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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuvola apps kedit.svg Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2007Articles for deletionKept
May 30, 2008Articles for deletionKept
May 2, 2009Articles for deletionKept
October 22, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
November 7, 2009Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 9, 2011Articles for deletionKept
October 29, 2011Deletion reviewOverturned
February 1, 2012Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 2, 2012Deletion reviewOverturned
February 8, 2012Articles for deletionNo consensus
December 30, 2013Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 7, 2014Deletion reviewEndorsed

Title move/adjustment proposal[edit]

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal[edit]

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

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

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

Requested move 5 February 2018[edit]

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

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


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

Poll[edit]

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

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add Professor Richard Tol (former IPCC member) to: 1 Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming 77.173.201.133 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Fails verification. The linked article does not say that Tol disputes the scientific consensus on global warming, only that he questions the data sources for the "97% of climate scientists" figure. Requesting inclusion on that basis is either a misreading or a misunderstanding of the opinion piece. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with Richard Tol is that so far (from my limited research) he doesn't qualify as a scientist under this page's definition of that term (even though he was on the IPCC WGII). WGII focused on the "vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it." He is clearly someone who is "arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences"[1], but as far as I have been able to find, so far, he doesn't have any peer reviewed articles in the field of natural sciences. He is an economist, and all the articles I have been able to find deal with the economics of climate change and nothing that is a natural science directly. If you can find a peer reviewed article in the field of natural science, I would be happy to add him. Although, frankly for a person who does have such peer reviewed articles on the specific topic of the negative consequences of climate change, perhaps we should change the definition.... -Obsidi (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
There is the same issue with Patrick Moore's lack of published papers in natural science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming/Archive_39#Patrick_Moore's_%22peer-reviewed_research_article_in_the_broad_field_of_natural_sciences%22
Keith McClary (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The journal where he published his paper describes itself: "Natural Resources Journal (NRJ) is a student-run legal publication. All articles undergo a group review process and, for those articles chosen for publication, an extensive editorial review and revisions by third-year law students at The University of New Mexico School of Law.". Neither his paper nor the journal has to do with natural science. Should I move this to a "New Section"?Keith McClary (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I would ask to have Richard Tol reconsidered, as I believe that he does meet the definition of a "scientist," as defined in this article. Here is the definition of the qualification: "For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology." Tol has published in several peer reviewed articles. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=richard+tol+the+economic+impacts+of+climate+change+will+be+small&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart "The Journal of Economic Perspectives" is peer reviewed. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/journal/detail/1095

The challenge to Tol's credentials seems to be that the peer reviewed articles are published in economic journals. However, the requirement is not that the journal be in the field of natural sciences. Rather, the requirement is that the research article has to be in the broad field of natural sciences. Isn't an article entitled "The Economic Effects of Climate Change" 'in the broad field of natural sciences?'

Even if I am misreading the definition, and the peer reviewed journal itself must be in the field of natural sciences, I would point to his article "The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions, an Assessment of the Uncertainties." That was published in "Energy Policy," which "address[es] the policy implications of energy supply and use from their economic, social, planning and environmental aspects." I would think that journal would be considered a journal which publishes in the field of natural sciences. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421504001028 https://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-policy

Additionally, he has published in "Global Environmental Change," described as "a peer-reviewed international journal publishing high quality, theoretically and empirically rigorous articles, which advance knowledge about the human and policy dimensions of global environmental change." https://www.journals.elsevier.com/global-environmental-change

Kolg8 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Kolg8

My understanding of this page's definition of scientist, is that the subject matter of the article must be in the field of natural sciences (not the journal). As far as I can tell, he has many articles in peer reviewed publications, but all of them are on economics which is not a field of natural science (it is a social science dealing with how people act). Even something like "The Economic Effects of Climate Change" would not satisfy this page's definition because it takes as an assumption that Climate Change will occur, and then argues about what the economic effects of such climate change would be. That doesn't inform us as to if/how Climate Change occurs, which is why it doesn't qualify under this page's definitions. If you have a specific article you wish to say is within the field of natural sciences, please let me know why you think so and I will look at it closer. -Obsidi (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Update to the Fourth Assessment[edit]

I'm planning to update this page to the IPCC Fourth Assessment (we are always one assessment behind on this page to allow people time to respond). In doing so I have been unable to find a reliable source which classifies Tad Murty or Jan Veizer as a skeptic after the IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007). As such when updating the page I will have to drop them from the list unless someone can find such a source. Please let me know if you do. -Obsidi (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I am considering not applying this requirement to people who are dead. Some of the people died before the IPCC Fourth Assessment came out, and as such could not express disagreement with that specific report. What are your thoughts on this? -Obsidi (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My personal view is that dead people have no opinions, cannot change them or evolve them, nor can they influence with, write about or further research the opinions they once held. Thus they shouldn't be here. --Kim D. Petersen 19:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Also should the requirement of this page be a statement in their own words after IPCC Fourth Assessment? I would think a reliable source after the IPCC Fourth Assessment identifying them as such would be good enough (assuming we also have a past quote in their own words rejecting such global warming). -Obsidi (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested tweaks[edit]

Judith Curry retired last year according to her page.
Anastasios Tsonis is emeritus.
http://uwm.edu/math/classification/emeriti/
The second link (Herald Sun) for Garth Paltridge is 404.
Keith McClary (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Lennart Bengtsson is emeritus
http://www.reading.ac.uk/met/meet-the-team/met-emeritus-and-visiting-staff.aspx
Peter Stilbs is emeritus according to his page.
Chris de Freitas is deceased according to his page.
Ole Humlum emeritus according to his page.
Nicola Scafetta is "currently affiliated with the University of Napoli Federico II in Naples, Italy" according to his page.
It appears that Indur Goklany is "former":
"Indur M. Goklany is a former Senior Adviser for Program Coordination at the U.S. Interior Department’s Office of Policy Analysis. "
https://www.desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany
"Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author."
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/11/WHO-2.pdf
Keith McClary (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to add Piers Richard Corbyn to the list[edit]

Piers Richard Corbyn, British Astrophysicist and weather forecaster, director of WeatherAction.

Subversive777 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[1] [2] Subversive777 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Piers Corbyn was removed from this article because there is nothing to support the notion that he is a scientist. Weburbia (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Weburbia:, He would seem to satisfy this pages requirements for being considered a scientist based on his article in The Geographical Journal by the Royal Geographical Society, and his article "A virial approach to the relation between the cosmological density parameter Ω and the microwave background temperature T." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986gaco.conf..231C. Physical geography and astrophysics would both be classified as natural sciences. Is there some reason these articles don't apply? -Obsidi (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like was removed on 16 November 2017 due to a misunderstanding of the basis for him being considered a scientist. According to William M. Connolley (who removed him), "'Weather' isn't really a journal (and was even less of one in 1967) so I've removed PC". But the basis of him being a scientist (under this pages definition) wasn't based on any article in Weather at all. It is based on his article in The Geographical Journal by the Royal Geographical Society, which Wikipedia describes as "peer reviewed" [2]. I'm not 100% sure it was peer reviewed at the time this article was published, but I have not found anything to suggest otherwise. Going to add him back in myself if there is no other reason for him missing from the list. -Obsidi (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
He really is a very borderline case but I would go with inclusion rather than exclusion. Astrophysicist? nutcase like his brother. Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I've stuck him back in with his study of pebbles as evidence of this physical scientist qualification. I guess I could also call Brunel a railroad engineer, or have I got that the wrong way around :) Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
While technically valid, what this really does is show how broken the criteria are William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it shows how incredibly low the bar is, but moving it up to exclude someone seems wrong. Weburbia (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would say the criteria are both over-inclusive (including people like this) and under-inclusive (not including people like Tol who is a scientist, although a social scientist in the field of economics, was recognized by the IPCC as providing valuable information on the effects of global warming, and has actual valuable information on the "negative consequences" in that section of this article. So if we do consider changing the criteria of the page, we should consider that as well. -Obsidi (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
A quick search suggests that Tol would fit in to the category "Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences." For this category alone a background in social science would have some direct relevance Weburbia (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018[edit]

Add: "Jennifer Marohasy, PhD in Biology, University of Queensland" as a scientist under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes."

Per the article, the criteria for "scientist" is 1) an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) has been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included.

Here is the link to her wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy

Per the page, the peer-reviewed article was in GeoResJ, a quarterly peer reviewed article in Earth Sciences (satisfying criteria 1). The conclusion of the article is that warming in the 20th century is consistent with natural causes (satisfying criteria 2). Here is a link to an article describing her as a "climate science denialist" (satisfying the third criteria). https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html Kolg8 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that she meets all the criteria and should be added Weburbia (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done DRAGON BOOSTER 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

New Title move/adjustment proposal?[edit]

scientific consensus on global warming takes you to Scientific opinion on climate change and that's after a very recent name change RfC said "stay". Shouldn't this page be consistent with that more definitive expostulation of the scientific opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No. A reader who wants to know what the scientific opinion on climate change is will read that page and find that there is a consensus. This page is about the people who disagree with that consensus, and it links to the other page because the consensus is explained there. That the other page does not have "consensus" in the name does not mean that there is no consensus. There is no Wikipedia rule that restricts the vocabulary in article names the way you say.
Also, "disagreeing with the scientific opinion" is somewhat nebulous. Disagreement only makes sense if there is a clearly defined thing to disagree with. Consensus is clearly defined, opinion is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2018[edit]

Add: "Susan Crockford, Zoologist, B.S. in Zoology, University of British Columbia; PhD in Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Victoria” as a scientist under "Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections."

Per the article, the criteria for "scientist" is 1) an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) has been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included.

Here is the link to her wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford The peer-reviewed article (Genetic and archaeological evidence for a former breeding population of Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) on Adak Island, central Aleutians, Alaska) was in the Canadian Journal of Zoology, which is peer reviewed (satisfying criteria 1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Journal_of_Zoology https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/

In a speech to The Heartland Institute, she stated “I am here today to give you an example of the failed science that is used to convince uninformed people that burning fossil fuels has had and will continue to have harmful effects on the planet,” which is opposition to the second conclusion of the IPCC Report (satisfying criteria 2). https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford

And the CBC has called her a "climate denier" (satisfying the third criteria).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-denier-blogs-ignore-science-1.4424956 Kolg8 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

She is not in there yet? Definitely belongs there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 Partly done: We don't usually include the individual's Phd. or other academic degrees to describe people, instead relying on their field of science and current (or most relevant) position. -Obsidi (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018[edit]

Add: "Joseph D’Aleo, B.S. in Meteorology University of Wisconsin; M.S. Meteorology University of Wisconsin; Past Chairman American Meteorological Society; Former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College; First Director of The Weather Channel” as a scientist under "Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections."

Per the article, the criteria for "scientist" is 1) an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) has been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included.

Here is the link to his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo

The peer-reviewed article (The Storm of February 7-8, 1980) was published in The National Weather Digest, a journal published from 1976 to 2012, “devoted to peer-reviewed articles, technical notes, correspondence, and official news of the [National Weather Association]” (satisfying criteria 1).

http://nwafiles.nwas.org/digest/papers/1983/Vol08No3/1983v008no03-DAleo-Bernier.pdf https://nwas.org/publications/digest/

In 2008 he published an article titled “12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press,” which included, among other things, the following statements: • Temperature has been cooling since 2002, even as CO2 rises; • CO2 produces little warming, and its effect is logarithmic (non-linear), because as CO2 concentration increases it produces less warming; • Reconstructions of paleoclimatological CO2 suggest that CO2 levels today are the lowest since the Cambrian Era 550 million years ago, when there was 20 times more atmospheric CO2 without a “runaway greenhouse effect”; and • Historic correlations of CO2 and temperature can be explained by the former lagging the latter, as natural warming causes the oceans to release more CO2.

These statements satisfy criteria 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo#cite_note-12list-19

And he has been referred to as an Executive Director of “an organization of climate change skeptics,” satisfying the third criteria. https://www.desmogblog.com/joseph-d-aleo Kolg8 (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

D’Aleo has been added and removed from this list multiple times. I'll have to go back over those debates later to see if the information proposed changes that debate at all. -Obsidi (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, Thanks.Kolg8 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, you could also check whether the removals were per criteria or because some editors want to keep the list as short as possible. YoPienso (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I can guarantee that WP:AGF still applies. --Nigelj (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Been there, got the T-shirt. Unfortunately, I've learned some editors are heavily biased. The same bias on other pages is what prompted me to mention it on my user page 8 1/2 years ago and a few months later refer to Orwellian tactics. I've seen no improvement since then, but I've learned to get along with them pretty well. Face-smile.svg (Should you bother to check my user page, don't miss the doctored Franklin quote.) YoPienso (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So from reviewing the past discussions it appears the primary problem was if he was a "scientist" or not under the definition of this page. For that we rely upon publication in a peer reviewed journal on a topic of earth science. There was some debate last time because the journal cited was E&E in which some people claimed was not reliable or properly peer reviewed (although I disagreed). Your sources appears to be peer reviewed in the National Weather Digest (not E&E) on a topic of meteorology (which is classified as an earth science), and as such, in my opinion, would qualify him for this list. (The other requirements of being referred to as a skeptic in a RS and a statement in his own words are undisputed in prior discussions and fairly easy to show.) I'll wait for a while to see if people want to object, but assuming there is consensus on re-adding him I will do so. -Obsidi (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Translation: "You need to rehash the reasoning you used to defeat me the last time I wanted to add this person, or I will add this person in spite of the consensus not to add him."
I think we should have a subpage Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming/Failed applicants which contains all the people that have been attempted to add to the page, with a short and concise text giving the reason why they are not included. For this case, see Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming/Archive_39#E&E_for_fulfilling_the_"peer-reviewed_article_in_the_broad_field_of_natural_sciences"_requirement. Short version: E&E is not considered a reliable source by scientists, as witnessed by two experts, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke Jr.. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It is true that he was rejected before, but Consensus can change. I wouldn't advocate for a new discussion unless there is a new reason not previously considered. In this case it is a different peer reviewed article which was NOT in E&E, and as such the prior consensus does not apply to this article. -Obsidi (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reconsideration. I'm new to this, so I certainly wasn't familiar with all of the back and forth on this topic. Hob Gadling, I see from the past discussion that you were in favor of the "at least one peer reviewed article in the broad category of natural sciences" requirement. If it didn't come up last time, skimming the article I cited (The Storm of February 6-7, 1980; sorry, I appear to have gotten the dates wrong in my citation above) may be helpful. I'm certainly no meteorologist, but it's research, arguments, equations . . . it looks like a well done scientific research paper. Kolg8 (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: We don't usually include the individual's Phd. or other academic degrees to describe people, instead relying on their field of science and current (or most relevant) position. Also changed some of the cites to cite to at least a little more reliable sources than a blog like Desmog Blog. -Obsidi (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Reference Concerning Susan Crockford[edit]

I attempted to add Susan Crockford, including the required references, as requested by Kolg8. @Calton: has now twice reverted the reference I added (although not removing Susan Crockford). I am opening a discussion concerning the reference so we can hopefully come to a consensus on if this reference should be added or not. According to the most recent edit summary by Calton, "I repeat: YouTube? From the Heartland Institute? No. Rm ref as unnecessary. Promote the video on your own web site." The addition of the reference is not for the promotion of the video, but this list has a requirement that we have "a clear statement in his or her own words" disagreeing with the primary principles of the mainstream consensus of global warming. As such, it is critical for a person to be validly added to this list that we have such a quote. This makes the citation not only not "unnecessary" but a critical part of the inclusion of Susan Crockford on this list. If you have another quote from her from another source that you would rather use please present that.

The Youtube video is a speech made by Susan Crockford speaking in her own words. Youtube itself is not normally a reliable source, but under the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy (specifically WP:SELFPUB):

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.

This policy explicitly allows citing to otherwise unreliable social media websites, such as Youtube, as to be verifiable sources about themselves. There is no reasonable doubt that the person in the video is Susan Crockford, and that she is not making claims that are self-serving or about third parties. The claims concern only to support the notion that Susan Crockford said these words (and as such qualifies under this list), and so it is an event directly related to the source. And this list is not based primarily on such sources. I see no reason why this reference should be excluded from this list. We have Youtube videos for many of the other people on this list for exactly that reason. Please explain why this reference is being removed. -Obsidi (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I support reliance on the YouTube clip. But if this debate is simply about the requirement that the individual make a statement in disagreement with the IPCC Third Assessment, in an article entitled "10 Good Reasons not to Worry About Polar Bears," Crockford states "“Global temperatures have not risen in a statistically-significant way in the last 16 years […] which suggests that the record sea ice lows of the last few years are probably not primarily due to CO2 -caused increases in global temperatures.”

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Crockford-Polar-Bears-3.pdf

Perhaps there's legitimate debate concerning whether the source, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is a peer reviewed journal (certainly Greenpeace doesn't think that it is). And if there is legitimate concern over that, then I wouldn't argue that writing a paper in this journal (alone) makes her a scientist. But I would think that it can be relied upon as a source of her statements in disagreement with the IPCC Third Assessment.199.188.181.106 (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

199.188.181.106 (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the WP page for the Global Warming Policy Foundation it "is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming." That would not qualify as a reliable source under the WP:Verification policy, and as such would not be an appropriate reference. While it is possible it might also qualify under WP:SELFPUB, the ability to prove its authenticity (that it is specifically Susan Crockford that is writing those words) is on far weaker ground than a video of her stating those words. Ideally we would want Susan Crockford either quoted in a reliable source or an op-ed in a reliable source by her. -Obsidi (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the video as okay for the purpose and in line with policy, but yes if a text can be provided instead I think that would be better. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2018[edit]

Add: "Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics from the University of Connecticut” as a scientist under "Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences."

Per the article, the criteria for "scientist" is 1) an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) has been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included.

Here is the link to his wikipedia page: http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Howard_C_Hayden

The peer-reviewed article (Q structure and Inner-Shell Vacancies in Neon-Neon and Krypton-Krypton Collisions) was in Physical Review Letters, which is peer reviewed (satisfying criteria 1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243455350_Q_structure_and_Inner-Shell_Vacancies_in_Neon-Neon_and_Krypton-Krypton_Collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Review_Letters

In a letter he wrote to the EPA in 2009, he stated, among other things,“[a] warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better,” which is opposition to the third conclusion of the IPCC Report, which states that global warming, on balance, will be negative (satisfying criteria 2). Please note that the article has numerous statements critical of numerous conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment. http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/HaydenToJackson.pdf

And in “The American Behavioral Scientist,” two academics referred to his article, “A Primer on CO2 and Climate,” as a “book espousing climate change denial.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787818/

Also, the website Media Matters for America, published an article titled “Climate Denial Goes Vegas: The Heartland Institute hits the Strip with some much-needed comedic relief,” and referred to him as one of the speakers at a conference sponsored by The Heartland Institute. https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/07/climate-denial-goes-vegas/199974

Either of these should satisfy the third criteria. Kolg8 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Howard C. Hayden does not appear to have a Wikipedia article. L293D ( • ) 20:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I though he might qualify as an author when I saw his entry on the Heartland Institute [3], but in fact it seems that Vales Lake Publishing which published his stuff is actually himself. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason not to include him may be valid (but I think you'll understand my confusion.) This article, which I cited, appears to be his wikipedia page. http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

I thought it was an offshoot of Wikipedia, but if not, I agree with the decision.

I'm not sure that I understand the comment about Vales Lake Publishing. I did not cite anything he wrote in that publication. Rather, I cited to a different article, which cites his article "A Primer on C02 and Climate" (the one published by Vales Lake Publishing) as an example of him as a "denier." I think he satisfies all of the criteria, except for the fact that he (apparently) does not have a wikipedia page.Kolg8 (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The website you cited is unaffiliated with Wikipedia. (Note "Wikipedia" is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation; as such, the name of the website may be in violation of this trademark.) Vales Lake Publishing appears to be Hayden's personal imprint in that they give Hayden's email as their contact address. All this aside, the conclusion remains that Hayden is ineligible for inclusion by virtue of not having a Wikipedia article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The Vales Lake Publishing came up as I was seeing if an article could be set up about him. I don't think he'd qualify academically but I wondered if his books might be enough, but being self published rather rules them out. Yes that site should just say it is a wiki, not Wikipedia. Anyone can set up a wiki, and in fact the software used for Wikipedia is a popular choice for that. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera[edit]

I intend on adding "Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, theoretical physicist and researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico” as a scientist under "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes." However, I thought it would be best to socialize his addition with this group before making the addition.

Per the article, the criteria for "scientist" is 1) an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) has been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included.

Here is the link to his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Manuel_Velasco_Herrera

He appears to have published several articles published in New Astronomy, a peer reviewed journal, including The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation of 1.7 years in Ground Level Enhancement Events, satisfying criteria 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319951379_The_Quasi-Biennial_Oscillation_of_17_years_in_Ground_Level_Enhancement_Events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Astronomy_(journal)

In a Mexican newspaper article, he was quoted as saying the IPCC models “are incorrect because they are based on mathematical models and the results are in scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” The article also says that Herrera predicts that we will have a “little ice age” within the next 10 years which will last for 60 to 80 years. This satisfies the second criteria for inclusion. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.banderasnews.com/0808/eden-littleiceage.htm&prev=search

The same article should satisfy the third criteria, as it describes Herrera’s views which are in disagreement with the IPCC Third Report’s conclusions. In addition, he is a member of “Clexit,” which is described as a group of “climate science denialists.” https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/clexit-members.pdf https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/03/after-brexit-climate-science-denialists-form-new-group-call-clexit

The only small reservation that I have is that he is a "Theoretical Physicist." However, I believe this work qualifies him as a scientist in the field of "Natural Sciences." Wikipedia includes physics within the definition of Natural Sciences, and it also includes theoretical physics as a branch of Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

I'll give people a few days to comment before making the edit. Thanks.

Kolg8 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on Velasco. I plan to nominate his article for deletion. This fellow fails Wikipedia's notability criteria by a wide margin. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)