Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 39

Earthmagazine.org

The Earthmagazine.org ref is all about "deniers" being like creationists. This isn't a list of "deniers". Perhaps one could attempt to create a list of "deniers" and use this as a ref for that article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
So nothing about science denial is allowed in this article? --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You need reasonably close links which don't include lots of other things as well. We don't put see also Paris in the London article. Dmcq (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
"which don't include lots of other things as well" What policy/guideline is that from? --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It is incumbent upon the editor who wants to include material to make the case and convince others that it should be included. Multiple editors have explained at great length their concerns with this line of additions to this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
No objections based upon policy. Plenty of policy-based reasons for inclusion. Or am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:ALSO 'The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.' Linking to just one out of a number would be selective on point of view and including all goes against limiting the number. If there is a number of something then the colletion should go in a see also to keep it reasonably short, for instance lists of scientists would be too big but we've already got that as a category at the bottom. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
And the references more than justify the inclusion of the link. If editors offered other sources justifying other links, then those links should be included as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
As has been explained before, there is some overlap between science denial and this article, but it overlap in the same way that two-legged animals and flying objects overlap. Many two-legged animals such as monkeys do not fly (WoOz notwithstanding) while many flying objects such as airplanes are not two legged animals. They can't be considered the same subject. We have an article called Climate change denial. If there is a solid linkage between climate denialists and creationsts, then it belongs there. I'm not convinced that it even belongs there, but it clearly doesn't belong here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Still no policy is being offered! The sources say otherwise. We base articles on sources. --Ronz (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think we need a policy that says additions to an article ought to be about the subject of the article? We probably do, but the objection is too silly to bother looking it up. Please show me the policy that says you can add material wherever you choose, even when there is a better location.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not only do we, it's my reason for including the material: WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not give rationale for adding see also links. relevant is WP:NOTDIR. --Kim D. Petersen 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV gives rationale for most (all?) content. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV? This is not a convincing rationale for this addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Howso? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
One can't assert that the insertion of controversial links into an article is justified by invoking neutral point of view. What balancing does that link make? Is there some vast hitherto unnoticed bias in this article that requires this? There is significant concern by multiple editors that these proposed additions are a BLP problem, this problem has not been resolved. Other editors think this is inappropriate for other reasons. One editor's conception of NPOV does not override the expressed concerns of all other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The sources show it.
Focusing on the Earthmagazine.org reference: I simply chose a single source from those listed that I thought best added the most to complement what we already have. The rationale for removing the source has yet to shown to have been based upon any relevant policies.
As far as the links are concerned, the sources address the concerns from the initial and subsequent discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
What you are trying to do is rather like trying to add a link to Fascism as a see also to List of Prime Ministers of Italy or Political satire to Government of the United Kingdom. Somebody might think they should be in and even have links connecting them but the links are not strong enough and only convey a point of view. One needs a good reason to include things, article are not a braindummp for lateral thinking where weird connections might be applauded. Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing lateral about it. This article exists only because of the non-science related issues around climate change. While this article pulls the individuals out of context, the policies and local consensus agree it that we include some of the context, especially when it comes to the notability of the topic overall. The links are strongly related to this notability, as has been shown. The reference far more. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping in, but did you all know how much digital ink has been wasted over See alsos on political and nationalistic topics over the years? It's not worth it. If in doubt, leave it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the reference, what policy-based objections do we have for it's exclusion? --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to just continually repeat yourself hoping to wear people out or are you going to take this to Arbcom enforcement like you said? Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states:
Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.
The reference was added at the end of the clause:
all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds
That clause was added some time earlier.
  • No one, AFAICT, indicates that there was a need for an additional reference.
  • The statement already had three references, what is the justification for adding another one?
  • The reference barely mentions only one of the three petitions, and then does so in an incompetent way, suggesting it is a list of deniers, which is most obviously is not
In other words, the reference does not support the claim, is not necessary and is not appropriate. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It is also not a reliable source for a WP:BLP article, since it is an op-ed (voice/comment) by Steven Newton. Nor would it be a WP:RS for other than Mr(?) Newton's views. --Kim D. Petersen 18:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"op-ed" Very interesting perspective. Worth following up at a noticeboard before it anyone thinks of restoring it. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Why? WP:NEWSBLOG is pretty clear on this. --Kim D. Petersen 18:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Because, while I disagree with this application (and possibly interpretation) of the policy, I can see how it the policy could be confused in this manner. Best take it to a noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response.
It has unique information directly related to the article content it verifies, and that information is not redundant with what is found in the other sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
What would that "unique" information be? Since that "unique" information must then not be currently verifiable in the article. If you are talking about "unique" information in Earthmagazine itself, then it should either be specified out as text in our article, or otherwise the ref is redundant. And as i mentioned above - the ref is not reliable for other than Mr(?) Newtons views. --Kim D. Petersen 18:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The unique information is pretty much the entirety of what I quoted when identifying the source. It shows that the Oregon petition and the Dissent... are similar, and puts this in a larger context. Most importantly, "Such petitions convey the misleading impression that science is a popularity contest. Whether evolution and climate change are good science is, ultimately, a matter of evidence, not of who can amass more signatures. But that’s not the way deniers portray it." --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well then the ref isn't useful. Since we do not compare the Oregon petition or the Dissent... in this list. Unless a ref is used to actually verify statements in the actual text, then the ref is not needed, regardless of whether it is reliable or not. (per WP:LINKFARM) --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The information applies to the Oregon petition, is a criticism of the Oregon petition, and is unique in its criticism. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The Oregon Petition is at Oregon Petition. Dmcq (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And it is one of the lists mentioned in this article, and this article mentions criticisms of such lists and provides multiple references of those criticisms. The question here is does the Earth Mag ref provide additional information. It does. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't see what that criticism is quite frankly. The mention in the eartmag is (paraphrased): "Creationists make petitions, climate change deniers make petitions, these petitions are ad populem fallacies" - there is no criticism, no indepth discussion... in fact that is the entire mention. So what is is that this article would enrich our list with by being a reference? (the "unique content")--Kim D. Petersen 16:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I answered when asked yesterday [1]. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you answered it with that. I First of all, the "answer", that you link to, refers to another answer that you supposedly gave somewhere, and the rest of it is "it links Dissent... and oregon...", which isn't an answer as i've already mentioned above. What exactly do you mean? What is the "unique" thing that we need in the list that only this reference can give us? --Kim D. Petersen 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If you would like further clarification, it might be helpful to quote from my response or otherwise clarify where your confusion might be. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why i should bother. It is at this point pretty obvious that there is a consensus on not including the ref, and that the consensus discussion isn't going further, since you are either not spelling things out so that we can follow your thinking, or we disagree fundamentally on what should/shouldn't be included. The dodge of not actually wanting to explain and linking to non-answers was the last straw. --Kim D. Petersen 17:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is not based upon ignoring our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Once you get to the point where you will actually cite and demonstrate which policies and guidelines that demand that we include this particular reference - then we can talk about that. --Kim D. Petersen 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
At some point, all this WP:IDHT is disruptive. It certainly undermines any policy-based consensus building. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The material quoted is not redundant with current references. Correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Any problems with assuming it is not redundant so we can continue? --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you should first as Kim D. Petersen said "actually cite and demonstrate which policies and guidelines that demand that we include this particular reference". Otherwise as you pointed out WP:IDHT is disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So let's assume then it is not redundant.
To answer your question, the policy is NPOV [2] [3]. It has been mentioned multiple times in the previous discussions as well.
So if the material is not redundant, does it present a significant viewpoint that deserves inclusion as a reference to that viewpoint? --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Two things. First, you have yet to explain why you feel that NPOV demands we add this. Just referencing the policy explains nothing, certainly not how you suggest the policy applies in this case. Second, no this does not deserve inclusion in my opinion and in the opinion of the other editors that have weighed in here. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking about and using wording specific to the application of NPOV. Sorry that it was not clear. First, I asked about redundancy of the new reference to the current ones. Now, I'm asking about the significance of the viewpoints expressed in the new reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since there are no responses, I think it's time to get this added back into the articl. Should I assume that the RS concerns are a big enough loose end that we should go to RSN? --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion started here --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Sigh! Talk about WP:IDHT... --Kim D. Petersen 01:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I want to get past the WP:RS concerns before going to WP:NPOVN with this. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Reading at RSN I think I see perhaps what is going through your mind. you saw the 'have been criticized' bit and thought that mean any and all criticisms of the lists were part of the topic here. That's not quite the case, the only relevant criticisms are whether the lists are good lists for the purpose of listing scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment and they have all been criticized for problems in that area. The riticism might be valid in articles about the individual petitions or lists but that's not the topic of this article. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking another look. Yes, that's a point that I'll be sure to emphasize at NPOVN. --Ronz (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOVN discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Update Criteria for Listing

− − The IPCC has a new report, the 2014 report. We use 2001. Is that a stale criteria? I would note that there has been both research and change in the science between 2001 and now. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The agreed idea here in the past was that we would use the IPCC report before-the-last. The reason is that people are unlikely to have opposed the current report when it's only just come out, although the changes between reports' main findings are typically small. The first question is, is AR5 completely published yet, or are there more parts yet to appear? If so (and I personally don't know, off hand) then I guess it is time to move to AR4. The second point is that someone would have to go through every entry in the list seeing if the person should still be listed based on a new summary of AR4's main findings. --Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nigelj. I think we agreed to use the one prior to the most recent. I know some parts of AR5 are out, but if I read the calendar correctly, it won't be until November, following the Copenhagen meeting, that the Synthesis Report will be out. That said, it may be worth creating a chart of individuals, and identifying whether their statements deemed to be in disagreement with TAR are still in disagreement with FAR. I'll be surprised if that changes anything, but it might be worth starting, so that any changes needed can be implemented in November.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That seems somewhat reasonable. But it seems so tenuous to put people on a list for opposing something dated 13 years ago. It just doesn't feel right. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
If a new report came out whose conclusions were materially different than a previous report, I'd be in favor of rethinking our approach. However, while there is much ado about the changes in new reports, they are largely changes at the margins. I'm not aware of a single scientist (or other person, for that matter) who has made any statement like "I'm fine with the report issued in year x, but that one if year Y, no way". Note that I am not saying that there are none whose views have changed over time. But if someone says they generally agree with (or disagree with) the IPCC reports, one generally does not have to follow up with a question to clarify which one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That is a good approach. I agree.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete this page?

I don't think this page is appropriate for Wikipedia. My arguments can be found in the archive and I don't find the counterarguments to be at all convincing especially in light of continuing unique status of this particular list and in light of WP:BLPFRINGE considerations. I would like to have a discussion here to see if there would be any consensus to relist this article at AfD.

Please do not argue the merits of whether this list should be kept one way or another. Just say whether you think an AfD would be a good idea.

jps (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD uses a lot of editor time in argument, especially in cases like this where the result has historically been a hard-fought "no consensus". I don't personally see it as a useful use of time unless there are new arguments to discuss or a genuine reason to believe consensus has changed. Do you have a more persuasive argument than has previously been advanced? Is there any particular reason you think consensus might change in a new AfD? Have you considered whether the article could be improved rather than deleted? --Merlinme (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I do have some new arguments to present though I'll save that for if/when the AfD comes up and, if you look through the archives, you'll see where I attempted to see if I could find a way to improve rather than delete the article. Do I think consensus may change? It is possible since it is up to the administrator who closes the discussion. On the other hand, if there is a resounding groan from this page it may not be worth starting the discussion (some people reflexively !vote on the basis of not liking the revisiting of long-standing discussions even if the person restarting the discussion is doing so in good faith). jps (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The last AfD was in December.
I think it safe to assume there won't be consensus to delete, but there won't be any good, policy-based arguments to retain. This has been the pattern for a long time now. Until it becomes more of an embarrassment for people to be linked to climate change denialism, I don't think this is going to change.
There's no way to improve this article to the point it's encyclopedic, as the selection of "scientists" vs anyone else is the pov of climate change deniers and poor media coverage.
Has there been any recent related Arbcoms or other major changes in consensus related this article? --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We have a policy shortcut for WP:OTHERPARENT, but I can't find one for WP:Asking over and over until you get what you want. Perhaps if people re-list this page two or three times a year, eventually others will fail to show up to counter-argue, or you'll get a lucky admin. Where I live we have property developers who still hope to get some new yacht marinas and office blocks past planning permission by the same method. --Nigelj (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia has a long tradition of asking over and over until you get what you want. Perennial discussions are disdained here, but behind most of them is a lingering point that needs to be resolved and closing "no consensus" is just that.... a call for someone to find a means toward consensus. We still don't have that here. jps (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The objections last time quoted the names of policies but never got down to the specifics of exactly what was violated in the policies. There's more to an AfD than quoting acronyms, a case has to be shown, I got the feeling that most of those objecting hadn't actually read the policies they gave the acronyms of. No I don't think you should try again unless you can give a coherent argument for your case, you'll just waste peoples' time otherwise. Just saying BLP is not good enough. Dmcq (talk)
I would definitely agree that any nomination (for example, one done by myself) would have to be very thorough and explain the points clearly and not just with Wiki-obfuscation. jps (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that in the AfDs. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
How about for instance [4] as an example of quoting acronyms but not giving a cogent case? Dmcq (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd say you are using "not giving a cogent case" in a manner with which I'm unfamiliar. Why'd you not ask for clarification then (or now for that matter), but rather are using it to harass? --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think that a deletion or AFD discussion is fruitful. Perhaps a renaming discussion to resolve the BLP issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh? What would you want to rename the article to? jps (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional information with each entry beyond the footnotes

It not at all helpful to readers to strip away minimal identifying information about just who these people are. This Bold change should be reverted barring some extraordinary justification for concealing the identification. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I've reverted those changes for now. I too don't see how they are helpful--these people by-and-large are listed here because they are notable. Why they are notable is, IMO, relevant to the list. Hobit (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's standard for lists to just be lists. The footnotes establish the qualifying information (they used to be in the article/list body but were removed as undue). The positions/titles/etc are redundant with the linked articles and are likewise undue. If someone wants to place what type of scientist each person is into the footnotes as well, I don't think it would be a problem. Anything else seems undue. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
(Is this under dispute as well? It seems a bit odd given that most lists with such criteria do say "notable" in the article.) --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just undone your revert, Ronz. Please gain consensus on the talk page before undertaking such a drastic deletion of long-standing material.
Look at this list and this one for examples of helpful details included with listed names. Not many of us want to have to click on every single name to find out pertinent info. Yopienso (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've no significant objection to the "notable" part, though I don't think it's needed once your other changes were reverted. I don't believe a brief description is that unusual. I clicked on our lists catagory and selected a few pages at random. [5], [6] has at least some text describing each element. [7] doesn't, but doesn't need them for each date. A few others (like flags) are weird. But I don't think lists are generally just lists without text for each element. In any case, this list becomes much less useful and I don't see how there could be an "undue" issue. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that the long and detailed discussions for moving the inclusion criteria qualifying information to footnotes applies.
They are not brief descriptions, nor are they neutral.
Since people are unclear on how NPOV/UNDUE applies: Say instead we add other material more directly relevant from the respective articles of each individual, like conflicts of interest and participation in other science denial activities? How about the date of their last peer-reviewed publication on global warming, with a note if they've not published any such thing? I hope these hypotheticals make it clearer.
As I said, I don't think there would be a problem placing what type of scientist each person is into the footnotes. Of course, this is different from what's in the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems to take away important identifying information from the reader. Why would we do that? This is supposed to be about assisting the reader with information. Snippets of information about them only aids identification for the reader. Removing it does what to improve the article? Nothing that I can see. None of the information was either undue of POV. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Important to who and why? Did you read the hypotheticals I gave? --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm not understanding the relevance of your hypothetical statements. We are identifying who these people are. We do the same thing in other lists (and disambiguation pages). That seems both standard and reasonable and I'm still not sure what undue weight it is placing on the article. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
How is the current text "identifying who these people are" and why is the information important?
My hypotheticals identify specific attributes of the people relevant to the topic of this article. I have also identified information crucial to the inclusion criteria that is currently not there. The difference is relevance. Giving weight to irrelevant or less relevant innformation over more relevant information is UNDUE. Should I clarify further? --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Your hypothetical is unhelpful. As I read it, you want to remove the basic brief identifying bio information(edu achievement and/or employment) and insert accusations of conflict of interest and labels as "deniers". That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It seems POV at best and likely BLP violations at worst. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Howso? --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I have been clear. Perhaps you can propose your additions (deniers, etc) in a separate section, one not about the removal of identifying information. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We have had no convincing reason to remove this information. Editors have made it clear that it is standard practice to add some limited identifying information into lists, that it is not undue. There is no consensus for this bold edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "consensus" seems to be just an assertion of consensus, while ignoring my specific questions about the content and alternatives.
Please give a case for inclusion of the material. I've checked the archives and there's none so far that I've found. The material should have at least been placed into the footnotes with the rest for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You said the descriptions were not short and were not neutral. I don't see that and if it were true it would make the summaries at the top of most of Wikipedia's biographies unacceptable. Short summaries are quite common in other lists. You haven't presented a halfway decent case for change so I'm with the consensus against you. I see no need for further discussion to try and show something to you as your change is unlikely to be implemented but if you want to go on about it with others I'll not raise an objection. Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"I don't see that and if it were true it would make the summaries at the top of most of Wikipedia's biographies unacceptable." Howso?--Ronz (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This has gotten to the point of silliness. Ronz, you have changed the subject heading of this section twice (to something I think is less descriptive), not yet brought forward a single point anyone else has agreed with, and I for one am unable to follow any of your arguments. In any case, you don't have consensus for the changes you are looking for. Please drop it or provide a single clear argument for why the change is desirable and see if anyone bites. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"This has gotten to the point of silliness" I agree. How about we collaborate instead of whatever this has been. Let's start over. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you are the one wanting the change, please clearly explain why you think removing that material would be good (or if what you want has changed, what it is you want and why). Hobit (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Please WP:DTS. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fritz Vahrenholt

It could be someone else, but there's at least one chemist named Fritz Vahrenholt that has quite a number of search results from Google Scholar. Looks like the Vahrenholt we're interested in completed his PhD in 1974. The German Wikipedia has quite a bit of information on him, though I have to use a computer translation. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and restoring it. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
These appear to be his, published while he was working on his PhD: --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Notable scientists"

The phrase "notable scientists" appears twice in the lede section. I took it out a few days ago, but I see that it has been reverted back in. At the top of this talk page we have "Criterion: No red links. An individual must be notable for inclusion," which is fine. There was some discussion in the past about self-referencing and the numerous mirror copies of WP text that exist in which we identified that there is no way that a link to WP:N could ever appear in article text. Therefore the word notable appears unlinked both times in the lede.

My point is that to my eye the everyday phrase notable scientist has a very different meaning to that indicated by the rather specific and self-defined 'no red links' criterion above. Because of Wikipedia:Not paper, you don't have to be a very notable scientist at all to have a brief bio article on Wikipedia. Saying (twice) that this is a list of notable scientists is misleading the reader as (I won't mention any examples by name for BLP reasons but...) there are many retired professors, even politicians and museum managers, here who no one would normally describe as 'notable scientists', a phrase that makes me think of people like Einstein, Newton, Boyle, Rutherford, and so on, who at least have an equation, a law or a model named after them, that is still in everyday scientific use. I propose removing both occurrences of the word from article-space, and keeping it here - and appropriately linked - on the talk page only. --Nigelj (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Agreed. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Taking it out implies any scientist, even those nobody takes any note of. I can see the problem but I think saying notable is better than not saying notable. Perhaps somebody can come up with something better but I'd leave it with the notable in until then. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
How do you propose to explain to the encyclopedia reader that this is not a list of every scientist who has expressed a contrary view, but only those who have Wikipedia entries? Because I do not personally think this is obvious; it requires a knowledge of the accepted standard for WP list articles. Speaking for myself, I initially thought it was an attempt to list every published scientist with a contrary view. I think there needs to be some way of explaining this to the reader. If you want to say "This is a list of scientists with Wikipedia articles who..." that is of course fine. --Merlinme (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of users would think it very strange to just have the scientists that are in Wikipedia because they think Wkipedia is a rag bag of those somebody has bothered to write about rather than having notability criteria. Saying notable does correspond with the Wikipedia idea of notability fairly closely. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Saying 'notable scientist' does not (correspond with the Wikipedia idea of notability). It implies 'notable among scientists', which is quite different. Saying anything about 'having a Wikipedia article' is more or less forbidden by WP:SELF. If there is a word-smithing way to solve this, it's not obvious to me, but what we currently have is not right. --Nigelj (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In what way do you think the meanings differ significantly? Do you think there is a large difference between scientists listed in Wikipedia and scientists considered as notable amongst scientists? Are you trying to say that only mainstream scientists would be counted as notable by other scientists? Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'm saying that being an author on one or more peer-reviewed papers, and being WP:NOTABLE enough to have an article here, do not add up to make someone a "notable scientist". A "notable scientist" in ordinary English is a scientist who has made a notable contribution to science. Getting listed among a group of authors to a paper while doing your PhD many years ago, and then getting an article in Wikipedia due to notoriety in some other field - e.g. business, politics, crime, media etc - does not make you a "notable scientist". I can't think of many other ways to say this. It should be quite clear by now. --Nigelj (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
For further clarity, I'm not saying that these people should not be listed here, just that the whole article should not introduce the list as a list of 'notable scientists', but merely as 'scientists'. Notability is harder to define in article space (it's easy here on the talk page, as we have done), and may warrant a sentence or two in the article if someone would like to suggest some proposed text. All I'm arguing here is the removal of the word notable from its present use in the phrase notable scientist where it occurs so prominently. --Nigelj (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I really feel that removing the notable is much worse than leaving it in as we'd then be saying all and any scientist. There's far more scientists that aren't notable than scientists that mightn't fit your criteria and are included herre. Notable is a much more accurate description of the list. If you can think of a better way of phrasing it then fine but we do disagree about this and you'd need a consensus of other people to make a decision on that point. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Where would it be that "we'd then be saying all and any scientist"? Certainly not here on the Talk page (aimed at editors) where the criteria are clear. Certainly not in the article text (aimed at readers), where the policy that applies is WP:DUE. WP:DUE applies to every word in every WP article. We don't preface every article by saying, "This is an article of notable things about X, written with due weight in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Even though it is undeniably true. Saying that these are all "notable scientists" is easily and demonstrably false, and should not be stated within the first seven words of this article. --Nigelj (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the occurrences per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Puffery. Perhaps this will attract other editors to comment here. --Nigelj (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The talk page is irrelevant for qualifying what the text says to readers. It is not part of the encyclopaedia proper. The article page has to stand on its own. I see no easy way to apply WP:DUE to give your meaning, plus we have another guidelineWP:Notability that says notability does not apply to the contents of articles. Also WP:SAL says notability is a common selection criterion for entries - it is optional. Readers are not expected to read the policies or talk page - we've got to simply work this out on the straightforward basis of what do they convey to a reader. So just ask yourself what do you think is conveyed to the man in the street by "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies"? Dmcq (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"This is a list of scientists notable enough to have their own encyclopedia article who have made statements that..." does not refer to Wikipedia and would make perfect sense in a paper encyclopedia, which as I understand it is one of the main objectives of WP:SELF. And in any case, almost nothing is fixed in stone. The top of WP:SELF points out that is a Manual of Style entry which will have the occasional exception and should be applied with common sense. So if referring to the encyclopedia is better than the alternatives, that's what we should do.
As regards saying "notable", I think it's better than not saying notable. As Dmcq has said (and I agree) you should not have to know anything about Wikipedia policy to understand the inclusion criteria. Without "notable", or a form of words expressing the same thing, there is a criterion which is hidden from the reader. I oppose removing "notable" unless it is replaced by a form of words which conveys the same information. --Merlinme (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes the bit about listing criteria at the end of the lead would be particularly bad without something equivalent. I just had a look at a thesaurus and the best ones I can see which don't imply eminent are high-profile and well-known (and notorious too but I don't think we can use that!). Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I've boldly removed the first use of "notable" as inappropriate because of the common meaning, and replaced the second use with "all have their own Wikipedia article" since editors feel so strongly about retaining that meaning. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the subsequent improvements. Are we done? --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the current explanation achieves the desired objectives. Given that it's been allowed to stand (and how quickly controversial changes are normally reverted) I guess there is currently at least a tacit consensus in favour? --Merlinme (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What information should be included with each entry?

Obviously verification that the entry belongs if not clear from the linked article. Currently, the footnotes hold exact quotes with references of the person making a statement that fits with the sub-section of the article. Because of the inclusion criteria's "To be included on this list a scientist must have made a clear statement in their own words" this is fine and has been discussed at length.

I've suggested that identification of the type of scientist each person is, so we clearly meet the "natural sciences" part of our inclusion criteria.

The article currently holds additional information. As there's been no previous discussion of what does and does not belong (at least that I've found), I think we should come up with some criteria rather than just allow whatever has been included.

Editors have expressed concerns that we should include "minimal identifying information", "Why they are notable", "pertinent info", a "brief description", and "important identifying information". Let's expand on these so we actually have criteria that makes it clear what we do and do not include. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

<Name>, [<optional-retired>] <job-title> at <academic-institution>[, <optional-city>] <-- My suggestion. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response.
That information is in their own articles, correct? If not, it certainly should be.
Why is this information worth repeating here? --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
While Nigelj's suggestion is probably a really good staring point, we should be willing to be a bit more flexible (some of these folks might be working at non-academic institutional for example). As to why: to provide context so that one can quickly see who might be of interest for whatever one is looking at the list for. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
All the context is just a click of a link away. If we can't be more specific than, "whatever one is looking at the list for", I don't know how we can determine what information is and is not appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the current identifying information is fine. If we need changes we can do it case by case. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd hope we can create some actual criteria, so it doesn't look arbitrary or worse. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hobit and Capitalismojo. It ain't broke, don't fix it. Yopienso (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a vote.
How about we rewrite it per the suggestions given? --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not a vote, but there isn't any consensus for changes. That said, if you want to propose a draft with the changes you'd like, that would be welcome. It's hard to discuss the abstract. I would hate to see qualifications removed (member NAS, Nobel Prize, etc.) where relevant, but other than that we seem to be following the format proposed by Nigelj. So I'm unclear what you are wanting to do. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Since there is no policy-based opposition, I'll go ahead with the proposals. If someone would like to help clean this up, we certainly could use other proposals and discussions of their merits. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what you are even proposing to change at this point. But there certainly isn't any consensus to make changes--AFAICT no one has agreed with anything you've proposed. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ronz, please do not remove info about the scientists. Policy-based opposition:

  • WP:AOAL: 5. Can be embellished with annotations (further details). For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can include with each entry when each championship was won, whom the champions defeated, who their coach was, etc.
  • MOS:LISTBULLET: Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements. This implies there will be explanations included with the elements; the MoS goes on to give examples.
  • "Reaching consensus through discussion"

Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The only argument against the changes are that people are against the changes. That's no argument, nor reason to prevent the improvement of this article. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Strawman argument. No one is against "improving the article". There is a mild disagreement about what constitutes improvement. We have not yet achieved consensus on this. A strong reason (policy-based or otherwise) for changes has not been proposed, nor have draft examples posted of how those changes might affect or improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that editors are blocking improvements to the article when they cannot justify the inclusion of information beyond that they like it and others like it.
Please participate in discussing criteria or making suggestions. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring my remarks? Yopienso (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that you felt I was doing so. I don't see the comments as being directly related to any criteria or suggestions. Yes, we should follow appropriate policies/guidelines. Thanks for bringing them up. They are so broad that they could support anything or nothing at all. But perhaps you could clarify. How do they apply to the criteria and suggestions offered so far? --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, your case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is pretty bad. Could you clarify what it is you are proposing? Ideally in the form of a draft. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Do WP:FOC.
There are only two proposals so far. Is something not clear about them? --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, I posted WP policy in direct response to your announcement, "Since there is no policy-based opposition, I'll go ahead with the proposals." You want to delete explanatory details, so, from two separate pages, I quoted policy that governs such info. I'm astonished that you fail to see how "they apply to the criteria and suggestions offered so far." Furthermore, as Hobit just pointed out, you are seriously missing the bit about reaching consensus through discussion, which is my third bullet point. I do appreciate that you did not go ahead with your proposals.
Simple summary:
  • There is policy-based opposition to your suggestion to delete explanatory info.
  • There is a consensus to retain such long-standing info in this list.
  • Your best move is to drop the stick. Yopienso (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"to delete explanatory info" This discussion is about determining criteria for what information is included with each entry. In other words, justifying whatever specific information we decide to include.
I see no opposition, only identification of policies. How they justify some information over other information has yet to be explained.
We have proposals. The opposition to them is nothing beyond people not wanting any changes. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
As noted previously, I still don't know what you are proposing. Could you provide a draft or a few examples of changes you'd want to make please? Hobit (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nigelj suggested: <Name>, [<optional-retired>] <job-title> at <academic-institution>[, <optional-city>].

I've suggested that we add information so we clearly meet our inclusion criteria, "Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences..." --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll just go ahead and paste in my whole comment, which pretty much agrees with Ronz's latest. I agree that each scientist should have at least one academic paper published.

Oh, yes, sorry, Ronz--I see what you're saying. I was thinking you just wanted to delete all additional info. You're asking for criteria as to WHAT additional info should be included.
First, as I've said, it ain't broke, so don't fix it. You are the only editor who sees a problem, so imho the best thing to do is drop this discussion.
But, if others wish to discuss, I second Nigel's motion:

<Name>, [<optional-retired>] <job-title> at <academic-institution>[, <optional-city>]

We could also add important publications, but I'd doubt there would be a consensus for that expansion.
Questions for all editors:

Are we happy with the info in the list as is?
Do we see a need to spell out criteria? Yopienso (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine as-is. And if we'd change, I'd certainly want to add things like member of the NAS or other things that are significant to their notability. So first choice: no change. Second choice, more than just the raw format proposed where appropriate. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine as-is. A one liner description is pretty standard for list items like these. Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Attempt at consistent criteria

I gave it a shot with just the first section [8]. Since they aren't all research scientists, I don't see how we can make these very consistent. More importantly, I'm not sure what information is actually pertinent to the topic of this article. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And I've just undone it. As you say, we can't make a set of consistent criteria. The info is pertinent because it briefly tells the person perusing the list who the scientist is without having to click on a link and wait for another page to load. You really need to back away from this because no one agrees with you. We don't see a problem. Yopienso (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Setting up a new discussion doesn't mean you get a free go at doing the same sort of thing yet again. It just means you persist in doing things others disagree with which is disruptive behaviour. Dmcq (talk)
Do WP:FOC. Thanks!
So why is this information pertinent to present here specifically. We've now five specific cases: (disputed content in bold italics) --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
  • Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
  • Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
  • Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
    OK, "German" probably isn't relevant (thought it could be to someone who is curious if there are any notable scientists from Europe who fit in this list I suppose) but the rest go to why they are notable. (That said, I see German as a slight net positive, so I'd prefer to leave it.) Overall though A) your changes aren't helpful and B) Dmcq is correct, you're being disruptive. This article is under discretionary sanctions partly because of IDIDNTHEARIT behavior similar to what you are exhibiting. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    How do we determine what part of their notability should be presented here?
    As for disruption, besides disagreeing and trying to improve the article, what's disruptive? --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary says it all, "Trying to make these have consistent criteria, but unclear how to do so." You shouldn't be muddling with the article. What is clear is that you have no support for your "attempt at consistent criteria." Your edits suggest you want to minimize the stature of the scientists, which contravenes POV. Yopienso (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see--you were trying to pare it down to Nigel's suggestion. But that's not something you gained consensus for; I merely said we could discuss it. The general consensus is to stop tinkering with the info. Yopienso (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Editors don't have to gain consensus to make changes to this or any other article, especially on matters where there is no policy-based consensus.
I've removed "German" given the comment above and because articles should be written from an international viewpoint.
"Your edits suggest you want to minimize the stature of the scientists, which contravenes POV." Thanks for striking that out. Since the entries don't have to be scientists in any manner beyond having a single peer-reviewed publication in the natural sciences, why does it matter at all? --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nationalities

Ronz has removed the adjective "German" from the Fritz Vahrenholt entry with the edit summary, "Wikipedia is written from a world view - removed since no one has identified nationalities as important."
Actually, Hobit saw "German as a slight net positive, so I'd prefer to leave it." Furthermore, precisely because WP is global in scope, it is useful to identify the nationalities of the scientists. (See Hobit's comment.) In this case, instead of restoring "German," I suggest adding data that shows he was educated and works in Germany. This would avoid singling out one of the few scientists who are not from North America and would augment the entry. Yopienso (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do we highlight this one nationality over all others and why does any mention of nationality belong in this specific list? --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I was mistaken that most scientists on the list are from North America; just under half are, although this incomplete list may not accurately represent where such scientists live and work.
Nearly every entry includes an identifying institution or city that links the scientist to a nation. Vincent R. Gray is identified as a New Zealander and William Kininmonth as Australian. I'm adding info to Vahrenholt's entry that corrects the lack of an geographical identifier. I'm also expanding the "ANU" in Paltridge's entry to "Australian National University" for the same reason.
To directly answer your questions, then, we don't highlight one nationality over all others. Mention of nationalities shows the global scope of our article. Yopienso (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really pleased with my clunky addition; Occam's razor indicates restoring "German." That's consistent with Kininmonth's being the "Australian delegate." Yopienso (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think nationalities should normally go in but it is a usual and important aspect of a politician. 10:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Good catch with the abbreviation.
So nationality when a politician then? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
As WP:Policy says "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules" and "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules". The best one can do is cover the main cases, anything more is WP:CREEP. Personally I'm happy with a reasonable description of the person that fits into a tweet, and I can see there is a case sometimes for going up to about twice that length. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No one's arguing for hard-and-fast rules, so let's not waste time pretending otherwise.
Policy-based justification is a necessity for anything that is going to stand up to change.
In this case, neutral selection and presentation of information is the concern. --Ronz (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that "arguing for hard-and-fast rules" is precisely what you're doing.
Evidence: your insertion of nationalities to Robinson and Allegre, whose blurb shows them working in California and Paris, respectively, and whose names suggest they are American and French.
I would insert, to invent an example, "British" in the entry of a politician with an English name who is working in the US since the inference would be that he is American, but when the logical inference--in Robinson's case, that he's American--is true, inserting "American" seems to me to be a niggling adherence to a new rule--or criterion, as you prefer--that no one but you cares about. Yopienso (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that nationality is a strange new requirement in some of the entries. The purpose of the brief information after a name is to help someone skimming the list to have a little more context, perhaps to help them form a judgement in their own mind. We all agree that every entry is a link, so someone studying the entries can easily click through and get all the background information they like. To pick an example at random, if I see that someone is described here as "professor of geology at the University of Oslo", I might think: 'professor', so they must know something about something; 'geology', hmmm, but maybe more about rocks than climate; 'University of Oslo', sounds like a major university... I don't know what extra help it would be to know that they may be Swiss, Swedish, Ghanaian, or Japanese in origin, unless it was to pique my latent racism. If we want an extra fact, I would prefer to look at their academic record - how many papers have they published, what are their citation counts, and were any of them about climate. (Actually I think any of those would be too much, but at least they'd be relevant and potentially interesting.) --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm arguing for following NPOV and BLP. If those are hard-and-fast rules, then fine.
How about we stick to specifics and WP:FOC?
"If we want an extra fact, I would prefer to look at their academic record - how many papers have they published, what are their citation counts, and were any of them about climate." This has been brought up before. Why does it matter? Our inclusion criteria ensures that they have at least one publication. Emphasizing how many they have would be giving additional weight to the matter, but for what reason? In contrast, emphasizing climate-change related publications is relevant at least. Though it would be better to start an article specific about people who've published on climate change, so we can treat it in depth and neutrally. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
All we're wanting is a quick description of who the people are. We're not writing articles about them here. We're not compiling a comparison of them. It isn't as though we had columns for attributes like a comparison of various computers where often the most interesting thing about one is ignored because it doesn't go into a column. Whatever the first person writes is probably okay for the purpose but one might want to cut down something that's too long or put in something important that's been missed out. Dmcq (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Yopienso (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for information

I've just restored and sourced some info deleted because it wasn't in the source provided. I question how much we need to source in this list, though, since all the data is available in the BLPs. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't need sources, as we shouldn't be adding any information not in the respective article for the entry. Otherwise we're attempting something besides simply describing each person, which would be an NPOV violation.
Of course, if someone wants to propose criteria for additional information, we can discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, I agree that any info sourced in the BLP doesn't have to be separately sourced in this list. Definitely agree any details in the list should be in the BLPs. Yopienso (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
How about we use information only from the first sentence of each BLP article? Or even the actual first sentence? Just a thought. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
A worthy suggestion, but I prefer to avoid a formula. I don't understand the concern with a set of criteria: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Imho, it ain't broke. Please see Dmcq's statement in the section just above, timestamped 20:04, 23 June 2014. Yopienso (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's most certainly broken.
No one has been keeping the entries up to date with their respective articles.
It's unclear if anyone ever verified each entry against the corresponding article, as we've had information in this article that is not in the entry's. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is "broken". Show examples of why you think it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying the article is fine if the entries aren't kept up to date, were never verified against the corresponding articles, and that we include information not in the corresponding articles? --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no mechanism in Wikipedia for ensuing things like that except vigilance by editors. WP:SOFIXIT describes this. The main thing needed in Wikipedia is lots of editors interested in improving it. Which entries have you spotted that have information that is not in their article? I would certainly have thought that any information here should appear in the summary of the person's article otherwise it isn't important enough to be here. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Salby

The Salby ref says "chair" of department, not "professor". It has been edit warred to professor. We should stick with what the ref says. Unless there is a firm reason not to use what the ref actually says, this should be restored. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'll note the discussion above that was a response to your original change of the information, the information from the corresponding article, Arthur B. Robinson, is preferred and doesn't require a source. The references, unless otherwise noted, are there to verify the person's statement and opinions on climate change, as required by the inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I see from that discussion that there is no consensus for your bold change. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
How about we WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And so we have been. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I also note that I merely restored the longstanding original material that you removed for unknown and unexplained reasons. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
We've been having discussions about the reasons for two weeks now. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Not about this edit and to the extent that this falls into the previous discussion, there is no support for your changes. There is and can be no support for removing the description per the ref and replacing it with material not in the Salby ref.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it best to work from the associated articles for each entry, rather than from the existing or new references when it comes to describing the individuals. Otherwise we'd not be following BLP and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This article stands here. We don't rely on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The refs here must support what is posted here. We do not remove RS ref'd material because someone likes material elsewhere on wikipedia. Ultimately there is no consensus for your change at Selby. No policy based argument has been made for the change. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about BLP and NPOV, and the discussions that have been ongoing for over two weeks. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this argument, The source says that Robinson was the Oregon Republican Party chairman, not a department chair. Guettarda (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Good catch. I meant and had reverted Salby. I have changed the section heading and name to remove the confusion. Ref [9]Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That makes more sense. Bear in mind that like 'professor', 'chair' can mean different things in the British (and presumably, Australian) and American university systems. 'Chair of X' is comparable to [Named] Professor. Department chair is Head of Department. Roughly. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Salby was Professor of Climate Risk at Macquarie University. The university, like many contemporary universities, is organised by departments and does not have independent "chairs". It also does not have a department of climate - it does have departments of Earth & Planetary Sciences, and of Environment and Geography. Salby was neither chair nor head (that's the term the university uses) of either. He was a professor at the department of Environment and Geography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider adding other scientists

I am not exactly sure what is the criteria for scientists here, so please inform me whether there is such a thing. I'm assuming that this article should include scientists like research physicists and those who have worked in/currently work in climate-related areas. Am I correct? I have a few names I will be adding, but please feel free to reverse my edits if they don't meet the criteria. Meşteşugarul - U 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The criteria are listed in the article, but basically, they should be someone who has published a natural sciences paper in a peer reviewed journal, and they should be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. You also need to provide a quote in their own words which clearly demonstrates their disagreement. --Merlinme (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted Idso because the quote was from 1998. It's not inconceivable that people can change their minds on this stuff, so we need a more recent quote than that. Ideally the quote should be since the Fourth Assessment Report, i.e. since 2007, as that is the criterion we will probably be adopting in the near future. --Merlinme (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will keep this in mind as I look through some of the databases I know contain a few more complete lists. Meşteşugarul - U 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Syn, other issues including the Curry case

The list has multiple issues, e.g. WP:Syn and Wikipedia:LSC. Another AfD might be futile, just due to the fact that this has happened before and the tribalism critized in the real world controversy (compare Judith Currys essay on that) is mirrored as well within WP. One might be better off with an attempt to rename the article. I suggest

  • List of scientists endorsing Climate Scepticism
  • List of scientists challenging the IPCC process and conclusions

My basic point is that the article provides some example of persons without clear selection criteria. Some do not acknowledge aspects of the consens finding, some do not accept some of the results and most do not accept some of the conclusions climate activists draw from the IPCC reports. The list and especially its entry doesnt provide the necessary distinctions.

WP:Syn

According WP:Syn, we are not to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thats a major issue here. The list cannot be based on valid sources - if a scientist says something which might be interpreted as "anti consensus", we would have to provide a source that says so. Any article like "List of abc person that challenge the consensus on xyz" are a no go, wether xyz is about landing on the moon or the pope being no friend of the italian opera. You won't find any valid sources in nearly all most cases involved. The afd discussions so far have been about BLP, however WP:Synth is a stronger point without BLP - one might assume that nowadays a renowned researcher like Judith Curry might not care much wether she is listed or not.

Wikipedia:LSC

The rationale of whom to include (as scientist, why only natural scientists? The climate controversy is more of a political controversy about conclusions, less about assumptions) is neither clear nor is it based on sound reasoning. In fact, the people mentioned and their statements are a incoherent mix of scientists and politicians, and as well scientific and / or political statements. E.g. Fritz Varenholt is included due to his degree in chemistry, while e.g. Richard Tol is being left out. Grin. Varenholt is more an industrialist and politician with a university post among his broad activities. In so far the list is comparing apples to oranges and does not fullfill its own criteria of inclusion.

  • The article does not refer to the consensus finding process respectively challenges towards the consensus. The entry mentions some assumptions and statements by the IPCC reports and working groups. However the subtitles like "Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections" or "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" or "Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences" are not really refering to those - why are e.g. Roger A. Pielke father and son left out? Pielke sr. e.g. assumes that land use patterns are underestimated by the IPCC reports, Pielke jr. acuses climate activists to overestimate the correlation of warming and extreme weather, even the quite weak one given by the IPCC. It may be the task of the IPCC to provide a consensus repectively covering the mainstream opinion, but has it succeded? A statement like These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations is wrong, since it confuses acknowledgment of the IPCC as a global scientific association (which all academies worth mentioning have done) and acknowledgement of each of its findings (which is completely another game). The consensus is a moving target - compare Mike Lockwoods statements about the solar influence now and then.
  • The article doesnt include doubts about the consensus finding process per se (as by Hans von Storch or Richard Tol). Furthermore the article includes scientists that have provided valuable research to reach it - e.g. Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels etc. and it mentions scientists that - e.g. Veizer, Shaviv with regard to the role of the solar impact or the climate sensitivity - have provided research that is still within the IPCC ranges mentioned in the entry.

Serten (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that another AfD is a waste of time at this point, though I don't see any other way to resolve these problems. Changing the inclusion criteria would help though. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that besides renaming of the article, the inclusion criteria could be changed to resolve the issues raised. These criteria are either not coherent or not being used at all in the actual selections. E.g. Freeman Dyson seems NOT to challenge any of the findings 1-3 in the entry (compare Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming). As well, he did not challenge the IPCC and climate modeling as a climate scientist, he is - based on his own statement - far from being able to discuss technical details, but he did challenge the political conclusions, just as a concerned citizen with a distingished background in physics. Same for Jan Veizer, his statement used as a source to include him in this list does not challenge the purprted consens at all. He sees discrepancies between empiric data and modeling results, to involve him in this list means that the consens criteria include believe in what the models say, independent of real world data. That would be plainly ridiculous and more a case for Harry Frankfurt. One suggestion for a new title involving Veizer properly would be something like * List of scientists doubting predictions based on climate computer models. Do you have any better suggestions? Serten (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Dyson is a borderline case, but if you read the source of his quote, in response to "Would you also accept that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of burning fossil fuels and that global temperatures have been rising for the past 50 years at least, and possibly for longer?" he says "no". And in fact this is a classic case where finding a reasonably reliable third-party source (in this case the newspaper The Independent) describing him as a sceptic is easier than showing that his views are clearly in opposition to the consensus.
You've raised half a dozen pretty big issues at the same time. Speaking from personal experience I would suggest that (at least initially) you concentrate on the two or three you care about the most and try to build consensus for those. If you try to change six things at once there is a high chance you won't get far with any of them. Changing consensus requires engagement from other editors, and as a practical matter it's hard to get editors to engage if they have to spend hours of their spare time trying to read and understand what you're asking for. Make it easier for them; make your points shorter and clearer and make it clearer what you want to achieve. (As a minor point, please write "consensus" in full, I find it quite distracting when I keep reading "consens".)
It is possible to change this page, but it does take a certain amount of patience and perseverance and skill at consensus building. Please try to succinctly persuade us why you are right. --Merlinme (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
merlinme, you raise a valid point. Basically the article is having major issues but the its survival says more about the tribal peculiarities of the WP climate controversies than the worthiness of this list. What I do now is a new entry as preparation for a move request respectively as well move and split. I will shortly repeat the major points there to easen the consensus (dam typo) finding process. I hope thats in line with your suggestion. Serten (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this list appropriate for Wikipedia?

This may have already been discussed, but I have to wonder if it is even consistent with the mission of Wikipedia to have a list like this. (1) As discussed above under "Notable", one might reasonably ask who would qualify to appear on this list. (2) In terms of balance and Wikipedia's policy or guidance for maintaining some level of neutrality, shouldn't there also be a list of scientists that support the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? Of course, it would be pretty impractical to put together such a list, but maybe I should check if someone has already tried. (3) And, then, finally, I think it needs to be recognized that many scientists have nuanced opinions about technical issues, and so I don't know that it even makes sense to divide this issue into "support" or "oppose" lists. Just my thoughts. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We have already a category of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead authors which covers part of your suggestion. I however assume that a consensus per se has to include different opinions. So a scientist my be in line with a) some of the findings but not with the complete range of findings (take climate sensitivity from 1,5-4,5) and b) he or she is not at all forced by the consensus to draw specific regional political conclusions. It might be good for the world as a whole to have less carbon dioxide emmissions, but any global consensus (and the IPCC has the task to find it, but alas, is as all human endeveours surely part from being perfect to deliver) does not help to decide wether China or Poland should close which peculiar coal energy power station, if any. Serten (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Serten, we are certainly not obtaining communication. Perhaps this is my fault. Let me just say this, if we really want a list of scientists "opposed", then we need a corresponding list of those that "support". For neutrality, the two lists should be developed with complementary criteria, so, include, say, scientists of the same "notability". This project would be almost impossible to accomplish, given the high degree of subjectivity. It is also worth recognizing that the "support" list would be unmanageably long. Very, very long. And, then, we might contemplate all the subtleties of opinion that most scientists actually have, so making a dichotomous list pretty much meaningless. I would like to suggest that people contributing to Wikipedia could use their time in more productive ways. Just my opinion. Thank you and sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
MOst research, including the one of sceptics is on different positions on the ranges of the actual IPCC science base data values. A completely abstract term like "the consensus" or "the mainstream of science" has not any actual value, just compare Freeman Dyson. Therefore neither a list of scientists "opposed", nor a list of those that "support" has any practical value. We can make lists of contributors to the IPCC process and its scientific base. We could make lists of those that have stronger doubts or endorsements about the political findings. But the list here is completely worthless, except as pranger for alleged bad guys. Serten (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter if this is a useless list. Wikipedia does not have 'useful' or 'practical' as a criterion. It does not matter that it is not balanced by a list of scientists who support the IPCC. What matters is that a number of places have made lists like this and published them and people are interested in them. They aren't interested in lists of the tens or hundreds of thousands or whatever of scientists who support the IPCC. That's basically all there is to it. Wikipedia needs to be based on what the sources say. If they say something like consensus then we write about it however relevant or irrelevant or abstract anybody here feels that is. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"It is also worth recognizing that the 'support' list would be unmanageably long. Very, very long. And, then, we might contemplate all the subtleties of opinion that most scientists actually have, so making a dichotomous list pretty much meaningless." Which is exactly why such a "support" list is unnecessary. This list already states that the other position is the "mainstream scientific assessment." There is no need to list every scientist who supports the "mainstream scintific assessment." It can be assumed that most scientists do. But when notable scientists oppose the "mainstream scientific assessment" that in itself is notable, and it is useful to understand their objections and reasons for doing so. Hence this list. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
the 'support' list would be either unmanageably long since it would have to contain even the majority of the people which are listed here or completely empty. I still havent found any source used for the list entries which actually refers to no consensus and you won't be able to put up the support list based on sources which contain a clear statement "is deemed and approved as being in line with the mainstream provided by the IPCC". Do you agree? I agree with your points about useability (the list might fall under On bullshit in the scientific meaning, Quote bullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener.) and false balance. Serten (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The editors of Wikipedia are allowed to use a tiny amount of common sense rather than Having to look for some legal form signed by people with some exact wording. There's discussions here about some of the ones who are disputed but if you are disputing the lot you simply fail WP:consensus on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
editors are asked to use facts and third party sources which back their claims, right? Serten (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia help desk is the appropriate forum for questions like that. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
We're not at the help desk. basic guidelines ask us to write articles based on valid sources, sources that contain what is being claimed in an article. Thats not the case here. I insofar would prefer connolley would either revert his vandalism or adress the concerns raised . This has not happerned in the afd discussions Serten (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Insulting others like that will get you banned. Don't do it. All I've seen is you saying you are right and others are wrong whatever the conclusions they have come to before. Have you a new point to raise? If you are just reraising some old point on this talk page without new material then fine but that doesn't entitle you to start sticking loads of tags into the article. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I wouldn't have put it quite like that myself, but it is correct that if you're attempting to build consensus you have to engage with people who don't share your views and persuade them that you're right. Saying "It's obvious you're all wrong" (which is effectively what you're doing) is not terribly helpful. Just because it's obvious to you that we're all wrong doesn't mean it's obvious to us. You have to build a consensus, i.e. persuade nearly everybody that you're right. So far I haven't seen any evidence that you've persuaded anybody that you're right. --Merlinme (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

First I was sort of angry, since Connolley took the occasion to erase even the POV tag, wehich already was consemnted. Dont do that again. Second the concerns raised by me are neitheer old nor have they been solved or even raised in the afd discussions. The last afD had a long thread about WP:BLP being violated, less about OR. I dont care much about that. No person is to be entered in the list as long there is no source that mentions a position out of consensus. Trying to calculate the position from primary sources is OR and not to be accepted. the article entry may reveal that fact of life. If you want the list without a tag, provide sources that back the claims in the article. Thats all. Serten (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can everyone WP:FOC?

Consensus can change.

What we currently have here, and even this is questionable, is a list of natural scientists that have made statements that appear to be in conflict with the 2001 IPCC assessment. Perhaps we should just find a more appropriate title for the article as a start? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree consensus can change. However, to say, for example: "Therefore neither a list of scientists "opposed", nor a list of those that "support" has any practical value...the list here is completely worthless, except as pranger for alleged bad guys"; statements like that assume the outcome of a discussion before it's even started.
I'm happy to discuss an alternative title if there's interest in that. No-one would pretend the current title is perfect in all respects; it's essentially the worst option except all the others which have been suggested. --Merlinme (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Merlinme, I suggested new titles, feel free to suggest others or endorse one of mine.Serten (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Title change?

So far I'm seeing already proposed. Please identify any I missed:.

  • List of scientists endorsing Climate Scepticism
  • List of scientists challenging the IPCC process and conclusions

I think that "endorsing climate skepticism" would require a rework of the inclusion criteria and article. The second proposal works without such changes, though "IPCC process or conclusions" would be more accurate. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If we have a split content in different topics, add

  • Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
  • Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
  • Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
  • Scientists doubting major aspects of climate computer model predictions

Serten (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to move respectively to use the list as base of categories

I believe that the list should be moved and split and I assume that its better to have a set of categories than a single list. Suggestions for those categories

  • Scientists endorsing Climate Scepticism
  • Scientists challenging the IPCC process and conclusions
    • Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
    • Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
    • Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
    • Scientists doubting major aspects of climate computer model predictions

One might add as well category besides Cat Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead authors

  • Scientists providing major contributions to the IPCC consensus finding process


Rationale

As mentioned before, the list has various major formal issues. Already the basic content is bound to fail under any any notability rule. The scientific consensus in IPCC reports mirrors a wide array of opinions and findings, a wide array of sceptics being included, from Michaels till Lindzen. Take Climate sensitivities, IPCC range from 1,5-4,5. Now any scientist of opinion that his or her measurement of a more specific value is the best IS out of the consensus AND as well those which have found values out of the IPCC range, published values go from 0,1 °C (Sellers, 1973) till 9,6 °C (Fritz Möller, 1963). So either you have a very large list or none at all.

The scientific mainstream and the IPCC process are not the same. The (political) conclusions of the IPCC however are more or less confined to reducing CO2 content on a global base. Thats based on the IPCC as an UN body standing for a global reaction on climate change. Climate change means in the politically relevant future - according Mike Lockwood, not a sceptic at all - e.g. cooler winters for the UK while warmer ones for Greenland. In so far a scientist might accept basical all IPCC science findings but not at all agree that a global CO2 reduction policy is the one and only adequate answer.

A list using original research in comparing the global scientific assessement of global climate with POV picked political statements statements of scientists on political issues of local and regional goverments is bound to fail. It is therefore not reasonable to connect to list scientists political statements as proof of lack of scientific consensus. Either delete it or split and rename it with adequate titles. One use the list to introduce various categories of scientists opinion on the IPCC process and conclusions. Serten (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

As said, I assume the list does not fullfill important WP guidelines but I assume it wouldbe worth while for both sides of the debate tok have precise categories for the different parties. Suggestions see entry, before I make a move request I'd prefer to have a feedback here. Serten (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You've cited zero reasons in policy or guidelines. Further, your second paragraph of your rationale is not legible. The rest of your rationale appears to not correspond to the actual article. Also "Scientists providing major contributions to the IPCC consensus finding process" sounds inherently susceptible to arbitrariness and is too long. Why you even mention it here is strange. Your category suggestions are unwieldy; they are points that should be discussed in the context of a list or article body, not a Cat. Second Quantization (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
a) I cited various ones above. b) I simplified it. c) I was asked for a balancing title before, therefore the suggestion. Serten (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Judith Curry again

I would say that Judith Currys reaction on the infamous "AAAS: What we know" statement allows to insert her and as well Pat Michaels and Catos Chip Knappenberger on the list. See [10] According them the AAAS claims a IPCC abiding consensus view but - sidesteps science that points to a lower risk of extreme climate change. She calls the AAAS consensus prayer "blurb". Bad Girl. Thats in my eyes a real secondary source to enter her and them in the list without any OR needed. Insert her. Serten (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read the link you've provided. It's not the clearest statement of Curry's views I've read. A much better source is her recent Congressional testimony, which in fact she links to on her own web page as summarising her views on climate change: [11] E.g.:
  • the science of climate change is not settled, and evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries
  • with the 15+ year hiatus in global warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability
also this: [12] where she lists six items as "Evidence for" dominant human factors in climate change, and the following three items against:
  • No significant increase in globally averaged temperature for the past 15 years.
  • Lack of a consistent and convincing attribution argument for the warming from 1910-1940 and the plateau from the 1940s to the 1970s.
  • Growing realization that multidecadal natural internal variability is of higher amplitude than previously accounted for in IPCC attribution analyses
Is there a sceptical slant to all of this? Sure, but she always words her statements extremely carefully, so for example although she strongly implies that she thinks natural variability dominates human factors in climate change in the late 20th century, she doesn't explicitly state that.
I have previously added her to the list based on a quote where she explicitly rejected the IPCC's high level of confidence that climate change was being caused by human factors. Her name was however removed, and the recent RFC was not in favour of having her in the list, so you will need to do some work to persuade people why she disagrees with the consensus (as defined in the article) and should therefore be on the list.--Merlinme (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep the criteria are a bit higher that just that a scientist has been called a dissenter. That would include too many scientists who definitely are not but have been stuck on such lists by the Heartland Institute and suchlike. For WP:BLP reasons we also have to be pretty sure that is a reasonable description, that's why there are references on each to show that. As in a lot of human things the line is a little blurry and in her case many believe her statements could just reflect normal scientific skepticism. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Here youre talking wether Curry fullfills criteria for sceptics based on believe in the hiatus or not. Sorry thats OR based on primary sources. We would need secondary sources that state Currys statements being not in line with mainstream scientific assessment, respectively out of the IPCC, if we plan to set up a list of IPCC sceptics. Serten (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You're talking about the article as you want it to be, rather than the article as it is. I'm also mystified why you consider Curry's use of the word "blurb" in her blog to be either: a) a secondary source; or b) a clearer statement of her views than her testimony to Congress. --Merlinme (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well it depends on what you mean by a hiatus. I certainly think it is a silly term for what has been happening which is that the warming has't gone up quite so quickly which is quite true. But do we know exactly what Judith Curry meant by it? Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the claimed mainstream, the AAAS endorsement of the IPCC reports and Patrick Michaels controversal findings are secondary sources, Curry explicitely denounced the AAAS consensus tralala as being blurb and agreed with Pat Michael about it, so she discusses relevant secondary sources. If you find her discussing or doubting the consensus (in an abstract sense) in the senate hearings, OK. Great, thats what we want. WP doesnt do or repeat measurements, we check who discusses them in the literature. Serten (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Could I just clarify please that you know the dictionary definition of "blurb", i.e. a short summary to advertise or promote something, e.g. on the back of a book? You seem to be using it as if it was clearly derogatory, which is confusing me. All Curry says is that she is quoting from the blurb, i.e. the short summary of the larger report.--Merlinme (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what is meant by "tralala" either in the statement "Curry explicitely denounced the AAAS consensus tralala as being blurb". I'm sure a lot of problems caused by an imperfect grasp of English are being overlooked as people assume something but it is not what was meant. Dmcq (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Blurb is Klappentext / waschzettel in German, sure I knew that before. Dmcq you asked me above werther I would be in a position to devalue the text of the AAAS (it sounds like it were a holy text not to be desacrecated by me, grin). OK Curry calles it blurb and conveys a derogatory term for the marketing / propaganda use which was conveyed by Michaels. I might agree with her in so far, more important I have a) sources backing my opinion and b) I have provided secondary sources that endorse Curry involvement in the list. Serten (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Confirmation bias is another possible reason they back up your opinion. That's why Wikipedia depends on consensus. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of social science sources

Consensus finding is a social science issue, and IPCC and the doubts about it been researched since more than for more than a decade. Scholars describe the process in the climate debate as Post-normal science, where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent". I am completely flabbergasted to see while we have had 6 AFD discussions and more, nobody has taken the effort to look for adequate sources from the broad and rather big research and scientific findings about "mainstream scientific assessment" involving the on e claimed by the IPCC. Neither Aant Elzinga 1996 study is being refered to nor Mike Hulmes work Raymund Werle nor Hans von Storch and others recent contribution e.g. in the Hamburg workshop. This article is on Kindergarten level. Serten (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Insulting people is not going to make them agree with you. Rather the reverse, in fact. --Merlinme (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't about that. Please establish what you're talking about at Scientific opinion on climate change or Global warming controversy or Surveys of scientists' views on climate change first. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This article claims to be about a consensus assessment. So either change the titel, as suggested or find suitbale secondary sources. WP doesnt do or repeat measurements, we check who discusses them in the literature. Serten (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it is relevant. Since the climate is complex and events not caused by humans, such as volcanoes and solar activity, are unpredictable, one would expect a range of projections from scientists rather than consensus on one. But this article is about "scientists" who reject the range of projections in mainstream science. They do not publish their objections in peer-reviewed literature and many if not most have no qualifications in climate science. TFD (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No need for detailed discussion of these topics, we already have articles on them (which are linked in the lead—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; scientific consensus; scientific opinion on climate change). In fact, we shouldn't have separate discussion of the sort being proposed here, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_layout:

Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate Wikipedia article

Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We are under obligation to provide valid secondary sources still. The topic has been reseached in the past, by a large array of social scientists, but WP authors here ignored the far reaching scientific discussion about the consens building and have inserted OR in its worst form. Serten (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is still the wrong article about that, I pointed you to relevant articles. There's no point going on about it here hoping to establish something in an article not about that something that clashes with articles that are about that sort of thing. WP:COATRACK is about trying to do things like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
First there seems to be a consensus here that this article is allowed to use Original research. The list is a) not refereing to a real world group of people, the names in question are not listed together by any source together, but each of the entries is enterd by using some individul quotes b) second the list into sets up some erratic rules and uses OR to proof that the alleged sceptics do not abide consensus. In so far I do not have to care wether there is a consensus about the article, its just clear that it is not in line with WP policy. Serten (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That does not sound like anything to do with "Lack of social science sources". Please set up a separate section if you're discussing a different topic. Dmcq (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It does. I have refered to possible sources, they have not been included. Serten (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It has already been explained to you how this is in line with Wikipedia policy. I think we're done here. Guettarda (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There have been various claims that its in line - but no answers to the concerns raised. You claim its in line, you don't provide proof. Serten (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "social science"? Are you saying that whether or not they should be in the list is matter for psychologists and that secondary sources saying they deny the science plus a quote from them as a BLP check is not sufficient? This article is about what is actually said and done rather than motivation. The article climate change denial is mostly about the industrial side and has only a small section about denial in general, if you have some decent sources on that it could help. You did not give any usable sources here though even for that, you just referred to people and a workshop with nothing straightforwardly usable for anything. Dmcq (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, the Hans von Storch Hamburg workshop on climate and Post-normal science is an excellent start, its presening current scientific findings exactly needed, for the list and as well the rather poor consenus articles as well. My position is quite clear - I think the article could and should stay, if we a) change the title and b) base it on WP-policy based sources. By the way, the (dissenting) scientists in question do not at all "deny" the "science". If so, we would have to call the list something like "List of villains bought by the oil industry to put disbelieve in the great truth of global climate change put on be Nobel prize winner Michael Mann and other prophets". The ppeople mentioned here have doubts about the IPCC processand its findings, for quite different reasons. The actual situation, I hope you agree, based on your reference to climate change denial being a much smaller part of the game, is much more complex. Serten (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You haven't given a source, you have pointed at someplace from where you expect others to try and search for whatever it is you think we should find. Please give sources rather than wasting people's time with trying to figure out what you are thinking of. And I really can't see how 'social science' is going to point out dissent as in this article and denial which is more what they would eb about - that is what I was pointing out to you and why I used the word denial in that circumstance. I was pointing to a place where what you were referring to might be more relevant. Dmcq (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Look Serten, when you start talking about things like List of villains bought by the oil industry to put disbelieve in the great truth of global climate change put on be Nobel prize winner Michael Mann and other prophets, it's pretty clear that you aren't aren't serious about trying to improve the encyclopaedia. As you well know, there's no way, in hell, that we'd ever have an article with a title like that. So why not stop wasting people's time and the WMF's resources and go start a blog or something? You're abusing your editing privileges here. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Real sources to improve the article

Some claim I would have given no sources at all, thats not the case. I just put together some findings which have been refered to in the discussion already. The list in so far may include scientists as Mike Hulme (former CRU), Reiner Grundmann (Nottingham University sociologist specialising on sociological aspects of the climate debate) and of cause Judith Curry.

Please explain: a) what your suggested change to the article is; b) why your suggested change would be an improvement. --Merlinme (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. As I explained to you previously, per policy, redlinked people can't be in a list like this.
  2. As I explained to you previously, adding people to this list whose bios do not discuss their disagreement with the mainstream position is OR.
  3. Adding Curry flat-out contradicts what's in her bio.

    There appears to be some logical inconsistency here. Guettarda (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any relevance of your links to this article. Might I suggest that wanting to change the name of the article and the criteria for inclusion in the article and the contents of the article might indicate you are at the wrong article? You have shown nothing against the IPCC conclusions, only some derogatory remarks about the way the IPCC goes about things. The way they go about things is certainly an okay subject for study in social science but it just isn't anything to do with this article. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Raymund Werle or Reiner Grundmann are not to be mentioned in the list, they are providing real life research of the highest ranking (Max Planck society level) which should be used as sources for the the article and to rewrite its intro. Take Grundmann findings in a nutshell:
* The IPCC process, the early build-up of a community of experts seeking and "orchestrating" a consensus was a mixed blessing with regard to actually implement regulation.
* Dissenting scientists are not represented in IPCC but have to spread their position rather vocally via the media.
* One further concern with the "global" consensus is that it may result in misrepresenting more precise regional climate predictions for political reasons: The IPCC process seems to avoid a higher resolution via regional scenarios, since then actual winners and losers of climate change might be identified and insofar a wide array of important research might actually result in loosing the common base for international regulation / mitigation.
* As early as of 2000, Grundmann speculates that the "armistice", as it had been built up in the IPCC process before, has then been broken and an open scientific controversy is being fought since.
That said, the list intro may be rewritten on actual research by scientists - just via using Grundmanns basic points as a measuring device whom to involve. Curry herself has done actual studies challenging the consensus process, with the word "no consensus" in it. Same for Hulme (under the titel Against consensus), the Pielkes (against the misrepresentation of natural hazards, for an intensified study of local climate change) and von Storch with his Post-normal science approach. Classical Mark 8,18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? Serten (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can understand your proposal, you seem to be suggesting that we rewrite the article to be a different article, about how scientific consensus is formed, what scientific consensus means, and the extent to which the consensus forming process on climate change as defined by the IPCC has been questioned by various people.
If such material deserves to be anywhere in Wikipedia it is probably in the article Scientific consensus on climate change. Not this article. --Merlinme (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically one might insert some of the points in other article as well. But this list has to include Judith Curry and Mike Hulme at least, based on their scientific findings about the alleged or actual consensus. Why do you want to exclude them? WP sorces gold standard is real science, uttering dissent to the IPCC Consensus already in its titles, not OR based on newspaper interviews.Serten (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
How about producing something that they have said that opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? Not just that they criticize the workings of the IPCC. Dmcq (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, thats not the point, you want me to start doing OR, thats not my interest at all. This list uses some little detailed factual data out of the workings of the IPCC, claimes it being "the mainstream" and uses this OR as base for further OR to quite erratically get some people included. Hulme and Curry deny the validity / usability of the process that concluded those findings at all, they actively doubt that the consensus at all makes any sense. in so far their denial goes much further. Curry calls, in a peer reviewed journal, (CAB Reviews) the consensus being "manufactured" and doubts the ‘expert judgments’ about confidence levels by the IPCC as being dominated by unquantifiable uncertainties. That said, as you provide ranges of allowed values, Curry is among those that don't trust them having significance at all. Reiner Grundmanns comparision between the ozone depletion probleme and climate changes goes as far to say, that the attempt for scientific consensus actually has build up hurdles for effective regulation policy, in contrary to the Ozone case, where regulation took place long before the science consensus was established. Serten (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No citations for dissent on the science -> no grounds to include. Dmcq (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. The lists' entry claims the AR3 to be "the consensus", is that the one you see as science? There has been an AR4 in the meantime, ever heard of?. I want the article to contain the social science dealing with the IPCC consensus and I disagree with the current use of some OR based extracts. Curry and Hulme do so as well and deny "The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change" as being summarized properly in the various IPCC reports. If Curry, Hulm and others do not assume your claim to be valid, start looking for the health of the horse youre riding. The comparision with the Ozone case is really great in so far - three scientists have had much more influence and success (measured in a Nobel Prize properly earned due to and succeeding in a globally accepted and consented regulation) than all the IPCC contributors. Serten (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the wrong article for the inclusion of what you are talking about. You have been told about articles that are more suitable like scientific opinion on climate change or climate change denial. What you are doing here is just a waste of time. Dmcq (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been told various things, but if the sources in question are not about denial. They are about what is deemed the Mainstream assessment respectively the consensus. Serten (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lennart Bengtsson

Should Lennart Bengtsson be on the list? I don't know of anything opposing the scientific findings which he has said but he is a very prominent climate scientist who has joined a clearly skeptic group opposing work on mitigating the effects of climate change. It seems a bit sily not including someone like that in a list like this. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry he resigned two weeks later from that organisation. It seems to have been a way of protesting at people succumbing to social pressures in the refereeing process. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
He should be on this list. [13]: "As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us.", Second Quantization (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
He left them after two weeks. Those are valid social concerns but the science is a bit naff. I think perhaps a scientist should just retire at 65, they can make a contribution by editing and arguing on Wikipedia instead :) Dmcq (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

3rd Assessment Report

Why are we using old material/reports as the standard of mainstream scientific consensus? Shouldn't that be changed to the most recent IPCC report? Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Its just they care here more about to defend the article against anything out of their POV than to actually improve it. Serten (talk 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't say whether that is the case. (They who?) I just wonder why 3rd Assessment. This should be updated. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
IPCC is now at the 5th Assessment (2014), it seems unusual to use as the consensus material from 15 years ago printed 14 years ago. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought there was some agreement a while ago to work with a baseline date of the second last IPCC report on the basis that people can't immediately restate their dissention every time a new one comes out. 15 years ago is far too old. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

German article was deleted August 2014

Deletion discussion (German), https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/5._August_2014#Liste_klimaskeptischer_Organisationen_und_Personen_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29 See also [a related discussion], users elaborate on agenda driven motives. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

First the deWP translation of Scientific opinion on climate change was erased as well, based on basic WP policy. The AFD was closed with delete along the following line "We use scientific sources to write articles, but you dont claim it in the title. There is not any other article using that approach. Its just no possible to claim that there is only one opinion about a given topic. Thats no way to build up a WP article." Second the list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming had been translated into the like of "List of climatesceptical persons and organizations". The rationale for deletion was (summary) "the list doesnt provide any useful definition of inclusion criteria. Its not reasonable at all to have such a list which actually puts together apples and oranges" and refered to the above mentioned rationale of deletion of the opinion article. I'd say some users overthere may claim agenda driven motives, but I see in both cases valid WP policy issues. Serten (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Notice that user Serten, filed the deletion request for the German article on the scientific opinion on climate change, with the reason for deletion as, "No article, no definition, abstruse content". --prokaryotes (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Serten is currently on the talk of that article here with an RfC. They have a strong agenda to push some social science business by Reiner Grundmann into any article they can and saying the science is unimportant compared to it. Actually Grundmann seems okay but is being badly misunderstood or misrepresented for the purposes. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Whoever is they? I assume youre misrepresetenting both Reiner Grundmann - and me ;). Both german articles have been deleted due to generic WP-guidelines with good reasons. Grundmann is a high ranking social scientist - a German teaching at Nottingham University - and telling from e.g. the experience with Ozone depleting, that a science consensus hardly determines policy outcomes and shouldnt as well. That doesnt mean he's making science unimportant, to the contrary. I think he's interesting, as he doesn't belong to the conservative camp but is critical about ecodeterminism and he's interested in science actual role in finding solutions for real problems. 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
They is used as an alternative to he/she. I never said Grundmann was downplaying science. He simply said a strong scientific consensus is not enough for public acceptance. However you keep on mixing up the IPCC consensus and scientific consensus even though Grundmann does not. The IPCC consensus includes policy recommendations to governments. He does not say anything like that a scientific consensus should not determine policy outcomes, he simply points out the facts of life as to what does determine public policy in different countries. Anyway a scientific consensus of its own cannot determine policy, a policy needs to respect what one wants and what's possible not just what the facts are. And notice I said scientific consensus in that last sentence not IPCC consensus or some countries government or the public. Overall your reading of him is extremely slanted against science or as you call it tekki details and I believe you are misusing Grundmann. Dmcq (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
He said much more about strong consensuses and is quite outspoken about climate scientists which believe to have a prerogative to make political suggestions in the field "which society at large should take up because scientists always know best" "combined with a basic lack of actual feasible solution proposals". He seems to believe in the power of ideas - according him, Keynesianism or the solution of the Ozone issue was not based on consensus, but on a one-man-show in case of Keynes respectively a small network of scientists in case of CFC. But, according him, democracy still applies, "climate change as a long term issue requires more public involvement and debate, not less". He asks social scientists to study the interaction between climate and society. In so far, I quote him, yes, but youre claim of misuse is mere clutching at straws. Serten (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What you say there is not false but you are just sidestepping and avoiding what I said above. Having more public involvement does not mean he thinks the scientific consensus is a bad idea or that it should not be taken into account. Yes as he says technocrats can be naive about the politics but that's hardly an earth shattering revelation that overrides any science. As well as criticizing scientists who put forward political ideas he criticizes social scientists for just sticking on the sidelines - and then criticizes another social scientist for being naive in thinking there is a greater role for social scientists. All of which is true to an extent but doesn't justify your dismissal of science as tekki and trying to push social sciences everywhere even when there is little relevance. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

To come back to the start, I conclude that the deWP deleting the interwiki article was based on basic WP guidelines which apply as well for the enWP. Serten (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you before German Wikipedia policies do not apply to the English Wikipedia. I really do wish you would stop making things up and quoting things that are inapplicable. Your beliefs are your own business. There have been a number of requests for deletion here and they were better based than those on the German Wikipedia but I also know the German Wikipedia has much stricter standards for some things. Those standards are not the same for every Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Just read what I wrote: "The deletion was based on basic WP guidelines which apply as well for the enWP." I am well aware that there are differences. However some guidelines are in common for all WPs. Not any other article claims to be "the scientific opinion" on a certain topic. Neither on fairies, Ufos nor Aids. Do you think climate is as simple as that? Serten (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I did read what you said and it was wrong and you are still wrong about Wikipedia policies. There are similar policies but they are not the same. As to scientific opinion there aren't many questions where people have argued about what the scientific consensus actually is. The article is on a notable topic. In something like evolution by way of contrast everyone agrees about what scientists think, whether they do or not is not a notable topic, we simply have an article about the theory of evolution. What happens with creationism is a straight rejection not a dispute over what the actual scientific opinion is. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry the comparision to evolution / creationism is quite offensive and plainly wrong. One might draw a comparision to social darwinism - the court is out wether and how darwinism is applicable to politics as in the eugenic movement. Serten (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Any comparison there might be is between on those lines would be between the IPCC policies and the public reception of the scientific opinion and Social Darwinism. The theory of evolution does not say people should practice eugenics, that was a policy or value judgment which some people made when informed by the theory of evolution. I keep trying to point you at the difference between the science and the peoples values and policy judgments they make and you just keep mixing them up. Why can't you follow Grundmann in differentiating between scientific consensus on the climate change and the IPCC consensus on policies to recommend? Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Social Darwinism article put it straightforwardly. "While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution". Just sticl scientific opinion and IPCC policy recommendations in, it shouldn't be too hard since you seem to have a thing against the IPCC recommendations. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, if I follow Grundmann, he draws parallels between the strong believe in science in the eugenic movement and either climate. He's not in line with Richard Lindzen, which compared climatism and eugenics and called either pseudoscience, Grundmann assume that both eugenics and climate activism are based on a über-believe in science as base of policy. If you look on AG Bell or Galton and the science hype around eugenics in the late 19th / early 20th, the borderlines are not drawn easily. The strong role of creationism in the USA is more of counter movement against social darwinism than antiscience, Germany preferred its Historical school of economics and had medicare introduced already in the 1890ies. Serten (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
He did remark that some scientists in both had strong political opinions and tried to push them. That was part of his contrasting race science and climate science. However there is a big fallacy in saying a belief in science was correlated with the eugenics movement and saying the eugenics movement was driven by science. He never said that. He pointed out that in both cases acceptance or non-acceptance is driven in the main by political considerations. If you could just actually follow what he said it would save a lot of bother. Same with creationism, I did not say it is an anti-science movement. I agree it is mostly driven by considerations unrelated to science just like most climate change 'skepticism' is. At least they don't deny that scientists have a consensus about evolution even if they do deny the science. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Grundmann perceives a predominance of natural science in politics, as climate scientists use a successfull framing strategy to connect relatively soft scientific findings with straightforward political goals. That said, the very idea of a broad consensus of science as instrument of politics - or as in this article of exclusion of some scientists - is a sort of PR framing strategy. The reduction of the complex policy - science interaction to the merchants of doubt is ridiculous. Its the Hansens, Rahmstorfs and Gores as well that play a gameas merchants of settled science. Grundmann sees Marx idea of a nature-society-dialectics as base of a specific sociological answer, besides the analysis of networks and actors of scientists involved in such framings and to determine their interests and ideas. That said, to close the eugenics part, youre coming from the English speaking side of the debate and try to have Grundmann on one of the sides of it. But he's German and his point is different. Shades of grey! Grundmann (and Stehr)s "The Power of Scientific Knowledge" state that the Eugenic movement and Climate activism share a strong believe in science as being base of politics. So they might be wrong, but they make that point and the Cambridge university press printed it. Serten (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
More misrepresentation and misstating on your part. What you have quoted from Grundmann is correct, but your conclusions are not based on your source. Yes the Eugenic movement and Climate activism share a strong believe in science as being base of politics. However he was showing their similarities so he could point out why what the science said and even activist scientists opinions did not have a determining effect on the policy adopted. Could you cut out the social science jargon too, Grundmann seems to be able to write things clearly without all that. Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I used Grundmann "Die soziologische Tradition und die natürliche Umwelt (tradition of sociology and environment) as base for the discussion and to work on the article. If I quoted him wrong, suggest a better wording on the talk page. I am reading Stehr/Grundmanns Power of knowledge, please show me any source wherever RG talks about eugenics not being a science at all? Thats the main difference to Lindzens approach (which is the one of a angered climatologist, but not an STS one). I assume that you talk about the difference between the science academies (which were less eager to officially adapt eugenics as they supported the IPCC) and important individual scientists. But however, the social science jargon, especially framing applies to this article and the use of consensuses;) involvedSerten (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy is that we provide citations for what is written, not that we have to provide citations to remove uncited stuff. Show where anybody says eugenics is a science. If science academies were to support anything in that line like they have climate science it would be race science not eugenics. I keep pointing out this type of difference and you just keep ignoring it. That is covered under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dmcq (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to claim eugenics is a science please try and change the article Eugenics first. Also hav a look at Eugenics#Meanings and types. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am citing Grundmann, not the WP stories. Grundmann assumes that the eugenics movement was a science based framing scheme, and a strong one - look what happened to the deaf in Marthas Vineyard, not to speak of the German Rasshygiene. And the comparision in Grundmann Stehr is either with Keynes and to the climate science based policy conclusions. They doent do that via putting them on the same moral level, but by comparing the mechanims. Serten (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Has this article been placed at AfD in the past, if so what has been the result? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If by this you mean this English language article then see the line 'article milestones' in the yellow box at the top of this talk page. Press 'show' to see the various AfD discussions and results. Dmcq (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the help. I seemed to remember reading or possibly even commenting on an AfD discussion some time ago but was unsure. Apparently this has been an ongoing discussion since the article was created and there was "no consensus" on whether to keep/delete. (Jan 2014) Perhaps it is time to revisit. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As it said in the last review the question has been revisited about once a year since it was started so on past form I would expect it to be raised again in the next few months. If you do raise it again please try and be specific about your objections rather than for instance just pointing at WP:BLP which is a very large policy without specifying the particular grounds in it like someone did the last time. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that the article content could and schould be rewritten in a way that we discuss the role of "consensus building" in the IPCC process, its policy recommodations and about those that doubt it. But the list as such is not in line with basic WP guidelines, as for articles NPOV and being built on third party secondary sources. Serten (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because the IPCC tries to assess scientific opinion is no reason to change the topic of the article. The IPCC policies and their success or otherwise is not with the scope of the topic. An article about the IPCC assessments or process or the success of its policy recommendations is more appropriate. Stop trying to hijacking articles for your pet hobbyhorse. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The article claims there is a "mainstream scientific assessment", my hobbyhorse is about wether such a assessment on a global issue is possible or useful for practical solution finding. Hobbysciencehorse claims it is not - based on comparision with the Ozone or acid rain cases  ;) Serten (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not what Grundmann was talking about and not even his conclusion about what he does talk about, you misuse his quotes and stick in a whole lot of other citations which have little relevance to the topic. Grundmann does not talk about the scientific consensus, he talks about the IPCC consensus. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, whats the difference? If this article is about the generic mainstream, its not about the IPCC, right? So when its not about the IPCC, why re the IPCC conclusions and credentials being used? If we imagined a world without a IPCC, would anybody assume that e.g. Veizer and Shaviv would be out of the scientific mainstream? A Leibniz prize scholar and one of the most gifted israeli shining stars? Youre kidding. Serten (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been through that enough times with you already to be pretty sure that explaining the difference to you won't accomplish anything useful but if anybody else is interested I'll try again.. Shaviv isn't on the list currently. Vizer is on because he says cosmic rays are the most probable cause of the current global warming. That is definitely not mainstream. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Necessary changes

I went through the list, looking for evicence in the source for being out of consensus.

  • So far Mörner, Stott and Varenholt should be erased from the first paragraph, since there is no hint at all about consensus breaking in the sources quoted for them.
  • In the further entries only William M. Gray, Fred Singer, Spencer, Grey and Allegres might be kept, having weak sources / statements but imho acceptable ones, the rests inclusion is not based on secondary sources but primary. Serten (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the quote that 97% of 3,000 peer reviewed papers support climate change [15] - the actual quote is:
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."
This needs to be corrected. 64.128.17.122 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of list entrys

So just to take the very first name Mörner "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it", you want that removed because the source does not say that there is a disagreement with the consensus of the IPCC? Perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion. Is it that need a further statement that a disagreement is a lack of consensus. Perhaps we need another statement saying that 'a disagreement is a lack of consensus' is a statement about consensus and it becomes turtles all the way down. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned Mörner, as long as you dont have a third party statement claiming he is not in consensus with the IPCC, erase him here. If you do your own research, like based on the conclusion you did, publish it in a journal and OK. But no OR here. Till then, Mörner is not to be included. Full stop. Very simple, just as as WP policy works. Serten (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that this is a list. Like all lists of living people, it should only include notable people who have Wikipedia bio articles.

The sources included in this article is really beside the point. People only belong in this article if their "opposition to the mainstream science" is notable; they are (or should be) pushed to this list from their respective bios. If the issue isn't notable enough to include in their bios, then they shouldn't be included. But if it is notable enough, then the subjects, in essence, have included themselves. Granted, that's not the way this list was initially created - it was created as a counterpart to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - but that is what it has become. Which is why it has survived numerous AFDs (I mean, come on, Sandstein closed the last AFD...I don't think anyone has ever found him lenient in his application of policy. Guettarda (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


And note that the whole OR issue hinges on a misunderstanding of where the discussion is supposed to be. It's supposed to be in the bios, not here. Saying that the sources here are primary is beside the point - they're supposed to be primary, because they are supposed to be illustrative. The real sources are supposed to be in the subject's bios. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Based on that, I would say that the inclusion of Syun-Ichi Akasofu and Antonino Zichichi is iffy, since the issue isn't discussed in their bios at all. The quote from Zichichi (it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes) is rather weak as well. Guettarda (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, erase them Serten (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
While it appears that you read my comment, your response strongly suggests that you didn't understand it. Likewise with the AFD. And all the rest of it. Maybe it's the language barrier - while your English is fluent, it seems (both from this and our previous interactions) that there appears to be some nuance that escapes you. Perhaps Stephan Schulz might be willing to help you with this. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As said I read the AFDs, but, based on the WP rules, I dont need to care. If in question, a source must be given where requested. If not provided, erase the content in question. There is a major difference between lists about persons in an outside world group, as A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (or take the Manifesto of the 343) and this artificial grouping of climate dissenters - the Darwin or abortion campaigners lists are based on external secondary sources. This one not. Full stop. As said, find a secondary source about any list entry and the IPCC being on bad terms, then they are in. But never ever try so by your OR assessement of their research. Serten (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus findings

  • The reason why only three lines of consensus have being picked is still an unsourced secret. Reveal it or erase it. Serten (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"three lines of consensus" Do you mean the three "main conclusions on global warming"? --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Serten (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC) We do not have a source which explains why just this three ones have to be used. I doubt that its feasible. Serten (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
What? To be honest I'm finding your "arguments" less persuasive as time goes by, mainly because they're not arguments. You have to explain why all the Wikipedia editors who looked at this in the last ten years or so are wrong to not find it "obvious" that it's a violation of BLP or synthesis or whatever. Wikipedia editors are allowed to choose our own criteria for a Wikipedia list. Please see previous discussions. You have to explain why our attempt to define the consensus in terms of the "main conclusions" of the IPCC reports is wrong. Saying it's "an unsourced secret" is not helping, "unsourced secret" is an assertion without substantiation. As far as I can see the criteria are actually quite clear. Do you disagree that those are the main conclusions of the IPCC reports? If so, what do you think were the conclusions of the IPCC reports? Do you think this article misrepresents the IPCC reports? If so, how? On a side point, finding a secondary source which describes members as sceptics is usually easier than concluding that their public statements directly contradict the IPCC conclusions.--Merlinme (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As said, the IPCC reports are not The Consensus or The Mainstream of Climate Change Assessment - or do you think science waits till the next AR is being published? Who on earth told you that an WP authors' opiniomn about the IPCC report hs a say in real world consensuses? We have to provide secondary sources to write articles instead. If you really ask about my opinion, I would raise two points: First the biggest change of the mainstream assessment of climate change happened in the 70ties: Then it was decided to build up a UN civil agency instead of having NATO (NATO/CCMS) deal with it, as it had been planned previously. Thats imho the most important change in the global climate change policy assessment, all the modelling chit chat later is tiny against it. Second, as being stated in the Summary for policymakers, CO2 mmissions are being increased by fossil fuel use AND land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. I'd say, human activities with an impact on climate are much more differentiated according the IPCC assessment AND according the actual scientific mainstream, as being stated in this article. Serten (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The article global warming controversy is the place for all that sort of argument, not this one. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I understood the proponents of the climate dissenters list here wanted to have a sort of balance in line with real world examples as charters as A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The anti-Darwin campaigners lists is based on reliable secondary sources, one might add Manifesto of the 343 for a more liberal example. This one is not. Full stop. I dont take side with climate sceptics nor climate activists in that question, I ask for an article based on WP guidelines. Serten (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You basically seem to be saying that you dispute that the IPCC conclusions represent scientific consensus. See the section in the article about that Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus. The IPCC conclusions are generally held to represent the consensus in the scientific community. Also your point that some dissenters wanted a list like this is irrelevant, the relevant point in Wikipedia is whether what they did was notable in reliable sources and it is and that shows the topic is notable. The contents of an article are constrained by the topic and not by the sources which showed notability of the topic. If the source includes a name that is not correct as far as the topic is concerned then it shouldn't be contained and vice versa, this is not an article about the lists but their topic and is itself a list article like the sources showing notability of the topic, as WP:N says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". Dmcq (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
WP is not suitable as a source per se. Its not me that is disputing that, its a basic fact. The IPCC tries to represent and collect scientific consensus on climate change as a global policy isssue, it is however not the global consensus on climate change per se and will never be. Compare the United Nations General Assembly and the "mainstream of global opinion", I would say they are different as well, but have a wide array of common ground. Serten (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
So just to take the first example from that section I pointed at; 'American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement"'. You just flat out say the IPCC does not represent the consensus and we are to value what you say more than the AAAS? Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Does the American Association for the Advancement of Science measure their members statement on that consensus? Serten (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Serten, other editors (such as Dmcq) disagree with you; saying "its a basic fact" is not going to change their minds. You are not presenting arguments; you are talking at people, not talking to them or with them. Unless you are able to able to engage with other editors' arguments you are not going to change anyone's mind, and I would suggest you WP:Drop the stick and walk away. --Merlinme (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Point is, WP asks to base claims on sources and the combination of people listed here is not based on any coherent source, its Originial research. Its not my task top provide sources, its up to those which want to keep that list. The y do not perform according the rules. Tags are needed therefore. Participiants here claim that there is no dispute at all and even erase new and old tags altogether as if the article has had not any AFD nor conflict in the past. OKm then you claim and enforce a potemkin consensus, but you dont succeed in a real world alignement. I see some parallels to the lack of impact of the IPCC unified message in the real world. Serten (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is you simply disagree with everything without showing any basis for your objection. Tags do not have to be kept after discussion and consensus. If you disagree with an AfD or a consensus here you have got to show something more that your feelings about it. Also it is not Wikipedia's job to convince anyone about anything. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Thomas Grove

Grove, Emeritus Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge and was former Director of the Centre of African Studies at the University of Cambridge. He sees definite and conclusive evidence in the field of climate change as almost an impossibility. (A.T. Grove and E. Lopez-Gunn (2010) Uncertainty in Climate Change, Real Instituto Elcano working paper, Madrid, Spain.)

However Stephan Schulz reverted the entry with the notion, Grove was fully within the consensus. as "Definitive and conclusive" is impossible in any of the physical sciences. First climate change is earth science and in so far from exact physical sciences. The level of exactness is much lower. The article claims Definitive and conclusive evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities and claimes a certified range of climate sensitivies. I assume on cannot eat the cake and have it, either there is a consensus about humans having a role in the climate system or the climate system, as Grove puts it, is far from being understood at all. In so far I ask to reenter Grove in the famous list or erase it completely. Serten (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! Nice try. I think you were looking for this article. This is a WP:LIST, not a dissertation on the nature of reality. --Nigelj (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
To quote Grove&Lopez (p34): "The Paper concludes that despite inherent uncertainty, evidence is increasing that human activity is causing global warming." This is very much in line with the mainstream IPCC position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Goodness. That said, the consensus is so broad (breit in the German sense of a pipe dream) that its including nearly all sceptics and doesnt have any use for actual politics. Serten (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Stephen Schulz about the bit at that article being out of context and will support its removal. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Is any of the cited scientiists "in context"? You exclude even Nir Shaviv, Judith Curry, Mike Hulme or Reiner Grundmamn, while user:hg6996 will confirm easily tht I am the worst sceptic in Wikipedia, I am probably well within the limits of this sort of assessment. That said, the list doesnt cover the actual controversy about how to actually deal with climate change.Serten (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You're not a sceptic, you don't know what a sceptic is. As the article on it says "Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts". ...Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
One, it's a working paper. Two, it doesn't oppose the consensus on climate change. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Three: What you mean with consensus? The "main conclusions on global warming" or the global picture? I would prefer if Dmcq behaved as in WP:Civil, I took the freedom to delete a offensive comment. Serten (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tsonis/ Rancourt

With regard to the recent changes

  • Tsonis is cited with his doubts against the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has limited the hiatus to 10-15 years. The cite does not infringe the alleged "main conclusions on global warming" and is not constituting a breach of any (possible) consensus. The IPCC has not yet received St. Peters heavenly powers to limit or extend on the Global warming hiatus, right?
  • Rancourt introduced himself, with no notion why he doesnt agree with the "main conclusions on global warming".

Point is, either eat the cake or have it. If you refrain integration of sceptics based on the "main conclusions on global warming", so Tsonis is not to be included, neither Rancourt. If you allow for scientists challenging a broader array of IPCC conclusions and results, include Curry, Hulme, Shaviv, Grove and others or better move the list to an appropriate title. Serten (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so the quote I added as a reference for Tsonis I added because I was under the impression that the quote I added pertains enough to the IPCC's projections of future global warming. This would be main conclusion #3 in the lead. I think that the article I referenced makes it clear that Tsonis doesn't think the IPCC's projections are accurate, as he also says "I know that the models are not adequate ... they don’t agree with reality." Perhaps if this is clear enough, we could switch the quote in the template to refer to that rather than what it says now. I also note that many other people on the list have references where they are saying similar things, such as Freeman Dyson's and Hendrik Tennekes' quote about models being unreliable. Jinkinson talk to me 22:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Blame is not on you ;) Point is, there is no generic policy about what allows to insert someone. Judith Curry e.g. does provide counterclaims against IPCC climate sensitivity measurements and ridicules the consensus process, Nir Shaviv is a strong proponent of the cosmic ray theory, low climate sensitivity and calls IPCC lead authors as Rahmstorfs 'charactar assassins'. That doesnt help to get them on the list. No credible criteria, erratic and unsustainable selection. Serten (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Please keep to the subject of a discussion rather than jumping off to other things. If you wish to change the inclusion criteria start another discussion. One thing at a time please. On this business do you now agree that Tsonis and Rancourt are reasonable to include according to the current criteria? Do you agree Alfred Thomas Grove should not be included according to the current criteria? If not can you provide specific references complete with page number if referring to a book to support your contention. If you do not know what the criteria are or disagree with them then please do not go on about the specific people but have a separate discussion specifically about your complaint about the criteria. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq, the current criteria boil down the IPCC consensus to three "main conclusions on global warming". Neither of them is infringed by the quotes used for Tsonis and Rancourt, so exclude them. Grove doubts 'definite and conclusive evidence', he would not sign "main conclusions" being ciseld in Granite and yes, he may be included. Serten (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The IPCC doesn't claim to have definite and conclusive evidence. If you check point 2 it is 'There is new and stronger evidence that..'. You are misquoting Grove by not giving the context. This is why I asked to proper citation and then it would be obvious to everybody what Gove was talking about and why.
On the Tsonis one I would have though a Tsonis quote from the publication that global warming was in his opinion on 30% cause by humans would be better, unfortunately the words before confuse this but even if he means he thinks it is only 30% likely to be cause in the main by humans that would also be against the main conslusion.
As to Rancourt no quote is provided just a ink to showing his views. His own views expressed at [14] that "Climate change “science” is part of just another screw-the-brown-people scam" would be pretty adequate I guess without all the specific detailed divergences points there.
There is another point about Gove as well, where does anyone identify him as dissenting from the IPCC or being a climate change denier or whatever? Otherwise sticking him in would be OR. Quotes are required here for extra verification but the basic verifiability criteriion in Wikipedia is some source saying what is said here. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You ask about Grove "where does anyone identify him as dissenting from the IPCC or being a climate change denier or whatever?" Sorry, if that is the policy now, the article would have to involve a lot of other scientists as well. With regard to Rancourt, he is a loose cannon, but where does he infringe the main conclusions? If dissent against the IPCC as a policy model is an inclusion criteria, Erik Swyngedouw would be better to include than Rancourt. Apocalypse Forever? Post-political Populism and the Spectre of Climate Change Erik Swyngedouw doi: 10.1177/0263276409358728 Theory, Culture & Society March/May 2010 vol. 27 no. 2-3 213-232 quote "this particular choreographing of climate change is one of the arenas through which a post-political frame and post-democratic political configuration have been mediated." Serten (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
All entries must be verifiable as satisfying the description. The list has an additional requirement for BLP purposes that there we can actually check that they are what they are described as. Verifiabily does not ,mean that we have provided citations showing that theyhave been described as such but it is pretty obvious in most cases. IF you believe somehave not been described as dissenting andyou feel there is a real problem there thene you are entitled to ask fo a citation of that as well as the additional citation required here. I have asked for the lists special requirement but I think the case for him is so weak there won't even be a citation showing he has been described as a dissenter. I believe that is an easier way of showing there is no point bothering arguing the case. Do you wish to nominate Erik Swyngedouw? if so provide a citation with page number in the case of a book giving what he said but each case should just be considered as is. If you are comparing them that is a different question about the selection criteria rather than the particular person. The sentence you quoted has nothing relevant to the science in it. Rancourt dissents with the entire science of climate change on practically all points. The dissent has to be about the science not aboy whether they thing the person in charge ought to be replaced or they don;t like the way the case is presented . Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
First I use scientific sources to doubt the current description. Its about your criteria for veriability first. The current article refers to the IPCC reports as base of a consensus on global climate change, uses three main findings out of it, and asks to provide statements that do not concur with those selfdefined findings. Thats a) plain OR and b) it lacks to involve those which challenge the consensus already as an process, not just its findings.
Erik Swyngedouws statement is rather aggressively against the IPCC consensus, as he sees the consensus being used as a leverage to fight different certain lifestyles and behaviours and circumvene the democratic process. Grove does the same, but he's a maniac kicked out of academia, while Syngedow has good credentials in social science dealing with climate change.
With regard to Grove and his wife btw as well, they have written whole books about Little ice ages and land use patterns in the mediterrenean and Afrika - and very much doubt the importance / relevance of the global approach and CO2 as being of higher importance. That said, the current criteria dont catch them, but they put science based question marks on other "main findings" and aspects.
As a solution, I would enhance the criteria and allow as well scientific sceptics doubting the global approach And the relevance of Co2 an as well the notion of those, which see not much warming in the last 15 years. The article started about ten years ago witht the Soon and Baliunas controversy, why those two are not longer included is unclear for me, but it fails to take the current state of the discussion about the value of the (global) consensus into account and fails to note current controversies about climate sensibility (take alone Currys paper based on the IPCC values) and Global warming hiatus. Serten (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
So no evidence then which doesn't fail OR. As to the rest of what you say you try setting up a separate section about changing the criteria. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
there is a certain difference between OR and using R. You repeatedly fail to grasp the difference ;) Serten (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Soon and Beliunas as both included as is also the editor who accepted that paper. Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Found them ;) That said, you might put Jean and Albert Grove as well besides Soon, as he sees a underestimation of regional natural climate variations. Serten (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Compare Phil Jones We have to get rid of the medieval warm period. Serten (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Well before we get to checking the actual statement lets see if your assertion passes WP:V or if it is pure WP:OR on your part. Have we got anyone saying they dissent from the mainstream view about climate change? Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The concept of the article is not about being called a denier, but a deviation from the erratic principles outlayed in the article itself. As said, Uncertainty in Climate Change (WP) by A.T. Grove and E. Lopez-Gunn. WP 25/2010 - 22/07/2010 is "about uncertainity" while the lede calls for confirmed "main conclusions on global warming". Youre moving the goalposts, honey. Phil Jones was rather glad that e.g. Jean Grove -due to dying - could not contribute longer to the so called mainstream, as she was of opinion that the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon and it was not unique to the Holocene. The first IPCC report still relied on her work. Serten (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
We can't replace Wikipedia's standard policies and guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want too use Wikipedia's standard policies and guidelines in the future, thanks but it has not been the case so far. As said, either eat the cake or have it. If being deemed a denier is essential to be listed here, mention that in the entry and rename the article. Serten (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You can set up another section discussing the inclusion criteria if you wish. Or someone might come here along saying they agree with you. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No Consensus with Consensus: No need for that, Godot Serten (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Key Points

Collapsed by OP in favor of the more fundamental question about updating to AR4 discussed in the next thread below. Click show to comment anyway.

The following three subsections are intended to discuss phrasing/citation of each of the existing three points as of timestamp on my sig. Debate over using these three specific items and citation is happening in other threads. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The most probable source for the current "main conclusions" is the two page common press release of science academies for the 2005 31st G8 summit. It contains various political pledges, which are not being included so far. Why? If you want to change the key points used for this list, look for a source, not write them yourself via another OR session. Serten (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Untrue. Each point is carefully cited to the 2001 TAR.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thats nt the point. We need a source that states which are "main points". TAR doesnt offer such priorities, the academy statement does. Serten (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Before we start another OR session, better have a look on actual research.

The volume puts together major changes in the IPCC process, e.g. since 2010 management of uncertainities and risk management have been added. Besides the known uncertainities as climate sensitivity and long-term ice-sheet stability, the evolvement of socio-political-economic systems is deemed as nearly unpredictable but deemed as at least similar significant. They assume as well that the central assessment role allows for "communication in a monolithic message" but risks "ossification and eventual irrelevance" of the IPCC as an institution. Tol and Curry are main contributors, highly praised by Michael Oppenheimer. The outside challenges are much less important than the internal ones. That said, the IPCC itself is aware about ist own problems, tries to refresh its own role, results and conclusions and is willing to undergo major changes. This list should cover that or get lost. Serten (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

off topic NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree, that is offtopic. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If you need a source to assess changes between the different ARs, Oppenheimer provides one. Serten (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
tit for tat not helpful
They go when the editors here agree the points have been dealt with satisfactorily. That agreement is by consensus. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say WP rules, e.g. on OR offset consensus. Right? Serten (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Serten (09:37), In this lead section, we set out the mainstream view as required by WP:FRINGE using verbatim quotes from TAR2001. There would be no "assessment of changes" happening if we agreed to also include verbatim quotes from the 2014 IPCC report, so that the description of the mainstream view stays current. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Past warming

As of version 629647976 we stated the first key point like this

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

Since that statement is from 2001, "the last 30 years" means roughly "1970-2000", but that isn't really obvious to someone totally new to this material. If we keep using TAR we might change this for clarity to

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years (1970-2000)."

Except if we do that then newbie readers would understandably take home the message that surface warming stopped around 2000 (basically the 1998 myth). If we don't use TAR, then of course several of these entries go away, since TAR was used as the baseline for their inclusion. What to do, what to do?
Would it solve various problems if we converted the list of three key points into a table in which we compare the oldest IPCC AR used for listing criteria to the analogous statement from the most current IPCC AR? Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd support updating with figures from the latest report with appropriate citation. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Humans

As of version 629647976 we stated the second key point like this

'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities', in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

This looks fine to me, but since I was listing all three I stuck it here in case anyone else has comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Browsing the TAR SPM, it isn't clear why methane is called out "in particular" and nitrous oxide isn't. The part in quotes is verbatim from the TAR. The bit about "in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane" was tacked on. I'm not quibbling that CO2 and C4 do contribute a great deal to AGW. Rather I'm quibbling with the lack of RS to support pulling out CO2 and C4 for "in particular" in this sentence. Would it effect any entries on the list if we simply truncated the statement so that this one, like the other key points, is verbatim from the source? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For a start, compared to the IPCC summary for policymakers, it lacks land use patterns and acriculture. Serten (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe such effects are caused by humans. Dmcq (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Serten's talking about AR5 WG1 SPM, whereas the subject is our presentation of the point from TAR. We're debating switching away from TAR in a different thread, so this is offtopic. Serten, please read talk page guideline section WP:MULTI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, I expected you to start using 2014 rigt away, whats the use talking about 2001 TAR? Wether you about the TAR stuff, you need a source stating what the "main points" are, its not up to OR. Serten (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I may have screwed up the indentation. This was supposed to be a subsubsection under key points, which clearly states the intention of this overall thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree remove specifying the particular gases in that statement if it isn't in the source. Anyway as you say human activity has caused an increase in N2O emissions. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Future warming

As of version 629647976 we stated the third key point like this

If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.

I think I'll say something about this soon. But duty calls until tomorrow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then better start to involve Roger Pielke sr. on the list, as he may claim, based on good evidence, that the extreme weather attribution does not hold water. Furthermore no valid loss-benefit distribution patterns on regional scale are available. Serten (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Who-to-include is off-topic.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I must admit to a worry about the statement 'The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.' as it is a human value statement rather than a scientific statement. I think something like it could be okay as one can assess the impact and how people would view the results. Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Pielke has been rather critical about recent attempts to increase alarmism despite science pointing otherwise. Thats why I mentioned him. The IPCC internal changes since 2010 with regard to risk assessement, uncertainity and the interaction with socio-political developements are sort of radical, and increased exposure due to warming has NOT been confirmed. The result are lukewarm statements like this. The impact depends highly on governance, land use, corruption and organizational strength, warming per se is not the main risk factor. Serten (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That really is offtopic, we need to work by what the mainstream view is not what one person thinks. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Take the Oppermann forword, he is very much in line with Pielke on that. Serten (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom case request:

If you wish to participate, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tags

As an uninvolved editor, I'm asking you guys to quit removing tags while discussion here is on-going, and without addressing the concerns raised by the tags. LHMask me a question 23:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As an INVOLVED editor, if you wish to help at least spend an iota of braincells to think first would ya? As I said at your talk page, with respect to this obviously very carefully studied and thought-about edit (not), the editor said "outdated" material is in the lead. That makes two tags covering the same problem, (A) lead rewrite and (B) outdated material. To comply with the lead section at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, "Don’t insert tags that are similar or redundant", please self revert.
As for D's removal of POV, he beat me to it. I also search the talk page for a thread on POV or "neutrality" and though there is a disruptive blizzard of talking about everything, there is no specific talk page section obviously focused on neutrality issues. That makes POV a driveby tag; one way to cure that is to use the POV template parameter to specify the exact thread. The other way is to start a tread with POV or "neutrality" in the heading. Tags are ok by me, but not if they are the product of running the blender without the lid. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I have clarified about the OR claim. The Joint science academies’ statement seems to be the source of the "main conclusions", its however not being sourced properly, the mentioned findings are outdated and both the IPCC process and the newest findings, e.g. about climate sensitivity are under pressure from actual science. Serten (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As your claim of OR rests on the use of outdated material, you are double dipping in the tag cookie jar, which is disruptive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting inappropriate removals of tags does not make me "involved", in any way. LHMask me a question 23:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly does make you involved. You have made a decision that the removal was inappropriate. Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I've never made an edit to this list. I have no "dog in the hunt." I am uninvolved, and I'm telling you, removing issues tags is inappropriate. LHMask me a question 01:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lithistman:, I meant (((I))) was speaking as an involved ed. If you are not involved, and admit to KNOWING NOTHING than you can't really say whether you restored an impermissible redundant tag, can you? But you could investigate, and if - like me - you think complaints about
  • (A) lead rewrite and
  • (B) lead using outdated material
is redundant, then you could impress me by simply admitting the mistake and self reverting.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think the following exchange is on point. This thread is discussing what tags are appropriate, nothing more/less.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For the cooky jar, I have just clarified the point that the Science academies statement, a mere event related press release was used as base - it contains a variety of other statements which are not mentioned in the lead. The OR claim is based on the fact that nobody told us what sort of statement had to be chosen. The academies ask as well about a study on burden sharing, why isnt it part of the article? Serten (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Please try and make your language simple to understand. I think you are referring to a document you say should be used as a basis for the criteria for inclusion, and then saying the article is wrong because it doesn't contain policy statement from that source. Policy is not science. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Goodness, read the Oppermann foreword: The whole AR effort is policy funded, policy directed and policy makers are the main clients, which have requested significant changes of the ARs procedure since the IPCC was founded. The 2005 Science academies statement boils the TAR down to a onepager on basic sciene assumptions, three of them are being used in this article. The TAR as such is much more detailed. If you use criticism against TAR assumptions for the list, you would have to include much more sceptical voices. Serten (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────