Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dr. Indur Goklany[edit]

Why has this prominent climate scientist been omitted? He is on record saying that proposed cures to Global Warming are worse than AGW itself. He says that while greening of the planet is unmistakable, the alleged bad effects are speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I added Goklany to the "few negative consequences" section. His case is well documented in that regard. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Graph[edit]

The graph in the lead-in paragraph is extremely misleading, as several of the categories overlap. This presents duplicated counts as if they were completely independent bodies, and makes the "pro/con" comparison look a great deal more overwhelming than it actually is.

I submit that the single most relevant category is "climate scientists", and this includes "climatologists"; "frequently published climate scientists"; "most published climate scientists"; etc. A single bar of this category on each side of the graph will give a more accurate representation of the true distribution of scientific opinion on the matter.

Editing appears to be broken on this article, else I would have made this correction myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Madhav Khandekar[edit]

The recent removal of "Madhav Khandekar, former Environment Canada government scientist, member of Friends of Science[26][27][28]" is a good illustration of the problem with the inclusion criteria. Strict adherence to these somewhat arbitrary criteria, without case-by-case judgement, is harmful to the article, and to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Here is a solid career climate scientist (Khandekar) who has well-developed critical views exactly relevant to the article, and, guess what?, he is excluded because he has no article about himself. Thus, content is excluded for no valid reason, for a technicality, in this case. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We do indeed have a problem with the inclusion criteria - our defn of "scientist" is ridiculously broad. You've happily taken advantage of that for your own purposes. But if you want to push this guy in, why not follow the brilliantly successful example of Y, and simply create an article for him? It worked sooo well last time William M. Connolley (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley, please follow the Wikipedia Talk Page directives: "Assume good faith" and "Avoid personal attacks". Your statement "You've happily taken advantage of that for your own purposes" is the opposite of following these directives: It is a personal attack and it assumes bad faith. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your "ridiculously broad inclusion criteria" statement, Mr. Connolley: On the one hand you are critical of considering that a person who has published an article in a scientific journal (and who likely has a PhD) is considered to be a scientist for this article, while on the other hand you refer to the "Y example" of the career scientist Woodstock who has an h-index of publication of a successful career scientist (and high citations of his top articles) and who was excluded for the different reason of an editing war related to the separate criterion of not having an article about himself. Khandekar is eminently suitable for this article, and that illustrates the problem with the selection criteria. I VOTE KEEP Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to pretend to be polite stop calling me Mr William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Propose Modified Inclusion Crierion[edit]

In light of the history of this article, I propose a partly modified inclusion criterion: REPLACE "one scientific-journal article AND his/her own article" WITH "(one scientific-journal article AND his/her own article) OR (is/was a career scientist)". By definition, a career scientist will have many professional publications. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of objectivity, please develop a Wikepedia entry that contains the COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES OF PEER REVIEWED CLIMATE EXPERTS (with their affiliations) who 1) agree global warming is manmade and 2)agree that left unaddressed is potentially dangerous to our planet. Also mention in the article the academies of science and scientific associations which support each position with a cross re2601:98B:4401:E7C0:852:9AC6:9C8D:15F4 (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)ference to the list of each entity's members.

Not up to date[edit]

The top text only mentions assessments of a long time ago. The last IPCC document is not the 3rd (2001) but the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014). The text should be modified accordingly, and the list should only mention people who oppose this report. (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)