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. |
Undue weight in lede "For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus."; which begins: "Climate change consensus describes the public perception and controversy over whether there is a scientific consensus on recent global warming and on the extent of man's involvement, and the factors driving that perception and controversy"... misleading? The debate of wether there is a scientific consensus is first and foremost WITHIN the scientific community, peer-reviewed. The statement "For debate on scientific consensus ..." sound like the public, politicians, or vested-interest corporations have a say in wether the relevent scientific community has reached "scientific consensus" (or to avoid oversimplification: increasing towards unanimity). The Scientific community doesn't set national policy, law makers do, but the public and the politicians don't do any credible science, and don't determine "consensus". 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.139.178 ( talk)
Courtesy header insert ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
systematic review is not a synthesis report 80.186.46.102 ( talk) 06:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Whatever happened to "A said B about C?" I wish we could just say that Oreskes contributed an editorial to Science opining that that there is no "substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change." [1]
Of course, she is stating the obvious, because "doubters" of AGW have always said that the human contribution is "significant". The debate is not about whether the human contribution to global warming is detectable at the p=.05 level but whether it is or is not dwarfed by the natural contribution. I'd like to see Wikipedia indicate the positions of various government-supported and/or independent science agencies (and individual scientists) about this question.
And if it's not asking too much, I'd like to see the reasons given in support of the various positions. It's nice to have "all the wise heads say so" as a reason, but causal mechanisms are very interesting to know about. For example, are there any reputable scientists who say that temperature drives carbon dioxide (in contradiction to the prevailing, mainstream view)? If so, I wonder if the article has enough room to describe this opposing view, and in particular the evidence and reasoning given to support it.
I also worry that we might not make a distinction between the following
Is it just me, or have these two ideas been confused? Better yet, is it "just me" or have reputable sources (whose statements qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia) said that these two questions are being (or should not be) conflated?
Note: If too many Wikipedians feel I am pushing any particular "POV", please let me know right away, so I can bow out. I don't know how to make it any more clear than this: I don't want to make the article reflect my own POV, but rather to describe all relevant viewpoints fairly. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Airborne84: I don't disagree with what you added to the FAQ #16, but I think that is really a different question. Would you be open to adding it as a separate question, perhaps as #33? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Is the "relevance" tag on the "Statements by dissenting organizations" section still appropriate given the consensus of the editors in the straw poll thread above? -- Airborne84 ( talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interesting in helping to make this article into a Good Article or Featured Article? It would have to be rewritten in summary style and the lists of organizations would likely have to be split into sister articles. Some issues:
I don't think that #3 is an issue; this article gets plenty of attention and disagreement anyway. The only issue would be if the article became unstable due to prolonged edit warring. #2 isn't a show-stopper since there are other controversial FAs out there. Evolution is a good example and the article that I took through to FA, Sentence spacing, is another example. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this is used in the article, but it discusses this article's topic on pages 39-40. Perhaps it could be of use, although some of the data might be better in some of the related articles. [2] -- Airborne84 ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This is just one of many dissenting reports [3].These lists include former IPCC scientist and many other well respected climate scientist. And their numbers are growing. This article does not show even weighted balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In other words, discussing the growing dissent over the bogus "science" doesn't "improve" an article devoted to supporting the agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The article states
Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process. citation needed
I removed the {cn} tag, saying "There is no need to cite a negative. Just follow the link to Scientific method - a long and well-cited article that does not mention lists, opinions or petitions." Isn't it completely obvious that the scientific process does not proceed by listing people's opinions or by petitions? -- Nigelj ( talk) 10:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the lead:
Notable detractors include Richard Lindzen, who in 2011 wrote:
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don't fully understand either the advance or the retreat. [1]
which was removed, but perhaps a place can be found for the quote (a good example of contemporary contrarian scientific opinion) somewhere else in the article?
Jprw (
talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Lindzen is a high-profile and eminent scientist and the quote represents a summary of his views on this subject. Such views may run counter to mainstream views, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't feature somewhere in an article that is entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change". Jprw ( talk) 09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. However, it seems to me that the Lindzen quote forms a useful summary of the current prevailing non-mainstream scientific view on global warming. Is this not the case? Jprw ( talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his views on this subject are similar from what I can gather to other scientists who do not make up the mainstream view. It seems to me that what we should be doing is allowing his view to be aired (after all, the article is called Scientific opinion on climate change) and letting readers decide for themselves. Jprw ( talk) 11:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case there is a problem with the title of the article being inaccurate. It should read "Majority scientific opinion on climate change" or something along those lines. Jprw ( talk) 07:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone overlooking an obvious misrepresentation? The title and introduction uses the term "opinion" 7 times, which strongly suggests that the scientific methods used to determine the reality of climate change is still a matter of a subjective judgment. Most every speaker of English I know defines the word "opinion" as meaning something often derived from emotional or political interpretations of data. In contrast to a fact, an opinion is more like an ideological, religious, or even a mythical belief. Therefore, the scientific method that supports the determination made that global warming is factual and not just an opinion is contradicted in both the title and introduction of this article. I don't know if this has been overly debated or just overlooked but I do know that climate change is not an opinion but a determination made by an overwhelming consensus of scientists. Might someone be so bold to change the title or, at least the introduction from "opinion" to "determination"?
Please notice the wiki article for "Opinion" and that it is also the redirect target for "Scientific opinion"; it reads:
Opinion An opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs 99.36.19.221 ( talk) 06:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American for comparison? 99.181.145.228 ( talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/why-republicans-become-worlds-only-major-political-party-denying-climate-change.php Count Iblis ( talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 99.190.81.6 ( talk) 05:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be important to avoid a POV fork. But the most important parts of each section—including quotes—should be kept when summarizing. The summarized sections could be 5-7 lengthy paragraphs to accomodate it all, but would still reduce the size of the article significantly. It won't happen though, until someone puts the time and effort into doing it. I may not be able to for quite some time. I'm just trying to allay any fears that it will degrade the article—if done carefully. Edits that reduce the article size and contribute to meeting the Good and Featured Article Criteria will likely be improvements. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
(Moved anonymous comment that was cleverly hidden at the top. -JJ)
This discussion doesn't seem to be doing anything but gathering dustballs; I suggest it be closed. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
99.181.150.243 ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Editor has been forum shopping. I suggest that Talk:Global warming controversy is most appropriate, and am closing this.~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This is going nowhere but round in circles, and is veering dangerously close to violating the general sanctions placed on the topic. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm about to put my edit back in. I meet all necessary requirements of Wikipedia policy, namely: it's verifiable, independent, from a reliable source, and is not original research. That my entry has been removed twice for no reason other than who authored it is insufficient reason to remove it. If it's removed again, I will refer this this to arbitration and seek the parties removing the entry be banned. The fact that Crichton wrote these things is not grounds of itself to remove them (namely because it commits the genetic fallacy). Further, his point isn't so much about about the science as it is a criticism on the reliance of some on "scientific consensus", which Crichton argues is meaningless. It's a valid criticism. Lastly, claiming this is mentioned in the lede (and it's not, I checked) is not an excuse to exclude an expansion on the idea later in the paragraph. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This article has a section on "CONSENSUS" at the end of it, and Crichton's criticism is relevant to that. Also, he was an MD from Harvard. I'm willing to bet you aren't. Further, in the realm of critical thinking and scientific history, nothing Crichton said is untrue. His point is that scientific consensus in terms of the greater debate is a useless point made by those who aren't up to either admitting they could be wrong or that the data doesn't actually support their conclusions, and in turn, doesn't support their policy goals. Keep trying, though. If you have a independent, verifiable cite that specifically addresses what Crichton had to say and shows that he's wrong, then pony up. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 22:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how many philosophy/ethics classes you two took. I'll bet neither of you can hold a candle to Crichton there. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact the dude had some crazy ideas about irrelevant topics doesn't remove the fact that you are committing both the genetic fallacy and a fallacy of irrelevance toward his point regarding how people shouldn't rely on an assertion solely on the basis that it has scientific consensus. And to your point about how why we inoculate, build bridges, et al.: we do those things those ways not based upon the assertion of any specific or collective group of specialists among us, but because they are methods or procedures that have been proven to work again and again. Consensus didn't give us these things. A small few with an idea showed that it actually worked is what gave us those things. Which is exactly Crichton's point. Consensus is meaningless. Independently verifiable results are what matter. And that seems to be the point which you just aren't getting. Whether you are a Ph.D. in whatever, it's becoming clear your schooling didn't include even an undergraduate course in critical thinking. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
I see that User:Funkysurfdude has made a series of changes which, in some cases, weakens what has been said. I was thinking of reverting them, but got to wondering about the specific text of 3RR: does it mean (in 24 hours) only two reversions per edit? Or two reversions total? Perhaps I'll just leave this to more experienced editors. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
4 Lines about dissenting opinions??? In an article this large defending the "scientific concensus". Even if you are a "true believer" in global warming, you have to see this violates Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The reference under the National Research Council refers to their 2001 report. There is a more up-to-date (2010) report called Advancing the Science of Climate Change: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
It includes this quote: "there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."
I think this would more accurately reflect the current NRC position. I was going to edit this entry myself, but I couldn't navigate the html properly with the footnotes and all. If someone else with better skills wanted to do so, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjoffutt ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice for our readers, if we made a table of positions. Each row could state the name of the organization (or scientist), what percent of warming they regard as anthropogenic, and the period for which they make this assertion. For example,
Year | Source | Probability | How much | Since when |
2007 | IPCC | very likely | the main driver | since 1950 |
2009 | U.S. Global Change Research Program | primarily | past 50 years | |
2004 | Arctic Climate Impact Assessment | most | last 50 years | |
2001 | National Research Council | likely | mostly | last 50 years |
2003 | American Meteorological Society | a major source | last 200 years |
This will help our readers to know what statements were made, and when. More importantly, it let our readers know how likely the human factor is, and how much of the warming is due to the human factor. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems relevant to note who this Lawrence Bodenstein is, as we don't have an article 'bout him. Therefor restored the pediatric surgeon bit w/ ref. Vsmith ( talk) 11:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just run a copy edit through the new material.
There's an interesting draft, The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin of Iowa State University [5], currently being discussed at Judith Curry's blog, here. Curry concludes her comments by remarking:
Premature for here, but very interesting. Happy reading, -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The infograph accompanying this article is more polemical. Scientific theories are not proved by the number of scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, believing them. If 996 out of 1000 scientists believe in God, will it be a conclusive proof of God's existence? This picture needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.251.2 ( talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought his comments were relevant. He made some good points. There is no need to resort to name calling. Must I.P users wouldn't even be willing to discuss changes a talk page. Cut the guy some slack. Just my two cents. -- Andy0093 ( talk) 22:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the silly picture from the article. Maybe some better images relevant to the article could spruce it up a bit! If any disagrees feel free to revert. Have a great weekend!
All the best,
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 22:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why was this image removed?
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Never underestimate the communicative power of a good image. And this is a good image for this article. Consider: the central message of this article is the weight of scientific opinion pro and con AGW. It is not a matter that this image "emphasizes one survey unnecessarily" -- it's more that the key datum from this survey (supported by similar surveys) epitomizes the key issue: the "unsure" (skeptic??) scientists are clearly a small minority. To the extent that this (or a similar) image is a fair representation of the situation I think it should go in the lede. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing though is it is not a good image. It looks rather silly. It's not the facts of the image anyone is disputing. It just makes the article look a little more like a blog pushing one point of view, true or not, than a NPOV article that is simply trying to convene the facts to an uninformed viewer base. We know the first thing someone looking at this article is going to do is look at the picture before reading the article. Therefore, before ever reading the facts, before ever getting a chance to look at the article and make an assessment of their own, the reader is getting this controversial image thrown in their face. Now you may not think the image is controversial, and the image may be stating the facts as thought by the scientific community, but just by this discussion alone, someone should be able to draw to the conclusion that this image is controversial and lowers the quality of the article itself, which is very well written and detailed.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to be a dick. Don't be mad because the image that was uploaded is creating such controversy in the Wiki community. I'm sorry that YOU have an agenda when editing and could less about what makes a good article and promoting your POV. A pie chart would be better than a quite frankly stupid image of 100 little people. I'm sorry that you would rather have Wikipedia look like a blog than an encyclopedia, and to your accusation that I have an agenda. Yeah I do, it's to make Wikipedia great and not stupid looking. I believe in the scientists when it comes to global warming. Just because someone doesn't think the image is good doesn't make them a global warming denier. I'm sorry the fact that someone would disagree with the stupid image and still believe in Global Warming blows your ignorant narrow mind.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 00:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
J.Johnson. Your comments show you have little respect for those who disagree with you. Instead of engaging in a discussion to reach a consensus and compromise you continuously name call and throw a temper tantrum. I really feel sorry for you. It is users like you who give Wikipedia a bad name. I am sorry you finding willingness to engage in a thoughtful discussion on this matter so difficult. Your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong attitude will only get you so far. -- Andy0093 ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to the original issue: the article is diminished by not having an image that conveys the essence of what the article is about. I have no objections to replacing the previous image with a better one, but could we leave it in until a better one is found? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This is more my idea of what the lead image if any should be like. Or perhaps a picture of some scientists talking with a section of the world with smokestacks and cars in the background and a thermometer besides it.. Dmcq ( talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that their should be a "picture" as a headline to the article whereas this is a graph. If we are going to keep this graph in the article, maybe put it a little farther down in pie chart form. I think Dmcq has made some quality points concerning the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to compromise on this graph, maybe in pie chart form, being included a in the article if it was put a little farther down. It does convene the facts on scientific consensus, but it is not appropriate as the title picture.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
First JJ- Maybe you should call a whambulance. Second - Sorry everyone thinks your picture sucks, being picked last for kickball sucks doesn't it. Third - If you look at my edits list, my first edit was actually in March 2007, which means I've actually been on Wikipedia about a year longer than you, which is completely irrelevant to the graph being stupid looking and silly, but it's okay I understand you may have missed it, with your limited editing experience and all. Forth - Cherry picking information from my user page to cast me as a right winger is funny. Do you really think the people in this convo are that stupid. Fifth - Again, you don't need to be a dick.
If your going to cherry pick information from my userpage. At least mention I am a lover of cats. Best,
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 02:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
About replacing this pic with a pie chart, that is being discussed on [ this other article's talk page] and I have made my comments in that thread. In sum, I am opposed to making a decision either way until a proposed pie chart with title and caption is available for our talk page discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
J end your condescending tone and I will stop my "personal attacks." I'm again sorry the community doesn't like your picture as mentioned, I am not the only one voicing concern. Its not my fault you are just kinda a dick. Again, you cherry picked data in my profile to give off right wing views and again, do you really think everyone here is that stupid? The picture is silly looking.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said. Your attempts to validate the picture have failed, so now you are trying to convene me as having an agenda by cherry picking views off my user boxes. I said I would be willing to compromise with the information relied in the picture being levied in the article, possible in pie chart form. It does not belong as the header. It is a "stat"not a article headline.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I accused you of being a dick because your acting like kinda a dick. Comments above could be described as condescending. If you don't want to engage in an adult conversation on the image in question that is fine. I am sorry if I have offended you, but I don't like being accused of having an agenda (which I don't), nor do I like being talked down to. I have portrayed myself as willing to compromise on said image. I also wasn't directing my comments above at you but at the community discussing the imagine, which includes more than just you.
--
Andy0093 (
talk) 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think one apology is sufficient. I'm not in the mood for a lecture. I still think you are a dick and again, I'm sorry if it offends you. Deal with it. Instead of continuously crying about it do everyone a favor and get over it.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as the real issue' goes,
(A) There's no debate about the data but only the presentation of the date, (B) as for WHERE the data is presented in this article, the pic has already been moved out of the lead to the survey section, (C) So the ONLY remaining issue is what the picture should look like. Answer: what is best for wiki? Anyone's adamant opinion notwithstanding, this is an encylopedia in the business of effective communication of whatever information merits inclusion. The question should not be which form (pie chart or little people) anyone happens to like on a personal level, the issue should be "which one enables wiki to communicate qualified information the best?". I'll happily look at a proposed pie chart with title and caption when someone offers one, and only THEN will I make up my mind, and I'll make up my mind by asking a bunch of people which one communicates the best to THEM. ______Our_______ opinions should not be what we are concerned about.... if the info qualifies for coverage, from that point on the ONLY issue is how to best inform readers. All other concerns are either POV or mere opinion as to style. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be best if the article explained why the surveys are relevant, as they don't usually ask questions which are discussed in this article. Having looked through the different questions in the different surveys, it would be misleading to have charts for more than one. (I'm withdrawing my two-three pie chart assertion; unless it's the same survey, with different populations, the results are not comparable.) I still think a single pie chart would be better than the infographic, but we still need to decide which survey. That one is in the "most active climate scientists", which, as the criticism notes, self-selects for the prevailing view among funding organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As Ian and I have said 2-3 times now, there is a l-o-n-g debate about all this and the identical image, including title and caption, at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Anderegg had their methodology. Doran used another. Both arrived at virtually the same number for climate scientists, (95% and 97% or maybe vice versa) and though I don't know this for certain I suspect when you use the likely range based on margin of error, there is a healthy overlap. Different methodologies getting the same number leaves me without methodology qualms. The other thing to note is this Yale-Georgetown study, showing that a very small % of American's know the fact that over 90% of climate scientists agree with AGW. From where I sit, we have two good studies showing essentially the same number, its supported by verifiable citations and therefore qualified for inclusion in wiki, and we have a public who is ignorant of this absolutely vital fact. Two studies - verifiable wiki citations - important issue US public is confused about - er go, this merits coverage, in the most effective means possible. Suppose we stop all this endless endless endless talk until someone actually produces a substitute image to discuss? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
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. |
Undue weight in lede "For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus."; which begins: "Climate change consensus describes the public perception and controversy over whether there is a scientific consensus on recent global warming and on the extent of man's involvement, and the factors driving that perception and controversy"... misleading? The debate of wether there is a scientific consensus is first and foremost WITHIN the scientific community, peer-reviewed. The statement "For debate on scientific consensus ..." sound like the public, politicians, or vested-interest corporations have a say in wether the relevent scientific community has reached "scientific consensus" (or to avoid oversimplification: increasing towards unanimity). The Scientific community doesn't set national policy, law makers do, but the public and the politicians don't do any credible science, and don't determine "consensus". 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.139.178 ( talk)
Courtesy header insert ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
systematic review is not a synthesis report 80.186.46.102 ( talk) 06:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Whatever happened to "A said B about C?" I wish we could just say that Oreskes contributed an editorial to Science opining that that there is no "substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change." [1]
Of course, she is stating the obvious, because "doubters" of AGW have always said that the human contribution is "significant". The debate is not about whether the human contribution to global warming is detectable at the p=.05 level but whether it is or is not dwarfed by the natural contribution. I'd like to see Wikipedia indicate the positions of various government-supported and/or independent science agencies (and individual scientists) about this question.
And if it's not asking too much, I'd like to see the reasons given in support of the various positions. It's nice to have "all the wise heads say so" as a reason, but causal mechanisms are very interesting to know about. For example, are there any reputable scientists who say that temperature drives carbon dioxide (in contradiction to the prevailing, mainstream view)? If so, I wonder if the article has enough room to describe this opposing view, and in particular the evidence and reasoning given to support it.
I also worry that we might not make a distinction between the following
Is it just me, or have these two ideas been confused? Better yet, is it "just me" or have reputable sources (whose statements qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia) said that these two questions are being (or should not be) conflated?
Note: If too many Wikipedians feel I am pushing any particular "POV", please let me know right away, so I can bow out. I don't know how to make it any more clear than this: I don't want to make the article reflect my own POV, but rather to describe all relevant viewpoints fairly. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Airborne84: I don't disagree with what you added to the FAQ #16, but I think that is really a different question. Would you be open to adding it as a separate question, perhaps as #33? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Is the "relevance" tag on the "Statements by dissenting organizations" section still appropriate given the consensus of the editors in the straw poll thread above? -- Airborne84 ( talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interesting in helping to make this article into a Good Article or Featured Article? It would have to be rewritten in summary style and the lists of organizations would likely have to be split into sister articles. Some issues:
I don't think that #3 is an issue; this article gets plenty of attention and disagreement anyway. The only issue would be if the article became unstable due to prolonged edit warring. #2 isn't a show-stopper since there are other controversial FAs out there. Evolution is a good example and the article that I took through to FA, Sentence spacing, is another example. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this is used in the article, but it discusses this article's topic on pages 39-40. Perhaps it could be of use, although some of the data might be better in some of the related articles. [2] -- Airborne84 ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This is just one of many dissenting reports [3].These lists include former IPCC scientist and many other well respected climate scientist. And their numbers are growing. This article does not show even weighted balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In other words, discussing the growing dissent over the bogus "science" doesn't "improve" an article devoted to supporting the agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 ( talk) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The article states
Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process. citation needed
I removed the {cn} tag, saying "There is no need to cite a negative. Just follow the link to Scientific method - a long and well-cited article that does not mention lists, opinions or petitions." Isn't it completely obvious that the scientific process does not proceed by listing people's opinions or by petitions? -- Nigelj ( talk) 10:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the lead:
Notable detractors include Richard Lindzen, who in 2011 wrote:
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don't fully understand either the advance or the retreat. [1]
which was removed, but perhaps a place can be found for the quote (a good example of contemporary contrarian scientific opinion) somewhere else in the article?
Jprw (
talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Lindzen is a high-profile and eminent scientist and the quote represents a summary of his views on this subject. Such views may run counter to mainstream views, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't feature somewhere in an article that is entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change". Jprw ( talk) 09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. However, it seems to me that the Lindzen quote forms a useful summary of the current prevailing non-mainstream scientific view on global warming. Is this not the case? Jprw ( talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his views on this subject are similar from what I can gather to other scientists who do not make up the mainstream view. It seems to me that what we should be doing is allowing his view to be aired (after all, the article is called Scientific opinion on climate change) and letting readers decide for themselves. Jprw ( talk) 11:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case there is a problem with the title of the article being inaccurate. It should read "Majority scientific opinion on climate change" or something along those lines. Jprw ( talk) 07:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone overlooking an obvious misrepresentation? The title and introduction uses the term "opinion" 7 times, which strongly suggests that the scientific methods used to determine the reality of climate change is still a matter of a subjective judgment. Most every speaker of English I know defines the word "opinion" as meaning something often derived from emotional or political interpretations of data. In contrast to a fact, an opinion is more like an ideological, religious, or even a mythical belief. Therefore, the scientific method that supports the determination made that global warming is factual and not just an opinion is contradicted in both the title and introduction of this article. I don't know if this has been overly debated or just overlooked but I do know that climate change is not an opinion but a determination made by an overwhelming consensus of scientists. Might someone be so bold to change the title or, at least the introduction from "opinion" to "determination"?
Please notice the wiki article for "Opinion" and that it is also the redirect target for "Scientific opinion"; it reads:
Opinion An opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs 99.36.19.221 ( talk) 06:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American for comparison? 99.181.145.228 ( talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/why-republicans-become-worlds-only-major-political-party-denying-climate-change.php Count Iblis ( talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 99.190.81.6 ( talk) 05:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be important to avoid a POV fork. But the most important parts of each section—including quotes—should be kept when summarizing. The summarized sections could be 5-7 lengthy paragraphs to accomodate it all, but would still reduce the size of the article significantly. It won't happen though, until someone puts the time and effort into doing it. I may not be able to for quite some time. I'm just trying to allay any fears that it will degrade the article—if done carefully. Edits that reduce the article size and contribute to meeting the Good and Featured Article Criteria will likely be improvements. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
(Moved anonymous comment that was cleverly hidden at the top. -JJ)
This discussion doesn't seem to be doing anything but gathering dustballs; I suggest it be closed. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
99.181.150.243 ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Editor has been forum shopping. I suggest that Talk:Global warming controversy is most appropriate, and am closing this.~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This is going nowhere but round in circles, and is veering dangerously close to violating the general sanctions placed on the topic. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm about to put my edit back in. I meet all necessary requirements of Wikipedia policy, namely: it's verifiable, independent, from a reliable source, and is not original research. That my entry has been removed twice for no reason other than who authored it is insufficient reason to remove it. If it's removed again, I will refer this this to arbitration and seek the parties removing the entry be banned. The fact that Crichton wrote these things is not grounds of itself to remove them (namely because it commits the genetic fallacy). Further, his point isn't so much about about the science as it is a criticism on the reliance of some on "scientific consensus", which Crichton argues is meaningless. It's a valid criticism. Lastly, claiming this is mentioned in the lede (and it's not, I checked) is not an excuse to exclude an expansion on the idea later in the paragraph. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This article has a section on "CONSENSUS" at the end of it, and Crichton's criticism is relevant to that. Also, he was an MD from Harvard. I'm willing to bet you aren't. Further, in the realm of critical thinking and scientific history, nothing Crichton said is untrue. His point is that scientific consensus in terms of the greater debate is a useless point made by those who aren't up to either admitting they could be wrong or that the data doesn't actually support their conclusions, and in turn, doesn't support their policy goals. Keep trying, though. If you have a independent, verifiable cite that specifically addresses what Crichton had to say and shows that he's wrong, then pony up. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 22:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how many philosophy/ethics classes you two took. I'll bet neither of you can hold a candle to Crichton there. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact the dude had some crazy ideas about irrelevant topics doesn't remove the fact that you are committing both the genetic fallacy and a fallacy of irrelevance toward his point regarding how people shouldn't rely on an assertion solely on the basis that it has scientific consensus. And to your point about how why we inoculate, build bridges, et al.: we do those things those ways not based upon the assertion of any specific or collective group of specialists among us, but because they are methods or procedures that have been proven to work again and again. Consensus didn't give us these things. A small few with an idea showed that it actually worked is what gave us those things. Which is exactly Crichton's point. Consensus is meaningless. Independently verifiable results are what matter. And that seems to be the point which you just aren't getting. Whether you are a Ph.D. in whatever, it's becoming clear your schooling didn't include even an undergraduate course in critical thinking. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
I see that User:Funkysurfdude has made a series of changes which, in some cases, weakens what has been said. I was thinking of reverting them, but got to wondering about the specific text of 3RR: does it mean (in 24 hours) only two reversions per edit? Or two reversions total? Perhaps I'll just leave this to more experienced editors. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
4 Lines about dissenting opinions??? In an article this large defending the "scientific concensus". Even if you are a "true believer" in global warming, you have to see this violates Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The reference under the National Research Council refers to their 2001 report. There is a more up-to-date (2010) report called Advancing the Science of Climate Change: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
It includes this quote: "there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."
I think this would more accurately reflect the current NRC position. I was going to edit this entry myself, but I couldn't navigate the html properly with the footnotes and all. If someone else with better skills wanted to do so, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjoffutt ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice for our readers, if we made a table of positions. Each row could state the name of the organization (or scientist), what percent of warming they regard as anthropogenic, and the period for which they make this assertion. For example,
Year | Source | Probability | How much | Since when |
2007 | IPCC | very likely | the main driver | since 1950 |
2009 | U.S. Global Change Research Program | primarily | past 50 years | |
2004 | Arctic Climate Impact Assessment | most | last 50 years | |
2001 | National Research Council | likely | mostly | last 50 years |
2003 | American Meteorological Society | a major source | last 200 years |
This will help our readers to know what statements were made, and when. More importantly, it let our readers know how likely the human factor is, and how much of the warming is due to the human factor. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems relevant to note who this Lawrence Bodenstein is, as we don't have an article 'bout him. Therefor restored the pediatric surgeon bit w/ ref. Vsmith ( talk) 11:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just run a copy edit through the new material.
There's an interesting draft, The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin of Iowa State University [5], currently being discussed at Judith Curry's blog, here. Curry concludes her comments by remarking:
Premature for here, but very interesting. Happy reading, -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The infograph accompanying this article is more polemical. Scientific theories are not proved by the number of scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, believing them. If 996 out of 1000 scientists believe in God, will it be a conclusive proof of God's existence? This picture needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.251.2 ( talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought his comments were relevant. He made some good points. There is no need to resort to name calling. Must I.P users wouldn't even be willing to discuss changes a talk page. Cut the guy some slack. Just my two cents. -- Andy0093 ( talk) 22:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the silly picture from the article. Maybe some better images relevant to the article could spruce it up a bit! If any disagrees feel free to revert. Have a great weekend!
All the best,
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 22:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why was this image removed?
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Never underestimate the communicative power of a good image. And this is a good image for this article. Consider: the central message of this article is the weight of scientific opinion pro and con AGW. It is not a matter that this image "emphasizes one survey unnecessarily" -- it's more that the key datum from this survey (supported by similar surveys) epitomizes the key issue: the "unsure" (skeptic??) scientists are clearly a small minority. To the extent that this (or a similar) image is a fair representation of the situation I think it should go in the lede. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing though is it is not a good image. It looks rather silly. It's not the facts of the image anyone is disputing. It just makes the article look a little more like a blog pushing one point of view, true or not, than a NPOV article that is simply trying to convene the facts to an uninformed viewer base. We know the first thing someone looking at this article is going to do is look at the picture before reading the article. Therefore, before ever reading the facts, before ever getting a chance to look at the article and make an assessment of their own, the reader is getting this controversial image thrown in their face. Now you may not think the image is controversial, and the image may be stating the facts as thought by the scientific community, but just by this discussion alone, someone should be able to draw to the conclusion that this image is controversial and lowers the quality of the article itself, which is very well written and detailed.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to be a dick. Don't be mad because the image that was uploaded is creating such controversy in the Wiki community. I'm sorry that YOU have an agenda when editing and could less about what makes a good article and promoting your POV. A pie chart would be better than a quite frankly stupid image of 100 little people. I'm sorry that you would rather have Wikipedia look like a blog than an encyclopedia, and to your accusation that I have an agenda. Yeah I do, it's to make Wikipedia great and not stupid looking. I believe in the scientists when it comes to global warming. Just because someone doesn't think the image is good doesn't make them a global warming denier. I'm sorry the fact that someone would disagree with the stupid image and still believe in Global Warming blows your ignorant narrow mind.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 00:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
J.Johnson. Your comments show you have little respect for those who disagree with you. Instead of engaging in a discussion to reach a consensus and compromise you continuously name call and throw a temper tantrum. I really feel sorry for you. It is users like you who give Wikipedia a bad name. I am sorry you finding willingness to engage in a thoughtful discussion on this matter so difficult. Your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong attitude will only get you so far. -- Andy0093 ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to the original issue: the article is diminished by not having an image that conveys the essence of what the article is about. I have no objections to replacing the previous image with a better one, but could we leave it in until a better one is found? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This is more my idea of what the lead image if any should be like. Or perhaps a picture of some scientists talking with a section of the world with smokestacks and cars in the background and a thermometer besides it.. Dmcq ( talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that their should be a "picture" as a headline to the article whereas this is a graph. If we are going to keep this graph in the article, maybe put it a little farther down in pie chart form. I think Dmcq has made some quality points concerning the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to compromise on this graph, maybe in pie chart form, being included a in the article if it was put a little farther down. It does convene the facts on scientific consensus, but it is not appropriate as the title picture.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
First JJ- Maybe you should call a whambulance. Second - Sorry everyone thinks your picture sucks, being picked last for kickball sucks doesn't it. Third - If you look at my edits list, my first edit was actually in March 2007, which means I've actually been on Wikipedia about a year longer than you, which is completely irrelevant to the graph being stupid looking and silly, but it's okay I understand you may have missed it, with your limited editing experience and all. Forth - Cherry picking information from my user page to cast me as a right winger is funny. Do you really think the people in this convo are that stupid. Fifth - Again, you don't need to be a dick.
If your going to cherry pick information from my userpage. At least mention I am a lover of cats. Best,
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 02:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
About replacing this pic with a pie chart, that is being discussed on [ this other article's talk page] and I have made my comments in that thread. In sum, I am opposed to making a decision either way until a proposed pie chart with title and caption is available for our talk page discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
J end your condescending tone and I will stop my "personal attacks." I'm again sorry the community doesn't like your picture as mentioned, I am not the only one voicing concern. Its not my fault you are just kinda a dick. Again, you cherry picked data in my profile to give off right wing views and again, do you really think everyone here is that stupid? The picture is silly looking.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said. Your attempts to validate the picture have failed, so now you are trying to convene me as having an agenda by cherry picking views off my user boxes. I said I would be willing to compromise with the information relied in the picture being levied in the article, possible in pie chart form. It does not belong as the header. It is a "stat"not a article headline.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I accused you of being a dick because your acting like kinda a dick. Comments above could be described as condescending. If you don't want to engage in an adult conversation on the image in question that is fine. I am sorry if I have offended you, but I don't like being accused of having an agenda (which I don't), nor do I like being talked down to. I have portrayed myself as willing to compromise on said image. I also wasn't directing my comments above at you but at the community discussing the imagine, which includes more than just you.
--
Andy0093 (
talk) 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think one apology is sufficient. I'm not in the mood for a lecture. I still think you are a dick and again, I'm sorry if it offends you. Deal with it. Instead of continuously crying about it do everyone a favor and get over it.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as the real issue' goes,
(A) There's no debate about the data but only the presentation of the date, (B) as for WHERE the data is presented in this article, the pic has already been moved out of the lead to the survey section, (C) So the ONLY remaining issue is what the picture should look like. Answer: what is best for wiki? Anyone's adamant opinion notwithstanding, this is an encylopedia in the business of effective communication of whatever information merits inclusion. The question should not be which form (pie chart or little people) anyone happens to like on a personal level, the issue should be "which one enables wiki to communicate qualified information the best?". I'll happily look at a proposed pie chart with title and caption when someone offers one, and only THEN will I make up my mind, and I'll make up my mind by asking a bunch of people which one communicates the best to THEM. ______Our_______ opinions should not be what we are concerned about.... if the info qualifies for coverage, from that point on the ONLY issue is how to best inform readers. All other concerns are either POV or mere opinion as to style. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be best if the article explained why the surveys are relevant, as they don't usually ask questions which are discussed in this article. Having looked through the different questions in the different surveys, it would be misleading to have charts for more than one. (I'm withdrawing my two-three pie chart assertion; unless it's the same survey, with different populations, the results are not comparable.) I still think a single pie chart would be better than the infographic, but we still need to decide which survey. That one is in the "most active climate scientists", which, as the criticism notes, self-selects for the prevailing view among funding organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As Ian and I have said 2-3 times now, there is a l-o-n-g debate about all this and the identical image, including title and caption, at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Anderegg had their methodology. Doran used another. Both arrived at virtually the same number for climate scientists, (95% and 97% or maybe vice versa) and though I don't know this for certain I suspect when you use the likely range based on margin of error, there is a healthy overlap. Different methodologies getting the same number leaves me without methodology qualms. The other thing to note is this Yale-Georgetown study, showing that a very small % of American's know the fact that over 90% of climate scientists agree with AGW. From where I sit, we have two good studies showing essentially the same number, its supported by verifiable citations and therefore qualified for inclusion in wiki, and we have a public who is ignorant of this absolutely vital fact. Two studies - verifiable wiki citations - important issue US public is confused about - er go, this merits coverage, in the most effective means possible. Suppose we stop all this endless endless endless talk until someone actually produces a substitute image to discuss? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)