Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 20

the 97% consensus claim by SkS authors

This thread relates to this ref {{cite journal |author=Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. |title=Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |year=2013 |journal= Environ. Res. Lett. |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=024024 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 |bibcode = 2013ERL.....8b4024C }} NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference 119 has been heavily criticized for its unorthodox methods of assessing "consensus". For instance here: Legates, D. R., Soon, W., & Briggs, W. M. (2013). Learning and teaching climate science: The perils of consensus knowledge using agnotology. Science & Education, 22, 2007–2017, [for which this is the journal's link] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9 [and it contains this quote] "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."

Cook et al should therefore either be removed or at least be accompanied by the peer-reviewed criticism. (It is obvious when the underlying data are at hand, that the 97,1% claim is pure fiction. Which has been shown also elsewhere). http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2234817/accepted-climate-quote-is-wrong/

/JPC Lindstrom (Note: this "talk" contribution is also a part of a science project where Wikipedia is tested for its neutrality in controversal discussion subjects. All activities connected to this contribution will be recorded. It does not mean, however, that the contribution is not sincere.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.9.239 (talk • contribs) This user's comment has been slightly tweaked by me for clarity. My text changes are in square brackets.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We had this same debate someplace else and i was trying to find that again. Anyone recall where that was? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see the paper does not give statistics on how many papers gave an opinion about the source of carbon dioxide so it does not address the question at all. The other link you gave was referring to the same study. So this is all irrelevant here. It is like saying you looked at 10000 papers about the English language and only 0.1% said that most words in the dictionary started with S. Dmcq (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IP, I have read the entire Cook paper, which is online and open access. Have you?

• Cook etal "97% of these things sound like ducks, walk like ducks, and swim and fly like ducks. Er go, 97% are ducks.
• Legates etal It's all a LIE! Only .3% had a name tag reading "duck" around their necks!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

While I would oppose removing the Cook survey, I would certainly support an accurate characterization of the results of that survey, and criticisms of the survey. Sadly, I doubt you'll reach consensus among the active editors here.

I encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the Cook survey for himself (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article), and draw his own conclusions. It's clear from the survey itself that only 62.7% of the subject authors endorse anthropogenic global warming (Table 4).

Even the 62.7% figure is dependent upon Cook, et al.'s skewed definition of "endorse." If I were to admit that spitting in the ocean adds to its volume, Cook's methodology would conclude that I endorse the view that human spit is causing the oceans to rise.

Naturally, intellectual honesty calls for noting the methodologies used by Cook, et al., that lead to their flawed conclusions, and to set forth the opposing view. Allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Scientists have been trying to get away from the "quacks like a duck" approach since, well... the beginning of science. When you're trying to find ducks, everything quacks. John2510 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your use of column 1, table 4 (instead of column 2 table 4) minimizes the strength of the consensus by including papers in which the subject was not an issue in any way shape or form. It's like asking chefs to self-rate 10,000 dessert recipes and drawing conclusions about the views of 33% of these chefs because only 67% of the recipes in the pile included ice cream. Making a dessert with jello tells us nothing about the chef's opinion whether (1) vanilla is better than chocolate ice cream, (2) chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream, or (3) both chocolate and vanilla ice cream are equally tasty. To say anything "intellectually honest" about chef's opinions on preferred ice cream based on their self-rating of individual recipes in a collective pile of recipes, one has to focus on those recipes that in one way or another actually refer to ice cream. THat's the number in column 2 table 4. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As you know, we've been through this before, and I doubt we'll change each other's minds, but for the OP's sake... It's more like ten chefs write about the relative qualities of vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Only one expresses a preference, and it's for vanilla. Cook, et al. would conclude that 100% of chefs prefer vanilla. Actually, Cook, et al. would reach the same conclusion if one chef said he'd EATEN more vanilla than chocolate (because that must evidence a preference).

My old suggestion stands: describe the methodology (and/or include published criticisms) and trust the reader to reach his own conclusion. I haven't tested the waters lately, but I suspect that would not reach consensus among the active editors on this subject. John2510 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

More like a hundred people wrote about how they like vanilla ice cream and a ten wrote how to make vanilla ice cream and nine out of those ten describe the same method. Except it is far more than nine out of ten. This wasn't a proper criticism, it was just sophistry. Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviewed paper: Cook et al mistaken, biased, invalid, etc.

"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis" by Richard S.J. Tol

Abstract: A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

That study may be relevant to this discussion. —Blanchette (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic also discussed here, though I don't recall and have not checked if the Tol paper was referenced.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See also http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/30/richard-tol-s-attack-97-cent-climate-change-consensus-study-has-critical-errors We need to wait for the Tol thing actually to be published, as it will be debunked by Cook straight off, in the same issue apparently. --Nigelj (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Geological Society of Australia has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change

Per Earth scientists split on climate change statement at the Australian [paywalled]:

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

There's a fuller quote and some backstory at JoNova

-- which would move them into the "Non-committal" category. No hurry on this, but an interesting trend. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's funny. Calling one data point a 'trend' in this context. They weren't even in the article until recently added. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You will note that all 5 "Non-committal" scientific societies are geological. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A good illustration of Roosevelt's maxim “If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Dmcq (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

antropogenic contribution and data uncertainty

I agree for 'opinion' instead of 'consensus' on the title. However, in my opinion, the contents are too strongly single-minded.

I may admit that a number of organisations supports the opinion on 'global warming'. However, —the significant data are based on a limited period of time —the experimental temperature values are affected by a limited accuracy and a very limited traceability until very recently, generally not published —the computation of an average earth temperature is critically affected by the model used, and an evaluation of the resulting inaccuracy should be published and always indicated

Any extrapolation for any future time period should be accompanied by the indication of a band of uncertainty with its confidence level (or degree of bielief): it would probably show that an extrapolation cannot sensibly be provided at present.

The distinction between the estimated 'global warming' and the 'anthropogenic contribution' should be much more carefully stressed. The fact that the observed increase of +0.6 °C of global earth temperature is partially due to human activities is even less supported and arises to a larger extent from an inference. Other factors, like some components in the atmosphere, can better and directly correlated to human activities, temperature increase only indirectly. For example, from a computation I made using literature data, of the human contribution due to respiration to the atmospheric content of CO2, I found that it amounts to about 50% of the 2010 contribution due to fossil+cement+use of land. I was unable to find in the literature (possibly my fault) this datum, which would show that the increase of population (together with other human-induced non-energetic sources, like the increase of animals-for-food) is not a minor contribution to the increase of CO2 production.

In all instances, for the anthropogenic influence I consider a confidence level of 95% by far to low for pretending the urgency in action that the article implies. In some important fields of physics things start becoming considered when they reach a confidence level of 6-sigma.

I would like to see the article modified in a more neutral sense, according to Wikipedia policy -and its reputation.

Franco Pavese (Dr., Principal Scientist in Thermal Metrology, Torino, Italy) 2.36.58.176 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As it now reads, this is a rambling discussion and overly generalized critique. In other words, it sounds like a WP:FORUM type post. You said, "I would like to see the article modified in a more neutral sense, according to Wikipedia policy..." Please specify in detail one change you would like to see and since one of our core policies is WP:VERIFIABILITY, on what reliable sources are you relying for the suggestion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. As an aside, if the human population is growing, it is necessarily binding carbon dioxide (by converting it to body mass). Biological systems in equilibrium are carbon neutral - the CO2 humans exhale is made from carbon that was previously extracted from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and made it into food. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As a scientist for many years, I perfectly understand the issue of verifiability. However, if it means that one has necessarily to cite the article of somebody else as the Bible (reliable sources) on the subject to become credible, I do not necessarily agree. Also references can be carefully screened. As a scientist in thermal metrology at international level, though not specifically in climate, I think I can say something credible of myself from my expertise and experience in energy-balance computations. I think I already did in my previous post, at least on some points. 1) For a community asking a giant change in the world economy based on data taken with reasonable accuracy over a very short period of time, a 95% confidence level for boldly assessing an anthropogenic effect is to be considered definitely insufficient, and certainly not credible on extrapolation. I am asking for a higher future confidence level and in the meantime that, as, e.g., IPCC does, a complete picture of the extrapolation scenarios be provided; 2) Temperature (my most specific field of expertise) is probably the worst possible indicator, as to definitional and instrumental difficulties. I am asking specifically that the uncertainty and traceability of the data (something different from the dispersion of the data collected over the years) is made explicit, as a normal best practice in measurement; 3) Possibly by chance, possibly not, the trend toward an increase of several 'adverse' parameters looks matching quite well a similar trend (trivially easy to find in the literature) in the human population increase. I am not sure how much one can still rely on the mantra of benign nature "Biological systems in equilibrium are carbon neutral". The key word here is "in equilibrium", so the statement is actually a tautology. When does the population increase (with its consequences on food and other primary and less primanry needs) go out of equilibrium? I think it is a relevant question. Franco Pavese 2.36.58.176 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

General discussions of the topic, like this thread, are what we call a WP:FORUM. Such threads are deletable or collapsible as being off-topic. Please search thru the talk page guidelines for each instance of the word "forum". If you want to specify some specific change to the text, you could then explain the logic and tells us on what sources (that wikipedia rules consider "reliable") you are relying? Second request. Please see WP:DISRUPT which says one shouldn't ignore imple reasonable questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

To quote your previous post: "For example, from a computation I made using literature data, of the human contribution due to respiration to the atmospheric content of CO2..." (emphasis mien). That a growing population has indirect effects on the environment is a trivial truism. You also seem to be engaged in a bit of inverse appeal to consequences. The science is what it is. If you want 6 sigma for political decisions, that's plainly weird (would you step onto a street without looking? Chance of being hurt is less than 50% in most situations), but in no way influences the results we get out of the scientific process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

About verifiability, the importance of data uncertainty in scientific inference on global warming can be found in the activities of a specific European Project going on since 2011, METEOMET (http://www.meteomet.org), where, for example, one can appreciate a comparison between IPCC IV FAQ 3.1, Figure 1 and the actual error bars (still +- 0.3 K in the 1970’s, while IPCC cited figure indicates +- 0.1 K), and the influence of uncertainty on the reliability of extrapolations. The article does not report in its first figure any uncertainty band: I suggest that is added. A small increase of global temperature over the past 50 years can be real, but I maintain my point that a confidence level of 95% is insufficient also from a scientific point of view to presently allow any reasonable extrapolation to future decades. Therefore, according to the rule “Wikipedia is not a crystal ball” (“Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and ‘future history’ are inappropriate”) this article should drop all extrapolations, or provide a full range of predictions in the relevant section or move it to the article “Global warming controversy”, and be less dogmatic in its first 6 lines. I suggest a statement simple to read be added about the size of the total sample which forms the scientific bases assumed for the 95% evaluation of the scientists sharply convinced of the human-induced reason for the global warming: I consider the figure in section “Surveys of scientists and scientific literature” insufficient. Concerning the factors influencing the increase, I notice a change of argument in Stephan Schulz replies: now he admits a contribution of the human population and calls it trivial. Certainly this was not only my opinion and if Wiki asks for references, I will find them with no difficulties. The point that I think relevant to this article is the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions from human-bodies compared with other types of human-induced emissions more commonly considered, like from burning fossils, for which I did not find consistent figures. In the article, the origin of the ‘greenhouse gases’ is not indicated, and I suggest be separated in components. The strong correlation between the growth of the human population and of the greenhouse gases can be not by chance. This point was not appreciated in the site http://www.skepticalscience.com: it is not clear why the carbon dioxide emitted by humans should be differently treated from that emitted by other ‘natural’ sources. Considering that for sure the earth resources are finite, this is important because it would be much simpler to reduce the world population increase than promoting a “happy decrease” in economy and life style. Both solutions equally allow alleviating the carbon-cycle unbalance. This point is not discussed in the article, and I suggest that it should be. Finally, why the separation of the article “Scientific opinion on climate change” and the article “Global warming controversy”? It strongly induces in the readers the idea that scientifically it is proved, but politically or in general-public opinion is less accepted. This issue is also prompted to me by last Stephan's reply "but in no way influences the results we get out of the scientific process": 'certain results' ? Also scientifically is only a hypothesis, presently supported by more scientists than the opposite opinion. Franco Pavese2.36.124.167 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This comment reads like nonsense with no actionable components. Example quote "Both solutions equally allow alleviating the carbon-cycle unbalance." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That all comes under WP:original research unless you can find references saying what your trying to say. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Do some "Non-committal" organisations actually disagree?

The last paragraph of the introduction was blatantly false and inconsistent with later sections:

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

The cited 2007 statement from AAPG says "current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data." It also says "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases" (which is quoted futher down in the article). This is in clear disagreement with every point of the IPCC Fourth Assessment summary.

This article is worthless if it doesn't fairly represent what opposing organisations actually say, even when they're totally wrong. I've changed the paragraph to:

No scientific body of national or international standing opposes reducing fossil fuel emissions or researching climate change, however some generally disagree with the findings, holding that the data is still unclear on whether human contributions to climate change are significant, and pointing to many periods in the past 10,000 years where the planet has been far warmer.

The "Dissenting" section was similar and in disagreement with the article it linked to - I removed this sentence:

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

Please don't revert this without discussion. ··gracefool☺ 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the subjunctive mood. This is what makes the statement non-committal as opposed to opposed (pun noticed, but not intended). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How does subjunctive mood override what they actually say? Their statement clearly disagrees with every point. ··gracefool☺ 11:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't actually counted, but I suspect the glossary alone for IPCC WG1 AR4 (2007) contains more vocabulary words than the entire statement from the AAPG. Thus, your claim that AAPG statement "clearly disagrees with every point" isn't exactly persuasive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

e/c

Holding in abeyance my other comments - and I do have them - your edit is objectionable because you provided no RSs to support your assertion that "no scientific body of national or international standing opposes reducing fossil fuel emissions or researching climate change". So we don't really need to process this any further until an RS for that claim is provided. As a minor sidebard, your edit also changed a "see also" template to a "main" template. The section was discussing opposing organizations. The see also points to a list of individuals, which you changed to "main" as though a list of individuals is a "main article" discussing organizations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This all started with me adding a {{fact}} to the existing statement "No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points" - however the AAPG is clearly such a dissenting formal opinion. My statement is *weaker* than the existing one - and the existing one is contradicted even within the article. I don't need a new RS because existing ones support my change. ··gracefool☺ 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point re the plurality of the "see also" link; but the fact remains that the only sentence in that section is completely misrepresentative. ··gracefool☺ 12:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please prove this statement "I don't need a new RS because existing ones support my change." with respect to your revised text "No scientific body of national or international standing opposes reducing fossil fuel emissions... by specifying which precise RS(s) you think support that statement? Claims are easy to make, but show me the evidence, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Because my statement is weaker than the existing one, which supposedly doesn't need an RS either. I agree that I need a source; I'm just pointing out that my change is better than what we currently have. ··gracefool☺ 12:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual with cherry-picked quotes, Gracefool left out half of the quoted sentence. It begins, "AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that..." In other words, the AAPG 'respects' the mainstream opinion (i.e. does not actively disagree with it, or dispute it), but says there could be more to it. That is the very essence of a non-committal statement, to me. Their position is made even clearer in their first paragraph: "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO₂ has". Non-committal. Divided. Wanting to add something in the subjuctive (a wish, emotion, possibility, judgement, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred).[1] --Nigelj (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Respecting an opinion doesn't mean you don't disagree with it. Why else do they bother to say anything at all beyond respect? I agree AAPG is non-committal regarding human influence (I was wrong to go so far as to say "their statement clearly disagrees with every point"). Looking at their full statement, they certainly disagree with the other three parts of the report: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", "net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming" and "the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change..." ··gracefool☺ 12:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find nothing to that effect in the statement. They simply don't talk about ecosystems or net effects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. AAPG: "In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society."
2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities. AAPG: "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO₂ has on recent and potential global temperature increase"
3. Net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming. AAPG: no comment
4. The net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time. AAPG: "However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain"
5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century. AAPG: no comment

So, to my eye we have (1) Agree, (2) Divided, (3) No comment, (4) A platitude, (5) No comment. They seem to be closer to agreeing than disagreeing. However, 'non-committal' is probably the best overall summary. --Nigelj (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree non-committal is an accurate description. There is no clear disagreement unless the organisation says it disagrees with the IPCC or some of its major points. As the OP says their members disagree with each other and they haven't an agreed position. Overall they haven't a position. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with that first point? And I'm accused of cherry-picking?

1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. AAPG: "In recent decades global temperatures have risen. However, our planet has been far warmer and cooler today than many times in the geologic past, even within the past 10,000 years... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue... AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data." Disagree - it's not unequivocal (unless any temporary temperature increase is global warming)
2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities. AAPG: "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO₂ has on recent and potential global temperature increase... AAPG supports research to narrow probability ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate" Equivocal & Divided - we need more data
3. Net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming. AAPG: again, "the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data." Disagree - we do not believe existing data is sufficient to know that
4. The net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time. AAPG again, "the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data." Disagree - we do not believe existing data is sufficient to know that
5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century. AAPG: again, "the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data." Disagree - we do not believe existing data is sufficient to know that (unless natural variations are considered a danger to ecosystems)

That's 4/5 disagree for AAPG. Similarly AIPG in their 2009 and 2010 statements emphasize uncertainty, and clearly disagree with #2, saying the data does not clearly show that human activities have had a large impact. Thus the statement "No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points" is false. ··gracefool☺ 08:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you lost me with your claim that "In recent decades global temperatures have risen" somehow disagrees with "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The AAPG is quite correct in saying the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. They are geologists and they have data about quite extreme variations. They are equivocal on the main point that the IPCC says - that humans are probably causing another such extreme event. Just because such an event is within geological variation does not mean it will not cause grave disruption. They have simply written a document to try and keep their members quiet by them being all able to read into it what they wish and not being technically wrong. It is simply equivocal and does not assert a position. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that you appear to be guessing how AAPG is using the technical term "natural variation". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New survey

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/ William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Social science section

The social science section Serten included was not very comprehensible but it looked to me like there might be something worthwhile in it that was relevant to this article or some closely related one. I think better than just removing it we could have a copy here and try and figure out what can be salvaged and made readable from it.

---

== Social Science findings about the IPCC process==

=== Shaping Worldwide Consensus ===

There have been various studies about the IPCC process and the impact of its findings from a social science standpoint. An early one was published Aant Elzinga in 1996, where he discussed the process as an global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research.

According Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture at King's College London and formerly professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and its public marketing of the consensus has had mixed blessings. The mere idea of a need for a global consensus based science assessment has been challenged rather vocally recently. Hulme therefore recommends for the future IPCC process to include dissenting or minority positions to allow for a better correlation between scientific evidence and public policymaking.== Social Science findings about the IPCC process==

Shaping Worldwide Consensus

There have been various studies about the IPCC process and the impact of its findings from a social science standpoint. An early one was published Aant Elzinga in 1996, where he discussed the process as an global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research.

According Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture at King's College London and formerly professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and its public marketing of the consensus has had mixed blessings. The mere idea of a need for a global consensus based science assessment has been challenged rather vocally recently. Hulme therefore recommends for the future IPCC process to include dissenting or minority positions to allow for a better correlation between scientific evidence and public policymaking.

Climatologist Judith Curry doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties. She acknowledges the existence of the IPCC consensus findings but doubts scientific assessments need to be consensual.

Comparision with the Ozone Layer Challenge

Reiner Grundmann, a former Max Planck society researcher dealing with the social, political, and cultural dimensions of climate change and now professor at the University of Nottingham compared the effectiveness of the solution finding process for the ozone depletion problem and the IPCC process on climate change. In case of the Ozone layer, the scientific consensus was reached after (sic!) efficient global regulation was already being installed by the Montreal protocol. In contrary to the broader approach of the IPCC scientific opinion findings, the ozone case was basically built on the work of just three scientists, Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. They faced comparably resistance by the global industry and governments in question but succeeded in making themselves heard in the global public, and shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry. The ozone controversy had some influence on the IPCC mandate, as its architects started earlier a unified consensus based assessement process on the science findings for government agencies. However, Grundmann assumes that the global science consensus approach actually hindered the IPCC to provide feasible solution proposals beyound a set of mimimum consented goals. The ozone dispute was settled after alarming signals were being identified, so during the 1988–89 North American drought, which, according Grundman, have not been found or accepted for the climate controversy. As early as of 2000, Grundmann speculates that the "armistice", as it had been built up with the IPCC consensus process before, had then been broken and an open scientific controversy were being fought since.

Climatologist Judith Curry doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties. She acknowledges the existence of the IPCC consensus findings but doubts scientific assessments need to be consensual.

=== Comparision with the Ozone Layer Challenge ===

Reiner Grundmann, a former Max Planck society researcher dealing with the social, political, and cultural dimensions of climate change and now professor at the University of Nottingham compared the effectiveness of the solution finding process for the ozone depletion problem and the IPCC process on climate change. In case of the Ozone layer, the scientific consensus was reached after (sic!) efficient global regulation was already being installed by the Montreal protocol. In contrary to the broader approach of the IPCC scientific opinion findings, the ozone case was basically built on the work of just three scientists, Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland. They faced comparably resistance by the global industry and governments in question but succeeded in making themselves heard in the global public, and shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry. The ozone controversy had some influence on the IPCC mandate, as its architects started earlier a unified consensus based assessement process on the science findings for government agencies. However, Grundmann assumes that the global science consensus approach actually hindered the IPCC to provide feasible solution proposals beyound a set of mimimum consented goals. The ozone dispute was settled after alarming signals were being identified, so during the 1988–89 North American drought, which, according Grundman, have not been found or accepted for the climate controversy. As early as of 2000, Grundmann speculates that the "armistice", as it had been built up with the IPCC consensus process before, had then been broken and an open scientific controversy were being fought since.

---

---

Social science discussion

Basically this seems to me to be a couple of people saying the IPCC process and it wanting to find a consensus position is wrong or unhelpful. The weight of the studies is pretty light compared to the rest of the article and they are rather tangential but they are about the consensus position and maybe something can fit under the section 'Scientific consensus' in the article. I think for starters the ozone stuff could be cut drastically. A link to a person is sufficient instead of saying where they are a professor of. Phrases like 'as early as' when one is just talking about a date can be removed, we would need a reason to suppose an early date was a good thing. There's lots like that, it sounds to me like some blog post but even if it is spam for them that doesn't mean it is all worthless. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much of what S is adding is just his personal opinion, coupled to a few sources from unbalanced reading. The stuff about the ozone stuff being just the work of three people, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing his hatchet job at scientific consensus where he was just pushing his opinion and removing others work. I see there they think that a "broad and overwhelming scientific consensus is being proposed" and then they stuck in their buts! Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just try grundmann climate consensus on google scholar, its providing about 1400 entries. The first is Ozone and Climate Scientific Consensus and Leadership, doi: 10.1177/0162243905280024 I take the occasion to challenge Connolleys offensive claim about "unbalanced reading" via quoting the abstract:

This article compares the cases of ozone layer protection and climate change. In both cases, scientific expertise has played a comparatively important role in the policy process. The author argues that against conventional assumptions, scientific consensus is not necessary to achieve ambitious political goals. However, the architects of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operated under such assumptions. The author argues that this is problematic both from a theoretical viewpoint and from empirical evidence. Contrary to conventional assumptions, ambitious political regulations in the ozone case were agreed under scientific uncertainty, whereas the negotiations on climate change were much more modest albeit based on a large scientific consensus. On the basis of a media analysis, the author shows that the creation of a climate of expectation plus pressure from leader countries is crucial for success.

— Grundmann 2006

I am willing to discuss wording, but I do not accept a WP:dont't like it position. I believe Grundmann has a say and a intersting opinion which is worth while mentioning for all sides of the debate, wether you want to see action on climate or not. As the article is to discuss the scientific opinion on climate change, suitable social science viewpoints have to be involved. The funny thing is that wikipedia has only orphan articles about post-politics or the work of Erik Swyngedouw, while the actual political science community does whole conferences (as. e.g.the DVPW-Kongress 2009 in Kiel) where the lack of impact of climate change policy is the main topic. That said, the three are only the tip of the iceberg, there is much of current social studies around. Serten (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There a number of social scientists who have studied the politics surrounding climate change. You selected specific ones you like. I'm happy enough with that, there's probably somewhere in Wikipedia where the various opinions can be summarized as the topic or part of a topic. Someone else can come along and make the stuff more balanced rather than one sided, I believe in giving things a bit of room to grow rather than immediately removing something because it has a non neutral POV. The complaint here is that what you have written puts in too mush of the internal argument that has nothing to do with the topic rather than summarizing something relevant. Have we got a summary somewhere of what various people like Grundmann have said on the subject? Tht could be very useful as a secondary source and would give a much better basis to start from. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont get the point on mush... please reword it.

I have had chosen Grundmann, since he is someone with a very high impact. He is the person providing the statements and the overview about the field in question you ask for. Take the Max Planck summary of the Schimank book where Grundmanns chapter about Ozone versus Climate comes from, which I had quoted. Rough translation of the review "The book sets theoretical milestones in the current debate about ... problem solving capacity and democratic legitimation with regard to different forms of governance. The authors have provided major contributions to the current discussion ..."

That said, better accept that he is quite senior. I was rather angry when Connolley came up with the "minor" tag - he's offending a Max Planck Society social science fellow's research which been part of the most prestigeous basic research organization in Germany. Maybe it doesnt ring a bell over the channel but it should.

The article quotes some scientists (Nuticelli e.g.) which tried to assess the reach of consensus. the actual vast array of research is about the consensus claim as means of knowledge policy, Grundmann has reseached that himself. Its not about social scientists, that studied the politics surrounding climate change, it is about social scientists that study climate change from their perspective.

You ask me for very detailed reasoning why I want to change the article. Sorry, pleae use your ambition as well on the current, rather poor state. The article so far contains two large lists of academies and scientific organizations that used the term "consensus" in whatever statement. OR based and completely useless. Why? One could reduce that to two sentences. You havent included any serious social science study so far, which actually benchmarks wether those committments are serious or wether it is useful to have them. In so far I see my contribution as an important improvement. I am not willing to justify my contribution if they get regularly erased, as it is the case with Connolleys erratic reverts and hounding whereever I dare to edit. This has to stop. Serten (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did a quick google scholar search on 'climate change scientific consensus study" and Grundmann was on the fifth page and most of the ones before were actually about the consensus, so I put in the word 'social' that you use and they came up to the bottom of page 2. So yes they have some importance but your choice of them as representative is undue. That is what I am saying about what you have in and the way others can then come along and fix POV stuff like that. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for taking the effort. Your own search does not include any source, which currently is in the article, on the higher ranks, right? A section about social science studies makes sense, right? I found Michael Oppenheimers chapter "The limits of consensus", in Donald Kennedys Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009 highest on the list. Take the abstract of the separate paper in science: The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty and check the discussion in the book. So that has to change. You have not assessed Grundmanns credentials per se however. I have included Grundmann not just since he is an outstanding scientist but since I found the comparision with the Ozone layer problem is an eye opener putting things into perspective. OK, our common friend Connolley claimed he's of no importance and erased my contributions. If one however tries, on scholar, the words consensus global ozone climate you get again Oppenheimer on top (position two, top is a 1989 paper) but Grundmann is on place three. Thats said, I will ask to restore the edits I did on ozone depletion and I will do some changes on the draft you inserted here on the dicussion page. I suggest you or others insert changes in wording etc as well and we then come to a common version then. OK? Serten (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course you found what you wanted if you stuck 'ozone' in. But that isn't a relevant search criteria for this. It is something that interested you but is tangential to this topic. We are supposed to work with a neutral point of view. That means going by the weight of what is out there, not by what strikes our fancy. As I indicated before a secondary or tertiary source about the subject that discussed the opinions of the various people who have written about the subject would be a good source of structure instead of us trying to assess weight neutrally using a source like google. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If Connolley were right, putting Ozone in would not help, since Grundmann is so minor. But for the tertiary source take the discussion in Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy as a starter. Maybe you will be surprised who has written it ;), Stehr and Grundmann, the latter being among the coauthors of the The Hartwell Paper. As said, Grundmann himself is providing parts of that assessment already, you still avoid taking him serious. What I intend is to insert social science studies, that compare the IPCC process and its consensus based approach with other global environmental challenges. Thats would tell us and our readers much more about the IPCC proceess than stating hall of fame credentials by academies. Serten (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is him debating with another one. It is not a survey which is what I was saying could be used instead of Google searches. Why should I be surprised at your choice of him? Why did you not cite the Constance Lever-Tracy paper if you are citing some response to it? Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but why not take the debate as a base? Grundmann defends his point on an assessement of the mainstream of sociology, as he doubts it being worth while to jump on an alarmist bandwagon. He doubt it being worth while for professional sociologusts to support climatologists, which have been acting as ‘lay sociologists’ themselves, with personal opinion based ideas of human behaviour and further outdated social science concepts. Neither is ‘modeling’ of social processes being possible or seen as a scientific task nor is a primitive linear of policy-making of more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be valid, to the contrary, it has been debunked again and again and is not in line with the Social constructionism based mainstream of sociology. He provides quotes bfor that btw. I think that Michael Oppenheimer top ranked assessment in "The limits of consensus" confirms Grundmann, will say the IPCC is being asked to address less what we know about climate but provide better data about the uncertainities. Thats the line along which I will rework the entry. Serten (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

---

---

The point about three scholars only is itself somewhat interesting. In case of the Ozone depletion it was just a trio of scientists that got effective global regulation through, against considerable odds, while the IPCC attempts to move governments to act have been a failure, instead of the famous consensus. ;) The reason for that is of scientific interest and as well important for the article. Serten (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New draft

== Social Science findings about the IPCC process==

There have been various studies about the IPCC process and the impact of its findings from a social science standpoint. An early one was published Aant Elzinga in 1996, where he discussed the process as an global attempt to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research.

However, the role of sociology studies in the climate change discussion and the political conclusions has been smaller than expected. While e.g. Constance Lever-Tracy argued that climate change should be at the heart of the discipline sociologist Reiner Grundmann was much more cautious. He assumes that the politicization of the debate, anthropogenic climate change evolving from a mere science issue to a top global policy topic did not help to attract social scientists. Grundmann defends what he sees a legacy of social constructivism worth while keeping and refrains from short term alarmism and ecological determinism. Furthermore, he claims that climatologists and other actors in the field have acted as ‘lay sociologists’ using various personal opionion based assumptions about human behaviour and outdated concepts which are not along the mainstream of sociology which . E.g. few sociologists hold ‘modeling’ of social processes as being possible or intend to take part in such endeveaours. Sociology as well no longer claims a linear model of policy-making of more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be as being valid.

Cass Sunstein and other scholars in legal and social sciences have tried to put Climate change and other international environmental problems into comparision. Sunstein directly compared the case of the Ozone depletion, where global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol has been successful while in case of Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol failed. In case of the ozone depletion challenge, there was global regulation already being installed before a scientific consensus was established. The ozone case was basically built on the work of just three scientists, Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland, which researched the athmospheric chemsitry and suggested as well feasible solution proposals on a case by case basis. The stepwise mitigation of the ozone layer challenge was based as well on successfully reducing regional burden sharing conflicts. In case of the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, cost-benefit analysis of some countries and burden-sharing conflicts of the distribution of specified climate emmission reductions remain an unsolved problem.

The apparently paradox or lockstep situation of the IPCC having built a broad science consensus while states and governments still follow different, if not opposing goals is therefore not based on a lack of scientific knowledge about the issue in question. A possible answer might be to look for a better understanding of the relation between science and public policy instead.

Ungar (2000) asks in his comparision of global warming versus ozone depletion to put scientific ignorance rather than knowledge as main starting point and norm. He points out important differences between the public opinion on climate change and the lay persons understanding of the ozone threat, which "resonated with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture" and hinted to "immediate risks with everyday relevance".

Michael Oppenheimer confirms in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009 the limitation of the IPCC consensus approach and asks for concurring, smaller assessments of special problems instead of large scale consensus approaches as in the previous IPCC assessment reports. He claims that it is more important for the IPCC to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties. Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions or to improve statements about uncertainties.

---

---

None of this is about the scientific opinion on climate change, so doesn't belong. You clearly want to talk about sociology; have you considered editing sociology pages instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be drifting even further away from the topic here, but what would you think about it in Politics of global warming? Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. That article even has some ozone-GW comparisons in it already William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If you confine the "scientific opinion" to the IPCC Physical Science Basis reports, you might have a point. The inclusion here depends what you consider as "scientific opinion" on climate change. the IPCC itself has already some social science aspects in scope, quote The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Your understanding requires to strictly reduce the intro of this article. You then may NOT claim the whole IPCC reports and credentials. With regard of my draft, the studies involved what Scientific opinion on climate change is, wether it is useful at all to collect it or wether the IPCC shouild change its approach. As Grundmann says, the strong believe -of some of the IPCC actors - in a strict Nature–culture divide, in knowledge as a means of decision making and in modeling complex problems is completely out of fashion. Connolley: Maybe you start better reading what the IPCC actually does instead of reverting stuff.Serten (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC) PS.: I have used the draft to improve the IPCC section about the processes. I think its more appropriate there, but ask you to confine this article to the physical base. If so, and if Connolley behaves, we can close this discussion. Serten (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This article does not say that, you're probably talking about another article and confusing it with this. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

%

Just be so kind and clarify wether scientific opionion includes all aspects of the IPCC Assessment Reports or not. If so, social science is already being included. Serten (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

'Whether' not 'wether', when you get an underline it means a probable misspelling. The 'socio-economic' bit is about assessments of the social and economic effects of climate change. That has nothing to do with any assessment about their processes or anyone's response to their reports. It basically covers their assessment that climate change will be very costly economically overall though some places might gain a benefit. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference between the IPCC methods and the IPCC findings, right.

Look on the current Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Policy section, thats were some points from my sources belong to. "Some places might gain a benefit" is just not enough. If you read Grundmann or Sunstein, its rather clear that the Ozone people were much better at policy. The IPCC is neither in position to provide regional loss-benefit patterns nor to indicate a just distribution of burden sharing. Kyoto failed. The ability to come up with such patterns, provide feasible case by case oriented solutions and to communicate risks properly to individuals was crucial for the success of Montreal. Serten (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about their success or otherwise in getting their point across to politicians or the general public. Kyoto and Montreal or anything like that is just not relevant here. Dmcq (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The IPCC gives recommodations for policy which are consensus based and part of it? Already the previous version ("ongoing debate") of the policy section conceded that the IPCC solution proposals are not being consented. Hoever half of the article lists credentials of the IPCC getting its point across to science academies, so failing to getting their point across to lay people or polticians is of importance. According the sources I have provided, the consensus concept prevents suitable solutions and was reason for the political failures, including Kyoto. PS Connolley keeps on claiming spam. He should try reading instead. Serten (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy section

I erased my social science section and inserted the contents that fitted in the policy section, which already claiming an "ongoing debate" and discussed the amount of social science involved. If that stays, the dis is closed. Serten (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And I've removed it because of its practically total irrelevance to the topic of the article. You left in a relevant bit which shows the irrelevance and then disregarded it:

The question of whether there exists a "safe" level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because it would require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of the world, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. In general, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.

What is your problem with understanding what they are saying? All the stuff you want to stick in is about values and convincing people and not working properly. It i just not relevant to this article. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the real world - and scientists - care about wether he IPCC policy recommondation are worth their money or not. Thats part of the policy and there is more to say than quote one association refering to value judgments. Serten (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What scientists would like to happen is not part of the topic of this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As long youb claim the "opinion" includes the IPCC policy recommondations, it is part of the topic.Serten (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about 'scientific opinion on climate change'. The IPCC is a intergovernmental agency the main aim of which is to give policy recommendations based on the science of climate change. The section on policy in this article makes it very clear that what you are talking about is not included in the science part. That is why it is short and points to other places about that sort of thing and says the policy part is not included in this topic of this article. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you got any sources for your claims? Do the academies exclude the the recommondation for policy makers as being not part of the consensus of science? As already asked what is meant by "scientific opinion" Do you have a source for your claim? It hs not been explained so far in the article nor in the section. It may be put in comparision with the Ozone case, where they were much less clumsy, and succeeded. Serten (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The bit you removed said as much - who are you to say you know better? You are the one who needs proof of their view. And stop edit warring to stick your stuff in. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The IPCC has no statement at all that excludes its recommondations from the consensus. To the contrary. Do the academies exclude the recommondation for policy makers from the consensus of science? As already asked, what is meant by "scientific opinion"? Do you have a source for your claim? It hs not been explained so far in the article nor in the section. The policy approach may be put in comparision with the Ozone case, where they were much less clumsy, and succeeded, why not? Serten (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) PS.:

The section is there to tell people who don't understand the difference between science and policy that policy is not included and give the reason why. For instance evolution is a generally agreed bit of science. Whether we should euthanize babies with genetic problems is a policy matter and scientists opinions there do not count as scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As to your ozone business. It has no relevance to the science here. But I would guess personally that the difference is that firstly that people could see a much more clear and present danger rather than one fifty years in the future, and secondly and more importantly people's lifestyle would be affected far more by costs of driving around. Americans in particular count that as a basic of their lifestyle. As Roosevelt put it "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". If you love driving a car you'll have an inclination to dismiss global warming. Same sort of way the gun lovers in the gun lobby manage to dismiss concern about all the gun deaths. Changing how shaving cream and fridges work hadn't the same sort of impact. The idea that if the IPCC changed how it went around things that it would make much difference to the various 'skeptics' is I feel rather naive. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First: I have to apologize for erasing one of your comments while clarifying my statement.

Second: The whole activities of the IPCC are based on providing the recomondation for policy makers, however already the consensus assessenent is a highly politized affair. In so far the policy section has been neglected so far but has to mirror the importance of that part.

Third: Your points about naivety are basd on your opinion. As Cass Sunstein has pointed out en detail, the american goverment (the Bush adminstration) rejected Kyoto due to cost-benefit calculations and unwillingness to let Carbon dioxide reductions impair the american way of life. However thats an important issue to state.

its a major interest for social science studies to check why environmental challenges of similar global complexity (acid rain, ozone, carbon emmissions) fail in one point to be regulated while others succeed, the Merchants of Doubt have been active in all cases. With regard to Ozone, Grundmann and others assume that in case of the ozone case, lay people agreed with regulation since the image of the "Ozone shield" and the fear of scin cancer met much better with indiviual gut feeling. So your opinion is based on your gut feeling, but I provided the research that really has the evidence. With regard to evolution, its as well of scientifioc interest to compare the strong doubts of American conservatives towards gun control and evolution with the absence of such doubts with continental european conservatives. It has more to do with the role of social darwinism and eugenics, compare Michael Hochgeschwender, american religion or more polemical [Lindzen about eugenics and climate change. I think we better start reworking the policy section based on real sources. Serten (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

All of that has nothing to do with the topic of this article. I hope you understand the difference between policy recommendations and scientific opinion now and will cease wasting time here. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The topic is about scientific opinion piled together to achieve a common global consensus and recommodations for policy makers, right? I provided studies, that deal with the pro and cons of scientific opinion based on a consensus in gaining political regulation enforced. So its about the core of this article, the reason for its existance. Serten (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing comes under WP:COATRACK. Please stop. Dmcq (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What I am doing is improving and writing articles absed on quality sources, see Ozone depletion and global warming. Coattrack would be about a biased point, which one? Instead of wikilawyering, you should try to accept that Wikipedia:I just don't like it and denial of facts of life out of the real world is not helppful. Scientific consensus doesnt help to get politics provide regulation, to the contrary. Scientific activity has shown it. Serten (talk)

Whether the consensus is useful or not is irrelevant to this article. Politics is irrelevant to this article. Facts of life are irrelevant to this article. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at that Ozone depletion and global warming. It is pure WP:OR and WP:COATRACK on your part. Has it ever occurred to you when people complain and revert your stuff that you might be doing something wrong? Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I think Oppermann and Watson are interesting people and I found some nice aspects of their actual work, I believe those former or acting chairmen of the IPCC know much more about the uncertainities of their own work as you dare to concede. As long most of the Climate change articles contain outdated stuff with not much link to the real world, I dont care much about the opinion of authors that try to keep them in that state. Wikipedia is for the readers, should be about writing articles and expanding them, based on good sources- not about definding them against surmised enemies. The worst part of it is the incomprehensible bullshit out of the Depletion article. Serten (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC) PS.: Whether the consensus is useful or not is irrelevant to this article. Politics is irrelevant to this article. Facts of life are irrelevant to this article. funny, isnt it? I believe in Rumsfeld instead

No not kidding. However reading there again I see there is a notable topic just the title is allusive rather than descriptive, in Star Trek terms "Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra". My assessment of the OR which I stand by is due to the high percentage of references that mention only one or other of ozone or climate or warming and plus a couple which mention none. You are writing a paper with your own sources rather than abiding by Wikipedia policy, that is WP:OR. You seem to feel strongly that it is important to get your points across whatever about Wikipedia's policies. That comes under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If I raised a a request for comments in deciding if your contribution was within the scope of this article would you abide by its result if the consensus was against you? Or does 'I dont care much about the opinion of authors that try to keep them in that state' more accurately describe what you would do? Dmcq (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As you start with Star Trek, I am not your father, Luke ;) I would like to point out, that the OR resp coattrack or Disruptive editing aspect applies to both sides. See Grundmann, Cass, Ungar and others deal with central aspects of the topic here, since they assess wether a heap of science collected does help at all to make politicians or citizens act. The tell us, from comparing different human-nature-regulation topics that a science consensus doesnt matter as much, as tiny dots on Ronald Reagans nose and graspable Hollywood metaphors have a bigger effect on actual policy then all unreadable egghead stuff combined. So if you exclude valuable secondary sources about the very core and motiviation of orchestrating scientific opinions, you make me angry. Article quality may suffer. Make me happy by allowing Grundmann and others here and I improve my stuff as well, since you make some valid points about it. Serten (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That is Star Wars, not Star Trek. You have not answered about whether you would follow a WP:consensus determined by a request for comment. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

First you seem to claim that writing an article with scientific sources I is a breach of WP:OR. Lol, its just expanding WP, just editing along the rules. I already requested comments about my contribution, as I asked the sociology portal to comment here, after there was tekkie resistance against social science input. Serten (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are unable to work within Wikipedia's policies you shouldn't be editing here. I see no point in setting up an RfC if you are just going to ignore it. If you really believe you have a point that will pass consensus then you would be happy to go with that. So I ask you for the last time would you follow a consensus determined by a WP:request for comment about your policy addition here? Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not at all excluded an RFC and I am working very well along WP rules. However I am not willing to discuss it under your terms so far. This is a low quality article based mostly on outdated primary sources - Synthesis reports, IPCC hall of fame credentials from "anno tobacco" and a tiny entry about "policy matters". I am willing to start providing secondary sources to the article and to improve it. Serten (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I would be willing to go by whatever came out of an RfC but it doesn't seem you are able to say you would so I can't see the point of setting one up. I'll simply revert your addition if you stick it in and depend on enough editors agreeing with me to keep it out of the article. If they agree with you instead you'll get it in. Not my preferred mode of work deciding content. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Take "Controversy about the policy part of..." would be a RFC topic title I am in line with. Serten (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft for policy section

Some RFC contributors asked what we are actually talking about. I therefore have put together what I propose as policy section in the article. Sources as above. Serten (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

== Policy==

Main articles: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, climate engineering, politics of global warming, climate ethics, and economics of global warming

In various cases of environmental challenges, scientific assessment and reports were being asked for by governments, NGOs, companies and individuals to lay out a scientific base for decision making. The IPCC was established as a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations by WMO and UNEP to provide such an scientific opinion, the mandate comprises "a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts". It orchestrates the worldwide science findings to shape a worldwide consensus on the matter. It does not conduct any research itself, its assessments use a broad variety of scientific studies not confined to climatology. The conclusions out of the scientific assessments are being summarized in the different IPCC Summary for Policymakers and synthesis reports.

The underlying linear model of "the more we know, the better the political response will be" was not base of more successfull international policy attempts on e.g. the ozone depletion case(compare the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols). The linear model is being disputed, from a theoretical standpoint, by studies on the relation between knowledge production and decision making.

In the meanwhile, both the scientific assessment reports and the summary itself are a highly politized matter. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report added a synthesis reports to summarize the findings of the Summary for Policymakers for the different working groups. Among others, it refers to long term perspectives and scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, robust findings and key uncertainties. Detailed regional cost benefit calulations are not being part of the IPCC opinion findings but might have motivated governments to draw back instead of committing themselves to climate policy.

There is an extensive discussion on what policies might be effective in responding to climate change. Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments (refer to the later sections of the article). With regard to further IPCC assessment reports, Michael Oppenheimer confirms in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009 the limitation of the IPCC consensus approach and asks for concurring, smaller assessments of special problems instead of large scale consensus approaches as in the previous IPCC assessment reports. He claims that it is more important for the IPCC to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties. Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions or to improve statements about uncertainties. The AR5 will use a different approach to account for increasing greenhouse gas concentrations than in the previous reports. Instead of generic Emissions Scenarios the simulation models are performing simulations for various Representative Concentration Pathways.

Pie chart numbers don't match papers

Dissenting Climate Articles, 2013

This chart, apparently sourced to two papers by James L. Powell, doesn't match either set of numbers quoted from his two studies. Moved here to fix same, as it's misleading as is. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I never noticed that pie chart going in, and I'm pretty sure that even if some figure did correspond it wouldn't mean anything very relevant to the article. Good catch. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree; we don't really need it, and it's not at all clear (to me) what Powell was doing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Update tag

Could it please be explained, here in the talk section, why the article carries an {{update}} tag, so that any real or preceived outdated information (which I couldn't find) can be corrected? The tag was added without any explanation on the 24th of July by a user whose edit history mostly consists of music-related articles. It is all too easy to slap these tags on an article as a means to cast doubt on its contents... 50.181.115.73 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well somebody just found something that was out of date but yes I think it should be remove as no reason was given and there were no obvious problems - so I'll do that. Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

p.s. new talk sections should normally go at the bottom of the talk page, clicking the 'new section' tab at the top of the page will do that. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the new sections; I can't believe I didn't notice this all these years. I now moved this talk section to where it would have been if I would have done things right, though it's probably OK to delete it at this point (is there a policy on that as well?) 50.181.115.73 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)