Talk:Scientific consensus

message: The Merriam-Webster passage is already in the Consensus article. It is not needed here too, let alone twice. Duplication or triplication of text usually does not improve an encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webster definition 

message: I note that this whole talk page is fascinating meaty stuff. For example I see the debate about whether evolution is 'scientific consensus', which apparently, is not obvious to all. I have a similar question about Global Warming. Wikipedia has several articles insisting upon the 'scientific consensus' on the issue. This one includes this:
'For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases'
There is also an article on 'scientific opinion on climate change':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
My own opinion about climate change isn't my point, here. My point is that I'm intrigued by the concept of 'scientific consensus', and if it's relevant, policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change”. I hesitate before assertions such as that the vast majority of Americans have no clue what the scientific consensus on climate change is. Perception of scientific consensus, maybe it's a “gateway belief” to support for public action on climate change. The more one perceives there to be a scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change, the more likely they are to believe that it is real and worrisome. Have we decided, as it were, I mean, is Wikipedia sold, on the notion that contrarian claims that there is no such consensus are clearly misleading. I've seen that the article I linked above, discusses semantic analyses of abstracts from scientific, peer-reviewed papers on global warming. Maybe this is impressive and convincing. But how impressive and convincing would it have to be? In the end, a minority rejects the attribution of global warming to human activities. Sure, a vast majority endorse this assumption. But what if I say that 'scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming has been growing'? Doesn't that imply, then, that there is room to grow? 
Climate science is a highly politicized science. The issue they are dealing with is clearly political in nature. And I think it easy to speculate that the perception of scientific consensus adds to the credibility of a message substantially. So okay, maybe this is the reason, why many contrarians try to maintain the impression that there is no scientific consensus on the
causes of global warming. But have we decided -- has Wikipedia settled the question, as to whether this strategy is deceptive? I also see the discussions on this page devaluating consensus as unscientific. Consider, minority scientists at their time that later became science heroes, such as Galilei or Darwin. Science isn’t democracy or consensus, the standard of truth is experiment. I also note how different papers endorse the consensus in different ways. Some are specific about quantifying the percentage of human contribution, others just say “humans are causing climate change” without specific quantification. And anyways, what’s the general reasoning of the other 3%? So to speak?  Interesting question? Of course, often facts are not enough, especially when people are angry and emotional. But I am uncomfortable with this bandying about of this 'scientific consensus', where I can't even look at a list of prominent names of scientists upon which this authoritative 'consensus' is based. It's not that I personally believe or don't believe, it's just that the importance of the topic seems undeniable. We continue to read about it every day. The choice of topic is self-evident. But okay, apparently, there are many thousands of climate scientists in the world today. Like who? Who, for example, has scientific prestige? Who has prominence in the debate? Who is it, that Wikipedia is convinced, that only cranks and paid stooges could possibly disagree with them? I see a 'tension' between bandying about scientific consensus, on the one hand, and representation of both sides, on the other. While we are defining 'scientific consensus', have we defined 'appeals to authority'?
I was saying 'give me a name', and I can do that for skeptical sorts -- Lennart O. Bengtsson (author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books). John R. Christy (author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters). Judith A. Curry (author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books).  Richard S. Lindzen (author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports). Nir J. Shaviv (author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters).
I imagine that this query belongs here, but maybe there is a better place. I put it here, because I'm really not looking to debate 'climate change', per se, I worry about what is 'scientific consensus' -- this article does, though, seem central to the decisions being made in all the climate change articles. DanLanglois (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide on the truth of anything, editors should just follow the Wikipedia policies for which there is a summary of the most pertinent ones at WP:5P. I think the most relevant policy that applies in what you're talking about are WP:Verifiability, in particular the content should be cited to reliable sources. As it says there 'If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.' Climate change has lots of good academic and peer reviewed sources and they say that the scientific opinion on climate change is that there is a consensus as it says in that article. You seem to have gone to the trouble of finding some names, if you want more thee's a list at List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Try finding any that have said anything that has passed peer review about this, and as Lennart Bengtsson said even after that incident  "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views". Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text: See WP:FORUM. Please go somewhere else for musing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  scientific consensus on Global Warming? 

message: It seems to me that a fair presentation of this topic should include material that provides a moderating effect to accurately represent this topic.
Scientific consensus has failed many times in the past...and even in current times. In some cases it has hampered the progress of science, while in other cases it was merely a step on the path to newer findings.
For that reason, I believe a section should be added to give examples of scientific consensus in a negative context. Perhaps a table of examples would be useful for this purpose.
The positive context of scientific consensus is only valid until the next discovery that invalidates the consensus opinion. Science is like that. It never stands still. We should never associate the scientific consensus with absolute truth. It is only the "truth of the moment" based upon the opinion of a majority of experts, as surveyed. (And, in fact, may not be accurate at all, depending upon the methodology of the survey.)
Perhaps there should be a distinction as well between formal and informal consensus surveys, identifying the positive and negative aspects of each.
What are your thoughts? JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources explicitly mentioning scientific consensus in that context? If not, we can stop right here becaue of WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Prominent Failures of "Scientific Consensus"