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 No consensus to delete, with a recommendation to merge onto Fred Singer or Heartland Institute≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There is no clear evidence that this organisation exists, other than as a PR exercise by Fred Singer. It is also non- or barely- notable. No reliable information exists about the "panel". Essentially, this is about Singer, and the content should go onto his page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fred Singer and redirect: I agree that this doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own page. It's not as if Singer's article is so big that we need to split this out. Oren0 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreee with aboveRankun (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a merge is the way to go, perhaps it would be more relevant to the SEPP article rather than to Fred Singer. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope you will reconsider your vote. The article is much different now than when you first voted. This is not the work of one man. Fred Singer is the General Editor, but there are 22 other co-authors, many of them scientists notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. The report issued by the NIPCC has been praised by Marie Sanderson, a climatologist in Canada for 22 years. RonCram (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a barely notable cheap trick to confuse people about who is speaking, the "NIPCC" or the "IPCC". --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (from the talk page):
  • Washington Post [1]
  • UPI [2]
  • National Post [3]
  • National Post II (added by Lumidek) [4]
  • World Net Daily [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024]
  • John Tierney New York Times blog [5]
  • Wall Street Journal blog [6]
  • Business Media Institute [7]
  • Thomas Sowell [8]
  • The Register (added by Lumidek) [9]
  • eFluxMedia (added by Lumidek) [10]

If this doesn't demonstration notability I don't know what will. Mønobi 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Climate change denial Raul654 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it go to denial rather than Singer's page or global warming controversy? In order to put it at denial you'd need to demonstrate bad faith. Oren0 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data. While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, 'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby - Climate change denial. Let's see - disinformation? Check. Vested financial interest in the outcome? Check. Ties to the oil industry? Check (for all 3 - Singer, Michaels, and Monckton) I think that more than covers it. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is grist.org? We'd need reliable sources that say there's bad faith/denial to qualify. I don't think the "grist.org blog" qualifies. Realizing of course that this is a WP:BLP situation so we have to be extra careful. Oren0 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine—including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon—met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. - Newsweek, 2007 He's a denier, and this article should properly be redirected to global warming denial. See also the CBC documentary 'The Denial Machine, which focuses on Singer at length. Here are the clips of him on Youtube. This more than sufficiently establishes that he he been publicly exposed as a denier - a peddler of disinformation - in reliable sources. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm a little confused how an article about happenings in 1998 can label the NIPCC a denier group when it didn't exist until 2008. The redirect should go to Singer, and your attempt to send it to the denial page is a smear campaign and nothing more. Oren0 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's see - first you say they are not a denier group. Then I show that they meet all of the criteria defined by our 'global warming denial' article. Then you say we need reliable sources showing that Singer meets the first of these criteria (disinformation). I find several reliable sources (and there are lots, lots more out there) that not only show he's guilty of spreading disinformation, but that explicitly state he is part of the denial machine. So now you claiming that they are too old - as if somehow by the passage of time and founding a new disinformation group Fred Singer has magically transformed from a oil-industry-paid shill into a reputable critic.
            • So rather than playing this game where I keep finding reliable sources to meet your demands for sources that state the perfectly obvious, to which you respond by moving the goalposts yet further, I have a better idea. How about for once YOU do some useful work on Wikipedia, rather than your usual campaign to water down our global warming-related articles with disinformation. Seeing as how I've already provided several sources showing he is a denier (and potentially many more), why don't you find me some reliable sources that answer these well-founded claims - that explain away why he should be classified as a critic instead of a denier; why as an electrical engineer with no training in climatology, he is somehow competent to comment on global warming; that as someone who has repeatedly been hired by industry to deny the perfectly well known (that smoking causes cancer) he's been wrong on basically everything he's ever said; and why, as someone with very close financial ties to big oil, we should believe a word he says. Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're skirting the issue. I'm not saying that HE is or isn't a denier. That's far from the point. I'm saying that you have no evidence that this group has been labelled deniers. And even if you did, that still doesn't justify putting the redirect anywhere other than Singer (if, as several have claimed, this group is just a puppet for him). The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier wouldn't justify redirecting something he did to Holocaust denial. Similarly in this case, even IF the group is a denial group it should still redirect to Singer's page, where it can be properly explained and where you can criticize it (provided reliable sources do so, of course). Oren0 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's see - first you say they are not a denier group. Then I show that they meet all of the criteria defined by our 'global warming denial' article. Then you say we need reliable sources showing that Singer meets the first of these criteria (disinformation). - I never said that you need to demonstrate anything about Singer. I asked for sources that call the NIPCC a denial group (I don't believe I've seen one of these yet, though I'll admit I haven't read all the links in this AfD). For the purposes of this redirect whether Singer is or isn't a denier is irrelevant. I've said all I have to say here, I'm ready to let other editors sort this out. Oren0 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • In other words, you want it both ways - on the one hand, you claim the NIPCC is distinct enough from Singer that the fact that he's a denier (already documented earlier in this thread) cannot be used to impute that the group as a whole are deniers; on the other hand, you claim that even if we can show this is a deniers group, it would be more closely related to Singer than Climate change denial and should redirect there. That's cute, but very wrong. Raul654 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Singer. I thin this article may be to prone to POV problems, as evidenced by the exchange above. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we do not take into consideration MotherJones-fashion conspiracy theories about oil companies and stick to the policy issue at hand. POV is not involved here. Only WP:NOTE. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The report issued by NIPCC/Singer's group is obviously notable per the common standards. The main problem with this article is, imo, that the NIPCC is not clearly yet established as an entity of its own and thus, if it's not, it cant be independant of Singer. We do have a series of news reports that make it appear as if it is independant, but the way news are produced today, little or no research is done so it might have eluded them that the NIPCC was not an existing entity. I disagree with nom that this is only about Singer since we can find evidence that this is/was a group project. So my question is, does the normal procedure requires that the article gets the axe and be reborn in the event that the NIPCC is shown to exist in the future, or should it be kept for some time and be AfD'ed later if it is shown that the NIPCC is not an entity independant of Singer? --Childhood's End (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The report doesn't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please. Not because they called it "summary" that no report exists. We can all understand that the title was meant as a form of pun. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the title is a deliberate lie William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not hesitate to elaborate if you dont mind explaining what makes it a lie. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Its very simple: the report does not exist. Thus the "summary", isn't. If you're confused, its probably better to continue this on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there's a report titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate [11]. On the title page, it's called a report. The second page adds a subtitle ("Summary for ...."). You can even check it out yourself! (as nom, I thought you'd have). --Childhood's End (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the reference they want you to use? S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008. The link you've used is to the thing pretending to be a summary. But its a summary of a non-existent report. They are lying. You've fallen for it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not falling into your "lying" story, that's for sure. I can make the difference between a pun and a lie. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, its not a pun. The report is a bad joke, of course, but Singer I'm sure takes it seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok! It's not a pun, it's a lie if you say so! --Childhood's End (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a lie because he says it is. It's a lie because all the evidence shows it is - they came out with a "summary" of a document that does not exist - a tactic designed to confuse people who might not understand the difference between the IPCC (the good guys) and the NIPCC (the oil industry shills) Raul654 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok! (I can't wait for the movie) --Childhood's End (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The movie is already out Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather thought of this movie (see notably the picture where Steven Seagal executes a devastating groin attack on an oil worker) and wondered whether there could be a sequel where Seagal could work for the IPCC or something...? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The group is not only Singer. The merits of the groups position is not relevant to the appropriateness of having an article on them. DGG (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to form a subsection of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Confining ourselves to the question of notability, rather than the merits of the group's position, the question is: has the Panel been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources? We have several potential sources to consider, the most reliable of which are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Do these sources provide substantial coverage of the Panel in and of itself? No, they do not; their primary focus is on the Conference, at which the report/summary was released; the Panel is only briefly mentioned in connection with the report and conference. However, as the notability criterion does not directly limit article content, and as we can report on the Panel and Report with reference to these reliable sources, the question is then what is the most appropriate place to do so. Fred Singer and SEPP have been suggested as answers. However, the above sources demonstrate coverage which focuses on the Conference specifically, and not in the context of a broader-reaching focus on either Singer or SEPP. The Conference is therefore notable, and since the Panel is more closely tied to the Conference than to either Singer or the SEPP specifically, that is where it should primarily be discussed -- with, of course, respect to Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, RS, and BLP. Jfire (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how you could possibly get away with that title. Neither of your sources use it. There will be many other meetings in 2008 called conferences which will be about climate change and will have considerably more scientists present - why should this meeting usurp the title? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not wedded to that exact title. 2008 International Conference on Climate Change (Heartland Institute) or something similar would be fine if disambiguation is needed. Do you have a better suggestion? Are you disputing that we should have an article about the conference at all? Jfire (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not at all convinced it deserves an article. We won't have an article on the 2008 EGU meeting, any more than the 2007 one. This is a PR stunt, not science. Plenty of things appear briefly in newspapers without becoming notable enough to have articles William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, in that case I think it's pretty clear that your opposition is based on your POV rather than any rational interpretation of the notability guidelines, and I won't continue this conversation further. Jfire (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to SEPP, depending on what is the good answer to my question above. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Care to tell us where? We have suggestions to merge to Fred Singer, SEPP, or climate change denial. Oren0 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is clearly notable unless some new measure of notability is being applied. Connolley's comment that other things appear in the paper without getting an article is without point. This is an effort by notable scientists to be the "Team B" (their term) to the IPCC's "Team A." They believe policymakers deserve a second opinion on climate change. This is a notable endeavor, whether they are successful in gaining the ear of policymakers or not. The report is edited by Fred Singer but is co-authored by 22 other notable people (mainly scientists) including Dennis Avery, Robert M. Carter, Vincent R. Gray, Craig D. Idso, Zbigniew Jaworowski, William Kininmonth, Lubos Motl and Tom Segalstad. This is not the work of one man and it should not be merged with the Fred Singer page. RonCram (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  1. There is no evidence that the NIPCC even exists.
  2. its only been covered in reliable sources as a sidenote to the Heartland Institute's conference.
  3. The "report" that the "summary" should be a summary of, apparently doesn't exist.
  4. The conference seems to have gotten all its coverage as a Man bites dog (journalism) item.

Conclusion: non-notable PR-stunt (apparently) orchestrated by Fred Singer specifically for the conference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SEPP (link to Singer) unless it can be shown that an incorporated entity exists User:Eli Rabett —Preceding comment was added at 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that incorporation is not necessary for an entity and/or a project to exist. Permanency of, or an intention to carry an endeavour, are sufficient. Here, it started in 2007 and was even devised in 2003. What we do not know is if it is going to be continued beyond the conference. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does raise the WP:REDFLAG. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The NIPCC is an important institution that has superseded the IPCC. Alternatively, delete both IPCC, NIPCC, and the web pages about the proponents of climate hysteria. Also, I assure you that we exist. ;-) --Lumidek (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COI Comment: User:Lumidek is Lubos Motl a coauthor to the NIPCC "summary". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would cut his vote. But his testimony about the existence of the NIPCC is most relevant. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NIPCC is an important institution that has superseded the IPCC - Hear that sound, everyone? That's reality leaving the building. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Fred Singer or Heartland Institute and redirect: It does stink of a publicity stunt, and the name seems to be chosen to deliberately confuse (an offence called "passing off" in the UK) so it really just needs to go in with all the other activities of these people rather than its own page. Ian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is an existing organisation and deserves its own entry. It's views are not relevant to this issue, they should be discussed when treating the content of the article, no its existence.--213.229.171.25 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) In fact this conference that they organised seems to have some pretty relevant speakers, including govt. representatives, there is no excuse to deny it a page.[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.