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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps kedit.svg Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 26, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
May 30, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
May 2, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept
October 22, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus
November 7, 2009 Deletion review Endorsed
October 9, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
October 29, 2011 Deletion review Overturned
February 1, 2012 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
February 2, 2012 Deletion review Overturned
February 8, 2012 Articles for deletion No consensus
December 30, 2013 Articles for deletion No consensus
January 7, 2014 Deletion review Endorsed

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017[edit]

CHANGE "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." TO "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 years 1971-2001."

Without this change, on a cursory reading one might think that the 2001 IPCC report is reporting temperatures long after it was issued. (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 DoneGood catch, IP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, the "last 50 years" is from a 2007 report. Keith McClary (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the next generation of scientists will not be offering opinions about the years 1971-2001 or 1951-2001. Will this list die a natural death? Keith McClary (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] "
This does not agree with the temperature changes or date ranges on the cited page.
Keith McClary (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I changed "next century" to 21st. I didn't fix "last 50 years" because it is part of a quote. We could avoid some of these date issues if we changed the title to "List of scientists who opposed the 2001 mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" (if that's what the article was about). It should be noted that the temperature projections were based on emission scenarios from 2001. Since we now know the actual emissions, what scientists thought about the scenarios is only of historical interest (and IMO not very relevant or notable). Keith McClary (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Moore's "peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences"[edit]

The first link is broken. I tracked down the paper "The Utah Controversy: A Case Study of Public Participation in Pollution Control". It is about policies, procedures and legalities. Would anyone call this a "natural science" paper? Keith McClary (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, and removed the entry. No objections to reinserting it but it'll need a new source. Banedon (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually on second thoughts the reference doesn't actually need to cite a paper published by Patrick Moore. I was unable to find any papers definitely published by him in a brief search on Web of Science (his name is very common), but from his article, he has a PhD in ecology as well as an honorary DSc from the University of North Carolina. That strongly implies he has published scientific papers before. I'm going to reinsert. Banedon (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No. The criterion is a published paper in the natural sciences. It is not a degree in the natural sciences, nor anything that "implies" a person likely published. I don't doubt at all that you're acting in good faith but we shouldn't set a precedent for users making their own arguments instead of sticking to the agreed criteria. Please self-revert until an actual paper is found. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but as I wrote, what I've seen makes me assume that he has published natural sciences papers before (until proven otherwise). If you want to challenge his inclusion, feel free to remove him - I will not revert you. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
His PhD thesis was "The Administration of Pollution Control in B.C., A Focus on the Mining Industry."
Keith McClary (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Title move/adjustment proposal[edit]

See other thread that tries to use formal process and templates. If you cast a NotVote here, please repeat in the other thread and apologies for the busywork.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Nota bene: Only individuals who have their own Wikipedia article may be included in the list."

Given this qualifier, shouldn't the title of this page be, "List of notable scientists..."? A slight change, but perhaps necessary so as to not insinuate these are the only academics who are skeptical of modern climate change theory in some form.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ClockC Update: No one replied for a long time now, so I went ahead and moved the title. Feel free to revert and respond here.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 18:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I moved it back. For one, "notable" is a Wikipedia term of art, which isn't necessarily the same as the meaning of the term in English. In addition, since this is a general requirement for lists of living people on Wikipedia, using "notable" here is misleading.
Please initiate a proper move discussion. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Guettarda. We shouldn't use WP terminology in article space. There are a lot of "notable" (in the non-WP sense) scientists who don't have their own articles. If we wanted to indicate that criteria in the title, we would have to name it something like [[List of scientists who have been extensively written about and-or interviewed by third party, independent outlets to the point that a biography could be written about them without consulting them who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] and while I would be tickled pink to see such a ridiculous title applied to this article, it really doesn't sound very encyclopedic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you look at that? The name's too long for a wikilink. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to crash the servers? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
My deep love of anarchy, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

List of scientists opposing the scientific consensus of global warming Largely because "consensus" is verifiable and specifically mentioned in reliable sources, whereas "mainstream scientific assessment" is a squishy thing that we seem to have come up with on our own. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Me likey NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I like NAEG's suggestion. (I like Boris's too, but I like the other one better.) Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Same here. "Opposing" suggests activism, but not all of those named here are actively doing PR or fabricating data for the denier think tanks. Some have just been asked a question and given the hoped-for answer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warmingList of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming – As Boris said in the informal thread "because "consensus" is verifiable and specifically mentioned in reliable sources, whereas "mainstream scientific assessment" is a squishy thing that we seem to have come up with on our own" and because in my view "disagreeing" is more natural and WP:Neutral than "opposing". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Please discuss under the "discussion" heading. Here, please just say yay or nay etc.

additional discussion commentarary, and replies from others, was moved to the "Discussion" section by me.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


What say you?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If nobody opposes this, I'm going to pick a fight. Not because it needs to be opposed, but because I will be frightened and confused at the complete lack of drama. I don't know how to deal with drama-free editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
O.o Be careful what you wish for! 2601:401:500:5D25:1CD6:24E7:D1A4:2979 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer List of scientists who deny the scientific consensus on global warming.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Deny" tends to be an emotionally charged term that implies objective truth, I don't like using it on this site for whatever side.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
A 98% scientific consensus is essentially objective truth. I am sure you can find 2% of scientists that disagree with almost everything about objective reality, but that doesn't make it "right". This is what you would call a crank (person).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The only situation where I would even consider the usage of "deny" is deniers of the Law of Gravity, which is as close as you can get to an empirical notion of objective truth. "Global warming" and even the "denial" of it is incredibly nuanced on both sides to the point of blurred semantics. For example, attributing ancillary factors to climate change such as lowered solar activity - while still accepting rising CO2 levels, etc. - can be categorized as "denial" when that is a dishonest blanket judgement. That is why the current proposed title is the best so far; it shows the reality that a range of a scientists with a range of nuanced beliefs disagree with the mainstream consensus as is currently presented.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω
What you consider is not relevant. What the reliable sources say is. And they call that "denial". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
There are far more instances logged of "skeptic" over "denial" in the sources cited, and [denial is very different from skepticism]( Furthermore, use of "denial" is a disservice and WP:UNDUE to the actual deniers per se instead of scientists who merely assign alternative interpretations and hypotheses to the mainstream theory. The hard reality here is we are tempted to assign an emotionally-charged term to a side on the defense. Skepticism is not denial.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The sources of this article primarily refer to these scientists as "skeptics" and "deniers", not people who "disagreed" with the consensus.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Disagreement is a suitable general term that covers several attitudes on this page, though. It's the same manner how the Thirty Years' War covers a long, fragmented series of conflicts and battles of countless factors with general themes that shifted over time instead of a single, cohesive "war" as we typically think of it. Whether I consider solar activity a factor in climate change, I think global cooling is in the future, or I outright claim there is no anthropogenic role, I am disagreeing with the mainstream assessment as it is. That is the crux of how a title should be utilized to cover all bases.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 18:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If I was a scientist who believed the Earth was flat, would it be appropriate to say that I "disagreed with the scientific consensus on the Earth's shape"? It would sound outright ridiculous - just as it sounds like that here. If, say, 75% of scientists believe it then there would be room for disagreement and uncertainty, but 98% of scientists believing something unequivocally generally means that it will happen.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
There are a negligible number of scientists who believe the Earth is flat; probably a non-zero number given the world population, but negligible nonetheless. These scientists in the article are still a significant number at ~2% aren't making insane statements not backed by any sort of logic. Like I said before, a lot of these scientists aren't disagreeing with climate change per se but are offering alternative interpretations, hypotheses, and analysis to the data. They aren't closing their ears and saying "la la la, that ice actually isn't melting", like a Flat Earth advocate would ignore that even a medieval peasant knew the Earth was round from looking at ships in the horizon. "Denying" is an emotionally-charged and undue blanket label that is completely unfair and biased. If you read the article, you will find arguments that are not only variegated but often quite nuanced and can't be covered by "denial".--Sıgehelmus (Talk) ω 20:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me you have both made your points. Before additional revolutions please consider WP:tl;dr 21:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The word who jumps out at me in the proposed title. List of scientists disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming follows the format of the original. We don't know what they actually think right now, but we have found recent quotes, evidence, of them actively disagreeing. Yes, the meaning is slightly different, and i think its important to keep the tone of the original title, as that was the one under which the list was originally compiled. --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless I have forgotten gradeschool, grammatically the term "disagreeing" is a present participle. But by definition even the most recent RS is a statement that occured in the past. A cite to something from yesterday is hypertechnically only verification that so and so "has disagreed". What's it all mean? Both "who disagree" and "disagreeing" are present tense expressions, and in this usage they both start an adjectival phrase, in which the meaning is unchanged either way. Seems like a matter of style preference to me and as a matter of style, in my opinion "who disagree" makes a more natural speaking title than "disagreeing". But I can go either way since this is a subjective style question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018[edit]

Please add Professor Richard Tol (former IPCC member) to: 1 Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Fails verification. The linked article does not say that Tol disputes the scientific consensus on global warming, only that he questions the data sources for the "97% of climate scientists" figure. Requesting inclusion on that basis is either a misreading or a misunderstanding of the opinion piece. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)