The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I also intend to creation protect the article. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. This cross-categorization is described by many persuasive commenters below as non-encyclopedic per WP:LISTN. No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfDs for this article:
List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN criteria: although some advocacy groups have attempted to compile indiscriminate lists of everyone who has a degree and doubts global warming in any non-academic venue, these efforts aren't really taken seriously by high-quality reliable sources. More importantly: the article is congenitally WP:UNDUE because it gives an inflated impression of the amount of doubt among actual experts writing in actual academic venues. And it invites WP:SYNTH because the inclusion criteria are not based on any sensible reading of reliable sources. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CLN, lists and categories are complementary not exclusive and so we do not delete one to favour the other. Lists are better than categories for sensitive content like this because entries can be supported by citations which verify the classification. For example, consider category:Climate change skepticism and denial. This does not contain well-established sceptics such as Freeman Dyson. Instead, it contains disputed entries like Andrew Neil. That category is appalling as a list of BLPs because it doesn't qualify, explain or verify its entries. The list is better in this respect because each entry requires a supporting citation and they have been scrutinised and debated at length. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A hit list for activists?? Nonsense. That certain people claim (or have claimed) that GW/CC should be dismissed because certain other people – allegedly "scientists" – disagree, then it is reasonable that this claim be verifiable by seeing just who is alleged to disagree. As to "implied BLP dangers" – what would those be? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a valuable list to research dissenting voices. At least a great starting place. WP:NOTCLEANUP the list can be organized and improved. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all voices should be heard, and apparently 7 other AfDs had the same conclusion. You speak of organizing or discriminating based on profession. That is a content issue for the talk page, but not a reason to delete IMO. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inaccurate characterization. 3 of those previous AfDs did not come to the same conclusion, including the two most recent (they failed to come to a conclusion, which is not the same as concluding it should be kept). Agricolae (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is definitely not here to make sure "all voices" are heard.
If you're asking if we "discriminate" by emphasizing climatology from actual climatologists. Then yes. Wikipedia's guidelines make it very clear that we're supposed to do that. ApLundell (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a list of climatologists. I know the list offends you because of the word you used "cranks". The list is not about you or me, it is for our readers, and this easily passes NLIST Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I noticed. That's part of the reason it should be deleted. The title "Scientist" does not give someone any special authority with regards to climate change. I argue that it therefore fails NLIST, so far as NLIST advocates any policy at all, because it's a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization".
ApLundell (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lists which give the article notability allow any type of scientist, not just climate scientists. Wikipedia doing otherwise would be original research. And personally I think that is one aspect of things like the Oregon Petition that was right and which is also done in Scientific consensus on climate change. Working scientists are expected to be trained and to use the scientific method and be able to give a reasoned view on scientific matters as opposed to the general public. Anyway outside of Wikipedia think what use is quoting climate scientists in support of climate science when deniers have cast them as a clique of corrupt money grubbers out to destroy economic growth? Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a remarkable statement that I missed on first read through. If I understand this justification correctly, the list here is "basing its notability" on lists that are acknowledged to be problematic (e.g. Oregon Petition), but this list is being used to fix those problems by redoing that misguided work in a better manner. Is that about right? jps (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The justification is the notability of the topic as shown by reliable sources discussing the lists. We have to base the criteria on the lists but you'll see at WP:LISTN we're given a little leeway. And we're also required to give reliable sources justifying entries according to the sriteria. No that was just a digression about the non-policy based reasons for deleting given by many here, I was saying why I believe their ideas about deleting to counter denial are actually very counter productive. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming extremely problematic points such as (*) that sources such as the Oregon Petition are reliable for this purpose and (*) the groups being referred to are the same as those that are being delineated in this monstrosity. Neither of those points are ones with which I agree. jps (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no problems having Professor Mickey Mouse climbing aboard the climate alarmist bandwagon.[1]
- however if you are a person with high credentials in this field, who casts doubt on this theology - that climate change is largely our fault, due to our reckless energy consumption which produces CO2, you will (be called a crank on this page) and get blacklisted. Eohsloohcs (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/11000-scientists-including-professor-mickey-mouse-warn-of-climate-emergency/news-story/95501dffad5c64507874f47f15d8b50b
The article should improved, but not deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the value of this list is that it's an intentionally lousy list to shame the crackpots? ApLundell (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles that make mention of who exactly holds such opinions (or has in the past). E.g. Oregon Petition. Rather than Wikipedia keeping its own mish-mash fight of who is a) or b), let's report on how others decide how to make these sorts of misguided lists. jps (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That petition is the mish-mash but it is part of the basis for notability of the topic.
As to 'value'. I think the list has value - but is not Wikipedia's job to consider the value of topics, only their notability. On the same basis what is the value of the Oregon Petition? Or hundreds of Pokemon games? Notability is the basis for inclusion. Value to society should not be considered - that way lies censorship.Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is NOT an "intentionally lousy list", it is a particularization of the hand-wavy claim that "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" with the mainstream assessment. It provides a basis for our readers to see if there is any substance to this claim. If anyone ("crackpot" or not) feels shame for pushing this crappy claim, or for disagreeing against a tidal wave of evidence, hey, that's their choice.
The "Oregon Petition" does not support the claim that "LOTS of scientists disagree"; I am not aware of any other article that does. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentionally lousy as it intentionally and without apology abrogates an alphabet soup worth of WP:PAGs as documented on this page. I understand that you like the list as an object lesson, but that is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be for (see WP:OR). No article on Wikipedia should support the claim that "LOTS" of scientists disagree. I'm not sure why you invoked that straw man. jps (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Oregon Petition a rubbish list but this list is not a rubbish list? jps (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was self selected and not properly checked. We have an article about it Oregon petition, see what Scientific American found out in its little check in 2001. They checked 30 of the PhDs in climate science, only one was actually doing anything related and two thirds of them even in 2001 would retract their signature if they could. And in 2001 I would have still considered it reasonable for some people to be skeptical to about the extent of the effects. How is it good to put up something like that on Wikipedia and remove properly cited details and which can have entries removed if they change their minds? The reason it is on Wikipedia is because the topic is notable. Neither article should be deleted. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rubbishness you've described with respect to the Oregon Petition is the same rubbishness from which our list suffers save one: the people we include are done so on anonymous users' original research to determine (a) the person is a "scientist" and (b) the person disagrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. At least with the Oregon Petition, it isn't our fault that it is rubbish. jps (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a funny idea of what WP:OR is about. By your reasoning every single article in Wikipedia would be deleted because an editor chose what to write down. There is no particular research needed to find the people in the list - they become obvious and are listed as a characteristic in categories when writing about the scientists. They don't hide it or have to have something ferreted out, they proclaim what they say. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that comply with WP:LISTN can avoid WP:OR by pointing to reliable sources that support the existence of a discrete "group" and that define the inclusion/exclusion criteria for that group. This article doesn't have that kind of support because the only sources that try to assemble these sorts of list are fringe advocacy organizations. I'm sure I could compile a list of Italian sex criminals, Serial killers who were registered Democrats, or Pilots who think we faked the moon landing, but those sorts of groupings would be meaningless and would really only serve to push a POV. Nblund talk 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Produce reliable sources that talk about those lists you made up and that would be good evidence of their notability according to WP:LISTN. Just look at the sentence itemising the lists and you'll see reliable sources discussing them. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Those lists" - that is exactly the problem. The lists reliable sources talk about are different from the list we have.
  • Some crackpot compiles a list of "X that did Y", in order to "prove" that there is a connection between X and Y.
  • Reliable sources talk about that list, pointing out that they do not prove what they claim to.
  • Wikipedia editors compile another list of "X that did Y". This list contains different Xes, and it is a different list. If you believe in Platonic ideals, they both exemplify the same real thing, so somehow, one could argue that the reliable sources talk about the list the Wikipedian made. But in reality, they do not. The original crackpot and the Wikipedians have different criteria, and they have partly different goals. Therefore the sources that talk about the crackpot's list are not talking about the Wikipedia list, and they do not justify its existence.
This type of list is qualitatively different from List of mountains on Io, List of the kings of Epirus, List of intergovernmental organizations or even List of monuments damaged by conflict in the Middle East during the 21st century, because criteria for those lists have straightforward definitions. The people who work on those lists do not have to discuss "what exactly is a mountain", or "does this guy count as a king?" - professionals already decided that for them. But there are no professionals who define who belongs on a list like this.
List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, which someone mentioned below, is also pretty clear.
List of popes is based on sources which already (arbitrarily) decided who counts as a pope, as opposed to an antipope. No Wikipedians need to invent their own criteria, as they did for the scientists-who-disagree list. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has been said in the short time since I commented above. I've reviewed the points discussed below and find support for this list unpersuasive. The criteria for inclusion has not been significantly improved since the last discussion ~5 years ago. The shortcomings of this list are blatant and unaddressed. On the off-chance that someone is willing to put in a great deal of effort to start a new list with much stricter criteria I would also be ok with a fresh start in draft space. --mikeu talk 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the problem with this list - it is not a lists of "scientists of this type", it is a mishmash of all different types of scientists, with contradictory opinions, conflicting statements and differning expertise (from a lot to none whatsoever). Many of these 'scientists' are not 'mostly known for their stance on climate change' - for example, the list includes a biochemist and general curmudgeon who the last time he shot his mouth off became a poster-boy for the HIV/AIDS denialists. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you (and Alexbrn) have not read the previous comments, and/or don't understand the difference between 1) making a claim (that "LOTS of scientists disagree ..."), and 2) presenting the evidence that (allegedly!) supports the claim. Also, the Oregon Petition, with its 30,000+ signatories, is not "enough for finding" alleged scientists that disagree (distinct from those who claim some kind of association with science). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did read them. I just see no reason why we should "present the evidence". Wikipedia editors wrote this list. They decided it is a subject worth writing about. They decided what the criteria are for inclusion in it. They decided how to subcategorize it, with detailed descriptions of what people in the categories believe and what they do not believe. They could, with the same justification, have written another list, on another, slightly different subject, with other inclusion criteria and other subcategories. Now please go compare that to WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia editors wrote this list [etc.]": of course, who else writes any list/article on WP? And all those functions you cite are routine editorial functions, applicable to all lists. You seem to think that WP editors shouldn't assemble any kind of list ("original work") beyond copying the list from a source (which then runs into copyvio problems). This is an incorrect view of WP:OR. WP:OR prohibits "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" – where do you see that? WP:OR prohibits any material that is not "attributable to a reliable, published source". Can you point to (or better yet, tag) any such material here?
For all the "OR-waving" going on here I have yet to see anyone point to specific instances of WP:OR. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an argument that assembling a list is routine and not original. I don't buy it. What is "new analysis" is the connection between (a) credentials of a scientist and (b) denial of a particular conceptualization of the scientific consensus on global warming. This requires leaps of interpretation to do and is best left to the production by competent experts who can have their assemblage vetted by third parties. What we should not be doing here at Wikipedia is inventing such lists. That's where WP:OR comes in. Not every list that can be made deserves a Wikipedia page. We should be stubbornly and outrageously conservative when it comes to such work. It's straightforward to list the countries of the world. It is not straightforward to cobble this particular list together. This is why I recommended elsewhere that you take on this activity in another venue. Oh, and what you seem to be overlooking is the important WP:SYNTH part of WP:OR. I would turn your question around. What source do we have which indicates that anyone else has ever assembled a list like this anywhere? jps (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about this source: Heartland's 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
See also McCright and Dunlap 2000 ("Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem", available here), who review a number of "lists of skeptics". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heartland's list? Really? That's the reliable source you think we are basing our list on? I think you must be joking here. Crucially, McCright and Dunlap do not argue in favor the criteria we specify for lists. jps (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete - Tentative, because I do see some merit in the list but I share the concern that people will be added to this list based on weak evidence (e.g. statements they ma have made years or decades ago). If we do keep this article, it will have to be rigorously patrolled and the WP:RS policy will need to be scrutinized to ensure that the sourcing is timely and that the statements being attributed are not later contradicted by later statements by the same person. A better approach IMHO would be to specifically single out scientists who have gone on record as disagreeing with AGW consensus. Omanlured (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason

Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising AfDs (neutrally) on relevant noticeboards is a good thing. The last AfD on this article was in 2013. Things have moved on since then. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn is the 5th most active poster on that noticeboard. ජපස (jps) is the most active. Notice how they both rush here so quickly. Andrew D. (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a "watchlist". (We also have a special alerting service[1] - recommended!) Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson seems to be implying that something improper has happened here, I'd like him to spell his accusation out clearly, please. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of thing are you referring to by 'things have moved on'? Things like we have the unsocial media nowadays and universities stop people talking whose views offend a lot of students? Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, NPOV and sourcing standards are taken more seriously. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give an example where you think that is in the least relevant to this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about a smarter, more conscientious community than any particular article. As an example I offer myself: a rather more conscientious and WP:PAG-savvy editor than I was in 2013! Remember the concept of WP:CCC is enshrined in policy. The impending deletion of this daft article is further evidence of this "C" change. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds to me to be pretty much exactly what I was saying but you denied. Content by consensus rather than notability. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I "denied" nothing. The mighty tide of consensus (i.e. general agreement based on the WP:PAGs) is the fundamental basis for the working of Wikipedia. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on the other hand, is a bad thing – and apparently what has led to the persistence of this article. With fresh outside eyes on it we can clean this mess up to the advantage of our Project. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD closed as "no consensus" six years ago. It's time we revisit this question. We are not bound to the mistakes of the past either. This is a wiki, after all. jps (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Moreover, the closing admin's comment in 2013 concluded by saying that the no-consensus result does not preclude future deletion nominations if the serious concerns about the structure and content of this article, including some of those mentioned above, are not addressed to the satisfaction of most editors. The tenor of the policy-informed opinions in the annual discussions about deleting this list seems to trend towards deletion, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to keep the article to seriously engage with, rather than to simply dismiss, these concerns. I would argue that, six years later, these concerns about structure and content have not been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Fringe Theories Noticeboard, and as usual with FTN no notice was given here but the usual crowd piled in :-( Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Dmcq seems to not like the fact that we try to keep WP:FRINGE enforced at this encyclopedia. Poor baby probably should be topic banned. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs)
ජපස . . . whatever your name is, an uncalled for cheap shot in my opinion. You should bother to look at the recent talk page under "editorializing." DMCQ and I had a long back and forth about statements the I believed unduly bolstered the position of those advocating climate change. His rationale for keeping the statements was that the counter point of view was fringe and should not be given undue weight. Now, I disagree with the conclusion that the opinions of the 80 scientists on the list are fringe (in fact, usually I find that its the theories that warn that the earth is coming to an end that are the ones properly characterized as "fringe.") Nevertheless, I respect his logic for enforcing the fringe rules, even if I disagree with his conclusion. Kolg8 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely agree with Kolg8, but in this I fully concur: that was an uncalled for cheap shot. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's not a cheap shot to insinuate bad behavior when usual crowd piled in :-(, eh keepers? Clutching your pearls over my rejoinder seems cheaply opposed to the rationale of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio at least. I don't think DMCQ is worse for the wear. jps (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed any such insinuation. But perhaps I lack your refined sensibilities. And if on that account you're worse for wear perhaps you shouldn't be in the pool. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Trayvon Martin because it could be used by those with a racist agenda. Lists like these cut both ways; it's kinda like how list of female scientists in the 20th century cuts both ways because if people are reading it and thinking, "Hmm, I only recognize one or two people out of this list," it calls into question whether the group in question really includes a lot of top-tier talent in the field; and if not, well, people can draw their own conclusions. The information itself is unbiased. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what you're missing here is that the list suffers from WP:PROFRINGE. There is a "KEEP!KEEP!KEEP!" !vote below that may indicate that. In that way, this situation is different from the ones you are comparing it to. jps (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deniers (cranks or otherwise) often claim there are "LOTS of scientists who disagree", but rarely show the details. We present this list not to support the claim, but to show how deficient those details are. To borrow an earlier comment: this is not so much a lousy list, as it is a list showing how lousy is this claim of "LOTs of scientists...." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's because of where you're hanging out, or what, but as much as I appreciate your aim of hoping to show people how deficient certain details are in faulty arguments, Wikipedia is WP:NOT meant to be used for that purpose. Such work is entirely original research of the synthetic kind. It has always been as such and I have yet to see any argument for why this is not the case. I would heartily endorse you keeping such a list at your own private website. If it became notable enough, maybe we could write a Wikipedia article on it. But Wikipedia is not the place to make such a list. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! That says it all, doesn't it? Wikipedia is meant to be intellectually lazy. jps (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kolg8 has inadvertently helpfully demonstrated that this article is indeed being used to serve an agenda. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Kolg8 read the many comments made by the delete !voters and (summarizing the comments) came to the conclusion that many want this deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or I do not agree with it. There are now 9 attempts to scrub these contrary opinions which Kolg8 has pointed out, meet WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSs. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Kolg8 and Lightburst on this. The topic is notable and the article has been well cited. I am against Wikipedia becoming a social bubble. Reliability is a core aim in the very first line of WP:POLICY. The Fringe Theory noticeboard people harm the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopaedia when they delete notable I don't like stuff rather than just ensuring it is written and cited it in a neutral fashion. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note : Kolg8 is a bit of an WP:SPA. 90% of their edits are edits to or comments about this list. (All but one of the remainder are to Peter Ridd, who is a candidate for the list.) ApLundell (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ApLundell, what you say is true. 90% of my edits are to this article. Now . . . any chance you want to address the points I made above? For the record, questioning someone's motives while ignoring their argument is another example of intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your cherry-picking of IPCC esoterica is irrelevant to the question of whether this article should exist or not. Finding scientists, many of them in fields that are not climate science, who meet an arbitrary criterion is WP:SYNTH. jps correctly identified a problem with your argument that has nothing to do with your editing record. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of arbitrary criteria, why does this page use IPCC3 as the sole representation of scientific consensus on climate change, such that disagreement with it is the criterion for inclusion on this page, rather than IPCC4 or IPCC5? Kolg8 says that the differences of IPCC5 with IPCC3 show this page is more relevant than ever. I say that the fact that there is an IPCC5 report means that maintaining a listing of those deemed to have once disagreed with IPCC3 is of less relevance than it ever was. At a minimum, shouldn't it be "List of scientists who disagreed with the 2001 scientific consensus on global warming"? Agricolae (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, yes, that too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely one of the complaints I have about this list: statements of denial (or merely points of criticism) are strongly time-dependent (AR-dependent) as the evidence for GW/CC matured, so they really should be dated. But that is about improving the article, not a reason for deleting it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After the last rounds of no consensus for deletion, I tried for years (go ahead, sift through the archives) in good faith to try to fix the problems with this list to no avail. I have come to the conclusion it is unfixable. The design of the list is intentionally to abrogate many of the most straightforward rules of this website. jps (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • High risk for exposing readers to a view you disagree with? That is silly and not the purpose of salt. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the list of people responsible for your so called "fringe theories advanced for religious purposes," shall we?
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;
Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;
Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;
Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);
Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;
Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;
Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;
Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.
I mean, all you needed to do was click on the article and skim through it. But instead, you push the narrative that they're all quacks. By the way, if you feel comfortable dismissing them out of hand, how many Nobel Prizes have you won? Kolg8 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the list spreads FUD with the UNDUE idea that it is a big deal that there are a small number of reputable scientists who have expressed doubts about global warming. What reliable secondary source says that the views of some contrarians exposes significant doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change? Articles should not mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize — I think you mean Ivar Giaever, who won the physics prize, and who is dead, and when he was alive was trivially wrong. (And I may or may not have a Nobel Prize in my back pocket, but Brian Schmidt certainly does. What does he have to say on the subject? Gee, I wonder.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies to Dr. Giaever, first for misspelling his name, and second for stating that he won the Nobel Peace Price when it was actually the Nobel Prize for Physics (which is more relevant to the issues at hand, it would seem). For what it's worth, you may owe him a bigger apology. According to the wikipedia page you cite, he's not dead yet. Kolg8 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Johnuniq, after I cited 9 exceptional scientists, you concede their status but argue that the article improperly infers "significant doubt[s]" due to the opinions of only a few reputable scientists. You shouldn't forget that one of the requirements for inclusion in the list is that the scientist has their own wikipedia page to establish notability. There are many reputable scientists that do not have a wikipedia page. To illustrate, I went to MIT's website, to the page on the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (Lindzen's department). I searched for the first 10 (alphabetically) on google, and could only find a wikipedia page for 3. Would we say those only those three are "reputable?" No, if your professor at MIT, you're a scientific rock star, wikipedia page or no wikipedia page. Kolg8 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list linked here appears to be a copy of this Wikipedia page. The author didn't even bother to change the citation links. Nblund talk 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and the fact this cranky blog has got editors here thinkings it is a "non-partisan and non-biased source" is probably further reason why this article should be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. But, a list of deniers and some sort of categorization of their positions is within what Wikipedia already does. We have an article describing denier positions, and articles about deniers that describe their positions, putting the two together is not odious. If anything it is an opportunity since notable Fringe topics require a non-Fringe perspective. -- GreenC 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
putting the two together is not odious -- but it is WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review for a rigourous discussion of the complications and problems in defining and applying labels to opionions. "Despite recognizing that categories are a ‘fundamental device by which all members of any society constitute their social order’,115 we suggest that each attempt to label climate opinions produced thus far has been unable to accurately portray the complexity that exists, resulting in a mixture of labels which are used interchangeably and confusingly in academia, policy,the media, and across other networks." This list suffers from many of the criticisms described there. --mikeu talk 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC and I have disagreed a lot in the last two years, but (thanks in part to my having seen him engage in serious critical analysis of sources back in 2012) I never questioned his competence as an editor until I saw the above claim that electroverse.net is a "non-partisan and non-biased source". Not only is the page itself clearly partisan in its rhetoric, but the whole point of the website is pushing the view that climate is actually getting colder, not warmer -- just skim all their titles going back to July like I just did to see what I mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. is actually what I said. Apparantly you, too, can make a mistake. -- GreenC 15:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a long history of making mistakes, admitting to them, and either moving on or actually doing the heavy lifting to clean up whatever damage may have been caused, most recently four days ago. It is only editors trying to push an agenda who insist that I am never willing to admit that I am wrong. (I recall back in 2015 a number of editors repeatedly insisted that I had been proven wrong on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa and related discussions but that I refused to admit it because I have some psychopathic obsession with my own intellectual perfection and never making a single mistake.) That being said, I don't think it's a mistake in this case to read your initial, still-unstricken !vote, which was based on there supposedly being in existence impartial sources that agree with Wikipedia's article on this point, which still now is reliant on the blog in question, and not to reinterpret it in light of something you said you should have done later. You wrote the above well over two days ago, and still have neither carried out said striking of the source (and perhaps replacing it with I haven't been able to find any such sources, but I assume they are out there??) nor stricken your !vote itself which was based on the said source. I can understand that you have now changed your position to the (IMO weaker) one that since we have articles on climate change deniers it is maybe within our scope to have a list of them, but it still clouds the discussion to do so as you have done; if it were me (and if you really want an example I'll dig one up for you, but elsewhere, on my own time) I would strike all but the word "keep" and add "See revised rationale below." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but there was one well-known instance of the converse, where an astronomer was regularly quoted for his contrarian opinion on the authenticity of an early bird(ish) fossil, particularly by the Answers in Genesis crowd. But then that is exactly the point, isn't it? It is all rather POINTy (and pointless) to collect the opinions of those with no expertise. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't intend it this way, but what you are arguing for, 'there has to be a page that gives a different viewpoint than all of the other pages on the topic', is pretty much the exact description of a POV WP:CONTENTFORK, and "[a]ll POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia,. . . ." Nonetheless, this list isn't up for deletion because of the topic, per se. It is unencyclopedic because it is taking a diverse group of scientists with a range of expertise and a plethora of individual positions and lumping them into arbitrary and artificial editor-defined categories that do not do justice to their nuanced views, and is failing to take the dynamic nature of scientific conclusions into account by using dated quotes and comparing them to a document written almost 20 years ago under the guise of reflecting the current scientific consensus. 'Fix the page, don't delete it' some would say, but it is virtually impossible to present the material this diverse in a manner that is not inherently arbitrary, misleading and pointy. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions about what the science is may change, but real scientific conclusion does not change. One of the core aspects of the scientific method is that all conclusions are provisional, subject to reevaluation as new data come to light. Such novel findings often provide no change of thought, but can result in everything from minor tweaks to Saul-to-Paul shifts in perspective. That is exactly why comparing a one-time statement from 15 years ago to a 20-year old document that has been rendered obsolete by two subsequent such documents provides little value. It is comparing what a scientist once thought to what used to be the consensus.
WP:CONTENTFORK and its statements on POV are policy, not a red herring. If there are multiple noteworthy viewpoints they are to be represented across the articles on a subject, not in a ghetto or walled garden, nor do we collect lists of people who themselves have a range of different views as a catchall for the one thing they have in common, that they have said something critical of a 20-year-old report we don't like, because we personally feel the data . . . are being used to convince policy makers that there is a moral imperative to drastically change our economies. If we're going to take such action, I want something to be tested and scrutinized (not just a lot of arm waiving and table thumping). One's personal predilections about global climate policy are not really relevant to whether this page conforms with Wikipedia policy on lists. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I see no reason to support science deniers, but whether it supports your views or not or makes you happy or sad is not a reason for keeping or deleting. The notability criteria are cited and it follows the policies and provides reliable information to people visiting Wikipedia and that's quite enough for my keep !vote without all the waffle and digression. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolate, I would be delighted if the scientific method could somehow work its way into the Climate Change debate. From my point of view, a theory based on proxy data and unproven assumptions to make temperature projections that can't be tested for 110 years is in desperate need of the scientific method. But for the record, there's another word for a "provisional conclusion." It's called a hypothesis. And a hypothesis isn't a fact, even if there is a supposed consensus believing in it, unless and until it is proven. Kolg8 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All conclusions in science are provisional in this manner, and nothing can be proven to the point that it is not subject to future revision. Thus, as you define it, there are no facts. Well done. Again, how does this expedition into the philosophy of reality bear on Wikipedia's policies regarding lists? It seems like your rationale is more a demand for a WP:SOAPBOX than an argument for the soundness of this particular list. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Total nonsense. But more to the point, this discussion is NOT about any theories, hypotheses, or unequivocal truths, it is about whether this list should be kept, or deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
103.14.71.235's little rant contributes so little to this discussion I am in favor of striking it, even at the loss of a "Keep". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability, see WP:LISTN. The big difference is that Wikipedia requires the scientists be notable as in Wikipedia. Plus cites are given to sources saying they disagree and what they have said. So they are not inflated by people saying they are scientists but never having used their university degree or even worse by names of people who don't disagree or Micky Mouse names. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability — no, they don't. The bullet-point criteria for being included in this list are not those used by the references on which the list nominally relies. They are also rigged to make the list as big as possible, by putting equal emphasis on disputing details of projections as on the fundamental facts. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's talking about that a scientist might change their mind. And of course one might just at this moment you read this, or the next person reads this. The scientists on the list in general seem very happy to have their views expounded, there's no real BLP problem. And they don't actually seem to change their minds much as far as disagreeing with the consensus is concerned - but quite often they change the grounds they do it on. And if they do change their minds they make this obvious too and generally there's enough people interested in the topic to take note. This can however be a problem in some other articles where the topic starts fading in current notability. Dmcq (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this thought exercise, I imagine such a page would include, along with those actual having poor cognitive ability, also those who demonstrate occasional lapses of common sense, those who are well-educated but have critical gaps in their knowledge, who demonstrate early symptoms of age-related dementia, too ossified in their ideas to keep up with the current data, too arrogant to admit they might ever be wrong, intelligent but lacking in critical reasoning, or who simply feel a need to demonstrate their independent thought by denying some general consensus, or simply, who just 'play the fool' for attention. In other words, the same problem as with the list under discussion, a false-grouping of diverse people generated to make a point. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest before starting on a list of idiot scientists you try and find sources for notability of the list? Have there been notable lists of them? Are the lists talked about in reliable sources? If you can show good notability then I would support the creation of such a list. Also perhaps you can start something on the NPOV talk page about things that are 'inherently' POV and therefore should not be allowed on Wikipedia as currently I see nothing there about that. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your thought exercise, would Barry Marshall [[1]] have been included in the list of idiot scientists? Here's what was said about him before he became a Nobel Laureate.
"His work was unconventional, not to say heretical, and in 1986, he was invited to discuss it at a gastroenterology conference in the United States. His wife came along and, while doing some sightseeing, overheard a conversation among some other gastroenterologists’ wives who happened to be sitting in front of her on a bus. “They were talking about this terrible person that they imported from Australia to speak,” Marshall told me. “You know: ‘How could they put such rubbish in the conference?’"[2] unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
  2. ^ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/09/stress-doesn-t-cause-ulcers-or-how-to-win-a-nobel-prize-in-one-easy-lesson-barry-marshall-on-being-right.html
If such a list was notable with multiple reliable sources supporting WP:LISTN and people described him as a crackpot in reliable sources and he espoused views that he acknowledged were crackpot by the mainstream then at the time I would certainly support his inclusion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it follows reliable sources - it does not lead. However being a crackpot does not ensure you are right - there's an awfully large number of scientists who were acknowled to be right in a timely fashion comppared to those who were for years thought to be crackpots. In fact I wonder if there are notable sources for a list of scientists who were thought to be crackpots but later vindicated. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes WP:CLUE cannot be legislated. This list is as inherently POV (and for similar reasons) as a List of Jewish murderers would be (in fact ISTR we had trouble with attempts to create lists like that a while ago). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was there notable lists of jewish murderers being talked about in multiple reliable sources? If so I woud have thought there would be some thought put into the policies for dealing with a problem like that and I'd like to see how the problem was resolved. If the arguments there were relevant to this then fine, use them. If not then this is heading towards Reductio ad Hitlerum. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Some searching later) Aha - it was in fact List of convicted Jewish criminals. It was deleted and salted for potential BLP problems and as a "POV magnet". The case parallels this one! Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a current List of Jewish American mobsters. It seems well cited for notability. Do you think an AfD should be raised on it? I shall try and find the reasons given for the deletion of the list you gave. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems List of convicted Jewish criminals had no notability and was pure OR so not really relevant here. The main reason for delete was that it was WP:Attack page, which doesn't apply here as the people concerned are happy to be identified with their views. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, List of Wikipedians who are idiots is easier to compile. "Scientist" typically requires an academic degree. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the topic have notability in reliable sources? See WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if anybody was still in any doubt that this page is a POV-Magnet, this contribution says much ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might feel maligned if the description was applied to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the scientists in the list feel maligned - quite he opposite. The list criteria are based on the citations in references 13,14 and 15 of the list, these provide the notabiity to satisfy WP:LISTN, and they say scientists and allow scientists besides climate scientists. Which is exactly what is also done for scientific institutes in Scientific consensus on climate change and I beieve quite rightly too. As to you beliefs about the effects of this article in the wider world, that is irrelevant to Wikipedia but personally I think you are wrong and I also think deleting notable topics on that basis damages Wikipedia's reputation for reliable unbiased information. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity: references 13, 14, and 15 are: James Inhofe's Senate list, the Oregon Petition, and the Heartland Institute list. All three are produced by outfits with a clear vested interest in pushing climate denial with an established record of bullshit. None of them could plausibly be considered reliable sources for the purposes of WP:LISTN. Grouping zoologists and botanists alongside serious climate scientists makes no sense for anyone with any actual interest in understanding climate science. Nblund talk 01:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very notable bullshit as they are discussed in multiple reliable sources and so satisfy WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not confer reliability on bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Reliable sources can describe bullshit and make a topic notable. Trump and Putin and many other politicians bullshit all the time, that doesn't make what they say an unfit subject for Wikipedia - multiple reliable sources discuss what they say. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how we keep hearing about these "reliable sources" that consider such a list as this, but nobody has actually been able to produce one (though instead we have been given some glimpses into some murky corners of the climate denial crankosphere). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You only have to go to the next sentence to see three reference to reliable sources talking about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The reliable source count is zero. You can point to none. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Source count is greater than zero. Proof by demonstration: 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia (except for one maybe attesting to the existence of the Heartland Institute)? jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better policy based reason than 'Nope' is needed for dismissing the references 16,17 and 18 - [2], [3], and [4]. Why exactly are they not reliable sources talking about the lists? Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're waving at sources. But, checking them, there is zero RS that discussed lists such this article makes. You cannot provide even one. If I'm wrong you may easily disprove it by providing your very best source. Just one. I won't hold my breath ...Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The provide the basis for notability as described in WP:LISTN, they make the topic notable. As it says there
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
The reliable sources discuss lists of scientists who disagree with the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Actually, I'm not. That very notable bullshit is very notable does not mean it ceases to be bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use reliable in that way when WP:Reliable sources is what could be relevant here. If by not reliable you mean it comes under WP:FRINGE, fine I agree with that, - but that guideline does not say that being fringe is a reason for deletion. In fact it says "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I shouldn't refer to reliability because a policy on reliability might apply - I thought that was why I was referring to reliability. And I don't know where the 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' strawman is coming from, but it isn't helpful. A bad source is a bad source, a bad list is a bad list - they are related but independent conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources in the list ahowing notability are references 16,17 and 18 listed above which discuss the lists in references 13, 14 and 15. I don't know why you stuck 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' in, it doesn't occur anywhere in the AfD. Perhaps you misread the quote from WP:FRINGE? I put in the WP:FRINGE bit as I thought you were using bullshit and not reliable as synonyms - not that you hadn't read the next sentence in the artice or what's above. Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a disconnect here between people who think denialist literature can be used as a justification for this list and those who think that's outrageous (I'm in the latter camp). What I fail to understand is the arguments of the most vociferous who seem to argue out of both sides of their mouth: (1) that the existence of denialist "lists" confers notability on this Wikipedia list and (2) we can do better by using other sources other than these lists. I find this argument dizzying and it is the basis for my claim that the list is WP:OR. That's, I believe, the main problem I have with the keep rationale. jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The justification is all the reliable sources talking about the lists, that is what makes such a list a notable topic. Please read the first paragraph at WP:LISTN. The criteria should be based on the lists but the lists themselves do not dictate the contents of a list article on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem, however. If a source talks about lists but then we change the content of the list, the source is no longer talking about the list. Ship of Theseus notwithstanding. jps (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/11/ten-years-after-climategate/
  • You'd be much better off trying to be a little less prolix. In general I think the longer the argument the further away from a policy based reason it is. The only only good reason for anything longer is explicit examples dempnstrating one's policy of guideline point. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be less prolix (had to look that one up). Arguments that the opinions of the scientists on the page are too disparate to be included in a single article are wrong, because they all disagree with the third conclusion of IPCC 3. El Duderino . . . if you're not into the whole brevity thing. Kolg8 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Great, so we have List of scientists, many of whom lack relevant expertise, who have ever disagreed in some manner with the third tenet of a superseded almost-20-year-old report on climate change. Yeah, that's a worthy article. "I was really hoping that people would just stop commenting and we could keep the page, since its clear there is not a consensus to delete it." I know it is not a vote, but someone on the down-side of a 2-to-1 expressed preference against their desired outcome has every self-interested reason to declare it to be a clear draw. How about we leave it to the closer to decide where consensus lies. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a much better title for the article! Let's rename it, then rename it again every few years to stay current: "more than 20-year-old report", "almost 30-year-old report" and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list is what you get when you try to pretend that science is static, and decide that disagreement with some report remains noteworthy after that report is obsolete. My title simply accurately describes a list that is too specific to be notable, but is made to appear notable by pretending its selection criteria aren't disqualifyingly specific in some senses and disqualifyingly vague in others to serve as a proxy for opinion on the overarching issue. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Restricting the list only living people is a bit of problem in that some of the most notable "skeptics" have died. This leads into a key distinction (which I don't recall having been made): is the intent to list current "skeptics"? Or take a more historical view? I think we should specify dates of stated "skepticism", most recent relevant statements, retirement, and death. Also which Assessment Review they disagree with, or was current when they disagreed. Sure, some folks here will wail about synthesis, but the additional information does not reach a conclusion not supported by any source, it simply adds more information so the reader can determine the currency of a person's views.
You're right, it should be a better list. Which is not attained by deletion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: The issue with including people have since passed away is that they aren't able to change their minds about the subject, and the science is always changing (just like not in the way "skeptics" say it). If this was merely a list that of people who don't accept the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report... well that is pretty static and uninteresting. It also would group up any hypothetical individuals who think the climate models used by IPCC weren't aggressive enough with the people who think it's a conspiracy invented by China. The only way this list works, to me, is with a strict inclusion criteria and a dynamic format.
Readers would be served as much background as we can provide to the extent a WP:RS reports it. Synthesis, based off my understanding, occurs not when we have Fact A from source A followed by Face B from source B; it occurs when we use sources A & B to make Fact C. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say "An argument could be made for all" of these points. But could you actually list the specific content which violates WP:OR? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Gish gallop to me. No actual argument except lots of WP:TLAs. It is supposed to be up to the people quoting one of those policies and guidelines to give a short explanation of its particular application, not for people to try and figure out the grounds for objection and then expect for some other pure TLA objection to come along for them to again puzzle over. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no evidence of notability of your list. Can you point to reliable sources discussing lists of individuals against the Paris Climate Accord? See WP:LISTN. You need to start from sources which give the criteria and show the topic is notable before embarking on making a list like that in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmcq: Are you serious? My version totally meets LISTN, and I don't appreciate being spoken down to like that. I included two different peer-reviewed studies in the Further reading section and the completed entries were sourced and verified from four separately reliable editorial outfits (of which two were primarily focused on the topic as a group). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find the sandbox version wholly inadequate. It includes only space for people that were in favor of pulling out of the Paris accord, which should include people wishing to do so for political reasons without considering the science. And it includes space for those disagreeing with the Hockey Stick graph, but there is already a far better article on that in Wikipedia. However, it fails to do what this article does: it provides space for notable scientists who believe they have a scientific basis to argue against the "climate change consensus." And the inconvenient truth is that there are 80 or so scientists, including Nobel Laureates, members of the National Academy of Sciences, professors at prestigious universities and actual authors of IPCC reports, who meet that criteria.Kolg8 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolg8: It's an early and incomplete draft article I made in less than an hour. It's rather incomplete, but even still my preferred method of organization is to subdivide the list based off individual actions taken by the scientists. I also don't think the list is as extensive as you make it out to be. My bar to entry is higher than most in that I am only interested in scientists who do not believe in the current consensus that man-made carbon emissions are the cause for climate change. You made a nice pun though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Boykoff, Maxwell (2009). "Ch. 39: Carbonundrums: The Role of the Media: Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians". In Schneider, Stephen H.; Rosencranz, Armin; Mastrandrea, Michael D.; et al. (eds.). Climate change science and policy. Island Press. p. 401. ISBN 978-1-59726-567-6.
  2. Fleming, James Rodger (2005). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518973-5.
  3. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). "The Denial of Global Warming". Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury. pp. 169–215. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.
  4. Solomon, Lawrence (2010). The Deniers. Richard Vigilante Books. ISBN 978-0-9800763-7-0.
  5. Powell, James Lawrence (2011). "The Scientist Deniers". The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6.
  6. Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists". In Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosber, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0.
  • All of your argument would be a good rational for keeping the general article on the concept of climate change denial. It does not, however, present any rational for keeping around a random list of names of people who ascribe to it. --Jayron32 12:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is clearly not random. All the entries are notable people and their inclusion is backed up a clear rationale and sourcing which has been extensively detailed and debated by numerous editors – the talk page has 39 pages of archive. Consider, for example, the first entry – Garth Paltridge. He is a respectable scientist and has published a book specifically about climate change and the extent to which there is or isn't a credible consensus. Notice that his page is not in a relevant category and, even if it were, there would be no in-line citation supporting it as there's no facility for this. It's the category system which is semi-random, unverified junk. The list is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing at policies without evidence or examples is just an empty assertion per WP:VAGUEWAVE. I've produced plenty of evidence above such as a stack of books from multiple university presses. These demonstrate that it is possible to write at length about the topic. Any remaining issues are therefore just a matter of ordinary editing per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Showing a stack of books from multiple university presses may demonstrate that it is possible to write at length about the topic, but it doesn't at all imply that this actual list is in compliance with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. It's not that there are a few remaining issues, it's that the basic premise is flawed: gathering together a miscellany of individuals based on a criterion invented for the list itself is, at root, not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite, otherwise we'd be open to List of physicians who question vaccine safety, List of historians who question mainstream accounts of the Holocaust, etc. It's mind-blowing that this is the only "List of scientists ..." article that Wikipedia carries. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slippery slope is a logic fallacy, no one is proposing those. For list criteria, absolutely this is what we do as editors, every list has criteria for inclusion, often invented by Wikipedia editors for practical reasons, contrary to popular believe there is a great deal of editorial descision making on Wikipedia but that doesn't make it OR. The topic has to be supportable in reliable sources and this has been done in Andrew's sources which demonstrate reliable sources often list notable deniers. -- GreenC 15:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, and in this case we have Climate change denial. What we don't have is my imagined list articles based (like this) one ingeniously constructed sets of criteria which are peculiar only to the handful of Wikipedia editors presiding over the list. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Climate change skepticism and denial exists, which is sufficient as well; we don't need a stand alone article to duplicate the effort there. --Jayron32 16:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN explains that "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other ... the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists" In this case, because the material is sensitive, lists are better than categories because the entries can be explained, qualified and verified with in-line citations, as is done in this case. I can see no benefit in using categories exclusively and the nay-sayers do not provide any rationale for doing so. If you inspect the talk page for the equivalent category, you can see how poorly maintained it is. There's hardly any discussion and it seems to be quite half-baked. It appears that no effort has been put into the category while the list has had 761 editors since it was created 14 years ago and its talk page has had 711 editors too. The list is where all the effort has gone while the category has been comparatively neglected. Andrew D. (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You specifically brought up the category angle, not me. If you did not want to make it a focus of your defense of this article, you maybe should've not done that. Instead, what you should have done is probably nothing at all (advice I am going to take myself at the conclusion of this paragraph, and probably should have taken before I started writing it, but could not, because at my core I'm an asshole) because you've already made your point, and repeating the same arguments over and over again does not add to the consensus nor does it give the admins any help in interpreting the consensus of the discussion. --Jayron32 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section of indents relates to my !vote and so it is appropriate for me to respond to points and challenges which are made to it. I have rebutted the objections made and so need to make it clear that my !vote stands. If one doesn't do this, I find that closers sometimes suppose that the objections are accepted – see here for a fresh example. So, let's be quite clear about the status of my !vote. I have presented good evidence and policy-based argument and have rebutted the various counter-arguments. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would never dream of attempting to get you to change it. --Jayron32 18:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category