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 keep. Suggestions: rename into "List of:..." and either expand the scope or tighten criteria. `'Míkka 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

[edit]
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Inherently POV-pushing list. Severe and probably unsolvable problems with Wikipedia:Undue weight (the consensus view is all but missing from the article. The title of one of the references is far stronger than anything in the text) I don't see any way this could be made NPOV. Adam Cuerden talk 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: There's also severe problems with the inclusion criteria: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, as you might guess, was created by people that governments chose to send. So Roger A. Pielke, who thinks the report was too conservative, is listed here as being against the scientific consensus. No, he was against a few aspects of one particular inherently conservative, statement. The IPCC report attempted to only include the material it considered proven beyond any reasonable doubt. By naming it as the sole arbiter of scientific consensus, utter stupidies such as Pielke's mainstream views appearing on this list resulted. And the principal conclusions listed are... just three of many conclusions not emphasised above the other ones in any way. Adam Cuerden talk 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta change to a Keep now after some more rumination. Undue Weight does include this qualifier: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
This article does represent a minority view, and the article specifically acknowledges this, references what the majority viewpoint is, and does not try to argue its POV to the reader outside of the cited material. Thus, upon further consideration, I feel this article *does* satisfy NPOV in the context of Undue Weight. Arakunem 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks Adam, your comment above was really helpful in making up my mind about this. Delete is the word! Brusegadi 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. The section above the Table of Contents calls out the consensus view on the subject, and specifically identifies the article as representing an opposing minority viewpoint. The tone of the article outside the quotes does not try to sway the reader one direction or another (such as "These idiots don't agree", and such). NPOV does not require the article to be balanced if it is specifically about a minority viewpoint, per WP:Undue Weight. Arakunem 13:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list, not a regular article. As a list, the focus is on pointing out to readers what items (here, scientists) make up such a list. The primary function of this page is to briefly summarize the position of each scientist in order to adequately identify what it is that leaves the scientist outside the mainstream view (for the purpose of avoiding confusion or implying too much agreement among these dissenters). If the article tries to include each counter-argument for each point of view, it would become too long and easily lose its focus as, primarily, a navigational aid for readers. We already have articles on global warming that give the mainstream views and mention the minority views. We shouldn't be replicating that, certainly not in any detail, in this article. One possible improvement might be to state the mainstream view on the topic of each section at the head of that section. Just don't get into too many details that are best handled elsewhere. As for details of the views of each scientist on this list, it belongs on the article for that scientist. Counterarguments to that scientist's view, in more detail than here, might be appropriate in that article. (If a scientist is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, of course, that scientist shouldn't be on this list.) It would be better to rename this article somehow, with the first two words being "List of ..." Noroton 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment at 15:00 above. Lists are useful navigation tools, and they properly describe their items when that helps navigation purposes. The list is categorized by type of objection, which seems to be a good, rough division, appropriate to the topic and the purpose. No detailed arguments either way belong here.Noroton 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if deletion of this page upsets American conservatives? Their specific political views aren't relevant, nor are anyone else's, only facts are. Science doesn't serve political agendas; if it does--it's bad flawed science. Ditto for our articles, they shouldn't serve any political agenda, and any attempt to do so is wrong. Isn't it? • Lawrence Cohen 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What political agenda do you think that the list represents then? The "See all those notable scientists who oppose the IPCC "consensus""? Or "Look how small the list of scientists opposing the IPCC consensus is"? --Kim D. Petersen 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article you suggest is a worthy one, and if it doesn't exist, it should because the topic is notable enough; but what we have is a collection of organized quotes; what we need is well-thought-out description. As I say elsewhere, we already have enough good material for a list and it's in that format already.Noroton 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading KDP's comments, below, about quotations, and after scanning a few of the many, many archived pages for this article's talk page, I have to agree that short quotes from each scientist are the way to go, not descriptive sentences. It looks like every square millimeter of this article has been a struggle. I don't think Wikipedia reports controversies well because, by definition, consensus is a little hard to come by when the subject is ... controversial. Use of quotes rather than descriptions is a reflection of Wikipedia's weakness, but apparently a necessary one. Noroton 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that people take a look at the discussion archives, to see that there indeed has been a very thorough review of each inclusion. The editors have strived to keep away from POV-issues - and an inclusion has been discussed by both "pro-" mainstream and "contra-" mainstream editors. A common topic on the discussion pages is for instance that "why can't i include X - he is obviously a sceptic", after an inclusion has been reverted. The article is imho WP:NPOV, since we have "anti-" people who are pushing to get as many scientists on the list as possible (to show that statements of consensus is wrong (i presume)), and "pro-" people who are trying to keep people out of the list. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One has to think carefully: if such logic were to be enforced, what other articles would need to be slated for deletion for the same reason? We cannot indiscriminately remove any material which explains a minority position, simply for being in the minority. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no comparison between this article and a hypothetical one "opposing" global warming. The scientists listed do not even necessary deny global warming; many only take issue with specific aspects of the current consensus. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is meant to contain notable opinions, not arbitrate what is true. Writing an article about a view outside the scientific mainstream is not inherently POV, and neither is listing those who hold it. Someguy1221 08:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wouldn't that be more like Rewrite instead of Delete?--Blue Tie 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. The final form wouldn't be a list; I think it would be better to cover scientific opposition to the IPCC consensus as part of an article like Global warming controversy rather than being a separate article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we do, but the history of that and related articles shows why an article like this is appropriate in addition. DGG (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is clearly on record that there is an unambiguous mainstream scientific assessment in connection with Global Warming - the IPPC reports. This article's title was developed in that context. The Global Warming / Climate Change project gatekeepers assert that there is a consensus in the Scientific Community on Global Warming.--Blue Tie 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rename like that is a can of worms we don't want to open. First off, most on this list are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, not GW in general. Furthermore, many of them disagree with specific parts of the IPCC consensus while agreeing with other components. To label these people "global warming critics" based on disagreement with one component of the IPCC view seems unreasonable to me. I think the article title needs to include something about "mainstream assessment", "consensus", etc. Oren0 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - such a broad title would also open up a can of worms in terms of who would be included on the list. the current list has a very tight definition on only including scientists in relevant fields. stolenbyme 18:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in general these are real scientists who publish in real peer-reviewed journals, even if some of their conclusions go against the mainstream. --Itub 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more complex. Yes, all of them are scientists and have published as such, altough for several that has been quite a while ago. Many of them are not climate scientists. Very few have published papers in climate science. Even if, their opposition often goes far beyond their published (in the scientific sense) work. The canonical example is Tim Ball, whose (meagre) scientific output is mostly an analysis of Hudson Bay Company weather reports. Some of the listed scientists are beyond the fringe, some are nearly within the mainstream. But they are not a "significant minority" in the Wikipedia sense, because they do not share a common position. See the classifiction (there is no wrming, it's natural, we don't know if its natural, its real, but good...). --Stephan Schulz 10:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the requirements for inclusion in this list are very strict. Without providing a quotation cited from a reliable source which outlines that scientist's position, they cannot be included. And no, the article makes it abundantly clear that these scientists are in the minority (just look at the title). Simply asserting that these scientists hold these point of view by providing a quotation does not make the list POV. Since its creation, this article has been heavily monitored by a number of Wikipedia administrators, and extensive guidelines must be met for a scientist to even be included. This article does not fit the definition of a POV fork, by virtue that it makes it clear this is a minority and provides adequate reference to the main topic at hand (see Fork). ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is pretty much the problem: The method of producing the list forces it to be POV, and forces it to get more unbalanced and POV over time. Adam Cuerden talk 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perfectly put. I see we have a category for global warming skeptics - that would seem to be a more neutral way of presenting this information; linking to that list from the article on global warming controversy, in which each distinct and significant argument and counter-argument can be discussed, would seem to me to be a more neutral approach than an article which by its own criteria includes only presentations of what amounts to a series of sound-bytes supporting only one side - and the minority side at that - of the dispute. I cannot see how its conception does not make it a POV fork. Perhaps I am missing something. Cruftbane 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list about people, not about global warming. The counter-arguments are no more needed here than arguments for the existence of God would be in a List of atheists. --Itub 04:09, 2 October 2007 (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.
More