Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 25

WP:BOLD edit, removed categorisation, resolving many POV & BLP problems

This conversation has been going nowhere, and as far as I can see, my proposal to remove the bogus categorisation is a constructive and necessary change to make this article credible, and not seriously distort by WP:SYN the views of just about every single scientist on this list. I note that I had the support of Cla68 in my original proposal, and I believe I have seriously improved the article in this change. It has the added advantage that all scientists are now in alphabetical order. See [1]. I don't expect it to remain unchallenged, of course, but I do intend to fight for this much improved version. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before, the answer was no William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No, we've been through this before, and I was supported by one, and opposed by one, and then lots of deletionists overwhelmed the discussion with totally unrelated arguments, then we went through another AfD, that went nowhere, and since then we've gone back to bickering and wasting time & bandwidth. Most of those who opposed me, opposed me because they really wanted the article deleted (which I do too).
Let's discuss this proposal seriously, because it is clearly a step in the direction of bringing the article into line with less SYN violations, less POV, more structure, and about 50 BLP violations removed in a single go. As far as I am aware, you have, yourself, refused to even make an argument for why you oppose me. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
And note further, surely, if you care about saving your time, my time, and everyone's time, that removing a major point of contention from all these arguments ("Which quote is MOST representative??? No, X belongs in section Y! No! That quote doesn't prove that he believes Z, and thus belongs in the section P") and so on. I am making a sensible, serious proposal, to save your time, and my time, and make the article better. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Support ... this article does not present the mainstream (IPCC) views from which the scientists are specifically opposed. This presents a serious BLP issues of potential libel. The specific IPCC positions in each category must be presented. It's that simple. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
ZP5, you may have missed the earlier arguments, but the biggest problem with this article, i.e. why we have a BLP violation for every single named scientist, is that just about every scientist fits into just about every category, and it is therefore distorting just about every single scientist's actual view on climate change. The whole categorisation scheme is fundamentally, perversely bogus and flawed. It's really, really bad, BLP wise, and if it doesn't get fixed shortly, or at least if I can't force some kind of serious dialogue with the senior climate change editors, I'm going to skip BLP/N and go straight to AN/I. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I here you Alex and I agree, moreover the title, the intro and the categories present these folks as being "opposed' and in conflict to the IPCC "scientific opinion" and yet the IPCC has not presented a comprehensive opinion on each categorical . This is called a strawman fallacy, and must be corrected. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I support what Alex is trying to do. Trying to squeeze these scientists into these different categories just doesn't work. The article should be called something like, "List of notable scientists' opinions which differ from the IPCC's statement on global warming" and then each notable scientist's opinions should be listed in alphabetical order. The list would not include just skeptics, but also scientists who believe that global warming is more severe than the IPCC says it is. I don't remember the previous conversation that I participated in. Was it a content RfC? Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I support this approach as well. As I mentioned earlier, we need a simpler and clear inclusion criteria. Any categorization within this list needs to be self-evident, or backed by secondary sources that make the categorization clear. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation does indeed need to be clear. But yet another attempt to strip them out doesn't look helpful; like I say, we've done this before. Your assertion that there is a BLP violation for every named scientist here is nonsense; if you believed it and it was true, you'd take it to BLP and return here with overwhelming support William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does categorisation need to be clear? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I was just agreeing with Ronz, above. You can disagree with him if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, with BLP issues, we don't need overwhelming support. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
With BLP issues, yes. But simply asserting that its a BLP issue, as AH does again and again asa bludgeon - no William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I believe the question is not, why does the categorisation need to be clear, as Cla68 asked, but why does there need to be categorisation in the first place? If the answer is not, "to demonstrate to the public that skeptics are hopelessly divided amongst themselves", tell us why we need to have categorisation here? Maybe, and I assume good faith, maybe the real reason is that we've all spent so many countless hours arguing about things related to the categorisation, e.g. who goes where, or "that quote doesn't meet criterion for that category", and so on, that to suddenly remove the categorisation is going to make us all feel even more that we wasted so much time. If so, that's fine; I understand. We did waste that time. But that's not a good reason to leave a system in place that will cause us to continue to waste time. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Mr. Connolley, answer my questions in your own words. Why do you feel that there needs to be categorisation and why does it need to be "clear"? Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
William, but can you answer the question, please? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Alex, the article deals with information that has the potential to damage a person's professional reputation. So we need to deal with it in a very delicate manner. Hence the stringent requirements for inclusion. The categories are important for precisely the same reason - to avoid lumping people who are a little outside the mainstream with people who are truly on the fringe. If we don't do that, then we'd fall afoul of BLP. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Guettarda, you have given an argument for why we should have strict inclusion criteria, but not why we should have categorisation. I agree that the inclusion criteria must exist, and they must be strictly enforced, and I don't even have any particular issue with the agreed upon criteria themselves. What is inappropriate, though, is to then present these inclusion criteria to the reader as if they were valid categorisations of the listed scientists' views. Basically, we are pretending to the reader that our inclusion criteria are actually the scientists' views. This is very misleading. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
OK in other words, you didn't read my reply? Guettarda (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, I misread you, sorry. It's still not a valid position, though. Saying that some of these categories are "truly on the fringe" whereas others are "a little outside the mainstream" is just factually wrong. I don't personally think any of them are "fringe" positions, but if they were, they'd all be equally fringe theories. But for the sake of argument, assume what you've said isn't wrong. Even then, it still doesn't go anywhere towards answering the real objection, viz. that nearly every scientist fits into nearly ever category. Lindzen, usually regarded as the most credible of skeptics, agrees that there has been no statistical warming since 1995. He maintains that the causes of warming are presently unknown, but he supposes that they're largely natural, and also questions whether warming & CO2 increase in any case would necessarily be bad. And as far as I can see, there are practically no exceptions, either. In nearly every case, the categorisation that's been applied is distorting the scientist's actual position. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
For a nice illustration of the absurdity of this scheme, I note the quote attributed to S. Fred Singer, "It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists." And yet, this quote is used to not categorise him as, "Believes global warming will not be significantly negative." You don't get too many Wikipedia climate change blunders that are as blatant, and as transparent to the lay person, as this one. So how could we fix this? Put half of Singer, say the "S. Fred" part in the first category, and then the "Singer" part in the other? Any one of our millions of readers can see, here, that the editors don't care a bit about misrepresenting Singer's view, because the editors frankly don't like him. Likewise, we can see that the Idso's are in their own special category, only because we really want to say, "They're industry funded", rather than anything to do with their views of the benefits of CO2. After all, a large part of the Idsos' work is to do with the MWP, and their belief that the cause of warming is natural. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
SOFIXIT, don't whinge. Of the two quotes there, one is indeed for the wrong section, as you say. The other is veeery hard to understand - does he mean natural or anthor there? But we all know Singer is a skeptic so he belongs in the list. You could try taking him out if you like, but I suspect your friends would complain William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsense (sorry). It either describes a lack of knowledge on what Singers opinions are, or an extreme focus on only the quotes. (Singers general motto is "Climate change is natural not man-made" (he even wrote a book)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so far no one, except Guettarda has really made an effort to state why they think the categories are appropriate for this article. So, it looks like the current consensus is to take away the categories. If no one else can give a good reason for keeping the categories, including why it doesn't cause BLP problems, I'm going to take them away, or support someone else taking them away. Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we've just had the same discussion not very long ago, which did get discussed in length (iirc you took part), i think the main reason is that people are simply tired of restating the same things again and again. I disagree with it, and i have stated my objections in the earlier thread. (as i guess have others - since the change didn't stick). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think an unorganized listdump is helpful to the reader. There should be some sort of organization, though it need not be the same as present. One possibility is to organize by academic specialization. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

SBHB, that's a good idea, and I have no particular problem with that approach. If there's more support, I'll do a reorder. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, could lead to similar problems. Perhaps break the article into climate related specialists, and those from outside of the field? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That there should be some kind of organization is a valid opinion. Perhaps by academic field would work. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It may not work, as there are so many academic fields, that it would become almost a "list of academic fields opposing the IPCC." That is, it'll be the field that gets written up in boldface, and it'll send the wrong message. I am not fundamentally opposed to it, though, but still think we should move to an uncategorised version until we can think of, agree upon, a good categorisation scheme. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have made a second WP:BOLD proposal, and have divided scientists into climate scientists & non-climate scientists. I do worry, still, that the labeling of scientists as "non climate scientists" is going to be viewed pejoratively, especially in the case of astronomers & physicists. My personal preference remains an uncategorised list, because I think it is safer, with respect to our most important guideline, WP:NPOV. If this is rejected, I'll return shortly with proposal #3, fully organised by discipline, which is also problematic, i.e. how fine grained are we going to get -- is Lindzen a meteorologist, a "climate scientist", an atmospheric physicist, or an atmospheric dynamicist? Basically, I think, going down this path inevitably leads us to a long list of single categories, sorted alphabetically, of individual scientific disciplines that have opposed the IPCC position. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to gain consensus first? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. Although, if I gained "consensus" first, and we, say, continued this discussion till January, 2011, that wouldn't really be WP:BOLD, would it? :-) So, anyhow, you restored the version with lots of SYN & BLP violations, so I now have to quote WP:BLP to you again, viz. The burden of evidence ... rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. You need to explain, why is it okay to have S. Fred Singer in the "natural processes" category, when the very given quote makes it abundantly clear that he belongs in the "global warming is cool" section as well. In other words, you need to explain why you're defending what is obviously WP:SYN, and very sloppy synthesis at that, in an article about living people. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but i'm getting rather tired of you wielding WP:BLP as if it was a hammer. Bold is fine, but major structural changes on articles where there are lots of editors, should be determined by gaining consensus first. As for why Singer is in the natural processes category, that has already been explained to you. It is a combination of looking at the quotes and determining the wider opinion that Singer expresses - or do you disagree that Singer's motto for a long time has been "Climate change is natural not man-made" (i just saw a interview about the CRU incident, and guess what - he ended it with that exact motto) - so where is the BLP violation? We are not doing this article in a void you know... there are actually articles on the individual scientists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you've made a go at explaining this, but your explanation doesn't seem to show any connection with or comprehension of the objection it was supposed to resolve. It's fine to give your opinion that Singer's most often connecting with the "natural processes" category, rather than the, "global warming is good for us", category. Making a conclusion not advanced by your source, whatever your opinion about Singer's view happens to be, is textbook WP:SYN. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Argh! If you want sources for the individual placement then ask for them - its not problematic (in most cases the articles quoted does do this). But these will only be references, since this is a navigational aid - not a discussion of what these scientists individual opinion is (that belongs on the bio's). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just gone through the quotes again - and each one does place them in the category. Of Singers two quotes the first one places him squarely in the natural causes category - and the second doesn't disagree (it is entirely possible to argue that global warming is natural and good). So the SYN argument fails as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have made the WP:BOLD, proposal #3, as promised. Now that I've done it, I like it better than I was expecting, so this is probably my first second preference, no categorisation at all still being my first (e.g. there will inevitably be discussions about, e.g. what kind of scientist is Fred Singer? Why did I put McKitrick as a mathematician rather than an econometrician, and so on, but I imagine these to be minor disputes that no one's going to get too heated about). Alex Harvey (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possible categorization is by number of scientific papers published, or whether the person has published a paper in the past (5, 10, 20) years. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on... in other words you mean, you propose to sort in order of "most credible" to "least credible", as adjudged by Wikipedia? That wouldn't be even vaguely BLP-problematic would it? Is that a serious proposal? I mean, who the hell is going to count all their publications, or keep the publication count up to date? You made proposal #3, it worked, it looked good, and now you have now reverted it, and proposed this instead? I am restoring BOLD#3 and I am going to keep it there unless someone else proposes a version that resolves the BLP issues. I have now rewritten the article three times, this last time based on your very own proposal, which certainly appeared to be made in good faith. If edit-warring begins, I am raising an AN/I. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Before lambasting others it might pay you to read what they have actually said. At no time did I endorse any of these alternatives. Instead I simply have pointed out alternative ways to organize the article. I have been trying to think of other ways the article could be organized, but presumably you would consider it an act of bad faith to mention them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the fine distinction between "proposing an idea" and "supporting the idea that I am hereby proposing". You're quite right, Dr. Brigade Harvester Boris. I didn't consider the possibility that you were proposing an idea that you actually were opposed to. I am happy that you have corrected me, and made me a better, and more intelligent person. Now, since you evidently are able to understand such fine-grained distinctions, would you mind, then, helping out Kim D. Petersen above, who can't see that there is absolutely no way, and no point, of making the argument that Singer belongs in the "natural processes" category, rather than the "GW is good" category, without making an appeal to a matter of opinion, and that this article, in its present state, is, therefore, irreducibly WP:SYN? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I guess that the reference given to Singer doesn't support that characterization? Have you checked? It seems to me that "The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle" (which is given as a reference) is one rather large and lengthy description of Singer's view that global warming is a natural process. Have you taken the time to actually read it - and to try to understand Singer's views? Do your homework! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that doesn't prove anything, at all, fails WP:V, and is another silent appeal to your opinion. You are trying to use the fact that this source exists, to advance a point of view, viz. that the totality of Singer's view is not, say, better characterised as, "believes the IPCC conclusions are questionable." Nothing in that book would prove what his view is not, which is unfortunately what is required here, by artifact of this absurd categorisation scheme. Singer quite clearly, also, believes that the IPCC projections are unreliable. Would he deny that some warming has been caused by CO2? No, of course he wouldn't. He also believes CO2 / warming might be good. See, Kyoto Testimony. Do my homework? No, you stopping doing textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
And how exactly does that reference fail WP:V? Its a book written by Singer, where the whole concept is that recent global warming is natural, and that the enhanced greenhouse is a minute component. That is what most of his arguments have been for the last 2-3 years. There is no synthesis - there is a direct reference that states this, We have no red flags waving that indicate that this might not be Singers opinion - in fact the opposite is the case - since Singer is using the motto "Climate change is natural not man-made". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
sigh! - Its rather impressive that you can't accept this - its no more than 11 days since i last heard him state that global warming is natural, and that humans aren't the cause (here (within the 1st minute)) - try to at least understand Singers views, instead of assuming or trying to mud the waters. Do also try to understand that if someone has the opinion that "global warming is natural" - then other opinions will be a subset of that (for instance that the IPCC is wrong, that the humans aren't the cause etc.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no list of scientists endorsing global warming. There is a list though that lists scientist societies endorsing global warming. Maybe the solution is to do something similar here? For example listing the US senate minority treport initiative that claims 700 scientists. This avoids categorisation and useless lists of hundreds of people or discussions about the quality of a scientist. There are a few other initiatives. The quality of these initiatives is outside of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucVC (talkcontribs) 14:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Inhofe list is an unreliable source. (several people on it aren't scientists (even by the wide margins of this list), and several aren't even sceptical). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a page about scientists disputing global warming theory? Not listing the initiatives to list them is very strange. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant. There are pages on wikipedia that strongly criticize these initiatives to which there should be a link each time. Allow me to quote from the scientific opinion on global warming wikipedia page. The Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 Survey “Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement”. That 36% of the meteorologists don’t belief global warming is the result of human involvement is an inconvenient truth held in this quote. The whole initiative to make a comprehensive list of scientists suggests there are just a few and as such is misleading. I don’t understand why it was made in the first place. It is for now a futile effort. This is why listing initiatives makes more sense. It avoids discussions as to who is a scientist and who fits where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucVC (talkcontribs) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

just a comment

I've not paid this article, or subject matter really, any attention for some time. While I do think some sort of article like this is encyclopedic, the 'scientist' folks whose views are represented here come across as really misguided. I don't know how to make the article better, but I will try to think on it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is caused by the present, perverse categorisation scheme, intended to tell the public that, none of these scientists agree with each other, which is of course, just false. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it is caused by the fact that their views really are misguided William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's your POV talking, which isn't really relevant to this article. People want to know which scientists oppose the AGW theory and why. That's all this article does. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. JettaMann (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Now Jettamann has to provide evidence for POV, et cetera.
I would rather see a sort of quality label to every scientist mentioned as in how relevaant they are in this field.Arakrys (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Further this page NEEDS to mention how many scientists in this field AGREE with the IPCC report. Or maybe something like the Robert list. Arakrys (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
@J: People want to know which scientists oppose the AGW theory and why. That's all this article does. Exactly. That's why I've supported this through several AFD's - can you say as much? @A: A list of scientists who agree would be far too long and of no use William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion from LucVC

Stephan contrary to you none of the Global Warming sceptics is doubting gravity ;-) But the girl is right. Some are gaming the system to the detriment of those seeking reliable info on wikipedia :-( Here are two more that have to be prevented from being listed. After all if you predict global cooling as a result of CO2 you are basically agreeing to inverted global warming. LucVC (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are joking, Mr. VC. "Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us. 'When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming,' Swanson said. 'Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive" Swanson and Tsonis are working on refining the mainstream opinion, they don't oppose it. And while it Discovery piece is none to clear, they are not predicting cooling for 30 years, but entertain the possibility that temperatures may flatline for a while. The pre-publication draft version of their paper is here, and the conclusion states "Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. [...] If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability."--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Like you I'll take some selective quotes from it but unlike you I wont add a word like "explosive" that upon search cannot be found in the document at all. Some quotes to balance your selective editing "This cooling, which appears unprecedented over the instrumental period, is suggestive of an internal shift of climate dynamical processes that as yet remain poorly understood. That such warming has not occurred suggests an internal reorganization of the climate system has offset this presumptive radiative imbalance, either via an anomalously large uptake of heat by the deep ocean or a direct offset of the greenhouse gas forcing by a shift in cloud forcing. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature.
Just like the economists about the current recession they are now able to come with a theory over the cooling when for years they predicted unabated Warming. Of course they'll try to keep it credible by fitting it in. What it tells me is that they have no Idea. It is why eminent scientists like a Dyson sound so intelligent. They have seen this happen before and know patience gets you to the great desillution in these warming theories. It will be fun sticking around hearing all these great scientist explain cooling ;-). Like you guys now have to fit people in the global warming crowd that explain Global Cooling. Would not have been true in 2001 I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucVC (talkcontribs) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"explosive", as the whole quote, is from the Discovery article here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful not to derail a discussion of one person by suddenly introducing another. can we have some discipline here, folks William M. Connolley (talk)

There doesn't appear to be an article on the history of global warming theory. If there was, the discussion over this year's severe winter in the northern hemisphere and lack of a significant warming trend over the past decade could be included there, as well, of course, inclusion of global warming theory supporter's explanations for it's happening like this. Both sides. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that a serious suggestion, or you just trying to wind up the scientifically literate? --TS 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Tsk, and I thought you were the polite one :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I can be blunt when taken by surprise. I would like to hear the answer, because it does sound like a ridiculous suggestion. --TS 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This section really doesn't provide much information on the history of the theory, concentrating mainly on public opinion and political aspects. The main Global warming article doesn't have any kind of history section detailing the origin and development of scientific theory on global warming, including the original hockey-stick graph and its impact, the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s, the development and declarations of the IPCC's assessment reports since 1990, the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil, an Inconvenient Truth and its impact, the current crises (no significant warming this decade, Climategate, etc.), the recent Copenhagen summit, etc. Instead, the Global warming article is a synthesis of the current, apparently generally accepted opinion on climate change. It seems that a history article would be entirely appropriate and necessary. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Methinks you're looking for History of climate change science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That's it. Thank you. I didn't see it linked in the main Global warming article, at least not linked to in a way that I could see easily. Back to the original discussion. The current debate of the last decade of no significant temperature increases and this year's severe winter probably should be included in that article. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"False Light" issues with Title and Lead

The article title presents a False Light issue for these BLPs because it places the reader to assume a direct dispute with the "mainstream" (IPCC) as "opposing" or in "conflict", when the BLP many not even be part of the "mainstream" (IPCC). Furthermore, there may be few if any specific and reliable sources to support "opposing" on in "conflict" statements by these BLPs. This could be simple original research on the part of the contributors here, and presents a manufactured POV which is in discord with WP:BLP.

In reading this article, it as just as reasonable to assume the BLP's are "ignoring" the IPCC, because, the specific "mainstream" (IPCC) views on the BLP views are absent. I suggest we find better words to attribute the these BLP's perspectives so as not to incite an opposing conflict where there is none. Perhaps, making a title that attributes what these BLPs actually represent will be better then trying to define their negative attributes with OR. This is a serious BLP issue, that must be addressed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This was the last time you suggested changing the title but your reasoning was different then. I think this was the last time for this particular debate. To avoid repeating the arguments I have linked to them here. Polargeo (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Put the temperature record in context

Went nowhere

I propose replacing this chart...

With with one or more of these charts from the same source:

Justification: The present chart lists only the last 40-50 years; a period which shows the global warming during that period without the context that showing data from a longer measurement period provides. You could give the reader an equally misleading picture showing slight global cooling by only showing the last 12 years. By showing the temperatures over a longer period, the reader can put the warming of the last 50 years and the cooling of the last 10 years in the context of long-term global temperature trends. Doing so would be more NPOV than showing only the last few years out of context.

On a related note, I suspect that POV issues led to the choice of

Instead of

From the same source. (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current graphs dont fit here. Another graph could be the one with global sea ice composed from satelite images by the university of Illenois. this is frequently used by global warming sceptics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucVC (talkcontribs) 11:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC), you say that the graph you link to as Satellite_Temperatures_png is "from the same source" as the graph you link to as Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png. But checking on I see that the former is from Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223, while the latter is only credited to "Robert A. Rohde", whose user page says he is the founder of that website and identified him as the Wikipedian known as User:Dragons flight. He says he has a Physics PhD.
How do you account for the discrepancy between the sourcing you claim and the sourcing as reported by the website? --TS 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This has been addressed before. The article is related to current global warming not climate change over thousands or millions of years. Many skeptics have been trying to put these graphs into this article for some time. This recent request should be ignored per previous extensive arguments in the archives of this talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo's observation brings to mind a related question. Why do any of these charts belong on this page? The article is not, in fact, about global warming; there's a separate article for that, and the existing chart already appears. This article is a "list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." Does the chart reinforce any of the stated opinions of those listed in its section? --DGaw (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This has also been discussed. I personally don't care that much for the figures but it was concluded in the last discussion that this is a very normal thing to do to have these general illustrations in several "featured lists" so this conversation is going over old ground. Polargeo (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I read further up on this page to review some of the past discussion you mentioned, and I'm not sure that this is "going over old ground," because it does not appear that the previous conversations ended in consensus. As near as I can tell, the conversation was left with two groups of editors each taking a position and rejecting the position of the other side. Or was there broad agreement somewhere in the page archives that I haven't found?
I did however see a post from Kim saying that "The graphs are there to illustrate the mainstream science on the categories." Since the scientists here disagree with that mainstream view, he is saying, in effect that the charts are included here not because they support or explain the views of the scientists listed here but, on the contrary, as an attempt to criticize or undermine those views. Really? That seems non-neutral on its face. Perhaps I'm misreading Kim's intentions. --DGaw (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No, neither to "criticize" nor to "undermine" the views - but to illustrate the mainstream. NPOV is not "equal time", where we try to present things as if they are equal. Neutral here means that when describing a minority position the majority position is presented as the prevalent view. (and reverse if the majority position is presented, significan minority positions must be presented). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One would think that you "illustrate the mainstream" you would illustrate something that the mainstream scientists believe and the skeptics do not. Instead you have a chart illustrating something that every single skeptic listed agrees with. The chart is a classic straw man; pretending that the scientists on the list are claiming something that they never claimed, (no warming in the period between 1980 and 2000) then putting in the chart to knock down the claim they never made. (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that neutrality in a controversial subject area means presenting both majority and significant minority views... but it also means presenting the views themselves neutrally, right? Looking at the climate change category, it appears the majority view is well represented; there are perhaps a dozen articles that explain that position in detail, are there not? Do those not "illustrate the mainstream"? I don't understand how inserting a few charts on this page, with no explanation in the text of why they are included, or how they contribute to the subject of the page, improves on that. --DGaw (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
NPOV is in effect on all articles. That means that each articles separately must uphold NPOV. You can't have 10 articles representing mainstream (and just mainstream) and 1 representing a minority position (and only the minority position) and state that this is NPOV - each has to adhere to NPOV as well. ie. NPOV is a policy about individual articles. I'm not certain (in fact i'm rather convinced of the opposite), that if you look over a whole spread of articles, that NPOV is upheld... The reason for this is simple, editors are human, and controversial or tough topics are the most interesting ones :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like your concerns may actually related more to WP:UNDUE than WP:NPOV, but I think we can agree that NPOV contemplates that to whatever extent minority perspectives appear, they should be fairly and neutrally, correct? My concern is that these charts, which as you say are included for the express purpose of "illustrating" a contrary viewpoint without explanation, fail that test of fairness. Perhaps those who wish them included could add some explanation to the text of the article for why they are present? --DGaw (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Last i checked undue was a central tenet of npov :-) NPOV does actually require that when we are presenting a minority viewpoint that we present the contrasting majority viewpoint with a clear indication of which is which. We are not in any way arguing the individual positions, which is presented without any editorial comment, as fair and neutral as we can. Each section has an illustration of data which sometimes illustrate the mainstream viewpoint - but in others simply the data. The first picture is for instance raw data presented from all datasets available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly neutral on the issue of their inclusion but am swaying toward Kim's argument particularly knowing the AfD attempts at this article, complaining that this is a forum for the views of skeptics. I would protest strongly against graphs showing climate change over millenia on this page. Polargeo (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm also neutral on including the charts, if doing so improves the article. The sense I get, though, is that they are more an artifact of the ongoing dispute within the global warming articles. As for the article being a forum for the opinions of skeptics... it looks to me to be exactly what it is. But why is that a problem? The goal of the project is to fairly and neutrally present the positions of both sides of a subject of significant geopolitical importance. It's not as if the views of the IPCC and those who support its conclusions are underrepresented.
Maybe I'll take a stab at tying them into the rest of the article. --DGaw (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, if only you were the judge of all the AfDs but it seems that many other editors judge on an NPOV and not overpresenting a minority viewpoint for this article and this article alone. In fact many editors have tried to argue that this is WP:Fringe so we have to be careful. Polargeo (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Climate change over millenia wouldn't make sense, since the opposition is to the view on current climate change. Going even further back with graphs over geological timeperiods are even more ridiculous. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with that as well, unless one of the views represented (I haven't looked) is along the "the earth has been much warmer than this before" variety. Then a longer term chart might make sense. I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say "even more ridiculous", though. More ridiculous than what? --DGaw (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous in a scientific sense. When you go to far back on the geological timescale, the Earth might as well be an alien planet.... with a dimmer Sun, different atmospheric composition, rather alien biosphere, different distribution of continents, etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
A moot point, since as I said, I'm not aware that any of the people quoted holds the position in question. As for "ridiculous", I was not judging the argument. Our job is to provide an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate description of all positions included in the article--even those others may consider ridiculous. If an opinion is a minority view, the article should say that as well. Our job is to describe disputes, not to engage in them, right? --DGaw (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct on the "describe disputes, not engage in them" - and we aren't doing. In fact one of the major objections in the last AfD was the lack of weight to the majority position. Ie. most of the article is presenting minority views, but we only present a short lede and the pictures as illustrations of the majority viewpoint. Which in my opinion is a good thing, since the list primarily is a navigational aid. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The game played here is first we call it Scientists opposing mainstream opinion and then we worry the whole time mainstream opinion is not adequately represented in order to marginalize the idiots that oppose mainstream even further. This is done through misinterpretation of the WP:NPOV. and the the lack of weight to the majority position. This prevents from actually displaying the position of these scientists in any objective way. To make a comparison. If the editors on this page were running the page on Muslim scholars they would first come to the conclusion that Muslim beliefs are a minority belief as most people belief something else. They would call he page Scholars opposing mainstream religious beliefs. Then they would argue the whole time if putting Muslim in the title would not give undue weight to the Muslim belief. Then they would proceed to give proportionate weight to these other beliefs by stating other religions beliefs first. Then they would put the image of a cross as more people are Christian on the Muslim scholar page in order not to give undue weight to this belief. They could not allow a picture of any Muslim symbol as it would mistakenly give the impression that Muslims are a majority belief. Unfortunately the Wikipedia page on Muslim Scholars is of a very mediocre quality and features only Muslim Scholars.
LucVC (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a basic flaw in the "include this chart to show the mainstream POV" argument.

The list is divided into the following five main subgroups:

1 Global warming is not occurring or has ceased

2 Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

3 Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

4 Cause of global warming is unknown

5 Global warming will not be significantly negative

Groups 2-5 are skeptical of other aspects of the mainstream POV that the chart does not address, and in the first group (the smallest group, BTW) the article lists these three opinions:

Warming from 1680 up to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to (2000?)

No ground-based warming since 1998

No warming from 2000 to 2008, methods used from 1850 to (1980? 2000?) ureliable.

Notice the total lack of any listed skeptics who say that there was no warming in the period between 1980 and 2000? So why is a chart included that illustrates an aspect of the mainstream POV that none of the scientists on the list disagree with? It's a straw man; the editor who included that chart and those who support him are acting as if the scientists on the list are claiming something that they never claimed, then putting in the chart to address that manufactured claim. You might as well put up an equation saying that 2+2=4 and call it a "mainstream view added to achieve a balanced POV." 2+2=4 is mainstream science, and, like the 1980-2000 warming, is something that few or none of the scientists on the list would disagree with. (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Global Warming True Believers who dominate this talk page will never agree to remove the image no matter how persuasive your arguments are. Global warming is heresy against their religion, and as such must be opposed at every opportunity. If that involves using strawman arguments, so be it. An image showing temperatures from just the last ten or twelve years would illustrate the skeptical position, and we can't have that, can we? An image showing temperatures from the last hundred years would also illustrate the skeptical position, so we can't have that either. Putting images supporting the skeptical side in pro-AGW articles? Can't have that either. No, we have to have an image with a starting year cherry-picked to show warming, and who cares if all the skeptics agree that there was warming during that period? The fix is in. Complaining about it is futile. (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Including the dead people

I understand the reasoning for not including those who have passed to the other side but it in the long term it makes this list very ephemeral. Over the next few years several high profile global warming skeptics will most likely die. As they die they will be removed from this list. Because we don't have a category (rightly so for BLP reasons) we then lose the main navigational aid to these individuals. I see that as short-termism. No need for psychics as long as the person has made their comments after the last IPCC report (2001 onward) then I propose they should remain on this list (This is stated clearly in the lede anyway). I am not overly worried about the title because all scientists here are included by their views at the time they stated them not necessarily what they may be doing at the moment. Polargeo (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with them staying on this list. I have no problem with a second list of dead people formerly on this list. Or even a subsection of this page for the dearly departed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay maybe we should consider a subsection then. I think it could be useful. Polargeo (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Without more support for this I feel that I should not go ahead. I do feel that because we lack a category something is needed as a navigational aid. If anyone has any further ideas of how this can be done within the present structure that would be good. My prefered option would be to keep them in the list but it seems like that has little support. Polargeo (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
How about starting by collating a list of dead folk who would be on. We've bumped [*] a few off, but I forget who. List them here, and if no-one objects to a separate section on the page for them, let us make it so. [*] Not in the mafia sense, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Good so if I accidentaly put a living one on the list then he won't get Kim or you chasing after him to club him over the head with a large hardcopy of the latest IPCC report to remedy the situation. Polargeo (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer much more tough measures :-) Anyways as for reviving the dead, i can't see the need/purpose of it... if there aren't any natural descendents of the sceptical view of the scientist, then for all purposes that view is dead, and belongs in the annals of history. Thus the navigational purpose would only be pathological (hmmm? correct word?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a current account of what living people are actively doing at the moment (if so many would probably drop from this list). Say a prominant member of this list who has opposed IPCC reports at a high political level dies then because we have no categories we end up with no register of them in either a list or a cat, we loose a search tool. To me this is unsatisfactory. What else is this list primarily for but as a navigational aid? Polargeo (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who have been removed from the list so far seem to be those exact people everyone agrees should be here (were they not dead)

So is it possible to list them in their own section? Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand this argument correctly, but are you proposing that if someone (say an AGW skeptic) dies then their comments are struck from this list? That seems kind of arbitrary. Newton and Galileo's theories aren't affected by their deaths, so why are we weeding out skeptical scientists (all scientists should be skeptical by the way) from here as they die? This seems very odd to me. JettaMann (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's create a section for them and see how complains. In fact, I'm going to do it now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. It looks like believing GW is due to natural processes is bad for you :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was a bit peeved when Augie was removed so quickly. rossnixon 01:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An astronaut who works as an adjunct professor of engineering physics is not a scientist

I removed the following from the article:

This person does not seem to fit the inclusion criteria as a scientist. At least, the citation does not support their inclusion as someone who has ever published a peer-reviewed paper.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he was the sole Apollo astronaut who was a scientist, he was a geologist and published back in the 70's about his work then. Your complaint is actually that he hasn't published recently. (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Schmitt HH, 1991, EVOLUTION OF THE MOON - APOLLO MODEL Source AMERICAN MINERALOGIST Volume 76 Issue 5-6 773-784. Is a geological paper about evolution of the moon.
  • Schmitt HH, 1975, EVOLUTION OF MOON - 1974 MODEL Source SPACE SCIENCE REVIEWS Volume 18 Issue 3 Pages: 259-279
  • More recently HH Schmitt A biomedical trip to the moon and beyond J. Clin. Pharmacol., Oct 1991; 31 928 - 930.
  • Reilly JF, Muehlberg WR, Dickerson PW, Schmitt HH, Young JW, 1998 Looking back at Earth, Source: GEOTIMES Volume: 43 Issue: 11 Pages: 14-20
  • Schmitt HH, 1994 EARTH AND MOON - ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM Source GEOTIMES Volume 39 Issue 12 Pages 5-5
  • Just throw in a conference proceedings as well Schmitt HH, et al. Solar-wind hydrogen at the lunar poles Source: SPACE 2000, PROCEEDINGS Pages 653-660 Published 2000.
These may not all be peer-reviewed but at least the first two certainly seem to be and some of the others show he has been dabling in natural science in citable academic journals. So does he qualify? I think based on the very loose criteria of this list, quite easily. Polargeo (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, these aren't peer-reviewed papers. The reviews in American Mineralogist and SSR were invited rather than reviewed. By our criteria (which seems very clear to me) he is not a scientist. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Invited reviews in journals are still generally peer reviewed and have to pass all of the usual journal criteria. Polargeo (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's debatable. Having written a few reviews, I can say that the oversight is usually minimal at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be splitting hairs here and our criteria of what makes a scientist appears to be subjective in interpretation. I'll go on record as saying I think the name should be included, based on what I'm seeing above. So, right now we have three votes for (including the IP) and one against. That appears to be consensus. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Based on the current criteria he should be included. Whether the current criteria are appropriate is a separate question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michaels retired?

Did Michaels formally retire, or did he just leave for another position? He seems unusually young to have retired. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at Patrick Michaels led to their source for the claim that he retired as state climatologist for Virginia in 2007: Local paper story. They state "Michaels, 57, negotiated a retirement package with UVa officials and will remain as a part-time research professor on leave, Zieman said." The story also states "Michaels said he withdrew as an expert witness for the auto industry in a high-profile Vermont federal court case rather than disclose his funding sources. He told the court in July that some of those who gave him money did so on the condition that their identities remained secret and he was dependent for his livelihood on the funding."
It also touches on the issue of past political controversies over renewal of state funding for the State Climatologist position. All in all, a reasonably good WP:RS. Birdbrainscan (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This List vs IPCC AR

Does anyone else find it silly that to be included on this list (which means ones disagrees with the IPCC Third Assessment Report) you must meet a subjective criteria including peer review requirements, but the IPCC Third Assessment Report used offhand comments/conjecture/opinion as sources? [2]] etc. (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see this is from Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability The references are used to show that the impact of a reduction in mountain ice is or can be a loss of ice climbs. It is mischief to suggest these references have been used to actually back up scientific evidence on the loss of ice. The scientific work on which the comments of scientists in this list is being compared with is from Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Polargeo (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
My point was that this wiki entry has a requirements that must be followed and is strictly enforced. The IPCC Assessment Reports have requirements that must be followed and they were not strictly enforced. (Wiki Article vs. IPCC AR?) (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You're a bit confused. The Torygraph story (which the blog just repeats, so it would have been better to link to the source [3]) is about AR4, not the TAR. Amusingly, the Torygraph quotes Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "oh dear I didn't do my job very well". Actually I made that last bit up, but not very much: he actually said it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been. , apparently failing to realise he was criticising himself :-). The ref'd section is [4], if anyone cares. Just to prove how hopelessly ignorant the TG write is, he includes the bizarre Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about the way the page is managed

I have been going through the entire archive of this page and have come to some disturbing conclusions.

Over time as more scientists came public with skeptical views of global warming rather then starting to list the initiatives to list them the criteria to belong to this list became more stringent

Apparently based on the archive to make it to the “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” as the title of this page misleadingly suggests today you have to be fulfilling the following requirements.

1) Be a scientist with peer reviewed articles
2) Fit in the arbitrary category system
3) Have done a recent (after 2001) scientific publication on global warming
4) Have published in English
5) Have made a specific anti global warming quote
6) Have made a recent anti global warming quote
7) Have a recent quote that fits in the category system
8) Have a Wikipedia page dedicated to you
9) Have an English Wikipedia page dedicated to you
10) Have not died even recently

Needless to say this is activism and not encyclopedic behavior. The intent of those dominating the editing process of this page is to prove that very few scientists contest global warming. That some editors are active Anthropogenic Global Warming bloggers I can perfectly understand. However that these same people want to dominate the page of people opposing their views is less understandable. Their dedication to their beliefs is recommendable but it does not make them very suitable to edit a page on their opponents views.
At this stage this page is not up to what could be reasonable encyclopedic standards.
I would kindly suggest again to start listing initiatives to list scientists rather then presenting a misleading list of scientists.

And Yes I know this has been discussed before.

LucVC (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, just for a laff I'll answer. 1) seems entirely reasonable. 2) is wrong - the cat scheme isn't at all arbitrary. 3) is wrong - these people need to have made a *statement* not published a paper (obviously, otherwise most of them would have to be dropped). 4) Wrong - where did you get that from (not that it is much of a restriction, nearly everyone does now). 5) Seems reasonable - how are we supposed to know they disagree unless they say so? 7) Just a repeat of 2. 8) They need to be notable, and we have no other measure. 9) Just a repeat of 8. In practice if they had a page at a reputable other-lang wiki we'd probably accept that, or an easier way of handling it would be to just create the en: page. 10) Certainly not before 2001, unless they have access to RS Ouija boards.
In summary, your complaints are likely to go nowhere. OTOH if you have suggestions for new scientists - with quotes, of course - to go on the list, then we'll listen William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me give you a quote from yourself "On: Climatologist Marcel Leroux, “Global Warming: a Scientific Fraud” (Fusion No. 95, March-April 2003)Leroux was Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and the director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment.
"The problem remains to categorise him. "There is no global climate" is possible, but will just make him look like a wacko. Also, its irritating to have redlinked people. How about you write an article on him *first* - that should, if its any good, contain his opinions based on his writings William M. Connolley 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)"
The contributor fulfilled your needless requirements (The list of IPCC scientists is full of redlinked scientists). Made an English wikipedia page even though a French page existed but Marcel Leroux still has not made it to the list.
The requirements are aimed at excluding scientists. Be honest if scientists sign up to a list of sceptical scientists to global warming that should qualify them for this list. The requirement for a quote is yet another needless barrier to make it to the list.
LucVC (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think you will find that Marcel Leroux was left in the list until this year when KDP removed him because he had died [5]. The thought is that scientists cannot do much opposing if they are dead (point 10 on your list). Although I think that was a little overenthusiastic and per WMC maybe he should be reinstated. Any thoughts? Polargeo (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Letting stiffs join the list opens up a can of worms that we need to nip in the bud before it can take wing. If we do that, there will be endless arguments about whether we should allow someone who died in the last [day | month | year | decade] and the like. Better to have a clear binary demarcation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay if that is the consensus. Although he was a legit person on the list having opposing viewpoints after 2001, now he is dead he is not legit. The IPCC publication could equally be used as a clear demarcation. The fact that it does not fit in with the title to have dead people is the only restriction I can see but in that case the title also does not fit with those who may have changed their views [6] :). Polargeo (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
[e/c]--and, of course, there's no reason for someone not to start a list of "Deceased scientists opposed to..." But I agree, let's keep to live ones here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok noted my point 10 stands LucVC (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on your 10 points, for what it's worth:

1. This isn't an unreasonable standard.
2. I believe we've had several RfCs on changing the format of this list. The list is still in the same format, so I guess that means the proposal failed to gain the 65% majority it needed. I would say that if there is a significant number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC, but haven't been listed here because their views don't fit these categories, then a separate list can be started for them under the appropriate title.
3. I would say that 2001 is too strict. Since 1990 seems fine to me.
4. Not acceptable. If anyone objects to a notable scientist just because they haven't communicated their opinions in English, pleast let me know. I can't believe that anyone would be arguing that only opinions in English are valid in this supposedly enlighted day and age.
5. Not necessary. Seems to be a tactic used to try to keep from listing scientists.
6. See above.
7. See #2.
8. This used to be a reasonable request (see here which requires all entries have their own WP article). The problem is, because of the failure to implement flagged revisions and concern about unchecked vandalism or malicious edits to BLPs which have caused real life problems for article subjects, the current community sentiment is that the creation of new BLPs should be discouraged. Therefore, I believe that this should not be a requirement until flagged revisions are implemented.
9. You have got to be kidding me. Who demanded this? If the article on the other language WP is unreferenced, I could understand it, but not because it's not in English.
10. This seems to be a reasonable. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
3: Why? Have you read the justification for 2001? 4: is a fantasy, as I've already said. 5: Not necessary. Seems to be a tactic used to try to keep from listing scientists. - err, how were you planning to tell that they disagreed? Mindreading? 8: flagged revisions - this isn't the place for your hobby horse. 9: I do. think about it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume you think 9 is reasonable because if an article exists in another language, then it should exist here. The problem, again, is the lack of flagged revisions. You say that it is "my hobby horse"? Well, why don't you look here to see how many people are asking for this. Flagged revisions would hopefully keep edits like this one from happening. Do you need me to explain why that edit was problemmatic? Anyway, as you point out, one of the problems with this list is trying to fit scientists into one of the three categories, which may explain your insistence for #5. Again, the list needs to do away with the categories and simply list the scientists in alphabetical order whose opinions differ from the IPCC's, including scientists, and there are some, who believe that warming will be more severe than the IPCC's predictions. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Number 5 has nothing to do with categorization - we can add more categories as needed. Number 5 allows us to include this person per BLP. We cannot simply inhofe people into the list without a clear indication that they belong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Cla, I'm struggling to understand you. You are really suggesting that people can be added to this list, even if they have said nothing whatsoever to suggest they disagree with GW? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I see William likes to use the Straw Man argument. Jwesley78 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to make a case against the whole setup of this page. I think in order to do so we should first agree on what matters in science. To use a rather large quote from Wikipedia “Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others."
People who attempt to falsify AGW theories should not be branded idiots or there should be no attempt to limit their number in order to prove consensus. Their challenges are more helpful to make climate science progress then the silent majority that just uncritically agrees.

According to Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 survey of scientists Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. Why these two groups specifically? Probably because economists who were claiming the impossibility of a 1930 style recession have been humiliated about their models. Meteorologists know there is far more unknown about weather than is known, as no one on earth can predict weather more than 7 days in advance. Climatology is in large part based on history. Like economics, the future cannot be predicted with accuracy based on the past. Nobody is trying to stop economists to make inconvenient theories or predictions and wildly diverging predictions are common in economy a science much older then climatology.
The American Meteorological Society has over 11,000 members. If instead of the 36% skeptics listed in the Survey only 10% of these are skeptical it means we are trying to list here around 1000 US people alone. To suggest that this page lists skeptical scientist with about 65 mentioned is highly misleading. This could easily be resolved unfortunately AGW activists active on this page would never allow the word notable.
Wikipedia is a democratic experiment, but this page excels in activism toward a totalitarian antiscientific AGW approach that most AGW scientist would not endorse. Suppressing skeptic arguments by posting AGW graphs, not allowing surveys to give an idea of the scale of skeptic scientists (a clear minority but not just 65) serves nobody. The standards for inclusion requied here are nowhere applied elsewhere. The whole IPCC list features over 500 red-linked scientists. The notable climate scientists list features scientists that are dead for over 180 years. It is a misconception that doubting AGW does not allow you to be an environmentalist as evidenced by (not good enough a scientist to feature on this page though). I am not adding Pal Brekke to this list to see if someone screams. Why would I contribute to what is essentially set up as a shame list? What is the use of a page with barely useful information with intent to shame rather then inform? Or is there really someone who has been active on this page for more then a year that believes only 4 scientists doubt the accuracy of the IPCC projections? Because that is what a first time reader would conclude. LucVC (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the numbers you are mentioning, such as the 64% of meteorolgists? If so, mention of that probably could be made in this article. Cla68 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The evil Cabal is hiding it (with an online reference) at Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Doran_and_Kendall_Zimmerman.2C_2009. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to attempt to refute the argument "if scientists sign up to a list of skeptical scientists to global warming that should qualify them for this list. The requirement for a quote is yet another needless barrier to make it to the list." (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the same page with you, LucVC. I've contributed to many Wikipedia pages over the years, and the process was generally reasonable. Strangely, if you are editing anything to do with AGW, you'll face accusations, attempted bans, and hear puzzling reasons why such and such fact can not and must not possibly appear on this page. With some editors there seems to be a mentality of "How can we add this fact to the page so it is positive towards AGW issue X". That's just not the purpose of Wikipedia. We're supposed to be proliferating information, not suppressing it. I'm not saying we should allow all kinds of dubious quality information in, but if it's relevant and well referenced, then hell yes. Let's not cut stuff because it doesn't fit with a certain world view. JettaMann (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
16 days and still no attempt to refute the above argument. This is another problem; when someone makes a good argument that doesn't support AGW, it just sits there unanswered until it gets stale and is archived, thus defeating the rule about discussing controversial edits before making them and the rule about getting consensus. The AGW believers follow the letter of the rules while violating the spirit of the rules at every turn. So what do we do to give the AGW pages the NPOV that most of Wikipedia has? A formal protest to a higher editing authority? (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
LucV has made some real proposals above, and the objections seem to be almost non-existent. If the arguments are loony-tunes and you get some consensus then you can post the changes. So do you see much opposition to LucV's proposal here? I don't. Make the changes and see what happens. JettaMann (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Now deceased section

This strikes me as ridiculous. If a scientist has died, then it *might* be noteworthy next to his name in the main list. However, to then remove scientists from the main list when they die and put them in a separate list is completely random and arbitrary. Newton and Galileo's words and ideas were just as meaningful before and after they died. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

...but then it's an absurd idea to put Newton onto "List of people opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of general relativity"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) However, if Newton or Galileo were alive today, I suspect they would both laugh at people who thought their theories were still accurate. It would not be appropriate to put Newton on a hypothetical list of scientists opposingspecial relativity, or to put Galileo on a list of scientists opposing 59 of Jupiter's moons, or scientists opposing Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Thus, the note and date of death is relevent. For instance, if a scientists was on this list but died in 1952, that would be highly relevent, no? Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if someone is trying to retrofit the opinions of a dead scientist either for or against AGW, then it would be wrong to include them in such a list. One of the defining criteria to appear in this list should be that the scientist was alive and publicly skeptical of the AGW theory while he was alive. However, the four scientists in the deceased section all passed away in 2007-2008 and were actively opposing AGW publicly, so this doesn't seem to apply here.JettaMann (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this ridiculous section. Since this list is meant to represent current views, it cannot possible include the views of dead people. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I will reinstate it until we gain consensus. Polargeo (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
At no point can we assess truely "current" views. Somehow imagining that we can do that on wikipedia is an illusion. Views expressed by those recently deceased are as relevant as those of people who expressed their views several years ago and happen to be still living. This is a navigational aid. Please note that those dead people have been put in a different section. I personally believe that it is far more useful to have them there for navigational purposes than to remove them and lose this utility. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing less than utter madness. I have never seen its like on Wikipedia before. Leaving aside the stupidity of having this kind of a list in the first place, the title of this silly article says "opposing", not "opposed". That alone is reason enough to exclude a section listing dead people. Had they lived, the opinions of these people might already have changed (for all we know). I find Stephan Schulz's argument compelling. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well hold on there a second Scjessey. While what you say is true that a list of dead people is utter madness, we don't want to remove the views these scientists expressed. Rather, their views should be listed along with the other scientists, but if you want you could put for example (deceased) or (1923-2007) next to their name. So to reiterate, the proper course is not to delete the list, but to migrate their views back into the main lists. JettaMann (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

S removed the section again; I've restored this. But I don't see how we can have a civil discussion of this matter while one person is accusing all else of "utter madness" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I support William the alarmist (wonders will never cease!). The views of the recently deceased are valid until there is a substantial change in 'the science'. rossnixon 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled with including the stiffs but think there should be time limits (say, someone who died no more than 5 years ago, or maybe up to 10). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
At present I assume that anyone who died more than nine years ago cannot be included anyway. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the crucial point being missed here is that when Galileo died his words and theories didn't go away. It strikes me as exceedingly random that people here want to strike someone's views on this issue because they happen to die. Science is made up of ideas, and those ideas aren't affected by the health of the scientist who uttered them. JettaMann (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, and you are drawing a distinction with the people on this list, whose views will indeed be forgotten very soon after their death? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, there doesn't seem to be any further objections to putting these four scientists back into the main lists (but keeping their birth-death dates in brackets to indicate they passed away). It seems like a good compromise so that Wikipedia readers know the scientist is deceased. If I don't hear any serious arguments against this, I'll put them back into the main lists. JettaMann (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Do not do this without consensus. I don't have a strong opinion personally but you do not have consensus. Polargeo (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I remain tremendously opposed to placing dead people back in the main lists. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Dead scientists should not appear in the main list, one reason is that they are unable to reevaluate their scientific viewpoint as they are dead (and a good scientist changes their opinions if presented with new evidence). Dead scientists are also no longer part of the scientific consensus, or minority position. They're dead. Their work can only be used to inform living scientists. Verbal chat 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Really. This is the first time I've heard this particular reason given, as though the scientist would of course change their mind on the issue if they were only still alive. So Newton is dead and can't reevaluate the things he said as a scientist and change his mind. Should we strike out everything he said from Wikipedia? You've heard the line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I can't for the life of me figure out why some editors here are so entrenched about this one rather unimportant issue. It is not a big issue, guys, to have these four scientists in the list of opposing scientists. All we need to do is put their death dates in there and voila, the Wikipedia reader now knows they are deceased. That's giving them all the information they need. JettaMann (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That exact reason was given directly above by myself and DS at 15:34-15:32, 14 January 2010. Including death-dates does not make it clear enough that those scientists are no longer opposing anything, because they are dead. Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If we were to put Newton's name in a list of scientists that endorsed classical physics rather than quantum mechanics then yes, I would complain about that too. JettaMann, please keep your rhetoric to yourself - it does not have a good effect. Verbal chat 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite, surely it *is* clear enough that when they see the death date it means the scientist is no longer actively skeptical of AGW theory. Don't you agree? This seems crazy that we are even discussing this. JettaMann (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@Polargeo: And that would be why I am putting this proposed compromise up for discussion. I said "If I don't hear any serious arguments..." I'm waiting to see what happens. You're kind of stating the obvious. JettaMann (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
And I will not deviate from stating the obvious while it needs to be stated :) Polargeo (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You were restating what I had already stated. No need to be redundant when it's already clear that I'm waiting to hear further arguments. JettaMann (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You stated that you would go ahead if you received no objections. I was quickly throwing in a reply to show that you didn't have consensus. This is now irrelevant because other objections have now come in but at the time it was completely relevent, this is pointless because it appears you are not going to get this into the main list so further discussion is a waste of time. Polargeo (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that many old reports claimed that "all scientists agree" or some other such nonsense. This list is necessary to counter that argument. Unfortunately, it appears that the editors here think that the number of scientists in this list will strengthen their point of view. Thus, one side wants to remove as many as possible, and the other wants to add as many as possible. That said, I view the immediate removing of someone simply because they have died as extreme point of view pushing. (That may not be the actual intent of the editor, but that is how many people see it.) Personally, I prefer leaving the entries where they were and adding the dates. Actually, adding birth dates for everyone in the list (when available) has the advantage of showing an age bias (or lack there of). Q Science (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Some good points. Polargeo (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with everything you just said. JettaMann (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
While it is clear that one side wants to remove as many as possible and the other wants to add as many as possible, the end result shows that the excluders have gone way too far. Are we really only able to find 22 scientists who think that Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes? 18 percent of scientists think that ( [ ], [ ]) and we can only find 22 of them? That fact alone tells me that we need to allow more names in. To do otherwise is to give the reader a false picture of reality. (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
They've made the criteria too arbitrary, such as insisting they must have published in an English speaking paper. That is totally arbitrary. Other languages have just as much validity as English. Also, I'm somewhat skeptical that a scientist must be defined by having a peer reviewed paper, especially in light of how the Climategate emails have shown how the peer review process can become so corrupted. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who have not had papers published and cited a minimum of 4 times. Furthermore why do they need to have their own Wikipedia page? If they have been quoted in a news source or legitimate record, that should be good enough to qualify their statement for this page. JettaMann (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

William Happer of Princeton

More than a year ago, I saw an article on Dr William Happer of Princeton University and his global warming denialism. Being then (and still) a 'believer', I went along to the main GW article at WP to see whether Happer was some kind of kook. I drew a blank and, when I asked at the TalkPage I got nothing but a brush-off. This list of scientists article also makes him sound like a lite-weight and I presumed I'd picked up some kind of bum rap. Imagine my surprise when I came across an article in the DailyPrincetonian written a few days after my first inquiry:

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow" he said in the statement. "Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken." ... Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. "I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics" Happer explained. "They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in."

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said. ... This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ ... This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ "

Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable "religious cult," noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.

I have a number of problems with these articles, but the major one is that I can't seem get any of the information I want. Not in the articles, not from any of the knowledgeable editors. In Jan 2009 William Happer explained why. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lomborg played the i-used-to-believe-but-am-not-sceptic-so-you-should-listen-to-me card, and it didn't work very well. You should stop playing it yourself, it convinces no-one. As to Happer, yes he is, as you put it, an denialist; yes he has no knowledge of climate but would like to make it seem as though he has, as your quote shows. But what was your point? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Concentrate on content not on editors. I find Happer's comments (he claims to have been in a position to make an actual comparison between regular scientific workers and CC researchers) rather intriguing and his "nobody understands or questions any of the science" may explain the AR4 errors, some of them truly schoolboy. I found that passage while searching for a good quote from him that would fairly represent his views (the present one is not bad, it's just not very good). But I was never sure if I'd be allowed to make any improvements. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Take your own advice. If you're going to say stuff like Being then (and still) a 'believer' don't be surprised if people comment unfavourably on it. If it is irrelevant (it is) then just leave it out William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Happer claims to have noticed the same thing about climate scientists I found so striking - a strange reluctance to be informative. Did you realise you moved him to be out of alphabetical sequence, putting his 'H' after 'L'? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume you would like to add some of the information in this article quoting Dr. Happer to the Wikipedia list? Please specify the text you want to add. Overall I think it would be a good addition to represent his views accurately but it's quite long, so it would be good to pare it down to something manageable. JettaMann (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of this list?

Is there consensus on why Wikipedia has this list? I think it's to show which scientists have opposed IPCC consensus in a professional capacity. Others seem to think it's to show which people who can legitimately be "called" scientists have spoken out against some aspect of climate change consensus. Deciding the purpose of this list will go a long way to solidifying inclusion criteria, debates, etc.

My fear is that this list is a direct response to the lists gathered by denialists in Project Steve-styles. I hope I'm wrong in this, and assume, actually that my fears are wrong.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's survived 3 AfDs. And I don't see the harm in producing reliable versions of what others have done, even if their motives are less pure than ours. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The survival of the page does not answer the question of what the goal of the page is. I don't think that anyone really answered in the AfDs what the point of the list was. That's what I'm genuinely curious about. Your question on my talk page is what piqued my interest in this question. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You'll probably get different answers depending on who you ask. My understanding is that this article provides a place where the contrarians can be heard, given that their views either are unpublished in peer-reviewed sources or are rejected by the scientific community. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
How is that different from a soapbox? I really, really hope that's not the rationale. In most other articles it is clear to me what the purpose of the article is. In this one, it's confusing. In part, I'm not sure that this list is comprehensive in the light of any inclusion criteria. Nor am I convinced that the list has a consistently applied standard with justification. But I'm not sure we can make a consistent standard for inclusion until we decide what the purpose of the list is. It reminds me very much of list of pseudosciences. Only after we decided that Wikipedia needed a list of topics and subjects that were called pseudoscientific or a synonym by reliable sources were we able to create a list that is, in my mind, at least justifiable. Before then, the inclusion criteria actually attempted to solve the demarcation problem and proposed that "skeptical organizations" were less reliable than "scientific organizations" (as though one could determine which was which solely by reading about them). The parallels between that dispute and this one are becoming more unmistakable to me as we continue discussions here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's one of the finest lists on Wikipedia. They are called scientists because that's what they are (no argument can deprive them of this title, sorry...), while the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one (the IPCC comissions scientific reports for payment, it does not make any scientific research). It's all part of the global warming controversy and having this list on a separate article is much better than having it in the controversy article itself (would make it too long). This article also sheds light on the different types of opinions, thus there are different types of scientific opposers. But ScienceApologist, if you really want to know all the arguments, just go and read the AfD archives, all the explanations are there. John Hyams (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, not all the explanations are compatible with each other, so we should come up with a consistent narrative to forestall future fights and begin to come up with a set of consistent inclusion criteria. If you haven't noticed, we don't have that yet. As to the canard that this is one of the finest lists on Wikipedia, I have to wonder why it's not featured then. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"the IPCC comissions scientific reports for payment." Gee, still haven't gotten my check. Where should I complain? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
@Short Brigade (previous post) You mentioned that they aren't peer reviewed or were rejected, and that they are merely contrarians. This is outright wrong. The criteria for this list is very strict (too strict in fact). There are reasonable restrictions, like they must be published in a peer reviewed paper. Just wanted to clarify this misconception. For the record I think this is a great one-stop list to see what the skeptics have to say. JettaMann (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that rationale for the list was explained several times during the last AfD, and at least 5 times just afterwards. It is a navigation list to minority/fringe viewpoints on global warming. That has interest for several reasons, some sceptical ones, and some non-sceptical ones. Whether your interest be in the "next paradigm shift" or in "pathological science" (to name to outliers). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if that truly is the rationale, then we shouldn't be restricting this list to scientists. We should include everyone we can verify who is a global warming denialist. List of global warming denialists would be an appropriate move. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope. We do strive for relevant opinions, not for the opinion of Randy in Boise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What makes an opinion relevant? Why do/should we care about someone's opinion in Boise only if they've published in a science journal? I'm genuinely curious because the "relevant" part didn't make it into your rationale three posts up. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. If these are "fringe" opinions anyway, then having the support of "real scientists" doesn't do anything for their notability. On the other hand, if they're important skeptical opinions, then they should be properly documented. I'm always afraid an article entitled, say, Monckton's GW skepticism, would start to look informative. Might even get lots of visitors who'd Googled "Monckton Global Warming". I'm not sure if we can do that. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Last time I looked this was a "List of scientists ..." If you wish to create a "List of people from Idaho ..." then Randy might just make it. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also they are not fringe opinions. Certainly not in the wikipedia sense of fringe anyway. Polargeo (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
All of the opinions documented on this page are fringe opinions by definition. You might want to take a closer look at WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have taken a very very good look at fringe. Minority does not in any way equal fringe. WP:FRINGE was in my opinion never intended to deal with this kind of article and invoking that guideline here is counterproductive. Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You are simply wrong here. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." That's unequivocal. Since these people all depart signficantly from the prevailing mainstream view as outlined by the IPCC, coverage of those ideas must conform to the rules outlined at WP:FRINGE. This is essentially non-negotiable. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I think whoever "we" may be have as usual misinterpreted the initial spirit of a wikipedia guideline. Placing anyone with a minority viewpoint or a view that departs in any significant way (scientifically defined as significant) from a mainstream view as "fringe" is counterproductive and not what WP:FRINGE was initially intended to address. I see you have done quite a lot of editing on WP:FRINGE therefore I am even more inclined to be worried about its direction. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To some extent SA is right. Most (but not all) of those listed are in the WP:FRINGE category. It would be rather farfetched to categorize Lindzen (for example) as fringe. Although he sometimes (in his public persona) does skirt the fringes... his scientific aspect is well within the minority views though. Which btw. also is one reason to tighten up on the "who is a scientist per the list" aspect, since there has been an increase of the F's as opposed to the M's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Kim, I would be really happy if that was the direction we went with. However, I think that the inclusion criteria and the name of the list might warrant changing then. For example, List of climate scientists opposed to aspects of the IPCC consensus might be a very useful list (and much cleaner than this mess). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason this list doesn't have a section for scientists who consider that the consensus as reflected in the IPCC report significantly understates the degree to which global warming is occurring and is projected to increase? . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    We discussed this before and the consensus was that if people could generate the quotes, then they should be included. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes correct. Also there happens to be no other list or category on wikipedia doing the job that this very well sourced list does. Therefore destroy it and it will not be possible to stop it being replaced by something much much worse. Sometimes I view the people who wish to close this list down as akin to the official who wanted to shut down the storage facility in the Ghostbusters :). Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I promise you, Polargeo, I'm not trying to shut down the list. But remember, the person trying to shut down the ghostbuster storage facility was an environmentalist and did have a point, though her execution was improper. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the very premise of this list violates No Original Research. The article claims to define "the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" in 3 'principles'. (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, then the Original Research goes on to synthesize how these folks "oppose" the 3 principles, which then create a harmful BLP issue, that has little if any source support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)
We have discussed the IPCC statements in this article before. Naturally we summarize on wikipedia. But this summary involves no original research. If you simply take the main bullet points from IPCC WG1 'The scientific basis' and only those directly related to global warming (what this list is about) those points are what is left. No original research is needed. They are an extremely tight summary of the IPCCs main conclusions on global warming. Polargeo (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Double Standards for how Revert Material is put on hold

There's an obvious double standard that is occurring in these AGW pages that goes something like this: An editor (let's say a pro-AGW editor) will make a change to the article, then someone will dispute the change and revert it for discussion. BUT the pro-AGW editor will unrevert and say "lets discuss it before reverting my change." For example, the list of deceased scientists. It's very controversial and under discussion, yet it's allowed to remain out there on the live page for some inexplicable reason.
Contrast this with changes made by other editors (let's say AGW skeptics) and what happens is that the change is immediately reverted and we are told to discuss and seek consensus before it can be added. So the change for some reason isn't allowed on the live page while discussions occur.
So my question is, why are pro-AGW changes allowed to stay on the live pages during discussion, while AGW-skeptical changes are removed immediately? Let's be consistent about how this process occurs. Either all changes must be reverted, or all changes must be in the live page until discussion comes to a close. JettaMann (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is, you're wrong about the "pro-AGW" bias as you put it. [7] for example William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with WMC. This is a very poorly supported argument here. Firstly I would not define myself as either pro or anti AGW. I have both agreed with you and disagreed with you before. Also the deceased section is both supported and opposed by editors with a whole variety of views and so completely fails to fit this argument whatsoever. One editor who has shown a dislike of including deceased scientists is KDP and I hardly think you would class him as an AGW skeptic. Therefore trying to turn this into some pro-skeptic battle is misguided, particularly on this article. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There is rampant OWNERSHIP and other non-policy behaviour with POV under-tones going on but it's not actually specific to these articles, so I'm forced to remove JettaMann's well-intentioned adding of it to the list here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to interject here: My comment above has NOTHING TO DO with pro or anti AGW people. There are all kinds of people here with all kinds of views and that won't change. What I am saying is this: let's treat changes under discussion in a consistent manner. No matter if the person is pro or anti AGW theory, if something is under discussion it should either be: a) Removed until discussion is done b) allowed to remain in the article until discussion is done. So pick either a) or b) and lets be consistent here. Right now we seem to be favoring one side unfairly. JettaMann (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interjecting again - as this is (mostly) about living persons, in the event of anything about a living person being reasonably challenged, out is the only acceptable response. It's more important to get it right than to get it now, so if someone has a problem with any person in the article, or where in the article they are, or the language to a substantial degree, remove the person from the article and figure it out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hipocrite ... out is best here. However the initial point may require consideration with diff analysis in another forum. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with controversial statements about living people being removed until verified with reliable sources, that is completely sensible but that does not mean we should have some special rule for this article that makes it different from all other articles in that anything under discussion should not be in the article. You cannot make up a new wikipedia rule and apply it to a single article. If this was to be applied in the extreme the whole article would have to be removed permanently :)!!! Polargeo (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well in this case what was under discussion was whether the dead scientists should be moved to a separate list. Before they were in the regular list. Since the discussion is about whether they belong in a separate list or not, the default action is to move them back into the main lists until this discussion is complete. In other words, these people were all in the main lists. Suddenly someone wanted to highlight the fact they are dead. Fine, we can discuss that. But keep them in the main lists until this issue is resolved. JettaMann (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It had been resolved many months ago not to have them in the main list though. I personally would support them being in the main list but I am happy for them to be in a sub-section. I think it is of benefit to have them included one way or the other for reasons that I have outlined previously. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of what you say, but the problem is that we lose the category that they belong to by moving them to a single "Dead People" list. We no longer get to see which aspect of AGW theory they are skeptical of. So in my opinion it is best to leave them with the rest of their colleagues in the categorized lists, but right after their name we place (1910 - 2008). This is very clear to readers which skeptic group they belong to and also that they have passed away. Also, not to contradict you, but I was here discussing this issue before it was resolved and then someone suddenly created the dead people list, and this change was allowed to remain while it was being discussed. That's the double standard I'm talking about. JettaMann (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed views opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?

I have added a sentence to the end of the lede that makes it clear that, although all scientists here have published something in the peer-reviewed press, it was probably not their views opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I think this is an important point and it took me few minutes to work out what was what without it being made explicit up front. If anyone would like to go through the 60 (non-IPCC) refs at the end regarding 'majority', I'd be happy to help. On a cursory view I see 'Ottawa Citizen', 'Canada Free Press', 'Wall Street Journal', Letter to the editor 'The Hill Times', 'Christian Science Monitor', 'CATO Institute', 'National Post' etc - clearly not a preponderance of peer-reviewed literature. Given this, I think that all the bases of the article should be clearer, as they are now. --Nigelj (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Misc additions proposed by LucVC


No papers
Can anyone tell me why Wolfgang Thüne is not on this list? If you write a book "Acquittal for CO2" you can hardly not be considered a sceptic. LucVC (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, for one because, afaik, no-one has proposed him yet. That said, he was a TV weatherman, he is not particularly notable (although there is de:Wolfgang Thüne (Meteorologe), his doctorate is in Sociology (note that a D. Phil. in Germany is a social science degree only, unlike a Ph.D. in the US) and from a diploma mill, and I could not find any sign that he has published a peer-reviewed paper in the natural sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually he was semi proposed and you reviewed him last time too :-P (I came across him when looking for the alleged English requirement below) Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Can anyone tell me why Dr. Pål Brekke of Norway is not on this list? Pål_Brekke By his own admission he is a climate change sceptic. A quote from him: ""It's possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." That he's a sceptic I get from the tiltle of the article that is online at the website of the Research Council of Norway (funded by the Norwegian Government). I noticed sometimes it does not load. Just type Brekke in the search of the website it is the first article. LucVC (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you should add him and see who screams William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone have an objection to Wolfgang Knorr. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol ?. He published a study that CO2 airborne levels have not risen in the past 150 years. It is a bit difficult for me to see this as an endorsement for the IPCC. LucVC (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Object: redlink William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Moreover, he has not written what Luc claimed. He has written that there is no sign yet that the airborne fraction of CO2 has increased - which is exactly what the IPCC AR4 says. There is a difference between the airborne fraction and the level of CO2 (which has risen from about 280 ppm to about 380 ppm). This is fairly obvious for anybody with marginal scientific literacy - I wonder why so many sceptics get it wrong... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Robust findings
  • • A potential slowing down of the ocean circulation and the decrease of seawater buffering with rising CO2 concentration will suppress oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2.
  • However, all models produce an increase in the fraction of total emissions that remain in the atmosphere, and most also indicate a decline in the fraction of emissions absorbed by the ocean (9 out of 11 models) and the land (10 out of 11 models).In the case of the oceanic uptake, this is largely a consequence of the reduced buffering capacity as CO2 increases, and therefore also occurs in the uncoupled C4MIP models.
  • Dependence of ocean carbon uptake on climate.
  • All models indicate a reduction in the ocean carbon sink by climate change of between –14 and –60 GtC °C–1, implying a positive climate-CO2 feedback.
  • 7.6 Concluding remarks
  • The reduction in surface carbon uptake expected in future climate should produce an additional increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration and therefore enhance climate forcing.
His measurements are in contradiction with the models even 10% into the 21st century. True he makes no predictions. Why should he? He just proves the inacuracy of the IPCC models used.
Shifting of goal posts has bee noted. Even so, "The relationship between increases in atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios and emissions has been tracked using a scaling factor known as the apparent ‘airborne fraction’, defined as the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to the CO2 emissions from annual fossil fuel and cement manufacture combined (Keeling et al., 1995). On decadal scales, this fraction has averaged about 60% since the 1950s. Assuming emissions of 7 GtC yr–1 and an airborne fraction remaining at about 60%, Hansen and Sato (2004) predicted that the underlying long-term global atmospheric CO2 growth rate will be about 1.9 ppm yr–1, a value consistent with observations over the 1995 to 2005 decade." IPCC AR4, WG1 Chapter 2 page 139 [8], from 2007. And in the summary to chapter 7: "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate as a fraction of fossil fuel plus cement emissions since routine atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period" [9] (emphasis in both quotes mine). You are talking about developments expected for the future - and, btw, by your hero Knorr in his own words: "Almost half of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere, and that's enough to cause global warming, and also, the research is only on the past. So we are pushing the system to a limit and it might, at a certain stage break, as the models suggest, but it hasn't happened yet. I wouldn't experiment with the climate system." [10] And if you listen on, you will hear him say that there is no other way than to implement strict limits on CO2 emissions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
He's not my hero and dont you worry I read his personal remarks too. LucVC (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Von S

Not a sketpic nor a sceptic/skeptic
Does anyone object to Hans Von Storch? Hans_von_Storch Yes he believes in global warming. But nothing can be done about it anyway. We cannot predict it reliably. But when it happens it will be great for German coastal tourism as evidenced by this interview,1518,472200,00.html His message is get used to it, rather then fight it.
LucVC (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i certainly object to Hans von Storch. He is not a sceptic (in any way or form), nor is his arguments sceptical. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone agrees that global warming is occuring, but not that it is harmful, then they are disagreeing with tenet #3 of the Third Assessment Report. So, if Mr. Von Storch believes that global warming is not harmful, then I agree that he should be listed on this page. Cla68 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Except of course that he doesn't disagree with tenet #3 (adaptation is not free), but if you want more information on von Storch's views - he has a lot of text on his homepage (as well as a climate-blog). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The third tenet states, "On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming." von Storch states in the interview linked to above (which is English), "Detailed forecasts are not possible, because we don't know how emissions will in fact develop. We climate researchers can only offer possible scenarios. In other words, things could end up being completely different. But there are undoubtedly parts of the world that will benefit on balance from climate change. Those areas tend to be in the north, where it has been cold and uncomfortable in the past. But it's considered practically heretical to even raise such issues." Seems clear to me, he should be included. So, we have two for, one against. Why don't we see if anyone else weighs in over the next day or two? If nothing changes, we have consensus (66%) to add the name. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think those views actually go as far as contradicting the IPCC report. At no point does he say anything that can be construed as the effects of global warming will not on balance be negative. Also for BLP reasons it does not matter how many people you can find to !vote if we haven't got clear statements directly contradicting the IPCC then they should not be on the list. Polargeo (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The statement is in reply to the question "Are there only negative consequences when the temperature increases by two or three degrees on the planet?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@Cla: the only thing in Von S's statement that is at all controversial is But it's considered practically heretical to even raise such issues.. All the rest is commonplace. For example, I could agree with all of the rest of Von S's statement (though I'd qualify that Those areas tend to be in the north, where it has been cold and uncomfortable in the past is rather broad-brush and ignores some negative impacts; but it can be defended in terms of its overall meaning) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson

My addition of Freeman Dyson was reverted and I am puzzled why. There is no doubt that he is a "scientist opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", to quote the article title. As just one example, the rather famous New York Times article here says "Dyson is well aware that “most consider me wrong about global warming.”" If a majority says you're wrong, then you are, by definition, opposing the mainstream scientific assessment. Is there some sort of ideological hocus pocus going on here? This is crazy ! Alice Lyddel (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I opened a content RfC on including Dyson on the list a few months ago (I agree he should be included), but the response did not establish consensus to add his name. There have since been new editors participating in this article, but I don't know if it's worth another RfC or not. If you do open one, you can count on me to be one supporting inclusion. Cla68 (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll do that. What is an RfC??
In reading the previous discussion, it seems that some editors have placed such strong strictures around their definition that only a few of the skeptics can make it on the list. That NY Times article is entitled "the Civil Heretic", after all. The article also says: "Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow". To any sort of (wo)man-on-the-street this puts him down as "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming".
And what's this about having to have a quote, presumably in some notable source? Are there other Wikipedia articles that require quotes to establish membership in some list?
I may be new to all this, but it seems to me that someone is trying to game the system. Alice Lyddel (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This is WP:BLP relevant. We don't need "a quote", we need a clear statement that establishes opposition to at least one of the core tenets of the mainstream. It must be reliable, but not in itself notable - a SPS or a letter is sufficient, if there is no doubt about its authenticity. Dyson is an example of the diffculty - he opposes the caricatured version of the mainstream promulgated by parts of the popular press, but he has not actually said anything in significant disagreement with the IPCC. We did discuss, at one point, having a section for self-declared skeptics. But one problem with that is that every scientist is a skeptic by profession, so the term is not well-defined. I suspect we will, in the future, modify general relativity, but I don't nail myself to the floor to avoid being flung into space when gravity fails - am I a "gravity skeptic"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that clear and calm rationale. It makes sense.
I was puzzled because both the NY Times and Maclean's, two of the most respected periodicals here in North America, both refer to Dyson as a skeptic. You can't get more Reputable Source than that I'd think. Let me research this further.
Thanks again, Stephan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Lyddel (talkcontribs) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
To help Alice from a personal piece he wrote. the second line "Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models." This quote attacks the foundation of what the IPCC is all about as it basically says all climate models are unreliable. "There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global." LucVC (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Like I said before, I think it's clear that his name should be included. Cla68 (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can come up with a clear unambiguous quote, then he should be included. But that is exactly the trouble... while Dyson states that he is a heretic, he doesn't actually state any major disagreement with the basics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What part of a personal article is not quotable? What about "There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global." is unclear or does not fit into the category: There is no global warming. LucVC (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There are several categories Freeman Dyson can fit into. The obvious one is that he disagrees with the IPCC predictions. The other one is that he doesn't think the effects are a big deal and are exaggerated:
"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans." [2] JettaMann (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems resolved that Dyson belongs in this list. If someone objects, state the reason otherwise we'll add him. JettaMann (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Green & Armstrong

We (Green and Armstrong 2007a) used these scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the procedures used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to derive their scenarios. We found that they violated 72 out of the 89 principles that were relevant to the situation Overall, the IPCC forecast errors were 7.7 times larger than those from the no-change model. The longer the forecast horizon, the worse was the relative accuracy of the IPCC forecasts. The dangerous manmade global warming alarmist movement will ultimately fail, but we can look forward to other such phenomena in the future. Many people will be ready to expound on and believe in forecasts of new disasters. LucVC (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they have any peer-reviewed natural science papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please when you are suggesting these do the following: Provide a citation of a PR paper in natural sciences, as well as provide a clear quote that unambigously disagrees with one of the 3 criteria (and point out which criteria it is?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No because I dont accept the definition of a scientist by --Kim D. Petersen & --William M. Connolley. Check it out and let me know if you do better ;-). This guy is an authorithy on forecasting. He reviews the forecasts of the IPCC and he finds their methods used unscientific. He's an authorithy on a field Climate scientists use extensively. And the IPCC specifically to draw forward looking conclusions.
Research on forecasting has shown that experts’predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder. LucVC (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There is just the leetle problem that the IPCC doesn't do forecasting - they do projections based on scientific models (thats physics - not statistics) . Armstrong is a marketing guy, he deals in economic forecasting. And it doesn't really matter whether you accept the "definition of a scientist by --Kim D. Petersen & --William M. Connolley" - since there is a definition of scientist that has been agreed upon by consensus for this list. It is defined in the lead of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you make a very fundamental error here. "The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing" While advocates of complex climate models claim that they are based on “well established laws of physics”, there is clearly much more to the models than the laws of physics otherwise they would all produce the same output, which patently they do not. And there would be no need for confidence estimates for model forecasts, which there most certainly are. Climate models are, in effect, mathematical ways for the experts to express their opinions. To our knowledge, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that presenting opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words will contribute to forecast accuracy. Read the whole report it is only 27 pages. LucVC (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As stated above: Armstrong has no understanding of physics, or of modeling. He does not know what he is talking about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
A model is a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. Weather only a fraction as complex as global climate can only be more or less reliably predicted seven days in advance. Given the current state of science any climate model is by default a terrible oversimplification. If you belief any climate model's ability to predict reliably you might as well belief in soothsayers. I am not saying it is not worth trying. I am just saying that many dont get the limitations as their religion is the science that suits them. This explains why so many here are upset with AGW sceptics, they question their religion, not science itself. Do feel addressed here. LucVC (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

David Whitehouse


We are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped. LucVC (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of misunderstandings in that article, but no clear dissent from any of the 3 criteria. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (Author : Dabvid Whitehouse "it is now well established that the world’s average temperature has not changed this century." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucVC (talkcontribs) 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, but not relevant, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anastasios Tsonis / William Gray

As reported in the UK daily mail:

"I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years." -- Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group

"William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect." According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’"


I await with great anticipation all the reasons why these scientists don't meet the high standard needed to be included in the list. (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the Daily mail is not a WP:RS for these (and especially not that article, which has already had one scientist complain about being misquoted significantly[11]), William M. Gray is already on the list btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ernst-Georg Beck and Zbigniew Jaworowski

Beegdawg007 (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Suggest adding Ernst-George-Beck... a German Chemist. Beck is clearly a disbeliever and he disputes the accuracy of the IPCC historic portrayal of CO2 levels. He has also published papers and has completed original research.

Becks primary claim is that CO2 measurements made using instrumentation around the world demonstrate that CO2 levels in the early 1800's were in the range of the level today. His statements of denial are "CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming" and "There is no man-made greenhouse effect caused by CO2".

Also suggest adding Zbigniew Jaworowski.

Jaworowski's works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994, 1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992). Jaworowski has suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes. He claims to have published 280 scientific papers. Zbigniew makes this statement "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning." This clearly places him in the skeptics camp.

My first impression is that Zbigniew Jaworowski should be in the list. Although he needs to have made a statement since 2001 that disagrees with the main points at the top of the list, if you can find that reference then he should be here. Beck cannot be considered if he is not notable, this is judged on whether he has an article on wikipedia. As I understand it this is historically more to do with WP:BLP issues although some people have argued that they wish to make it an issue of them being notable as a scientist by WP:PROF which seems odd to me as most scientists fail this criteria for notability. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay sorry I see that the statement of Jaworowski is from 2004 and about the IPCC so therefore he certainly can be in this list. Polargeo (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I cannot see that statement by Jaworowski reproduced in any reliable source. This needs more work. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Beegdawg007 (talk)22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Statement written for the Hearing beforethe US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationClimate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

                                   March 19, 2004

Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection Warsaw, Poland

Inthe Jaworowski statement which was written into the Congressionalrecord, one of ZJ's statements could not make it more clear that he isa skeptic....


The basisof most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and onprojections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 inthe pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciologicalstudies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used fornational and global economic planning.

The reliable source is the US Senate...

      • Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation***

See top of page at the following url... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegdawg007 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say Beck is not 'Notable" because he has no article in wikipedia? I must be misunderstanding this. Please explain more specifically why you believe a scientist like Beck is not notable

There is an agreed standard in place that all scientists included in this list should be notable by wikipedia standards. You will see that everyone on the list currently has a wikipedia article. That is because having an article is the most secure way of assessing that the person is notable. This issue is based on concerns of WP:BLP. In other words if an individual is not properly covered in reliable sources to give balanced information on them then sticking them on a list of global warming skeptics may be detrimental. So I suggest for him to be included on this list you first need to create an article on him. This article will only remain if he can pass WP:PROF, as an academic, or if he more generally passes WP:BIO. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
My statement about the US Senate source possibly not being reliable is that I can only find it on blogs and opinion sites I cannot seem to find it on any official site. Now whilst it may be genuine I am just a little suspicious because the places where I am finding it repeated are not what I would call reliable in any way. We need to be absolutely certain this is what it claims to be because potentially negative WP:BLP information demands the highest standards of verifiability wikipedia has. Polargeo (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway that is what I mean by more work. We should verify that this source is what it claims to be. Polargeo (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Two problems with Jaworowski (both can be found in the archives), the first is that the "Senate source" is not (ie. read "written for", not "held before" or "submitted to".. Source isn't (and never has been) in the Senate records), second problem is that all sources that we've found so far, have been from LaRouche publications, and per ArbCom decree, these are only reliable for LaRouche's opinions, not for anything else. (again see archives) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest Celeb scientist who thinks that the IPCC has fudged data

Latest Celeb scientist who thinks that the IPCC has fudged data and behaved inapropriately is Dr. William Sprigg. Dr. William Sprigg is research professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona and was head of the International Technical Review Panel for IPCC’s first report. This is the link to his recent public vidio.

This is a video. Sprigg cites numerous examples which demonstrate to him that data has been manipulated, and that information has been modified to make the tree-ring records look better than they are. He is also openly critical of CRU's reluctance of not releasing data. A quote from his presentation.. "The IPCC is biased, political and pushing an agenda" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegdawg007 (talkcontribs) 22:23, 4 February 2010 [12]

Your first problem is the link: it isn't to your Sprigg. So he is NN William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Your second is finding a quote from hi from a RS. Your third is the description of him. Your page calls him a "Former IPCC Leader"; this looks wrong. His biog [13] says he was:
  • Member and Head of Delegation, Working Group II, Impact Assessment, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The United Nations, 1990;
  • Head, International Technical Review Panel, the first IPCC report, 1990;
These are both some time ago, and neither makes him a "leader". Amusingly, given the recent fuss has been about WGII, he was the head of the US WGII delegation :-). More interestingly, what is the "International Technical Review Panel"... I've never heard of it. Sprigg complains that it died with IPCC '90, so maybe it wasn't very useful (if it was supposed to spot errors, it failed on fig 7.1.c) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Although he doesn't have a Wikipedia page, he is a legitimate researcher. [14] Which category should we fit him into? We'll have to find a quote from him other than this video lecture from YouTube I believe. JettaMann (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there evidene he opposes the mainstream scientific assement of global warming? I'm not sure. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess we need to find out what he's said before. If the OP is still around maybe he wants to find something, otherwise we'll see what we can dig up. JettaMann (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Being a legitimate researcher doesn't get around the requirement he be notable. It's not much point discussing where he should fit in, if he shouldn't fit in at all due to not being notable. Anyway I found who contributed to this comment so someone's free to persue him/her if you want Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is list of scientists supporting AGW?

This suggestion is for the AGW supporters. Don't you guys want a list of people who support AGW theory? I see Wikipedia has a List of climate scientists of about 50 people that includes many people mentioned in the climategate emails (Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa) but it also includes skeptical climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen. Shouldn't we have a corresponding list that only has AGW theory believers such as Mann, Jones, and Briffa? We'll use the same selective criteria we used to create this list. JettaMann (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Having such a list seems ok to me. Cla68 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Waste of time. It would be everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I take it that you would be unwilling to help in such an effort. Thank you. JettaMann, if you start such a list, I will help out. I would suggest having as a criteria that all listed should have an entry in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with William, but if you want to start the list, let me suggest Steven Chu, William Connolley, Stephen Hawking, Hans von Storch, Hideki Shirakawa, Paul Crutzen, Angela Merkel, Robert Grubbs, Anthony Hewish, and Klaus von Klitzing as a start. If you want to make it challenging, take Nobel Laureates only. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the names you mention also makes me wonder if we should have an additional list titled, "Lists of scientists/scholars who support AGW and also edit same topic in Wikipedia." Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Angela Merkel edits climate articles on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Stephan - I thought for a minute there you were going to 'out' my true identity. I will see you all right when I step down from office. --Nigelj (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If you apply the same standards as for sceptics you might not find 50. Start by booting out Merkel who has not published anything for 20 years. (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know the current standard is "published one paper in the physical sciences, ever. Does not have to be alive." - or did we finally tighten that up? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
@Cla68: I believe the criteria that has been established for this list is that entrants need to have a peer reviewed scientific paper that has been cited at least 4 times, so I assume that would get rid of the Wikipedia editor you are referring to. Another criteria is that the papers must be in English, so that probably excludes Hideki Shirakawa, Hans von Storch and Klaus von Klitzing. I'm unsure on this last point, but were people requesting that their field of study was in climatology or can it be in any field, even unrelated fields of science? JettaMann (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The introduction plainly says "For the purpose of this list, a scientist is defined as a person who published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences. There is no requirement to have published in recent years or in a field relevant to the climate. There is no requirement that their views contrary to the global warming mainstream need to have been published in peer-reviewed literature, and the majority have not." This suggests that it could be of benefit for you to actually read the article attached to this talk page. And if you had bothered to click on von Klitzing's or von Storch's links, you'd know they have published in English and that von Storch (at least) has been on the editorial boards of English-language journals. One gets the strong feeling that you are here primarily for discussion as you have not done even the most minimal evaluation of basic facts or article content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Grammatical note: surely scientists supporting AGW are those who deny it has any significant impact, so it's ok, while the mainstream view is that we should oppose AGW? . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

@JettaMann it is one peer reviewed paper in the broad area of natural sciences. No need for any citations. However, if you are referring to WMC as not passing a 4 citation mark then that is incorrect. Try WMCs 2007 paper in GRL about IPCC models which has been cited at least 11 times per Web of Science. His publication record makes WMC as qualified a scientist to comment on the IPCC as anyone in this list. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no list criteria that a peer reviewed paper should be in English. Anyway the three scientists you mention have all published in English as this is generally the language of international scientific journals. Polargeo (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No English requirement

I raised this here since it seemed the best way to get attention. There is no requirement that anyone on this list must have published in English. This claim was first made LucVC and although two people (on at least a regular) quickly pointed out this was wrong JettaMan now is repeating this claim. I accept that these claims were made in good faith, but they are wrong and I hope people stop repeating them since they don't help the discussion.

A search thru the archives shows there wasn't every any real suggestion of such a policy. The closest I got was /Archive 3#Are these guys notable? where someone made the claim "Most of these guys are European and do not write much in English" and a German scientist wikipedian attacked this as nonsense since the science world largely operates in English (except for the French) so the vast majority of scientists do publish in English regardless of where they originate from. Similar points were made on this page. And a related issue arose /Archive 3#Increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic where the same person claimed they couldn't find any scholarship because Google Scholar didn't allow them to search in Russian (although the persons in question were Polish and Danish) but they probably existed so we should just trust them (or something). And finally /Archive 3#Khabibullo Abdusamatov where the same issue arose about (a Russian at least this time) scientist and claims were made that the person was highly notable and clearly had a publishing record but it just couldn't be found because he published in exclusively Russian. In fact a publishing history of sorts was eventually found (different transliterations of his name partially caused problems from what I can tell) including English, by those who support the mainstream assessement and an article written and he was added here and remains to this day.

Note that although people have suggested it's nonsense to suggest there are all these notable scientists who have never published in English (and I agree with them and it's of course quite common you'd disagree with a claim you feel is inaccurate or wrong without intending to make a more general point, I do it all the time) none of them from what I can tell have ever objected to including someone solely because their demonstrated publishing history isn't in English. In fact it's never arisen because despite the perpetual claims of these many highly notable scientists who just don't publish in English, none have emerged. Even Khabibullo Abdusamatov appears to have published in English in 1971 [15] i.e. during the cold war. And I've seen people offer help when non English sources were offered (e.g. translating).

Of course per WP:Verifiability, English sources are preferred and when there is doubt or dispute over a non-English source it's going to need be resolved first (with a human rather then machine translation) and you do need to actual find these sources rather then just yelling 'it exists, it exists but I can't find it because it isn't English'. And when it comes to the actual quotations since they are in English particularly if they are unclear or there is dispute over the translation we may need to look for a better quotation or a professional translation (although I didn't come across any specific examples were people were excluded because no one could find an English quotation).

Or to repeat what I said at the beginning, there's no English only requirement. Never has been, has never been any proposal and hopefully never will be such a requirement.

P.S. I did only search for English so if we had an English only requirement but no one mentioned the word English then I would have missed it but it seems rather unlikely... Also I've been semi active on this page so expect I would nave noticed something like that.

P.P.S. Because we've restricted this list to notable people you do need an article in the English wikipedia to demonstrate notability however again not publishing in English is no bar to notability in itself (since we allow non English sources) beyond the fact that someone who doesn't publish in English is as I and others have said before, probably not a notable scientist, or much of a scientist at all.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. There is no such requirement, and never has been. There are loads of other myths about the inclusion criteria, but they really are very simple and are stated in the lead of the article, except for the no-redlink notability criteria (which can't be there because it would be a self-ref)... But that one is a basic component of "notable" in the wikipedia sense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

"There is no requirement to have published in recent years or in a field relevant to climate."

I think that this statement should be removed and we should remove all scientists who are not active researchers in the field of climate studies or in a closely related field.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We could have this argument again. But you need to do due diligence: please read the archive discussion of this (yes, I know, that means finding it) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually have read the entire archive, but it'd be nice to refer to the discussion that most people here think established the consensus. Here is a quick list I came up with: [16]. Should we go by this discussion as an indicator of consensus? Because, if so, it looks like the inclusion criteria was made intentionally broad as a means of appeasement rather than consensus. I think we should stick to a much more strict definition of who qualifies as a scientist (and apparently, others in the last go-round agreed but plead inability to convince the climate change denialist POV-pushers otherwise). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I was just trying to raise the bar for entry into the discussion. I don't know where it was discussed, only that it was. Your link may be the right one; if so, you're right: lots of that discussion is from people who were deeply unhelpful and are now happily gone. So we could re-open the question maybe William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If someone is not a professional in climatology, then their opinions on a climate-related subject are pretty much irrelevant to any discussion of climatology. It's like asking an expert in anthropology to study the rainforest. -- (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for being classified as a scientist too narrow.

I am a scientist. I worked for several years in the research division of an industrial company. I published confidential research papers internally but I have never had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. The current definition of scientist is too narrow. It rules out industrial scientists, many scientists involved in military research, and other groups of obvious scientists. In fact the current definition is really of academic scientists only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually think that the inclusion criteria is too broad. Research scientists in industry are not necessarily equipped to provide "expert" opinion on issues such as these. The reason the IPCC was convened in the first place was to address the unique characteristics of our understanding of climate change. There is nothing to separate the run-of-the-mill research scientist at an industrial company from a true expert in climate research, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of publicizing the opinions of just anybody. I think that the inclusion criteria should be stricter and many of the people listed here should be culled (c.f. the astronaut above). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I published confidential research papers internally but I have never had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. Tough. The question is, can you prove it? If they are confidential, I would assume that the answer is No (and also that they haven't been P-R). They might be high quality; they might be trash; then again, they might not even exist: how can we possibly know. This is why public publication is essential William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start another list then, referring to 'published scientists' or 'academic scientists', or maybe have another one for just 'climate scientists', but current title refers to just 'scientists', which my dictionary (Collins) describes as, 'A person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods'. You cannot change the definition to suit your own purposes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we could go by a different set of criteria: a scientist is someone whom a reliable third-party has described as such. That would be rather strict criteria and would have the advantage of dispensing with game-playing publishing (e.g. fringe journal publications, ancient contributions, etc.) ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No doubt a reliable third party would be a body such as the IPCC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the IPCC has ever made any statement where they identify people as scientists. We could think of a number of groups that have done this. Members of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, are invited by the consensus of the current members and obviously considered scientists. Certain reputable science journalist outlets will identify people as "scientists" in articles. Institutional affiliation, IMHO, is not enough because of the varying degrees of quality in the institutions, the positions at the institutions, and this nasty tradition known as tenure. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I might add that the article currently gives basic information on each scientist so that readers can assess their credentials for themselves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is something we should have regardless of what inclusion criteria we decide upon. This should not be an excuse to be lazy in applying the inclusion criteria. The reader is also depending on us as editors to do the busy work of compiling a good list. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria should be based on the title of the article, which says simply 'scientists'. I agree that this is a rather broad term and many people may well wonder what a professor of veterinary medicine, for example, knows about global warming but it is not our job to add our own POVs to the description given in the title, which says just 'scientists'. We have to compile the list according to the criteria stated in the title and beyond that let the readers decide for themselves on the credibility of those listed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The original purpose of this list, was to navigate people to relevant scientists that held a scientifically sceptical view of climate change. And that is what we should try to get back to. We have way too many people on this list, who are there not because of an informed scientific objection. We should limit the criteria, not open them up, which in my opinion a looser definition of scientist would. Limiting it to relevant scientists, for instance those who have written a natural science paper on the loose topic of climate change within the last 6 years (IPCC rotation times 1.5) would be much better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The lead of the article defines what is meant by "scientists" and by "opposing" and by "mainstream assessment". It takes many words to explain this and no title is going to be 100% precise. If you can suggest a better title, then we would considering changing the title, but the fact that the title is somewhat ambiguous is not a good reason to change the inclusion criteria. Dragons flight (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The criteria are certainly not too narrow. But on the other hand I disagree with making them any more narrow because we would be in danger of letting our own personal bias and reasons for wanting/not wanting this list influence our decisions. As my comments on the deceased above show I don't think we should have a corner of wikipedia especially for the very recent actions. Although this is a recent list because we only have scientific consensus defined from 2001, there is no point redefining the goals every few years, we simply judge the inclusion statements against the consensus at the time they were made as it is at present. Polargeo (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kim and most of what Polargeo says (except for the bit about "personal bias and reasons for wanting/not wanting this list influence our decisions"). What I think is most problematic right now is that the criteria for what is and is not a scientist is being established without a reference to a reliable source that also makes this demarcation. That's why I think third-party identification is an appropriate course of action. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think in using third party identification to define scientist you would find so many people would be included that this list would quickly become unmanageable. A local newspaper once referred to my wife as a scientist when she made some comments about whaling, she is a social scientist but the newspaper didn't know that. Acceptance of a peer-review paper by a scientific journal is a pretty good RS, it doesn't really take any effort or original research to interpret on behalf of wikipedians. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
But I would argue that a local newspaper is not a reliable source for deciding who is a scientist. They simply are not equipped to decide who is or isn't a scientist. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is that then we're stepping outside of what WP:RS can do, and into some no-man's land where the definition is in up in the air. To some extent this is done on science articles, where science based sources (peer-review, assessment reports etc) are preferred/required for scientific information - but such sources rarely/never state that someone is a scientist or not. For scientists from non-english speaking countries it may be impossible to document (Abdussamatov as an example).
What we need is a clear, unambiguous and objective means for defining whether or not someone is a 'scientist'. The current criteria is such, but is (as i said before) too open to be truly usefull.
The question that should be asked, to answer Polargeo, is "what are we trying to navigate people towards?" and define the criteria from that, without any prejudice towards who will be included or excluded by such. In my opinion the list should be (and to some extent is) a navigational aid towards finding scientific dissent to the mainstream, and not just opinions on the mainstream. We should not in any way or form be prejudiced as to whether the dissent is rational/valid/invalid/... - but instead just include the scientists that unambiguously fall into the criteria.
A criteria such as "at least one peer-reviewed paper in natural sciences on the broad topic (*) of climate change since the previous to last IPCC report" would be such a criteria - since it narrows the scientists down to at least somewhat informed, and relevant. (*) Here: Oceanography, biology, glaciology, ... with climate change as a part of the paper - not just atmospheric sciences. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all I agree with all you say about sourcing. However, the requirement to be notable and have a wikipedia article seriously erodes your argument here. Generally to be notable as a scientist the guy has to pass the prof test, a very very small minority of scientists pass the prof test. This list is therefore populated by people who achieve the basic notability standard as crackots or media junkies rather than as scientists. This really does undermine your reasonsing for the list because those "climate change" scientists whom you would wish to be on the list would generally fail to get here. Polargeo (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with Kim 100% in his proposal. I disagree with Polargeo because there are plenty of people who deny climate change who could possibly game their way into a "peer-reviewed paper". c.f. the astronaut above. Kim's solution removes this problem for notable people who have wide gaps in their knowledge or who are too fundamentally flawed to really be considered on a list of scientists who oppose global warming. Will Happer, for example, is a brilliant physicist, but he's also essentially an old man who never really got comfortable with computer modeling and distrusts global warming out of a combination of paranoia and political predisposition. Hardly a "scientist opposed", more of a curmudgeon upset. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, if you change the title of the list to 'Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming whose motives for disagreement are approved by ScienceApologist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talkcontribs)
Putting the obvious snarkiness aside, I think you miss the point. Will Happer is unequipped to oppose global warming from a scientific perspective. Including him on this list is akin to including Raymond Vahan Damadian on a list of scientists who oppose evolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate. We are not talking about those who have a valid case we are talking about those who have a valid case AND pass WP notability. With your proposals we would be narrowing the valid case criteria down to such a minority as this list begins to become useless. I do not personally think of this list as a list of people who "oppose mainstream thinking for really good scientific reasons" but that seems to be the way you are trying to head and we can always disagree on scientific reasoning. Polargeo (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
In this i disagree, very few of those on the list would be pruned by such a change. Check it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Just quickly looking at the first two sections Vincent R. Gray, Hendrik Tennekes and Antonino Zichichi could potentially be removed from this list per a tightening of validitiy of credentials to climate change scientists, that is 3 out of 7. May not be a bad thing but it is fairly radical. Polargeo (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The main pruning would be in the first two sections, the rest of the sections would be pretty much the same as now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Kim is correct in his assessment and in this I am satisfied. I also think that Polargeo is correct that this would be a substantive change to the inclusion criteria and may be looked on as "radical" by some. However, I do not think that this means we should shy away from such a proposal simply because some may find it controversial. Kim, myself, and Polargeo have all outlined reasons why we should consider making the inclusion criteria a bit more rigorous. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just ot be clear, 'cos I've lost track: exactly what change is being proposed? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Listed below for your consideration. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for how to demarcate a relevant scientist

Taken shamelessly from a post by KimDPeterson:

Or something of similar spirit with better wording.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why Armstrong (See above) would not be a relevant scientist? He writes a paper over the forecasting of the IPCC. He puts it up for review by anybody. His scientific credentials on forecasting are impressive. You can hardly call him a pseudo scientist. To my knowledge this page is still called "Scientists opposing the mainstream assesment of Global Warming" Usually an article of wikipedia is about what the title states. None of the requirements of the editpage on which there is so called consensus is present in the article. The misleading aspect is there not in the scientists mentioned. It gives the impression there are 65 scientists in the world opposing globel warming. How encyclopedic. LucVC (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Because Armstrong's forte is in marketing and economic forecasting (statistics). He is not a scientist for the purposes of this article, since he hasn't written a paper in the very broad topic of Natural sciences. Armstrong has no expertise at all on scientific modelling. Climate models do not do forecasting (thats just his most basic mistake), they are projections. They model physical changes over long periods of time, based on emission scenarios. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The IPCC uses in chapter 8 the word forecast 36 times. In his 2007 paper he explicitely answers the question does the IPCC do forecasts? They have a new paper out edited together with Climate scientist Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. LucVC (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does use the word "forecast" several times, and in all cases it is used for limited time (days to seasonal) forecasts of weather, to validate the models, in effect the models are being used in these cases as weather models not climate models. The long term runs of the models are not forecasts, they do not even attempt to predict any future events beyond the timescope of these (the reason being (iirc) that forecasts are impossible on long timescales). Please look up the difference between predictions, projections and forecasts. [and a hint the new paper is also not in natural sciences] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary defines "prediction" as "a statement about what will happen in the future," and "projection" as "a forecast or prognosis obtained by extrapolation," while "forecast" is defined as "an estimation." From that it would seem that "projection" doesn't strictly apply, because the IPCC TAR projection isn't based on extrapolation, but neither does "prediction" because clearly it's an estimation rather than a definitive statement. But all this is irrelevant as of the three forecast is the weakest statement and the point of Armstong a forecast specialist is precisely it is even an unscientific forcast. LucVC (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we have an assessment problem. Many scientists tag climate change onto their papers. Maybe in the rationale for their work in the introduction or in the conclusions. Now any biologist who has said climate change may/may not be an issue for their animal of choice automatically makes the list over an atmospheric scientist. I assume that at present you wouldn't require their opposition statements to the mainstream to be peer reviewed in any way. I cannot see this development doing anything but complicating the process. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you give an example of this situation? I am having a hard time imagining this kind of gaming going on, but I concede that I don't keep tabs on all the keywords tagged to the literature. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that i can't follow here either - is this a real or a potential issue? And is this a bridge that we can wait to cross? Do you have alternatives? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Until I look through all of the people on the list it is a potential issue. I am trying to highlight the fact that you are going from fairly simple easy to implement criteria. e.g. check they are scientists, check they oppose the mainstream (which already causes many debates over inclusion) to what may seem like a more sensible method but what is potentially a complex method open to multiple interpretations and can easily throw up odd results. Also you would effectively be changing this to a "List of climate change scientists who..." now if this is what you wish to do fine but in that case you should seriously thinking about a change in title or a new article. My point about not requiring the opposition statement to be peer reviewed is very relevant because this highlights that even if they mention climate change in one of their papers their opposition may still be way outside their area of expertise. In fact further outside their area of expertise than some of the people who will be cut from this list because their peer-review work does not address climate change per se. Polargeo (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree, first of all i do not think that it is much more difficult to find out if someone has written a paper on climate change, than it is to determine if the person has written one in natural sciences - where there could be a burden is in the time-limit, but that could be alleviated by a requirement of having the paper linked as a reference (this should actually have been done before). I also don't think it becomes a list of "climate scientists", since 1 paper for instance about effects of climate change on amphibian mating cycles (to give an example) makes one a climate scientist. But that said, it would be an improvement for the list, even if we dropped the "climate change" requirement, and just had a demand about a published natural science paper within a reasonable timeframe. As for the last point, the suggestion is not intended to change the rules for the quote by demanding PR.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What you highlight are exactly the problems, the requirement to have one paper on the vague topic of climate change is far more arbitrary than assessing whether the individual is a scientist or not. What you are suggesting to do does not work because you are not changing the rules for the quote. Polargeo (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Here the idea would be to narrow the scope down to scientists who have an informed opinion on climate change, and i don't agree with your assessment that it wouldn't work (it certainly would work better than the current system) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not saying that it wouldn't work just that it has the potential to be extremely arbitrary. I don't feel that this is a good direction for a difficult article like this and it is a more difficult position to defend per wikipedia policies such as original research. Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the reasonable timeframe, seems potentially arbitrary. Do you mean post 2001? What would your criteria be? Polargeo (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The goal here would be to narrow down to scientists (as in active researchers). If you do not publish papers (or write books), then imho it is rather hard to be called a scientist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I agree in part, although my worries about defence against NPOV and OR also apply. I am also interested in what sort of timeframe you are suggesting. Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
With this statement almost every Nobel Physics price winner has ceased to be a scientist. All this to keep this list from growing. Please edit the pages on the Nobel price to reflect the new AGW view on scientists. Do take care to edit a few thousand wikipedia pages to spread the new AGW definition of a scientist. Can you please tell me after being one of the most active contributors on this page for the last five years which scientist featured on this page was proposed by you? LucVC (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think from LucVC's comment you can see my point now. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really, since Luc is incorrect in his assertion :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I really meant the thrust of the comment not the accuracy of it. The thrust of the comment is the arbitrariness of the proposed selection criteria. Polargeo (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, i'm sorry if i'm not going to take your word for it. I checked the nobel laurates in physics from 1985 to 1990 (inclusive), and the significant majority of these still publish papers (the cases where they do not is typically because they are retired - or dead). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Of the last 10 years a full 80% is past retirement age when they get it. I have a great idea. Why dont we use the wikipedia defenition of a scientist ( instead of your POV. Obviously you wont like it but no problem. If you want to change the consensus on what is a scientist go do it on the proper page; I wish you good luck. LucVC (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has not one, but at least two definitions in the introduction of Scientist. A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method. Note that that definition excludes dead and (really) retired scientists, as it uses the present tense for the definition. Note also that, to classify someone as a scientist under this definition, you need a reliable sources stating that the person "engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge" and/or "uses the scientific method". Good luck finding them. Finally, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, so using that definition is iffy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this. Wikipedia is so unreliable we cannot even look up what Wikipedia considers to be a scientist. But you, Kim and William who have been editing this list of scientist for five years without ever contributing a sceptical scientist name in these five years are better placed to define a reliable definition on what a scientist is then Wikipedia. Not every Wikipedia page is politically edited unlike this one. LucVC (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the inclusion criteria tightened at least a bit, at least back to what I remember them being a couple of years ago, requiring at least one peer-reviewed article since 2001 (i.e. since the last-but-one IPCC report) in some area of science. Even then the criterion has in practice let in people with seemingly no credibility among actual climate scientists.
I like the "prof test" criterion. I know that the no-redlinks rule ought to import the prof test (bio pages for people who would not pass the prof test should have been AfD'ed.) In practice, however, there are a lot of names on this list who do have a WP bio page, yet whose only notable act has been signing a climate skeptic petition, or having been picked up on Marc Morano's list of putative skeptics. Birdbrainscan (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a bad thing to remove old profs who have not published anything since 1985. The "since 2001 criteria" is fundamentally flawed though. How can we report the findings of the IPCC 2001 report, which is completely based on science from before 2001, and then say that people can only criticise that science if they have published since then. The situation could even arise where a scientist is actually referenced in the 2001 report and is ineligible to comment on the interpretation of their own science. I dislike the prof test for several reasons. The first reason is simply that most scientists fail the prof test. It is really just one of several wikipedia tools to check notability, use of it as a selection criteria within this list and having separate notability arguments here does not seem a sensible road to go down. Another reason is that this list is an aid to navigation on wikipedia. If the criteria for this list are tightened too much then how can anyone legitimately defend this list as the only such means on wikipedia. Willie Soon for example would fail the prof test, I would not be in favour of applying a test that removes legitimate scientists like him (no matter how misguided he may or may not be). Polargeo (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that only 82 percent of scientist believe that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures ("About+90+percent+of+the+scientists+agreed+with+the+first+question+and+82+percent+the+second" ), Having inclusion criteria that only allow in 22 scientists under "Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" is wrong on the face of it. (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this list is not to list every person who responded a certain way on a survey that the pollster thought was a scientist. The purpose of this list is to indicate which scientists have verifiable dispute with some part of the consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's a straw man argument. I never proposed listing every person who responded a certain way on a survey. Feel free to respond to what I actually wrote. Anyone who reads the archive of this talk page will see a concerted effort by AGW proponents to exclude as many names as possible. Rather than playing whack-a-mole with each individual proposed addition, I am commenting on the total end result, which is bogus on the face of it. If only 22 scientists believe that Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes and 18 percent of scientists believe that Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes, then the total number of scientists would have to be 122. Clearly the process used to decide who to include and exclude is extremely biased in favor of exclusion.
Also, I would not characterize a list of scientist found in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments as being what some "pollster thought was a scientist" nor would I characterize a University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences as a mere "pollster." (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

A possible solution to the NPOV problem?

Recuse: To disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds (real or perceived) such as bias, personal involvement, or conflict of interest...

What if...

[1] Everyone who has at least six months of history working on this page, has proposed at least three names, and has never ever made any comment opposing any new addition should choose to voluntarily recuse himself from editing or commenting on this page.

[2] Everyone who has at least six months of history working on this page, has opposed at least three new additions, and has never ever proposed any name for inclusion should choose to voluntarily recuse himself from editing or commenting on this page.

This would weed out those with obvious bias for exclusion or obvious bias for inclusion.

Alternatively, other editors may simply choose to take into account whether someone is in either of the above two groups and treat their contributions appropriately (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean "let's take out all experienced editors and hand it to socks and anonymous IPs"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You appear to believe that all the experienced editors are either so biased that they never oppose adding a new name to the list or so biased that they only oppose adding new names to the list, never suggesting a name that they would find acceptable. If that's true (and I do not believe that it is, I think that unbiased and experienced editors exist) then perhaps we would be better off without that sort of "experienced" editor. (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the history of this page, you will see several experienced editors who are very much pro-AGW without any apparent bias for not letting anyone be added to the list of skeptics. One can believe in AGW based upon scientific evidence without insisting that scientists who disagree do not exist. (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two big problems with your suggestions. With 1) your requiring that someone must have commented to oppose a suggestion. But why would someone bother to oppose a suggestion if every single other editor accept the proposer has opposed it and the person proposing didn't appear to make any case to justify inclusion based on existing policies? 'Piling on' sometimes okay but it's rarely necessary and it's ludicrious to require that people start piling on just so they're allowed to comment on this page. With 2) it's even worse. You're suggesting that anyone who participates in this page must actively seek out names to add to this list. I don't regularly read the denialist blogs or even pay that much attention to most of the fluff surrounding climate change in the more regular media (although do pay more attention then the average person) so it's rather unlikely I'll come across someone no one has ever proposed (actually I may have proposed or mentioned someone without proposing before, can't really remember). Note that I'm not aware of anyone here who insists that scienctists who disagree with the mainstream assessment don't exist (even when it was proposed for deletion those who supported deletion didn't claim that such scientists did not exist). Of course, agreeing that they exist doesn't mean that it's okay to add every Tom, Dick and Harry to this list because someone somewhere found some random comment they may or may not have made which suggests they mildly disagree with some of the more wild global warming predictions. And as I've already said, your proposal didn't relate to that anyway, it related to actually finding people to add to this list. If you meant to say 'support' rather then 'propose' then we have a similar problem we had to one. It's not necessary to support an addition, if everyone else agrees, or it was already added to the list and there has been no support. And my earlier comments are also important here, I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested there aren't people who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment. In fact, the existance of this article and the fact that no one has proposed everyone here should be deleted can be taken as a sign the vast majority people here clearly do support having some names on the list Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: "But why would someone bother to oppose a suggestion if every single other editor accept the proposer has opposed it ... 'Piling on' sometimes okay but it's rarely necessary and it's ludicrious to require that people start piling on just so they're allowed to comment on this page.":
I believe that the voluntary / self-identifying nature of my proposal takes care of that. If you look at your participation here and conclude that, while you did propose many names and never opposed any, you would have opposed several if not for someone else opposing them first, then I would expect you to conclude that you are not biased and to not recuse yourself. If, on the other hand, you look at your participation here and conclude that you have proposed many names and never found any reason to oppose any, I would hope that you would realize that you have a major inclusion bias.
Re: "With 2) it's even worse. You're suggesting that anyone who participates in this page must actively seek out names to add to this list. I don't regularly read the denialist blogs or even pay that much attention to most of the fluff surrounding climate change in the more regular media (although do pay more attention then the average person) so it's rather unlikely I'll come across someone no one has ever proposed":
I really don't want to make this personal, so please read the following as a comment on what would improve the page, not a criticism of you personally. Assuming that you meet the criteria of being a long-term participant who has publicly opposed adding multiple names (I have no idea whether you actually fit that description), you might want to ask yourself whether putting that much effort into excluding names while putting no effort into including any or even making a comment supporting inclusion of a name that someone else proposed might possibly identify an exclusionary bias in yourself.
Re: "I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested there aren't people who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment. In fact, the existence of this article and the fact that no one has proposed everyone here should be deleted can be taken as a sign the vast majority people here clearly do support having some names on the list":
Good point. I should have said that there are people here who appear to think that having only 22 names listed under "Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" -- a statement that 18% of scientists listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments agree with -- is an acceptable number. The question is whether including only a tiny percentage of scientists who believe that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes is good for this page and good for Wikipedia.
BTW, using terms like "denialist" or "warmist" tends to inflame passions. I prefer terms like "those holding the majority view" or "AGW skeptics" (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)