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
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.

Splitting out opinions of scientific organizations[edit]

Do we want to move some or all of this portion to a sub-article, presumably replacing it with a summary?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is rather unwieldy at the moment and I already chopped it down a while ago. So yes I think a separate article on it is called for and hopefully the section here can be cut to about a third its size. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
After looking at this a bit more, I'm thinking the National Academy statements should stay in this article. What makes it absurdly long is the inclusion of all the specific statements for geologists, ecologists, statisticians, etc. etc. etc.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't get the issue. The article as it stands is not that long; 120k bytes and that includes rather long quotations in the references. Second Quantization (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is still a tag - which has been there for a year, since August 2014, apparently - saying that we are discussing moving the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing section out of the article. This does not seem to be the central topic of an active discussion here at the moment. I'm going to remove the tag. If there is something else - specific - to discuss, please start a new discussion section below. --Nigelj (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


I removed a subsection of the NIPCC, which was added from on 25 June. The NIPCC is not a scientific body, let alone one of international standing in the scientific community. The introduction of the main section says that "Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of knowledge of a given subject." The document released by the NIPCC does not meet any of the clauses of that sentence. I do notice that the rest of the section - 'Synthesis reports' - seems to consist of a strange hodge-podge of items, mostly quite old, and omitting any text about AR5. Is this all there is? Is it time for an update? --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that edit and removing it. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, time for an update. But the IPCC, and the NIPCC are all I see of recent synthesis reports. The currently listed consensus reports are not fully from "scientific bodies". Three of the four sources are governmental organizations, run by politians. In the case of the Arctic council it is run by ambassadors. The NIPCC does take a large amount of peer reviewed literature and compiles it into a broad level of understanding, so should be included. (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It just isn't a scientific body of some standing never mind a national or international one like the others. It was set up by Fred Singer specifically to push climate change denial. It does not even qualify as being scientific as they start with the conclusions they want and argue for that. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel an alternative view point is substantial grounds to exclude the NIPCC. The others are political organizations not scientific bodies, except for the one participant in the Arctic synthesis.
Do not put in the edit. The consensus here is against that. It is not a scientific body of international standing. It is a single interest group set up to deny the science. Dmcq (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The IPCC is not a political organization just because it is inter-governmental. That's an argument used to "refute" the consensus on climate change by people with conflicts of interest. Dustin (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Engineers in the other section[edit]

There seems to be a number of engineering societies in the 'Miscellaneous' section. Should they really be in this article? I know engineering is sometimes counted as a science but it just doesn't look quite right to me. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion vs evidence?[edit]

I came here trying to learn about the actual evidence for human caused climate change, and I can't seem to find any, only "opinions". Since when was science about "opinions"? We don't have surveys of how many scientists believe in quantum mechanics or string theory on those pages, in fact we usually don't mention scientists at all in factual articles about science. Should this page be rewritten or removed and replaced with a clear explanation of the arguments for (and against) the claims? In particular it should differentiate claims about causality from correlation -- yes we know that C02 is correlated with temperature, but what is the scientific argument for the direction of causation here? (Rather then, say,natural temperature rises causing more animals to survive and breathe out CO2.) Where are the arguments using Pearl and Granger causality statistics? Someone must have built a proper physics model and worked out how many tonnes of oil are burned each year and what percentage of the atmosphere that makes and what temperature rise would occur from that percentage. Where are those numbers? I wanted to learn about these arguments here to use them on people, but all that's here is a feeble "argument from authority", like we were told at school not to buy.

I think you want the main Global warming article. All your questions will be answered there. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
If you didn't want something that talked about scientists and opinion you shouldn't have mentioned them in your search. Just say the basic thing you want when searching. Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)