Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 17

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I cannot find a discussion of this in the archives, so I am going to raise it. Since the Geological Society of Australia had a previously published position statement that was broadly in support of the IPCC position and subsequently withdrew it due to procedural objections, do they really belong under "non-committal"? Unlike all the other groups in this category, they currently have no position, which is different to a non-committal statement. Apparently, they fully intend to publish a statement in future, but have not yet reached a point where they have done so. Therefore, I suggest removing them from "non-committal" and either leaving them out entirely (as is the case with all other groups who have no current statement) or including them back under "2.1.3 Earth Sciences", since their most recent statement belongs with the others there. The text about the Society would stay the same and so would note that there is presently no official statement while a new one is drafted. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me as a native English speaker that 'non-committal' as a heading pretty well covers a body who, due to procedural problems, have been unable to commit themselves one way or another. --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The section heading is "Noncommital statements" (italics added). From where I sit, a void statement is the equivalent of having no statement at all, and neither groups who have had no statement ever nor groups whose only past statement has been deleted belong on the list. I agree with the OP that GSA should be deleted.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. That'll teach me to comment without checking the actual article text! No statement is certainly different to a non-committal statement, and the difference should be honoured. --Nigelj (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed the section. If and when they publish a statement, this society can be added back into the article. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The AMS have recently released an updated statement and so this entry needs amending. I'm afraid I don't currently have time to do so. The new statement is still in support of the mainstream scientific position and seems to be a strengthened version of the previous one though I haven't had a chance to look very closely. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, this is now done. EthicsEdinburgh (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been here in a while so my apologies if this has been hashed out already. This website is of interest, although the Union of Concerned Scientists bears scrutiny to see if it meets the criterions of a WP:RS.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html --Airborne84 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistics provided in the U.S. News & World Report, "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern" source included three questionnaire choices:

“near catastrophic”: 41%, “moderately dangerous”: 44%, “relatively little danger”: 13%.

In the original version, the "near catastrophic” and “moderately dangerous" figures were aggregated to provide a figure of 84% of scientists who "believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger." ( I believe the 84% vs. 85% discrepancy is either an error or a rounding artifact).

This is not a good approach for NPOV, because when neutral views ("moderately") are aggregated with the "pro" or "con" view, an impression is created that a particular partisan side is favored. Specifically — aggregation works both ways. One can combine the middle ground with either extreme to create a better impression of one's own side.

In this case:

(1) AGW activists would probably prefer adding 41% + 44% to highlight the activist case. (2) AGW skeptics would probably prefer adding 44% + 13% to highlight the skeptical case.

I believe NPOV would suggest eliminating prejudicial aggregation entirely. Failing that, including both provides a better NPOV.

70.192.78.14 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the claims of POV/NPOV issues, I agree the text would be improved if the aggregation were removed, and so I did that in this diff.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 20:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

his page only talks about the scientists and organizations that DO believe in climate change - wrong. It doesn't talk about individual scientists at all. It only talks about recognised scientific institutions. If you can find one with a contrary opinion, not some op-ed, then do feel free to include it.

31,000 scientists signed a petition - wrong, obviously so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the lead says, This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion . . . and the section, "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature" cites polls of individuals.

The IP must be referring to the Oregon Petition. Including that with all the proper caveats is worth considering. Yopienso (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I support that. This article currently doesn't provide enough context about how scientific consensus is created and how it differs from

global warming controversy. Expanding on those themes (which currently are only addressed as wikilinks without explanations) would help achieve a better NPOV tone and lessen the appearance of biased coverage that bothers the IP editor. A good article should not only describe its topic in detail within narrow bounds, but also place the topic in relation with its broader, overarching subject. Diego (talk

) 11:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Grumble. I signed the

global warming articles would be able to do so, as they do not accept the possibility that some of the early papers had the reported data edited to match the theories, or had then-clearly-incorrect theories to support their conclusions. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

11:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Grumble. People are writing unfounded twaddle like they do not accept the possibility that some of the early papers had the reported data edited to match the theories. Put up or shut up William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Oregon Petition reports results from some papers which were demonstrably false at the time. (Regardless of whether it was prepared by or signed by "scientists", the document speaks for itself.) Whether it was (in each case) improper analysis, selective data collection, or a simple mistake, is difficult to determine, as you (and I mean, you, specifically, rather than "alarmists" in general) are unwilling to admit that the papers were in error. [If it was misquoting, that is possible to determine, and it seems to have been, in at least one case.] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't put up. "results from some papers" is intolerably vague. And inconsistent with our wiki page on the OP wot says, and I quote: The text of the petition reads, in its entirety:[4][7] “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So I say your reported data edited to match the theories is offensive twaddle. If you're being deliberately offensive, fine, leave it. Otherwise, strike it out William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the

willful blindness) could have been. It will take me a while to dig up which paper it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're backing away from had the reported data edited to match the theories with a very weaselly I don't think data falsification could not have been the cause in that case, although data selection bias (willful blindness) could have been. You haven't got a clue which if any papers are supposed to have done this. And you're still not backing up your slurs, but are putting it off to some indeterminate future date (It will take me a while to dig up which paper it was). You should delete your slur until such time as you *are* able to back it up William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(restore from edit conflict), Or, more likely, you could have made a mistake since you aren't an expert in that field (which is what I gather from "as being an expert enough", even I would probably qualify under that criteria) and didn't have your work peer reviewed by anyone from what you have stated. You've also been very vague about the details.

talk

) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

So come on, don't be coy: tell us exactly which paper you're talking about and tell us exactly what's wrong with it. And WTF is a "pseudo-review document"? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to know on which precise hook you are trying to hang your hat.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume that the "pseudo-review document" refers to the fake "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" that was presented to give the impression of a PNAS paper, but was only fairly transparent crap self-published by OISM. As a historical note, reading a couple of these horrible fake sceptic documents probably did more to turn me from a sceptic to a supporter of the current consensus position than reading the supporting primary literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

There's an Arthur Israel Rubin listed as a signatory here.

This article, AFAIK, is intended to inform the public on what scientists think about climate change. We could expect most readers to be coming to WP to get the facts. Imo, it's a good list, but would be better with a section at the bottom that lists denialists, with a proper assessment of their opinions and links to their sites, along with normal WP blue-links. Professionals ignore such opinions, but the general public wants the low-down on them.

If that were to happen, I would include on the assessment of the Oregon Petition that it was presented with false assertions, that it is dated, and that many signatories would not presently sign. Yopienso (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Don't accuse people of being "corrupt" or behaving "scandalously" unless you can support those assertions with solid sources. Please abide by

our policy when writing about living people, whether in articles or on talk pages. Guettarda (talk

) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The hatnotes at the top of the article are follow an improper use according to

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

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

Scientific societies are professional scholarly societies whose pronouncements generally reflect the opinions of their members - in fact, if the (elected) leadership failed to reflect good science, they would either be voted out of office, or the society would see a mass exodus of its members. Individual scientists speak only for themselves. Professional bodies speak for their membership at large and consequently are generally much more credible than individual scientists. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As explained in the lead, synthesis reports and surveys are also used to determine scientific opinion. To excise them would be a radical change of the article, which, lacking consensus to do so, would be most properly reverted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

No scientific organization of any repute currently disagrees with the mainstream opinion. If you have a counterexample, please list it with good sources.

OISM is not a scientific organization. Neither are the Heartland Institute, the Creation Research Society, or Disneyland. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Cybersaur is unfamiliar with

IPCC reports are written by scientists, but as set up by Reagan the wording is subject to agreement with representatives of governments. Thus effects tend to be understated due to the concerns of Saudi Arabia, the U.S., etc. And of course real scientists don't operate on "belief" and political bias, unlike the fringe scientists who have signed up to the Cornwall Alliance petition. . . dave souza, talk

20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a "Wiki list" of "many scientific organizations" that reject climate change you had best display it, as the rest of us don't believe you. Otherwise you are just

WP:SOAPBOXing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk

) 23:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Change the title! This article does not reflect consensus of scientists; it expresses the opinions of organizations, with little or no regard for the scientific process of review and criticism. Furthermore, the article blatantly violates Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Tripodics (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on whether prior discussion is SOAPBOXing

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

If you can find sources, please do so. Somebody has to. As was mentioned a few times earlier - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources and reliable sources only. If you have the sources and can defend them, you have a case that you can bring to administrators. Without the sources you don't even have a right to complain. I'm not saying that that with reliable sources you'll get good changes. Administrators aren't perfect and this is a rough crowd. You've taken an important step by listing specific examples to include in the article. But without the sources you have nothing. Readin (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And the organizations 72* has proposed for inclusion are so notably unscientific (though a couple try to maintain a scientific facade) that the chances of finding a reliable source with sufficient weight to counter that are effectively nil. To maintain otherwise amounts to advocacy, which is prohibited per

WP:SOAP. What you call "moving [the discussion] in a more productive direction" looks more edit-warring to me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk

) 23:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The burden of finding reliable sources to support the change has been placed squarely on the IP editor asking for changes. He should be given a chance to find such sources. Attempting to pre-empt discussion and simply declare the IP Editor "wrong" based on your opinion rather than on your own reliable sources does not further the discussion and is itself soapboxing and unhelpful. Becoming more specific on the talk page as the IP Editor has done is not "edit warring". Readin (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To the IP Editor: If you can find sources, he do so. Somebody has to. As was mentioned a few times earlier - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources and reliable sources only. If you have the sources and can defend them, you have a case that you can bring to administrators. Without the sources you don't even have a right to complain. You've taken an important step by listing specific examples to include in the article. But without the sources you have nothing. Readin (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, have a look at

NIPCC and you'll find that he's not a reliable source for anything other than his own views. . . dave souza, talk

13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  72*: Don't do it. Readin is right about one thing: if you don't have sources you have no basis to proceed, and will be properly rejected. What you (and Readin?) seem to not understand is, first, that as the article states, "scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists", and second, 'none of the organizations proffered amount "scientific bodies of national or international standing". So, you have offered nothing valid. That that is my opinion is quite beside the point; the chances of the contrary being true is so vanishingly small that it does not warrant wasting time discussing, and has currency only in a very partisan point of view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

JJ and Dave are right. I already said that none of the organisations listed here so far is going to cut the mustard as a "scientific body of national or international standing". However, the 'null set' we have under "statements by dissenting organizations" is only logically valid if everyone feels free to try to bust it by finding one. 72* is not the first to try, and everyone is welcome to play along at home. The odds are a much less now than they were, say 5 years ago, but you never know - just the exercise of trying to find one will teach anyone who thinks there must be loads out there a thing or two... "Don't believe everything you read in the popular press", for example. --Nigelj (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

However, the 'null set' we have under "statements by dissenting organizations" is only logically valid if everyone feels free to try to bust it by finding one. Exactly! Thank you for saying it so clearly. This is the main reason I didn't want the discussion cut off just as the IP editor (and presumed newbie) was getting specific. Talk pages should be relatively open and free. It costs very little to leave discussion open and the bar for closing it down should be pretty high. Readin (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the IP will be back any day now. Keep reaching for that rainbow.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 06:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think that after hearing so many comments like, "...denial amounts to incompetence comparable to belief in a flat earth", "Your "arguments" suck.", This anonymous poster obviously does not understand ...", "Was your asking a question really in good faith wanting an answer? Or just a ploy to engage in a debate?", "You just don't like the answer, so you are bitching about it. Well, that sounds like a personal problem" he's likely to want to avoid further abuse. Why should he expect civil discussion after what he's read? Readin (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree that all that talk was abusive, but it was all said by different people, not one anonymous user.72.80.203.214 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  What's anonymous? The "sucks" bit was from TippyGoomba, I believe the rest of those comments are mine. You don't like it? Well, I really don't like it when someone starts a discussion with "I don't understand". and seems to ask a simple question ("Why not just remove this section?"), but doesn't really mean it. I, assuming good faith, took it as a simple, innocent request for clarification. SURPRISE!! S/he doesn't want clarification, he wants to argue the point. That was not a good faith request for civil discussion, that was an ambush. So we have a seemingly clueless poster insulting our intelligence with his denialist soapboxing and our civility with his deviousness; what's civil about that? I point out that WP:Competence is required, and it is not abuse to point that out. (Though I am inclined to think that TG's three word response had the great merit of economy.) Can we now return to the issue of soapboxing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has the sources but is too butthurt to come back? Such a loss.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the above two abusive comments are proof that this indeed WAS soapboxing. They contain crude, rude remarks insulting me, rather than discussion. For your information, Isaid from the start tat we should remove this section because it is simply false. It may be your opinion that the ICSC is bad, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, and it certainly doesn't call for any rude, obnoxious insults.72.80.203.214 (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Abusive? Crude? Rude? Obnoxious? One of the many things you need to learn is to make specific references (which remark?). As a matter of fact you did not state "from that start" that the section should be removed, you asked a question. But all that is not directly relevant to the sub-discussion here regarding soapboxing.

  That you consider your listed organizations "scientific bodies of national or international standing" is uncredible from the outset, and evinces a definitely non-neutral point of view. It is your advocacy of this which constitutes soapboxing.

  As an aside: several editors have offered you tips (e.g., at User_talk:72.80.201.216), but possibly you have not noticed because you come in from a dynamically assigned IP address, which scatters such responses over several IP addresses. You really should login on your Cybersaur account. And if you would heed those tips you would avoid a lot of bumps. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets get one thing straight: I was not soapboxing. I told you from the start that I BELIEVE that the earth is warming! however, not everyone does. NASA has begun to have second thoughts, and many other national and international organizations don't believe this, including government run ones (although not many). I was not trying to have edit wars, and I was not trying to bug everyone with my own view. Here's all I know: I have researched, and researched, and researched some more on this topic, and ONE THING IS CLEAR: PLENTY OF PEOPLE, including SCIENTISTS and SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS don't believe in climate change! I realize that most Wiki editors believe otherwise, but there are still LOADS of scientists who don't believe it. While you may personally believe them to be uncredible, plenty of people say that IPCC is too, so you can't go by personal opinions. I was not looking for trouble when I started this, I simply didn't understand...and now that I do understand, I realize that whoever wrote that section was trying to make fun of "skeptics".

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

I'm sorry, but if you do not recognise the difference between e.g. the

NIPCC, I find it hard having a serious conversation with you. The Royal Society has been around for more than 350 years, has 1300+ members with a broad range of backgrounds, despite an extremely competitive membership process, has its own funds, buildings, and a long history of excellence in science. The NIPCC, as far as I can tell, does not even exist as an legal entity (it's just another front to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and hence has no defined membership. It was invented by one man, is (largely) funded by one pressure group, and has maybe 40 people associated with it, all from the same small pool of "scientists" which also make up the other single-issue "sceptical" organisations. One has credibility and standing, the other is a fake front. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 09:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cybersauer, you are not "only discussing" the point, just as you were not sincerely just asking a question. Your advocacy of a thoroughly discredited partisan point of view is what amounts to

WP:SOAPBOXING. If you insist on blatting nonsense, and object to catching flack for it, you might find Conservapedia more congenial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk

) 19:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This thread in a nutshell:

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

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

The "statements by dissenting organizations" section contains no statements by dissenting organizations. If that section even exists, it should contain some statements by dissenting organizations or else it is redundant. The only thing it has is a previously mentioned statement saying that no "organizations of international standing" don't believe in global warming. Such an error is comparable to having a "criticism" section and putting nothing in it but supportive statements. Here is what I want to add to this section:International Climate Science Coalition:

"1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.

2. Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are a cause of dangerous climate change."

The International Climate Science Coalition is a notable source. It has a board of over forty members, nearly all of which have PhDs. If you think it is not a credible source, you must come up with some evidence of this. This is not the only opposer of climate change theory, but at least it is a start. For a complete list of climate organizations against traditional climate change theories, visit http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php 72.80.196.141 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply naming a group and saying it has nearly 40 PhDs doesn't do a whole lot to persuade that it is a reliable source. In fact strictly speaking no source has been provided. You gave a quote but didn't say precisely who said the quote, when they said the quote, or what context the quote was said in. Was it a press release? Was it the leader of the organization speaking at a meeting? Was it in a published and peer reviewed research paper? See Wikipedia:Citation templates to get some idea of what needs to be included in the citation for a reliable source. A quote in particular must be clearly cited.

As for the website you mention, the domain "exxonsecrets" suggests some conflict of interest. It might be a place to look for additional information, but I suspect that it cannot itself be considered a reliable source nor would I think that being listed on the site would give us reason to consider the organization trustworthy - the organizations trustworthiness would need to be established some other way.Readin (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That list is of the anti-science organizations that Exxon-Mobil has funded. You still have no understanding of what makes an organization scientific, nor of

reliable sources, and therefore lack the competence necessary to discuss this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk

) 23:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid personal attacks like saying someone has no understanding or competency. Readin (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: the comment above has been silently rewritten, replacing the previous text William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP 72.80.196.141, please write some draft text, including

TippyGoomba (talk

) 06:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Readin (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Which will be an exercise in futility and general waste of everyone's time for the reason I have stated. If you are going to start this

reliable sources, etc. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk

) 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

JJ - chill out please.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Though perhaps you would explain to certain folks that claims of personal attacks can also be a form of personal attack. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for answering my suggestions respectfully and not calling them "nonsense". Here are my responses:

"What is the source?": My source is from the ICSC's website. Naturally I did not cite it exactly as I would have if I was putting it in the article. I will find more info on who exactly wrote the article.

"You have no understanding": That is an attack on me, and not a discussion. However, I was not claiming that ALL those organizations were scientific. A lot of them are and a lot of them aren't.

"Write some draft text": What exactly do you mean? I read that part of Wikipedia many times, and it never says that you can only cite international intergovernmental science journals. All it says is that you should not leave anything out and try to make the source reliable. The ICSC is the most reliable source for figuring out what the ICSC believes. Nobody knows as much about it as it does about itself, so we know it's not lying. It doesn't matter whether it is a reliable organization or not in everyone's opinion, because it still EXISTS, so it should be put in this section.

"Scientific bosy's of national/international standing": First of all, the ICSC has scientists from around the world, so it is international. Second of all, the section is not called "statements from international dissenting organizations", it just says "dissenting organizations", so whether or not it's "national" really doesn't matter.

As for a more detailed draft of exactly what I'll put in, I will post it shortly.72.80.196.141 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion should be of the form "paragraph X should contain sentence Y, here's my sources." Random websites don't count as sources. Use scholarship or reputable news outlets. If you don't know what that means, consult

TippyGoomba (talk

) 06:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Telling us about the makeup of the ICSC and arguing that it's a 'reliable organization' don't help. The

WP:UNDUE. Personally, I don't know which article that might be, without doing a lot of research. --Nigelj (talk

) 09:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Per

International Climate Science Coalition article is self-sourced, someone good at tags should tag that article as needing third party sourcing: there is a link to Sourcewatch which doesn't seem ideal. . dave souza, talk

10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Last, I'd like to point out that there really is no scientific consensus any way. You said that you have to look at scientific organizations and statistics. Well, I looked, and I found that only people who close there eyes don't notice the enormous number of dissenting organizations. As for the "statistics" argument, I have yet to find a RELIABLE statistic saying that there is an overwhelming consensus. The only thing I've found was a "%98" stat, which I believe is unreliable, because the people who took the survey only asked the people they WANTED to ask.

You answered your own question, "How is it (the ICSC) not a good source?", when you said "the ICSC is a scientific organization." Whether it is a or is not a scientific organization, as opposed to a lobbying organization with scientists as members is an open question. But the key point is that when wikipedia policy talks about

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 00:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's what people were saying, but I agree with you. That is why I said that I would find out EXACTLY who wrote this article, and EXACTLY what it is. IF that's all you want, that'll be easy.72.80.196.141 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

At some point, nonstop chat without educating yourself about wikipedia mechanics (also known as "handwaving") becomes abusive of the time of your fellow editors. What I would like is for you to go away and read

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I already told you: I read that page a bunch of times. I know how Wikipedia citing works, and I told you I'm working on getting a draft. That thing at the beginning was just a general idea of what I wanted to add, just to put it up for consideration. I'm working on a more detailed source.72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why they need to be supported by a majority expert opinion. Obviously, the majority of *cough* "experts" believe in anthropogenic climate change. That really doesn't matter. All the section says is "statements from dissenting organizations" not "statements from dissenting organizations that are supported by most experts". If you only ever cited what most people think, you would never have any statements dissenting anything. Take the IPCC's wiki page, for instance. It has a "criticism" section. Obviously, MOST people love the IPCC. However, not EVERYONE does, so there is still a criticism section. The section in question here is "statements from dissenting organizations". It has none. This doesn't make any sense. The only argument that we shouldn't add the ICSC is that "most experts don't think that the ICSC is credible". THAT'S OBVIOUS! OBVIOUSLY, most "experts" don't like the ICSC, because most of them support global warming, and the ICSC doesn't. However it DOESN"T MATTER whether most "experts" like it or not, because it still EXISTS, so it should be in this section.72.80.196.141 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the "secondary source", I suppose it would be all right to have one, but it is obviously not necessary, because at the top of this article there is a quote from the IPCC's website. If you can cite something from the IPCC's website, I see no reason why we can't cite something from the ICSC's website.72.80.196.141 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read

WP:COMPETENCE. You suggest a symmetry between a widely recognised scientific organisation (they got the Nobel Peace Price, for crying out loud) with thousands of contributors on the one hand, and a small propaganda front on the other. These organisations are not comparable - one has immense standing in the scientific community (and beyond it), the other has none. The IPCC TAR has been cited nearly 7000 times in the scientific literature. I cannot even find anything published by the ICSC, but "Climate Change Reconsidered", the NIPCC report, has 12 citations in Google Scholar, and most of those are grey literature, or social sciences debating the structure of the debate, not the science itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 01:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But can't we just quote the

TippyGoomba (talk

) 01:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

IP 72.80.196.141 misunderstands: these lobbying fake science outfits don't have to be supported by majority opinion, if their views are shown at all they have to be shown in the context of majority expert views of their claims. See

WP:WEIGHT – "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...... [where a minority view is shown] the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." . . dave souza, talk

11:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not desperately keen on a list of unscientific orgs. Unless we put it on a separate page entitled "unscientific opinion on cl ch" William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So now you all are going back to the old "ICSC is not scientific" argument:

"ICSC is not scientific" response: I already told you from the start, if you don't like the ICSC, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you personally think they're unscientific. You are making up your own (very narrow) definition of "scientific organizations". If you think it is not scientific, you must have evidence of this. The only evidence I've foound is that they have over 40 PhDs.

"Peer review" response: Wikipedia never says we can only cite peer reviewed articles. This possibly is peer reviewed, but even if it isn't, that doesn't matter. it isn't called "statements from dissenting organizations that have peer review", it's just called "statements from dissenting organizations". Once again, people are making their own definition of "scientific organizations" that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines

"Minority views should be less prominent" response: Thank you for bringing this up: it is exactly what I was trying to say in the first place! Not ice it does not say "minority opinions should NOT BE CITED AT ALL", it only say "minority opinions should BE LESS PROMINENT". Therefore, they ought to be INCLUDED, but ought not to be the main focus. I never said I wanted dissenting organizations to be MORE PROMINENT than supportive organizations. I only said they should be INCLUDED.72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather than anyone posting a further comment in this thread, since the IP has accepted the burden of producing a cite-able reference, I propose we suspend this thread until such time as the IP produces that reference. If they come up with nothing, we can close this entire discussion. If they do come up with something that is at least capable of being formatted as a cite, then we can resume discussion whether (A) it is a reliable source, and (B) whether ICSC is a "scientific" organization. But its all moot if the IP fails to produce a formattable reference. So let's just go silent and see if the IP produces. Or not.

I think that's a good idea. Readin (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion as-is does not seem to be resolving anything. Jim1138 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 23:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, its coming soon...72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this a try, but I'm very new to this. One of the IPCC quotes is cited as "^ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p.958 – IPCC". This looks like a good way to cite this. Therefore, here's how it will look

International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC):

"The ICSC is a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages assisting vulnerable peoples to adapt to climate variability and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change."

^ ICSC Mission Statement p.1 – ICSC

There we go...this should be good enough, it's just like the IPCC citation. I'll look for a "secondary source" one now.72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First, this is not a statement about climate change. Secondly, it's a self-published statement, and, per

reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the secondary source, I can't find any. The same way i can't find any "secondary source" for the IPCC's statements that's MORE RELIABLE than the IPCC, and, apparently, no one else can either, because all the IPCC statements are self-published. Cybersaur, 72.80.200.132 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The IPCC has perhaps the ultimate in editorial control, and its publications are not

WP:SPS in the wikipedia sense. There are also reputable academic sources discussing the IPCC, something the ICSC evidently lacks. Your alternative reality is offtopic here. . . dave souza, talk

22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the IPCC reports up until the IPCC Third Assessment Report were published by Cambridge University Press. And there are plenty of reliable secondary sources acknowledging the IPCC reports as excellent work, or as the scientific consensus. See e.g. the section "Scientific consensus" in the main article. And 72 might want to look at the article lede, too: scientific bodies of national or international standing - that's a more formal way of saying "REALLY AWESOME organisations". With a bit of effort, one can also find secondary sources on the ICSC, but they are a bit less complimentary: In Canada examples of junk science ‘astroturf’ lobby groups include the ‘Friends of Science’, the ‘Natural Resource Stewardship Project’ and the ‘International Climate Science Coalition’. All of these promote climate science disinformation, and lobby governments for climate change inaction. [1] Note that "junk science ‘astroturf’ lobby groups" and "scientific bodies of national or international standing" are generally disjunct groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree with each of the negative criticisms regarding the IP's desire to cite the ICSC mission statement, I think you are all missing the point. The point is that this quote does not address the issue! I will set aside my opinion that ICSC is a lobbying organization and is not a scientific organization. I mean, their mission statement makes that pretty clear. But set it aside and accept for the sake of argument that they are a scientific organization. Before bothering to evaluate the quote under wiki standards, the question should be "Is the proposed quote even on point?" Answer, "No" and here's why.

The IP alleges that the ICSC mission statement shows that they should be listed as a "dissenting scientific organization". OK.... but dissenting from what? The answer is in the lead, and consists of the three main conclusions summarized by IPCC. As listed in the lead (cites omitted) they are:

• 1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
• 2. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
• 3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

To be listed as a dissenting scientific organization you have to dissent from one of those three things. For ease of reading I will repeat what the IP wants to quote for his position:

"The ICSC is a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages assisting vulnerable peoples to adapt to climate variability and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change."

If you just read what it says without adding in any extra meaning, there is nothing in this quote which actually disputes any of the three main points. Quite the contrary, they embrace the observation that the place is warming and that people will be severely impacted. As for the cause, their statement does not dispute the IPCC's main finding. All they say about the cause is that it merits additional research dollars. Hey! We agree about something!

Sorry IP, but try again. Your quote confirms part of the scientific consensus, and makes no effort to dissent from the rest. Since it is off-point, further discussion of this quote is pointless

As for all the IPCC arguments earlier, you all are only proving my point. All most of you ever do is say how much you love the IPCC and how much you hate any organization that disagrees with it. It doesn't matter what you personally believe. It's run by scientists, and that's all there is to it. You say that IPCC references all have secondary sources, but not all of them do. I'm referring to the QUOTE at the top of the article. It is simply self-cited, which is fine. I don't need any secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.200.132 (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And, besides, I actually managed to find a secondary source anyway:

"The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today called on world leaders to announce a common sense approach to climate change instead of yielding to popular, but misguided demands to restrict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ‘stop climate change’."

"Manhattan Declaration Opposes Global Warming Alarmism" p.1 -Heartland Institute, 10/8/08

Oh, and by the way, I discovered that the ICSC is so widely recognized as an institute that it actually attended the UN climate change conference at least once. I don't think it's being invited any more, but neither is the IPCC. Cybersaur72.80.200.132 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you say you were going to have some sources for us?

TippyGoomba (talk

) 04:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the new quote is more on point, at least. From

WP:IRS, "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." The ICSC website is largely firewalled. It appears that I can not access the page the IP is quoting. However, you can access their statement on "core principles"

which says in part:

"Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously. Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial."

Note that they don't list any sources, and there are lots of places where these claims are debunked with citations to the sci lit. The mission statement explicitly says they exist to steer policy towards their favored ends. Therefore it is easy to see why those secondary sources someone mentioned in this thread think so low of ICSC's reputation for fact checking.

As for Heartland, their blessing is hardly a demonstration of reliability. They're the ones who employed lots of fake experts to fight tobacco regulations by attacking the epidemiologists and oncologists and their science. Now they use the same tricks and lots of the same people to do the same with climate science. So the FRINGE hole is growing.

Meanwhile, I hope the IP takes a look at a drought monitor map and then researches current global agricultural stores. How hungry must the Americas get before the price of wheat does here what the Russian-drought-spiked-price of wheat did for Arab Spring? In case you forgot, it kicked off civil unrest that brought down many governments. My personal prediction is that the after math will include Egypt's revocation of the Camp David accords, and attempted closure of the Suez Canal, which will involve US forces in a theater with nukes, but hey.... that's just me. I am opposed to including anything from this self-published advocacy group's oft-debunked claims anywhere on wikipedia, except maybe with

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 04:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(6) "wheat prices" I don't quite understand this argument, but if you think wheat prices went up because of global warming, there is no evidence of that whatever. As for your "self-published" argument, of course anything you or I publish is not going to be reliable. However, organizations such as the IPCC and ICSC CAN "self-publish" stuff, because they are reliable organizations. If the IPCC can self-publish stuff, so can the ICSC, especially since this is just a tiny little inconspicuous section, which has almost nothing to do with the rest of the article.72.80.200.132 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Before we go any further, you should suggest a specific change to the article and give us your sources.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken the IP wants to use this quote from ICSC's mission statement.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 04:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have two different ideas. They are mentioned earlier in this article. One is self published, the other isn't. Just so you know, I won't have web access probably for the next week or so, so if I ignore everyone, that's why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.200.132 (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Now we just need you to provide some citations so we don't violate

TippyGoomba (talk

) 05:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That is needed, true, but I would delete the word "just"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 06:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try again... To put an end to this gong show, we just need you to provide some citations so we don't violate

TippyGoomba (talk

) 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd still delete "just". In my view, putting the emphasis on

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 13:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Stuck.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 01:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• In a spirit of compromise I've edited the section in accordance with the proposal at the top of this thread,[2] mentioning these organizations and incorporating into the wording the minority scientific views previously shown as a seealso. . . dave souza, talk 05:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dave, while I agree the three thinktanks you listed are outfits "with no scientific standing", that part of your text is not supported by the reference you cited.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 07:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

===Scientific organizations of national or international standing that have dissented===

At one time the American Association of Petroleum Geologists opposed the scientific consensus but formally adopted a non-committal position in 2007.(cite)

Sweet and simple.

Sounds good, agree with that. Worthwhile summarising or quoting their before and after position statements? . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the existing text was the only content in this section for a long time, I recall. The rest, beginning 'A small minority...' is essentially cruft that has accrued over time. Therefore an alternative would be simply to revert to that single sentence. I don't think there's any need to wade into any pre-2007 AAPG text - if we cite it, it's there for anyone to dig up if they're interested. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nigelj, please reconsider. This entire thread originated with an argument made against the very status quo you suggest we return to. As such, your proposal is incomplete because it does to include a way to resolve and close this thread. Please elaborate how going back to that status quo does more overall good than the proposal I have just made?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

PS, and that "cruft that has accrued over time" was Dave's effort to resolve and close this thread and is less than 24 hrs old.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry! I didn't check the history, but I knew that that extra text wasn't there last time I looked. I don't agree that we have to add provisos and blur to articles every time an IP comes along and fills the talk page with their own ideas. There is no consensus I can see that the article was incorrect and needed fixing in this thread, however long it is. In the interests of not feeding a situation, I usually state my opinion exactly once and then leave discussions alone. I don't think it is better to keep disagreeing with the same argument or lack of sources on a Talk page. It is also not better to add a bit here and a bit there, on an Article page, when only uncited disagreement is posted on Talk. --Nigelj (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, it was a bold attempt to cover the points under discussion, have now reverted the #Statements by dissenting organizations section back to as of 20:33, 4 February 2013‎ last edited by Nigelj.[3] The intention was to note the point that a few scientists (mostly emeritus) feature in statements by fossil fuel funded lobbying groups, but difficult to do that without giving undue weight to these fringe views and, as Nigelj says, blurring the article. . . dave souza, talk 10:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I think it makes more sense to stick to the definitions we have in the lede. This is a specific article about a specific thing and there are other places where plenty of coverage is given to the fringe views, and any reader can get to all of them from the links in {{

global warming}}, which is at the bottom. Sorry, NEAG - your suggested text was perfectly good too, the biggest change would have been to add some words from the lede into the subheading. You've done that now spread across all the headings very nicely. So everything's cool :-) --Nigelj (talk

) 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If the ICSC has been to a UN conference it deserves to be mentioned. Self-publishing would NOT violate any Wiki rules. It ought to be added.72.80.200.132 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, as always, is needed, but scientific credibility is not needed to go to a UN conference, as Chris Monckton can testify. Fringe non-scientific organisations don't have to be in the article at all, per weight policy. . dave souza, talk 10:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The ICSC is also scientific, because it is run by scientists and does absolutely nothing but scientific research. 40 PhDs...even the IPCC board can't boast that!72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear they're scientific! What are some of their scientific publications? Please give the author(s), title, and journal.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 07:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I keep telling you, but you won't listen. VISIT THEIR WEBSITE, it has loads of papers about climate change posted on it.72.80.189.192 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a specific URL. I fail to see anything there that remotely looks like a scientific publication. If they have something, they keep it carefully hidden under a long list of highly spun "news" pieces that do not even pretend to be scientific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)