Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Recommended sources
| Main | Participants | Popular articles | Recommended sources | Style guide | Get started with easy edits | Talk |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Like anywhere on Wikipedia, all edits must be WP:Verifiable and based on WP:Reliable sources (unless a specific exception applies). New editors are advised to study the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In general we prefer secondary and tertiary sources.
Some science editors have assembled an opinion essay called "Identifying reliable sources (science)", that we ask you to follow as well.
When it comes to sources themselves, many quality ones are applicable to WikiProject Climate change. Here are just a few -
IPCC reports
IPCC reports are highly reliable as they capture international scientific consensus. We have a useful cheat sheet on citations for IPCC reports.
These reports are some of the best available about solutions to limit climate change, not just about the causes and effects of warming. The most recent is the Sixth Assessment Report (2021-2023). The more of this report that we can get into Wikipedia, the better.
While IPCC reports are the gold standard for quality sourcing, they have the following limitations:
- IPCC reports are written in an extremely dense and academic style. They are difficult to read and often use terminology that Wikipedia's readers would probably not understand.
- The IPCC does not make policy recommendations.
- Terms may be used in IPCC reports in ways that are different from their usual current meanings. One such term is "carbon sink", which in IPCC reports refers to a process for sequestering carbon, not a place where carbon is sequestered.
Reports from organizations and governments
When citing reports, each citation must specify a page number or range unless the report is very short. Typically the easiest way to do this is to insert a citation to the report and then add Template:Rp with the page number or range.
- The International Energy Agency has many useful reports. Official website. However, as described in International_Energy_Agency#Criticism, the Agency has a history of underpredicting renewable energy uptake.
- The International Renewable Energy Agency similarly has a large collection of reports. May have different bias from IEA.
- Royal Society reports are high-quality and often published under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons license, so text can be copied into Wikipedia with attribution in the edit summary.
- World Resources Institute, published under a Wikipedia-compatible license (CC-BY 4.0)
- The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine publishes reports that capture national-level scientific consensus on certain issues. National Academies Press Climate Change Collection
- * National Climate Assessment - U.S. Global Change Research Program (2018). Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II (Report). Washington, DC. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018. -- recommended by climate experts at the NAS editathon
- UN climate reports (including the IPCC reports)
Sources to use with caution
- Materials from industry coalitions or think tanks such as REN21 or the Breakthrough Institute. The first concern is whether these materials are really "RS" (WP:Reliable sources). Such sources can still be used when we are reporting what these groups say, but this usually requires inline attribution e.g., "According to Jane, Jack also ran up the hill. There may be exceptions so each case is weighed on its own merit. Often there will be reliable media reports to cite instead.
- On the flip side, also be cautious with from environmental advocacy groups and political parties. The same cautions about self-published sources and inline attribution apply.
Topic overviews from reputable websites
- Our World in Data has excellent articles, maps, and graphs, which are generally released in a license compatible with Wikipedia. Official website. Many of these graphs and maps have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so it's easy to take them from there and insert them into Wikipedia articles.
- Carbon Brief has excellent analyses and IPCC report summaries
- There are a large number of (paywalled) encyclopedias published, including Oxford Research Encyclopedias - Climate science (which has a browsable table of contents, perhaps good for finding new articles to work on)
- Climate Links - a USAID funded research database focused on climate change in different countries
- World Bank global data on climate, includes country profiles
- Climate Action Tracker a tracker of government commitments to climate action
Paywalled research sources
There is a vast research literature on climate change in books and articles. Look for encyclopedias and handbooks for secondary literature. (Particularly for US Libraries: search for 'libguides' and 'climate change' to find library guides on the topic.)
News articles
- Use caution with news reports of the latest science paper. You may be tempted to rush to your keyboard as they make headlines, but there are at least three problems with this approach. First, it is difficult for lay Wikipedia editors to correctly assess the nuance in a new professional science paper. Second, it takes awhile for the rest of the science community to absorb the reported findings. Third, the practice tends to convert our articles from articles to a disjointed science news feed. Instead of firing away as papers come off the presses, it is usually better to seek out WP:SECONDARY sources, such as systematic reviews (aka "literature reviews") or perhaps WP:TERTIARY sources such as textbooks. See the opinion essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) for further help identifying the best sources.