Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20

Bellamy move?

What you did doesn't make sense to me. I don't see why the quote that begins "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon" would not qualify him for the "global warming is largely natural" section. Nor do I see why a quote presenting a different projection than the IPCC qualifies him for the "cannot accurately predict climate" section. Why not leave the first quote and leave him where he was? Oren0 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the first quote comes from an article that he arguably retracted - certainly it was based on incorrect data. You had added a cn tag to that - it seemed a lot simpler to not rely on it. If B thinks that 2*CO2 leads to less that +1oC, he is in clear disagreement with IPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a cn tag because there was no citation that he retracted it. Do you have a link? I agree that the statement disagrees with the IPCC; I don't agree that it belongs in the "models cannot predict climate" section. Oren0 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not? It lies outside the std range. As to the other stuff, its not just the cn tag, its (your) removing the stuff about retraction William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What I removed was a quote where he stated that he was going to stay away from the GW debate, which is irrelevant. I left the stuff about retraction, but i gave it a cn tag because it was uncited. Oren0 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I got that wrong. Well, the point remains: the justification for B being in that section was based on quotes that B has admitted were based on false data. One might hope that counted as a retraction William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you if indeed he admitted that those quotes were based on false data. I haven't seen a source that said that. Forgive me if I won't take it on faith, but (I ask again) do you have a source for this? Oren0 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I could probably find a link if I could be bothered. But I can't see whats the point: B is on the page anyway. Is there some reason you want him in a different section? If it turns into an edit war I'll dredge up the obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a certain precedence order to the various sections. "The Earth is not warming" trumps "global warming is natural" which trumps "the cause of global warming is unknown." I think that "models cannot predict climate" is the weakest section and so IMO you've moved him to a weaker position than statements he's made. We want to accurately describe these people's positions. You've excluded a quote that was supposedly retracted. All I ask is that you show a source that that's the case, and I don't believe the request to be unreasonable. I don't want an edit war, I just want accuracy. If there's no source for this retraction, I'll have to assume that it didn't happen. Oren0 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuri Izrael (redux)

The above discussion made me realize that Yuri Izrael does not appear in the list as he should. We had a discussion about him, in which KDP fought against his inclusion on the basis that Izrael's comments about climate change and global warming presumably only referred to some Russian expedition to Antartica. Imo this had no merit and I would propose the quotes then provided and another one for further examination :

  • "I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate" [1] [2]
  • "all the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions: that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science." [3] [4]
  • "Climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it." [5]

Now, perhaps he rallied with the IPCC recently? Otherwise, the first quote obviously disagrees with criterion 3, the second says that IPCC science (upon which Kyoto is based) is bad science and the third disagrees with criterion 2. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the 3rd quote would work if he wasn't talking about Antarctica and instead about global patterns. (#1 isn't qualifying and #2 isn't either (the Kyoto protocol is not an issue here)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the third quote is the most adequate among the 3, but I do think that the first clearly contradicts criterion 3 (which is mostly about potential consequences) and that the second quote is not only about Kyoto but also about the science behind it, i.e. the IPCC. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You can agree completely with the 3 criteria and think that media and advocacy groups are overstating and inducing a false panic (i for one do so - and i'm rather certain that this goes for both RA and WMC as well). Just as you can think that action is needed on climate change as well as think that the Kyoto protocol is faulty (see for instance Lomborg). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep focusing on these strawmans? Forget about the first part of the first quote. "There is no serious threat to the climate" is good on its own and contradicts criterion 3. As for the quote about Kyoto, it says that the science behind Kyoto is bad. Not Kyoto; the science behind it. Kyoto is not science, it's a proposed action, as you said. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry CE but you are trying to impose an interpretation on the quotes, and that is not objective. Let me be blunt here: there is no threat to climate (it will merrily chuck away - what the IPCC is talking about is geographic, economic and social consequences) - the science "behind" Kyoto is exactly the thing that Lomborg is disputing and he does accept all of the 3 criteria. So your interpretations aren't even correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
He says he disagrees with the science behind the Kyoto. So let me pose this question. Is there any other science behind Kyoto besides the IPCC that he could be talking about? Elhector (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Ok - maybe that was a bit to short, Kyoto is based (in part) on an interpretation of WG-III - this list is about WG-I --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Strawmen, surely. But there *is* no serious threat to the climate: for the foreseeable future, no matter what we do, there will still be a climate. There *is* a serious threat to the long-term future of the greenland ice cap, though William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

William, we all know that by "threat to the climate", everyone understands that we're talking about changes with negative effects, not that we might wake up some day without a climate. Let's try to be reasonable here. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You are trying to push inadequate quotes, as ever. The attribution stuff is about Antarctica, & Imo this had no merit is itself meritless. As to panic, I too agree that panicking over GW is unjustified William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The attribution stuff was about the causes of climate change, not about the causes of climate change in Antartica. And forget about the panic bit. Do you agree that there is no serious threat to the climate related to global warming? --Childhood's End (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the attribution is very clearly in the context of the report from Antarctica. As to a serious threat to the climate... I've already given you one interpretation. It all depends very strongly on the context, timescale, and so on William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont know why, but I sincerely hoped that you would not endorse these non-arguments. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What an embarrassment

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The scientists who are skeptical of a theory that completely fails when it is tested within the constraints of the scientific method are the ones that are singled out. Not to mention that this could never be a comprehensive list, causing it to appear artificially small. NPOV indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.234.132 (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, these scientists are in the minority in the current scientific/political climate. It wouldn't make sense at this time to have a list of scientists who support the global warming consensus. As for the non-comprehensive thing, didn't this list used to be marked with Template:Dynamic list? If so, why was it removed? If not, what are the thoughts on adding it? Oren0 (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - i think it was (or at least marked similarly), and i have no idea on why it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talkcontribs) 11:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It got deleted along with the AfD tag in early October [6] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As for myself, I indeed thought about the idea of making a list of notable scientists who expressed clear support of all the 3 IPCC statements that we use herein. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerhard Kramm

Gerhard Kramm has been removed from the list because the following quote was deemed as not showing a dissent with at least one of the 3 conclusions by the IPCC:

"most of the statements of the IPCC can be assessed as physical misunderstanding and physical misinterpretations."

I had also thrown another quote in there to help display his dissent with the IPCC view on AGW. The quote was:

"the so-called climate crisis is clearly a political issue, nothing more"

In retrospect the second quote is probably not appropriate so I'm fine with leaving that one out. But in my opinion the the first quote demonstrates a dissent with all three of the IPCC findings listed at the top article. To me the quote illustrates an overall disagreement with the IPCC stance and should suffice to include him in the list. I'm willing to admit I might be reading to much into the quote though so I'd like to see if what everyone else's opinion is here. In the meantime I'll go through the rest of the source that is being used (26 pages) for another quote that specifically talks about 1 of the 3 IPCC findings at the begining of the article as opposed to the entire IPCC report in general. I would like to get a little feed back on the first one though. What does everyone else think? As far as WMC's suggestion in his edit summary to e-mail Kramm for a quote because "he'll probably hand-roll you one", I'm worried he may hand roll me something else and make my editing sound a little strange :-) Elhector (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He may be disagreeing with the IPCC without actually knowing what the IPCC says. Perhaps he's reacting to the "we're all gonna die" piffle that makes the headlines and in fact hasn't read the (rather conservative) statements in the IPCC reports themselves. Absent explicit statements of what he disagrees with ("IPCC sez warming of 1.4 to 5.8 deg, but I say cooling"), we just don't know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the quote is not specific enough. If he claims most of the IPCC's statements are wrong, this is different than claiming that three particular IPCC statements are wrong. Maybe those are 3 of the few statements he thinks are correct! Also, I don't see how we can use email sources as those are not independently verifiable. --Nethgirb (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys, if you have reasons to believe that these quotes do not reflect Kramm's real thinking, please explain, but you cannot reasonably dismiss a quote which says that the whole IPCC is wrong on the basis that it is not specific enough. And to me, the second quote is good as well. --Childhood's End (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kramm wrote "most". You wrote "whole". Surely you see the difference... --Nethgirb (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
To address Nethgirb's issue with the e-mail, Kramm is the one that published the e-mail on his own homepage located on the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks web page so I don't think verifiability is an issue. No better source than right from the horses mouth in these situations. To address Raymond's issue if you read the source it's pretty implicit what he's disagreeing with, the issue is a lot of the quotes that you and others would deem usable have references to various charts and graphs that are part of the source. They're going to look strange in this article without the accompanying charts and graphs. Let's try another quote I guess. How's this one?
"It is well known in Atmospheric Science and in Physics that water vapor is, by far, the most important greenhouse gas (where the notion greenhouse effect is clearly a physical misinterpretation). As one can find in the IPCC 2007 release "Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Makers" the IPCC Working Group I, however, stated "Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas". This statement documents the use of words as one can find, for instance, in George Orwell's novel "1984" because this working group did not mention (a) that water vapor is, by far, the most important greenhouse gas, and (b) that the largest portion of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has natural origin (at the beginning of the industrial revolution the atmospheric CO2 concentration was of about 280 ppmV; today we have of about 380 ppmV). Water vapor is also release in combustion processes, but only uneducated people would denote it as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas."
There is nothing in this quote that contradicts either of the 3 criteria - so it is ruled out. (there is also nothing here which is in contradiction to the IPCC - except for what we can except a reader who isn't familiar with the subject to deduce from it - but that isn't what is said). It boils down to two different definitions of "most important" - the IPCC defines it as "most influence" where Kramm apparently defines it as "total contribution". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That quote in my opinion shows his dissent with #2. Kramm also said of the IPCC and there climate models that:
"most of its members can be considered, indeed, as members of a Church of Global Warming. They are not qualified enough to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect and to prove the accuracy of global climate models (see, for instance, the poor publication record of Dr. Pachauri, the current Chairman of the IPCC)."
This one is political - and has no relevance for this article. (ie. this article is not about the IPCC - but about the scientific consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This quote shows his disagreement with the IPCC's climate models. This quote is at least as strong as the quotes we're using for Hendrik Tennekes and Antonino Zichichi in the Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate section of the article. In my opinion the source more than illustrates his dissent with the IPCC stance and specifically the 3 particular IPCC findings that are being used for the inclusion criteria of this article Elhector (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd support inclusion in the "models are inadequate section" based on the final quote above. "Most of [the IPCC's] members...are not qualified enough to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect and to prove the accuracy of global climate models." Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, if he's questioning the accuracy of the global climate models, is he not questioning the scientific consensus. And also I might ask if this article is not at all about the IPCC then why are there findings part of the inclusion requirements? Elhector (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We have 3 specific objective scientific criteria that you have to show dissent of at least one (+ some notability criteria). If a specific scientist doesn't - then he can't be on the list. That is very simple. The 3 criteria are derived from the IPCC conclusions - but the list is not about the IPCC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added him back in with the new quote. I also left in the previous 2 quotes that were there to completely illustrate his dissent with the consensus view. This should meet all inclusion requirements IMO. Let's see what happens :-) Elhector (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-added after Kim's latest deletion. When disagreement is so obvious on the whole thing, with references to the Church of Global Warming and such, you need not play word games and try to find a disagreement specific to one of the 3 criterias. His disagreement is of a general nature and encompasses the whole affair. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - but this is not a list based on feelings or what you think. It is based on objective criteria. In this particular case objective criteria has not been fullfilled. To answer your subjective argument: It is very possible to accept the IPCC conclusions and think that the subject is ridden with alarmism and rabid environmental kooks. That doesn't make for dissent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim, WP:AGF has limits. I'm fine with using an objective criteria so that we can sort out who's in and who's not on the list when the comments made are not about the whole IPCC results as is generally the case, but in this instance the disagreement is about the whole IPCC, cannot be made more obvious by the scientist, and is shown be several quotes, despite that it may not disagree as specifically as you would want with one of the three criteria. You have a history with this article to disregard substance and look for impossible wordings, and to interpret quotes in an unreasonable way (see discussion about Izrael) but this article is not bound to your procedural bickering and wikilawyering. This scientist has provided an opposition to the IPCC as clear as it can get, ridiculing the IPCC members and calling them not qualified enough to understand physics of GE, and it would amount to disinformation to not include him herein. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try rereading WP:NPA? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry that you see it as such, but that was not an attack and it was not meant to be. Apologies if I used the wrong words but I'm just trying to be bold as you certainly understand, and I do think that editors are allowed to criticize each other when they see fit, provided that this is done politely and with civility. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we're having this debate again. The ability of climate models to make predictions is implicit in criterion 3. That's why we have a "models cannot predict climate" section. If this isn't clear enough, we can add it to criterion 3 or as its own criterion because we all know that climate modeling is the crux of the IPCC's work. I'm re-adding him; KDP please mind WP:3RR. Oren0 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Since it is not part of the consensus summation and that you can in fact reach the 1.4-5.8°C without using models, and just using climate sensitivity and projected fossil fuel usage - then it is not even "implicitly" a part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Arrhenius inferred values that overlap this range back in 1896. I don't think he had access to supercomputers. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The IPCC does not reach its conclusions "using just climate sensitivity and projected fossil fuel usage" but rather using climate models results. And I do not think that the IPCC reaches its conclusions the same way Arrhenius did. Criticisms such as those of Tennekes about climate models are relevant to this list because they object to the crux of the scientific work behind the IPCC's core conclusions, as OrenO put it. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to invoke this, but I believe Kramm to be a classic case where WP:IAR applies. We're trying to list scientists who oppose the "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." This mainstream assessment is defined by the IPCC's reports. When someone says that they disagree with "most of the statements of the IPCC," clearly they disagree with the "mainstream scientific assessment" that the IPCC represents regardless of whatever individual criteria we've selected and regardless of how you interpret his other quotes. Not only that, but disputing the ability of the IPCC's models to predict anything should also be good enough on its own. Combine these things and it seems obvious that he should be somewhere on this page. It seems that the only reason to keep him out is to keep one name off of this growing list. Oren0 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The 3 criteria represents a tiny fraction of the IPCC report, most of which is not mainstream. And his stance regarding the 3 criteria is still uncertain - why not try to find a better quote, instead of trying to push for your own interpretation? - or alternatively try WMC's suggestion, that you email him and ask for a statement, it is very likely that he would provide such on his webpages. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
GK is clearly in the foaming-at-the-mouth league. I'm sure if you told him he could win eternal fame by being on this noble list if ony he'd provide a quote to fit the criteria, he'd be happy to oblige. As to IAR... of course, why not, just as long as "the other side" is allowed to arbitrarily decide that no pubs in 20 years makes you not a scientist. Seem fair? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I knew you'd bring that up WMC. Unfortunately, it's past the trading deadline :). We'll find another quote for GK, and it'll be easy because he so obviously belongs. Oren0 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is all that was asked for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I see... IAR means ignore the rules you don't like. Well somehow I knew you'd say that. It doesn't matter: this page has degenerated into a bureaucratic game, with very fixed rules William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We all agree (save KDP) that the guy belongs in the list. There's no need to ignore rules in this case. Requiring to find a better quote before including him amounts to wikilawyering. And as to the specious point KDP is trying to make, you cannot presume that a scientist would go public with statements such as "most of the statements of the IPCC can be assessed as physical misunderstanding and physical misinterpretations" if he would otherwise agree with the three IPCC conclusions used for this lists' criteria. Such a presumption cannot hold. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CE why don't you try to find a fitting quote - or email Kramm? So that we have a verifiable stance - instead of your (rather insistant) harping on how unfair the rules are? And please try to drop the mindreading act, you are not very good at it (ie. you very much misinterpret my views). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you also agree that he belongs to the list, then you're just wikilawyering again this article (see especially principle 4 : "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions"). There's a spirit behind every rule, and this list's criteria is no exception. The criteria is there to make sure that a scientist who disagrees with trivial points of the IPCC reports is not included if on the other hand he agrees with the core elements. In Kramm's case, I hope I can understand that you're not really asserting that he perhaps agrees with all the 3 criterion statements, in which case your opposition is only wikilawyering. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing != Suspecting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well then I read your mind correctly. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, with all due respect this is all getting a little ridiculous. The name of the article is "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". We have a guy that by his own statement disagrees with the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. IMO setting up some criteria based upon someone having to do more than simply state they disagree with the consensus is treading on original research. Since when does disagreeing mean you have to say anything else more than you disagree. If someone says to me "hey, do you like chocolate ice cream?" and I say "no, I don't" that's all I need to say. I don't need to go as far as to say "I don't like chocolate ice cream because I believe the general consensus that chocolate is full of anti-oxidants is a hoax because the FDA is blah blah blah..." Can you find anywhere else besides here that clearly lays out that in order to disagree with the consensus on global warming you have to carefully craft your words to include one of the 3 IPCC stances? I highly doubt it. Also, I don't disagree that there is a consensus on AGW but I don't necessarily agree that the IPCC report is the end all be all barometer of the consensus. Seems to me this criteria was created by editors here, thus original research. The whole scientist vs. former scientist criteria is the same thing in my opinion. Can you find anywhere besides this article that lists the definition of a scientist as someone who has published an article in a peer reviewed publication in X number of years? Or conversely can you find any reliable source that states that the definition of a "former scientist" is someone that has failed to publish a paper in X number of years. I doubt it. IMO artificial criteria for inclusion in an article is original research. From the Webster Dictionary the definition of the word scientist is:

"a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator."

Now obviously I do agree that we need to use a little common sense here. How do we discern whether someone is "learned in science"? Well I think one way would be if the person has some sort of high level degree in a related scientific field and is a professor in said field or another related field at a major university then they're most likely "learned in science". That's just one example, common sense is all that is need to figure out if somone is honestly a scientist or not. I also agree that the person needs to demonstrate he has done some sort of work in the related field at some point. But common sense is all that should be need to discern this. Just because someone hasn't written a paper in X number of years doesn't mean the person hasn't kept abreast of the current research and theories. That all aside, this particular scientist pretty much meets all of the artificial criteria for inclusion that has been created for this article with the exception of the disagreeing with 1 of the 3 IPCC stances, some of us agree that his words show a disagreement and some of us think that he needs to craft his quote into some sort language equation to show a disagreement. From his quotes it's clear that he has read much of the IPCC reports and he's says he disagrees. That should be enough. There’s an interesting essay here on Wikipedia, WP:SPADE. Now I know this essay more addresses calling a vandal a vandal and POV pusher a POV pusher, but I through common sense the same concept applies here. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Replace the word duck in the previous sentence with something like the word “skeptic” or the words “scientist that disagrees with the consensus” and I think my point is clear. I also understand that WP:BLP issue are always of concern and not to be taken lightly here, but I don't really think Kramm is going to be upset or offended by being included on a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Elhector (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of talk to try to get around WP:Verifiability, and WP:BLP. (btw. it would be nice if your professor rule (common sense) was actually used - there are a couple of people on the list who do not match that). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP are an issue on this particular entry to the list. The fact that he's against the consensus is verifiable by his own words published on his own website. And I believe that this particular entry is free and clear of any WP:BLP concerns because I don't think calling someone skeptical of the consensus is a negative or perjorative thing. And also his skepticism and dissent with the consensus comes from his own writings and words on his own homepage at the webpage of the institution that employs him. As far as other people on this list that you believe aren't up to the "common sense test" that I layed out above, I would strongly encourage you to start a thread of discussion on each of the ones that you're concerned with on this talk page. The proffessor thing is but one example of how common sense can be used to deduce whether or not someone is "a person learned in science and especially natural science; a scientific investigator." For example if any of these guys also claimed to have figured out cold fusion I'd be completely for removing them of this list immediately ;-) But right now in this thread we're discussing Kramm so let's avoid bringing up unrelated people in this discussion and focus on just Kramm. Elhector (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And once more: The reader is assuming that the rules in the lead apply to the list - that is the premise. And we cannot verify that Kramm belongs. When you attach a specific opinion (as the 3 criteria is) to a specific living person then it comes under the rules of biographies of living persons - and here we clearly have to err on the side of caution. CE and your argumentation is based upon gut-feelings, and while i might share this gut-feeling, it is worth nothing relating to wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above I think the rules in the lead need to be seriously looked at. I listed my concerns above. Even with the rules in the lead as they are now though, I'm not going off a gut feeling. I believe the source itself and the quotes pulled from the source show a precise dissent with the 3 IPCC tennants in the list in the lead. I don't think having a gut feeling is necessary to see that. Elhector (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the rules are not perfect, but they're needed. I would not want to see this article include scientists who merely disagree on minor details but not on the core, so a criteria such as the one used is important. Problem here is that Kim and others are wikilawyering it and this is unfortunate. I do understand your frustration. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that some inclusion rules are necessary precisely for the reason you state above, and also to keep the real looney wing nuts off the list who don't have any right to comment on anything of any scientific nature. I think we need to have a discussion about the inclusion rules. Maybe not right this minute, but sometime eventually. Sometimes I wonder if there was ever a way that we could all sit down face to face and hash these things out in person if it would be easier to come to an agreement. Sometimes it's hard to really judge where someone is coming from simply from words typed from a keyboard, you know? I mean to me it seems like maybe there is some wikilawyering going on because in this instance it seems so black and white that this guy belongs on the list. But then again it's also entirely possible that we're all just misunderstanding each other and also coming away with different ideas from reading what this guy has written. Ugh, online collaboration is definitely a double edged sword... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talkcontribs) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There are 2 simple solutions to your perceived troubles: a) try to find or request a quote that is unambiguous. b) change the rules for addition. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually at this point I'm thinking of dropping him a line tonight after I get home from work to see what he personally has to say on this situation. I just need to figure out how I'm going to word it so as not sound like a jackass for asking him to clarify his beliefs for a Wikipedia article :-P Elhector (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you do that, keep in mind that any reply to you (or to any of us, of course) via email is not verifiable and cannot be included. However, you could ask him to post his comments on his web page or blog, if he has one. --Nethgirb (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Fully aware of that. As we've discussed above he maintains a personal home page at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks' website here. I'm going to ask him if he would mind posting a clarification there per Kim and William's suggestion. Just working on how to word that request now... Elhector (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless he's in a very good mood, he would be absolutely correct to answer that his position cannot be clearer than that. The problem here is not to find a better quote, it's to put a stop to this appalling wikilawyering. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After a lot of thought I've decided not to contact him. I feel like it would be rude to ask him to clarify his statements when they really couldn't be anymore clear. He seems to harbor some contempt for the AGW position and I'm afraid that even if he decided to post a clarification specifcally for our purposes it might be less than cordial. I really don't think it would be a good idea to drag ourselves as editors and the entire Wikipedia project through that. Wikipedia already gets enough bad press on the internet, I don't feel like it would be a good idea to expose yet another content dispute for the rest of the world to use to criticize the project. He's seems to be very outspoken and is "on the radar" now so I'm sure eventually he'll say something that everyone here will agree is clear enough to include him. As I've stated above I believe his current statements are already up to snuff for inclusion. So in the meantime I guess we'll have to wait and see on this guy since we seem to be unable to come to an agreement. Elhector (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After some more though I decided to put up an RfC to get some outside input. Elhector (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a much more reasonable approach than the proposal to ask clarifications to Kramm about his already clear-cut position... --Childhood's End (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Former Scientists"

edit:I introduced myself to the dictionary and changed "formal" for "former" :)

I took the liberty of removing the phrase "former scientists" from the opening sentence of this article a couple of weeks ago, asserting that there is no such thing as a "formal scientist" wherein a scientist is always a scientist as a doctor is always a doctor or a military general is always a general. Someone reverted the entry claiming I created my own definition. Please, do allow me to introduce you to the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

"an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences." -Random House Unabridged Dictionary, via dictionary.com

Do no revert the article or add "formal scientists" to the sentence. It is misleading and a violation of NPOV that creates the impression that these scientists are illegitimate or less credible. --Elysianfields (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"This article lists scientists and former scientists" Jason Patton (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeeees... so it seems quite clear from your definition that one can indeed become a former scientist, if you become so out of date or forget stuff. There are people on the list who are, quite clearly, no longer actively scientists and haven't been for some time. Assuming you mean former not formal William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are we to say that just because someone hasn't published in a while or isn't currently working in a scientific field they can't be keeping up with the research? There are certainly people who aren't currently employed as scientists who know far more than others who are. Oren0 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are we to say that they are? The current wording avoids having to say one way or another William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
] Yes I mean "former" not formal. What I'm trying to say is that there is no reason for distinction; these are people who have studied the environment and the atmosphere and related sciences for much of their lives. Calling them "former" scientists discredits them to some extent and lends to the already extensive bias on the page. These people have not fallen off the face of the earth, they are still actively involved and knowledgeable in their respective fields. Merely by being vocal in their views and presenting evidence to support them they are defacto scientists irregardless of whether they are being paid for it. These people did not lose their degrees upon retiring. Perhaps I'm stubborn but I think it's a NPOV violation for the "former" to remain. -Elysianfields (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You presume that "they are still actively involved and knowledgeable in their respective fields" without supplying any evidence that this is the case. For many of them there is considerable evidence to the contrary -- they don't publish scientific articles, don't attend professional meetings, don't serve on review panels, or do any of the other activities that are normal for someone who remains "actively involved" in science. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the intended purpose of the whole "former scientist" versus "scientist" criteria, I'm just not entirely convinced we're going about it the right way. Right now it appears the sole criteria that we're using to judge whether someone is a former scientist or not is the publication of papers in a certain time frame. I think we need to discuss this a little futher. Yes, having published a peer reviewed paper in the last 5 or 10 years probably means you are in fact an active scientist, but I don't necessarily think that having not published a paper in that time frame means you're a former scientist. I'm sure if someone one was conducting research for a private firm for product development we would still consider that scientific work even if the end result is a product as opposed to a paper. I'm sure there are also many professors who are able to demonstrate they fit definition of a scientist (an expert in science, esp one of the physical or natural sciences) by virtue of the fact that they're teaching the subject but no longer actively publishing papers. Personally I don't know what the criteria should be exactly and I do agree that we need some way to weed out people who don't have the expertise to speak on this subject but I think we need to hammer out some better inclusion criteria and put this whole "former scientist" vs. "scientist" thing to bed so we can work on other aspects of article improvement. That's my 2 cents :-) Elhector (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree in spirit, but in practice I'm not sure we will ever be able to come to consensus on specific criteria for specific individuals. Perhaps what we have now is the best of several imperfect options: we note in the intro that "former scientists" are allowed in the list, then the reader can look at the bios of the specific individuals and decide on their own who meets their view of "former." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hrmm... What about replacing "former" with something like "inactive"? I'm a stickler I guess but the word former implies to me that they somehow lost there credentials or something or that there opinion is less relevant. Maybe "inactive" might be a little more accurate? "Inactive scientist" also seems like it's a little easier to define then "former scientist". Just a thought. Elhector (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Former scientist" is a new concept that has been invented here by some editors to discredit the scientists with who they disagree. Period. And publishing articles is essentially about discussing new developments/findings in a given field rather than about a person's mastery of the established knowledge in a given field, so even this ad hoc criteria is misguided. What is known or already discovered about the atmosphere does not get published a second time unless there's something new to disclose or discuss. It's already there and that's what you expect the best scientists to know about, may they agree or disagree. This criteria is even more misguided inasmuch as publishing makes much more sense for younger scientists and freshmen who need to build their resume, whereas established and experienced scientists may only need to read what's happening rather than publishing themselves. If William and Raymond can bring evidence that Dr. X or Professor Y has "forgot" what he has studied for the most part of his life, then I'm ready to accept his deletion from the list, but "presuming" that these persons are out-of-date because they dont attend specific seminaries or did not publish for the last few years makes zero sense save for pov-pushing purposes. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Former scientist" is a new concept that has been invented here by some editors to discredit the scientists with who they disagree - since the label isn't applied to any individuals, this comment makes no sense. Neither does any of the rest William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that you have just put the final nail into this "former scientists" mention. Indeed, it isnt applied to any individual specifically for the good reason that you could not do so, be it for WP:BLP or WP:OR. Thereby if you cant apply it to anyone, you cannot push it in the intro. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting: scientist: 43 million results. "former scientist": 21,800 results. And a non-trivial number of the "former scientists" that show up in that Google search are "former" because they're dead (result #1, for example). Most of the others are used in the sense of "former scientist working at lab X" or "company X." The term is used to say that the person no longer works at Lab X, not that they're no longer a scientist at all. I'm yet to see any evidence that the term "former scientist" isn't a neologism. I think this should be changed to "scientists and retired scientists." Oren0 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have very good friends and colleagues that are "former scientists", by the standard discussed above. It really is misleading, if not downright deceptive to use a label like that. Publication frequency is absolutely unreliable as a measure in this regard. Tparameter (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But the page currently makes no mention of publication frequency. I think the above discussion became somewhat confused by introducing the debate about the precise definition of "former". This is not a debate that we need to get into here (I think many, though not all, of us will agree that there are former/inactive scientists on the list, even if we disagree about exactly which ones).

Now at a higher level, does "former" belong there at all regardless of the exact definition? If we remove the word "former" then we are asserting that everyone on the list is a current scientist. This is a strong statement that requires verifiable evidence that probably doesn't exist for some people. A good test case when we're thinking about this page is Tim Ball: he hasn't published in 13 years, published very little before that, hasn't taught or held an academic position in 12 years, and since then has been working outside science and academia (GW skeptic lobbying/speaking). (This is in addition to his demonstrable lies about his academic qualifications.) If you want to remove the word "former" then you need to show that this guy is a current scientist.

This article is not a platform for giving people the benefit of the doubt that they might have scientific expertise. There needs to be positive evidence. --Nethgirb (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is over the definition of "current" or "former" scientist. Nothing in the dictionary definition of scientist requires that one actively publishes or is currently performing research. All that is required is expertise. One may publish or work in academia without expertise and vice versa. We only have publishing as a requirement for this page because whether someone has enough expertise to be called a scientist is subjective. Who's to say that Tim Ball is no longer a scientist just because he no longer publishes? Who's to say that someone who makes a living speaking on a scientific issue is no longer a scientist? This is why the label "former scientist" can't really be applied to anyone (which is why the term doesn't really exist in the media or professional writing, see above) because nobody can judge when someone is no longer an "expert" so long as that person is still alive. That's even moreso the case for the individuals on this list who have made public claims regarding their scientific opinion on an issue since 2001. When they make those claims, they assert themselves to be scientists. If we agree that it would be a WP:BLP issue to call any individual a former scientist, then we shouldn't apply the label to the group either. Oren0 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ball is not a scientist not because of his lack of publications, but rather because of his total lack or disregard of expertise in his field. The lack of publication is merely a symptom. Just as for the negative ("not a scientist"), we need evidence to claim the positive ("is a scientist"). As several people have pointed out, we do not label individuals in the article - either way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok perhaps we're getting somewhere. Agree we need evidence for the positive. But... Evidence for the positive is education/expertise, as understood by dictionnaries definitions. There might be some other cases, such as peer recognition I suppose, but it remains that the relevant evidence is not "publishing in the last x years". As you said, it can be merely a symptom, but publishing is an activity that someone with the education/expertise may or may not do. From the moment that an individual has, for instance, a PhD in a relevant scientific field, the onus is then on editors to demonstrate somehow, with due respect with WP:NOR, that this person is a "former scientist" despite that he has relevant education/expertise/experience. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally do not agree that having a PhD. automagically makes you a scientist, it makes you an academic - but scientist is (imho) an occupation. Perhaps this is because of language differences, but i doubt it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oren0, you've got the philosophy entirely wrong. Your argument is that there is no evidence that this individual isn't a scientist; therefore it is OK to claim that he is. Besides the fact that as Stephan has pointed out there is evidence that he isn't currently a scientist, your line of reasoning is antithetical to WP's basic principles. --Nethgirb (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding my point. We seem to have established that one is a scientist when they publish a paper. I'm yet to see any evidence at all that one ever ceases to be a scientist at any point. If we're going to claim that one can cease to be a scientist at any point, the standard is unreasonable. If I were to show you a source that one was a scientist yesterday (though I'm unsure what that source would even look like), you could still argue that the person isn't a scientist today. My point is that there we still haven't seen one source that a person ever ceases to be a scientist. As to KDP above, the dictionary disagrees with the notion that a scientist is a profession: "a person learned in science and especially natural science." Perhaps the Wikipedia definition of scientist is better: "A scientist is a person who is an expert in one or more areas of science, or someone who uses the scientific method to do research." By this definition, it is either a profession or a state of expertise. We can argue over which members of this list are currently scientists by profession, but we can't definitively say that anyone isn't an "expert in one or more areas of science." Oren0 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Suppose someone has a paper published in grad school, can't find a job in their field, then starts a company to sell agricultural implements and never cracks another science book or reads a journal for the rest of their life. (Yes, this is based on a real-world example.) By the definition some prefer here, they're still a "scientist." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"If I were to show you a source that one was a scientist yesterday ..., you could still argue that the person isn't a scientist today." I agree it's not precisely defined exactly when one ceases to be a scientist. Obviously it's more than a day after one's last publication. :-) Raymond's example, and Tim Ball, are cases where "former" is clear. For the present argument, there is no need to draw a precise line in the grey area, since the page just says it includes "scientists and former scientists", without applying the label to any particular people.
Now you go on to the definitions, and notice the use of the present tense in the WP definition that you like.
Then finally: "We can argue over which members of this list are currently scientists by profession, but we can't definitively say that anyone isn't an 'expert in one or more areas of science.'" Aha. So it seems I did understand your point after all: because we can't prove that X is false, we should claim that X is true. Reread what I wrote above --Nethgirb (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Main problem with Ball is that he seems to be educated in geography, a discipline that was once ruled as not meeting the list's requirements. Perhaps I would agree to remove him on this ground. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No the main problem is not that Ball is educated in geography. (a viewpoint that i can't recall that anyone has ever put forward). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I would have fought that one myself had it actually come up. It's been said "true climatologists are geographers," i.e., they take into account interactions in the system instead of focusing on a narrow area. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there it is [7] --Childhood's End (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. When I hear "geography" I tend to immediately think "physical geography." We should clarify what aspect of the field is being considered (physical geography, human geography, economic geography etc). It's a broad field, sort of like "science." Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the change, per WP:CONSENSUS. For any folks here ready to revert, there are tons of trolls vandalizing articles on global warming. Fortunately, I'm not one of them. See User:Zenwhat/Userboxes#Politics and User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Weasel_words_on_Global_warming. The term "former scientist" is nonsense. Either you're a scientist or you aren't. Not being actively engaged in research doesn't make you a "former scientist."   Zenwhat (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your opinion and note that (1) you assert your opinion without evidence, (2) there is clearly no consensus one way or the other here --Nethgirb (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree there is no consensus. But the concept of "former scientist" has yet to be documented. This discussion is showing that this mention should be deleted, unless some evidence of the existence of this concept and how it can be used consistently (without OR) is brought forward. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor proposing a change. Expecting me to find "evidence" that this term has not been used is an appeal to negative proof. Elysianfields proposed adding this term, but there has been no such consensus for the claim to stay up and no evidence provided to demonstrate its usage other than the existence of tons of Google hits, which proves nothing, per WP:GOOGLE.   Zenwhat (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tons of Google hits? As I mentioned above, there are practically none in the sense of "former" as in an individual being no longer a scientist. Oren0 (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll find similar results for just about any noun to which you attach a qualifying adjective. When I was in college, I worked summers in a foundry. "Ironworker" gets 205,000 hits, while "former ironworker" gets barely 1000. By the logic being applied here, I'm still an ironworker because there's no such thing as a "former ironworker." (Please don't tell me that's true; I had enough of that for three lifetimes...) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why WP:GOOGLE exists. We can play these games all day. "former president": 6.8 million, "former head": 2 million. I could probably find a reliable source describing "former ironworkers." There still hasn't been one source describing the concept of a "former scientist" as defined here. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Joellen Russel

I took out

  • Joellen Russell[1], assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona have been adjusting their models to include 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.[2]

as neither meeting our notability criterion (a Wikipedia article), nor, more importantly, being a global warming sceptic. The National Post, as usual, is an entirely unreliable source. The paper builds a very silly straw man and then quotes Russel out of context to destroy it. Find a clear quote if you think she disagrees with the consensus - I strongly doubt you will find one. In fact, on her home page she writes "One example is the changes in the Westerly Winds, which have moved poleward and increased over the last 30 years in both hemispheres, possibly as the first and most ferocious of the impacts of global warming". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And you are 100% correct in taking it out. Russell is talking about this paper [8] - which first of all doesn't talk about any "cycles" and secondly is badly misinterpreted by the NP. Another scientist misquoted/quoted out of context in that article is Kenneth Tappings (see: [9]). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree she should be out on the basis of this quote. Although I must again warn against such attempts to use this as a case to claim that the NP is not a reliable source. Plenty of errors and/or misrepresentations occur in every newspaper, the latest of note being not the least [10]. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You've failed to understand what a reliable source is in terms of wikipedia. The example that you give is a text-book example of the NYT being a reliable source... Why? Editorial oversight. The NP has so far shown itself to be lacking this - and that is the reason for it being classified as unreliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The NP has editorial oversight. It just doesnt have the kind that you would like. Stick to facts please. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it doesn't have an editorial oversight that fact-checks. Which again is what WP requires. We have had several articles from the NP here, on global warming - and common to them all: Bad fact-checking, misinformation, and directly wrong data. Every newspaper once in a while prints something that is wrong - here we have a consistent pattern => NP is not a reliable source for climate change. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the OR again, another nice read, but please return to us with a source to support your assertions next time. Good luck. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well - since you've been involved in all the major discussions about the NP articles - i think you know their reliability just as well as i do. (frankly just to be safe - can you remember even one that was accepted as reliable?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So you say so and that's it? It's a major newspaper and is a reliable source. If you want it listed as otherwise, feel free to take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Until we get a communal consensus that the National Post isn't a reliable source, I intend to continue considering it one. Oren0 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well since Op-Ed's and Editorials have never been considered reliable sources - the discussion is rather moot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We already explained to you that the source is not the 'kind' of article but the newspaper itself. Now, we all agree that what can be done with an Op-Ed or an editorial is different than what can be done with a news report. An Op-Ed published by the NP or any other source, unless authored by a specialist, can hardly be used to support a view on a scientific issue. But for the purpose of quoting a specialist, I see no rationale for dismissing Op-Eds published by a reliable source. As OrenO suggests, I think you should try to advance your view at the appropriate WP board before bringing it up again here. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong premise and a nice strawman. The NP has never run an article authored by a specialist that we've considered here. Every single article that has been discussed have been secondary (and in this case tertiary, since one of the quotes is "lifted" from an Investors Business Daily secondary erroneus quote). We can pick this up again if the NP ever decides to print an Op-Ed by a scientist that we'd consider for this page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that is a strawman. Again, an op-ed published by a reliable source can be used for quoting purposes, unless shown wrong on an ad hoc basis. This is true until your argument makes its way into WP policies. I will say no more. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That already is in the policies. Sorry. And its repeated frequently on WP:RS/N (i've quoted from there before - perhaps you remember?). Op-Ed's/Editorials are not usable for other than the authors (expert or other) opinion. They are not usable as reliable sources to the opinons of others. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its my English; if that is the case I'm sorry. I'll try another formulation. Here. Using an op-ed to quote an expert is not like using an op-ed to support an opinion other than that of the author. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its mine. If you use an Op-Ed to quote an expert - then the Op-Ed must have been written by the expert quoted. An Op-Ed is only a reliable source to the opinion (expert or not) of the author. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link to a policy that says that quotes used in Op-Eds are unreliable? Oren0 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll be most happy to agree with you once you show up such a provision in a WP policy. I have looked and found none. So until you do, nada. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you both follow the discussions on WP:RS/N once in a while (or do a search [11]) - here is a couple of examples. [12] [13] [14] - its rather easy to find more, since this subject is a frequent flier on the board. Of course there is no explicit mention of it - because its a natural consequence of the WP:V. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see little ground for your position in what you provided, not mentionning the fact that board discussions aint no policy. But as a commentor on this board said, you seem to ignore the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. Op-Eds are not reliable insofar as they are statements of opinion. But quoting someone is a statement of fact ("Mr. X said that" or "Mrs. Y said this"), not of opinion. As to the natural consequences of WP:V, they're mentionned as a matter of fact. If what you say is not mentionned, it's probably because it's not so "natural". --Childhood's End (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
CE, those are not statements of fact - its claims. Whether or not the claim is believable is dependent on the author of the Op-Ed, but its not reliable. In fact the very article that we are discussing contains such a claim that is provably false. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact, and any such statement, op-ed or not, remains a claim. Indeed, in this present article, the statement might have been proved false. The fact that a source is presumed reliable does not mean that it cannot be proved wrong on an ad hoc basis, like what you have done here. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
CE said on the article global warming "bulgroz is zorglub backwards". There i just made a statement of fact. (hmmmmmmm ???). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
i- Your statement was not published by a reliable source, so it's already out by WP policy, and ii- your statement can be proved wrong by merely looking at the article's history. Thus, no need to worry it could be used as a source. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
i. Yes ii. Yes. But by your definition it was a statement of fact. Sorry. Op-Eds are nothing more than the opinion by some author, there is nothing inherently reliable about them, and they aren't fact checked according to the normal publishing/editorial policies. That is the reason that they are only reliable to the authors opinion, and not about anything else. Hint: Its the lack of fact-check, and lack of editorial process that makes op-ed's unreliable for other than opinion of the author pr. WP:V (and that is clearly stated). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we have discussed this already. Hint : there's a reason why no op-ed published by a reliable source is likely to contain a statement similar to "Barrack Obama had an extramarital affair", and it is because there is some editorial oversight. True, this oversight does not deal with the opinion part of op-eds, but does with obviously wrong factual statements (at the NYT it does only after the fact, but that's beside the point :-0 ). Notable newspapers even exercise editorial oversight over their blogs. Why? It's called legal liability. Exposure is low towards opinions, but higher towards wrong statements of fact. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent) Actually many editorials/opinion columns can and do make inaccurate statements of fact like "the earth is getting colder" or "humans did not evolve from a prehistoric ape". Legal liability there is low since you usually haven't defamed anyone by saying such a thing even if it is patently absurd. However this is not what we're talking about so it's a pointless distraction. It's true that when people are involved, most papers will exercise some oversight, sufficient to avoid anything blatantly unsupported like "Obama had an extramaritial affair". However this oversight is not sufficient to avoid editorials/opinions misleadingly quoting or worse, completely making something up that was never said by some fairly unknown scientist. Per, WP:BLP we need exceptional proof to make claims about living people, an editorial/opinion simply does not cut it if you are going to claim someone said something and furthermore claim that the statement was in opposition to the mainstream assessment of global warming (unless the editorial/opinion was written by the person we are quoting). And BTW, in the unlikely event an editorial/opionion was published that said Obama had an affair or Obama said "I had sex with George W. Bush", there is no way this would be accepted as a reliable source for either claim Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, glad we agree there is editorial oversight over editorials and op-eds when it comes to statements about living persons.
Now. Contra to what you seem to suggest, inaccurate statements of fact are not the sole domain of op-eds/editorials; they also happen in news reports and even in peer-reviewed literature. The relevant elements are thus the reliability of the source and whether there are legitimate doubts with regard to the accuracy of what is stated, as clearly indicated by WP:BLP, not whether it is a news report, an op-ed or a scholar book, etc.
All libel concerns for Wikipedia about using quotes are necessarily shared by reliable sources who contemplated their publication, whether it is in an op-ed or news report. I fail to see why you would use a strawman such as suggesting that BBC, The Economist of The National Post could go public with an editorial suggesting that Obama said “I had sex with GWB”. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, got the message.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

WP:Notability - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

It hasn't.

Also - "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles."

This is an entire article on a non-notable subject. Thus, this article violates WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOR, though I think it's worth keeping a lot of the information by merging it into Climate change denial. Although these "scientists," are certainly fringe (I mean, look at the title of this article), their views are relevant in politics and popular culture that it's worth taking note of, but not as a list. The article on Scientific opinion on climate change specifically avoided self-selected lists for a valid reason. That seems to have led to the creation of this fork.   Zenwhat (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Scientific opinion on climate changte is a rag, run by zealots from the church of climate changers. If you so much as place a disenting idea on that page they swoop down as a team to punish the heretic non-believer. Then they undo all of your edits to wipe every trace of change, not their own. Don't hold that article up as a success. They have demonstrated bad faith on that page by no allowing any questioning of text or citations. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Your mental model seems to be out of alignment with reality. Please go re-read the discussion. You were simply wrong, hard as that may be to believe. And if you believe that people politely disagreeing with you constitutes punishment, you will be be in for a very hard life. Please also read WP:NPA and WP:CIV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That article is being so written as to imply that there is little or no credible dissent on man-made climate change. Do a google, there many scientist with just as many PhDs as yours from prominent universities the REJECT the notion that man is doing anything significant enough to affect global temperatures. Why are there multiple articles on aspects of climate change? Could it be that groups have taken over articles so those left feel they have no other choice but to start another article?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You are changing the topic. Your comment on scientific opinion on climate change was plain wrong. On the new topic: There is little credible dissent on the core findings about anthropogenic climate change. Even skeptics like Benny Peiser acknowledge that. There are quite some politicians and pundits, there are a few crackpots, but there is only a very tiny group of qualified scientists that disagree with the fact that there is ongoinf climate change, and that a large part of it is caused by human emissions. Going back to scientific opinion on climate change - do you know about any statement by a renown scientific organization that disagrees? If yes, add it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No no wait, ok, no "renown scientific organization" clearly disagrees with the anthropogenic part, but you would be honest, on the other hand, to admit that any organization, scientific or not, has political underpinnings which it must take into consideration when it issues such statements; these do not mean that their whole membership agrees. Now, as for the "very tiny group of qualified scientists" that disagrees, there's maybe something like 200-300 out of Inohfe's 400 that should be considered. I'd be curious to see a list of individual scientists, rather than orgs, who publicly clearly agreed with all the core IPCC statements (not meaning there are none, but still, I'd be curious). --Childhood's End (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
By that reasoning, most persons are homosexual - see how few people openly claim they are heterosexual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not claim that most scientists were disagreeing because few openly claim they agree, but my point, as you certainly understand, is that claims that those disagreeing are only a "tiny few" should be suppported by evidence showing that an overwhelming majority have made known their agreement, otherwise you're only presuming that those still silent agree, which is not enough to support your claim. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Now Schulz is calling dissenters "crackpots". Of course that includes this article and the editors writing it. But don't worry he's objective; and if you don't believe it, just ask. Shouldn't you be back watching your page to see if someone undotted an 'i' or uncrossed a 't'? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm calling some dissenters crackpots. And you might want to check who has contributed to this (and the related) pages before propagating your wrong assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Put me on record as completely disagreeing with this proposal. For one thing a good chunk of the people on this list are not denying the climate is changing, they just have a differing opinion on what is driving that change. Kind of makes them inappropriate for an article titled "Climate Change Denial". Elhector (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Me, too. This is a carefully-selected and strictly maintained list of scientists who give peer-reviewed scientific justifications for their positions; hardly what one could call denial. This article has survived AfD, being recognized as being notable and not a POV fork. To merge it with a category which is truly its polar opposite would just be wrong. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
who give peer-reviewed scientific justifications for their positions - oh no it isn't. If we left on only those who supported their position by quoting the literature, there would be very few left William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And if we included only those who actually published "peer-reviewed scientific justifications for their positions," there would be almost none. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this. I also think the tag should be removed from the article as nobody seems to agree with the proposal. It's already survived an AfD on notability so that's out. Also, climate change denial as it's currently written is about bad faith denial. Most of the people on this list seem to be good faith skeptics. Lumping that together would be a terrible idea. Not to mention the horrendous logistics of having a list of ~40 individuals tacked onto a fairly short article. Oren0 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I also oppose the merge for reasons similar to Oren0's, and I think the tag can be removed without much delay. "their views are relevant in politics and popular culture that it's worth taking note of, but not as a list."--why not? "The article on Scientific opinion on climate change specifically avoided self-selected lists for a valid reason. That seems to have led to the creation of this fork."--actually, the "not self-selected" requirement was added (by me, actually) to that article long after this article was written. --Nethgirb (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. If anyone other than the original proposer feels otherwise please add it back. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem, here. You guys are probably right, then.   Zenwhat (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Gerhard Kramm be included

Should Gerhard Kramm be included in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming


There is currently a dispute on whether or not to include Gerhard Kramm in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article. Below is the proposed entry into the article:

  • Gerhard Kramm, atmospheric scientist of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has said that "the so-called climate crisis is clearly a political issue, nothing more" and "most of the statements of the IPCC can be assessed as physical misunderstanding and physical misinterpretations." He has also stated that "Most of [the IPCC's] members...are not qualified enough to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect and to prove the accuracy of global climate models."[3]

The source for all of this is an e-mail published by Gerhard Kramm on his home page on the website of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The actual e-mail can be found here. Please see the requirements for inclusion into the article which are located at the begining of the article. Also please take a look at the relevant discussion about his inclusion here on the article talk page. Elhector (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article

The scope of the article is to be limited to individual scientists. There are various types of entities, in descending order of authority:

  1. Layperson of note
  2. Scientist
  3. Think tank
  4. Professional organization

The first two are individuals, the second two are organizations. Are these views listed elsewhere on WP? 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This section should sit above RfC section. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? Back to the original statement: A generic think tank is not necessarily more authoritative then an individual scientist. In this case, it depends on the reputation of either. John Christy certainly has more weight on climate issues than the Heartland Institute. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Descending order of authority" means that the professional organization, listed last, would be less authoritative than a layperson of note, listed first. Any of the four, of course, can be subject to political and economic pressures to come to any conclusion regardless of the facts. We should also beware the danger of subscribing to "proof by authority," a short distance from "proof by consensus." Consider the debates on whether the Earth is flat, the Germ theory of disease, and other subjects where the tide of consensus changed over time. SkyDot (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In wikipedia we give most weight to the most authoritative. They may be wrong, but thats what most think. We would report that the earth is flat if the most authoritative sources suggested so. Brusegadi (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That explains why this list is relevant. Thanks. I'm still not sure I agree with the order given, or the reverse of the order given, assuming that was what was intended. Can you point me to: (1) the Wikipedia policy that we give the most weight to the most authoritative, and (2) the wikipedia policy article spelling out who is considered more authoritative than whom? SkyDot (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

craig loehle

Should he be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends. As far as I know, he is the co-author of a temperature reconstruction that shows a slightly different pattern than most other reconstructions. Has he disagreed with any of the IPCC core results? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Planck Institute

On the list of those that "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes", Dr. Stott is quoted as saying "Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor." Believing the Max Planck Institute to be particularly reliable, I went to the Institute webpage and looked up climate. While I have not paid for the article, judging from the abstract of this paper, Steffen W. Crutzen PJ. McNeill JR. (2008), The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature that anthropic effects are considered, to at least by some members of the Max Planck Institute, to "overwhelming" natural factors. I suspect that the Institue's position may have changed since Dr. Stott's quote, so it might be a good idea to change the quote to one which does not mislead. How about Dr. Stott's opinion that "the predication of government, and United Nations', policy for energy growth on the unsustainable myth of 'global warming' is a serious threat to us all," from the same source? --Timtak (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This ABC News article makes plain that these researchers whose work is featured at the Max Plank Institute, are very much into anthropic climate change and greenhouse gases in particular. ""The Great Acceleration is reaching criticality. Enormous, immediate challenges confront humanity over the next few decades as it attempts to pass through a bottleneck of continued population growth, excessive resources use, and environmental deterioration. In most parts of the world the demand for fossil fuels overwhelms the desire to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. " In fact the acticle is very persuasive. I think that I may be about to believe in Anthopic Global warming! I am glad I was misled by the article since it encouraged me to go and check. One might even go so far as to keep the current quote, "Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor." and add "More recent research at the Max Planck Institute strongly support the mainstream." but perhaps that would be beyond the scope of this article.--Timtak (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Stott was referencing an old misconception about research from Sami Solanki - its one of those things that have a life of its own (ie. a lie can run around the world before the truth gets its boots on). Its been debunked any number of times. Here is the official debunking [15].
On the other issue - about the quote itself. We do not comment or take a stand on the quotes, that is not our job or what the list is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seitz removed

I've removed Seitz per the former consensus reached here.

* Frederick Seitz (1911-2008), retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."[4]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering us how you define "consensus".
The guy dies 3 days ago and 'poof', the science perhaps changed yesterday so you cant show his opinion? I think that "living" ought to be added to the title after all. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
CE, do you contest that the former discussion showed consensus? Now if you'd calm down and for a minute assumed good faith, you'd notice that i didn't just delete and hint at some undisclosed consensus - but instead in all open found the appropriate discussion - linked it. And started a new topic - so that if a different consensus exists now, then a discussion could be started. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You removed Seitz presto ([16] after his death didnt you, and then claimed a consensus had been reach at the Auger discussion, where I clearly disagreed (even Nil Einne thought Auger should have stayed for some time). I do WANT to assume good faith. And I still do, only with more skepticism now I guess... --Childhood's End (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How about addressing the issue, instead of the editor? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How about I did in the Auger discussion? --Childhood's End (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's irrational to assume good faith by editors who continuously exhibit bad faith.

Question

This page has been moved a lot. I wonder, does the archiving bot need new instructions or is it ok if it archives old talk on the older pages (I think that is what is doing now...)Brusegadi (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The more interesting question actually is - why was the name of the article changed without any comments. My guess is that someone tried to make a point. The title is already too long - so i suggest that we move back to the old title. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it back. We don't need "living" in the title William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Re [17]: living is wrong in the title; but is it wrong to mention it on the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it jarring and useless. In particular, it is implicit in the title, which is in the present tense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another page move

I propose we move the page to "List of scientists opposing global warming". First, the facts about global warming are highly disputed and controversial. It is not wikipedia's job to force onto the read what is "mainstream" and "scientific" and what isn't. Second, this title is hardly NPOV and a possible BLP problem. It's like saying "you don't accept clear facts" when in reality those facts are still hazing (at best). Again, moving it to List of scientists opposing global warming would be a much better option. Mønobi 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most scientists oppose global warming - its fairly risky, and likely to be expensive, will damage the ecosystems and disrupt quite a few lives. Few scientists deny that. Your move is at best ambiguous, and quite likely misleading. The mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, on the other hand, is remarkably solid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proof of consensus?

The title and opening paragraphs mention "the scientific consensus," "the mainstream scientific assessment," and similar language about global warming several times. Can someone give a good reference to demonstrate (and precisely define) that consensus? The first reference given is to an editorial by one organization of geologists blasting another organization of geologists (with 31,000 members) for essentially promoting the idea that global warming is a hoax. We should have multiple citations demonstrating the existence of the consensus. SkyDot (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We do. Note that the text "the scientific consensus" in the intro has a link.... --Nethgirb (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. For some reason, I had it in my head that it linked to an article on the concept of scientific consensus in general. I don't know why I thought that. SkyDot (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I can see why it might be overlooked --Nethgirb (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the list of "scientific consensus." It is dubious at best. You've got the "International Panel on Climate Change" which is a UN panel of political, rather than scientific, origin, created with a pretty-well-understood mission of "proving" man-made global warming. Plus a very small variety of other organizations, all of whom are defining "consensus" as "the IPCC said so, so it must be consensus." There is really only one citation that purports to demonstrate consensus -- the IPCC -- since the others all merely state that if the IPCC says it's the consensus view, then it must be the consensus. Separately, I claim that Criticism of IPCC offers at minimum sufficient legitimate disagreement over the validity of their operations and reports that it is irresponsible to equate "the IPCC published a paper claiming X" and "The scientific community has reached consensus that X".
I can't tell the intent of the people who named this page, but I think it's pretty clear that just outright calling one view "the mainstream scientific assessment" when it is obviously possible to make a pretty large list of "mainstream" scientists and organizations that disagree, and when the only group that can be cited as being "the mainstream" is a nonscientific pseudo-governmental agency. That's why I added POV-title.
On a separate note, the existence of this page at all makes the assumption that science is an occupation of majority-rule; that if "enough scientists" believe Y, that Y is likely to be true. This is simply not the case. Nothing that I have encountered in wikipedia on the subject of global warming actually shows scientific conclusions from research or experimentation; rather the entire thing is "so-and-so thinks that" and "such-and-such believes that" and "this organization wrote a paper that claims that." In other words, there is a group of scientists and politicians that are vocal about their unproven hypotheses, and the rest of us are supposed to act assuming that they will eventually be proven right simply because there are many of them.
There was a time when most learned men believed the world was flat. And yet, it was pure untested and unresearched hypothesis. The very first piece of empirical evidence proved conclusively that the hypothesis was false. The fact that many intelligent people believed the world to be flat did not make it the case.
Note that while I do not believe the global-warming-doom-scenarios that the "mainstream scientific assessment" is publishing, I am not here claiming that they are wrong. (my opinion being as irrelevant as any) Merely that there is not consensus among scientists, and that the existence or nonexistence of consensus is irrelevant to scientific study in any case. Opinion -- regardless of who it comes from -- is merely that: opinion. Until a significant body of research is developed that tests specific falsifiable hypotheses in manners consistent with the scientific method, will it be possible to have relevant scientific discourse on the subject.
Organizing the encyclopedic discussion of a scientific subject around which group of scientists is more politically prestigious seems outlandish
I would suggest a name more relevant to the subject, perhaps "List of scientists opposing the IPCC assessment of global warming" -- that would be NPOV and factual. Especially since the technical criteria for being included on this page are very clearly "the scientist opposes one of these three bullet points that come from the IPCC report"
70.187.186.43 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a time when they believed the earth was flat and a time when they believed CO2 had no effect on our climate. Please, read the article, you will see that major reputable scientific organizations think the IPCC gets it right. Scientists may be wrong, but this is what they believe. Brusegadi (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I did read the article. Under "Scientific Consensus" is a list of organizations that believe in global warming. The first and most prominent it the United Nations report, produced by politicians. Other groups are listed too, of course. Yet if you just read the quotes from those organizations, they all basically say "well, I'm not going to disagree with the IPCC. No, sir. Not me. Clearly if they say it's true, then it's the consensus opinion, and we needn't do any research on the subject ourselves."
There was a time when people believed that the scientific method was the approach to science. Apparently it has since become "if the politicians say it's true, then we'll just shout down everybody who disagrees. Why not rename the page "list of scientists in the pay of the Evil Oil Companies" then? Clearly there is no debate on the subject. Obviously the neutral point of view is that you are right and I am stupid. I'm not going to bother putting POV-title back up... you, or some other partisan like you will just erase it again. Good to see that Wikipedia is the collection of the worlds knowledge according to the Politically Correct.
Thats not true. They are scientific in nature, and the most important ones for that matter. You should try editing conservapedia, I think it will be to your liking, since most of the members there share your belief about wikipedia partisanship. Brusegadi (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be a consensus over whether there's a consensus. SkyDot (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How did Roger Pielke get removed?

I remember Pielke addressing the issue on his blog and he even provided the quote he wanted used. How is it that is missing? RonCram (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There he goes [18]. [elided - WMC] --Childhood's End (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Pielke is quoted more tham a few times on http://www.icecap.us. He appears to be saying that "global warming" is not about science, but is a concept to "force the public and policymakers to adopt specific policy and political actions that promotes particular agendas". Maybe someone can find a better quote so he can be included again? rossnixon 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Michaels

I swapped Michaels to what his page describes him as - research prof. State clim isn't a job, and its doubtful he ever was the state clim William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This list is missing hundreds of names

I know this is probably going to get me in trouble to say, but this list seams to be missing hundreds, if not thousands of names:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/21977.pdf

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/Open_Letter.pdf

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html

http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html

So, shall we work on adding all of these names and info about the scientists?--216.203.114.34 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I know the belief is that there is concensus, but if we are listing the scientists that oppose the concensus, why not list the scientists without restriction just as it is here. this would give numbers instead of the belief.--216.203.114.34 (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria are specific. The person must have a Wikipedia page (though you can create one if they're notable), they must have a quote in a reliable or self-published source indicating that they disagree with one of the IPCC's three main points (this is the major sticking point for most people), and they must have a published paper in the natural science. There has been some effort to categorize/identify people at User:Oren0/GWSkepticList and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe, and you can feel free to contribute to those lists (mine at least) and/or this page if you believe you've found a person and quote that fit the criteria. Best of luck to you. Oren0 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The Heartland institute list is bull, see [19] & [20], they themselves admit not all the scientists there are sceptics and at least 5 scientists from one small country disagree with their inclusion on the list (suggesting that a large number of scientists on the whole likewise disagree with their inclusion on the list). It would therefore be a serious BLP issue to include these people on the list. This BTW is precisely why we have a strong inclusion criteria Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Title of this article

It is my opinion that the title of this article is, itself, slanted and biased toward the "Anthropogenic" (human caused) model of Global Warming being true and correct. It gives the impression that the scientists cited are "outside the mainstream" and, therefore, lacking in credibility.

I would make the title "List of scientists disagreeing with the Anthropogenic model of Global Warming" That has a much more neutral tone as would be expected in an encyclopedia. HappyJake (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been disucssed so many times, I suggest you check out the previous discussions before proposing something which has been rejected so many times. Note in particular we currently include those who argue global warming will benefit human society. Clearly these scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment but may not oppose the anthropogenic model. And BTW, if people regard scientists who's opinions are outside the mainstream as lacking in credibility, it's not our resposibility to try and hide the truth Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI here is the most recent discussion Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 13#Question and the most recent extensive discussion Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 11#Article name from what I can tell. I suggest you start here and work your way backwards Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Anthropogenic Model, as described by this article, states three parts: (1) That Global Warming exists; (2) That Global Warming is caused by Human Activity; and (3) that Global Warming is inevitably harmful. Those who believe in (1) and (2) but reject (3) are among those who disagree with the Anthropogenic Model because that model requires all three to exist in order to be true. The word "mainstream" in this case is what is known as a "weasel word" intended to plant a certain viewpoint in the reader. Removing "mainstream scientific assessment" and replacing it with "Anthropogenic Model" is both far more accurate, and less obviously slanted. The first paragraph should describe the Anthropogenic Model as being the most commonly held view, but note that several scientists disagree with that view. No it is not the job of Wikipedia to obscure the truth, however that is precicely what this title does. HappyJake (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither one nor three has anything to do with anthropogenic causes. Thus, your suggestion would be plain wrong. Mainstream is well-attested - in fact, there are many unusually reliable sources for the even stronger "consensus". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Point number 1 (That it exists) is required for the purpose of the debate. If Global Warming doesn't exist, then whether or not it is caused by man is irrelevant. Point number 3 (That it is harmful) is also required for the purpose of the debate. If no harm will come from Global Warming, then its existence and cause are irrelevant. It would be like blaming man for the existence of puffy, white clouds. To call me "plain wrong" is to ignore the fact that the existance of Global Warming itself and its consequences are an integral part of the Anthropogenic theory. My point here is neither to argue the politics or science of Global Warming, nor to state that there is or is not a "consensus." My point is that the title of this article fails in a critical thinking test to be considered neutral. The words "opposing the mainstream" indicate to any reasonable reader that the scientists listed here are, to be blunt, quacks who are trying to buck an established trend. The phrase is clearly non-neutral. The fact of the matter is that there are many reputable scientists who have put forth varying theories on the subject (hence the existance of this article).
My primary concern is simply the wording of the title. I realize that there has been previous discussion, but I believe the wrong conclusion was reached because there is a more accurate and precice title out there that says essentially the same thing without the underlying tone indicating that these scientists are not credible.
As an altertitive, how about replacing "Mainstream scientific assessment" with "IPCC's Assessment"? --HappyJake (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I never liked the word "mainstream." How about "List of scientists disagreeing with the consensus view of global warming"? The word "consensus" is accurate and readily verifiable whereas "mainstream" sounds a bit judgmental. Some of these persons are well within the mainstream of science in general (though others are not). Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never particularly liked this name.. And your suggestion is very close to the original(?) List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. So i'd go for it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
HappyJake wrote: "The words "opposing the mainstream" indicate to any reasonable reader that the scientists listed here are, to be blunt, quacks"—I don't get that feeling, and in fact I would be disappointed whenever someone has a knee-jerk reaction labeling anyone in the minority as wrong (I'm talking about life in general here, not GW :-) ). That said, I've always preferred the original, which I think is slightly better than RA's suggestion due to length. When we switched from "consensus" to "mainstream", we had not collected reliable sources which specifically used the word "consensus", but now we have. I'm not sure it matters too much, though. --Nethgirb (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Title (again)

The title of this page is idiotic and biased. The number of scientists on this list represent an even larger proportion of scientist that are not yet on this list but could be. The longer the list the less of a consensus there be with the IPCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.158.14 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. In my reality, the word "consensus" does not appear in the title of this page. Also, in my reality, many major scientific organizations agree that there is a consensus, and none disagrees. Over here we tend to value their opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In your reality? Hmmm, you might want to go here. Good luck. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we have "consensus" in the title at one point instead of "mainstream"? Or maybe it was proposed for the title. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Akasofu

A few weeks ago, User:Akasofu edited the Akasofu entry [21], replacing the old quote with an new quote which seems to say similar things, but it is overly long, less specific, and uses as a citation a link to a 110 MB document which is a bit ridiculous. I'd favor reverting those edits; any comments before I do? --Nethgirb (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented that. For reference, here is the text I reverted from:
  • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "An almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years (~1°F/100 years) seems to have occurred from about 1800 to the present, namely for about 200 years. This value may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C/100 years. This 200-year long linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of the linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. In addition, there are quasi-periodic changes, which are superposed on the linear change. One of them is referred to as a ‘multi-decadal oscillation’. This particular change has a positive slope from about 1975 and was most prominent in the continental Arctic, contributing to the present global warming trend. But this particular positive change in the continental Arctic almost stopped after 2000. These facts are contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report (p.10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the manmade greenhouse effect. There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect."[5]
--Nethgirb (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus"

Hi Kim, you said "There have been lots of attempts, at gathering a consensus, for restricting the list to scientists in relevant diciplines, or at least with a relevant publication in the physical sciences, but unfortunately they have failed each time", so is there any chance you can direct me to these discussions or know when abouts they occurred: it qould greatly ease the time needed to search through all those talk archives here. As Kim also mentioned Oren0, I was not saying all physicists should be excluded from here, merely (for example, I haven't had a chance to look at all the Scientists listed) a solid state physicist. However, it appears that Douglass has published related research, however I have to ask: why is he here listed as a solid state physicist when on his own article, it is said "his research appears to focus on the role of natural forces and the debunking of anthropogenic climate change" and doesn't mention solid state physics? Another point I wanted to make was that if a scientist is in relevant field, his/her mention should definitely be kept, and if they've published peer-reviewed research (however little) despite them being from an unrelated field of science, they should be kept, and if they haven't published GW research and are from an unrelated field (so that there oppsition to AGW is just them publicly saying they are opposed to it) then they should be removed from this article. However, what should be done about those who have published research and are from an unrelated field, but their research hasn't been peer reviewed? Should they be removed too as I POSSIBLY think (I need to do some more of that to be sure!)? What do people think about these four (as far as I can tell) types of scientists? Deamon138 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source ;-). Douglass is a condensed matter physicist by training and by position. He used to do a lot of (and as far as I can tell reasonable good) work on condensed matter physics and superconductivity. See [22] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Here [23] is one example William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't you two be on the other talk page? And what does a straw poll on publishing have to do with any of this? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not in the mood to comb through the archives right now, but I can sum it up for you: one side wanted only people with publications related to climate, while some on the other side wanted pretty much anyone with a scientific degree with or without a WP page (including "former scientists," though I still maintain that there is no such thing until one is dead) included. The current criteria were a compromise that seemed to satisfy most enough that it hasn't been brought back up for a while. Oren0 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well you see one article is a list or organizations that support a so called "consensus" while the other article is a list of scientists who more or less oppose a so called "consensus". Now if you use publishing as a factor of credibility, it is much easier to attack an individual than an organization. Organizations don't really publish things, but they do support publications. You can have all sorts of quacks working within an organization, but it is difficult to attack them since they are under an umbrella of the group. To attack some national academy of science is almost impossible compared to a single scientist. So you have to watch what the agenda of an argument is. These little subtleties are very important. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim above said, "I propose that we find a mutually consistent and objectively defined criteria for relevant scientists," and I agree. However, this could prove very difficult and open up a whole can of worms. Aside from the fact that Global Warming is one of the most contentious issues and is (let's face it people) liable to bias from either side, there are just too many ever-so-slightly-different views that people will have on what should constitute a "scientist" as shown by William's link above, and even when we are all agreed on what a scientist is, then there is the issue of which of these scientists should be used here? Peer review? Type of scientist? Number of publications? Alive? Research? Time of research? etc etc All of these points seem to have been made before, and as such any vote/poll of opinions is likely to produce twenty slightly different definitions of what should be allowed. However, if (as has been said) this issue has been raised before in many different forms, then surely this needs to be rectified once and for all, so I also propose we "find a mutually consistent and objectively defined criteria for relevant scientists." (Couldn't have put it better myself!). My criteria is shown above at the top of this section, however I am open to convincing on why my reasoning is wrong. Now, considering that a pol/vote wouldn't help in the slightest, how should we proceed? Deamon138 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe everyone who cares should define their ideal. For example, I would support including any scientist or "former scientist" who (by our consensus) has demonstrated competence in science in their career. I believe that this is enough to be able to read the literature and form an opinion on these fairly simple topics. Of course, my ideal is nowhere near consensus on this page. I just don't see a problem with a list of genuine scientists who are skeptical. Tparameter (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My definition is pretty close to yours. The only difference is that, given that engineering is considered to be "applied science" and engineers are generally capable of competently analysing scientific literature, I'd include engineers and retired engineers along with scientists and former scientists. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not include Jesuits as well? They are known for their logical sense..... Joke aside, the reason to narrow the scientist criteria, is to focus on those opinion is based upon expertise/education/research on this particular subject. It's not to get a list of opinion form people who have a certain level of education. Such a list while interesting, is not the idea of this article. We aim for quality, not quantity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Have you ever tried reading a scientific paper in reasonable detail? This is a fairly basic paper, the result of 10 years or so of simplifying and unifying concepts, and intended as a stand-alone introduction to first-order resolution in my field. Do you think a biologist, a solid state physicist, or a civil engineer will be able to understand it? Or even a specialist in computer graphics or networking? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Either that, or at least a way to print PostScript, I would hope. If not, they will be cut of from a lot of scientific literature. I only have some of my newest papers online in PDF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate Tparameter's sentiment, but the scientist should have worked in an area that would have some relevance to weather, so that one could have confidence that they have a compitent opinion on the matter. Now some people are educated in one area and then end up working their career in another, and have developed expertise over time. Nevertheless, I think there are at least to levels of expertise that matter, 1) those who actually do the analysis related to climate studies, who know the science in great depth, and 2) those who may not do the in depth analysis, but have the knowledge and expertise to understand and interpret the study results. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider to this discussion, I'd personally rather that the list were restricted only to those whose line of work were directly related to the subject. Insofar as this list is actually useful (except in witch-hunt political terms), it makes a great deal of sense for it to concentrate on those who can be directly demonstrated to have a firm grasp of the subject, as opposed to those who are only implied to have such by their ability to obtain an advanced university degree or such. Hell, I'd probably go so far as to restrict to to those within that group who had actually published papers on the subject. I feel that otherwise the article is little more than an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 2

As I suspected, there a number of slightly differing views on what criteria should be used. In response to what Chris said above, I would take a slightly more stringent restrictions, namely I wouldn't just say they had to publish a paper on the subject, but have it peer reviewed as well. Another consideration might be an issue of time. I mean, do we allow someone who last made a publication 50 years ago onto this list but have the current opinion of rejecting the IPCC's three points? I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure there isn't such a person on here, however there may be in the future, and surely when we come up with criteria for this list we should anticipate that such an occasion might arise? Deamon138 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are people on the list who've had no peer-reviewed publications in over a decade (and have switched careers to industry-funded GW skepticism lobbying (Ball)). A time-limit has been proposed before, and in my opinion would be a good way to limit the list to current scientists (which is what the title implies and who are more likely to be aware of current research) and it is convenient since it is not a subjective criterion. --Nethgirb (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "experts": That some particular scientist works in "weather" doesn't really say anything about his expertise in evaluating the breadth of this subject. So, some statistician sets up a model in some area of research, and he's a expert on global warming. Big deal, maybe a physicist who studied these things on a broader level, but maybe never published, can understand it better overall. In fact, I am confident that with my research experience, math background, and programming expertise, I could contribute significantly to any team of researchers in just about any area of science - but, my narrow expertise, even if I published, would not be proof that I was an "expert". The point is, this is a broad subject, and depth in a particular area of it does not make one more able to evaluate it as a whole. That's the whole point. Scientists are scientists because they understand the methods. Last, I agree that those with engineering backgrounds would also most likely be able to form an educated opinion on these matters. Tparameter (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying here that we may never truly know whether a particular scientist is applicable to this list either because (even though they have published articles) their field is too narrow so might not deserve entry here, or that their field is too broad so they may not have published an article but still deserve to be here, is that what you are saying? Another puzzler. Deamon138 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're just saying that there is no way to prove of being an expert in this (or any!) area—fine, but that's beside the point. There do exist credentials that substantially increase the likelihood of someone knowing what they're talking about, namely, peer-reviewed publications—especially recent ones in relevant areas. Depth in a relevant area does help. With your programming expertise, if you did join a research group and work on a paper, I'd bet that you would become more knowledgeable about that area. You can list all the exceptions you want, but scientific experience as exhibited by a publication record is still, on the whole, useful. --Nethgirb (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point. In fact if there is no way "to prove of being an expert in this (or any!) area", then also there is no way to "prove" that a source is reliable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, and yet we have WP:RS to guide us on that issue. I would go as far as saying that perhaps what WP:RS has to say might be useful in regards to what I guess we are discussing might be called a reliable "Global Warming Scientist." Can that policy be "extrapolated" for this? Deamon138 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This would grow into a requirement to have reliable "<fill in the blank> Scientist". And who would determine reliability and how? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
RE: 'There do exist credentials that substantially increase the likelihood of someone knowing what they're talking about, namely, peer-reviewed publications...' I would argue, for example, that a PhD in Physics substantially increases the likelilhood of someone being able to understand the broad scientific data on climate change. This is why I believe the criteria here are too restricting. Tparameter (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats a rather strange comment, since the current rules for inclusion, makes it rather obvious that a physicist gets included... If of course you can find a quote that upholds the rest of the criteria (ie. argues against one or more of the three consensus items). What exactly is the restricting criteria atm? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Tparameter thought that there are many physicists who get a PhD, but never publish any peer-reviewed publications. I don't know physics so well, but in my field that would be extremely unlikely.
Tparameter, I think your position is that the requirements shouldn't exactly be more inclusive or more restrictive, but they should be better -- they should include your hypothetical physicist friend who "studied these things on a broader level, but maybe never published" but they should exclude people with relevant publications who don't actually know the whole body of climate science research ("So, some statistician sets up a model in some area of research, and he's a expert on global warming. Big deal...")
That is a noble goal but it's unfortunately impractical. We can't determine with certainty whether someone is competent or not. All we can do is look at publicly available indications of competence, and in the scientific community the standard way of doing that is to look at publications. A scientific publication of any type makes someone more likely to be competent in climate science; a recent scientific publication is even better; a recent climate science publication makes it even more likely still.
Maybe it would help if you stated what you think the inclusion requirements should be. --Nethgirb (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is "List of scientists who..." not "List of global warming experts who..." or "list of scientists who have published on global warming who..." As it stands, the page could probably be renamed to "list of natural scientists who..." since that's what it's restricted to. This page doesn't claim to present the opinions of any experts, only of scientists, which these individuals demonstrably are. Oren0 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
But surely, we are discussing what we want this page to contain, regardless of what it's called. Surely we decide on the criteria first, THEN make the title fit the contents so to speak. Deamon138 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just out of interest (and despite the probable label of pedant I shall now receive), can you actually get a PhD in Physics? I always thought you had to specialize in a particular area of Physics at the PhD level. Could be wrong though, maybe other Unis do it differently? Deamon138 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, most PhD diplomas will specify just "Physics", though the student will almost certainly have one (or a couple) areas of focus. Dragons flight (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah fair enough, thanks for the info. Deamon138 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lindzen

I've moved Lindzen from "cause unknown" to "warming stopped in 1998". Most of his statements in the last few years have included this claim (including the 2006 article that was already linked under "cause unknown"). This was also the line in the open letter he signed last year (I know we don't use statements like this in the article, but it's still relevant as supporting evidence) JQ (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please Add

As a new user, I am not allowed to add these:

Harry Van Loon. University of Copenhagen, MIT, University of South Africa. Meteorologist in the South African Weather Bureau (forecasting and synoptic research); Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Research Scientist at Colorado Research Associates.

Source: http://www.houstonenergyanalyst.com/Global_Warming.html

“We are on our way out of the latest (warming) cycle, and are headed for a new cycle of low (solar) activity,” van Loon said. “There is a change coming. We may see 180-degree changes in anomalies during high and low sunspot periods. There were three global climate changes in the last century, there is a change coming now.”

Dr. Roland Madden, Senior Scientist (retired) Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

And the drivers impacting climate suggest a shift to cooler sea surface temperatures, he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todcom (talkcontribs) 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but http://www.houstonenergyanalyst.com/Global_Warming.html is not a reliable source, and is not particularly informative, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The source is simply quoting Harry Van Loon. How about this one:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/Media/interviews/vanloon.pdf
"Climate changes on all time scales. Because the change happens on our watch doesn’t necessarily mean we are responsible."
And that conflicts with the IPCC where exactly? Note "necessarily". BTW, the quote is on page 32 in the interview. The context makes him sound somewhat skeptical, but I don't think this is strong enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Believes Projections Inadequate

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is that link irrelevant to this article, but it is also rubbish! Deamon138 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
insightful and typical comment.204.181.50.132 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DELETE

This article is blatantly biased. I'm sorry but it only talks about scientists opposed to the consensus, yet there is no page that lists scientists that agree with the consensus. Besides, it is a ridiculous list anyway: I mean come on a Solid State Physicist? And his relevance to Global Warming is? Just because he's a scientist doesn't making him relevant, else we may as well let in any politician, economicist, person-in-unrelated-career etc into this article. If this article isn't deleted, I think a lot of this list needs to be purged. 86.142.13.81 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The results are in. The "consensus" was to KEEP the article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I for one am not ready to jump on the bandwagon questioning physicists as scientists. As a smart man once said, "Physicists defer only to mathematicians, and mathematicians defer only to God..." Tparameter (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi just to let you know that I accept the decision to keep the article (in case you didn't know I was the IP who wrote the above) as links from L0b0t and Celarnor have changed my view. Sorry guys I'm only a new-born! BTW Tparameter, I nor I think anyone involved in this discussion was suggesting that Physicists aren't Scientists. In fact that would be pretty hypocritical of me, since if I get my desired grades in the summer, I will be reading Physics at University from October. I was (and do still) have reservations about (for example) there being a Solid State Physicist on there, since they aren't exactly relevant to the existence of AGW or not. However, I like that quote you gave though, that's brilliant lol! Deamon138 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been lots of attempts, at gathering a consensus, for restricting the list to scientists in relevant diciplines, or at least with a relevant publication in the physical sciences, but unfortunately they have failed each time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought: would anyone who wants to remove physicists and other "non-related" scientists (I use scare quotes because I find the idea that physics isn't related to climate, especially climate modeling, laughable) want to remove the statements by those respective organizations (e.g. the American Institute of Physics) from Scientific opinion on climate change? If they're not relevant here, why are they relevant there? Oren0 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oren0, noone here or in the past have argued for removal of physicists(general), we are talking about a physicist(specific). Of course there are loads of physicists involved closely in climate sciences, who both publish and do research on topics that are either directly or indirectly relevant. But solid-state physics is neither. What people have asked for, and what apparently has come up again, is a request for a more tight definition of scientists that are relevant here. As suggested many times, this could be relevant publications, direct involvement in relevant research, degree in relevant discipline etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw. the above suggestion would not influence Douglass, since he in fact has published on climate science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, but drawing the line is an issue of original research and practicality. Is this physicist allowed but not this one? Is this publication related enough to climate? It's just a whole can of worms that we can't really open without creating all kinds of heartache for ourselves. Oren0 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oren0, its a question of relevance of opinion. An Ph.D. in biology with a specialty in sponge reproduction may have lots of opinions on particle physics, but that opinion is rather irrelevant because its not within his field of expertise. Its (imho) a question of due weight. I propose that we find a mutually consistent and objectively defined criteria for relevant scientists. The "one paper in physical sciences" one is too open, if we want a list of quality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A good example here would be Stephen Hawking. He's clearly a physicist and an extremely smart guy but I don't think he's particularly qualified to offer a scientific opinion on climate change (and he appears rather outspoken about it [24] & [25] even if not in opposition) Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. While interesting - Hawkins shouldn't be qualified, his expertise lies elsewhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. But then, where ought the line be drawn? Deamon138 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why hide the fact that only "notable" Scientists (as defined by Wikipedia) are allowed?

I have tried to put in the very pertinent fact that ONLY "notable" Scientists as defined by Wikipedia (and vetted by various controlling editors such as Stephan Schulz) are allowed in this article. However Stephan Shulz has already twice reverted my addition of this highly relevant fact that most dissenting scientists cannot be listed (see above section). Stephan can you explain your censorship of a fact which is embedded into the page itself as an instruction to editors (you can see it if you try to edit the article page)??

Wikipedia should be open about its censorship policies when it is so clearly controlling all pages on Global Warming. (anyone who doubts this should try to edit these pages - all edits which are against the so called "consensus view" are quickly reverted - check the history pages if you doubt this). Stephan, your censorship is blatant - why do you want to hide fact that you use the "notable" excuse to limit the mass of dissenting scientists from appearing on this page?? ~ Rameses (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFREF. Also see WP:V. If you have reliable sources establishing a scientist as opposing the global warming consensus, you also should have enough material showing that the scientist is notable. There is no censorship. There is a struggle to keep the global warming articles neutral and representing the overwhelming scientific consensus in the face of a political and public relations campaign misleading many well-intentioned, but not particularly science-savy people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Harry Van Loon seems notable to me[26]. — goethean 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite possibly. But does he oppose the IPCC position on global warming? The source I've seen for that is an interview of Von Storch et al[27], the relevant part of which, near the end, reads:
HvL: I remember an occasion when I was called by Reader’s Digest some years ago. They were going to have an issue on sun and climate. He asked me what do you think of anthropogenic global warming. I said, you know, if you had called me twenty years ago, you would’ve asked me what do you think of global cooling. He said yes, in those days I wrote a book called "The Cooling". So I said, "now you can write one called 'The Warming' and you will be just as right. Climate changes on all time scales. Because the change happens on our watch doesn’t necessarily mean we are responsible.
This is not a hardcore sceptic position (except, justified, of course, with respect to the ability of a Reader's Digest journalist to get a book about a scientific topic right). Note e.g. the "necessarily". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should be open about its censorship policies when it is so clearly controlling all pages on Global Warming." Erm, if by Wikipedia you mean "Editors of Wikipedia" then yes the editors of Wikipedia are controlling the Global Warming articles. In fact I hear that editors are controlling ALL the pages on Wikipedia. I mean I've had the audacity to edit Wikipedia hundreds of times. The nerve! "all edits which are against the so called "consensus view" are quickly reverted", well yes if something goes against consensus it clearly should be reverted, that's why it's called consensus. "why do you want to hide fact that you use the "notable" excuse to limit the mass of dissenting scientists from appearing on this page??" Firstly, there is no mass of dissenting scientists. Secondly, the reasons Stephan has given. Scientists listed on this page should be notable because if we added in any Joe scientist, then it might be the equivalent of listing myself as a source for knowledge on the culture of San Marino (note, I know next to nothing about San Marino other than it exists and it's approximate location, and that it's pretty small). "defined by Wikipedia (and vetted by various controlling editors such as Stephan Schulz)" yes I'm sure it's all just a conspiracy. Ever thought that sometimes one person can do something repeatedly because it is justified?
Oh and Stephan, I don't know anything about this Van Loon, but perhaps saying "Because the change happens on our watch doesn’t necessarily mean we are responsible." would go against the IPCC's second point in their assessment? Or were you hinting that the "necessarily" part means that he doesn't go against this point? Deamon138 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a weakly skeptical statement. Formally it's fully compatible with the IPCC TAR and AR4, but it probably is meant to indicate doubts. But without a clearer statement, I'd be careful to classify him. This is, after all, an informal interview, not a prepared and pre-planned declaration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That is fair enough. Deamon138 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Joellen Russel Home Page
  2. ^ Article: Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
  3. ^ E-mail sent to Ron Fournier of The Associated Press
  4. ^ Do people cause global warming? Heartland Institute Environment News December 2001
  5. ^ Is the Earth still recovering from the Little Ice Age? A possible cause of global warming Syun-Ichi Akasofu, 2008