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. Wizardman 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's instead a propoganda tool (and wikipedia is not for advertisement), giving a list solely of people who uphold the fringe minority side of the debate, giving it undue weight. Furthermore, each entry is given a quotes advocating the fringe point of view, making the POV and advocacy issues even worse.

I can see no encyclopedic purpose; instead, it serves as a propoganda device. These lists are common practice of fringe views, but normally, we cover the more notable lists hosted off-wikipedia in an encyclopedic manner (e.g. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism) instead of hosting such lists ourselves.

This may be appropriate fodder for a category, but this list is fatally flawed, and must be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not an advertisement. Documentation in reliable sources is not a problem. Scientific dissent among respected scientists is not what WP:FRINGE is talking about. Within the context of the article title, it appears to be NPOV, but even if it weren't, that wouldn't be a reason to delete. Your reasons for deletion seem to boil down to "I don't like it." Gigs (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously nominated twice afd1 afd2, last time was a WP:SNOW Speedy Keep. Gigs (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is opposition to Global Warming a minority viewpoint? Absolutely. Is it a Fringe viewpoint? No. And even if it was, WP:FRINGE allows for discussion of notable Fringe viewpoints, for which this clearly qualifies. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Describing this article as 'propaganda' is incorrect. Gigs and Blueboar both spell out reasons to Keep, as do several other editors in the previous 2 Afds. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought people might have taken a hint from no less than 2 previous AfDs but evidently not. The information is noteworthy and interesting and deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 14:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, none of these comments even begin to deal with the major violations of policy I mention. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is clear WP:UNDUE and is of dubious value to the project and dubious encyclopaedic value. Does seem to violate WP:SOAP. Should be deleted and a list of the notable proponets added to the parent article or a template, supported by WP:RS. This also has WP:CFORK issues, etc. Very problematic WP:FRINGE "article". Verbal chat 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated by User:Blueboar, scientific opposition to the theory is clearly a minority view point, but questioning this theory is well within normal scientific discourse, especially for a topic as complex as global warming. Hence this subject is not WP:FRINGE. Concerning WP:CFORK issues, the parent global warming article is already very long (96 kilobytes) which according to WP:SPLIT is already to the point where it "almost certainly should be divided". Boghog2 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We could probably make a sizable list of "People who believed the world is flat", but that doesn't make it an endorsement of any kind. We have a category called Holocaust deniers, it's not giving "undue weight". Joker1189 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Blueboar says, we can discuss and document fringe views without giving them undue weight; and this is a pretty significant fringe view (in the sense of political impact, news coverage and so on). I think the lede needs to give a clearer indication of how small a minority these people are though: at present a reader could easily think people with these views made up, say 30%, of 'scientists' or scientists in the field. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although it is well-defined, is there a particular reason to have a list of scientists who disagree with the 2001 IPCC report? Do we normally list scientists who disagree with international reports? There's nothing wrong with supporters of fringe views being listed, e.g. List of homeopaths, but disagreeing on at least one point with the IPCC report is not a coherent grouping - unless you're aiming to criticise the IPCC report. If this page is kept, because the fact of them being a published scientist is being used as a stamp of authority - although many are speaking outside of their fields - we should list the other fringe theories that these individuals believe on this page to give a background of their thinking, e.g. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Timothy Ball believe there is no connection between CFCs and ozone loss, Ian Plimer believes that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges. We should also list their conflicts of interest, such as industry funding. Oh, and we should have a list of scientists supporting the global warming consensus, for balance. Fences and windows (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just add a section in this article which puts it in context, showing that the few dozen individuals in this list are not significant compared to the numerous scientific organizations around the world who constitute the consensus (Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ). That way this article won't give undue weight or be useful for propagandizing. It might even diminish the case for denial of anthropogenic global warming by showing how little support there actually is for it. Rotiro (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a topic of immense public interest and debate and WP is providing a valuable public service by organizing information about the dissenting views in an objective and neutral way. Mrhsj (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not as worried about this article as the nominator, but I also don't see why Wikipedia should assemble an original list of dissenters rather than reporting on existing ones. We all know the entire purpose of collecting dissenters is to make a controversy seem larger than it really is. You could counteract this propaganda by giving the necessary context as Rotiro suggests, but what possible encyclopedic value does an indiscriminate listing of scientists opposing the consensus have in the first place? It makes much more sense to let partisan groups assemble these lists, which they constantly do, and report on them as neutrally as possible rather than taking active part in teaching the controversy ourselves. Vesal (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... well referenced, is needed to avoid bogging down the main article and give these names undue weight. Calwatch (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was originally created by User:Dragons flight in 2005.[1] So whether the article serves as a propaganda tool for the minority viewpoint, it certainly wasn't created for that purpose. Non-supporters of the IPCC should not be characterized as fringe, as defined on Wikipedia. They are a very-small minority, mostly from specialties outside of climatology. The list does not give undue weight; there are many articles on global warming, the existence of this one cannot giving undue weight without researching the weight given in all the others. It's better to have a centralized list than to have this information inserted in other articles. There is some truth in the statement that editors compiling this list is original research. And that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary. It would be much better if we had an article that documented opposing views that have been covered by reliable, third-party sources. -Atmoz (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the global warming coverage is very strong elsewhere, and there is certainly no deliberate soapboxing going on here. However, I worry that Wikipedia is seen as endorsing the view that polling individual scientists is at all meaningful. The problem is that lists like these are part of the underlying debate: one side consider these lists to be fundamentally flawed (a more meaningful thing would be "List of papers in high-impact journals disputing the mainstream assessment on Global Warming"), while the other side assembles lists like these and publish them to show there is controversy. Therefore, when Wikipedia also publishes such a list, it is implicitly siding with the group that says polling of scientists (rather than all other means of gauging scientific consensus) is a meaningful thing to do. If this list was transformed into an article covering the opposition, their strategies, organization, as well as their main arguments, it would all be totally fine. Vesal (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This was originally created by User:Dragons flight in 2005.[1] So whether the article serves as a propaganda tool for the minority viewpoint, it certainly wasn't created for that purpose." - With all due respect, this article is NOT being used as a propaganda tool by the minority. It is quite the reverse. The criteria of this article have been intentionally scoped (in my opinion) to exclude as many people as possible and I would not be at all surprised to learn that those criteria have been adjusted over time, as needed, by the controlling majority so as to maintain the perception that the list of people opposing the maintstream view is as small as possible. I find it interesting that wikiedpia user WMC sought to have a similar list (but listing those who actually supported the controlling majority's viewpoint) deleted on the grounds that it was inevitably going to be incomplete and unmaintainable. The same argument is being made here but I doubt that it will gain any traction with the AGW regulars. That having been said the article does contain useful information for those who are interested in the topic area, and I take no particular position on whether it should be deleted, or not, and defer to the collective wisdom of the community on that point. --GoRight (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The article is about opposition to the mainstream view, rather than the scientists making the statements. That article title should reflect that. The view is sufficiently non-fringe to give it its own article rather than just a section in another article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rearrange - Expand The notion that CO2 would heat the world is falsified in multiple ways, and "Fringe Theory" is that human politicians could control the climate (if they only were given the funds). That in the meantime governments all around the globe fund entire scientific communities for tooting the claim of "global warming endangering mankind" (and bearkind maybe) does not change this fact. Given this point the list needs to be re-arranged and extended. There are a number of theoretical or atmospheric physicists who present disproof of the core of the dogma which is the claimed CO2->temperature relationship. This category needs to be included and should be put on the top, since it is the most challenging scientific position for the dogma. Another category has to be included for those who challenge or disprove the claim of the "low atmospheric CO2 in the pre-industrial age" or the value of icecore measurements. Finally, if the list is kept, it needs to be vastly expanded since against myth, there are not only a few scientists who oppose global warming phantasies but thousands of them. --84.56.38.251 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.56.38.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- Not an article, just an a list, and presentation of it is an extreme violation of NPOV's WP:UNDUE weight clause, as it shows a list of alleged scientists, most without real credentials or in unrelated fields, and tries to advance an agenda by spearating it from a list of scientist who support the existence of global warning. It's nothing but a POV fork. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not an article, just a list" is no reason to delete, and I suggest you read over WP:LIST. Wikipedia has tens if not hundreds of thousands of "list of ..." articles and they're widely deemed acceptable. Oren0 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the problems associated with a page such as this but I do not think that this is a reason to delete it. I agree with fences and windows that it would be a good idea to list what other theories they also support so that readers can make up their own minds as to whether they wish to believe these people's views. Fences and windows also suggests creating a list of those in support of the assessment but as we all know it wouldn't fit on a 100kb page! I think that it is dangerous to censor such information - if it is all in one place and each viewpoint and person's explanation is listed then I feel that it will allow people to make up their own minds. Saying that I don't expect this page to really change people's opinions either way - deniers will use it to support their view and those who agree will use it to point out what crazy views the deniers have. Dreamguy, remember that all theories are essentially POV statements. Smartse (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For once a notable list! The topic of this list is thrown around often among both people defending and supporting the global warming theory. Many people claim that only X amount of scientists believe in global warming, while others claim that so-and-so is a famous scientist and he's a sceptic. The verifiable sources in this article keep this NPOV while the notability of the specific topic make the fork acceptable. A more specific (and equally notable) list might be "List of climatologists opposing..." but this one is equally valid, if somewhat more vague. Them From Space 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful summary of a wide range of view, and useful is a suitable criterion for a list. The people here all have articles with greater detail. This is immensely clearer than the corresponding category, because it doesn't lump them all together. It's not excessive weight on the fringe, considering the many different fringe viewpoints. "Making the controversy seem larger than it is" hardly applies to what will probably be seen historically as the decisive issue of our century. The only thing I'm concerned about is that some of them might not really deserve to be listed here, but that's for the talk page. Basically, I agree with what Atmoz said above. DGG (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear inclusion criteria, sourced, verifiable, notable, encyclopedic, NPOV - ticks all the boxes. An NPOV description of a viewpoint and its proponents is not an endorsement. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many others. To wit: well defined inclusion criteria, strong encyclopedic purpose. There are quite a few spurious lists around and making a definitive one like this is to be welcomed. --TS 06:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; WP:NOTAGAIN. This article is well-sourced and encyclopedic. There is no good rationale to delete. Oren0 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see this giving undue weight to the minority position, since it's a separate article whose very title says it's a minority position. Furthermore, this isn't just one position; it's a variety of different views. It's not inherently POV propaganda to report that a particular POV exists or that a variety of POVs exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (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.