Ed Poor wrote:
The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
- Money
[SNIP]
- Journal Articles
Money and journal articles both correlate positively with mainstream science, but journal articles are a better indicator. If a particular idea isn't being published at all in the peer-reviewed journals (as is the case with so-called "creation science"), that's a clear indication that the idea falls outside mainstream science.
Of course, someone has to _interpret_ those journal articles. Scientists speak a specialized language, so explaining what the articles mean may require some translation for lay people. Moreover, not all scientific papers are equal in significance. For example, a short-duration health study involving a small number of people is considered less significant than a long-term study with a large sample size. Scientific expertise is obviously helpful in assessing how much weight each piece of published research deserves within the larger body of research on a given topic.
One common mechanism used by scientists for this purpose is a "consensus panel" or "consensus conference," which convenes when expert opinion has converged on a single answer to a previously controversial question. The panel's job is to officially state the consensus so it can be gotten out to the less-expert. The experts are selected from among the leading researchers in the field, chosen to reflect the range of viewpoints that exist in that field. They hold a series of meetings, discuss the relevant published scientific research on the topic at hand, and put together a report. Occasionally a panel will be convened when opinion has not completely converged on all aspects of a question. In this case the panel's job is to see what everyone can genuinely agree on and what sorts of hedge statements are acceptable for the rest. Once in a while there will be an agreement to disagree in certain areas, and if so, typically the majority view is published accompanied by an appendix detailing the dissenters' positions.
In the United States, the National Research Council (the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences) is the body that generally convenes consensus panels for the purpose of provide expert reports to policymakers. Many of its reports are published e-books, which anyone can read online (or download in their entirety, sometimes for a fee). If you'd like to see a fairly typical example, here's one that they did in 2002 that looks at the impact of automobile fuel economy standards on motor vehicle safety:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10172.html
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is basically an extremely large consensus panel (with some 2,000 participants). Their published reports (along with similar reports that have been published by smaller scientific panels) are the basis for saying that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. That's term "consensus" is absolutely, if it is understood to mean that consensus panels have convened and published their conclusions. However, Ed may be interested in looking closely at specifically _what_ the IPCC reached by way of a consensus. Here are a couple of examples that I posted here previously, taken from their latest report:
In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 21st century.
Although these are "consensus" statements, they do acknowledge uncertainty. The IPCC uses the term "likely" to mean that the probability is higher than 66%. The term "virtually certain" means 99% or higher. This means that the IPCC thinks there is a possibility (of 33% or less) that the observed warming over the last 50 years is due to some cause _other_ than greenhouse gas concentrations. In science, there are no "certainties," only probabilities. Even commonplace scientific "facts" such as Einstein's theory of relativity are regarded as theories. Even though the likelihood of its being false is vanishingly small, science can't entirely rule out that possibility. (Absolute truths only exist in religious dogma and other faith-based belief systems. They have no place in science.)
If Ed wants to ensure that the uncertainties related to global climate research are adequately reflected in the global warming article, I think the best way to do this would be to accept the IPCC's standing as a consensus body, and write the article so that it reflects the degrees of uncertainty actually stated in the IPCC's own report. This would be more productive, more accurate, and more likely to lead to consensus under Wikipedia's NPOV rule than trying to juxtapose the IPCC against Fred Singer's op-ed pieces for the Washington Times.