Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Jane Francis

  • Jane E Francis Professor of Palaeoclimatology, University of Leeds: "What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." and "It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change." [1] [2]

I've cut the above from the page. First because i believe the 2 references to be fairly unreliable sources (and i believe that they are taking this out of context). I looked a bit into Francis - and a recent article such as this one - makes me very much doubt that she is a sceptic - or that she in any ways is refuting the consensus. Please keep in mind that there are two timescales here: deep time (geological), and short time (human span). Comments? --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... the article you cited ends up with this quote from Francis : "The point is that the Earth takes care of itself. The Earth's cycles are so much bigger than human beings, that we're just an irritation on its skin. The planet has been hotter than now and it's survived - but will we?" --Childhood's End 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That same quote gets circulated round and round the skeptic blogs. But it's from 1997. Lots of people have changed their minds since then, and she may have also (assuming the quote is reliable, which is open to question as you say). One of her recent projects is concerned with the possibility that "future global warming may allow the spread of forests back into high latitudes once more",[3], and she begins a 2002 book review with the sentence "With the impending change in vegetation types and their distribution due to global warming,..."[4] A 2003 conference abstract says "It is clear that if efforts to prevent global warming are not successful, then the polar regions will become very important for forestry as the ice caps recede." Those hardly sound like the words of a skeptic. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I am a skeptic and agree with both of her statements. Nowhere does she mention anthropologic, which is kind of the main point of the IPCC assessments. Second point, there is no consensus. 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong on both counts. Note she says efforts to prevent global warming. If it were natural (such as from solar variations), it couldn't be prevented. Raymond Arritt 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I noted that, and also noted that she called your position farcical. And most reasonable people think that efforts to prevent global warming are farcical. She also said “Some media coverage of global warming has certainly been a little bit dramatic,” she says. “I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to curb CO2 emissions. But we need to see it in context and understand how the climate system works. The Earth is a very powerful thing, more powerful than all of us.” 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
But that quote is from 1998 [5], which is too old for our purposes. --Nethgirb 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The more recent report clearly overrides the ancient one. I also have a personal email from her This is a very old report and does not represent my views (in fact it never did). which is no great surprise. She should stay off the list William M. Connolley 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to document such emails as this? I was considering emailing her myself.. It would be nice to have such things documented, so that they do not return again (such as has been the case with Pielke Sr.).. These are after all ultimate verification.--Kim D. Petersen 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
One option might be to have her send an email to WP:OTRS, which would document it. In general communication from a person isn't a good way to verify facts, but in a case like this, where we are attributing an opinion to people, it starts to slip into WP:BLP areas. In general though, given the fact that this is a developing field, anything more than 3-5 years old should not be considered as evidence, unless it is coupled with more recent activity. Guettarda 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first part and disagree with the second. 1- If we can obtain Francis' actual opinion directly from her, that's the best way to validate what's on the article. But this must be made public and verifiable, rather than to come here and say "I've got an e-mail from Ms. Francis and she says that". 2- But you cannot presume, only because time is passing by, that a person changed his/her mind about opinions published earlier. In fact, you are only allowed to presume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person has not changed his/her mind. To say that Francis has perhaps changed her mind since 3-5 years or more and thus should not be quoted is OR. --Childhood's End 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but the argument doesn't hinge on whether someone changed their mind. The intro says "This article lists scientists who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above." The TAR was published in 2001. Given that JF's quote was from 1997, she should never have been on the list in the first place.
Are you using again this arbitrary criterion to delete another credible scientist from public scrutinity? If Francis believes that the Earth's far past gives us clues that what we are experiencing is natural warming, TAR is not likely to have changed significantly what she believes. --Childhood's End 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What's arbitrary about someone who is no longer a skeptic? Back in 1998, roughly 98% of the scientists were unclear about AGW, given trends then. Now, roughly the opposite ratio feels that way. Former skeptics who now are convinced about AGW should not be listed as skeptics now because that would be deceitful. I would entertain your rationale to the contrary if you have any. --Skyemoor 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This brings to mind a broader point: the skeptics need to be more careful, as the ploys they are using here could backfire. Suppose they put someone on the list who is very obviously not a skeptic (recall the Wally Broecker episode). The person in question could demand that Wikipedia retract the defamation; Jimbo would likely ban the person who posted it. Raymond Arritt 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to help you here, although this is obviously trolling and a ploy to instill fear about publishing skeptical comments. You should understand that a person who has made a public comment cannot sue Wikipedia because this comment is being cited by Wiki, unless this comment is used in a consciously misleading way to defame that person or something of that kind. On the other hand, if a comment was invented to make look like a skeptic someone who is clearly not, then that person would have grounds. But that's not what's happening here. Please refrain from further trolling.--Childhood's End 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wally Broecker case is very real - so there is no trolling or intimidation involved here. It's primarily because WB is well known and because of the validation checks and discussions done here on the talk page - that he didn't end up on the list. In this case - where the quote is very old (which btw. isn't arbitrary but has been the premise of the page since the beginning) and is retained from sources that we cannot verify (the fossils page) - it becomes important. I btw. agree that we have to consider the same criteria as for WP:BLP. I raised the question not because of suspecion (i was already convinced - see above). But because emails have been used earlier - both to confirm (as with Orrin Pilkey above) and to refute (as with Giese above) - so it would be nice to have these archived in some way. --Kim D. Petersen 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this ridiculous sidestory. It really is intimidation. If Wikipedia had any such concerns, Bushism would have been deleted, but it survived a deletion request by a wide margin. Just look at the quotes in the 3rd section (Other famous bushism), all taken from the same dubious blog. In the deletion discussion, someone pointed out that the article was a violation of the policy on libel against living people. The answer he got is this : "libel certainly does not figure in here. It's very very difficult to commit defamation against a public figure in the United States. Nothing in the article crosses the line. So let's just take the legal question out of consideration." And the deletion request was turned down, as I said. --Childhood's End 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: there is a difference between a public person/politician and the persons that are on this page (or nominated for it). I'm not interested in your politics - so i'm not going to comment - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Note also many other countries, Commonwealth countries in particular have more restrictive libel laws and at least one court case in Australia suggests there (and potentially elsewhere) even if the person libelling doesn't live in Australia and the libel was not directly published in Australia, you can still be sued for libelling an Australia. Nil Einne 11:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And I have an email from McIntyre saying that Connolley misrepresents his position on this page. Where shall I post it? 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
First, get an account and login so that we can at least take you a slightly bit seriously. Then see the above WP:OTRS, so that we can put McIntyre on the record (if indeed you do have such an email). --Skyemoor 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to let the person copy the email to the OTRS people directly, rather than having one of us forward it. Guettarda 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Taken seriously? I thought this page was satire. Look up under McIntyre's Blog section of this page. That's all the comment that needs to be made. As Connelly pointed out above, there is no consensus. This page is the straw man, set up to oppose a consensus that doesn't exist.

By the way, just as a sidenote in case it went unnoticed, Dr. Jane Francis seems to work for the White Rose Palaeobiology Group, which shows on its front page a quote from Jacques Joseph Ebelmen (1847) that says : "Many circumstances nonetheless tend to prove that in ancient geologic epochs the atmosphere was denser and richer in CO2, and perhaps O2, than at present". This may not prove she is a skeptic by itself, but she seems to work for a scientific organization that identifies itself with the idea that the Earth has seen more CO2 in its atmosphere than at present. I'd still like to see this e-mail that Mr. Connolley claimed he received, just in case... --Childhood's End 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that is part the standard scientific opinion and in no way conflicts with the IPCC. During the Ordovician, a drop in CO2 from 7000ppm to 4400ppm accompanied a major ice age. 250 or so million years ago, the atmosphere had 35% oxygen. See Earth's atmosphere#Evolution_of_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere for a short overview. Of course, back then a lot of things where very different, including the position of the continents and the energy output of the sun, so this is largely irrelevant to todays climate science. --Stephan Schulz 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for this info, it helps in some way, but it seems that these scientists disagree with you on the relevance of this with "today's climate science". As I pointed out, they identify themselves with this - it's not as if they think it's irrelevant... --Childhood's End 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I should have chosen a more careful phrasing. Of course any understanding of different climate systems has a chance of improving our understanding of today's climate. What I wanted to point out is that one cannot naively transfer simple conditions from the Ordovician to today (as in "look, back then there was 15 times more CO2 in the air than today, and they had an ice age, so CO2 has nothing to do with warming!" - and yes, I have seen this position). --Stephan Schulz 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is this Mr Connolley of whom you speak? But as to the substance: the email is a sideline, and would not be enough by itself. The important point is that her recent statements override the old ones. This article is not a history of anyone who ever was skeptical. BTW, you "white rose" stuff is so obviously pointless its hard to know why you bothered with it William M. Connolley 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So, you cited an e-mail as evidence but once you're asked to show it, it's not enough by itself? Now I would ask you to show it anyway; that would be kind on your part and would show that you're not building up stories on these boards. --Childhood's End 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The recent references are evidence enough, so the email is simply a red herring you're dragging around. --Skyemoor 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Skyemoor i agree completely with your statement. But i still think that it would be nice to be able to (in controversial cases, ie. those where the quote/documentation can be interpreted both ways) provide an email as documentation - for either include/exclude (funny enough in both the cases i mentioned earlier (Giese,Pilkey) the email provided the confirmation contrary to the (subjective) POV of the corresponding editor - so it can be useful. --Kim D. Petersen 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering the special status that WMC has in climate-related articles and how binding his opinions are for yourself and the usual others, it does not seem like a red herring to be interested in whether he did receive such an e-mail or not. How can you not be interested in the reliability of WMC's claims? --Childhood's End 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in my claims. My claim is: But as to the substance: the email is a sideline, and would not be enough by itself. The important point is that her recent statements override the old ones. I also claim you're trolling, and encourage people not to feed the trolls William M. Connolley 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your accusations of trolling against people who have different opinions than yours are not new - that is trolling. Now, considering your high involvement in climate-related articles, bring forward this e-mail if you please so that we know that you're not making false representations here and there to support your edits/positions. --Childhood's End 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WMC pegged it when he said you were WP:Troll trolling. This red herring is merely one of many examnples. Your attempts to deflect admonishment and turn the argument to your opponent is a well known legal trick. --Skyemoor 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Re legal trick, you do know that CE is (or claims to be) an attorney? Raymond Arritt 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your defense of WMC's unjustifiable actions show much about your neutrality. If you were neutral, you'd be curious just like me to know whether or not he did received that personal e-mail from Dr. Francis. --Childhood's End 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about Raymond, but I am curious - not because I doubt William, but because I'm naturally a curious person (in both senses, I guess). However, I also know that you do not publish other peoples correspondence to you. --Stephan Schulz 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a really fair point. But then, why come here and claim that you got a personal e-mail supporting your position if you're not to publish it? At best, it remains trolling. --Childhood's End 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's the opposite of trolling. It tries to shorten a useless discussion (not that it worked in this case). There is nothing to support inclusion of Jane Francis because she simply is not sceptic. --Stephan Schulz 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Then as I said, you're supporting what should not be supported (an administrator who refuses to clarify whether he told the truth or not). You cant be neutral doing that. --Childhood's End 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try a definition here. I understand trolling as picking fights that will not inform the ongoing discussion but merely distract. I'm afraid this is a losing battle for CHE: there's no way that Francis fits the criteria for inclusion, and you have to see that recent statements outweigh older ones.

As for the significance of the older quotation, I don't see it as equating to "AGW is a hoax" or even just "AGW won't make much difference to us," but something more like "paleobiology shows there were vastly different atmospheric conditions in the distant past, yet life survived; we could look at AGW in that context and see that the biosphere will somehow adapt and evolve beyond its effects" - that's a long-term planetary science and evolutionary biology outlook, distanced from the issue of what AGW might mean for the economy, agriculture or storm damage over a mere 200 year time scale. Hence the comment about GW being a passing skin rash, from the planet's point of view. I think it's an instance of "humans are awfully self-important, given our short time in the vast sweep of planetary history and biology" (But of course we humans have to worry about the much shorter term of the next century or two.) Could that be what was intended by the "farcical" reference?

Oh and by the way, much as I respect WMC, I don't just toe whatever line he proposes here; I'm doing all I can to learn the science for myself. This term I'm attending two courses, a grad seminar on GW and a 3rd yr. physics course on radiative effects in the atmosphere. I'm up to my ears in journal papers in the assigned readings (though I don't think I'm up to 928 articles yet. :-) Birdbrainscan 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for trying to bring this discussion somewhere. Let me only add one more comment about trolling, as I think that the best example of trolling we could have is someone coming into this discussion, claim that he has a personal e-mail from Mrs. Francis herself telling him that the quote does not reflect her position, and then refusing to show the e-mail once asked to. You would expect that this sort of behaviour would have come from an anonymous IP address messing around, but no... that was from William Connolley on whose claims many editors here rely for their own edits. I'm unfortunately alone to see the obvious problem here, and will therefore give it up, but I wont accept being called a troll by an administrator who leaves us wondering whether he tells the truth or not to the WP community on talk pages.
As for Dr. Francis' "old" quote, while I agree that it does not specifically address a particular point of the GW mainstream theory, it still shows overall that she believes the warming is probably natural rather than anthropogenic. The three quotes provided by RA all show that she believes in a global warming (like most other skeptics) but they show in no way that she no longer believes that the warming is natural rather than anthropogenic. And I have also read the article provided by KDP, which is full of poetry and nice things, but which ends up with "The point is that the Earth takes care of itself. The Earth's cycles are so much bigger than human beings, that we're just an irritation on its skin. The planet has been hotter than now and it's survived - but will we?". This does not prove by itself that she is a skeptic, of course, but it certainly does not prove neither that she changed her mind with regard to the older quote. Now, add this up with her organization's web site which features the following quote as a slogan : "Many circumstances nonetheless tend to prove that in ancient geologic epochs the atmosphere was denser and richer in CO2, and perhaps O2, than at present", and you are left wondering how they can come to the conclusion that she changed her mind since 1998.
To sum up, I agree with you that these more recent references invite us to differentiate between long-scale and short-scale, but where I disagree is that they do not allow us to claim that she changed her mind about the natural warming hypothesis. --Childhood's End 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a misperception that attenuates your understanding of the science; yes, there were times in the distant past that there were higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It was absorbed by plant life, and then sequestered through a number of processes due to diverse events (e.g., asteroid strikes, etc). That's where the coal/oil/natgas we extract came from originally. If we put it back into the atmosphere, then we will create conditions that are outside the realm of our current climate (i.e., habitat, agriculture), resulting in impacts to rainfall patterns, temperature ranges, violent weather events, etc. Hence the "it's survived - but will we?". --Skyemoor 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read over the White Rose website. Did you notice the date of the little caption slogan you are so excited about? It's from 1847! I'd say it's there as a tribute to Jacques Joseph Ebelmen as a founder of paleoclimatology, not a subtle hint that the site participants are climate change skeptics.
Anyway, you are grasping at straws if you want to count Jane Francis as one of your AGW skeptics. Take a look at the last two paragraphs of the more recent Guardian profile [6] (as cited previously):

She does sometimes despair of our stupidity, thinks we live in ridiculous places and has a movie on her computer that shows the areas that are going to be inundated as the ice caps melt and the seas rise. Something like 65 metres of potential sea level rise is trapped in the ice so London is gone and Cambridge will follow. Leeds is OK, but Florida goes as do Bangladesh, the Pacific islands and Holland. She has just been to Shanghai and saw it had been built on the Yangtze delta. She thought: "Well, how long is that going to be there?"

So she believes the ice caps may well melt and flood these areas. The last paragraph leads off with "We fiddle too much with natural systems" (implying that we are implicated in these changes); then the part you still choose to cite "The earth will take care of itself [...] The planet has been hotter than now and it's survived - but will we?" Why do you even think that quote helps your position? She's not saying that AGW doesn't matter because "the earth" will surive. She's saying we may be threatening our own survival.Birdbrainscan 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstand what I mean instead. As I said, I understand what you just said above. My point is that this does not show that she changed her mind if what she said previously indeed is a skeptical comment towards anthropogenic warming. Besides, the fact that the quote on the White Rose website is old and dates back to 1847 can only show how important they think it is to today's context no? If they felt it was irrelevant now, why would they advertise it? But as I said also, this does not prove by itself that they are skeptics, of course. I'm just adding up things and asking questions that some people here want to avoid. --Childhood's End 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you have no evidence that she is or ever was a "sceptic". --Stephan Schulz 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you arrive at "that some people here want to avoid?" We've now expended 4090 words on discussing if Jane Francis is a skeptic. Where exactly is the avoidance? She has a screensaver that shows how GW-driven sea-level rise will flood massive amounts of coastal habitation; she asks "The earth ... has survived - but will we?" In all her extensive peer-reviewed publication, you haven't shown a single hint of AGW skeptical argument on the science in print. If Francis were another Balling or Michaels, shouldn't you be able to find at least something published by her in this direction? At least Balling and Michaels have put it in writing.Birdbrainscan 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Read again the original quote and what I said previously, as I have nothing to add to this. I'm not going to let this discussion derail on the issue of whether it is necessary to have expressed skepticism in a peer-reviewed publication before a scientist can be considered a skeptic. This is only an attempt at creating a tool of censorship. I can be a skeptic by my concerns published in the media. Besides, Francis is out of the list now, isnt she? Why argue any further? --Childhood's End 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you really nothing to add? Excellent. Then we can end this discussion, which has been entirely pointless for rather a long time - a lesson to us all in not feeding the trolls William M. Connolley 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Who's trolling again? --Childhood's End 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But didn't you say you had nothing to add? Raymond Arritt 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please try to be civil. Accusations of trolling coming from a trolling post, I can dismiss, but this is getting off-limits... --Childhood's End 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources?

Given the questions above, it really shows the importance of secondary sources - that listing people as sceptics should be based on their being described as sceptics by a reliable secondary source (supported, given BLP considerations, by their actual comments). Guettarda 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide secondary sources that show that all the scientists in the world not listed in this article as "skeptics" actually support the theory of anthropogenic global warming? --Childhood's End 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I can't, which is why I would never suggest that such a statement be included in this article. It's common knowledge that the vast majority of them do, but that's a different issue altogether. Guettarda 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to be dubious of all this 'common knowledge' stuff. I wouldn't mind actually, seeing a list of scientists who support all this doomsday rot-gut with a couple of important qualifiers - those being: 1) made statements to the effect in the last 5 years with 2 independant sources, 2) Published in the last 5 years, 3) Made the typical doomsday style predictions about what will come "if we don't take action now", and most importantly 4) is openly conservative politically (because I personally believe that the modern enviromentalist movement is mostly an attack on capitalism in favour or socialism rather than done out of any genuine concern for nature or the planet, and hence global warming has become a political issue). Would there be any interest for such a list, other than my own? I wonder how long it would be... 04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, since "typical doomsday style predictions" are not part of the scientific opinion, those might be hard to find. --Stephan Schulz 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Just look at what came out of the summary of the Fourth Assessment Report : "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the scientists said. The report blamed man-made emissions of greenhouse gases for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.[7]
Oh, a scientific survey from that famous scientific publisher, Fox News. Right. Why don't you go and read the AR4 SPM and find out what the science really says? --Stephan Schulz 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You should pay more attention. That was from some media organization called Associated Press - Fox only took it... --Childhood's End 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree - there should no shortage of scientists warning of dire castrophes like droughts, famines, hurricanes, floods, rising sea levels (poor Holland and New Orleans (noted Scientist Al Gore speaks of the 20 feet of water that will cover Manhattan)), increased pestilence resulting in spread of diseases, etc. Or is the media mis-reporting the scientific findings and decieving us on purpose (and this is in no way limited to FOX news!)? If the media is just scare-mongering, I would think it would have been a priority of the scientists to correct the record, to stop the endless tripe about drowning polar bears, et al. If they let this kind of misreporting stand, one must start to question their motives a little... Of all my qualifiers, I would think the toughest one would be the 'politically conservative' bit. 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Using political leanings as a filter is the ultimate in POV. Science must be divorced from such machinations or else all you would be left with is political propaganda (indeed, much of what one sees today). Now, this is an article talk page; how do you suggest to improve the article? --Skyemoor 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The funniest thing is when people think that scientists or the UN are immune from political bias while they know that the strings are pulled by politicians... --Childhood's End 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are speaking of the current US Administration. -- Skyemoor 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes I forgot that one... the UN and the current US administration love each other so much ! --Childhood's End 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We agree Skyemoor absolutely - science must be based in facts. But I would argue that if man made global warming is science, then it can stand on it's own merits and politics, and as such, you'd expect scientists who believe in global warming to be split almost equally in left/right political leanings since personal politics don't change facts. Anything less than a 50-50 (or say 60-40 since 50-50 is basically impossible) split would indicate to indicate - to me at least - a lack of facts, and surplus spin. Simply put, as a conservative myself, who has become highly dubious of this research fearing it hijacked by the left, judging the degree of politcs in the matter with a list of scientists with a similar outlook as myself would be genuinely informative (that's why I floated the idea for such a list in the first place).
As for improving the article, I still think that the thinking leading to it's creation is suspect (as an afront to the people listed, and intimidation against others lest they join the list) and hence wonder if the article should even exist. That said, the article has undergone great improvement since I first saw it and made my tongue in cheek comment some weeks ago, and that has somewhat placated my cynisism -- thank you all for that. But rest assured, I was serious when I asked whether there was any interest in a conservative pro-global warming scientist list -- if for nothing else than to judge relative sizes of the two positions because all this "vast majority"/"small minority" talk really is making me curious to the actual relative sizes (and the restrictions I stated are basically the same as there are for this page - except the list would be half as large as the complete list, right?). Are there any reliable numbers that compare apples to apples (as opposed to memberships in organizations vs individuals who publish opposing points of view in publications which often advocate the opposite point of view)? Can someone tell me a few names of conservative pro-global warming scientists? 03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know there aren't any surveys of the political leanings of GW scientists. I do know several scientists who accept the consensus view and who are conservative but it would be an invasion of privacy to give their names. (I'll self-declare as a registered independent whose political views leave people utterly disoriented, so that's probably not useful as a data point.) For what it's worth Bill Gray, a prominent GW skeptic, calls himself a "flaming liberal." With all due respect I think that dividing a scientific issue into liberal or conservative is abhorrent. See mu.Raymond Arritt 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, of course, the argument if fallacious. You do not expect a 50/50 split, at most you'd expect that the distibutions are independent, i.e. you would expect the same proportion of left/right in scientists supporting the IPCC view as in the set of all scientists (or all climate scientists? Or all humans? You need to define the basic population you draw from). But even then, many scientists (just like Ray) have a complex political outlook that isn't easily classified into left/right. --Stephan Schulz 08:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we would have difficulty with the theories of gravity and relativity (to only name two) if we were looking for a roughly equal split of scientists pro and con. --Skyemoor 10:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You misundersdtood me (easy to do since I typed it after a very long day and made many errors - my apologies). I was simply interested in the conservative subgroup of pro-global warming consensus scientists. If politics has nothing to do with the science, I tried to argue, you'd expect an even split amongst the scientists (convervative/liberal) who support and who oppose a theory (the sizes of the groups can be different (like in the theories you mentioned) but the ratios you'd expect to be the same (since facts are politically neutral)). And as Stephan correctly pointed out, this ratio does not need to be 50-50 either. I attempted to point out that a large differnece in the ratio (conservative:liberal) between sceintists who support and those who oppose a theory would indicate to me problems with the theory itself - since the 'facts' are being interpreted differently based on ideology (if the ratio in both groups were constant but skewed too far from the population as a whole, that also begs questions but not necessarily with the theory itself).
That said, Ray probably has a point and such distinctions should probably not be made - maybe it makes for a interesting poll, but not for an encyclopedia (heck - I'm dubious about whether or not this list should exist at all for similar reasons, so I should be consistant). I do have one request though, when considering new restirctions on the names of scientists who belong on this list (secondary sources, publish recently, etc) on top of the existing restrictions (no blogs, publish, etc), please don't propose any restrictions that you would not find acceptable on a list such as the one I had proposed. 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that a scientists scientific views must be influence by their politics. However, it's easily possible it's the reverse. The scientists scientific view influences their politics since they may see what a load of crock one political view. Also, evolution has virtually unanimous support amongst scientists. Those few scientists who oppose it are overwhelming conservative. This is not because 'liberal' scientists let their political views cloud their scientific views but because the occasional conservative scientist who opposes evolution let's their conservative views cloud their scientific view. Support for evolution therefore is not likely to be completely independent of political views, but it doesn't mean we can say there is a problem with evolution... Nil Einne 09:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I made no assertion of cause and effect in my statements - whether politics begets skeptisism, or skeptisism begets politics - only co-relation. In your evolution example, sure I'd expect most skeptics to be people who believe the bible literally (strange you should say conservatives...), but I'd expect to find plenty of conservatives in the majority (pro-evolution) camp since proof and/or srong evidence tend to convince people of all political orientations. Even though I am also often tempted to agree with you and Nethgrib in that people of certain political orientations are simply insane and refuse to listen to reason (strangely, I don't think we agree on who these people are however), when disagreements happen I prefer to first re-examine the persuasiveness of my arguments (and usually even my position) before dismissing them as hopeless dimwits. Ah well, as I said, the list would be inappropriate for wiki. If the idea at least got people thinking about the what are reasonable and unreasonable restrictions on this list, then at least the proposal was of some use. 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"I attempted to point out that a large differnece in the ratio (conservative:liberal) between sceintists who support and those who oppose a theory would indicate to me problems with the theory itself - since the 'facts' are being interpreted differently based on ideology" -- I see what you're getting at, and the statistics would be really interesting to see. But this reasoning is flawed. At a high level, a theory is either:

  1. Supported by logical reasoning based on evidence.
  2. Not well supported or open to subjective interpretation.

If I understand correctly, your argument is that if evaluation of a theory is correlated with politics, then this indicates that the theory must be mostly of the second type, and thus there's a problem with the theory. But that is wrong, because political biases can cause failure of logical reasoning as well, or failure to seek out evidence. After all, humans are not perfect logical reasoning machines. The theory may be entirely true and well-supported by evidence, yet people with a certain political party (which may have an established stance on the theory) will tend to see what they want to see, blinding themselves to some of the facts. Thus they may arrive at incorrect conclusions about a particular question more often than those of another party whose members are less biased, or even just differently biased. --Nethgirb 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, between two parties with different views on a theory, who is to determine which party has the political bias you just described and which has not, if any? --Childhood's End 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussion towards improving the article, so let's stay on track and away from bottomless pits. --Skyemoor 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lee Gerhard

In the discussion on currentness of research, Lee Gerhard's name came up as one who might be excluded. Kim Peterson linked to a google scholar search that shows recent publications. I've looked a bit closer at these. To sum up: all his journal papers have been in AAPG Bulletin (American Association of Petroleum Geologists). His geo papers span 1971-82. His recent writings in the same journal have all been on arguing against Kyoto and minimizing GHGs as drivers vs. solar.

Here's a link to a search on the AAPG Bulletin site showing his writings: His geo writings are both long ago and not related to climate (they're about finding oil, as that's the area of science this journal covers.) His recent writings don't appear to be original research on climate so much as commentary. He's definitely a skeptic, but if we were sticking to people who publish on the science of climate, I'd have trouble justifying his inclusion.

I read through the powerpoint linked by his entry, and he assembles lots of charts from other people's research with his own read on what they mean. Slide 23 uses a pie chart I recognize from a quite dodgy skeptic site I recently looked into, which had very fishy numbers claiming that two-thirds of the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to today's 380ppm was natural, not anthropogenic. That's just nuts of course, but it underlies the 0.28% anthropogenic share of GHEffect the pie chart claims. (95% water vapour, 4.72% volcanoes, ocean life and animals)

Anyway, I feel Gerhard is pretty borderline. He's still publishing, but not from direct research of his own; he's just putting up other people's graphs and discussing how he reads them. Birdbrainscan 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He therefore is not applicable to the concept of a scientist in this field (or even a scientist alone). --Skyemoor 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Skyemoor - hi there.) I reformulated the Google Scholar search term as author:"LC Gerhard" [link] and found more articles and some textbook work by him - geo stuff up to around 1995, then a lot of writing on climate policy since 1996.Birdbrainscan 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the criterion for "scientist" for this page is very low - one p-r paper ever in any subject. An attempt to change that failed (above). Arguably there should be some means of marking people with current research status and climate expertise; but the usual suspects will shriek and (based upon the poll above) there is no consensus to do it William M. Connolley 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
He is a Scientist, correct? He is "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" Correct? wether or not he has performed his own direct research is becides the point. many scientists draw on informaotin from others. To argue someone should be removed for this reason is just an active POV push to limit who is on this list. WMC's typical view backs this up. Thanks for chiming in William.--Zeeboid 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If the list is not to be limited perhaps it should be compared to the estimated (1988-1989) 4.1 million FTE researchers in R&D [8].Hal peridol 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By WMC wacky criteria, I believe JT Houghton (who incidentally is not a skeptic but is a nut) would not be eligible to be listed here. 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems the consensus dogma(assesment reports 1,2, &3) was written by non-scientist(according to Mconnelly) then further edited by bureaucrats(according to the IPCC). How scientific.... 23:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Deafening silence...... 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Rest assured that the accusations have been given the attention that they deserve. Raymond Arritt 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
if it doesn't fit into your belief system, just ignore it, eh?Jepp 14:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIV, WP:Trolling. I believe Raymond was referring to the quality of the questions/comments directly preceding his. Bereft of substance, the attention they received was appropriate. --Skyemoor 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
We are having a discussion over what is the criteria to be considered a 'scientist'. Many feel the current criteria is wrong. Someone pointed out that the author of the first three assessment reports (arguably THE consensus report) doesn't meet the criteria of a 'scientist' arbitrarily set on this page. Rather than address this issue, the pundits here simply ignore it. That's a wonderful trick for politicians, but unseemly for legitimate conversation. 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(!) Houghton was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. That alone is a mountain of confirmation of his credentials. For another mountain, see his listings on Google Scholar. --Skyemoor 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(!) Whose point are you trying to make?? I agree, yet he has not been published in a peer reviewed journal in the last five years, so he is not a scientist (please read above). (Of course he's a scienist!) 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Houghton meets the criteria currently set for this page. If, as seems likely, he has published no PR research in the past 5 years then he doesn't meet the modified criteria set out above and not adopted. So what? Is that a problem? William M. Connolley 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems but I think it's important to point out what a dumb idea the modified criteria is to end this inane debate you started. 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


This discussion really needs to be archived. Anyone up for the job? We could just archive everything except the last 10 discussions or something but it appears some older discussions are still active while others have died down. If no one is up for it, we could use a bot. Also, should we archive things like the name discussion seperately? Nil Einne 11:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absense of objections over the next few days, I will probably set this page up for bot archiving Nil Einne 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's done. The settings are at the top. Feel free to revert it if you didn't voice your disagreement in time Nil Einne 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Persons being added under the current categories do not match up cleanly with said categories; for example, Roy Spencer is under "The Cause of Warming is Unknown", though he says "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.", which is something very different. Another example is Paul Brekkal, who states we can't tell which contributes the most to GW, though he is listed under "Unknown". There are others, so we need to add new categories, one of which would be;

  • The percentage of anthropogenic warming is not clear

Or else we need to relabel the first category in this manner. --Skyemoor 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have been using the first category as "The primary cause of GW is unknown". For the sake of brevity, I think it's good to have a short section title, and then explain the details below that. However, in this case the details didn't say "primary" so I added that. I think that your 2 examples now fit in that section. --Nethgirb 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Skyemoor updated the section title from "The cause of global warming is unknown" to "The amount of human-induced global warming is uncertain". I think this new title is not quite right, since everyone agrees that the exact amount of warming due to humans is uncertain. I changed it to a compromise, "The principal cause of global warming is unknown", which hopefully conveys the key point on which these skeptics disagree with the consensus. --Nethgirb 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The "criterion for inclusion" in this list wreaks of POV

This is an obvious pushing to limit the number of people who can be on this list. If the article is titled "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" then the Scientists who oppose... should be on this list wether or not they publish a "peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences" or the title peprhaps should be changed further to something like Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming who have peer-reviewed article(s) in the broad area of natural sciences--Zeeboid 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what, Zeeboid, you're right—the criteria for inclusion here are not appropriate. I suggest we implement the previously proposed criterion of having at least 1 peer-reviewed publication in the natural sciences in the last 5 years, on the grounds that (1) a publication record is the standard way in the scientific community of estabilishing scientific credentials; (2) this has always been a list of scientists in the present tense, not former scientists; (3) it is possible to publish and then cease to be a scientist. As a compromise to those who felt 5 years was too short, I think it would be appropriate to slightly modify the requirement to allow individuals who had a pub within 5 years of the date of the included quote (i.e., they were a scientist according to this criterion at the time they gave their opinion).
I further suggest that it is obvious to everyone here that we will never reach a consensus on this. Thus, I suggest that (1) we not discuss any details here, and (2) we instead take the matter up with one of Wikipedia's established dispute resolution channels in order to establish clear guidelines which will make editing this article easier and less contentious for all involved in the future. Perhaps someone more experienced in those matters can suggest a specific appropriate channel. --Nethgirb 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

First of all: He is a sceptic. But i don't like the source / quote - it seems to be a word-document with an added Summary that isn't in the printed version of this [9]. The printed version does say that it has been edited from the original speech - but from what i can see - nothing other than the summary is absent. The quote on the page is from this Summary. Now i suggest that we instead take this quote: "It's clear that, if you have a group of atmospheric scientists who are looking at one of the aspects of an integrated planet, you will get conclusions like this, which are totally incommensurate with the evidence." from this. --Kim D. Petersen 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: I'm suspecious about the source of the Summary - but not of Plimer's scepticism. A better and more reliable quote is needed. Another possibility: “When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” [10] --Kim D. Petersen 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The summary looks fishy - in one sentence it claims that "there is no evidence that life has changed climates" (sic), in the next it recognized that it (life) has added parts of the atmosphere (and I assume Plimer knows that that holds for e.g. most of the oxygen). --Stephan Schulz 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
How about "It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it" from the same paper? 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
At best very weakly in conflict with the IPCC position. It is well acknowledged that warming drives atmospheric CO2 and vice versa. --Stephan Schulz 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
WHAT? "Carbon Dioxide does not drive climate change" is in conflict with the TAR. 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ernst-Georg Beck

What category should he go under? "Accurate chemical CO2 analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of the IPCC climate change actually published". read on....[[11]]

It doesn't go anywhere - because EGB fails the inclusion parameters for this page. EGB is not a scientist - he is a teacher at a Highschool [12]. Try to find a peer-reviewed paper that he has written. (as per: "The criterion for inclusion in this list is that the individual has published one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences (though not necessarily in a field related to climate)."). I've looked - and found nothing. NB: the paper in question from Energy and Environment is not peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as information (it has no impact on whether or not EGB could or couldn't be included - we don't evaluate whether or not the quotes or the papers or whatever is correct or not) - here is a good explantion of the problems with this particular paper (and why it was published in E&E instead of in a regular science journal)[13] --Kim D. Petersen 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is a retired unviversity professor(Universitat Giessen)not eligible to be here? Who has also been published in many 'regular' peer-review journals? (He is a micro-biologist). (Thanks so much for linking a blog entry to refute his work). As the science around this and global warming in general is not settled there are many differing opinions. For instance, there is a man named Roger Pielke who brings up many factual errors in the latest IPCC report. You should take a look at his blog. 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - but which professor are you talking about here? Its not EGB certainly - since for one: He is not retired - and secondly he is working actively as a highschool teacher (Merian-Schule Freiburg) - and produces quite alot of material for biology education at the highschool level. You can take the blog posting as whatever you like - i was simply pointing to it - not making judgements. --Kim D. Petersen 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah - i get it. You are confusing Pf. Dr. Ewald Beck (biochemist Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen) with Dipl.Bio. Ernst-Georg Beck (Merian-Schule Freiburg)..... Or? --Kim D. Petersen 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Correction: the EG Beck at the University in Giessen is Pf. Dr. Ernst Gerhard Beck[14] (Hygiene-Institut u. Umweltmed / Hygene institute and environmetal medicine). --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer confused. =) 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Given that editors occasionally appear to add people's names to the list without proper consideration of what their comments mean and without proper sourcing, I felt it wise to add the BLP template. Unfortunately, this was reverted. However I don't see why. The edit summary said "this is about the article's subject and not about the life of a person". I don't quite understand this. Both the BLP policy (WP:BLP#Templates) and the template guidelines (Template:BLP) make it clear the template can be applied to all articles dealing with living people (lists is a specific example given in the template guidelines) regardless of whether or not they are biographies or about the 'life of a living person'Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of BLP on the part of editors. BLP applies to all information in wikipedia articles related to living people. It doesn't matter whether or not the template is present nor whether or not the article is a biography. If you weren't aware of this, I suggest you re-read the policy. Nil Einne 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as this article is restrained to providing verifiable quotes and does not create material about living persons, BLP is not relevant. Also, perhaps you should check Bushism in this regard. WP standards seem to be quite 'variable' when it comes to BLP. --Childhood's End 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Specifically "This article lists scientists who have expressed doubt regarding the current scientific opinion on global warming". Therefore, by listing people here, and futhermore categorising them according to what their view is, there is a very important editorial oversight beyond verification. Claiming that a scientist believes something simply because you've misunderstood a comment is one of the things BLP seeks to avoid. Indeed, many scientists would be deeply offended for you to list them here even if they have said something open to misinterpretation. Also, again you don't appear to have misunderstand BLP or policy in general. BLP is always relevant when a living person is involved. The fact that editors may not have broken BLP doesn't mean it's not relevant or doesn't have to be considered. It may mean it's not necessary to specifically mention the policy in the talk page.
But having looked at this talk page, it appears that your characterisation is incorrect. In fact, several editors have added people either without bothering to understand what they're trying to say or trying but failing to understand. Quoting people out of context is in itself a big 'no-no' under BLP. Also, dubious sources appear to have been used in some instances. Many editors have talked first (although even if editors talk first, they need to be aware of BLP which some aren't), but not all. It is thanks to the hard work of several editors that dubious additions have usually been reverted quickly, but this doesn't mean there is not a problem. On the contrary, if editors have to keep removing additions which should never have been made in the first place, this means there is a problem and editors should probably be made aware of BLP.
Also, someone has already commented that Bush is a leader and a very public figure, who tends to be treated differently from private figures, which includes many scientists who are either listed or have been attempted to be listed. More importantly, the fact that BLP may or may not be ignored in Bushisms is irrelevant. You should take up such an issue in the BLP noticeboard, not try and use that as an excuse to ignore it here. Most importantly, comparisons with Bushisms is completely irrelevant. In Bushisms, we're simply listing a bunch of things which Bush said, which some people find funny or unusual for some reason. We aren't attributing a viewpoint to Bush. In this case, we are quoting people in such a way as to attribute certain viewpoints to them. If you failed to see this difference, you really need to re-read BLP and think about things a little more clearly.
Finally, do you have any argument based on policy why the BLP template shouldn't be on this page? If not, I will be re-adding it.
P.S. Have you considered why lists are specifically mentioned in the template.
Nil Einne 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I perhaps know a little bit more about libel than you do, which could explain why you feel more than I do a profound need to showcase a BLP tag above this page. Libel is not created only by "attributing viewpoints" as you just implied; it can be created, even more, by ridiculing a public person through a public venue.
Now, BLP is always relevant indeed, but does not, because of that, always warrant a special tag. I do not see why BLP would warrant a special tag in this article more than it does in the tens of thousands of other articles that may show verifiable quotes from living persons with "attributed viewpoints". The risk of creating libel by mentioning only a verifiable quote for what it is is really remote. So, yes, BLP is always relevant, but does it warrant a tag to every WP article including verifiable quotes from living persons to show their viewpoints? I dont think so.
Besides, with my reference to Bushism I wanted to know if you were holding different standards about BLP depending on the topic, what you showed (using quotes from a public figure in order to support partisan mockery would be ok, but using quotes from more-or-less public figures to show their openly declared scientific opinions would be libel? eh). --Childhood's End 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason as I have already explained is because this isn't a simple place where we quote people. This is basically a list which exists solely to quote numerous people and claim they believe something. The important thing here is we aren't just letting the quote stand on it's own. Nor is it a normal page where we may quote one or two peopel. We are claiming these people "oppose the mainstream...". As this talk page shows, there are many cases when it is disputed whether someone genuinely opposes the mainstream... and then there is also the issue of categorising those beliefs. People's comments need to be taken in context and can be difficult to understand, even more so if you don't understand all the facts. In this case, we are claiming scientists believe something which given the contoversial nature of this belief, could cause harm to them in numerous ways. As I have already stated, the not uncommon inclusion of people on this list who should not be on it (whether due to sourcing or disputed comments), combined with the frequent discussion (often in the negative) of whether people should be added to the list strongly suggests a BLP tag is needed. Also, do remember that BLP isn't solely about libel from a legal standpoint but also our moral requirements. I don't wish to comment extensively on other cases since as I have pointed out, the absense of the template on other places doesn't justify excluding it from here since the reasons for including it are IMHO strong enough. But if you would give some examples which are similar to this, I will take a look at them. Bushims is a bad example as I have already explained. A good example would be a page ideally a list with a similar level of controversy on the talk page, and one where the claim is clearly controversial. Nil Einne 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that i agree 100% - its imperative (imho) that we not only see comments in context, but also try to widen that context to other written material of the persons involved. --Kim D. Petersen 07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
For Bushism, you didnt explain anything, you just showed that you hold double-standards about BLP. Furthermore, I would be surprised that the people quoted herein would feel very bad about how their viewpoints have been categorized. Also, as I have explained, BLP applies to every article, tagged or not, whereas the events that BLP seeks to control are unlikely to materialize in an article which is restrained to show verifiable quotes. Finally, I do understand that some will seek to use this "special BLP case" as a censorship tool. KDP just showed above what he would use it for, requiring some sort of "double-quoting" before a quote could be added, and your double-standards about Bushism are of concern as well. --Childhood's End 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Childhoodsend, can you please stop your ranting about "Bushism" - take it up there - personally its a concept/article that has absolutely no interest to me. And more importantly: This article is not Bushism. Because one article allegedly is bad - does not make it an argument for making all other articles bad. --Kim D. Petersen 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As a further note, afaik we (almost) always check in the way i proposed for the persons to be included. So there is nothing new to this. A BLP notice would just make it easier for people to understand the "why" of the discussions. And (again) afaik, everyone on this list is fairly represented with a reasonable facsimille of their point of view. The criteria for inclusion should not be one badly formed sentence - but be a reliable assessment of the views of the person. Please check the archives for Roger Pielke Sr. for someone who is borderline to being included - and Wallace Broeker for someone who definitively didn't belong. --Kim D. Petersen 14:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to explain Bushism but it's quite clear you're either unwilling or unable to see my POV and as KDP said, there's no point discussing it here. And again, you have completedly failed to understand my point. We are not just quoting people. We are INTEPRETING their quotes. As this talk page amply demonstrates, there are quite a number of times when the meaning of these quotes is disputed. BLP makes it clear that we have to ensure if we are going to say something about people it has to be verified by a (preferably multiple) reliable sources. In this case, as we are claiming people believe something, and are using their viewpoints to make that claim, we have to make sure we understand what they are saying. As it appears you are unwilling to accept the need for a BLP tag, I'm going to ask for advice on the BLP noticeboard Nil Einne 17:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This will be my last edit in this discussion. I understand your concern and partially share them, I really do. On the other hand, you seem to ignore mine. I am telling you that the special tag that you wish to add refers to a policy that already applies anyway, and as yourself and KDP showed, the said tag would likely be used as a procedural tool to cut quotes that otherwise belong in the article rather than for sensitizing editors to BLP issues. I cannot assess which quotes would be cut if we were to require "multiple reliable sources" for a single quote, but we both know, you and I, that some statements that appear here which are undoubtedly skeptical of AGW or of the reliablility of the IPCC models would need to be deleted because we could not find "multiple sources" to support it. Scientists do not always publish the very same stuff twice, let alone multiple times.
You seem to support your position with the fact that the meaning of some quotes have been disputed amply on this talk page, whereas you ignore that these "disputes" have oftenly been useless bickering (see Christy, above). There's been a few cases, indeed, where the meaning of quotes has been shown uncertain, and I cannot remember an occasion where these have been kept in the article. The process seems to work.
This brings me to the core of this. You so far failed to provide an example of a quote actually appearing in the article that misinterprets what its author meant. I find it hard to understand this sudden emergency for a BLP tag, while we know that BLP applies anyway and that the article seems compliant.
I am further concerned that your BLP standards vary according to subjects, indicating that you are driving another agenda than the one you're showing. Anyway, I know that you will not stop this. You would be kind to provide the link to the BLP noticeboard discussion that you intend to initiate. Myself or others at least could follow what is said there.
Finally, I do not want to open a can or worms, but perhaps if the article was titled something like "Statements made by scientists which are in opposition with...", that could ease your "interpration" concerns. --Childhood's End 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening section changed


While the first point is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of scientists—relative to the number supporting the mainstream view—actively disagree with the second or third points.[1] This article lists persons with scientific experience who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.


While the first point is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, some scientists actively disagree with the second or third points. This article lists persons with scientific experience who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.

Unless someone can provide a total number of scientists, a number who are for, and a number who are against, the statement is inacurate.--Zeeboid 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This dead horse has been flogged far too many times, and will not get up and pull no matter how much more you flog. "Some" is too indistinct; "small number relative to the mainstream" (paraphrase) gives a much better indication. The AQA reference backs this up. Please stop wikilawyering. --Skyemoor 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But you don't know the number for/against/total, so how can you say the number is "Small"?--Zeeboid 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Non sequitur! You really want me to count all the climatologists in the world? How about a rough estimate? The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society alone has over 1100 members; the American Geophysical Union has over 48,000; there are 8000 Fellows of the British Royal Society; it's late so I won't stay up getting the totals for the Swedish Academy of Science et al. Recall the endorsements of the IPCC conclusions issued by a long list of these professional societies.Birdbrainscan 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, it would be good to remember, for this and future such discussions, that it's not our job to know anything. :-) We just cite reliable external sources. It's also not our job to second-guess a reliable source. The source backs up the claim in the article, so all is well. If we tried to compute the number for/against/total, that would be original research. --Nethgirb 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So, which is the reliable peer-reviewed external source which claims the number is small (and how do they arrive at it)? Is every member of each society Birdbrainscan listed a recently published (in a peer reviewed journal) climate scientist with attributable personal quotes supporting the theory of man-made global warming? Or is this the very original research you're warning against? It seems to me that we're comparing apples to blue oranges and concluding that apples far outnumber oranges in general... 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Frauenfield & Posmentier

They are two of the most notable skeptics, yet aren't on this list. Why not?Jepp 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide full names, appropriate quotes, and credentials and they can be listed. --Nethgirb 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Posmentier has co-authored a number of papers with Baliunas, Soon and others. [15] I do not know about Frauenfield. RonCram 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom V. Segalstad

Can someone help find an appropriate quote from [[16]]?

Thanks for the cite. There are so many errors in his essay that it's almost surreal. ("Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." said the Queen to Alice.) It will be useful as a class project in critical reading, to see if students can detect all of the nonsense. Raymond Arritt 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Raymond, thanks for the editorial. I realize that much of the science around AGW is debatable and that you may disagree with some of his writings. Maybe you could start a blog and showcase your wit, but this page is not for that, it's about sharing information. He meets the criteria set on this page, and I would like to make sure he is categorized in the most appropriate section. If you'd like to contribute you're welcome to. 18:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It was genuine thanks for a reference that will be useful. Note also that such obviously erroneous material casts the skeptical argument in a poor light, but if you want it to be on display I certainly have no objections. Raymond Arritt 18:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is supposed to be a list of "Scientists opposing the mainstream....", it is an Encyclopedia,not an Editorial. If you'd like to contribute i.e. help categorize Segalstad please please do, if you need a soap box, start a blog. 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As per the rules of the page Segalstad doesn't enter with this one ... The date is the problem: Oslo, July 1997. (and the cut-off date for quotes for this page is 2001 or later). So find another quote - or leave him off. --Kim D. Petersen 05:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not understand this revert

This was added to the article:

  • Anthony Lupo Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri – Columbia:"One thing I can agree with Gore on is the world is getting warmer," he said. "One thing I can’t agree on is the cause."[[17]]

William reverted this edit, indicating the reason was that Lupo did not say what he thought caused the Warming. I do not think that someone has to claim to know an answer to disagree with the "mainstream assessment". I do not believe this revert is appropriate.

I am bringing it here for discussion instead of immediately reverting it back.

--Blue Tie 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in the "warming is mostly natural" section. Since AL doesn't say that, it doesn't belong there. It probably belongs in "cause is not known" William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I am glad I did not just revert. --Blue Tie 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

William if you had any interest in being objective, as the editor of this page you would MOVE the scientist where they belong, not delete them. But you obviously have not interest in objectivity. I recommend that you let someone who does be the moderator of this page. It would do much to advance this discussion. I nominate netgirb. 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is a moderator and there is no "nomination". But welcome to wikipedia. I hope you get yourself a user name and stay! --Blue Tie 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we just block him? If he wants to push an agenda he should start a blog. This isn't the forum. 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
First, no, we cannot just block someone for having an opinion. Second, as I understand it, William has at least one blog, maybe more. Third, you are right, this is not a forum, but it operates per some rules that you might want to learn about. I will bring something to your anon IP talk page to help out here. Try looking on your talk page here to see what those rules are. Welcome to wikipedia. --Blue Tie 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Blue Tie. My understanding is that Wikipedia is about sharing information in an open format. It seems if someone is trying to prevent that, make it more difficult, not promote information sharing, they should not be allowed to edit these pages. 16:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Make sure the distinction between information and disinformation is clear. Peer reviewed journals are the starting point. -- Skyemoor 03:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the quote above, I think we can only conclude that he belongs in one or the other category, but not which one. Maybe this info helps: he signed a letter to John McCain which stated "The quantitative impacts of natural and anthropogenic factors remain highly uncertain, especially for a region as complex as the Arctic." [18] Seems to place him in the "unknown" category, but even then we have to assume that "highly uncertain" implies that it is uncertain whether anthropogenic or natural factors are greater. --Nethgirb 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoore doesn't understand. The information is "Does he oppose the mainstream...." If he or she is a scientist, as defined on this page, he or she is allowed to oppose it and be listed. Whether peer reviewed journals publish disinformation is irrevelvant. It's obvious that many, such as Raymond, William and Skyemoor, don't comprehend what this page is about. Limited comprehension is fine, but it shouldn't stand in the way of shared information. 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A brand new editor wishes to lecture not only myself, but administrators about what this page is or isn't about, assigning us the attributes of 'limited comprehension'. This could be one quasi-sharp newbie or simply one of the POV pushers hiding behind a IP. Let's review: Blue tie said, My understanding is that Wikipedia is about sharing information in an open format. I said, Make sure the distinction between information and disinformation is clear. Peer reviewed journals are the starting point. Nothing here implies that peer reviewed journals are implicit in promulgating disinformation: on the contrary, they should be relied upon to greatly minimize such. If you have an attitude like this and want to be taken seriously, use your account. --Skyemoor 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Skymoor, this page is not about proving or disproving theories around global warming. This is about scientists opposing the mainstream assessment. If they are a scientist as defined above, they can oppose the mainstream assessment and be listed here. Publishing their opposition in a journal is irrelevant. Imagine if there was a Wiki page for people who believed in the tooth fairy and announced it by public proclamation. Would you got to that discussion page and try to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy? You shouldn't. But you could (and should) make sure that everyone on that page, was 1. a person and 2. proclaimed belief in the tooth fairy.DonaldDuck07 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Garth Paltridge

Cut this one from the page:

  • Garth Paltridge, Professor Emeritus of the Antarctic CRC at the University of Tasmania:"The instrumental record of the past hundred years suggests that the Earth has warmed by a few tenths of a degree over that time. This is consistent with calculations about global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect, but is certainly far from proof of them. The warming is still well within the range of what seems to have been natural fluctuation over the last ten thousand years – or indeed over the last thousand years."[[19]]

What exactly is his scepticism? He has to contradict one of the 3 statements at the top of the page. --Kim D. Petersen 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He says FAR from proof, and "well within the range of what seems to have been natural fluctuation". That contradict TAR. 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't - but that is rather irrelevant (and a discussion for other fora than this). He has to contradict one of the three consensus statements on the top of the page. And i fail to see which one he contradicts. --Kim D. Petersen 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh brother! Are you joking? 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Anon, you probably think it contradicts the anthropogenicity of GW. But, the warming can be within the range of natural variation in the last 10,000 years and still be anthropogenic. Maybe finding a different quote would be the easiest solution? --Nethgirb 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Speak to 'far from proof of them'DonaldDuck07 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The statements have to be clear - there must be no "interpretation" of what is meant. Please adhere to WP:BLP when considering people for this list. --Kim D. Petersen 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Shaw

I cut this:

  • Glenn Shaw[[20]], Professor of Physics, University of Alaska:"Predictions of climate change for the greenhouse warming next century or next decade are much like computer models of the weather change next month: basically meaningless or at least quite inaccurate".[[21]]

The quote is undated. It is similar to some comments he made in 2000 (see item 16 here), which is too old. There is a newer article by him [22]—I suppose it is not a coincidence that it was published today—but this article is much weaker. He says he's "a little skeptical about some of the claims being put forth" and later refers to his "slight skepticism". I don't see anything in the newer article which contradicts the main points of the consensus. --Nethgirb 06:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Paal Brekke

Cut from page:

  • Paal Brekke, solar physicist, European Space Agency: "There are are so many uncertainties we really can't tell what contributes most [to climate change]. [[23]]

Source is not WP:RS - and the quote is too limited with context that we cannot deduct what Brekke means. --Kim D. Petersen 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

William Cotton

“Climate variability has been with Earth for eons. Greenhouse warming is only one factor affecting climate change. There are many other factors some associated with human activity, many not, and not all processes associated with climate variability have been quantitatively identified. Therefore I am skeptical about claims of forecasts of what the climate will be like in say, 5, 10 years or more. I also view claims that a few years of abnormal weather (like intense hurricane landfalls, severe storms and floods, and droughts) to be caused by human activity as abuse of limited scientific knowledge.” [[24]]DonaldDuck07 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't fit the profile - just as Pielke Sr. doesn't. The IPCC doesn't give quantitative answers on what local/regional impacts of warming will be. So it is very much possible to be sceptical with regards to regional impacts - and still be a non-sceptic with regards to this list. (please see the Archives on Pielke Sr. (where he himself comments)). --Kim D. Petersen 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read the first part of his quote. He used the word 'climate'.DonaldDuck07 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - i read the statement - and which of the 3 statements at the top of the page do you think he contradicts? --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Douglas V. Hoyt

Not sure which section he belongs in. [[25]] 02:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Same problem as with Segelstad - the information is dated. --Kim D. Petersen 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

His site states "Updated on March 24, 2001 with few comments added below" which makes it 'current enough'.DonaldDuck07 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No actually not - the cut-off date is the release of TAR (2001) (since its disagreement with the TAR report) - and March 2001 is too early. How about looking for something new which actually would represent Hoyt's current opinion - instead of debating the date? --Kim D. Petersen 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Paulo Correa

Does Correa have any mainstream scientific credentials? He's mostly known as proponent of the pseudoscience "aetherometry"[26] which is essentially a modern-day version of the perpetual motion machine, i.e., a way to get energy for nothing. Or was his name added by an agent provocateur in an attempt to discredit the skeptics? Raymond Arritt 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He claims to have them [27]. But this is as good a time as any to define precisely what is meant by Scientist in the context of this article. We have (for some reason) lately deviated from the old definition - which was (iirc) notable academic. I suggest that we return to this and follow the guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - which is what the idea of this article was in the first place. (NB: As the Correa entry stands right now - it should be removed as the quote doesn't capture a contradiction to one of the three inclusion parameters - as per the rules of the list). --Kim D. Petersen 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Correa is an unfunny joke and I've removed him. I second KDP's suggestion. One proposal - paper within the last 5 years - failed to gather support. How about "no red-linked people"? That would allow wiki std notability process to act, rather than any subjective criteria here William M. Connolley 08:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support any of these proposals (last-5-years, no-redlinks, or, almost equivalently, academic notability) over the current not-very-useful state of affairs, although I'd note that last-5-years might make our lives easier since it's more clear-cut. However, I see no reason to believe that we'll be able to get any closer to consensus this time around; any proposal, I suspect, will require using one of wikipedia's moderation channels. I do think this would be a worthwhile endeavor if we end up with higher standards. --Nethgirb 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't change the rules when someone you don't want on the list is added. There are notable scientists who are skeptics but haven't met the arbitrary rules established. Posmentier comes to mind, among several others. I spoke with someone yesterday who had been removed from the list(he is a scientist and certainly a skeptic). He checked out the site, and just laughed. There are less notable scientists as defined by the arbitrary rules established that do make the criteria and should be listed, Correa for instance. Again you are showing your extreme POV and not-so-hidden agenda. Correa has published in peer reivew journals. (Incidently, I would be in favor of adding another criteria to be a scientist, 'inventing a science'. DonaldDuck07 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Don - of course we can change the rules - just as the rules have graduatly been slackened to this point. Afaik Posmentier would/should comply to all of the proposed variants - so thats basically a red herring. The list (imho) is here to show the scientific opposition to global warming - not the arbitrary opinions of people who happen to have a Ph.D. - Very few people on the list would be affected. Btw. if you have contact "with someone yesterday who had been removed from the list" - then i suppose it wouldn't be too much to ask him for 1) a good quote that has been published, and which contradicts one of the 3 inclusion statements. Wikipedia has rules for notability and for undue weight that under all circumstances must be adhered to. --Kim D. Petersen 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Postmentier is not on the list, as he has no quote contradicting one of the three criteria. The point is not about him getting removed. It's that the criteria work both ways. Some who 'should' be on aren't, and some who 'shouldn't' be on are. You seem to only want one side of that. As for my conversation, after he scoffed at the ridiculousness of even having this page, I didn't quite feel like asking him to run out and publish a quote so he could be listed. He did say that he didn't see how anyone could mis-interpret what he has publicly said so as to remove him from this list. (Dr. Duck, please)DonaldDuck07 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but there are inclusion rules here - they can of course be changed by consensus, and then we'll adhere to those rules. But there is no such thing as "should be on aren't" - that is a statement of POV - and as such inadmissable on wikipedia. Personally i don't care what your opinion on Posmentier is - or if he "belongs" on the list. If he "belongs" then he will have made a statement - or written a paper that would enter him. If he hasn't .. then he doesn't fullfill the criteria - and shouldn't go on. --Kim D. Petersen 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WMC, Please revert. thank you.DonaldDuck07 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute and libelous material

  • the changes I made recently should be restored as per wikipedia policy.

1 The tone of this article first paragraph implies a lack of intelligents on the part of the people mentioned in the article and is therefore extremly liabelous.
2 Much of the discusion in this talk section revolves around POV disputes so it is apropriate that template be present.

Wot edits? This? No thanks. Don't understand the implies a lack of intelligents (sic) bit - please explain. Nor the POV template. I agree that some of the views expressed on this page are extremely stupid and in many cases counter to well known facts - but thats the skeptics for you. It could be cleared up a lot by restricting the people to some notability criterion - see proposal above William M. Connolley 10:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WMC, I think you should be well acquainted with the rules regarding civility on Wikipedia. You should redact you previous remarks.DonaldDuck07 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? What do you object to? --Stephan Schulz 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? If you can't figure it out, there's no use explaining.DonaldDuck07 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article called 'consensus' when there is no consensus at all? This is not by any means neutral

I object to the name of this article, this seems biased against those who oppose the global warming hoax. This is not surprising since the adherents have raised global warming to the status of a religion not to be questioned, and all opponents are heretics.-- 22:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I also object to the title, for a different reason. Many of these names are connected (simple google shows you the links) to energy industry lobbying firms, which casts doubt on their opinion (note: opinion is different than scientific conclusion), which is not that of the main scientific community. While there have been times through history where a non-consensus view prevailed based on additional research and study, so far there has been no credible evidence to counter the current scientific concerns. Those trying to turn this into a "left" vs "right" debate is a deliberate misrepresentation that avoids discussing the facts that underly the conclusions that have been drawn by a majority of today's scientists. Beckyvolley 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to modify the intro, so it's not biased against those who oppose the "Consensus View" but I have a feeling that won't hold up. I'd appreciate it if you guys can hold the edits of juanfermin while I'm out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfermin (talkcontribs) Feb 14, 2007

Agree. If you don't worship at the Church of Global Warming you are a denier. It's really scary how this issue has been hijacked by leftists. It's like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. This article used to called "Global Warming Skeptics" and that's what it should be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Please see scientific opinion on climate change. The position on climate change espoused by the IPCC and endorsed by many other scientific organization is a substantial majority opinion within the scientific community, which qualifies it as a scientific consensus. This does not mean that all scientists agree, and in fact this page is in the somewhat early stages of documenting those scientists who disagree. If you would like to contribute to that effort, you are more than welcome to do so. However, even the scientists in opposition realize that at present they are significantly in the minority. Dragons flight 22:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
>>Dragonsflight wrote: "The position on climate change espoused by the IPCC and endorsed by many other scientific organization"
FACT: The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization.
PROOF: "The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters." Source: About IPCC, [28] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheVerum (talkcontribs) 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
...and no overview article is ever published in a scientific journal, right. The IPCC assesses and summarizes the current state of research, a perfectly normal task for a scientific organization. As far as I'm aware of, the Royal Society does not do original research, and neither does the National Academy of Science. I guess these are not scientific organizations, either... --Stephan Schulz 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines concensus as "general agreement." The above poster claims "substantial majority." I believe the two are different, and I confess that after reading the title of "concensus" I was surprised by how much opposition was listed in the article. It doesn't sound like a concensus even if it is a substantial minority. I think it would improve the article to retitle it "List of scientists opposing global warming majority view" --Unsigned comment left by User:
Consensus or "general agreement" does not imply total agreement. If you find it suprising that 14 people are listed on this page, perhaps you need some context: the IPCC Third Assessment Report alone had 122 lead authors and 515 contributing authors, and undoubtedly there are many other climatologists in the world. --Nethgirb 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That is true, the number of those that agree outnumber those that don't. Depending upon how much (or little) they agree (or don't disagree).
This work (IPCC ARs) is mostly unpaid and mostly voluntary, so really only those that have some reason to work on it are involved. Rather like blog posts or Internet polls or Wikipedia editors or message boards or editorial writers.
Regardless, just because people are working on a project totally of their own wills and/or desires doesn't mean that they totally agree with the work focus or the conclusions, or that they're free to disagree, or that others don't have any influence upon their thoughts/feelings; or that their job/status/situation/goals let them openly and/or honestly comment. Or not. Frequently, what I want to say or how I want to say it is overwhelmed by other matters. Maybe certain groups are immune to such things, or I'm just projecting or misunderstanding the nuances of such things.
I will say that it's pretty obvious to me how the person that started this area thinks; calling it a hoax and then comparing it to a religous discussion, true believers versus heretics. Not that I'm saying that isn't a fair analogy, but the degree is certainly (to me) at least a bit out of skew. Another instance of "the dedicated" I suppose. We have our own ideas, but I'd hardly compare this to a religious discussion. If only it were so simple. If only. Sln3412 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The antonym for minority is majority. So why not rename the title as follows: "List of scientists opposing the majority view on global warming" or something like it. Schoneveld 07:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that is too weak. We are not talking 51% or 60% or 75%, but rather 95%+ (or "near unanimity in the peer reviewed published literature and in official statements by professional scientific organisations"). --Stephan Schulz 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

That alleged "near unanimity" be found in "Peer reviewed published literature" is no indication of actual majority opinion arrived at by independently carried out scientific processes. Quite the opposite should be the view considering the obvious and often blatant cronyism and other serious abuses that questionable system is becoming more and more famous for. A look at wikipedia's own entry on the subject is worth a visit for starters. --derspatz 11:00, 29 November 2006 (WST)

Peer review is the currently best mechanism we have to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific contributions. Being performed by humans, it is, of course, not perfect. Some papers get rejected that should have been accepted (heck, it happend to me...), and some that should be rejected get accepted. But I'm not aware of any widespread, systematic misuse of the system. If you have a better suggestion, I'm certain the scientific community will be happy for your input. I don't know what you mean by "actual majority opinion". We only give weight to the opinion of people who have actually studied the subject and contributed to it. --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Scientists opposing the 'global warming' vogue" would be a better article title. -Housewares 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This feels like a sham calling it "mainstream". The only reason why it is considered mainstream is due to the fact that many media coorperations are leftist, and therefore prefer to claim armagedon is coming. It is due to their "continued" coverage over Global Warming that it is thought by most people that scientists are all in agreemant on this issue, when it is mostly split down the middle. To claim that it's only the outcasts of climate cult are the ones degrading the theory would be a harsh overstatment. One of the main men responsible for the theory is even now retracting his early hypothesis claiming that the info is not enough to support his theory. This article should be changed back to it's original name, "List of Skeptics To Global Warming". --Joshic Shin 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Throughout the history of scientific endeavor, it is always the skeptic who proves the consensus wrong. At one time, the consensus was that the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around it. Anyone who expressed doubt--or worse yet proposed an alternative theory--was labeled a heretic and ostricized/exiled/killed. Sound familiar? As the truth spreads, the more shrill the protest become. In the global warming debate, the skeptics have been branded "Global Warming Deniers," making the absurd parallel with those who deny the Holocaust. Several books have been published by prominent and respected climate scientists that blow gaping holes in the anthropogenic climate change theory. BBC Channel 4 has all but completely sunk it with its documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The truth is like a reservoir of water behind a leaky dam. They can run around with their hair on fire trying to plug the leaks, but eventually the dam will crumble and the truth will come rushing out.

Actually you have thing in the reverse. At first, global warming was barely accepted. Those who proposed it were the ones considered heretics. However as the science and evidence has become clearer, more and more scientists have accepted it. Now, there are only a few scientists who don't accept the overwhelming consensus. This is the same in the way there remains some scientists who don't accept evolution and there was for a time scientists who still believed the earth was flat and universe revolved around it despite the overwhelming evidence against it. BTW, there is no evidence there ever was a scientific consensus the earth was flat and the universe evolved around Nil Einne 08:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

International Concensus

There is an international consensus of all major scientific bodies on the causes and possible long term effects of global warming. All major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter are in consensus on this as well. As a result of the increased awareness of this issue, some large multinational corperations from industries that would be adversly affected by regulations to control this issue have begun lobbying efforts, including astroturfing, to shape public oppinion on the matter. Many of the scientists listed here have direct or indirect ties to the lobbying groups that has been well documented. This does not appear to be an encylopedic article, rather it appears to be an online "petition" like similar ones subbmitted by lobbbying groups to attempt to descredit the conclusions drawn to date. See The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

It appears there may be some astroturfing going on in this article. There are repeated changes, deletions, reversions by some users/ip addresses that are removing valid, relevant sourced statements/references using claims that the information can be found elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, all articles should be NPOV, which means neutral language and inclusion of all relevant sourced information, whether it supports or detracts from a certain position. If the talk is scientists opposing mainstream assesment, full disclosure of those scientists lobbying connections MUST be included, just like a newspaper writer will disclose his/her employer's or his/her own interest in the subject of what they are covering. This does not mean that the person's point is invalid, but it is relevant information. Beckyvolley 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kary Mullis


  • Kary Mullis, Biochemist and Nobel Laureate: "There is a notion that our emissions are causing the temperature of the planet to go up, even though the temperature is not going up. Even if the temperature were going up, we would be foolish to think we caused it. We could just as reasonably blame it on cows. In the nineteenth century the temperature went down. In this century it's gone up only about half a degree. The trend over the last two centuries is down. Down is not warmer." [[29]]

The quote is too old. Its from 1998 - something newer has to be found if he is to be included. --Kim D. Petersen 11:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that this scientist has withdrawn from that viewpoint in the last 5 years? The AGW theory has been around for 20? plus years, hasn't it? Has there been any major discovery in the past 5 years that makes earlier opinion irrelevant? (Forgive me if this is a silly "newbie" question). rossnixon 12:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Its pretty hard to understand what KM is saying. Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years or any other record makes nonsense of his temperature history claims (still, that only shows them to be nonsense, not that he didn't say them) William M. Connolley 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
rossnixon, It has nothing to do with having evidence - and everything to do with the pages premise and WP:BLP. It is not up to us (the editors) to assume what if any opinion changes (or not) a specific scientist has had (or hasn't) in the last 8-9 years. And i'm not just deleting him - i'm putting this back into the talk page - so that he doesn't just "disappear" - but instead give the other editors the chance to research if he is still opposed. --Kim D. Petersen 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ross, first the quote is not 5, but about 9 years old. And yes, there were major discoveries (for suitable values of "major"). In particular, much skepticism was based on the satellite temperature record, which showed little to no warming. This has been corrected a number of times now, as problems with calibration, orbital drift, timing, and so on have been recognized. The satellites now do indeed show unmistakable warming, and are in decent agreement with model predictions. --Stephan Schulz 12:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm sure many know this but for those that don't know, methane emissions from cows and sheep are one of the factors considered responsible for global warming. Of course, this is still a human factor as the only reasons there are so many of them is because we're farming them Nil Einne 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Can't say I'm too happy with Full disclosure of connections between the scientists listed here and lobbying groups paid to oppose legislation that would adversely affect industry groups is included. - should probably be in their sub articles William M. Connolley 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And that specific statement is not good even if we did include conflicts of interest: we can't ever know we have full disclosure, and we certainly don't have it now. Seems like Beckyvolley is the only one supporting this move.
However since it is true that some of the individuals do have conflicts of interest, I think a compromise would be in order, such as one of the following:
  1. In the intro, recognize that the CoI exists without going into depth: Some of the scientists listed here have financial connections with anti-GW lobby groups. Such potential conflicts of interest are discussed in the individuals' articles."
  2. Instead of listing only academic credentials for each person, list their current affiliation. For example, Singer is listed as being prof emeritus only, without his involvement in the lobby/astroturf group SEPP. This would reveal some obvious CoIs without being too much of a minefield.
  3. Keep things the way they are and put the CoI material in global warming controversy.
I'm OK with any of these. Let's see what other editors think... --Nethgirb 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
SEPP isn't a "group"; it's Singer's nonprofit shell corporation. SEPP is Singer, and Singer is SEPP. Raymond Arritt 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Well, it might still be appropriate to list Singer's current employment as "lobbyist" (what does SEPP actually do, anyway?). --Nethgirb 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I like SEPP's suggestion, I mainly thought disclosures belonged because the over-inclusive resumes of those listed made this look like a petition and not an encyclopedia article. Almost by the hour, this article slants one way then the other, forcing contributors to take an extreme side to try to keep balance. Beckyvolley 18:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does swing back and forth, sometimes too far on the skeptic side, but I'd like to think that most of the time we manage to keep it fairly neutral. --Nethgirb 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

August H Auer, Jr. d.b.a. Augie Auer

Where should he go? ``I've always told my colleagues: just be patient, that the global warming argument, particularly with all the disastrous consequences that are being promulgated ... this is all a non-sustainable argument. In other words the facts will, in time, prove them to be wrong. [[30]]

The "It's natural" section --Nethgirb 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Will add him in. I'm going to a presentation by him tonight. I've only found this page about him so far, but that gives heaps of info. [[31]] rossnixon 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: no red links

I propose that no-one gets on this list as a "red link". If they aren't notable enough to have an article, they shouldn't be here. Stubs will do, but are of course subject to AFD/VFD-ing if considered non-notable.

This was talked about before [32], with more for than against, but no real consensus. Since then the number of red links has grown.

Note that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) would be an important factor in deciding and AFD debates (assuming people create stubs for their favoured redlinks). This (in my view) would mean any IPCC lead author is automatically notable. --Unsigned comment by User:William M. Connolley


Support --Nethgirb 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Skyemoor 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Vsmith 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Birdbrainscan 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --Kim D. Petersen 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support -- the list is getting overloaded with people of dubious relevance, and even some outright nutjobs/charlatans have been proposed for addition (e.g. Correa). It has to stop somewhere. Raymond Arritt 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this going to become common wiki practice now? If a list gets too big, simply prune it? Too many pharohs? No problem! Now it's only Ramses II and King Tut. Too many supreme court justices? Easy! Too many kings of England? Child's play! Think of all that diskspace you'll be saving for wiki! You people should honestly ask yourselves what the point of this article is. If this list of heretics is too big for your own personal tastes, you simply place more restrictions on entry onto the list while keeping the title and intro the same making the article more and more deceptive. Instead, it'd be better to reconsider the word 'small' (yeah yeah - dead horse) for starters and possibly even need for the list itself if the list gets too large - that'd be the honest thing to do. 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
support - William M. Connolley 08:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - per nom & Raymond Nil Einne 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Oppose Absolutely not. Entry into Wikipedia should not be the decider of who is notable. The very idea of that is contrary to wikipedia policy on original research. And we cannot vote to get rid of that policy. This is completely wrong. --Blue Tie 05:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be misunderstanding a bit. The proposal really is about notability. If there's someone who is notable but who's a redlink, then you just take 1 minute to create a stub article for them before adding them to this list. --Nethgirb 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Does not matter. Wikipedia recognition is not acceptable as a definition of notability. This is established wikipedia policy. (Seriously, I do not understand why the climate pages want to operate as though they were under different rules!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talkcontribs) 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
The idea is not to redefine notability; note that WMC's proposal specifically references WP's notion of academic notability. The proposal is essentially equivalent to notability: If the person is notable, it is trivial to give them a stub article and thus include them in this article. If the person is not notable, then they don't have an article and thus aren't included here. --Nethgirb 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Also let me note that this proposal actually brings us into line with WP policy; the current article basically ignores notability altogether. --Nethgirb 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you want me to quote the policies on this? It just does not fit. If you want to get into notability, you must find some other mechanism. Not this one. You cannot vote wikipedia policies null and void on this page. So if notability is an issue, find some other way to decide it. I personally do not know how to do that and I am not sure it is that necessary in what is basically a list, but that is a different discussion. --Blue Tie 06:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your continual lawyerly harping on as the sole arbiter of policy is tedious. If your complaints had any merit, they you would find an audience and they would be enforced. But they have no merit so are ignored William M. Connolley 08:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

oppose anyone who has had research published in a notable scientific journal that contradicts the theory of man made global warming would belong on this list but that doesn't mean their is enough known about them to have an article about them. Irate velociraptor 07:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, your criterion would make the list much smaller. Few of the persons listed here have published their skepticism in a notable scientific journal; most of the skeptics are listed here based on comments in popular media and the like. Raymond Arritt 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is possibly a worthwhile point: should skeptic papers actually published in a real PR journal make the author add-able, even if the author isn't themselves notable? William M. Connolley 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, an entry in each of the listed subjects could identify whether they had published in true PR journals in the last 5 years on climatology. --Skyemoor 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, I think. Non-notable but person published in PR is not good enough. Non-notable but actual skeptic research published would be (though I doubt that many examples of this nwould show up) William M. Connolley 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As you note, I doubt it would make much difference either way. In which case I'd favor keeping the requirement simpler (i.e., just notability) and save the PR pubs for a hypothetical list of skeptical PR pubs. --Nethgirb 00:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

oppose more silly attempts to interject POV.DonaldDuck07 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Although I also wish there would be no red links in the article, I cannot see a sound rationale for deleting them. I am satisfied with some answers provided below, but none has answered the core problem that there exists no basis for claiming that the existence of an article on Wikipedia is a notability criteria for an academic. --Childhood's End 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This is a ridiculous attempt by Connolley to impose his POV, and to limit the size of the list. Censorship. Whether these people have a wikipedia page or not is entirely irrelevant. What is wrong with red links - or even no links at all? Furthermore it is completely pointless - the sceptic editors could just go and create wiki stubs for all these people.Paul Matthews 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You really didn't bother read it, did you? The proposal is, notability. If you create a stub for nobodies, they get AFD'd and disappear William M. Connolley 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I hear that's not always the case. ~ UBeR 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice one uber. The point is, these people you have deleted are not nobodies, unless as seems to be the case, your definition of a nobody is someone who doesnt share your opinion. More on this below. Paul Matthews 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is here to tell what's being said, not to judge its worth. Should we deny sources from scholars who have no Wikipedia article? Of course not. That is not the basis for deleting information at all. Quite frankly, poor straw polls do not trump over policy or guidelines. Enough said. Additionally, simply because Wikipedia does not have an article on it does not mean it's non-notable. Is Rufina Amaya not notable? What of Chaim Zhitlovsky? Wolff Levisohn? This is probably the biggest problem with William's proposal. ~ UBeR 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. If any people without an article is noteable, then go ahead and create one. Sources from people without articles are usually okay. The difference is, this is a list. For the list to be useful, we can't list every single person who is marginally a scientist who has ever made a statement opposing the mainstream consensus. In the Global warming controversy and Global warming articles for example, it would usually be acceptable to use sources from people who are not noteable. But they are normal articles, not lists. Note also there is a suggestion above by William that we include people who are not noteable but have published sceptical research. Nil Einne 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose ridiculous. (there are very few things more obnoxious than americans who 'write' The Queens English!, please don't.) 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who and what are you referring to? --Skyemoor 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
if you have to ask it must not be you. 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

oppose as long as there is a reliable reference given. Stubs or articles can follow later. rossnixon 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral comment

While I support the need for more useful criteria, I'm not sure Wikipedia notability is appropriate. My concern is that readers may mistake WP:N for scientific expertise. Some of those on the list are notable solely because of their skepticism and not because of their academic record. Timothy Ball, for example, has a scientific track record that can be charitably described as meagre (his publication list is thinner than some of our newly-minted Ph.D.s), yet I don't dispute that he is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards because of his appearances in the popular press. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, shall we delete your previous edit in the "support" section? Or was this just a comment titled "neutral"? --Childhood's End 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The latter; i.e., the present proposal is better than what we had before (so I support it), but it is not an ideal solution so we keep trying to think of something better. Raymond Arritt 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose a better solution is to require academic notability in addition to no-redlinks. Where we are right now is definitely an improvement, though: for many or most of these people, notability is the same as academic notability, and no-redlinks is a good way of implementing it due to there being an established procedure for deciding notability. --Nethgirb 12:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


So, when are you going to change propose the appropriate change in title to: "Notable Scientists opposing...". I applaud you for attempting to making my joke about only including disabled nazi eskimos who live in Lesotho slowly into reality. Keep it up. 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about scientists listed here should also be at least 10GB in size for a scientist to be notable enough, because that's with Wikipedia articles that we assess a scientist's notability and credibility. --Childhood's End 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad there's still some humour to be found. Remember that anyone without a page could be proposed first in the talk section. This is good if you find a name you want to keep track of but need some time to keep looking for further info about them. If you want to illustrate that they have no page, I wouldn't object to redlinks here in the talk page, as a kind of to-do memo to yourself.Birdbrainscan 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the proposal

I honestly would also like the article to show no red links, but before I can cast my vote about the proposal above, I need some clarifications. You would be kind to help.

My understanding is that it has been proposed by a Wikipedia-covered (and thus notable?) scientist named William Connolley that no scientist without an article on Wikipedia should appear in the list since this would implicate that such a scientist would not be notable enough. This proposal has been made under Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which policy does not cite even once Wikipedia coverage as a criteria. Several usual climate activists have nonetheless already supported such a reasoning.

Following this reasoning, we can therefore conclude (as I understand it) that William Connolley, who is the subject of a fairly long article, is quite more notable and deserving of mention than (to name a few) :

All these persons would be cut, while Mr. Connolley could be allowed mention on notability grounds, is that right? Following this reasoning, would this also mean that Mr. Connolley, by the size of his article, is a lot more notable than these stubs subjects:

Finally, would this reasoning also mean that by his Wikipedia article, Mr. Connolley's notability is comparable to John Christy, Roy Spencer, or William M. Gray? Those supportive of the proposal could perhaps explain, as they, I presume, understand the reasoning behind the proposal. --Childhood's End 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia is binary. Either you are, or you are not. The length of the article depends on the amount of volunteer work and on the amount of available material, both of which are at best weakly correlated with notability. If you disassemble this first strawman, we can discuss the rest. I would also suggest that you refrain from borderline inflammatory appellations like "climate activists". --Stephan Schulz 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The bearing given the length of a WP article on notability is an interesting hypothetical discussion, though I see no reason at this time to embrace it as a metric. The amount of notability (and whether it is positive or negative) is even more a quagmire than judging whether a scientist has a sufficient understanding of climate science to merit inclusion in this list. --Skyemoor 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
False "logic" from CH, but: whether any of the redlinked folk above are notable or not, by wiki standards, is unknown. All we know is that no-one has bothered write an article on them. If this proposal goes through, then what will happen is either (a) the red-linkies get rm'd or (b) someone writes an article/stub on them in an effort to keep them. If this happens, and people don't think they are notable, then AFD kicks in and we find out if they are notable or not William M. Connolley 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi CE: as I wrote above the proposal does not provide a definition of notability. It uses the standard wikipedia definitions. A person can be listed if and only if they are notable. The only minor detail is that if they're a redlink you have to give them a stub article which takes about a minute. --Nethgirb 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness now, what are the requirements for a living person to warrent a page on wiki? Surely it's more than a degree (possibly a teaching job) and an opinion? It'd turn into another myspace. Thus, surely most scientists thus don't qualify for a wiki page, do they? 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As several people have mentioned, for academics we have Wikipedia:Notability (academics). For people in general Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Stephan Schulz 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria Change

The criteria need to be changed. A quote contradicting at least one of the three listed claims will work OR being listed on Wikipedia as a Global Warming Skeptic. If Wiki is a source for notability, then it is a source for skepticism. If Wiki is wrong, feel free to correct the referring page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

If someone is listed as a global warming skeptic then there should already be evidence in their page. If there is none, per BLP and other policies they should not be listed as a global warming skeptic. If someone is noteable but doesn't have an article, make one which establishes noteability. If someone isn't noteable but has an article, AFD it. Also notability is a wikipedia concept. While notabiliy exists in real life, it's a continous spectrum from not noteable at all to extremely noteable. In wikipedia you're either noteable enough to have an article or not. Nil Einne 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To all those who want to document every word of opposition from all global warming skeptics: consider simply creating a stub bio for the skeptic, add them to category "global warming skeptics", and then propose them in this talk page for discussion on whether they fit the criteria for this page. In the meantime you've at least listed them as general skeptics. However do be prepared to defend the addition of a bio page for them with a case for why they are notable per se (beyond their having signed an open letter) in the event the stub is subject to AFD.Birdbrainscan 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a skeptic to have a Wiki page in order to be deemed notable. There are millions of notable people that do not have a page on Wikipedia! Looks like there is censorship and POV pushing being suggested. rossnixon 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV not possible here.

First off why is this topic here? Because every dissenting opinion, researched or not, accurate or not, resoursed or not, has been pulled from every article on climatology in the entirety of Wikipedia. So the wiki community has made a cordoned off section where dissent is technically allowed. Like the 'Free Speech Zones' they corral protesters into to keep the general public from being exposed to dissent. Of course now cordoned off the community has systematically refused and removed every scientific authority that dissents from the article to remove the possibility that a valid argument can be heard.

The basic reality is that there are grudge holders par-exellance here that refuse to allow a dissenting opinion to appear. Period. And any attempt to do so will be pidgeonholed to death by the mob. Such blatant and unrelenting bias is why when I am involved in any serious discussion and wiki is qouted as a sourse I request that another sourse be cited. It is an endemic problem with certain politically and emotionally charged areas and I see no solution for it. I realize that this will be ignored by the offenders so in the words of RA Wilson, "Tell the truth and run!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Query (talkcontribs) 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Did you bother to read Global warming and Global warming controversy? Nil Einne 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"every scientific authority" On the contrary, this approach focuses on scientific notables, otherwise every skeptic Tom, Dick, and Harry with a bachelors degree in natural science could claim equal status with climate researchers, which would present a skewed POV to WP readers. --Skyemoor 10:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

  • Oppose Rename I actually like the new title because I see it as more positive. However, it is incorrect. It is not just the man-made aspect that might be opposed, but in some cases it might even be the notion of warming altogether. So I oppose the rename as imprecise. --Blue Tie 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep current name in agreement with Blue Tie, among other reasons. Also, check the talk archives for the several past discussions on the name. --Nethgirb 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, we just had a discussion and this title is the result of a comprehensive discussion.--Stephan Schulz 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — the adjectival form is "man-made", with a hyphen, rather than "man made". --Stemonitis 07:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons mentioned in the above (although i still liked the old title better :). --Kim D. Petersen 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment those that oppose global warming all together would be a subset of those that oppose the idea of man made global warming since with out global warming their can be no man made global warming. Irate velociraptor 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As the title of this article and begining paragraphs are currently this article should also include those that global average surface temperature has risen greater than .8 °C since the late 19th century, and faster than 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years. Irate velociraptor 09:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Make a proper subsection and add them with the usual criteria (scientist, preferably notable, reliable source).--Stephan Schulz 09:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The report mentioned is 4 volumes any list consisting of all scientist that oppose some aspect of it would become very long a list of global warming skeptics as was the original intent of this article would be more useful any list of global warming advocates should be a separate list Irate velociraptor 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That's why the list only includes those that oppose one of the three main conclusions listed at the beginning of the article. As for the advocates, no need to deal with what is a hypothetical problem. --Nethgirb 11:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
man-made global warming qualifies as a theory based on this description you linked to Irate velociraptor 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested and verified or otherwise falsified by experiment and empirical observation. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations. Confidence in a theory is reinforced by observation. A theory may be disproven if it is contradicted by observations (see falsifiability). The absence of contrary evidence, and the volume of evidence in support of a theory, is what should be considered when deciding the acceptability of a theory.

  • Oppose rename Current name sufficiently captures the sense of the article focus. --Skyemoor 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The requested name should be spelled "Scientists who have expressed skepticism on the theory of man-made global warming" (with the hyphen). Tim Q. Wells 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support rename of some form. The proposed new name may not be the best, but it is better than the current one. The current name makes it sound like the authors have an axe to grind. It is transparently taking a position by reminding people in its very title of a major argument in favour of global warming: that there is a consensus among scientists that it exists, is man-made, etc. That is more appropriate to do in the body of the article than in the title. Sometimes, Wikipedia needs to take a position in naming issues, when it is choosing between various options that are POV, and there is no NPOV one. But here, it would certainly be possible to craft a more neutral title. If some day there are 5 countries left with the death penalty, should they be listed under "Countries with capital punishment" or "Countries going against the consensus on capital punishment"? The details may be different here because the proposed name is longer, but a longer title is acceptable to achieve NPOV. Joeldl 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) I think Scientists skeptical of man-made global warming would be fine. This would of course include those who were skeptical of global warming altogether. Joeldl 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your example is also different for another reason: In your example, the countries have in common that they all support capital punishment. In contrast, what the people in this article have in common is exactly (by definition) that they oppose the consensus, so it is entirely appropriate to define them in that way. Defining them in any other way turns out to be difficult. For example, your proposal excludes those who may believe that anthropogenic GW is happening, but oppose the consensus because they have stated that the warming will be a good thing (e.g. Idso on the current list). Also keep in mind the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV: it is well established that there is a mainstream view on GW, so stating that is not taking a position. And see previous discussions on this in the archives; I think something very much like your proposal was already discussed. --Nethgirb 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Stating it in the title when it is not necessary is taking a position because it is tantamount to an argument. Something can be true, but if you give it extra prominence for no reason, you are turning it into an argument in favour of a position, in this case, "Something has to be done about global warming". In the use of "skeptical", there is already to some extent the idea that there is an opposing view. If you're concerned about people like Idso, try Scientists skeptical of man-made global warming or its importance. Instead of "importance", "possible effects" or "significance" are possibilities. Also, even "majority" would be an improvement over "mainstream", since it accurately describes the content of the article but reduces the appearance of taking a position. There are many possibilities. At some point, it might even be preferable to have a title that is slightly less accurate but more NPOV. I think we should do our best to summarize the consensus without calling it a consensus, even if people can always split hairs about it.
It is difficult to dissect words, but my general impression on reading the title is that somebody is trying to convince me of something. Ultimately, if people get that impression, it will be detrimental to the encyclopedia, and even to the acceptance of the content of this article itself. This kind of title is exactly what I would call a typical red flag for not trusting a piece of writing as impartial. Joeldl 08:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The new title you propose is more accurate but quite unwieldy. I see no need to go to special lengths to make the skeptic viewpoint seem legitimate which is what you seem to be trying to do. Neither should we go to lengths to make it seem illegitimate—we should simply describe things the way they are, which the current title does. To me, you seem to be giving preferential treatment to a small minority when you say "At some point, it might even be preferable to have a title that is slightly less accurate but more NPOV", and when you say "even 'majority' would be an improvement over 'mainstream'" when in fact "consensus" would be most accurate. In my opinion, you are suggesting that we bend over backward to elevate a small minority to equivalence with the consensus, in violation of WP:UNDUE. The views that the Earth is flat, or that evolution by natural selection does not explain the diversity of life, are not given equal prominence with the scientific consensus on those topics. Same goes for global warming skepticism. --Nethgirb 10:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not bending over backwards, since it actually seems that an effort has been made to put "mainstream" into this title. Also, the very point of this article is to present an opposing view, and using the word "mainstream" discredits the people holding that view, even if "mainstream" is a correct description. I don't think that the proposed title is particularly unwieldy compared to the current one. By "less accurate", what I mean is, for example, using "skeptical of global warming". I think the lack of accuracy is not particularly important here, and the appearance of partiality outweighs the problem that arises in simplifying somewhat. Presenting things as they are applies to the article itself — there is no need to fit every relevant piece of information into the title. Otherwise, if what you put into the title is something that clearly is an argument in favour of the position "Something has to be done about global warming", then that argument may be true, but it still makes the title appear partial. Here there are many alternatives. We just have to find a neutral summary of the minority view. Personally, I would not be bothered at all by Global warming skeptics. I think there's some level of ambiguity there, but the general meaning is clear. A more specific description of the list can always be given in the introduction.
There may well be a scientific consensus, but there is clearly also a major political issue (the US, Australia, Japan, China and India oppose Kyoto if I'm not mistaken), and as a practical matter there will be many people who view a title like this as taking sides. A title like this ultimately does a disservice to people who wish to inform people about the balance of opinion, which is undoubtedly more strongly in favour of global warming than people think from the press, because people will be put off by the title and assume that the content is biased. Joeldl 10:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
"It's not bending over backwards, since it actually seems that an effort has been made to put "mainstream" into this title."—Some background might be in order. The original longstanding title was List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. After a protracted debate, "consensus" was weakened to "mainstream" a while back, with similar arguments to yours. So if anything, there has been a special effort to make the title more neutral already. Your suggestion Global warming skeptics is almost OK—I like that it's short, but it misses the critical fact that these are scientists only. In fact I suggested something similar in the old discussion, "List of global warming skeptical scientists", but that sounds quite awkward to me. I might support "Scientists skeptical of global warming" which is a little inaccurate but short. Some variant of that was also proposed and shot down in the old discussion.
Is the following a fair summary of your position?: In titles, a particular effort should be made to ensure that nothing that could be construed as disparaging appears, even if a possibly-disparaging title is the most accurate and concise, is verifiable, and appropriate according to WP:UNDUE—because a title that might be construed as disparaging will turn off some readers.
I can understand that argument. I don't agree with it, which means that my preferred title for this page is Scientists opposing the global warming consensus. However, if I hypothetically did agree, I would say that the current title using "mainstream" is an appropriate compromise between your point of view and the accuracy/conciseness/WP:UNDUE point of view. --Nethgirb 13:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a fair summary, except that the fact that readers might be turned off is not the only reason. this fact is a consequence of something that is important in and of itself — that there is inherent value in avoiding using language excessively disparaging to one side. (Something can be true but still excessively disparaging in a title in my view.) I do not personally think "mainstream" sounds any better than "consensus"; it makes people sound even more like kooks. I think "majority" would be preferable since it sufficiently identifies the scientific view in question. Also, I think that Scientists skeptical of global warming sufficiently conveys the subject of the list, and is not any more awkward than the current title. To the extent that there is ambiguity, it can be cleared up in the introduction. I do not believe that there is a genuine tradeoff here in terms of readability. Joeldl 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't think [33] we're allowed to refer to wiki policy form pages. I think it should just say "notable" William M. Connolley 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So noted. --Skyemoor 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If we cannot mention Wikipedia, then we should not be using unrelated guidelines for the basis of inclusion of information. It has nothing to do with information gathering on Wikipedia. What is needed is neutral and attributable information from reliable sources. If you don't like seeing the color red, don't put brackets around the name. Your panacea. ~ UBeR 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. is no longer red.

He appears to an outspoken leader in New Zealand.--Africangenesis 13:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He was an interesting and entertaining speaker. I went to hear him yesterday. rossnixon 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wibjorn Karlen

When the criteria for this page was arbitrarily changed, Dr. Karlen was indadverently, I'm sure, removed. Whoever removed him needs to replace him.Jepp 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why - wots his quote then? William M. Connolley 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
the qote you deletid.Jepp 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you try again in english? William M. Connolley 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wot? You kant understand me?Jepp 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Ag seems to want to include SEPP [34], presumably not having read the intro wot states This article lists academics, retired academics, and other individuals which does not describe SEPP. The second reason is that SEPP is a one-man band consisting entirely of Singer (should you doubt that, the current state of the page provides ample confirmation: NO TWTW ON APRIL 7 (in London at Hotel Russell) NO TWTW ON APRIL 14 (in Vienna at Hotel Bellevue, SEPP Climate Workshop) NO TWTW ON APRIL 21 (in Vienna at Hotel Bellevue, EGU Assembly) NO TWTW ON APRIL 28 (in Rome, Vatican Climate Conference)) William M. Connolley 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What is that section of links for? It seems to be a hodgepodge of links. Why wouldn't SEPP be on it if it's a one man show and that one man is listed on this page? 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the links could be cleaned up. See WP:EL. If there's something relevant on the SEPP page, mention it under Singer's entry with a link to the SEPP page. Raymond Arritt 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ In 2006 the Council of the American Quaternary Association stated, "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution." [35] See also evidence at scientific opinion on climate change.