Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions.

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

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

most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere[edit]

This is not a consensus but is based upon IPCC AR4. AR5 backed off of the attribution of most to GHGs, to specifically include other anthropogenic forcings, and it backed off of "most" to "more than half". Peoples imaginations run wild with "most". Here is the IPCC AR5 SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) statement:

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

AR4 references should not be used, AR5 actually supercedes AR4 in its assessment of the state of the science. Poodleboy (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how "more than half" differs from "most". Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Poodleboy: You are new here, so unaware of a lot of water over the dam. Editors reached a general consensus (no, I don't have a link handy), that it would be best to replyrely on the report prior to the most recent one. I fully understand why you might disagree with that conclusion, and many editors would agree that the most recent one should be used, but until that consensus is overturned, that's where we are.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
[Two intervening comments required for context of the reply below were, not helpfully, in my opinion, removed by this edit]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest that you desist from personal attacks per WP:NPA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanx for the link, it let me know I could remove that personal attack. BTW, is someone implying that I was making an unsourced edit, a personal attack?Poodleboy (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Either you have a weird humour, you are intentionally obtuse, or we don't share a common language, despite superficial appearances. I don't think I have anything useful to say to that comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that falsely accusing someone of violating rules is a personal attack, that perhaps can be removed per WP:NPAPoodleboy (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably a good time for all involved to take a break, drink some tea, and review WP:CIVIL. TimothyJosephWood 00:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that Schulz had made a false accusation. I had cast aspersions that were a personal attack, so per WP:NPA I removed my personal attack and I removed the attack on me that accused me of denial. Even though that left Schulz's comment out of context, I didn't feel I could remove it. Poodleboy (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I question whether you took a break. I seriously question whether you reviewed CIVIL. And I'm almost certain you drank no tea. TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
2016 first flush Darfeeling Turzum. Tea is always a good suggestion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy, your original assertion that IPCC "backed off" its AR4 attribution statement appears to be based on the SPM, which is a super condensed version of the report that often loses nuance and detail. See the more detailed AR5 WG1 Technical Summary, where, at pg 66, is found "Consistent with AR4, it is assessed that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in WMGHG concentrations." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, In the same paragraph you quote, there is the "extremely likely" statement, you went with the "very likely" statement. Note that this article gets it wrong, stating the GHGs are extremely likely, you correctly state "very likely". Both do "more than half" rather than "most". "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010." In regards to how consistent with AR4 it is. We will have to check with that. Poodleboy (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The AR4 working group I technical summary, goes with "most" which is not a very precise statement and suggests closer to all than to half. "It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." Poodleboy (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is the actual Stocker source, not quite sure I got is cited right. [2] Poodleboy (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley: I know you cried out in horror, but you might want to check the AR5 sources, the "extremely likely" 95% applied to "human activities", the text you mistakenly embrace, applies it to activities related to greenhouse gasses, which AR5 only reaches "very likely" 90% and "more than half" on.Poodleboy (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is the link [3] using the ipcc site instead of the site you gave which is virus infested. And could you cut out the crap rhetoric thanks. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed it wasn't the official .ch site. Poodleboy (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You mistake my meaning. We've been through this before. Its the sci op; not the IPCCs William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It sure was close to the IPCC language. Poodleboy (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You've got the direction wrong, the IPCC tries to find out and document the scientific opinion and tell governments about it. You were saying something analogous to that someone is thirsty because they drink some water. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the authors cherry pick at will. Papers showing model errors larger than the CO2 forcing, get single line mentions, and buried, rather than consideration of the implication of those errors for the model projections and attributions. The reforms between AR4 and AR5 have helped, but the authors still are not subjected to peer review.Poodleboy (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
If we're done talking about a proposed article improvement can we close the thread before getting too deep into general criticism of IPCC? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't get the 'No'. If you mean you think the IPCC just writes a 'consensus' and the scientists work to try and make it fit their research and the facts that is simply untrue and wrong. This article is not about the IPCC writeup of their conclusions. It is about scientific opinion on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The 'No" is not to whether the IPCC report is scientific opinion, but whether their opinion should be labeled "The scientific consensus", to their credit they change their opinion every few years, but, of course, some of the authors are different. I doubt believers want their "consensus" to change that often. Poodleboy (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
'believers'? and a 'consensus' in quote marks? What a load of rubbish you spout. You've got everything the wrong way around. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to this page. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq:"extremely likely" is a term of art put forward by the IPCC for the 95% confidence. Can you find any support for using that with the title phrase of this section of talk? The support you will find is for "very likely" and it will be for "more than half" and not "most". If you think this is haggling over nits, imagine what the IPCC process itself was.Poodleboy (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Address everyone unless what you have to say is very particular. IO don't need to be pinged here. What you put in is simply wrong. Please stop edit warring and pushing your own silliness. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dmcq: I was resetting the indents because they had gotten to deep, and as a courtesy I let you know it was a continuation of an interchange with you. Regards. Poodleboy (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I partially agree with Poodleboy, specifically that if we are using IPCC as our source, we should try to focus on the most recent IPCC Assessment report, which right now is AR5. Here are some relevant excerpts from the AR5 synthesis report

  • The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming. In addition, the SYR finds that the more human activities disrupt the climate, the greater the risks of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems, and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system. The SYR highlights that we have the means to limit climate change and its risks, with many solutions that allow for continued economic and human development. However, stabilizing temperature increase to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels will require an urgent and fundamental departure from business as usual. Moreover, the longer we wait to take action, the more it will cost and the greater the technological, economic, social and institutional challenges we will face.......forward to AR5 synthesis report at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

printed pg v; pdf pg 6

  • The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4. Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate...... AR5 SYR Bubble 1.3 pdf pg 64, priinted pg 47
  • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9) ..... AR5 SYR 1.3.1 pdf pg 65, priinted pg 48
  • The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcings can be estimated with less uncertainty than the separate contributions from greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings separately. This is because these two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a signal that is better constrained by observations. {Based on Figure WGI TS.10} ...... from AR5 SYR Caption, fig 1.9

What these refs say to me is that the science is heading in the right direction, and we're dialing in the details. They do not warrant our adoption of Poodelboy's verbiage that IPCC has "backed off" anything. Quite the opposite, when you also look at SYR in its entirety, which also includes

  • Some risks are considerable even at 1°C global mean temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. Many global risks are high to very high for global temperature increases of 4°C or more (see Box 2.4). These risks include severe and wide-spread impacts on unique and threatened systems, the extinction of many species, large risks to food security and compromised normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year, due to the combination of high temperature and humidity (high confidence).... AR5 SYR printed pg 65; pdf 82

Finally, when you look at the attribution graphs showing different human influences, greenhouse gases remain the largest. Do we really need to state the technical certainty level in the lead's summary, or for that matter in this upper level summary article? This evolving area of nitty gritty details seems more appropriately addressed in Attribution of climage change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the technical details are irrelevant to this article. It is about the scientific opinion more than the details of global warming which are covered in other articles. It is also not about the IPCC or what it precisely said. The main topic is whether there is a scientific consensus where consensus does not mean that everything is nailed down like in some religious belief system. Poodleboys talk about 'I doubt believers want their "consensus" to change that often' completely misses the point about what science is. Dmcq (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For "scientific opinion" we should stick to AR5 Working Group I, and not the "synthesis" report which has even more political input. My main issue is not about what the science is, although the article mistates that, but on what the "consensus" is. It is not wikipedia's place to declare IPCC reports the "consensus", they aren't even peer reviewed, they are politically reviewed with the few author/scientists trying to give the politicians as much as ethically possible without selling their souls.Poodleboy (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It is you who keeps saying IPCC are setting the consensus. And this article isn't about the science. There is no peer review system for saying something is a consensus! Science doesn't work that way. The basis of the consensus claim is given in the section Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. See the article Scientific consensus for what is meant. You'll notice there that there is no central body dictating a consensus that scientists must believe in and adhere to like you seem to think. Also you seem to have the idea Wikipedia editors are making things up. This article is only here because the topic has become notable for so many people denying there is general agreement amongst scientists about global warming and there has been stuff written about it. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the original text was using IPCC language and claiming that was scientific consensus. Some of the 97% and 98% claims floating around are based on peer review articles claiming there is a consensus and to have measured it, for example Doran and Zimmerman (2009) [4] However, the peer review may not be very good, since this article miscalculated the "consensus", it should have been 94.9%. Even so, most skeptics are part of the consensus as they defined and measured it. Poodleboy (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for what you say rather than doing your own research. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't notice that I provided a link to a peer reviewed article on the matter.Poodleboy (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Most real skeptics, including the vast majority of scientists working on the topic, contribute to and support the consensus as assessed by the IPCC Assessment Reports. Fake skeptics promote climate change denial. . dave souza, talk 07:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Where in that citation is the 94.9% you talked about? And where in that citation does it say they include most skeptics as part of the consensus? Or where do it say the peer review is not very good? This is the sort of thing I mean by WP:Original Research. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The authors made a mistake, the 94.9% isn't in the paper, they only included respondents to question two in the denominator. But one more scientist answered Q1 with "remained relatively constant", so wasn't asked question two. Still he should have been included in the denominator.Poodleboy (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Go and find a citation that says that or raise it in some forum where it'll be looked at by someone qualified or anything like that but as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is your own WP:Original research. Please do not waste people's time here with the results of your own investigations. We are not supposed to be qualified to make decisions about stuff like that and it simply is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia without a citation. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are really certain you have found an error in such a work it is just about possible to get an agreement that such a work should be ignored even without another peer-reviewed work pointing it out. What you would have to do is raise an RfC and say that you believe the work has made a straightforward error and explain why and see if the weight of the community sides with you. In general editors on Wikipedia have little time for people doing their own research though. Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Could be wrong, but I read the AR5 statement of "extremely likely" that "more than half" as a one-tailed test null hypothesis with 95% of the distribution to the right "half of the observed warming." If it were a normal distribution (though it's not, and I haven't seen an estimate of what that probability function looks like), the mean would be near 75%. The problem is forcings aren't well-understood enough so it literally could be all warming observed is man-made and the distribution extends beyond 100% of the observed warming. Finding the "most likely" amount and the other side of the tail is harder than attributing where the distribution lives. The weakness in the approach is that it's based on some level of expert opinion rather than testable hypothesis (at least the AR5 attributes a lot of it's distributions to that). Anyone care to word it as null hypothesis statement? --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It's actually a lot simpler than this. AR5 sez "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming," i.e., the warming has been entirely (approx 100%, give or take) caused by human activity. Gavin Schmidt says the likeliest fraction is 110%, which is comparable to other estimates I've seen (details here). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, 110% wouldn't be all of the warming. Some of it would have to be unresolved climate commitment from the recovery from the Little Ice Age. It can take the ocean several hundred years to reach equilibrium with the new levels of forcings that were involved. Poodleboy (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, "recovery from the Little Ice Age." is classic climate change denial myth as though there's some automatic unforced bounce-back; the 110% human contribution is consistent with the longer term pattern of AGW overriding the long term cooling trend expected from long term Croll cycles and shown in multiple studies such as PAGES2k. Perhaps Poodleboy would care to find a published reliable source for his otherwise mysterious "unresolved climate commitment"? . . dave souza, talk 07:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The Wigley and Meehl papers on the climate commitment page weren't good enough for you? Would you care to find a paper showing that the Little Ice Age didn't have different levels of forcing? Poodleboy (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Flannel! You're clearly misrepresenting Meehl, nothing there about LIA and the only mention of ice is how much it will contribute to sea level rise caused by AGW. Why tell porkies?? . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
From the Wigley paper, climate commitment from past natural forcings: A breakdown of the natural and anthropogenic components of the CC commitment, together with uncertainties arising from ocean mixing (Kz) uncertainties, is given in table S1. Past natural forcing (inclusion of which is the default case here) has a marked effect. The natural forcing component is surprisingly large, 64% of the total commitment in 2050, reducing to 52% by 2400. Poodleboy (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Could we get back to the topic of the article please? This is not the place to debate whether climate change is happening. The page is about whether the scientific opinion is that it is happening. Are you saying that you disagree that a there is a scientific consensus that most of the warming is due to human activity? And if so have you got some peer-reviewed citation showing that scientists do not have such a consensus? Or possibly some statement by a scientific body like the AAAS? This is the sort of thing needed to match what's here. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No one is debating whether climate change is occurring or whether most of the warming is anthropogenic, evidently some people have trouble acknowledging that some part of it could be natural. Climate commitment is not specific to anthropogenic forcings, even changes in natural forcings can take centuries to equilibrate to, and even the IPCC concludes that most of the warming through the first half of the 20th century is natural. So what are you going to argue, that somehow, because the forcings were natural, the oceans warmed to depth instantly? Poodleboy (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Poodleboy, you've been asked for sources specific to the topic, instead you throw in deviations and suggest completely unrelated sources that you can't have checked, keep trying to override sources with your WP:OR, and wander off into WP:FORUM questions. That's disruptive editing, please desist. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources require you to actually understand what you are reading. Evidently you didn't. You are the one suggesting that the climate commitment results don't apply generally. Poodleboy (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a forum for discussing climate change. What is relevant is summarizing what reliable sources say about the topic of the scientific opinion on climate change. Whether it really is happening is quite irrelevant and your thoughts on whether climate change is happening are doubly irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It does require that you understand can can properly summarize what your have read, unless you are actually quoting something in enough context. Do you have something substantive to contribute about the issue of whether the "extremely likely" IPCC term of art language is properly represents the IPCC statement on the attribution to GHG forcing? Poodleboy (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There are lots of secondary sources that have commented on the IPCC and there are lots of scientific bodies that have produced position papers on global warming. There are citations to many of them in the article. We don't have to do anything like what you say. And as I said a couple of times before the article is not about what the IPCC says it is about the scientific consensus. We should be looking at and summarizing the general literature with the IPCC being a major one. Besides the IPCC statement which you dispute we can take for instance the first science body mentioned the U.S. Global Change Research Program and it says "The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases". Have you got a reliable source saying otherwise? Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a source putting those words in the IPCC's mouth, like we don't have a source to put this phrase "most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases" in the IPCC's "extremely likely" context. Poodleboy (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not looking for particular words, just something saying something like that. Most of the material in Wikipedia should be by editors finding the salient points and summarizing it in their own words with citations to the sources. And we should normally try using secondary sources for interpretation. See [5] for a secondary source which says pretty much the same as this article about what the IPCC said. Instead of giving your own interpretation can you give some source like that for what you say? Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It is WP:OR to conclude that the secondary source is pretty much the same. We have the original that took pains with its words. Why accept a lesser source?Poodleboy (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
My comment was only to address "most" vs. "more than half". AR5 used language that implied a one sided tail with 95% confidence that anthropogenic contributions to warming were to the right of 50%. I don't recall anything in AR5 describing he nature of the tail so we can't say that it's inconsistent with "most of the warming" (or even that the statement was weakened (though I think there were tighter bouns placed on individual forcings). I don't think it means we can say it's centered or bounded at any particular point as each forcing (anthropogenic and natural) has it's own error and confidence intervals and appears that there are individual opinions (i.e. Gavin Schmidt has his theory) but no consensus has emerged on the tail boundings other than a 95% chance it lies on the right of 50%. It would be interesting if there are difference papers that estimate the 50% probability as well as upper 95% limit that would make it a two-sided tail but that seems beyond current capapbility and consensus at this point. --DHeyward (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Boris above notes AR5 sez "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming," implying nearly all of it. AR5 WG1 SPM has "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5)" In further detail, it notes "The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions." Figure SPM.5 shows only solar irradiance changes as a natural positive forcing, volcanic aerosols are omitted as an erratic [negative] forcing. Other sources as discussed above confirm that by far most warming (or possibly more than 100%) is human caused, so we shouldn't give undue weight to a theoretical possibility that "most of the warming" might approximate to 50%. . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Putting numbers on it from Figure SPM.5, Total anthropogenic RF relative to 1750 – 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33], while Natural Changes in solar irradiance – 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10]. Calling 2.29 "most of" 2.34 when it's 97.8% is grotesque understatement. . . dave souza, talk 10:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
That's all true enough but you are arguing on the basis of the science and the question has very little to do with that. It needs to be answered on the basis of Wikipedia policies. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies require source based research, and the AR5 WG1 SPM is clear that "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750". Backing up Boris, it states "The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m–2" which on the above basis is 102%. The total anthropogenic RF is 2.29, mainly due to offset by aerosols, land use and changes in albedo. That's a good source for "most" meaning nearly all, rather than just "more than half" as DHeyward seems to be suggesting on the basis of unsourced musings. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
You are performing WP:OR and thinking linearly in a nonlinear system, you can't just draw conclusions from the individual forcings or their sums. Simplistic analyses assume that the sensitivity is the same for forcings that are coupled to the climate system differently, both chemically (e.g. ozone generation) and in vertical and horizontal distribution, as Knutti himself acknowledged in Knutti and Hegerl (2008).
The concept of radiative forcing is of rather limited use for forcings with strongly varying vertical or spatial distributions.
and this:
There is a difference in the sensitivity to radiative forcing for different forcing mechanisms, which has been phrased as their ‘efficacy’[6]
Solar is coupled more strongly to the stratosphere, oceans and land surface, the lower latitudes and certain aerosols, CO2 to the troposphere, rather uniformly distributed, black carbon to the cryosphere, etc. The climate is nonlinear dynamic system. Gavin Schmidt would be the second to tell you that the CO2 radiation band can only penetrate millimeters into the oceans. While solar can penetrate 10s of meters. There are kelp forests in 100m of water. The pause in the surface temperature trend is apparent in the heat storage into the oceans. The system is still accumulating heat, i.e., it is warming, but it is less than before the pause. With the ARGO system, we are ready for our first good measurements of this phenomenon when the pause ends (it may have already).Poodleboy (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not a forum. And especially not off topic conversations. This article does not mention forcing. Any deductions you make about it as far as what is here would be WP:OR. Have you got something and a source directly relevant to improving this article? If not then please stop cluttering up my watchlist. There's lots of forums on the web for you to argue your thoughts in. Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Where were you when Souza was spouting off about forcing? It is ridiculous that you are editing the climate subjects if you don't realize that CO2 is considered and modeled as a forcing on the climate system. As to sources directly relevant to improving this article, I have already pointed out how the IPCC sources are being misrepresented, if we properly represent them that will certainly improve the article. Try to follow the thread, or do you really want to remove all mentions of forcings both anthropogenic and natural? Poodleboy (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't want either of you going on about forcing or any other ideas about the science. WP:OR says how to use sources and how to get interpretation and weight from secondary sources. I thought I had made that clear to him as well. You didn't even mention anything about the original question when you went on about it. Stop using this talk page as a forum to discuss your thoughts about climate change. Wikipedia is not in the market for original research. It is banned. You should not be doing it. It is an encyclopaedia and the basic principles are explained in WP:5P. This is not the place for people to air their own thoughts on subjects. As it says at WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." and also see WP:PSTS about how sources may be used. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll also copy the relevant bit from the top of this talk page in case you missed it "This is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific opinion 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 opinion on climate change at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk." Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I referenced the term at issue "extremely likely" eight times up above, how many times have you addressed the substance, instead of inappropriately applying wiki-lawyering.Poodleboy (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You didn't refer to it at all in the bits I replied to recently. The last time you mentioned it I replied "I'm not looking for particular words, just something saying something like that. ..." And you produced nothing but your own thoughts. The sources are pretty clear and you still have not produced anything but your own analysis. Your own analysis is not usable in Wikipedia and especially against citations to reliable sources. Your complaint still doesn't make what you say a consensus. What you have to do is produce something saying that what is there is just the IPCC rather than a consensus as a lot of sources say it is a consensus. You have to find a reliable source for your edit rather than slow edit-warring which will simply get you banned. This article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read the IPCC source, the phrase is practically word for word of their "extremely likely" conclusion. Where did you find ArtifexMayhem? Try to make sense.Poodleboy (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously it is you that has not read and understood the source. I haven't been lost in years. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@ArtifexMayhem: It would be more obvious if you talked about the substance rather than me. You are just a flyby, prove you aren't.Poodleboy (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Poodleboy: Maybe you missed this,

It's actually a lot simpler than this. AR5 sez "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming," i.e., the warming has been entirely (approx 100%, give or take) caused by human activity. Gavin Schmidt says the likeliest fraction is 110%, which is comparable to other estimates I've seen (details here).
— User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 03:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

but Judith Curry already tried the "50/50 Gambit"™. Cherry picking a few lines from AR5 does not support the edit you keep trying to make. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Not only did I not miss it, I responded to it. 50/50 probably applies to the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s but not the long term trend. Do you have a specific cite for your Curry reference?Poodleboy (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Try the link. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a reference to the 50-50 on either the Judith Curry or the cherry picking pages.Poodleboy (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
See her with it at [7]. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You just had to go and immediately revert after I warned about slow edit-warring and discretionary sanctions didn't you? I've raised an incident notice at WP:ANI. Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The IPCC source, as cited, " IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, «It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» (page 15)" indicates "that humans are causing most of it" is an understatement: from that source alone, "that humans are the predominant cause of it" would be more accurate. Other cited sources also support "most of it", so I'll leave it as that unless take page consensus is reached on strengthening the wording. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are the very likely quotes:

"More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations."

"Consistent with AR4, it is assessed that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in WMGHG concentrations."

Here are the extremely likely quotes:

"It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010."

"The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Poodleboy (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

More than half is most of. We're supposed to normally use our own words rather than closely paraphrasing. And the next sentence in that last report was "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period". The consensus is not some IPCC only thing, secondary sources have commented on this as I have pointed out above so you don't need to and should not do your own analysis. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
So can anybody else understand that the "extremely likely" term of art is being applied to the total human influence, and the IPCC has been careful to apply only the "very likely" term of art to the GHG component in isolartion? Dmcq obviously can't. I have a feeling that Souza might be able to if he really tried. Most is stronger than "more than half" and when the legacy text used "extremely likely" if was obviously borrowing the IPCCs term of art, so essentially lying by applying it more broadly.Poodleboy (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh no it hasn't! From the Detection and Attribution section D3 linked below, "Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}". Poodle boy's wording was very misleading, hence reverted. Can we improve our wording? . . . dave souza, talk 10:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
None of Poodleboy's selective quotations override (or are inconsistent with) "Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}" from IPCC WG1 SPM D3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change. (Looks to me like p. 17, so suggest a correction to the page number in the article). . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Why would it over ride that? That isn't the text being corrected in the article. What I provide does over ride this text: "extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels."Poodleboy (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested rewording[edit]

Existing wording:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

Taking into account the points recently raised above, suggest:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that the warming is mainly due to human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, and that greenhouse gas warming has to some extent been offset by human caused increases in aerosols. Natural causes had little effect over this period.

The IPCC SPM is a very widely based assessment, and so a good summary of scientific consensus. Other sources are less specific. . . dave souza, talk 10:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC) revised 10:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx, that definitely corrects the abuse of the IPCC term of art, and is a fair summary of the IPCC conclusion. It is a bit dangerous to put forward 5th IPCC report as the consensus, would you want to embrace and include this IPCC AR5 statement: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” That is actually a step back from AR4. I support your new text, but don't see how I could win a battle to attribute it to the IPCC rather than the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We should be using secondary sources though for interpretation, though it wouldn't make much difference here. For instance the BBC news in [8] says "The much-anticipated report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that with 95% certainty, humans are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s. And it is their assessment of the scientific consensus rather than something that just comes from them as Poodleboy's edit seems to suggest. I don't see anything wrong with the original and I tend to try avoiding making things longer. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC) missing sig added 12:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the scientific consensus come from scientists? Why risk something getting lost in translation. I support Souza's text, but I can't help him defend it against flyby reverts for a couple days. Are you going to edit war?Poodleboy (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
No. That is not what Wikipedia is in aid of. We should summarize what others say. I'm sure your massive intellect would come up with much better summaries by looking at the primary sources than secondary sources but unfortunately Wikipedia is built to only accept what those of meager minds like mine and a willingness to look at the sources can do. We are incapable of assessing things ourselves so there is a rule that we just summarize what these secondary sources say. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
So you ARE declaring an edit war.Poodleboy (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where you got that from. But then again how can I figure out the thoughts of my betters? And I probably wouldn't even understand any explanation. As you say "And note that Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports, so merely repeats wikilawyer language." Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, as the BBC notes there's not much interpretation involved in "humans are the dominant cause" rather than just "humans are causing most of it" which some misinterpret as "a small proportion over 50%", and I think that's worth clarifying. It's also reasonable to point to the more detailed breakdown of causes as "likely". So, another draft suggestion, tightened a little:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.

Not much longer than the original, but more nuanced. . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. As to the aerosols I very much hope we're not reduced to using Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) for mitigation. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In fact, so much of the GHG forcing has been cancelled by the aerosols, that the warming itself must now be mostly attributed to the black carbon responsible for the polar amplification phenomenon. :) Really!! The more detail you add, the further from a possible claim of a consensus you get. The reforestation of Canada has actually increased the warming, because the evergreen forests have a lower albedo in the snow in winter and the open fields in summer. Souza's first proposal is better supported by the sources. If you look at the source with the inprecise "dominated" that Souza is trying to capture, you will find the very next paragraph is the limit of the detail that the "extremely likely" applies to.Poodleboy (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Aerosols do not cancel GHG forcing in particular, but temporarily increase albedo, so reflecting more energy in general. This claim is analogous to "Tax revenue cancels most government expenses, so only highway construction and school expenses cause the deficit"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it was sarcasm. But if you've been following the literature, you will have noticed an increased appreciation of the role of black carbon. In any case, would you care to assist in protecting the integrity of the IPCC rigor in using "extremely likely", "very likely", etc? Poodleboy (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy, see Poe's law and desist from your failed attempts at levity. Rigour mortis is unhelpful ;-P . . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Poodleboy does indeed appear to be misreading the source, as noted above "Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C". Clearly most of the warming is due to greenhouse gases. Does the suggested wording cover this clearly enough to offset the blinkered preconceptions of some readers? . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I should point out that "likely" is also an IPCC term of art. Given that the AR5 climate sensitivity to CO2 range is 1.5C to 4.5C and will probably have to be lowered to 0.7C to 4.5C per doubling and given the different efficacies of different forcings, these arguments based upon linear assumptions are ridiculous. We should focus on accurately representing what the IPCC says. Certainly we should ignore the BBC internet columnist that Dmcq wants to introduce as an expert on the climate consensus.Poodleboy (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There you go! First offtopic remarks about black carbon and evergreen forests. next you're going about sensittivity: all irrelevant to this overview of the consensus on overall attribution of warming. The SPM is clear, so stop wandering off into your unsourced original research. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I never tried to put any unsourced WP:OR into the article, that was the legacy version. As to black carbon and evergreen forests, how are they off topic when you are discussing 110% and proposing a version with deforestation. I love how the wikilawyering spews off without a first thought. Or were you asking for sources on the talk page? Were you going with Gavin Schmidt? Did he forget the black carbon? Poodleboy (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It is OR because they are not directly relevant to the topic. Neither black carbon nor evergreen forests appears in the IPCC summary nor as far as I know in any of the other assessments by the scientific bodies of the consensus nor in the surveys. The policy states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
He did say one thing which I agree with which is that adding more and more detail gets further away from something that can be called a consensus. What the IPCC says there is labelled a consensus because so many bodies say they concur with the IPCC, but they also tend to say something a bit less precise themselves. We are not trying to paraphrase what the IPCC says, we're trying to say the overall consensus part of what it says. The more precise bits can be left to the article on global warming which goes into detail about the science. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Daves 2nd draft[edit]

Poodelboy's original criticism, as I understood it, is wonderfully corrected in Dave's second draft, which I endorse. For housekeeping purposes, here it is again

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, as that seems to have general agreement, I've implemented it and at the same time have updated the chapter url to give a direct link to the SPM. . . dave souza, talk 05:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The suggested statement is quite misleading.
  • "unequivocally warming": "On average" and "slightly", neither homogenous nor as strong as mostly predicted.
  • "Natural causes had little effect over this period" is rather funny. Natural causes have major effects, the mainstream modellers assume that natural causes are have - on an average - no current overall trend.
  • One of the main human contributions and influences on climate change and as well possible results, landuse patterns is left out completly.
  • That said, several aspects are not true respectively provide a slainted picture. Polentarion Talk 17:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the article is named "Scientific opinion on climate change" and not "Polentarion's opinion on climate change", you will need a good source for that. That is, a climatology source. Not sociology or economics or any other sorry excuse. So, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey's of Scientists Section[edit]

Roy Spenser cites a reanalysis of the surveys done by Oresko, Kendel, Anderegg, Cook that seriously questions if the published literature actually support the Global Warming position. In addition, the Petition project indicates that many scientists do not agree with the warming hypothesis (at least as being caused by CO2). These papers should be worked into this section. See: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Could you put in a link to a peer reviewed paper showing something like this thanks. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, it would be nice to say something about scientific theories being tentatively accepted because they have not yet been Falsified and that once Falsified they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.233.121 (talkcontribs) 02:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody accepts something just because it hasn't been falsified, do you mean something else? Just because something has not been rejected does not mean there has been any acceptance, e.g. storms happen because there is a cow somewhere that wants them to happen is not really falsifiable but no-ones going to accept it either. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

198 Worldwide Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action[edit]

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

198 Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action
  1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
  2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
  3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
  4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
  5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
  6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
  7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
  8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
  9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  10. Académie des Sciences, France
  11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
  12. Academy of Athens
  13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
  14. Academy of Science of South Africa
  15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
  16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
  18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
  19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
  21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
  23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
  24. African Academy of Sciences
  25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
  26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
  27. American Academy of Pediatrics
  28. American Anthropological Association
  29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
  31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
  32. American Astronomical Society
  33. American Chemical Society
  34. American College of Preventive Medicine
  35. American Fisheries Society
  36. American Geophysical Union
  37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
  38. American Institute of Physics
  39. American Meteorological Society
  40. American Physical Society
  41. American Public Health Association
  42. American Quaternary Association
  43. American Society for Microbiology
  44. American Society of Agronomy
  45. American Society of Civil Engineers
  46. American Society of Plant Biologists
  47. American Statistical Association
  48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
  49. Australian Academy of Science
  50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
  51. Australian Coral Reef Society
  52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
  53. Australian Institute of Physics
  54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
  55. Australian Medical Association
  56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
  58. Botanical Society of America
  59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  60. British Antarctic Survey
  61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  62. California Academy of Sciences
  63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  64. Canadian Association of Physicists
  65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  66. Canadian Geophysical Union
  67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
  69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
  70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
  71. Center for International Forestry Research
  72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
  74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
  75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
  76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
  77. Crop Science Society of America
  78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
  79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
  80. Ecological Society of America
  81. Ecological Society of Australia
  82. Environmental Protection Agency
  83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  84. European Federation of Geologists
  85. European Geosciences Union
  86. European Physical Society
  87. European Science Foundation
  88. Federation of American Scientists
  89. French Academy of Sciences
  90. Geological Society of America
  91. Geological Society of Australia
  92. Geological Society of London
  93. Georgian Academy of Sciences
  94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
  95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  96. Indian National Science Academy
  97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
  99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
  100. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
  101. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
  102. InterAcademy Council
  103. International Alliance of Research Universities
  104. International Arctic Science Committee
  105. International Association for Great Lakes Research
  106. International Council for Science
  107. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  108. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
  109. International Union for Quaternary Research
  110. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  111. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
  112. Islamic World Academy of Sciences
  113. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
  114. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  115. Korean Academy of Science and Technology
  116. Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
  117. l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  118. Latin American Academy of Sciences
  119. Latvian Academy of Sciences
  120. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
  121. Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
  122. Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
  123. Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
  124. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
  125. National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
  126. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
  127. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
  128. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  129. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  130. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
  131. National Association of State Foresters
  132. National Center for Atmospheric Research
  133. National Council of Engineers Australia
  134. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
  135. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  136. National Research Council
  137. National Science Foundation
  138. Natural England
  139. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
  140. Natural Science Collections Alliance
  141. Network of African Science Academies
  142. New York Academy of Sciences
  143. Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
  144. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  145. Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
  146. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
  147. Organization of Biological Field Stations
  148. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
  149. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
  150. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
  151. Polish Academy of Sciences
  152. Romanian Academy
  153. Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
  154. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
  155. Royal Astronomical Society, UK
  156. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
  157. Royal Irish Academy
  158. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  159. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  160. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  161. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
  162. Royal Society of Canada
  163. Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
  164. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
  165. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  166. Russian Academy of Sciences
  167. Science and Technology, Australia
  168. Science Council of Japan
  169. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
  170. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  171. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  172. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  173. Slovak Academy of Sciences
  174. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  175. Society for Ecological Restoration International
  176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
  177. Society of American Foresters
  178. Society of Biology (UK)
  179. Society of Systematic Biologists
  180. Soil Science Society of America
  181. Sudan Academy of Sciences
  182. Sudanese National Academy of Science
  183. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  184. The Wildlife Society (international)
  185. Turkish Academy of Sciences
  186. Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  187. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
  188. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  189. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
  190. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  191. Woods Hole Research Center
  192. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
  193. World Federation of Public Health Associations
  194. World Forestry Congress
  195. World Health Organization
  196. World Meteorological Organization
  197. Zambia Academy of Sciences
  198. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
This list can't be considered as some sort of defintive list. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed article deletion[edit]

This is going nowhere. Thanks for everything. Please tip your waiters and waitresses. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aristotle held the view that maggots spontaneously formed on meat, rather than adult flies laying eggs on rotting food, and for centuries nobody questioned how the maggots got there, simply because Aristotle was so well-respected that if he said so, it must be true. I see many of the same issues in this article, where much focus is placed on the number of scientists who support the view that climate change was caused by humans, almost as if this was evidence. However, "because those people think it's true" is not scientific evidence, and such nonsense should be kept to a minimum. Additionally, a lack of "recognized" scientific bodies who dissent to these opinions does not constitute evidence, particularly when so-called "climate deniers" are persecuted worse than even holocaust deniers, and forced out of the scientific community, where their research is quietly swept under the rug. Additionally, this article strongly implies that if climate change is caused by humans, then we need government to spend money and tell people what to do more, to stop it. That's completely off topic and doesn't belong in this article in any form. Additionally this article should be DELETED because it needs to be combined with the article on Climate Change. You don't get a separate article just to sling dirt at people who believe differently than you do. Just like I am not allowed to create an article dedicated to how horrible people who disagree with some conspiracy theory are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.37.230 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To delete the article, see WP:AFD NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
By "persecution", do you mean those people are being forced into high government positions against their will, like Mike Pence, Scott Pruitt and so on? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also note List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability for the policy about setting up articles. This topic of this article is notable because a lot of sources in reliable sources have talked about whether climate change is happening is supported by most climate scientists or not. Editors have tried to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to make it as objective as possible reporting what is in Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the topic. If you disagree with what is written here then find reliable sources of about the WP:WEIGHT or better of the ones in this article that say otherwise. As to proposing government action if you read the article you will see that scientists do not consider that a science question but a political and economic one. If you feel strongly about it then vote on it as you wish, but your wishes don't change the scientific diagnosis. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is ridiculous and beyond hope. Science does not operate based on consensus nor is there is a consensus on the future climate of earth or the various factors contributing to the current climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:C1DF:EAD3:AD99:C354 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not a fan of argument from authority, but, especially if the authority is an authority on the topic, it beats argument from Because I Say So by a mile. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I know what Lex Luthor meant in Superman the Movie when watching Otis "It's amazing that brain can generate enough power to keep those legs moving." Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.