Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming/Archive 15

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming/Archive 15

The lemma (=name of the article) itself is the problem

The lemma could be seen seen as thinly veiled attempt to have a sort of "anti global warming petition list" in wikipedia. I mean you could create such list on any potential subject like "list of scientists opposing standard interpretation of quantum theory", "list of scientists opposing general relativity", "list of scientists opposing string theory", "list of scientists opposing evolution" or if we venture in openly political areas "list of historians denying the holocaust", "list of politicians opposing universal health care", "list of politicians opposing free market policies". Imho such lemmeta have nothing to do with encyclopedic work but they are POV pushing or propaganda in disguise and as such an abuse of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with describing criticism of climate change in wikipedia as long as it based on reputable sources, but that belongs into a proper lemma such as climate change, global warming or something like criticism of the (mainstream) global warming theory.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Without discussing the merits of having such lists in Wikipedia, I would disagree on the POV argument. There can be hardly anything more POV-neutral than a straight list of names. Dimawik (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that people may see the list and think, "Wow, a lot of scientists thing global warming is bogus!" which isn't particularly representative of the facts. This might be the case even with a lead that totally states otherwise. It's kind of like a POV fork.- DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what i meant by "thinly veiled". Imho such lists are rather likely candidates for hidden pov pushing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The context of having such a list is what counts, I think. For example, most of the articles that I've looked at about the people on this list make specific mention that these scientists have had to endure criticism, ridicule, and condemnation from their colleagues in the scientific community for daring to speak out against the "consensus". Something along those lines should probably be stated in the intro to clarify why this list is notable. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly would make it POV, the description is/must be completely neutral. See the AfD's --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it is also seen in exactly the opposite way: "Wow, look how few sceptical scientists there are". For some interesting takes on this, as well as answers to most of the comments, see the AfD's that the list has been through. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that impression would only be likely if you have a similarly questionable list of "scientist supporting the mainstream theory" or at least some numbers that provide context. But without that the reader knows only it is "just a minority poisition" and the reaction described by DroEsperanto above is much more likely. Another thing that becomes problematic with such a list is exact criteria for the members. Who belongs is there? Only reputable Academics working in climate reasearch? Any science science professor or even any PhD being on record with a critical of global warming? If you look at past edits you can see that problem and certainly there will be temptation to simply add people from projects like Oregon Petition. In fact this lemma appears like similar strategy hidden under the cover of alleged Wikipedia neutrality and quality, in my eyes that's wikipedia abuse.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the cause for this particular list is simple: there are quite a few reputable scientists who disagree with the "mainstream" version of GW theory (many more than this list in its current state would suggest). For whatever reason this is not the case with, say, quantum mechanics or general relativity, so there is little danger of proliferation. NPOV should include the obvious fact that currently GW is not like string theory (which even the skeptics do not claim to be wrong, just being "not even wrong"). This list could serve this NPOV goal while keeping the pollution in other articles to a minimum. Unfortunately, few editors are instead trying to keep this list to a minimum thus ruining its "kitchen sink" potential :-) Dimawik (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there really not a similarly long list of scientists opposing the standard interpretation of quantum theory? I had had the impression that there is. I wouldn't have a problem with an article devoted to listing those. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a physicist, but i agree you probably would have no problem with creating a list of "established scientists criticizing the standard interpretation of quantum theory". It is more a matter tuning the phrase appropriately (roughly as in "established scientists criticizing the standard interoretation" versus "established scientists not believing in quantum theory"). However I still think Wikipedia is better off staying away from such lists and concentrating on articles on the actual subject instead, i.e. writing an article like "criticism of the standard interpretation".--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I notice that whenever a notable scientist questions global warming science, it gets mentioned in the news, often with headlines. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Man bites dog (journalism) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to your point somewhat, but it only applies to readers reading various climate articles on WP and in the end for collective criticism land here. However that's different if for some reason you start with this article directly, then you might get rather a misleading impression. Moreover at least in the ideal case wikipedia should have a "clean sink", i.e. there should be no "trashcan articles" simply collecting up all the unwanted/removed stuff from other articles.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional note:

When I first started this section i overlooked that there was already extensive archive of the discussion page, where the issue i've raised here was more or less constantly discussed. This is is in a way an illustration of my concern whith such an article (or similar lists). However originally my main concern was, that this article might be flying under the radar of wikipedia author knowledgeable on the subject, but to my relieve that's apparently not the case. I still think such a list is not a good idea and that wikipedia would do better without it, but as long as it is closely watched, which seems to be the case, it won't turn into total nonsense at least.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maps Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming/Archive 15

David Stockwell

Dr. David Stockwell, environmental biologist & statistician / blogger is a well-known skeptic. Is there any reason he's not on this list? Alex Harvey 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk o contribs)

Can you find a reliable source from where he can be quoted as stating his view in such a way that it breaks one of the 3 consensus items? He also needs an article (to establish notability). Those are the requirements for the list. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI: wiki articles do not establish notability.65.12.145.148 (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

src: twentytwentynews.com

Ronaldo Rondanelli

Another co-author of Lindzen, also likely climate change skeptic. Alex Harvey 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Likely" is not good enough - you need a verifiable quote that goes against one of the 3 items + an biographical article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Likely" is not good enough for inclusion in the article, but likely is good enough to suggest someone should look into it. It may be that a person well situated to ask him about it is reading this talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Its rather more likely that Rondanelli is a student with Lindzen as advisor (which he is) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop doing this. Finding individuals who fit the criteria and documenting why they should be here is helpful; throwing every vaguely-relevant name against the wall to see which ones stick isn't. There's a fable that illustrates the hazards involved in doing so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, then. I threw them in merely for others to investigate should they were interested. Alex Harvey 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

src: www.carbonbrief.org

RfC on Joanne Simpson

RFC: Allowing inclusion of Joanne Simpson's name in the list of scientists who believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable. The section heading states that names included believe "the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling." Joanne Simpson states, in her own words, that she is a Global Warming skeptic, because the cimate change models are questionable [1]. The addition was removed with the edit summary that, "Simpson not in disagreement with IPCC - wants more data, as all scientists do, but thinks there is enough certainty to support action." Which position does Simpson's words support, that she accepts climate change, or is skeptical of the modeled projections? Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is not conflict between your two positions. A scientists are skeptic - its part of their job description. But you can be skeptic and still see where the weight of the evidence falls. "In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC..." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that she is calling for us to hedge our bets policy-wise, that is not an argument that she has accepted the IPCC's scientific position. Indeed, she explicitly states "But as a scientist I remain skeptical." Is this list not specifically focused on the scientific opinions of the individuals in question? Scientifically, she is skeptical by her own direct words. --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The title of that section is, "Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable." Simpson is clearly questioning the accuracy of the climate projections. It's that simple. Simpson states, "..virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both." Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All scientific models are imperfect. She's making the standard argument for more data to confirm or refine the models. To repeat myself: She puts enough trust into the models to strongly support acting against GHGs now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this interpretation of her text. Her support for taking action policy-wise was NOT tied to her faith in the models, which she clearly argues against. The entire basis for her clearly stated skepticism is focused on the scientific validity of the models themselves ... stating that they are based on flawed data sets. She is not calling for more data, she is clearly calling for better data, and has pointed to where she believes that can be found. As such she has clearly discounted the current data, and therefore the model results which are based upon them, as flawed. --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• The criteria for inclusion are clear (they are at the top of the article), it is also clear that Simpson is stating unambiguously that the evidence is weighted clearly towards the IPCC (or Gore if you want). So she certainly shouldn't be included. Taking the headlines as inclusion arguments is the wrong way around (criteria first, section afterwards). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• She has enough faith in the predictions to consider them a sound basis for policy. "[R]emain[ing] skeptical" isn't the same as "opposing the mainstream assessment". Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Guettarda - she considers acting against GHGs good policy, so obviously she must put some stock in the models on which the policy is based. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I think she is simply applying Pascal's Wager to global warming policy. --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Her remarks are basically an encouragement for further use of TRMM data to evaluate climate models (which already is being done to some extent). "Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical." Almost all climate modelers would agree with that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So how is it that you don't see this quote as clearly stating that she is skeptical of whether the models are right? What is she actually being skeptical of in that quote if not the climate model predictions? --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• She's at the point where she relates climate models with weather forecasts ("We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts."), which is a first step, but as her comments on TRMM indicate, she does not seem to see yet that one of the reasons why such models are unreliable is because of the data put into them, which come from measurements that cannot be fully accurate; in complex systems, this problem drives simulations to the field of irrelevancy shortly past the starting block. It's more a math issue than a natural science issue, and thus mostly ignored so far. Anyway, she's not skeptical, at least for now. She essentially wants the models to be tested against other data. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I read her blog entry. She seems to be more of a classic scientific skeptic than an "ooh, global warming skeptic". I think she falls into a very different category than those who are currently in the "questioning" list, so I would lean ever-so-gently towards noninclusion. However, I would not strongly oppose inclusion iff the sum of her views (need more data, models imperfect, but must act on best info provided by IPCC) were laid out. Awickert (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• I am basically with Awickert on this, except I lean the other direction towards inclusion. In my case his "iff the sum of her views" criteria would simply be icing on the cake. --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that consensus is leaning towards no inclusion of Simpson's name in the article. If no objections, I'll close this RfC in about 16-24 hours. Cla68 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the template disappear automatically after 30 days. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

src: www.theblaze.com

Dyson (again again)

I've cut him again. The article referenced makes very clear that Dyson isn't in disagreement with #1 or #2 of the criteria. (he thinks CO2 => warming (page 2)). Dissent on the 3rd criteria is more ambiguous, perhaps he is sceptical of it, but the statement that he is quoted for (we could (geo-)engineer it if it gets bad) isn't such. See also the previous discussions (search for Dyson in the archives). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll just add another section titled, "Believe global warming will benefit the environment" and put Dyson's name in it when I have a few minutes. It appears fairly clear that he believes that increased CO2 will help the plants grow. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Plants grow != "benefit the environment", and in particular != "On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, believing that CO2 stimulates plant growth doesn't put you outside of that mainstream. The question is whether it stimulates plant growth enough to compensate for the increase in CO2. Well, that isn't actually the real question (which revolves around limiting factors, allocation, herbivory and responses to herbivory and competition with microbes). But it's a good first-order question. Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From the 2001 Third Assessment, quoted at the top of the article, "On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming." Dyson disputes this, stating that increased CO2 will not be significantly negative. Therefore, he is opposing one of the items of the mainstream scientific assessment. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're mixing up two things: the biophysical influence of increased CO2 on plant growth (related to photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, water use efficiency, etc) and the effect of warming. If you can straighten out which one you're dealing with then we can proceed from there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to "straighten out which one". All I, nay we, need to do is report what the source says. The NYTimes articles states that Dyson has come, "out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned" and that he has proposed that, "whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow." Now Dyson doesn't appear to be trying to differentiate between the influence of CO2 and and warming that is supposedly causing it. So, why should we? Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In this book review of two global warming books, Dyson gives more detail on his opinion, again making clear that he doesn't believe that a build-up of CO2 is dangerous, because it helps plants grow and can be controlled if necessary, with specially designed trees. Again, he doesn't differentiate between the effects of CO2 and the effects of warming. He talks about both as if they were the same thing. Again, I believe Dyson's name should be listed in the article in that section. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be terribly confused here.

The NYTimes articles states that Dyson has come, "out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned" and that he has proposed that, "whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow."

Dyson is talking about CO2 and plant growth. Your quote talked about warming and plant growth. As Boris explained to you, these are different things. The "scientific mainstream" is vaguely aware of how photosynthesis works.

Now Dyson doesn't appear to be trying to differentiate between the influence of CO2 and and warming that is supposedly causing it.

I think you're putting too much of your own spin on what Dyson was reported to say in that article. He's saying "I'm not sure there is a problem, but if there is, we can fix it".

Dyson gives more detail on his opinion, again making clear that he doesn't believe that a build-up of CO2 is dangerous, because it helps plants grow and can be controlled if necessary, with specially designed trees

In other words, he is saying "the problem, such as it exists. is amenable to technological solutions". Does the "mainstream assessment" claim otherwise? Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be having a hard time understanding the difference between CO2 concentration and warming. That may be getting in the way of your attempt to understand what Dyson and the IPCC are saying. Hope this helps.

• Increased CO2 concentration traps additional heat, the greenhouse effect. More CO2 means more heat gets trapped.
• CO2 also happens to be one of the inputs for photosynthesis. Unfortunately, the enzyme that's responsible to adding CO2 into the reaction, Rubisco, can instead add O2, a process known as photorespiration. Increased CO2 concentration can increase the efficiency of photosynthesis; the higher the concentration of CO2 relative to O2, the lower the chance that O2 will end up at the active site of Rubisco. So, more CO2, more efficient photosynthesis.
• Higher CO2 concentrations also stimulate stomatal closure. The plant can get the CO2 it needs without losing as much water. Thus, increased CO2 concentration leads to increased water-use efficiency.
  • Note that this is likely to be an either/or proposition - if you close your stomata sooner, you don't end up with higher CO2 concentrations in your leaves. If you open your stomata longer and allow the CO2 concentration in the leaves to rise, you don't get the benefit of increased water-use efficiency.

When people claim that increased CO2 benefits plant growth, they are usually talking about this. AFAIK, mainstream science doesn't discount this view - in fact, most people probably give too much credence to this idea, since the positive reaction of plants to increased CO2 concentration tends to be in agricultural crops which are not nutrient of water limited. Reality is never that simple. Warming, on the other hand, has a negative impact on plant growth. Aside from things like changing rainfall patterns, temperature has direct negative effects on plant growth

• Photorespiration increases with temperature. The higher the temperature, the more photosynthate that gets "wasted" through photorespiration.
• Evaporation rates increase with temperature. So not only do plants have to deal with drier soils, they also have to deal with higher rates of water loss through their stomata.
• Higher temperatures also force many other enzyme systems to function outside of their optimum temperature range, further reducing the efficiency of the plant.

So yes, increased CO2 concentrations could benefit plant growth. No one disagrees with that possibility. But increased temperature will have negative impacts for plant growth. You need to understand the difference between those two. Dyson is talking about CO2, and proposing a biotech solution. The IPCC report is talking about the effects of warming. Figure out the basics. Not try reading those articles again. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're trying to say is that Dyson isn't a skeptic of the hypothesized negative effects of global warming, but instead is a skeptic that the increase in CO2 isn't negative, separate from the warming of the earth's atmosphere. OK, in those two source he does appear to be saying that. Fortunately, we have clarification of his thoughts in another source (cherry-picked quotes that I think convey his main message):

Again, I think it's clear that Dyson is rejecting parts of the UN's consensus on global warming. He's saying that he does not agree that it is certain that climate change is negative for humans. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. In case you wonder - i actually believe that what he says is true - we will see a climate like that 6,000 years ago, but that doesn't answer the underlying question of short-term economics. The whole basis for #3 isn't that there is a good or a bad climate (or even an optimal climate) - it is that the transition from one climate to another is an economic debit. Try reading Dyson's comments carefully - he actually states that this may be true, but that he is taking the very long view, and considers the end-result a better world.

But then it is rather irrelevant, since what we need here is a clear unambiguous quote to state his dissent from one of the 3 consensus items - and its still not there. Perhaps he really does dispute #3 (and i'm misreading him (likely)), then we should look for such an unambiguous quote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

#1: The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

OK, for the moment let's agree to disagree on #3. He appears to be disagreeing with #1, which states that "The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years." Dyson states in the last source I mention that warming has been a local phenomenon, not global. So, he is disagreeing that the average global surface temperature has risen. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. He just points out (like e.g. Pielke) that that global average does not translate one-to-one to local changes (and vice versa). He makes no statement on the magnitude of the temperature change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He does appear to make a statement on the magnitude, "There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading." That appears to be a clear rejection of #1 to me. Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. It's a rejection of the idea that "global temperature" is a useful concept, not of the result itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC time. I think the RfC should ask for opinions on whether Dyson is rejecting all three principles, not just #1. Will post soon. Cla68 (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

#2: There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities

Dyson appears to reject point #2 as well:

Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He is talking about ice caps here, not about temperature. Entirely irrelevant to #2, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean, where he says, "Warming seas around the edge of Antarctica..." is not talking about temperature? Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

#3: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative (cont.)

I think what you're trying to say is that Dyson isn't a skeptic of the hypothesized negative effects of global warming, but instead is a skeptic that the increase in CO2 isn't negative, separate from the warming of the earth's atmosphere

No, that's not what I'm saying. Dyson is saying "CO2 is good for plant growth". The mainstream view is "warming will have a negative effect". No one is saying that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have a negative effect on plant growth. Dyson isn't disagreeing with anyone on that specific point. Or really, on any specific point of the science, as far as I can tell. Guettarda (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, Dyson makes it clear that he is including buildup of CO2 and warming together when he says that #3 cannot be accepted as fact:

Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is about (and in comparison to) a hypothetical coming ice-age. It would be alot better if you could find an unambiguous quote. Because that is what is needed since this article is under BLP. All of this hand-waving and cherry-picking of single sentences isn't going anywhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

src: www.ff.org

RfC on Freeman Dyson

Should Freeman Dyson's name be included in this list? The source used to justify inclusion is this essay in which he appears to state his opinion on global warming. I believe that Dyson is clearly rejecting points #1 (The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years). and #2 (There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities) and perhaps #3 (On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative) of the IPCC Third Assessment Report as explained in the section above. Reasoning as follows:

1. Dyson states that warming is local, not global. Therefore, he is not accepting the IPCC's stance that warming is global.
2. Dyson states that it is unknown whether humans are causing any warming. Therefore, he is not accepting the IPCC's stance that the warming is human-caused.
3. Dyson states that an increase in CO2 will benefit the planet. This one is less clear, because it is debatable whether this directly relates to warming or not.

I believe Freeman's name should be included as rejecting points 1 and 2, and perhaps #3. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading Dyson's rambling, befuddled essay it's hard to figure out what he thinks. (Sorry to put it that way, but it's hardly a surprise as he's in his mid-late 80s by now.) I'm inclined to list him as a skeptic because it's clear that he considers himself a skeptic, though I can't find a coherent statement in the essay that we could quote in the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The essay is much too vague and rambling to draw these sorts of concrete conclusions. Guettarda (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No. First of all i agree both Boris and Guettarda, but secondly your are misrepresenting Dyson by cherry-picking, as has been pointed out above. Dyson specifically says, for instance, that CO2 will cause and does cause warming. (its even in the essay you quote from), and while he does say that warming is localized, he is referring to the fact that warming isn't homogeneous (something which is entirely within the IPCC's projections). The third one is more speculative (and possibly correct) - perhaps Dyson thinks so - but there isn't enough information to go by... Dyson is speaking about the biosphere, more specifically plants, but the third point isn't about plants - its about cost/benefit => economy. Conclusion: Per BLP we cannot add him, since there isn't any clear scepticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dyson certainly views things in their complexity, but I'm inclined to include him for the same reason as Boris - from the essay, it seems to be how he considers himself. The paragraph about him can detail his views. Awickert (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Include. He is a sceptic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• If he says he's a sceptic, if he says he's a heretic, seems to me he should be on this list of sceptics. Regardless of how much convolution those trying to exclude him wish to employ to make it seem otherwise. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of your comment (see my remarks above), but the snark at the end really isn't necessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of your comment (above) but the convolution by others trying to deny he's a heretic/sceptic really wasn't necessary, it's "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"-ish... so I felt pointing out that there was convolution was necessary. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If he says he is a heretic.... Should we then put Pielke Jr on the list? He is a heretic, despite agreeing with the IPCC on almost all issues? The trouble to me is the WP:BLP part - if we can't document it according to the stated rules of the list - then we have a problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a BLP concern here, we are taking someone's word for their own evaluation of their own position. If you want to nuance it, find reliable sources that analyse Dyson and say "he's entirely conventional" or "he's not a skeptic" or whatever, and use that in your list (annotated to point out "he says he is but many folk (cite goes here) feel he isn't" or whatever). I find the resistance here to reporting what people actually say they think smacking of PC. Stop being so convolutionary ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is: What does "sceptic"/"heretic" mean in Dyson's definition? None of his comments are "classically" sceptic. The trouble with your argument is exactly that. You are interpreting Dyson's "I'm sceptic" into a specific type of scepticism, which doesn't jive with his actual statements. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

He's a skeptic because he says he's a skeptic, but none of his statements actually contradict the current state of the science. The problem is fitting him into one of our categories based on specific scientific points. How about if we add another category, something like "self-declared skeptics," which would be people who say they are skeptics but haven't actually disputed any of the points in the mainstream view? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a much to rational and useful suggestion for this article. I strongly fail to object to it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object either - if it weren't for Joanne Simpson above.... She declared herself sceptic (just as all scientists should be), but also declared where the current weight of evidence is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a BLP concern here - it's a big deal to accuse a scientist of having abandoned the scientific mainstream. Get it wrong, and you've stepped close to the world of per se defamation, since it gets to their basic fitness to participate in their profession. Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar misses the point. The only purpose of this article is as an excuse to have long convoluted angels-on-pinheads type arguments on the talk page. For my part, I don't think you get on the list by simply stating you want to be on it. You have to say something to justify inclusion. If your statement is so rambling and incoherent as to just ify both inclusion and exclusion, then I think you should be left out William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nom it at AfD then... If you are correct about the article's only purpose we don't need it at all. Are you sure you are correct, though? ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We've been through this all before though. AFD would be pointless, you know how it goes. Somewhat more seriously, the page has rules for inclusion, you can read them as well as anyone else (and yes we've tried to change them, and no it never works; not that anyone ever tries to hard, because argument is the point,as I said) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I could be wrong of course [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If this page has "rules for inclusion" that are arcane enough that there is controversy around who is in and who is out... that analysis is OR and the page ought to be deleted. Most lists are pretty obvious as to what is on and what is off. You're not exactly leaving me with a warm fuzzy that there's no POV pushing going on here. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is, plenty. That's why we came up with reasonably clear rules about minimum requirements for inclusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If you can think of a better way to structure this list I'm all ears. As you say, it's not obvious -- from who is a "scientist" (the present working definition is anyone who ever published a single journal article in any scientific field, no matter in what field or how long ago) to what is meant by an "opposing view" (opposing what?) and so on ad infinitum. Do be aware that if you propose deleting the article there will be howls from the skeptical side. Note I specifically say if "you" propose deleting it because I have no intention of sticking my face in that blender, and I would be surprised if any of the others who regularly edit the article would do so either. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This New York Times Magazine article [3] discusses his position on global warming at some length; the article is a little adoring, but if you've an interest in Dyson it's a good read. It makes clear that his position is firmly on the "skeptic" side, but I'm a little uncomfortable placing him in the same realm as the other people on this list. Nathan ^T 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion of that article higher up the page? He says he's a "heretic", but he's mostly disagreeing with the policy side, not the scientific side of the equation. What part of the article leads you to conclude that he disagrees with the science of global warming? I couldn't find much. Guettarda (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now. I came to this page originally for the last section (started by Shoemaker's Holiday), noticed this RfC and failed to read up for previous discussion. Having now read it, I see that you folks have already dissected this article and his own writing in various places. My conclusion on the question is that the article should include Dyson, but make it clear (as it does currently, to some extent) that his views are not necessarily the same as most of the other folks on the list.

I find Cla68's arguments persuasive; perhaps because I'm not an expert on the subject, and Cla68 doesn't appear to be either. The criteria you've developed are aimed at determining which scientists take conclusions at odds with the mainstream consensus; that global warming exists, is negative, and can be attributed to human activity. My interpretation of Dyson's statements (as a non-scientist) are that he (1) does not agree that warming is a global phenomena (2) does not agree that local warming can be attributed to human activity and (3) is not convinced that such warming that does occur is negative. All the quoted statements posted by Cla68 above seem to support my interpretation. I think its possible that his comments may not address all the specific scientific conclusions that underpin the concept of anthropocentric global warming - that may be because he's not steeped in the field, as is pointed out bluntly by a scientist in the Times article. Even so, I think his statements to date clearly (and with his obvious intent) place him in the category of "global warming skeptic." Now, if you were excluding scientists who did not work in a field related to climate change I could see keeping him off the list on that basis. I'm not sure what other strong justification there is. Nathan ^T 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems is that Dyson says too much. Reading between the lines it seems that his views of climate change are based largely on broad impressions of what he has heard in the popular media, where things get sensationalized and oversimplified. So he says things that appear skeptical on the surface but when he talks about details he agrees with the mainstream view without realizing it. For example his statement that "some places are warming while others are cooling" is entirely consistent with the mainstream view, as is his statement that there will be some benefits from warming -- he just isn't familiar enough with the literate on climate to realize it. To reiterate, despite all this I'm inclined to list him as a skeptic because he says he's a skeptic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me (listing him because he describes himself as a skeptic). Is it possible that he doesn't disagree with the science performed, but disagrees with the broader conclusions drawn? That warming is not a simultaneous worldwide event, that the effects of warming aren't uniformly negative, that models aren't 100% accurate, etc - these are points accepted by lots of people, from what I understand. But his conclusions - that the net impact of warming may not be negative, that warming may not be caused by humans, that the models are so inaccurate as to be not useful - these would seemingly classify him as a "skeptic", no? Nathan ^T 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice how Dyson switches to the very long timescale (to the extent of evolutionary changes) when he is talking about net positive, and how he avoids talking economy when stating it. What he says there is entirely possible within the mainstream as well... The mainstream is simply not conclusive on such long scales. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

src: skepticalscience.com

Fred Singer

Given that the opinion of Singer reads The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." "It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.". ¿Shouldn't his name appear under the "Believe global warming will not be significantly negative"? --Seba5618 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We list each person in only one place. I think "natural causes" is probably better because his best-known book states that it's all down to the sun. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about moving him, merely because of the statement placed next to his name reads as someone who fits more on the category of "GW will not be significant" than "natural causes".

src: www.theblaze.com

POV tag

This article, by its very structure, is inherently POV. By its nature, it only includes people holding minority views, leaving out all majority views, and the attribution encourages cherry-picking their statements for something that bes casts doubt on the mainstream view. This results in a list of often lengthy statements advocating a minority viewpoint, unimpeded by mainstream criticism. If it is desired to simply list climate change deniers, there's no reason for the quotes to appear in the article: The citation templates allow a quote to be appended, where it wouldn't serve to POV push. But, given the structural problems, I fail to see how it serves any encyclopedic purpose that wouldn't be far better served by a category. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've got to agree, why can't this be a category? And, if it must be a list, why is a supposed list of scientists dominated by their quotes rather than simply the names? Academy Award for Best Picture doesn't have acceptance speeches listed in prose. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• I can understand including the quotes - the central premise of the list is that these scientists have made claims at odds with the scientific consensus, and so each name is accompanied by proof that they belong on the list. It could be shown using the quote param of the cite template, but since its fairly crucial justifying information I can see why it's been written the way it has. Nathan ^T 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article was created because mention of these scientists and their views have been shut-out of the regular Global warming and related articles. Improved collaborative editing might be the solution to having articles such as this one. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is because only a small minority of scientists are skeptical of global warming, and those who are skeptical are often recursively notable (e.g., many notable skeptics are notable because they are skeptics). That said, I think this article is a good resource and wouldn't advocate any change. It confines its scope to those who counter the majority global warming view and seems to answer who is of the opposing view and why we say they are reasonably well. In other words, when we open this article, we know what we are going to read and don't have to keep reminding readers that it is minority. Awickert (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this article can be seen as intrinsically non-neutral. These are prominent scientists who have minority points of view. It doesn't read to me like an attempt to assign one of these silly shopping lists like the one produced by the Heartland Institute; enough details about the scientific credentials of each scientist is (or should be) given to enable the person's opinion to be evaluated (I think it's quite extraordinary that so few with qualifications related to the evaluation of climate models are listed). For those who might have read on some blog or other that there's this massive swell of scientists skeptical of global warming, this article in its present form provides a far more realistic evaluation. --TS 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE:

Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To compare the likes of Richard Lindzen Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv or the Max Planck solar research with Bigfoot addicts ( remember the conversation between two Yetis: I heard of Reinhold Messner having been watched recently - Answer: Oh that fake story has been rebuked by Scientific Yeti years ago) is not only POV but bluntly offensive. Stop this. Those guys have significantly contributed respectively influenced the IPCC mainstream. Each headline starting with "believers" sounds religious and is not at all appropriate. Its no more than a list of heretics in the eyes of Lord May and others preachermen of climatism as a religion. Move this scrap where it belongs: WP:Wikiquote and try to get elsewhere a NPOV picture how scientific consensuses respectively controversies in that field are moderated and evolving. --Polentario (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

src: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

Mainstream???

The very title of this page is POV and contentious. The Anthropogenic CO2-Driven Warming theory is simply not "mainstream"; the hundred or so authors of IPCC4 ch 9 are very much an intellectually incestuous -- and increasingly isolated -- group. I suggest changing the title to "... IPCC Scientific Assessment ..." -- Craig Goodrich 68.58.2.165 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. See FAQ Q1. Also read the global warming article which will clarify your misconception that global warming is believed by the IPCC to be driven by CO2 alone. --TS 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

src: 3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net

Henrik Svensmark

[4]:

"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth - quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable," writes Henrik Svensmark.

Does this qualify Svensmark for inclusion in this article in the section stating that he believes that warming is not occuring or has ceased? How are we handling such cases where they fit multiple categories? --GoRight (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that particular quote would be inadmissible. First of all because its a badly translated version of the danish original, done by a blog that isn't a reliable source.

And why would we use that quote, when Svensmark is already on the list with a good quote? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you missed this: "Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark?" Even so until it appears in an MSM source I can agree that it shouldn't be included. But my question is, if it eventually does make it into a source that you consider acceptable, do we have a standard approach to dealing with quotes from the same individual that would appear in the different categories of this article? What do we do when more than one category applies to the same individual as would be the case here? --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

An unreliable source is unreliable even if it claims to be reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm obviously not debating that point as I have acknowledged the need to wait for a different source. Why are you avoiding the remaining part of my question? I'm just asking, BTW. I haven't tried to include this in the article, I'm merely querying about whether it should/could be given the prevailing standards applied to this article. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't tried to include this in the article, I'm merely querying -- Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:TPG. Talk pages are for proposing improvements to the article, not general discussions or debate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am asking if it would (a) be appropriate to update this article based on this statement (if and when an acceptable source can be found), and (b) if so then how would that be effected given that the statement applies to a different category than Svensmark is currently listed under? If I am not supposed to ask here, then where? I not trying to be pointy or anything, I am honestly asking since I haven't spent much time on this article. How else is someone supposed to learn the "rules" (i.e. community agreements controlling the addition of content) that are in place for this article other than to ask? --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The original source is here, in Danish. This appears in the Jyllands-Posten, which according to its Wiki page is the largest-selling newspaper in Denmark. I would assume, therefore, that the paper is a reliable source and that if Svensmark published an editorial in that paper, we'd be able to include it. Now obviously we can't use Anthony Watts' translation, but that doesn't render this source unusable either, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. I would recommend choosing a user from here and asking them to translate the article. At that point, we could list the English translation of the relevant quote on this page with the original Danish text and reference in a footnote. For what it's worth, a machine translation does seem to verify the gist of Watts' translation. Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Svensmark is already on the list, what's the point? Nobody doubts that Svensmark is an all-purpose skeptic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know machine translations aren't perfect, but they're enough for me to believe that Watts isn't totally full of crap. I wasn't aware of Kim's background, and if Kim would translate that'd be helpful. As for the question of "why would we use this", it moves Svensmark to the "warming has stopped" section, if in fact the quote "In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth - quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable" is at all accurate. Oren0 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The new quote would reflect extremely poorly on Svensmark, as it implies that he doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate, and doesn't have any knowledge at all of how climate models work or what their purpose is. Even if it's a correct translation I'd rather not play a part in embarrassing someone like that. It would be better to stay with the cosmic ray stuff which is at least a hypothesis that is taken somewhat seriously. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If he says "global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning", and this is listed right under the headline of the editorial, who are we to argue? It is worth noting that the language 'is beginning' is an important distinction from 'has begun', as it implies he believes cooling will continue, which is why accurate translation is important. Oren0 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight brings up a good point, and that is a problem with this article. I would suggest that instead of having three categories of skeptics, that they all be lumped together in a single list and beside each name be explained, with cites, which tenets of the IPCC's official statement said person disagrees with. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

src: www.drroyspencer.com

Tennekes, Hendrik (References, #11)

The cited link his.com/~sepp/Archive/NewSEPP/Climate%20models-Tennekes.htm appears to be nothing more than a personal / purchased page on an Internet Service Provider's web host, despite being titled "Science & Environmental Policy Project".
www.his.com redirects to info.his.com/:

Heller Information Services, Inc. has been operating since 1986 with business offices in Rockville, Maryland, and hosting facilities in Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas and California. Support staff are located in Maryland and British Columbia.

Obviously, such a post on one's own purchased web space is not peer-reviewed science. I do not believe it meets Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, either. The bottom of that page does refer to some apparently legitimate, professional, scientific work, but none of those are hyperlinked so I cannot really evaluate their suitability. I do note that the title "A Sideways Look at Climate Research" (Weather 45, 67-68, 1990.) which he references in his editorial on his personal web page does indicate that this person has published some work skeptical of mainstream global warming science, and that would be the appropriate reference to cite *directly* -- if the original author of that part of this article can access it. (Like I said, it's not hyperlinked on Tennekes' page, which is why I didn't link to it but only copied the text. That's all there is.) The personal web page, I cannot believe is an acceptable source for Wikipedia's basic intended purpose: to inform.
global-warming-fact-checker 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Identifying the mainstream

Which current is the mainstream? Should the link in the previous sentence redirect somewhere?

What do Wikipedia:Science standards tell us about identifying the scientific mainstream when there is a scientific controversy going on? Does the scientific method preclude the existence of controversy? Or does it admit that controversy does occur and explain how to resolve it?

Should we as contributors rely on surveys, polls, or the preponderance of official statements by august scientific body's?

I think our readers would be served best by listing (A) the position taken, (B) who (or which group) takes that position, and (C) the reasons they give for taking that position. Is this what Wikipedia policy says we should do? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What? About 98% of climate scientists and all major scientific organizations endorse the core positions of the IPCC. That is the mainstream. See scientific opinion on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so the claim that less than half of climate scientists support the IPCC positions is mere bollocks, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty well sums it up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

src: hypergeometric.files.wordpress.com

RfC: Should this article attempt to categorise scientists' based on quotes or should it simply list them alphabetically

{{rfctag}}

The present formatting of this article categorises a group of living scientists into a handful of categories based on selected quotations. The quotations are needed to establish that the scientist disagrees with a part of the IPCC statement on climate change and justifies the scientist's inclusion on this list.

I have argued above that many, if not most, of the scientists on the list actually fit into more than one category simultaneously. That is, the categories overlap. Some even fit into all of the categories. This has the net result in a number of cases of oversimplifying and misrepresenting the scientist's views. To make the point I have used a number of quotes from Bob Carter to show above that he also fits into all of the other categories on the list.

I have proposed that we remove the categorisation and list all of the scientists alphabetically. That will stop future arguments about which category to put them in from occurring, and it will lessen the controversies over the quotes that should be selected.

The alternative is just to leave it the way it is. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is an incorrect description. The quotes are not the main basis of the categorization, but instead the weight of what the scientists argument is.... As i see it Alex' proposition will make this a less useful resource. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Failure of understanding. The entire purpose of this page is to cause arguements and waste time, as per comments above. So keep current formatting, but delete the stiffs William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think lumping them together in these grand categories adds value. To address the boxing problem, how about adding tags such as "(also supports GWNO, AIPPC)." Of course, ideally, each one would need a reference, which might be rather onerous to add.Mcdruid (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me go further, these categories present the false impression that these scientists are in disagreement with each other when in most of the cases they are in fact not. And in some of the cases they are presented as being in agreement (e.g. Spencer & Shaviv) when they in fact probably are not. If people think these categories are adding value, it is probably because they have been firstly fooled by the categories into believing the simplified picture presented here. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As you have been asked before, please stop telling people what they think and why they think it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell AH not to call us all fools; that would be censorship, and probably a BLP violation too William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Separating the scientists with an imperfect categorization system is better than not separating them at all, because of the length of the list. I agree with Kim that the weight of many scientists' statements have been sufficiently considered in this classification system, but I also acknowledge that because many scientists fall into many categories the presentation is misleading. I just think that the misrepresentation of categorization causes less harm than would no categorization at all.

McDruid talks about tagging scientists by belief. That sounds cool, but I would prefer to see that in a chart - with name versus belief, with check marks for beliefs - rather than just appended to the end of the quotes. But I am not doing that much work, or coming up with citations to do that, and in the end anyway I think that most of the scientists listed here would fit into most of the categories, and it would be almost as good and much easier to just say so in the intro.

Leave this article as it is, or volunteer for a major work effort to make a small improvement. An alphabetic list would not be good. Blue Rasberry 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said dozens of times: Including the quotes is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV (presenting fringe assertions unchallenged), and the quotes must go. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is impressive.. Consider please that there are people on both sides of this issue that consider this article appropriate (see the AfD's) - also please consider all of the discussions on each and every scientist on this list, with input and consensus gathered from people on both sides of this issue (see the archive). Perhaps an attempt at reading some of these - before reacting by gut? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How has this survived AfD? Has it been put up for AfD? Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)How did this travesty of OR by Synthesis survive someone AFDing it? IRONY. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But... Three times? Tempted to try for a fourth. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see we're at the tagging again [5]. Oh well, they can have their day or week or month in the sun and then disappear quietly William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

src: skepticalscience.com

BLP violations

A number of scientists listed here are not documented by reliable sources as actually "believing" the beliefs that are ascribed to them in the text. In many cases, nuances of their positions are lost, and, in at least one case, the scientist in question (who I know personally) has an opinion attributed to them that they do not hold. I have tagged the article as a BLP-violation (as indeed it is). I think people need to go through and start removing people when the sources are not reliable and have not actually documented a complete and unambiguous rejection of a "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". In fact, you may actually need to find that phrase or an extremely close synonym in order for ANY living person to be listed here at all.

I'm cross-posting this to the WP:BLPN.

Cheers,

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added your BLP tag to remind me and other editors of this. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 07:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be alot more valuable if you would actually tell us which scientist it is that is misattributed here. Any article runs the risk of wrong information. It would also be interesting to have you point out which of the quotes that aren't WP:RS to the opinion of the scientists. Per BLP they must be removed in such instances, i agree completely! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually am not at liberty to say which scientist it is due to pending litigation (which does NOT involve Wikipedia, but does involve a gag-order on the case). Let it be known, though, that there is more than just a problem with one entry here. I would say that the vast majority of these "quotes" are not necessarily indicative of an official "opposition" and a large number of the sources being used are far, far from WP:RS. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me that someone takes Inhofe or the Heartland Institute to court for libel. However, much as I would cherish them to have to refrain from open lying, your argument cannot have any significant weight if you cannot substantiate it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to say any more on the matter for reasons I clearly outlined. It's not hard to check for yourself where this article lacks BLP-quality sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus against the statement that there are present WP:BLP violations in the article. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thereby arguing for proof of a negative? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I see no consensus against a particular entry (although I don't remember which one) being a BLP[ violation. II think it a waste of time to determine which one outside of an RfAr, as your WP:GANG will not agree that it's a violation or that you don't have consensus. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA mean anything to you? You may want to read WP:TINC, it may be informative. (suggest you redact and remove this comment as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, self-published sources may only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties". All of the self-published sources included here directly criticize the scientists on the IPCC panel. A random find-on-page for the word "blog" shows that source #44 fails this part of BLP. Find the statement by Syun-Ichi Akasofu that source #44 supports and you'll see several claims made about third parties. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take that one up on WP:BLP/N. That interpretation is certainly interesting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a disagreement? BLP says to remove them immediately, that's why I'm asking. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you can certainly see my comment as a very strong disagreement with what i see as a very novel interpretation of BLP. (it is so novel that i can't recall having seen it turned on BLP/N - which is why i suggest that). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like pulling teeth. : ) Very well, to show that I'm trying to work well with others, I'll go and post to BLP/N and come back with the link. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

src: www.theblaze.com

Tags

I've added a few tags for the article's major issues, as presented at AfD. These are the things that will need work. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 07:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few, and doubt some of the others. State your case here, please, if you want to defend them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur has reverted me with the comment "Each entry is sourced, but assigning quotes to sections appears not". Sorry, but interpreting what someone says is our core responsibility as editors. If we stretch WP:NOR so far as to forbid this, we are, of necessity, reduced to a collection of literal quotes (and then there is the OR in figuring out if those quotes are representative and in proper context). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

src: media.gannett-cdn.com

Article problems

Okay, this article has many problems, and probably shouldn't exist:

• A check of the talk page archives reveals that quite a lot of this list is names selected from those on advocacy groups, combined with original research to select a quote.
• As every quote expresses a fringe view, WP:NPOV (particularly WP:UNDUE) and WP:FRINGE are violated badly. The very poor presentation of the mainstream view at the top, followed by filling the rest of the article with quotes attacking it, creates perhaps unfixable problems.
• A check of the archive shows numerous examples of original research, attempting to find a quote extreme enough to include on this list. E.g. this dispute over Freeman Dyson, where quotemining of his most extreme statements wins out over his actual, much more nuanced views.
• This article is typical of advocacy lists. For instance, [6] discusses a creationist quote mine book, [7] is an example of a typical quote-mine in the wild. Should we have list of scientists who have said things against evolution? No!
• WP:NOTDIRECTORY forbids such lists of quotes.
• There are problems with the sources used. [8] is used to characterise Antonino Zichichi. Is a web-based group dedicated to reporting and promoting Catholicism really a reliable source under WP:BLP? What about all the self-published sources? Some of these quotes are fairly old. Can it still be said they oppose it now?
• The notability of many of the people on the list withh respect to climate change is nearly none. Science is divided into fields of expertise because it's a very broad set of subjects, and expertise in one field certainly does not indicate expertise in completely unrelated ones.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 13:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the statement. I mostly disagree, though.

• If the article should exist is a question for AfD, where it currently is being discussed.
• Claiming that selection of a quote violates OR is, in my opinion, a strong misunderstanding of that policy. See my comment in the previous section. Selecting material for inclusion is exactly what editors are supposed to do, and for this article it has always happened with a reasonable degree of consensus, following vigorous and robust debate.
• The summary of the mainstream view is, of necessity, simplified, but well-sourced. Please be a bit more specific how it is "very poor".
• "typical of advocacy lists" is not in itself a problem. But I also think it's wrong - or have you ever seen an advocacy list that, at the very top, links to the (opposing) scientific consensus and the ~50 or so statements by major scientific organizations that support it?
• WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply at all. To quote: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" - especially the first very well applies to many of the entries (if you are any kind of scientist, there is no easier way to fame than to issue a statement that can me remotely misconstrued as opposing the IPCC and then to have Inhofe's propaganda machine spread your name all over the InterTubes).

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've supplied a link to one section where attempts were made too find the most extreme quotes possible. I've seen many others. if you're looking for the most extreme quote (which is definitely OR: if you were searching out a representative quote that would be one thing, but time and time again we see people talking abourt finding a more extreme quote), all nuances of the person's position are lost, and WP:BLP is violated.

As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY: almost all of these people have not significantly contributed to the debate. These people are by and large associated with other fields, and the only connection they have here, by and large, is that they once said something that can be quotemined into an attack on global warming. The full statement - of which the section you quote has been taken out of context - reads

As can be seen, the phrase you quote to support this list isn't even directly talking about lists of quotations, it's talking about lists as a whole - look at the example given. Lists of quotations are explicitly forbidden, though. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 13:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a "list of quotes" just as articles aren't a "list of references", the quotes are there for one and only one purpose: To verify that addition is correct (per WP:V), without the quotes it would go against WP policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging an article with this many tags is pointless and stupid. -Atmoz (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Having an article which can legitimately have that many tags is pointless. However, all the tags should all be within an {{article-issues}} tag, but all the tags are under discussion, and have not reached consensus for exclusion. (I don't agree with all of them, but I don't see a particularly strong consensus against any of them.) -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous, but most of those tags are in fact justified. That is what is so shocking about this article. As BLP covers this it should probably be blanked and restored slowly when incontrovertible BLP-proof, unbiased, WP:RS stating that this is the persons current opioion on the subject, and that the person is a scientist, is found and agreed on. The tags could be grouped, but this article is a mess and hiding the tags doesn't help fix the problems, it just hides them. Verbal chat 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check the archives. BLP has been considered in each and every case... But i wouldn't be opposed to removing all those who can't be qualified as a scientist. (unfortunately i believe that each and every one of them can be documented by RS to be a scientist - whether i agree or not). I'm also not opposed to taking each and every case where BLP concerns are raised off the list, until it can be determined whether or not its a valid concern or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a number of issues I'd like to address if the AfD defaults to keep, but I'm waiting until the conclusion of that to outline my concerns and recommendations for changes. Just an FYI in case it appeared that I'm complaining over there and ignoring the conversation here. I'll post productive recommendations, but didn't want to waste the time doing so should the article be deleted. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. One of the benefits of an AfD is to improve articles, by giving an influx of new editors, new ideas, suggestions for improval etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can start with low-impact, practical suggestions. Suggestion One For starters, how about moving the inclusion criteria to the talk page instead of the article itself? As I pointed out in the AfD, the inclusion criteria as stated here makes several POV assumptions that aren't attributed to a reliable source. That's far less appropriate in the article itself than it would be on the talk page. It should be possible to outline the scope of the list in the lede without making these types of statements. The article would still have a number of other issues (possibly fatal ones), but that's a start. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the main criteria (so does WP:LIST). A list must have the criteria for inclusion, as well as the caveats, stated in the lede section. I btw. disagree with your itemized list on the deletion page, since most of these are common sense descriptions that follow from such lists. An example of a list that make the same kind of criteria and caveats is List of countries by date of nationhood. The criteria and caveats have all been through a long tedious consensus process here - they didn't just "pop up" :-) But of course, consensus can change.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A list of countries isn't exactly a topic prone to POV disputes, and WP:LIST doesn't say that one should include criteria that is POV in its wording, for example telling readers not to interpret it incorrectly. An inclusion criteria in the article space could say, for example, "Inclusion criteria for this list is based on the person's statements made in interviews, papers, etc." Just the facts. The operating criteria (as I'll call it), with the POV statements doesn't belong in the article space. If that's the operating criteria that editors are using, just move all that to the talk page leaving unbiased, fact based criteria in its place. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look over the talk page discussions on the nation list before stating this with such certainty :-) I disagree with you on the inclusion criteria being POV, so lets leave it at that - and let others chime in on it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Suggestion two. If the article isn't meant to be a POV push, why "scientists opposing [...] global warming", with an inclusion criteria that allows any general scientist? What is noteworthy about them being scientists, if they aren't in a field related to climate change, ie. a noteworthy opposition to the mainstream consensus? Why not "barbers opposing [...] global warming" or "waitresses opposing [...] global warming"? A general scientist, not in the field, isn't any more a noteworthy a commentator than a barber, unless the goal is to stack the WP:COATRACK. This is a big change, but one that is necessary. Reduce the list to climate change related fields, and retitle the article as such. We can come back to this, but seriously, it needs to be addressed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This one i agree with. But consensus so far have been against a more specific criteria for scientists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I'm sure an RfC will favor out neutrality, so we can come back to this. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion three. Either change the scope of the article (currently "opposition to the IPCC consensus"), or reduce the list to those people who directly spoke of the IPCC consensus and expressly stated an opposition to it. It can't be both, due to WP:SYNTH. You can't take a statement by someone not sourced as being in opposition to the IPCC, and synthesize it to the IPCC. A reliable third-party source has to have created that synthesis independently of Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC assessment is considered the scientific mainstream, see Scientific opinion on climate change. This is not POV, but a simple statement of reality. The 3 criteria are the basic premises of this, and its not specific to the IPCC (as you can see), its considered the mainstream by all major national and international scientific societies [with none in disagreement]. You could cite all of these here, which would be excessive, or as we've agreed upon here, just wikilink it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand my argument. I don't doubt that the IPCC represents scientific consensus. I fully support that it does, per WP:RS#Academic consensus. My argument is that the lede outlines the scope of this article as opposition to the IPCC statement, and not every quote included in here is linked to the IPCC statement in either the quote itself, or the source. Claiming that the quote refers to an opposition to the IPCC in those cases is OR. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a misreading. The lede does not define the scope as opposed to the IPCC. It defines it as opposition to the scientific consensus as summarized by the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion four. Change the title to past tense, for example "List of climate scientists who have stated opposition to mainstream assessment of global warming" or something along those lines. "Opposing", present-tense, is impossible to verify, and the argument Kim raised in the AfD, that we need to demonstrate that they've changed their mind, is totally requiring negative proof, when the burden of using present-tense language is to demonstrate that they still do. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree here. No information is temporally complete, and readers are aware of this, and if not the caveats in the lede should tell them so. If there is a reasonable chance that any of these have changed their minds, then they should be removed (per BLP), but as i said earlier in another discussion: i've just gone over these again, and while there are a few where i haven't seen recent comments from, most of these are certainly still sceptical. (with Dyson as the eye-sore - but his section is specifically introduced with this). Old quotes (and the scientist it follows) should be removed or updated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is techinically correct to say "have opposed", and the argument that no information is temporarily complete doesn't change that, but reinforces it. Why not change it if it is unverifiable? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Any article which contains the wording "according to X" is having that problem then, since how can we ever know that...X might have changed his/her mind in the meantime. What we go by is what reliable sources tell us. As said if there is reasonable doubt - then the correct thing to do is to remove. Your suggestion has the implications that people can "hang around" despite having changed their opinion. Which is unacceptable to me personally. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to think about this one, per the unintended consequences you describe. The "according to X" is not problematic because X is a source that present-tense says something (a book, for example, is presently saying something even if it was written ten years ago). "Dr. Smith says" is really "Dr. Smith's book says", etc. The consequences, though, does indeed sound like something I would find unacceptable as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to leave these suggestions up and not comment for a little bit, to see what other editors think. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

src: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

Non scientists

Why are non scientists included in this "list"? Verbal chat 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Long answer: This point has been discussed repeatedly. Please search the archives for those discussions. Short answer: Because skeptical editors want to bulk up the size of the list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I can't see any future for this article except deletion. Verbal chat 15:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it time/worth to take up the "what defines a scientist" discussion again? Perhaps the large influx of editors during the AfD can spell another consensus? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How about, "The only people who are scientists are those who agree with the IPCC report?" Seems just about as reasonable as any other criteria we make up. Oh wait. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting irony. But how would you define a scientist? My personal definition is someone who is active in scientific research. I personally would also prefer that the list included only scientists who have published research in climate change research, or a closely related field (geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, ...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal definitions are the domain of original research. How I define a scientist or how you define a scientist is irrelevant. We could ask for how reliable sources define scientists, but then we'd be synthesizing a rationale for deciding how to categorize scientists. List of scientists is an interesting object lesson. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And why would the various List of scientists be interesting? Because there is no verification on them? But to take the other item, consensus can certainly define what is considered a scientist within the scope of this article - just as it does. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus cannot trump basic editorial principles. We should not be the ones deciding who is or is not a scientist in this compound context. What we really need to do is decide which "scientists" are "opposed" to the "mainstream assessment" as a single categorical. The right way, then, to go about doing that is to find a reliable source which makes explicit this characterization. I have yet to see one that does. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a problem though, in that there are no WP:RS that would make "closely related field" not WP:OR. This article is looking like a synthesis nightmare. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Short answer: Because skeptical editors want to bulk up the size of the list." Now this has to be one of the funniest edits I've read in a while.

@KDP, per the definition of scientist that you suggest, this article would be closed to many scientists who question the scientific methodology behind the IPCC findings and who are qualified to discuss such methodology (modeling, among other things). Of course, this article is already made to exclude most such critics so I'm sorta preaching in the desert, but it somehow managed to show a couple so far. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In science if you have any substantiated problems with something, you publish your critique in a peer-reviewed journal. If you do not, then your critique is meaningless from a scientific point of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My reply to this is two-fold :

1- You spoke of publications in specific fields related to natural sciences. Yet you forget, for instance, that mathematicians have a more than relevant say in climate models and their consctruction. There are also multidisciplinary issues which might not be covered in publications that are specific to a list of fields such as the one you suggest. So what I was basically saying was that your definition seemed too narrow.

2- Since this scientific issue has huge political and social implications, as you will agree I am sure, it is legitimate for scientists to make their views/objections known to the public in ways that are more accessible to the public. And since Wikipedia is not a scientific litterature synthesis, and since what Bill Gray says about hurricanes to the media is not necessarilly meaningless from a scientific point of view, caution should be the rule when examining what is and what is not a good source for the purpose of such an article. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How the hell are we supposed to figure out which scientists/mathematicians are actually informed enough to have an informed position on the subject of climate change without engaging in original resesarch? I do think that what anybody says to the media is irrelevant from a "scientific point-of-view". However, since I fail to understand how this list is to be constructed in the first place, I'm not sure that I can speak to whether or not statements made to the media are relevant here. The whole endeavor is essentially ludicrous. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"How the hell are we supposed to figure out which scientists/mathematicians are actually informed enough to have an informed position on the subject of climate change" We're not and that's the whole point. If we were to try to figure out if Paul Krugman has an informed position on the subject of economic policy before allowing him in economics articles, we could end up with weird results, trust me. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

src: www.drroyspencer.com

I've cut the cherry-picked tag

The text (in a HTML comment) said:

E.g, in Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_2#Senator_Inhofe.27s_new_press_release and the section below it, an advocacy list is checked through for more names for here

This i have a problem with... It seems to say that Wikipedians may not perform research of a topic while writing on it. If the tagger had actually read the discussion, then it would have been clear to him that the editors here considered the list bogus, and that no quote from that "resource" would be accepted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read through it, and saw that it was used as a jumping-off point for more OR.

More to the point:

• http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106708
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493624,00.html

And several other references used are VERY MUCH advocacy-driven quotation choices. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is basically nonsense (sorry). What you are saying is that if a reference is mentioned in a non-WP:RS, then the unreliability of that source back-tracks and makes the original source unreliable.

The question here is not whether Inhofe's list is unreliable (it is), but whether the above Zenit and FoxNews articles are reliable for the statements quoted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of lists such as Inhofe's serves to point out a lot of fairly non-notable people, which serve little purpose but to swell numbers. Use of advocacy sources such as the links above remove the context from the person's views, which may lead to them being misrepresented. For example, the quotes found starting at Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context#Stephen_Jay_Gould_on_intermediate_forms have all appeeared widely in propoganda pieces, some in newspapers, some on sites not that different from Zenit, and, of course, in movies such as Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. As explained there, taken out of context, as they are in such sources, they give a highly misleading view of their authors' opinions.

Are the quotes on this page out of context? In cases such as the FoxNews and Zenit-sourced ones, we cannot say from the unreliable sources used. In other cases, like Freeman Dyson, quotes were actively taken out of context to misrepresent the nuances of his views. Both are BLP violations. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 20:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but again you are misrepresenting things. Inhofe's list(s) is not used, any where or in any form - its unreliable - its blatantly phony - it contains quite a lot of people who publicly have stated that they are not sceptical as well as a lot of people who aren't (by any definition) scientists. That said your statement that the list automagically makes all of the links given in it unreliable is simply.... well.... ingenious.

As for the quoting out of context claims - that is a risk that we always run, on this list as well as on any article. But i'm sorry to tell you that this isn't WP's problem - we go by what reliable sources say. The two articles in question have been widely quoted in other media, no retraction have been made (in fact quite the opposite is the case for at least Harrison Schmitt, who has been saying this all over media) - so it doesn't raise red flags as to the validity of them.

I've never been comfortable with the inclusion of Dyson, as you can see from the discussions above and in the archives. He doesn't say anything that is in conflict with any of the 3 criteria - but he does state quite clearly that he considers himself a sceptic on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not using any reliable sources for the selection here. We're 1. Starting with our own original research to find names, 2. selecting quotes through more original research, and 3. then categorising based on WP:SYNTH. The quotes used may come from reliable sources (though they often come from WP:SPS and occasionally from advocacy groups), but that doesn't mean there's any reliable sources for the selection, categorization, or that the quote is representative. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This template doesn't make any sense, so I've removed it. The idea that the inclusion of a quote in one list precludes it from ever appearing in a neutral article is silly. As long as the individual quotes are well-sourced, they're fine. Oren0 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen

This is just appalling. This is the article, in which he explicitly says that climate change is real, but that there are still some uncertainties, and dealing with factors other than carbon dioxide may be a more effective strategy in the short term.

How do we present it? By an out-of context quote that misrepresents his cautious position of nearly a decade ago, possibly from before the release of the IPCC report that he's supposedly in opposition to.

This is a straight-out BLP violation. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Having read it, the source indicates that the author is opposed to how the media have interpreted and used the IPCC report. The source does not indicate that the author is opposed to the report itself. In fact, the author says "The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy." It's an indictment of media misinterpretation of science as supporting political agendas such as the Kyoto Protocol. It is not an opposition to the report. Fail.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it worse, the sections that were quoted here were explicitly talking about an NAS report, not the IPCC one. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. There is nothing in the article referring to the IPCC report besides the comment that "The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science..." and a part that makes a distinction between the science part and the part that represents a summary for policy makers. There is no opposition to the report in the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The quote from Lindzen is entirely typical of him and has not been retracted. This is definitely not a BLP violation William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not sure there is any validity at all to this "nearly a decade ago stuff", unless you have some reason to think he has changed his mind. By 2006 he definitely hadn't: Attributing this little change to man is virtually impossible for example in [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we can all pick a quote from this March 2009 speech [10] - personally i think this:

Moreover, the temperature record does demonstrate at least one crucial point: namely, that natural climate variability remains sufficiently large to preclude the identification of climate change with anthropogenic forcing. As the IPCC AR4 noted, the attribution claim, however questionable, was contingent on the assumption that models had adequately handled this natural internal variability.

States the same thing as above, and is a rather clear contradiction of criteria 2, and it isn't hard to find stuff that contradicts #3 in the same.

If anyone doubts that Lindzen is correctly placed here, they should read the speech. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We can also of course cite the SciAm [11], who quote Lindzen from the same conference:

"there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.

That's rather clear. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that the existing quote, even if in context, does not support his placement in this article. It falls more into the category that he doesn't believe any existing climate model is trustworthy, which could be a separate category of dissent than "Believe cause of global warming is unknown". In fact, the IPCC agreed that no existing climate model was trustworthy, but that action should be taken, anyway. Lindzen doesn't appear (at least in that quote) to agree that action should be taken.-- Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - and are you also of the opinion that the IPCC considers their ensemble of models as untrustworthy (for a given value of trustworthy - which i can't determine from your posting)

You appear to be taking an interpretation of Lindzens "past climate change" as being something very different than what the context of the text actually states. Past climate change include the 20th century, which is what criteria #2 is about - "not in a position to confidently attribute" directly contradicts "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming" (which is based on the IPCC's 60-90% confidence) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. In the past (c. 1997), there was no credible evidence toward anthrogenic warming. The rhetoric was about the same. My position is why modern methods produce the same results as clearly faulty methods used before 1997-2002. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have noted that i was quoting from the TAR. (which is also what Lindzen is talking about) Lindzen is directly contradicting the TAR assessment with the "in the past" statement. I don't know why you are talking about the scientific consensus of the period before the TAR, since Lindzen was an active participant on it, as well as the NAS report that was made to verify it, he was certainly well-informed at that point, and is not talking about pre 1997 science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Break

The source for Lindzen is a reliable source on the 2001 version of the IPCC report. The author, "one of 11 scientists who prepared the report", stated that "the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" (my emphasis). Now, that's not to say that subsequent reports didn't strive to state consensus, but according to this source, that was not the goal of the 2001 version. Here, we use the 2001 version as an example of consensus against (according to the author) WP:RS#Academic consensus. What demonstration do we have that the 2001 report is a consensus statement from the scientific community, rather than a report on the span of views as this source says? Not to confuse the issue, I am only asking about the 2001 report, not subsequent ones. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The NAS report is not the IPCC report, the article talks about two separate things. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. The NAS panel was asked to comment on the IPCC report. Good observation, thanks. Scratch the above. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble you have is that you are assuming that the IPCC report is the consensus that we are measuring against. This is incorrect - the IPCC report is an assessment of the consensus, not the consensus. That the IPCC TAR is a correct assessment of the consensus, was amongst other things what the NAS report was set out to verify, and did. See Scientific opinion on climate change for a lot of other organizations who are stating the same thing. So to go in, with the assumption, that if a statement doesn't mention the IPCC, then its not about the mainstream scientific assessment, is to set one self up with a red-herring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this list, as stated, is all about the IPCC, comparisons to the IPCC, which version of the IPCC, etc. If we're switching to a non-specified mainstream consensus not attached to the IPCC, we not only need to redo the lede, we need to figure out how that works in regards to WP:RS#Academic consensus which requires a source for the consensus (ie, the IPCC). If that's not the source, change the inclusion criteria. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to state it clearer, because I don't always state things as clearly as I'd like to. My contention is that a lot of this is based on original research by editors themselves, comparisons not drawn in reliable sources, but comparisons made by editors. If the comparisons are not IPCC based, but comparisons to a generic "mainstream consensus", it's even more OR. What is a reader supposed to fact check against? At least in the IPCC thing, one could look at the IPCC statement and compare it to the quote. If we're saying "it's not all IPCC, but mainstream consensus in general" where are the sources that show a direct contradiction between the quote's statement and a mainstream consensus statement? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The reader fact-checks against the criteria stated in the lede. If it cannot be fact-checked against those, then the entry is wrong. As simple as that, and that goes for any list. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's frustrating. Articles shouldn't be composed that way... editors shouldn't be taking a criteria and then go out looking to find non-matching quotes without any reliably sourced analysis that determines if the person actually opposes the consensus. Connolley produced a source[12] for Lindzen (above) that calls him a "major contrarian voice". That's perfect. That's the proper way of doing it. There'd be no issue if it were done that way. My confusion over Lindzen would have been cleared up real quick with a source that calls him a "major contrarian voice". Who cares what editors or I think, or even what Lindzen himself has stated, the reliable source says he's a contrarian. That's why we do it that way.

Look, most (probably all) of these people probably are contrarians, but the way we are going about listing them off just doesn't mesh with Wikipedia policy. It simply creates unnecessary problems that policy was written to avoid. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not an article - its a list (see WP:LIST). It is primarily a navigation guideline to scientists who have stated opposition to the mainstream scientific ...., a topic that is definitively notable. We are not (and must not per NPOV) taking a stand as to the individual scientists opinion, nuances of opinion, whether they are contrarians, denialists (as some have stated on the AfD), genuine scientific contenders to a new scientific view or any other thing such as that (all of which would be POV). We are listing them - not weighting them. Lists are created by first having a premise, then it gets filled out according to the premise. The quotes are for verification purposes only (per WP:V (something which most lists do not)) - the red-link criteria is there for A) BLP B) navigation to nuanced view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If the quotes are for verification purposes only, then they should only appear in the references. However, they're in the list itself, and thus everything discussed above is a problem. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it one more time, then let other editors chime in. WP:LIST, a guideline, does not override WP:OR, policy. Nothing in WP:LIST contradicts or instructs otherwise against what we should be doing per WP:OR, like not synthesizing material. The method used to compose this list, finding quotes that contradict the three things listed in the lede, is synthesizing material. Part A (the three things in the list) and Part B (the quote) does not conclude Part C (that B contradicts A) without that conclusion being made in the source (like in Connolley's reference). WP:LIST is not a different beast in that regard. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll disagree one more time. This "evaluation" is not OR, it's normal editorial discretion. It's what we always and invariably do when we paraphrase a result from somewhere. There is never a third source that states that the original and our interpretation are identical or equivalent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wall of tags

Really folks? This tactic of pinning a bunch of tags on an article at AfD is in very poor taste at best. I've removed 1 such tag (BLP) as this isn't a BLP. I'm sure there is another tag somewhere that addresses the concern, but a tag that says "this foo has problem X" is flawed then the thing isn't a foo. I'd ask that folks remove the tags as it only makes them look, well, childish. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This article does, however, have BLP issues. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with that, that's not relevant here. The tag is factually incorrect. This isn't a BLP. Create a new tag if you wish... Hobit (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag is not factually incorrect. This article is about living persons, therefore, the problems are BLP problems. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The BLP subtag appears redundant to the correct {{BLP dispute}} tag, as well as not quite correct as disputed. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As the person who first pointed out the BLP problems, I can say that I'm okay with the multiple issues tag because the way to deal with BLP problems is to get impeccable sources. If the multiple issue tag is removed or the sourcing aspects of that tag disappear, then we can argue over whether the BLPdispute tag should be reinstated. It's more important to actually solve the problems than to argue over how to classify them. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tagging an article to death is rarely helpful. As tags are there to point out places to improve the article, not to disparage it, I think quite so many tags is being darn POINTY. I'd encourage the taggers to pick 3-4 and stick with those. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Removing the {{BLP dispute}} tag is has the effect of damaging Wikipedia as a whole. (I was going to say, is "essentially vandalism", but I'm sure SV doesn't intend to damage Wikipedia or the article.) There is no question that the article is about (mostly) living persons, and that there is an ongoing dispute. Perhaps the article-issues might be replaced by a single tag. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  There still hasn't been any substantiated (as opposed to SA's "i wont tell") statements about BLP violations. What is the violation, where is it? And why hasn't the proper procedure been applied (remove the scientist to a section here, and then discuss it?). Tags are not just used for fun - there has to be a reason. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  That's not true. None of the quotes can be substantiated as necessarily falling into the category you say it does. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Actually every single quote substantiate the inclusion on the list, and where they are placed. (which isn't a category - but groupings). If you really believe this to be the case, then please take one of the scientists, and substantiate it. You are not providing any arguments at all. Instead you are (just like SA) stating some vague insinuations.

  Which scientist? Why isn't it substantiated? What is wrong with the quote? <- Those are the things that you should be answering. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Even were it not WP:SYNTHESIS, to put the quotes in the categories,

  • Don Easterbrook said it could have been from natural processes, not that it was.
  • William M. Gray said it was likely from natural processes.
  • Ian Plimer appears to be in the "deny warming" category.

  And separating the "unknown cause" category from the "natural cause" category is difficult, at best, even with the assistance of the scientists in question. Cosmic rays, the solar constant, ocean currents, are more-or-less "unknown natural causes". -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion?

Normally, I don't really care about removal of tags. But User:SlimVirgin removed them without bothering to explain why that was necessary here. If anyone who had actually contributed to the talk page had done the removal, I would have not minded, but it sets a really, really bad precedent when an established user removes tags without discussion. Please at least explain your actions on the talk page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I added section to the discussion of cleanup templates: WP:TC#Best practices in heavily monitored articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that the tags VS removed need to go. The "wall of tags" approach to editorial disputes doesn't make sense in general, and especially not in a heavily monitored article. It's not like the issues are a suprise to anyone who edits the article and it also isn't as if you really want random people walking in and "fixing" these problems without discussion. So the tags serve no real purpose other than to make arguments that are better made on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the tags is not to inform habitual editors but rather is to inform causal editors and readers that there is discussion ongoing and to encourage outside input. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a single tag which says "there is ongoing discussion about various issues related to this article, please visit the talk page to discuss" would be enough? I'm not sure every single possible problem needs it own tag here. I can make one if needed. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Article issues is supposed to work like that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but in this case I think just saying "issues are being discussed" is enough. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We should at least let the uninformed readers know at a glance what the issues being discussed are. Just telling them that there are issues being discussed and referring them to the mess that is the talkpage is not very helpful, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce BLP and SYN violations

Move all the "quotes" into the "quote=" field of the reference (if there isn't a reference which is a reliable source, delete the name immediately). There should probably also be an independent mainstream source that the statement or the scientist "opposes the mainstream scientfic assessment", as this strongly resembles a great example of WP:SYNTHESIS.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating earlier arguments, but this seems an evident problem. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a good way to avoid SYN problems. I'm not sure if this helps the BLP issues. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We can move them to quote= fields, but i fail to see what the difference is. In fact i would suggest that it would make verification and navigation harder. As for the SYN, i still disagree, see Stephans comment who's view lies close to mine. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I support moving them to the quote= fields. I'm not sure what it'll solve in terms of actual policy compliance, but it'll at least help avoid the {{Quotefarm}} tag. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How? It will still have the quote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on quote farms or anything, but I think it's generally not considered a quote farm if the quotes aren't in the body of the article, but instead in the citation. I don't really know. Mostly what I'm saying is that it'll look less like a quote farm, and that'll probably go far in keeping the tag off. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• The requirement that secondary sources must confirm that the scientist "opposes" is good. We should begin looking for secondary sources instead of primary. I'd also propose renaming the article to "climatologists" and restrict the list to those with expertise in climate study. It's silly to list people here who aren't from the field in question. (A cosmologist opposing evolution, for example, isn't important.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-climate scientists

I realize it's a major change, but I think it does significantly improve the article. It makes picking who to list much simpler, and it makes sense that listing nuclear physicists and astrophysicists is totally unneeded. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I applaud the idea, but I suggest that you should spend a bit more time on classifying people. Many of those you removed would qualify under a reasonable definition of "climate scientist". With only a cursory glance, Ball, Legates, Spencer, Svensmark, Aksofu, and de Freitas all have worked or work on climate issues. For several of the others a good case can be made. Climate is a multi-disciplinary issue - you cannot simply go by title or affiliation without looking into the bios or publications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, but as Stephan says you've gone too far. The most obvious error is Spencer William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c*2) I also agree with the idea, and will join the choir in stating that its gone too far. Abdusamatov,Happer,Schmitt,Segalstad are obvious removals (no papers about climate or related subjects), while Spencer,Svensmark,Shaviv,Veizer are obvious reinsertions (papers directly concerning climate). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I simply removed anyone who was not listed as climatologist, meteorologist, or atmospheric scientist. If there are others, it should be fine to put them back in, but they should probably have sourcing that shows them to be students of climate. Geologists, for example, need to be shown to have concentrated on climate. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with others that the idea is good, but recommend changing "climate scientists". Instead of "climate scientists", we should maybe say "individuals who work in X, X, or X field" and break it down to smaller bits. In this way, you can avoid the argument of some editors who've said that deciding who is and isn't a scientist may be problematic, and you'll have clearer inclusion criteria. Once that's done, it should be easier to determine whether the person is in X, X, or X field, rather than trying to figure out if they are a (harder to define) "climate scientist". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still willing to work to improve the article, but I've got to say, these decisions really feel like adding more WP:SYNTH...

Anyway, what field(s) would you recommend? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c again)Suggestion: Make it simple: Has written papers on climate change within a timeframe. Timeframe could be set to roughly 4-6 years (or some other reasonable period between assessment reports). Field can be problematic as climate studies are multidisciplinary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, but how is picking a time frame not going to be synthesis? Is there some source we can find to give us an idea of what "reasonable" is? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the time-difference between assessment reports + a bit. Seems to be reasonable. Between the TAR and the AR4 there is 6 years. That means that the paper would be relevant to the current consensus assessment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what fields would be directly relevant. I'm just attempting suggestions that would help avoid complaints (hence the X). Synthesis occurs when there are conclusions stated here that are not directly stated in the source. If the source says they work in field X, it's not synthesis. It is also acceptible to combine sources in appropriate ways. For example, "John Smith, a meterologist[1], said that 'global warming doesn't occur'[2]". Combining source [1] and [2] to make the sentence isn't synthesis because no new conclusion has been made (like in the other examples that are synthesis that I've stated on the talk page). Picking a time frame, likewise, isn't original research. It may have neutrality issues or whatever, but those would be different issues. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

However, doesn't that sentence have the implication: "John Smith has studied the issues in question in depth and is qualified to make this assessment"? Also, are you certain that picking a timeframe wouldn't be OR? If such a time frame doesn't exist in the material, how can we make it up here? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the "studying in depth and qualified" is the type of POV statement you avoid by simply listing their sourced credentials. We don't make those type of judgements. The time the statement itself was made is included in the source by publish date of the interview, paper, etc., so it's not OR. Whether or not the inclusion -time frame- is appropriate is a different issue. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Before anyone gets too excited the premise of removing "non-climate" scientists is flawed. Climate also depends upon astronomical cycles such as th Milankovitch cycles, its also a function of solar activity. So excluding certain disciplines is flawed. I would suggest today's bold change is reverted. Justin talk 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Milankovitch cycles are too slow to be of relevance in the current climate change. But as you can see we aren't talking about removing everyone but climate scientists... but instead those who haven't published papers on the subject (ie. have taken part in the scientific debate on climate change). But as many others i agree that todays removal was too broad. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that isn't entirely true, as several commentators in the debate point refer to astronomical influences on the earth's climate is of greater significance than any human influence. But that aside yes, the removal was too broad. My suggestion is to revert and identify who should be removed in talk. Any objections? Justin talk 11:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical influences - yes. But not Milankovitch cycles (otherwise the ice-ages would have been extremely much more severe (ie. climate sensitivity would be extremely high)). Svensmark, Shaviv, Veizer (and others?) are arguing that it could be cosmic rays flux (on clouds). I would say that inclusion discussion, instead of outright revert would be better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It can also be argued that including more non-climate scientists makes sense. If someone feels comfortable commenting on something outside their area of expertise, then the arguments supporting the theory must be fairly weak. Specifically, if lots of Nobel prize winners want to claim the theory is weak, then it probably is. When someone who's job is to collect and process lots of data has a problem with the way climate data is handled, then that should be included. It does not matter if the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is true or false, the fact that the "inner circle" of climate scientists have not been able to convince scientists outside that circle is an important part of the story. Q Science (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "an important part of the story", it's plain wrong, as painfully obvious from the large number of supporting statements by general science societies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, talk about jumping to conclusions. Dissent is an important part of the scientific process and part of the problem with the whole climate change debate is that there are many who approach it almost as a religion and scream heretic at anyone that dissents. They're not "wrong", they have a different opinion on the theory. Global Warming has not been proven as of yet and there is plenty of scientific debate about the IPCC and the so-called hockey stick. 13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)--Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk o contribs)

Please read again what I wrote. What is wrong is Q's claim that the "inner circle" of climate scientists have not been able to convince scientists outside that circle. And while that is unrelated to what I wrote above: yes, global warming (as in "it is getting warmer") has been proven beyond reasonable doubt - like any statement about physical reality it will never be proven in the strict mathematical sense, so that's a red herring. Even AGW has so much support that "it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IPCC conclusions are grounded in climate models, measurements and statistics. Immediately, since climate models are not built with trees, air or ocean water, one would expect that mathematicians or experts in modelling could also have something relevant to say here. But that's probably too much to expect from this circus which has more expensive entry tickets than the IPCC itself. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the working language is English, so linguists need to be considered. And artists because of all the pretty pictures! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And what about philosophers in case there are red herrings and other logical fallacies? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you guys, but you can't remove non-climate scientists without renaming the article to "list of climate scientists opposing..." The article is a list of scientists, therefore anyone who fits our definition of scientist qualifies. As a side note, if an astrophysicist says that solar variation causes AGW, I don't see how that person's opinion would be automatically dumped. Oren0 (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even BOLDER suggestion

Why not remove any scientist who has not been declared by a reliable third-party independent source as being a "scientist opposed to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"? Perusing the references provided, I see very few which rise to this level. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

...and burn the heretics while we're at it? Justin talk 17:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any purpose at all to your response. I am making a serious proposal. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're dead on, actually. 3rd party sources are far preferable. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A serious proposal? The article is now on its 5th deletion nomination, the vast majority of those urging delete on the basis that global warming is sacrosanct, now as the deletion attempt looks like it will fail its proposed to slash away removing the article by stealth. Forgive me if I raise a sceptical eyebrow. Justin talk 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? The reason that William M. Connolley voted keep at the afd is because he is opposed to the scientific consensus on global warming? Have you considered evaluating the actual words that are coming out of people's mouths, as opposed to trying to place them into neat little camps and decide which camp to join? Wait, strike that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And you should, like me, vote "delete" for this article, as it is a tool for the alarmist camp, twisted here and there so to create the illusion that opposition to the IPCC is limited to a few 30ish weirdos worldwide. You fall in their trap wasting your time fighting these ad hoc rules. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Hipocrite, generalisation is always an easy trap to fall in. I'm just waiting for someone to bring in Nazism. Regards, Justin talk 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} There is a lot of politicing and POV pushing going on in this discussion and surrounding this article and outward appearances are that almost none of it is in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. Controversial topics should be treated with a light touch and through consensus building, not 'holier than thou' attitudes. I would also like to remind all editors of WP:CIVIL Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I stated in the AfD, I think the concept of the article is fundamentally broken, so I don't know how much help I'd be in improving the article to be more encyclopedic : ) It's hard for me to think of any improvements that would matter when I truly believe (and I do) that the list isn't Wikipedia compatible in any way that resembles how it is currently put together. So to be civil and a nice guy, I'll just take a step back and lurk for awhile. Good luck and hopefully you guys can pull something decent out of it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. At this stage I don't see how the article can be 'fixed' anymore. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the AfD is over, and the article is staying, so we should work to improve the article. Let's try for a rework that is DYK or FA worthy, yea? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Begin reinsertion of some of these?

Here's a beginning User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LoS- to show climate research related papers for some of these. As said above, the removal was done too fast, and without sufficient knowledge about the persons removed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is thus something like this: For the purposes of this list, a scientist is defined as someone who within the last 6 years has published a peer-reviewed natural sciences paper on the subject of climate change. This limits us to people that have done relevant scientific studies within the timeframe of the mainstream scientific assessment. We can reference the paper to make verification easier. Suggestions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary and not necessarily relevant. I think it is more important to make sure that we have a reliable source which calls the person a "scientist who opposes mainstream assessment". Right now, our sources do not do that. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia