Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.


Contents

POV Check again

I would like to as formaly as i can, request that someone that has nothing to do with editing the Global Warming articles, or the editors of said articles take a look at this for POV issues. This article is set up in a way to limit the addation of information, allbe it relivent, to enhance a spicific Point of View.--Zeeboid 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:RFC? I've removed the NPOV tag which you haven't justified. --Nethgirb 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, WP:RFC would be the next step in the dispute resolution process. Raymond Arritt 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of Individual Scientists

I added a section headline under which we can start adding information on the statements of individual scientists regarding the issue. I have read a lot of opinions from qualified scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the professional societies and whose opinions aren't necessarily reflected in the statements of the society as a whole. In the spirit of building the knowledgebase of Wikipedia, I believe it to be important to document these opinions. Zoomwsu 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is just down the hall. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine and dandy, but explain to me why the opinions of scientists do not belong on a page about scientific opinion. Zoomwsu 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Read the introduction to the present article. The coverage of the article is specified in that way for a good reason -- it makes no sense to have two articles that contain the same information. Raymond Arritt 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a short article about Tim Patterson. There will be more to come as I continue my research! Zoomwsu 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed same - please read the intro and the explanation directly above your note. Vsmith 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case then the title of this article should change to reflect its content. "Opinion of Scientific Societies on Climate Change" would be more appropriate. There needs to be a place where individual opinions are documented, and I don't simply mean opinions of those who support the global warming orthodoxy. I would strongly encourage anyone to add individual opinions regardless of what those opinions may be. Wikipedia users come to this page to understand the views of scientists on the issue. Nowhere does this imply that those opinions must only be those of scientific societies. I simply want to document scientific opinions on the issue and don't you think it would make sense that these opinions be noted in an article about scientific opinion?? Explain to me how I'm wrong here, besides the faulty argument of "there's room for GW deniers in the corner"? I strongly insist that we change the headline to allow individual opinions to be noted. As research continues to build and more and more scientists are challenging the "consensus", it is important to document those opinions just as prominently as those of societies as a whole. Zoomwsu 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You're not in a position to insist. And if you get too shrill you'll be in no position to persuade either William M. Connolley 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not in a position to insist? Furthermore, why don't you address the substance of my argument rather than just decree I am somehow unqualified to contribute? I'm not trying to be shrill, but am just a little frustrated that this article's community seems unwilling to address my concerns. Zoomwsu 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument has been addressed repeatedly. Pretending that your argument hasn't been addressed does not help your credibility. Raymond Arritt 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not in a position to insist - this is a very curious question. The answer is, because no-one is. Wiki is built by consensus. On this, the consensus is against you - there is no point adding individual opinions. The page is about... what it says its about. And if we were going to add individuals, we wouldn't be adding Patterson; and we'd be insisting on better sources William M. Connolley 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you haven't substantively addressed my argument. Please answer my question clearly: Why do the opinions of scientists not belong on a page titled "Scientific Opinion"?
As a corollary, why is this page named "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" instead of "Opinion of Scientific Societies on Climate Change," if the rule is to only include societal opinions? Zoomwsu 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The goal is to present the "scientific opinion on climate change". The consensus of the editors here seems to be that the best way to do that is to present statements by scientific societies and surveys of scientists. Listing individuals would be impractical—there are simply too many. If we tried to catalog individuals' opinions—essentially conducting our own survey—it would be original research by way of synthesis at best, and more likely doomed to being so incomplete as to be statistically worthless. You will note that individuals are not listed on either side. You'll also note that organisations' statements are listed on both sides. This has been discussed before; please search the old talk topics. --Nethgirb 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
He does have a worthy concern, although addressing it could be impractical. Perhaps that the good way to go, though, would be to add a simple mention that the opinions of the orgs. shown in this article are not binding on these orgs' members and/or have been contradicted by a few of these orgs' members. --Childhood's End 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That should be obvious from the lead: "This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions." --Kim D. Petersen 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that's a good mention already, yes. Only issue is that it is likely to be construed as if it only refers to individual scientists who are not members of the listed orgs. --Childhood's End 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the consensus agreed this was the best way to present the statements of societies, but I would like to challenge that consensus. There are a growing number of individual scientists who question the stance of GW proponents. More and more it's becoming clear that, despite broad institutional and political support of the theory of anthropogenic GW, there is little "consensus." The format of this article, therefore, has a selection bias because it only presents institutional views and there is nary a reference to the many scientists who are critical or disagree. Finding a way to present institutional and individual views is important to balance this article. Zoomwsu 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Zoomwsu, This articles premise is the scientific opinion - not scientists opinion. If you want the views of individual scientists that oppose - go to Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. If you want an article about controversy - go to Global warming controversy. Picking specific scientists would under all circumstances be WP:Undue weight of these scientists individual opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Zoomwsu, if you would like to challenge the way things are presented in the article you will need to provide some evidence rather than your own speculation... e.g. we have multiple reliable sources saying that there is a strong consensus on GW... your personal opinion that there isn't a consensus on GW is not very useful unless you can back it up with sources of comparable reliability. Same goes for your assertion that the number of skeptics is growing. --Nethgirb 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, check out [1], which does a fantastic job of documenting over twenty highly-qualified scientists who disagree with the mainstream. Furthermore, please see Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming, which documents the opinions of many more scientists. Just because political institutions claim consensus, does not mean there is consensus. It reminds me of the king who "banned" bad weather. Examine the evidence and read the statements of these many scientists and it will be apparent to anyone with a level head that many questions remain and many highly-qualified scientists still have questions about the GW orthodoxy. If these links are insufficient to support my position, what will? Zoomwsu 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hellooooo.... you've just cited Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which lists opposing scientists. Or are you arguing that we should reduplicate that material here? Then we'll need to duplicate the main global warming article here too, since it's essential for people get the larger context of the issue. And of course that'll require us to bring in the texts of physics, chemistry, and mathematics so folks understand the basics. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Over twenty! Wow. But that doesn't support either of your assertions. Also I would like to note that the title of the article is not "Lawrence Solomon's opinion on climate change". Your single non-scientific external source who thinks there isn't a consensus does not approach the reliability of the sources already presented in the article. --Nethgirb 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The link is rubbish - many of the 20 aren't deniers at all. The firstone, Wegman, isn't. The polar one, Wingham-Smith, isn't. Its the std tissue of lies recycled to deceive the ignorant William M. Connolley 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, having recently read the study of the NREP and noticing that it was more recent than any other study on the Wikipedia page I was surfing, I thought I could make a contribution. I spent a few hours doing some more reading and writing the entry and was proud of myself. I just wrote my first real Wikipedia entry! I was part of the open source revolution! I had figured some well-intentioned proponent of anthropogenic climate change wrote the original page, and just had neglected to add much that might challenge that. No harm no foul. After all, most people wouldn't enjoy writing about something they find disagreeable and would tend to favor subjects that reflect their worldview. This is common to every human. Part of the great thing about Wikipedia is, that others can edit and add to (and as I found out, repeatedly delete) your content. I had presumed this to be a moderating thing, after all the aggregate of the contribution effort should tend to cancel out biases.
I guess I learned a little about herd mentality and the fundamental flaw of open-source knowledge. Get outnumbered by people who are committed to silencing you and you can kiss your hard work goodbye. When the herd's self-appointed "consensus" can't seem to comprehend legitimate points or their own biases, you get a situation like this. I pointed out that Wikipedia's method of cataloging meant this article was the catch-all for authoritative opinion on climate change, and thus the community shouldn't censor legitimate, authoritative, but not "scientific" in the narrowest sense of the word, opinion. I even compromised by placing the entry under an assumedly non-controversial headline, accepting the legitimate point regarding the scientist vs. professional distinction. Yet this compromise was also deleted.
Then this individual opinions controversy. I confess I didn't pay attention to the line mentioning that articles on this page were only for societies and political organizations when I first wrote the entry. Unlike my other entry, I decided not to try and replace the entry, as that would be disrespectful. I would rather discuss the issue of the headline and convince you of why it should be changed before I re-added my entry. I thought I made some pretty reasonable arguments as to why it should be changed. I read a ton on this issue and understand it very well, and know that there are many scientists whose (IMO more reasonable) theories are not being given the time of day. I know based on this research that, despite what politically-motivated organizations like the IPCC say, there is not a "consensus" in all but the loosest senses of the term. The NREP study I wrote about showed those results very clearly. When two-thirds of a population disagree with the other third, it is more like "majority opinion" than "consensus."
At least for the time being, I'm giving up this fight. I just don't care enough to waste the time on some silly internet war. Sooner or later people are going to figure out that others have hyped up this theory just like they did the next ice age (whoops, got that one wrong) and the ozone hole (wasn't this supposed to be a huge problem by now?). Too bad many of you seem oblivious to the strange coincidence that those who promote this theory the most have the most to gain from it (emissions traders, alternative energy companies, politicians, bureaucrats, etc.). I guess I learned a few things from this, and none of them reflect positively on the whole idea of Wikipedia or those who believe in this faulty theory. Thanks for turning my enthusiasm into disillusionment.

I want to remind you of something Triple-Deuce said on the talk:Global warming page:

A perusal of the history would appear to show an unfortunate misunderstanding (at best) or perhaps even deliberate abuse (at worst) of the policy regarding revert/undo/rollback/what have you. The policy is clear: you are not to revert contributions, barring vandalism, except as a last resort. A revert should be seen as a revolting thing, to be avoided wherever possible. Prior consensus, sometimes years old and established long before recent editors came on board, does not mean permanent consensus. Every time a visitor loads an article in their browser, it is born anew and is fertile ground for editing. That you or I may not like those edits is not grounds for reverting them. It is grounds for further editing. I don't think this is a misunderstanding in most cases; WP policy is thrown around quite freely here, which would seem to indicate that it is understood by most. Therefore, I won't insult anyone by providing links you have already bookmarked. I also don't think it is abuse in most cases, because I assume good faith. What I suspect is the most likely scenario is simple laziness; it is easier to revert than to spend several minutes pondering a newly contributed sentence or paragraph, trying to reformulate it in a way that will incorporate it while remaining factual. If new contributions are suspected to be factually wrong, every effort should be made -- by the editor who is considering a revert -- to determine the veracity of the content. In other words, just because a new editor adds a sentence but doesn't source it, you should not delete that sentence. It may be factual, but the unsophisticated editor doesn't understand the need to cite his or her facts. You, as a sophisticated editor and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, should seek ways to incorporate that fresh material, rather than reasons to revert it. That last bit is key: your instinctive goal should be inclusion, not exclusion. If, after attempting to verify a statement, you determine that it is indeed unsupported, you should bring it up in talk, so that others (including, hopefully, the original contributor) might have a chance to verify it. If this also fails, removal is of course justified. This process seems to rarely take place in the GW article; it would appear that a large percentage of regular editors of this article could use a refresher course on reverting, in particular how and when it is to be used. Maintaining prior consensus does not apply. Thanks for your consideration. --Triple-Deuce 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like his advice is being followed here.Zoomwsu 02:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallup poll

The Gallup Poll referred to in the article is ancient, and I haven't been able to find any first-hand account of its results at all. We have only second-hand contradictory interpretations from partisan sources. Given that the poll supposedly reflected "400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society", it's more than a little strange that searches of the AMS website and the AMS publication database reveal no mention whatsoever of the poll. Likewise for the AGU website and AGU publication database. I'm inclined to delete this section unless we can establish what the poll actually says. Raymond Arritt 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right... A search on Gallup for "global warming" between 1989 and 1998, reveals only one survey [2] which is on public opinion. From my diggings this information seems to originate from here (NCPA BA#203 - "Myths of Global warming", H. Sterling Burnett, 1997) - but Burnett gives no reference - only a graph claiming to be from Gallup. --Kim D. Petersen 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The 1997 public survey is btw. mentioned in this from the AGU - and while that isn't strange. It is strange that it doesn't mention a previous survey made by Gallup on the AGU's own members.... --Kim D. Petersen 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well ignore the above - it seems that the survey is real - but unfortunatly i haven't found the survey itself. Only various very different accounts of what its conclusions or results were. --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, and I found this too. Looks like the survey is real, but we still have no reliable info on what its results were. Raymond Arritt 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And this, which is very interesting though it doesn't give much detail on the AMS-AGU survey. The survey was conducted by Gallup but was commissioned by a partisan institute, so it would be interesting to see how the questions were worded. Raymond Arritt 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting...i've only had a cursory look at it - but what surprised me about it, is that it actually indicates a stronger consensus in 1992, than i thought was the case. --Kim D. Petersen 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

American Association of State Climatologists

I read again their statement and I find that there's a bridge to cross between what they say and claiming that they concur with the IPCC. I dont think that they're dissenting either, though. But perhaps they should belong in a "Neutral statements" section. --Childhood's End 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It does appear they don't mention a primary cause of GW. It seems like they may be revising their statement as well, according to minutes from their meeting last year -- see [3], bottom of the next to last page --Nethgirb 22 June 2007
The tone of their views on climate change appears to vacillate depending on which individuals are or aren't present at the meeting. Raymond Arritt 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but for our purpose herein, would it be right to focus on their effective official statement and to file it in a neutral or middle ground section? --Childhood's End 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The more I read it, the vaguer it sounds. That's almost certainly intentional given the divergent perspectives that existed within that group at the time. Omitting it altogether seems like the best choice -- it contains only a single passing allusion to "global temperature trends", which is the principal metric used when discussing the problem. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont see any good reason to accept that their opinion is any less worthwhile than that of the Federal Climate Change Science Program or of many others listed herein. They simply do not endorse as the others do. I hope you dont see this lack of endorsement, or their "divergent perspectives", as problematic. --Childhood's End 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think RA's point isn't a divergent opinion, but the lack of any concrete opinion in the statement. In my opinion though, there's some information there, and the statement is worth keeping. I think it would be appropriate, given the current article setup, to have a "Neutral statements" section and put it there; it will probably soon have the AAPG to keep it company.
But this is a good time to mention that I'm not sure I'm a fan of the current "concurring/dissenting" organization. It makes it seem like the issue of climate change is a single yes/no question, and makes the groups take sides like a 2-party political system. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if people have arguments for it. --Nethgirb 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Overall, I share your views. Perhaps I could only add that a lack of any concrete opinion does not mean that there's no opinion there per se; these experts are likely telling us that given the current state of things, they cannot clear-cut support one side or another. So as you said, there is some information there. --Childhood's End 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You're projecting your own interpretation onto their silence. That was the basis for an excellent movie, but in the present context runs afoul of WP:NOR. Raymond Arritt 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Forget about my own interpretation then. The fact is that they remained neutral (bona fide note: remaining neutral can be an opinion). --Childhood's End 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

American Meteorological Society Statement

I think the AMS has updated the statement mention in the article: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html Dr Denim 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

now that I look again the mentioned article was regarding climate change research...not entirely sure if the topic difference is significant or not (I haven't had the chance to read them recently) Dr Denim 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

American Geophysical Union

I was a member of the AGU at the time they made their statement. I do not remember a survey of their membership. Instead, a small editorial board presumed to speak for thousands of scientists. The AGU's statement does not reflect my opinion, nor can they possibly claim the unanimous support of people they never asked. I feel they stole my voice and used it against me. Rather than let them continue to claim to speak for me, I dropped my membership.

We must remember that science is government funded, so it will naturally develop a pro-bigger-government bias. This will not necessarily appear as flaws in the work done, but as an imbalance between types of work funded and types of work not funded. Statements from a few people holding political positions in a politically-funded organization should not be assumed to represent the summary of all the views of their membership. The only way to find that out is to poll the members individually and publish the results of the poll. And even then the questions could be stacked.

The global warming people might be right. I don't know. But for them to claim I agree with them is clearly wrong. And by extenstion, they have probably falsely claimed the support of many other scientists. 72.208.56.148 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be obliged to tell you they are developing it [4]. As far as I can tell, neither they nor wiki claim (except perhaps implicitly) that the statement represents the members views William M. Connolley 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American Quarternary Association

After reading the reference given for this org's stated opinion, it appears to me that the only relevant part is this : "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution" (as shown in the article). But is this really saying anything or concurring with the IPCC's main conclusions? I mean, most skeptics accept that humans have influenced the rise in T. The remainder of the article is about criticizing State of Fear and the AAPG for giving a journalism award to Chrichton... --Childhood's End 14:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of the skeptics on the skeptics page would agree with the statement that humans have influenced the temperature since the Industrial Revolution. FWIW, I would make the above statement, and I don't concur with the IPCC. The question of human influence is one of degree, and whereas the IPCC says that most of the warming is due to human activity, this statement does not make that claim. If a scientist made the statement that "there is no doubt that natural variables have influenced the rise in T since the IR" that wouldn't be enough to call them a skeptic (I'd assume WMC would agree with this), so why is acknowledging some human influence enough to concur with the IPCC? I agree with CE here, find a new statement or move to neutral. Oren0 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
But then there is of course the reference to the US CCSP report(s), as the (at the time) current best scientific assessment - and which concurs with the IPCC. Which kind of strikes your objections. --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, deletion must also be contemplated, since this statement was really about State of Fear and says little if not nothing about the AQA's position. --Childhood's End 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Kim, yes, there is a reference to the CCSP, but there is no stated endorsement. I dont think you would accept a similar quote in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment. Or would you? --Childhood's End 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As for deletion: it does contain useful information about climate change independent of the Chrichton issue, such as their reference to "...the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity". And the authors were the Council of the American Quaternary Association, so I think it is relevant to the article.
As for classification as "concurring" vs. "neutral": it's true that it doesn't specifically state whether or not the majority of the recent warming is anthropogenic. But calling it "neutral", without defining what we mean by "neutral", is misleading. This is one reason I think this classification into concurring/neutral/dissenting may not be a good idea. But if we're going to do that, we need to state in each of those sections exactly what we mean (like we have done in List of scientists opposing...) --Nethgirb 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my deletion comment, it was meant to point out that the AQA paper is not a statement about climate change, while all the others referred to in the article have this purpose. The sentence you mention is merely an obiter dictum.
I also felt that "neutral" was not the exact right word that we should look for. Raymond Arritt provided what seemed to me a better description ("noncommittal"). Would you concur to put AQA in such a category? --Childhood's End 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming. which can only mean that the AQA accepts human-induced... But I agree with you that this isn't a statement on GW. Its about SoF. I don't think it should be listed William M. Connolley 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WMC: But it doesn't explicitly say whether those effects are the cause of the majority of recent global warming. As such I would be OK with putting AQA under "noncommittal" as long as we define what that means. This could be done at the beginning of each section and also at the top of the article, saying something like "statements are categorized based on whether they endorse the proposition that most of the recent warming is likely anthropogenic." --Nethgirb 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
RE deletion: I see the argument that it is more about SoF than GW. On the other hand, the statement clearly addresses climate change, and I'd say it's more than paranthetical given that scientific opinion on climate change is critical to the criticism of SoF. --Nethgirb 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
For the moment, I've deleted it. I disagree that its non-commital. Whatever it says about cl ch is on the anthro side. But its not a statement William M. Connolley 08:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

American Chemical Society

It seems to me that this org should also be considered neutral. Some cherry-picking has been made with the statement provided in the article. Here are a few more lines from their text (my parenthesis and emphasis) :

  • Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses. (no acknowledgement of a consensus)
  • The American Chemical Society (ACS) reaffirms that a vigorous research effort is needed to better understand and predict climate change and its possible consequences. A strengthened federal research program to better characterize our climate on both the global and regional levels and to assess vulnerabilities to climate change is essential in order to achieve these goals. (sounds like R. Pielke...) Particular attention needs to be paid to the assessment of the complex phenomena that underlie our climate, including greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks, the chemical cycles of carbon and nitrogen, and the atmospheric chemistry of aerosols and ozone. With increased understanding, the computer models that project climate changes can be refined and estimates made more accurate and useful for decision makers.
  • The greatest challenges facing the global community include understanding how the global climate system works and how our own activities may be influencing it (...)

Now, these are not dissenting statements either. It just seems to me that the ACS has taken a quite neutral position. There are some parts which acknowledge that climate is changing and that action must be taken, but I see no clear endorsement of the IPCC's main findings. --Childhood's End 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No clear endorsement of the IPCC's main findings? How about "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." The only bit you could complain about is that they do not explicitly state that the greenhouse gas increase is anthropogenic. But I don't think there's much debate about that, and anyway they make the connection implicitly by spending 3 paragraphs plus some conclusion text talking about the need for humans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including "Policymakers are faced with difficult choices because the costs of policies to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions must be weighed carefully, along with the risks and costs of inaction. But these choices must be made because climate change is occurring. ... The ACS joins numerous other scientific societies and academies in calling for effective action now to minimize human impact on the global climate system and to increase society’s ability to adapt to changes that occur. The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time." --Nethgirb 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the anthropogenic part is kinda the heart of the problem isnt it? Look closely, they later on say that "particular attention needs to be paid to the assessment of the complex phenomena that underlie our climate, including greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks". Combined with the fact that they nowhere endorse that the warming is likely mostly attributable to humans, and I am forced to find that they do not clearly endorse the IPCC no? They do confirm, like most skeptics, that humans have some part in this, but they go no farther. And the need for humans to reduce their emmissions is also stated by various skeptics, either as "in case the IPCC is right since we do not know the cause" or as "reducing pollution cannot be a bad thing". --Childhood's End 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(Did you mean "...but they go no farther"?)
But they do go farther. They say most recent warming is likely due to increased greehouse gas concentrations. This is consistent with the IPCC and inconsistent with most skeptics' positions, e.g. the ones that favor solar causes, or that greenhouse gas concentrations are the effect not the cause. So instead of saying "they do not clearly endorse the IPCC", it would be more accurate to say that they explicitly acknowledge one of the two important links in the chain. (And I think they implicitly acknowledge the other as well.) So calling them "noncommittal" is misleading. Your oversimplification ("they do not clearly endorse the IPCC") is similar to the classification in the article, which as I have said, I think is not helpful. --Nethgirb 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(oh yes, that's what I meant, sorry - I corrected it above)
True they endorse the view that most of the recent warming is likely due to increased GHG. This is in agreement with the IPCC, but this is not what distinguishes the IPCC's position from many critics' position. Indeed, some skeptics believe the warming is attributable to solar variation or other causes, but many also simply say that we do not know the cause and that therefore, it is wrong for the IPCC to claim that the warming is likely mostly due to human activity. The anthropogenic question is the heart of the problem, and that is what this article is about per the intro : These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
So, I think it is a misrepresentation to claim that the ACS endorsed this IPCC's position. --Childhood's End 13:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get your point. You agree that the ACS links the warming to the rise in GHGs. So do you think they should have explicitely mentioned that this rise is anthropogenic? Sorry, but then you could just as well complain about the rest not explicitly mentioning this Earth and could be refering to some fictional Earth 50 timelines to the left. There is no scientific opposition on this point. --Stephan Schulz 14:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that the determination as to whether the observed warming is anthropogenic or not is no more relevant than wondering which Earth scientists are talking about? To answer your relevant question, though: yes, I think they should have explicitely mentioned that the rise is anthropogenic (or likely mostly due to human activity), and that failing this, we are perhaps misrepresenting their position. --Childhood's End 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
CE you are getting out on a limb here. There is (to my knowledge) no other scientific explanation for the CO2 rise ... none. You will even have to search very hard to find any sceptics who will argue this - as its simply to easy an argumentation to shoot down. --Kim D. Petersen 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, isotopic analysis confirms that the increased CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion. It's reasonable to assume that the American Chemical Society understands isotopic analysis. Raymond Arritt 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
So, increased CO2 cannot come from tectonics, heated oceans, changes in atmosphere patterns, or such? --Childhood's End 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The present rise can come from none of those things. It is anthropogenic. Why are you flogging this dead horse? William M. Connolley 16:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't beat me, I was just asking, either out of curiosity or to empty the question. If there is no other possible source of CO2 rise then yes, their statement is concurring with the IPCC I guess, although with more clear cautionnary qualifiers. The IPCC should consider using it as a source of inspiration as to how to communicate.
I think it was worth discussing, but to those who may feel this was a waste of time I'm sorry. --Childhood's End 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I suspect many would find it prudent of you to actually get informed with the same energy and skill that you use to defend your often uninformed position. Also, the fact that the ACS mentions reduction of anthropogenic GHG emissions as desireable a number of times in this context should be a bit of a giveaway (e.g. "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. ").--Stephan Schulz 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the way you ignore all their qualifiers and focus on this specific aspect so that you can blast me. It's a concern shared by 'contrarians' anyway (e.g. Christy). But I do have this quality not so widely held throughout Wikipedia that I can admit when others are right, and I can easily live with your unpleasant comment. This being said, despite my presumably lack of information, I managed to raise two discrepancies with other statements on this list, and like it or not, it seems to me that this article is now slightly better. No need to thank me. --Childhood's End 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that editors herein hold the legitimate view that there is no other explanation to the recent rise in CO2 outside human activities.
Despite this and after consideration, I am willing to look stubborn and maintain a minimal doubt regarding the interpretation that is made of the ACS statement.
If the ACS does support the IPCC's finding that most of the recent warming is likely due to human activity by saying that "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that (...) most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations", I find it odd they can say right after that "Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change".
This last statement is in contradiction with the IPCC's stated extent of human influence (most) as it does not acknowledge any specific extent of influence - it rather acknowledges current debateS. I further find that they also say that we need to pay attention to GHG sources and sinks, and that we have yet to understand how our own activities are influencing the global climate system, which (perhaps it's just my foolishness) seems to leave some doubt regarding the attribution of the recent warming to human activities despite their opening statement, which was not describing their own view but only a description of how they see the current scientific general agreement. Finally, I also find that they specifically restrained their joining to other scientific societies to "calling for effective action now to minimize human impact on the global climate system and to increase society’s ability to adapt to changes".
I understand that as of now, I'm alone holding some doubt as to a possible mischaracterization of the ACS statement so I'll leave this for further discussion in the event anyone else would care looking further at this. --Childhood's End 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere "most" of the warming is somewhere between 50% and 100% (a quite wide range) - "most" of this is caused by greenhouse gases is between 25% and 100%. A wide margin for discussion on "the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change". Is it 50%? 75%? 80%? --Kim D. Petersen 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this follow-up Kim. If I can say, as you rightly point out, there's a wide margin for discussion on "the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change" and it seems to me that we should not presume that the ACS necessarily agrees with this IPCC finding without clear wording to this effect, especially with the several qualifiers they carefully added. Also, this exact point was discussed under a previous discussion about John Christy's statements, who is not known for his total and absolute support for the IPCC. --Childhood's End 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you are now reverting your own position and trying to use that as an argument - well done. --Kim D. Petersen 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Which of my positions have I reverted? I've been consistent on 1- The IPCC says that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming observed; 2- The ACS says that there is "general agreement among scientific experts" that most of the recent warming is due to increased GHG but fails to specifically mention that it is mostly attributable to humans; 3- It seems to editors here that the attribution to humans should be inferred from their statement, but I find that they put qualifiers notably on a) the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change (thus unsupportive of the IPCC's finding of "most") and b) GHG sources and sinks, and this tells me that by categorizing their statement as "Concuring with the IPCC", we are in the realm of presumption, even if prima facie it's a good looking one, and this is something you would never agree with in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Childhood's End 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to pigeonhole a society's position conclusively as "concurring" or "noncommittal" because there are many intermediate positions. I would sum up the ACS position as "there is warming due to greenhouse gases; we need more research, but let's decrease greenhouse gas emissions now". It obviously does not match the IPCC statement exactly, but if I had to pick a category I would classify it as concurring. I don't agree that saying "Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses" disagrees with saying that most of the recent changes are due to humans, because this statement seems to be talking about present and future changes, which are not known with certainty. Finally, I don't follow how saying that we need to pay attention to "greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks" goes against the IPCC position. --Itub 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view. Perhaps I could only specify that I did not suggest that the ACS was against the IPCC position, but rather suggested that it might not be committal enough to categorize it as supportive. Best. --Childhood's End 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let me (as an ACS member, but not a representative) try to explain what I believe is behind their statement and its wording and say that I believe that the ACS's statement is supportive of the IPCC position - scientist English is NOT the same as non-scientist English (this is something I am willing to discuss with anyone who would like to). The ACS is made up of some 160,000 scientists from around the world. It has a republican governing structure, in the original sense of the word in that representatives are choosen to make policy and decisions. These representatives, known as Councilors, meet twice yearly (next week happens to be one of those times) at the ACS National Meeting. 1) Policy statements such as the one discussed (in addition to being required of the ACS through its Congressional Charter) often take a good deal of time to make it through the various "hoops" that they must go through. My educated guess (and I have seen first-hand how the ACS system works) is that this policy was initiated long before the IPCC report came out, and to change it would have delayed it on ACS's part. I can try to find out if this is true or not, but it doesn't matter based on 2) since the ACS has so many members, there are always internal, political considerations when the ACS does anything. This is not ideal for a scientific organization, but is completely understandable. For me, as a Ph.D. chemist, as far as the source of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is very little scientific doubt that it is from the burning of fossil fuels, much as there is little doubt that chlorofluorocarbons were destroying the earth's ozone layer. To me, that is an example of the kind of prudent choice we should make now - the ozone was being disapearing, and theories suggested that it was a direct result of what Humans were doing. Instead of prolonged bickering, "we" all just dealt with the problem. Better to deal constructively with a problem whose source is not 100% known than to allow the planet to be destroyed. Global climate change is real, and we have good theories on why it is happening. Should we try to fix it, or just wait until we're all dead to do something about it? Jtciszewski 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Archive This 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.