see the previous question.) Q5: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming?
No, they were not – see the article on global cooling. A 2008 paper[5] in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reviewed "what the scientists were telling us" in the 1960s and 1970s, and found the following.
One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling. On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional,[6] based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers. (See also GW/FAQ:A13) Q6: Why should we trust scientists that work for the government? ‡
Q7: Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC?
Because the conclusions of the IPCC, produced through the collaborative efforts of thousands of experts, are the result of the most thorough survey of the state of climate science (or of any science) ever done. There is simply no other organization or effort that is comparable. Q9: Isn't the IPCC a biased source? ‡
Q10: Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists?
The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A11) Q11: Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors?
The IPCC consensus regarding climate change was formally developed by thousands of experts, based on the entirety of climate science research and interpretation. The "several prominent contributors" said to be "critical" of the consensus do not constitute a sufficiently significant minority view to warrant inclusion (per the policy of WP:WEIGHT). Nor has any scientific authority been cited that suggests these criticisms in any way challenge the science of the consensus.
See also the next two questions. (Discussion) Q12:There are plenty of scientists who dispute human-caused global warming. Why aren't their opinions included?
Numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. Including those statements here would make the article overwhelming long and cumbersome, and would be granting them far too much undue weight. Public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. (Discussion) Q13: Why doesn't this article include any dissenting views?
Q14: Why doesn't this article mention the Oregon Petition or other lists of dissenting scientists?
See Question #2. (Discussion) Q15: Where is the Scientific Opinion against Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming?
What "Scientific Opinion against AGW"? The synthesis of scientific opinion — that is, the view that best represents all climate science research and interpretation, and particularly whether there is, or is not, AGW — is that most of the observed increase in global average temperature is very likely (probability greater than 90%) anthropogenic.
It would be more sensible to ask, "what is the scientific case that global warming is not anthropogenic?" But this case is so overwhelmed by the evidence, and held by so few scientists (if any!), that it simply lacks sufficient weight for consideration. (The argument that there is no global warming, that it is not human caused, and that the expected effects are only "alarism", is prominent only in non-scientific venues, and this article is about scientific opinion.) (Discussion, discussion) Q16: Is this article slanted or biased because it presents only one side of the debate? ‡
Q17: Is this article a prohibited synthesis of the opinions of the listed scientific bodies?
No. The synthesis of scientific opinion on climate change (based on the primary sources) was done by the IPCC (a reliable secondary source). The statements of the various scientific organizations are affirmations of the IPCC's conclusion; their inclusion in the article establishes the IPCC as a reliable source, and affirms the synthesis it reached as a consensus view. (Discussion) Q20: What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?
An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, for academies or societies that produce scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered to be among the world's most influential and prestigious.[8][9][10] (Discussion) Q21: What are the criteria for including organizations? ‡
Q22: Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed as supporting are undecided?
No. It is fairer to ask, what organizations? It is more likely that any "organizations not listed" simply do not exist, as a reasonable search has not found any. Even easing the definition of a scientific organization to a point that became questionable did not find any undecided organizations (aside from the AAPG).
An earlier form of the question noted that the listed organizations are predominately American or British Commonwealth (which is what might be expected for the English-language Wikipedia), and questioned whether there might be smaller, non-English speaking nations with scientific societies that are undecided on the issue. This is a possibility, but unlikely; the InterAcademy Council that represents the world's scientific and engineering academies affirms global warming and its dangers. (Discussion) Q25: Given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV?
Q26: Does this article violate the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy? ‡
References
|
| |||||||||||||
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Let's not play loose with statistics
The inclusion of Cook et al (2013) in the Surveys section box listing claims of high % of agreement is deceptive and embarrassing. That article's own abstract stated:
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
In other words, 2/3 of the abstracts reviewed by Cook, Oreskes, et al in their 2013 article expressed no opinion. Within the 1/3 who did express an opinion, 97% endorsed anthropogenic causes. This is a glaring example of selection bias, which the researchers had the honesty to admit, but others have echoed endlessly as "consensus". It is more accurate to say "a majority of climate scientists agree" than to hype a "consensus" close to 100% which omits a large fraction of undecided researchers. This type of politicized hype is precisely what turns fence-sitters into opponents. Martindo (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have source/evidence for your claim that the researchers who authored the 66.4% of papers whose abstracts expressed no position on AGW are “undecided”? Without source to support this, you can’t impose your claim by editing the article to imply that. TimOsborn (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Here you are: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Climate-Consensus-and-%E2%80%98Misinformation%E2%80%99%3A-A-Rejoinder-Legates-Soon/71ef600aecbb0cf3afba2dec58ce6edfbefe952e. Only the abstract and meta is for free, but that is enough to cast a shadow of a doubt at the "97% consensus" claim.
- I just had a look at the abstract but it doesn't sound to me like it supports what you say, it seems to be more about promoting confusion. Considering the amounts the first two authors have got from ExxonMobil it is interesting to see they mention the "assertion that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus" in the synopsis. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, in case you missed it: "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.". I read it as follows: "We looked into the work of Cook and others and have refuted the 97% claim; what we found is 0.3% consensus in the original (Cook et al.) data of the standard definition of the consensus". If you read that differently, care to break it down for me please?
- Building off of what Dmcq said, the abstract of that article seems less about the legitimacy of climate change and more about the misuse of partisan-based evidence for climate change. Given that only the Abstract is available free of charge, I don't know for certain what conclusion they arrive to regarding the consensus, nor whether it offers convincing evidence disputing the consensus. However, given that both David Legates and Willie Soon are outspoken climate change skeptics, and they each received enormous amounts of (at the time) undisclosed funding from fossil fuel industries during the same timespan that this study was published, the possibility of conflict of interest does more to raise question about how objective this article really is. VSatire (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- How many scientific studies of whales do you think actually affirm they are mammals? It would be he ones who don't think they are mammals that would be more likely to say anything like that. I don't see why the results fr climate change would be much different and I've see no evidence otherwise. If you have some reliable source saying otherwise or which puts a different complexion on Cook et al then that could be useful in improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Martindo makes an interesting point for thought, but I don't see citing the Cook et al. 2013 survey as being misleading. The second phase (re self-rated papers) also arrived at essentially the same bottomline number (~97%), a finding that rebuts any accusation of selection bias. Especially since the title of this Wikipedia article is "Scientific opinion ...", it is valid to omit those papers and authors who do not express an opinion. At most, for completeness, it might be good to mention the "no-opinion" numbers within the footnote or citation. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- If we do that (I am saying we should), please do not call them "no-opinion". "No-statement-of-opinion" is truer, for reasons given above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Or just "unexpressed opinion"? While such statements might be correct strictly speaking, it demonstrably results in statements like "
only 32% of
[unexpressed caveat: of a certain category of expressing]scientists endorsed the consensus
". Which in many minds will certainly sound like only 32% of scientists endorsed the so-called consensus, undermining the fact that for nearly all climate scientists the consensus is so strongly supported, so obviously "blue sky", that it does not – or rather, should not – require expression. It is (as Tim notes) incorrect to equate "unexpressed" as "undecided". More accurately, the 32% is not a measure of endorsement, but of the scientists who feel that endorsement still needs to be expressed. Yes, let's not "play loose with statistics". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Or just "unexpressed opinion"? While such statements might be correct strictly speaking, it demonstrably results in statements like "
- If anything the number of scientists expressing an opinion would normally be an indication that it wasn't generally accepted. It is only as high as it is because of all the climate change deniers in the general public. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Columbia Glacier photo
The Columbia Glacier did melt rather dramatically. I was there, as it happens. But while climate change may have been an initial or fundamental cause, the dramatic melting had much more to do with glacier dynamics than any dramatic change in temperature (source). I think the use of the image is misleading. 67.189.13.137 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Seems good grounds to remove it so will do. We should try to be reasonably careful about things like that. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's quite right. The point they're making seems to be that a warming climate has caused the retreat of the Columbia Glacier but that the mechanism by which it responds is more complicated than simply warmer air or water temperatures making the ice melt more rapidly. This says (my emphasis):
- A case in point is the well‐studied Columbia Glacier. Columbia Glacier's terminus was anchored on its Little Ice Age moraine until the late 1970s... A series of deep embayments then began forming seasonally at the calving front, causing parts of the terminus to retreat about 1 km from its 30 m deep anchoring moraine into 200 m deep water. The formation of these embayments is directly correlated with increased glacier runoff... and a 1–2°C increase in Gulf of Alaska water temperatures... This suggests that submarine melting served as a trigger for the catastrophic retreat of Columbia Glacier, which had reached an unstable advanced state. Once in deep water and on a reverse slope, terminus ice velocities and calving both increased significantly... and glacier dynamics likely became the predominant process controlling retreat
- So, yes, this is more complex glacier dynamics and mechanics than simple melting of a block of ice, but they don't say that this wasn't ultimately caused by the warming climate. This supports this view too.
- Unless there's a source that more explicitly rules out this retreat as being an effect of climate change, then the image could be re-instated. TimOsborn (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- (A) For the average cookie baker who shows up at this article it wasn't really a good picture anyway. Those sorts of images are unfamiliar and weird. Until you teach your brain to comprehend all the pretty colors its cheaper than mushrooms but imparts about the same wisdom. So I favor removal just because it isn't really helpful to cookie bakers. Or school crossing guards either, for that matter. Smart assery aside, the point is we should be writing an easily accessible article for a very wide non-science audience. That image wasn't helping.
- (B) I agree with Tim. There is no glacier, anywhere, whose behavior is all climate or all "natural" glacial dynamics, whatever that means. Like extreme weather events, each one's behavior is a mix of phenomena what would happen anyway combined with climate change in a complex set of interactions. Said another way, we're not just trying to illustrate the technical definition of global warming (increasing average temps at earth's surface) instead we're trying to illustrate the complex web of interactions in the five parts of earth's climate system. That includes the cryosphere, and that includes glaciers that are poised to fall through their own internal dynamics if they get just the right shove. But of course we need to convey it wasn't strictly warm-so-the-melted, we need to convey it's a bygod system, baby!.
- (C) Alternative pics.... Another way to do this is with one of the many side-by-side comparison photos from, say 1920 and again today from the same spot. Someone with more time and a particular desire to include a glacier pic might find excellent candidates at Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and sources cited therein. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've no objection to some other glacier but the cite the poster gives clearly indicates in the particular case of that glacier that most of the retreat was due to mechanical reasons and it is a good reliable source. We wouldn't have put it in originally with that information and it doesn't acquire reinstatement privileges' by being in for a while, just the 'right' to be discussed a bit on the talk page before removal.
- By the way and funnily enough, even if every glacier retreat could be mainly attributed to mechanical reasons I would still consider an overall retreat as due mainly to climate change as being the common cause of them happening together. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Stop reverting my additions!
I have been accused of taking sides and supporting "climate skeptics" and taking one side. This is false.
Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Nor did I "take sides". Everything I added was factual and revolved around a review and analysis of the seminal Cook study. Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural). What I added directly reviews the actual Cook study which is 100% on point to the purpose of this article, which cover the scientific consensus and controversy.
I urge you to follow Wiki's rules if you're to disagree with edits rather than summarily reverting changes.
PS - I have been accused of violating Wiki rules regarding an "edit war". This is very Orwellian, because the person reverting my content has not followed Wiki's own rules regarding how and why edits may be reverted. They have not supplied any foundation or rational reason why they reverted my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenUSA (talk • contribs)
- That is simply false, I gave you the reason of undue weight (22:06, 20 April 2019), whereas Kb03 gave you the reason of NPOV (22:07, 20 April 2019). El_C 02:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
97% Myth
According to the Scientific Consensus section one of the most cited studies is a 2013 one of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990. Of these only a third expressed an opinion, and of these 97% agree that global warming is happening and human caused. As it stands the current phrasing doesn't make clear that only 31.6% of papers (roughly 3,780 articles) endorse AGW. Worse, UN IPCC lead author Dr Richard Tol analysed Cook's data and found that results were inconsistent and biased whilst the sample was unrepresentative and the data quality low: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045. According to one site only 64 of the roughly 12,000 papers actually support the consensus. Since I can't access the original paper I can't confirm this, but if true, it puts a radically different slant on the alleged consensus. One point not mentioned, and which should probably be added to this piece, is that by presenting climate change claims as a matter of scientific consensus it is possible to radically mold public opinion whereas arguing positions that directly threaten people's worldviews causes a negative response and further entrenchment in their worldviews. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- In case it's not obvious, Cook's early (2013) study has been supplemented with other studies of consensus, making it improper to call the conclusion a "myth". Plus, Tol's 2014 paper has been responded to by Cook et al. at "Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: a Re-analysis’" (archive) which claims "Reanalysis without (Tol)’s errors confirms 97 ± 1% consensus on AGW." Cook et al quotes Tol et al: "“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand the sentence after ' One point not mentioned, and which should probably be added to this piece' as it seems to be saying one can both mold views and also entrench people's views. Irrespective of that it seems irrelevant. A core principle of Wikipedia is to present things with a neutral point of view, we should just do that without trying to twist things to try and achieve some good in the world. I know people think that getting people act better would be a good thing for Wikipedia but that would act against Wikipedia being a reliable encyclopaedia and there are quite enougt unreliable sources on the web already. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dmcq:: Yes but neutral point of view, not neutral. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't not need to give a soapbox to climate change denial. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- We shouldn't give a soapbox to anyone. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:TENDENTIOUS. We should present the facts by weight in reliable sources, biasing that because we think we might mold public opinion for good or because we want to avoid entrenching peoples worldviews would be to act against the reliability of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dmcq:: Yes but neutral point of view, not neutral. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't not need to give a soapbox to climate change denial. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another thing worth noting is that "two-thirds of papers expressing no opinion" is largely irrelevant for quantifying a consensus, at least in this particular case. Cook's study was focusing solely on endorsement of anthropogenic influence, but the only criteria regarding the articles chosen was the mentioned of the words "climate change" or "global warming". Many of the "no opinion" studies might have focused on the effects of climate change rather than the cause, and the author thus felt it unnecessary to give any mention anthropogenic influence since that wasn't the focus of the study. These studies were therefore still included in Cook's meta-analysis and labelled as "no opinion". The consensus was based on whether the author gave an actual endorsement or rejection of anthropogenic influence. As one user said above, most studies on whales wouldn't explicitly mention that they are mammals, but that doesn't alter the "consensus" that whales are mammals. VSatire (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The lead is now just confusing
The lead was changed dramatically without consensus. The first sentence:
Scientific opinion on climate change is a judgment of scientists regarding the degree to which global warming is occurring, its likely causes, and its probable consequences.
Then this article is about instances in which there is a group of scientists and they make a form of judgment? Clearly this article was made with the general scientific opinion and consensus of climate change in mind. I don't know why this needed to happen. For one, climate change denial tends to attack the 90-100% consensus statistics, but these are vital to the article. There's no reason to leave them out. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree it is a bit of a mess. I think this diff [1] where consensus was removed from the first paragraph is where the rot really started. The second edit by the same ip was reverted but not the first. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not too against what is there now, and it does explain the difference between the terms a bit more, but it does need some good copy editing for style as it is just clumsy. Also it should link to scientific consensus like the original did. The distinction between opinion and consensus is well known as in legal or medical opinion and consensus. I think the title is correct in being about the scientific opinion and that there is a consensus in the opinion shoold then be described in the article. The lead needs more on how the existence of a consensus in the opinion was determined, that could substitute for some of the definitional waffle there currently. Dmcq (talk)
- Good discussion y'all. I've struggled with this article too. (i) Dmcq wrote: "I think the title is correct in being about the scientific opinion and that there is a consensus in the opinion should then be described in the article." I agree. I moved the "consensus sentence" from the lead to the first paragraph of the body (diff). See what ya think. (ii) William M. Connolley removed the last bullet point under "The current scientific consensus is that:" (diff). Although I don't think removing the entire sentence was necessary, his edit summary contained an astute observation and rationale for removing "manage": "... the 'manage' bullet point: I don't think this is part of any consensus and the word 'manage' jars". - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- That last point is a bit worrying for me. It is verging on policy and as said in the policy section that is a human decision not science, but I suppose it is okay science to assess whether people could do something rather than that they should do something. Dmcq (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- To make sure we're talking about the same thing, I assume you are referring to this sentence:
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
- If that's correct, I agree that there's a legitimate debate to be had about where science ends and policy-making begins. That sentence (or a similar one) was included because such a statement is included in either the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014 report or the United States Global Change Research Program reports (or both). And those folks substantiate the statements. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- That last point is a bit worrying for me. It is verging on policy and as said in the policy section that is a human decision not science, but I suppose it is okay science to assess whether people could do something rather than that they should do something. Dmcq (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good discussion y'all. I've struggled with this article too. (i) Dmcq wrote: "I think the title is correct in being about the scientific opinion and that there is a consensus in the opinion should then be described in the article." I agree. I moved the "consensus sentence" from the lead to the first paragraph of the body (diff). See what ya think. (ii) William M. Connolley removed the last bullet point under "The current scientific consensus is that:" (diff). Although I don't think removing the entire sentence was necessary, his edit summary contained an astute observation and rationale for removing "manage": "... the 'manage' bullet point: I don't think this is part of any consensus and the word 'manage' jars". - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)