Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming


 * 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. The consensus below is that the problems with sourcing and maintaining the article are not simply tempory issues to be overcome by editng but rather inevitable results of its nature. Thus, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If someone would like the content for use in creating a List of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report authors, I'd be happy to userfy it, but it should not be kept in its present form or scope. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Inevitably incomplete page of no value. By contrast, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is fairly complete William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Since the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is mainstream, it is inherently impossible to cover all notable scientists with this view in the list. A list of people opposing this view is shorter and actually possible to maintain. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC items 2, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Item 2 from Listcruft--"The list is of interest to a very limited number of people." No, climate change is of interest to everyone. Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican VP nominee denies man-made climate change--she and other politicians are making policy decisions based on scientific opinions. Voters are electing these politicians. This list interests many people. Item 8 "The list is unencyclopaedic". This "reason" is tautologous--we should not include this article in the encyclopedia because it should not be included in an encyclopedia. Item 10 "Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas." What original research or synthesis? I added the first names to the list by searching for quotes from climate change scientists. Is a Google search considered original research? Item 11 "The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date." How is it volatile? Are scientists releasing press releases every day announcing that they have changed their mind about global warming? The effort required to make this list is no more than the effort required to make the list of successors to the British throne. This list is article is perfectly valid.--hunterhogan (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Cleanup  Rename to ""List of scientists supporting the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming" or "List of scientists supporting the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming". see below The only source for the definintion of "Mainstream Scientific assessment of global warming" is a link to another Wikipedia page. It is unreasonable for that to be any better than sourcing a Wikimirror site. Treedel (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopaedic - it reads like some kind of exclusive petition. A more powerful and useful converse to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be an authoritative list of important climate scientists, so the dissenter's context becomes clear as (very) few among many.  Tried to make a start here.  --Gergyl (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually useful. I think it would be better to retitle it. The present title is kind of overkill. How about something like: "...supporting the theory of human-caused global warming"? Northwestgnome (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As observed, accounting for every relevant scientist that holds a mainstream view is a hopeless task. A complete list would be unwanted information (cf. List of scientists who believe the earth is round), an incomplete one would be misleading. I'm fairly doubtful about User:Gergyl's list too, I'm afraid. N p holmes (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Needs to be cleaned-up. Also, 9 references is nowhere near enough for a list of 600+ people.   Ndenison  talk  16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While I appreciate the author's wish to balance out the "list of scientists opposing", people "supporting the mainstream" on anything would be a long list. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the "mainstream" would it?  For obvious reasons, it's a long list, but naming all of these persons would be the same problem as compiling "List of scientists who believe that the world is round graduated from college".  Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this is the mainstream view, and such a list would grow to extremes. NP Holmes put it quite right, when he compares it to a "list of scientists who consider the Earth to be round". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I honestly didn't mean to be a copycat.  NP Holmes did come up with that analogy first.  Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Nominator's reasoning is WP:RUBBISH found at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. Wikipedia:Listcruft is a mere essay, written by editors who don't like lists, as the template at the top states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion" User:Inclusionist (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reasoning that this would be "inevitably incomplete" is rubbish. How many of the 637 scientists would you trim from the list?  Would there be an objective way to decide who goes and who stays?  Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question from Mandsford: "Would there be an objective way to decide who goes and who stays?"
 * Answer from Mandsford: "The list, almost entirely, is a directory of the scientists who signed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" travb (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The essay WP:AADD faces wide disagreement, and dismissing arguments because they appear on it is not particularly strong. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The phrase "mainstream" already sort of implies that it's "everyone else". A list of people with notable minority opinions (in any scientific field) might be useful, but a list of people whose only qualification for being in the list is, "has absolutely, boringly mainstream opinions on the subject" is not. --Delirium (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is similar to Pres. Bush saying, "You are either with us or against us." Which is obviously not true. Some scientists have publicly opposed the mainstream view, some scientists have publicly supported the mainstream view, and most scientists have not said anything publicly. A list of every living scientist in the world would be absurd--but this article is not a list of every scientist in the world.--hunterhogan (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A complete list would likely include 10s of thousands of names, and as such would be fairly useless as an encyclopedia article. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not capable of maintaining databases with thousands of names. Neither the software platform nor the editors can maintain such uber-lists. The proposal to list all mainstream scientists is, in fact, a proposal to create unmanageably large database. This job is what paid citation index engines are for. Not to mention what was already said about completeness and verification. NVO (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It has value and the length is not prohibitive. Specific replies: 1) Yes, the list is "inevitable incomplete", but that does not merit deletion. Compare this list Line of succession to the British throne. That list is "inevitable incomplete" and the longest article on Wikipedia. 2) It is not true that this article has "no value." There are still many people who are confused because some scientists oppose the mainstream view of climate change. For those people, this list makes it easy for them to weigh the statements of three dozen scientists against the statements of hundreds of other scientists. 3) It doesn't matter that "it is inherently impossible to cover all notable scientists". First, if it is possible to list the thousands of people in line to the British throne (and thousands that are "skipped" on the list), then it is possible to list the "notable scientists" who work in climate change. The list of "notable scientists" must be small. If the list of "notable" people were long, then all of the people on the list wouldn't be "notable." 4) Treedel suggests "cleanup". I agree. The list needs to be expanded. As a list on Wikipedia, multiple people can work on it. 5) Comparing this list to "List of scientists who believe the earth is round" or to a "List of scientists who graduated from college" is fallacious. There are politicians making policy about climate change who are listening to those few scientists who opposing climate change. There are no politicians listening to "scientists" who think the world is flat. 6) The fact that the list is long is not sufficient to warrant deletion. 7) This list is not merely a dumping ground for people who have "absolutely, boringly mainstream opinions on the subject". Again, there are large parts of the public and many public leaders who are confused about climate change. This list would give them a place to look for thoughtful and/or powerful opinions from professionals. 8) I do not think the "complete list would likely include 10s of thousands of names" because of the requirement that the scientists must state support in their own words. Outside of the scientists who work on climate change, there are very few scientists who have a reason to state in a public forum that they agree with the climate change scientists. No one has suggested why the list would be significantly longer than the Line of succession to the British throne--hunterhogan (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR ("Wikipedia is not a directory") suggests that we avoid this type of article. The list, almost entirely, is a directory of the scientists who signed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, starting at page 15 here, and the pdf format lends itself to cutting and pasting each individual name, starting with ACHUTARAO, Krishna Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory USA -- and then pasting "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. " over and over.  Perhaps there are other ways to make the point that most scientists support the mainstream. The analogy of scientists who believe the world is round was used, but the better analogy might be the telephone directory for a small town. Mandsford (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the list is "almost entirely" a directory of the approximately 800 scientists of the IPCC, then the list will 1) not be too long, and 2) be easy to complete. Please clarify why you oppose this list. Earlier, you stated that you think the list would be too long, but now you think only 800 names would be "almost the entirety" of the list. Furthermore, this list does not fit into any of the five categories described in the WP:NOTDIR ("Wikipedia is not a directory") article. For example, the people on this list are closely related, not loosely related.--hunterhogan (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hunterhogan, this list does not fit into any of the 5 WP:NOTDIR reasons. Please clarify. travb (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article had the title "List of scientists who signed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report", it would not be grotesquely misleading (merely pointless). As it stands, it's like creating an article with the title "List of people with two legs" and listing only players for Premier League football clubs. N p holmes (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are people on the list besides authors from the IPCC 4th assessment. Adding the IPCC 4th assessment authors was a logical first step in making the list. If the problem is that the list is too short, then the solution is to add more people, not delete the entire list. --hunterhogan (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  delete ,Comment as I'm the nom, but also: this list has clearly been compiled from IPCC ar4 authors. There has been no real checking that any of them actually agree with the mainstream position. Someone added John Christy, and someone else thankfully realised he is on the opposed list, so he got taken off. This proves the obvious: that being on the IPCC authors list does not prove you agree with IPCC. Therefore, the vast majority of the names on list list should be deleted on the grounds of lack of evidence for inclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't "voting" twice?--hunterhogan (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is voting twice.  Ndenison  talk  16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument for deleting the list--this is an argument for cleaning up the list. --hunterhogan (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Christy is sitting on the fence. He does support the AGU statement on climate change ("Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century"). I would put him 1.132123 sigmas (approximately) from the mainstream, towards the sceptical side, but still significantly in agreement with the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Christy is on the other list. He can't be on both. This *is* an argument for deletion: 99% of the people on this list haven't been checked at all. They would all have to be removed pending checks. Note that this is how the opposed-to list works: you don't get onto that list without a quote justifying your place. Somehow the arguers for "symmetry" seem to have forgotten that aspect William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the editorial oversight, like we have on the other list, that is required on a list with this many potential entries would be horrible, not to say impossible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has millions of pages, but this one article with a list of scientists will cripple the editorial capabilities of the entire Wikipedia community?--hunterhogan (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did i say the "entire wikipedia community"? No, i think i was rather precise in my statement. As for millions of pages, yes it does. Hardly any of them are like this proposed list, which potentially would contain every notable scientist with a mainstream opinion on climate change, even considering that only a fraction of scientists are notable, and a fraction of those make their opinion clear - we end up in the several thousands - each of which is going to have editorial oversight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The majority of the arguments for deleting (if not all of them) are some variation of: "This list is hard to make, so we shouldn't even try." Explaining the Big Bang is hard, but Wikipedia has a page. Listing all of the successors to the British throne is hard, but Wikipedia has a page. Defining terrorism is hard (and controversial), but Wikipedia still has a page. Some people have tried to argue that this article would list everyone in the world, so it should be deleted. But, the above discussions saying that some people should not be on the list show that it is not true that "everyone" with two legs, a college degree, and who thinks the world is round will be on the list. You may think this list is silly, but this article has value to some people. Just like an article about Glass-ceramic-to-metal seals has value to some people. Keep the article, and if you really have a problem with, then help to improve it.--hunterhogan (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you !voted already above. It would be easier for the closing admin (and others) if you kept your top-level comments under on bullet item. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia user User:William M. Connolley has no way to support his assertion that the list of scientists opposing is complete, so that opinion is utter rubbish. The counter argument is that if there is a mainstream scientific consensus, as he often claims, then there should be no trouble coming up with names for this list.  It's not like we need to capture everyone, we only need to include people who are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia which leaves out the vast majority of AGW climate scientologists anyway.  --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I really don't know which way to jump on this one. When I first saw the page, I thought it had an inherent problem.  I started adding the IPCC report authors because they automatically meet the criteria established at the top of the article.  I don't think they need to be verified or checked; the IPCC report itself is the evidence you need.  If in some cases, there is conflicting evidence or repudiating statements, by all means use it to remove them, but don't presume you will find something like that for everyone.  I think limiting the list to scientists notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, as suggested above, defeats the purpose of a list.  On the other hand, the usage of "mainstream" implies that the whole thing could be replaced by an article that says "Go look at list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and if you don't find someone, consider them to be on this list", or, more succinctly, "everyone else". gnfnrf (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone were trying to learn about more about climate change and was especially confused by the fact that many politicians have condemned Al Gore, she might turn to Wikipedia for answers. "Oh wise Wikipedia, are there really scientists who think man-made global warming is a lie?" And Wikipedia provides the excellent and concrete answer: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming "Thank you, great Wiki of knowledge. But are there scientists who think Al Gore is telling the truth?" How will Wikipedia answer this important question? Some people here think the answer should be an an abstract and vague: "Lots of scientists support Al Gore and the climate change doomsayers. There are so many that we can't even tell you one. Trust us. Ignore the opposing scientists. We are the majority and you don't need any more proof." I think that Wikipedia should answer with a much more concrete and credible article: List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--hunterhogan (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would point them to Scientific opinion on climate change, which has a large number of statements by whole scientific societies on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is still not a direct comparison. Furthermore, some people who deny climate change claim that the professional societies oppress individual dissent. A list of statements by societies without a list of statements by individuals implicitly supports this claim (for some people). So now we have two types of claims that this list is redundant. Some people say this list is redundant because a list of all scientist with two legs and a college degree would substitute nearly perfectly. Clearly this is not true because not every scientists has a publicly stated opinion on global warming. Second, there is an implicit claim that a list of statements by professional groups is a substitute for statements made by individuals. Again, this is not a good substitute. The opinions of individuals are of a different quality and value than the blanket statements of societies. The IPCC is a professional group, yet their lengthy statements have not convinced everyone. Statements from individual scientists are valuable in their own right.--hunterhogan (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that statements by individual scientists will convince people who are not convinced by the gamut of national academies and other societies. But anyways, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to convince, but to inform. "So and so agrees with the mainstream opinion" has a low information content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "low information content" is greater than "no information content"--it has some information. I started by adding quotes from each of the supporters. Surely those quotes have information content that is useful to someone. Imagine a student or a journalist trying to find some quotes from individuals who support climate change to balance quotes from individuals you oppose it.--hunterhogan (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am still new to contributing to Wikipedia, but it is amazing to me that this discussion is even happening. A handful of people have said they want to delete this article, but the reasons stated by each editor are vastly different from the reasons from other editors--and they are sometimes contradictory. Should this list be deleted because it might be too long, or should it be deleted because there are only 800 names on it? Should it be deleted because it would be impossible to verify what the scientists think, or should it be deleted because everyone already knows what the scientists think? --hunterhogan (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments are not inconsistent at all. The claim is that it is too long for proper maintenance and verification. The second claim is that despite being so long, it is still painfully incomplete and thus misleading. Verifying if a scientist belongs onto the list is hard and invites original research. Few scientists explicitly state "I agree with the core IPCC results", but many will have references that acknowledge parts of these results in their publications. Let's turn this around. Why do you think it should stay? Will somebody still be interested in this in 10 years? In 20? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument above that it will be too long contradicts the argument above that the list is "almost entirely" made up of IPCC co-authors. In ten years, if an historian were studying the climate change political controversy, she most certainly would need to talk about those scientists who publicly opposed climate change. In her research, she would likely be interested to know what individuals publicly took the opposite view and how they expressed themselves. I have stated why I think this is useful multiple times on this page, but simply put: people who want to know what individual scientists think about this topic will find this page useful (especially in conjunction with the page of opposing scientists). --hunterhogan (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would make it the List of scientists who publicly endorsed the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Erm? Are we engaging in politics here, or in encyclopaedic work? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the article is renamed? I don't understand your question. Are you pointing out that this article would be unnecessary if it were not for politics? --hunterhogan (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, my motivation is religious. While driving through the black stillness of central Illinois, I was visited by a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He told me to eat eggplant once a week and to immediately make a Wikipedia article titled "List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". But, let's pretend that my motivations are political: I am really a liberal, pinko-commie, tree-hugging, gay-agenda, socialist bent on corrupting young minds with lists about scientists. Now that my motivations have been exposed, how does that help the Wikipedia editors decide whether or not to delete this article? --hunterhogan (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Scientists who agree with the mainstream view don't usually say so explicitly; they just go about their business from the mainstream perspective. It would be an interesting exercise to see if we could source Scientists who agree with the germ theory of disease or Scientists who believe the Sun is a star from explicit statements to that effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, if we make an article listing the Scientists who believe the Sun is a star, then we would need multiple sections. We would need to separate the scientists who have two legs from those who don't have two legs (i.e., zero, one, more than two legs, or some fraction of legs not equal to two legs). We could never have the scientists who have a college degree categorized with those who don't have a college degree (blasphemy!). Although, we might not need to separate the scientists who believe the world is round from those who believe it is not round (i.e., flat or some other geometric shape) because, as far as I know, all of the scientists who believe the Sun is a star do not believe that the earth is round. [This argument was stated previously and rebutted previously.] --hunterhogan (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Boris is on the list. Da? -Atmoz (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Da, comrade Boris is there... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless it is restricted to scientists who are themselves notable by having a wikipedia article. The inclusion criteria currently say that the list can contain any scientist (defined by publishing at least one peer-reviewed article) who has made a public statement. That is far too wide. Lists of people should be lists of notable people. They should all be blue links, except for perhaps the odd case that is obviously in need of article to encourage someone to write it. This would involve removing most of the IPCC people. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an argument for cleaning up the list or changing the definition of the list, it is not an argument for deleting the article. In fact, an argument in this form is a type of blackmail: "make the article conform to my specifications or I will vote to have the entire article deleted." Either the concept of the article is wiki-worthy or it is not wiki-worthy. It is a bizarre argument to say that the article is only wiki-worthy if it uses pretty words or conforms to an editor's style. --hunterhogan (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is only wiki-worthy if it is notable and for lists that means that the persons or things listed are notable. I meant to add that I raised this on the talk page of the list, but if I understand the reply correctly was told that the criteria would not be changed. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think your statement matches the Wikipedia article on notability WP:NOTE, "The topic of an article should be notable". . . . "Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content." So the topic must be notable, but the individual people in the article do not have to be notable. Is anyone arguing that the topic is not notable? It clearly is notable because newspapers quote scientists who support climate change. Al Gore made a movie about it. Scientific associations talk about it. Presidential candidates debate it. Senators write press releases about it. The topic is notable: the article should not be deleted. --hunterhogan (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The nutshell at the top of Notability (people) states "Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.". Without this there is no reason whether a person should be included or not and then the list becomes unverified and unmaintainable. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. None of those thing happen about a List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming &mdash; they are all about climate change and global warming. And there are fairly decent articles about them already. -Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Inhofe 650 and the previous Inhofe 450. --hunterhogan (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * RenameUnder WP:NOR and WP:SYN, we shouldn't be defining "Mainstream scientific assessment". Proper title could be "List of scientists supporting the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming", or to use less jargon, "List of scientists supporting the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming". I think this is the most accurate way to introduce the list, and it also avoids editorially endorsing either side. The article also needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but that isn't a reason to delete it.Treedel (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Treedel has also commented above. -Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that there was a better way to resolve my concerns about editorializing. I struck out and adjusted my recommendation above; The subject is politically charged, and a significant number of climatologists disagree about the conclusions drawn from the data. We need to keep the articles objective and inclusive, while not advocating either point of view, and keeping the titles neutral is a big part of that. Treedel (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't defining the "mainstream scientific assessment" that is adequately handled by science itself. Please see Scientific opinion on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So this is a list of scientists who concurred with the statement "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."? Or is it the list of people who have said that they have weighed the evidence for and against the general idea of " Anthropomorphic Global Warming", and believe that the preponderance of evidence lies with AGW as opposed to "Natural Global Warming", or "Natural Global Temperature Cycles", "Global Warming of an Indeterminate Cause" "Global Warming jointly of Natural and Anthropogenic Causes", or even "Experimental Error Resulting in Spurious Data Trends" Scientific opinion on climate change lists many "Concurring" statements which both implicitly and explicitly reference theories in different categories. Quite a few of the "endorsing" statements explicitly use words to the effect that there is some doubt. Hardly a slam-dunk for there to be an undisputed 'mainstream' viewpoint. Treedel (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that must be your own interpretation of the statements - because i have read even one that supports (or even hints at the possibility of) for instance "Experimental Error Resulting in Spurious Data Trends". They all refer to the IPCC conclusions as fact, not speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Renaming is an excellent idea and I completely agree with Treedel's argument. --hunterhogan (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This value of this list can be understood best if you know more about how scientists make an estimate about the value of an article without reading it: You go to a scientific search engine (Web of Science, Scifinder Scholar, Pubmed, maybe Google Scholar, etc.) and then enter the name of the topic. The search engine returns a list of the papers with the author names. Before you choose which paper to read, you look at the number of citations to that paper, what journal it is published in, and which university or institute the author is affiliated with. At that point, you do not really care whether that article was suggested by the national academy of so and so. While it is still up the reader to decide the article is a good one or not, the credential described above are important especially if one is new or not an expert in the field. Now let’s establish the relationship with this wiki article and the scientific way of evaluating papers: When someone makes a wikipedia search on global warming, the list of people and their affiliations would be helpful since (1) the number of people would work in the same way as the number of citations would; (2) the name of the people would be a good starting point for further reading on their papers; (3) their affiliations will give an idea about their reputation (however, this doesn’t mean a paper of a professor from a less know school should be ignored.) Therefore, this wiki article should be kept. The only suggestion would be to include the reference to their article (although it might be a lot of work).-- (talk Mka1919 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most here aren't in doubt of the mainstream scientific view on global warming, thats really not the question - its actually the opposite. Because it is the mainstream view, the amount of scientists eligible for the list, is enormous, and thus relatively impossible to maintain. Exactly because this is mainstream, the opposing list is manageable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In my message above, I don't think I've made any comment regarding my position on global warming. Everything I wrote was about how one can scientifically determine the value of any written piece. In this case, the written piece is this list. Also, if a scientist has published a paper in favor of human-caused global warming, then it is an information every person living in this planet has a right to learn. Any act of removing this data sounds nothing more than censorship. Besides, what is better than an online encyclopedia to make the list of experts available to anyone who wants more proof on the topic? Mka1919 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: this users only contributions are to this discussion page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin This entire process has been eye-opening and disheartening. William M. Connolley, the user who nominated this article for deletion, has been disingenuous. Mr. Connolley is openly opposed to AGW. See http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/climate_snarking/ and is apparently using this nomination as a way to express his opinions on the subject. So sad. In his original nomination, he asserts that the list would be "inevitably incomplete--the implication is that so many scientists would qualify for the list that it would be silly to even start the list. Yet, in his other two comments, he argues that 99% of the people on the list should be deleted and that adding names to the list would be an onerous process. Which is it, Mr. Connolley? Do you think the list will swell to gargantuan proportions because it is over inclusive or do you think the list will be tiny because the task of verifying names and quotes will be overwhelming? Shame on you. --hunterhogan (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that this one made my day... WMC is a septic (sic)!
 * As for the rest of your comments, please try to understand the inclusion criteria for the sceptics list. You've copied the criteria to this list, but you haven't adhered to it. As far as i can see, almost everyone on the list should be there - but only 4 of them actually are qualified per the criteria. Both of WMC's statements are in fact correct - most need to be deleted, and the amount of people qualified includes all of those deleted + numerous others. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up. I may be wrong Mr. Connolley, I may be right, but I don't have the endurance to argue it. My statement may be wrong, so feel free to ignore it. Delete the article, don't delete the article--it doesn't matter. --hunterhogan (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin Atmoz is also apparently an open opponent of AGW. http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/09/29/last-word-on-oreskes-chicken-little/ See also cross references to Atmoz at Mr. Connolley's website above. The assertion that the list would contain tens of thousands of names is extreme and absurd. Furthermore, as an active denier of AGW, Atmoz would be immediately aware of my reference to "Senators write press releases about it" as referring to Senator Inhofe and his lists of "skeptics." Atmoz would also certainly be aware of the volumes of ink and bytes devoted to analyzing those Inhofe's lists. When people try to analyze the statements of the alleged skeptics on Inhofe's lists, this article (List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming) would be extremely useful. Shame on you, too Atmoz. --hunterhogan (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * open opponent... [and] active denier of AGW? It's actually the other way around young Padawan. The ones who are arguing for keeping this list are the skeptics/deniers/whathaveyou. -Atmoz (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up. I may be wrong about Atmoz, I may be right, but I don't have the endurance to argue it. My statement may be wrong, so feel free to ignore it. Delete the article, don't delete the article--it doesn't matter. --hunterhogan (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If nothing else, do we have articles for mainstream theories like List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific concept of general relativity? No. Beside the fact that I agree with the nominator, the observation that most of the list consists of IPCC report authors, this article can be incorporated in the non-supporters article in a form of an external link to the report. --Tone 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I think it should be turned into more like the opposite list, with each scientist getting his or her own little reference. --Theblog (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS the current quality of the article is not listed as a valid reason for deletion under WP:DP so please do not make that argument. I believe the article can obviously be approved upon.  --Theblog (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Something. The current list could basically be renamed List of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Authors, since that is where nearly all of the names came from.  Though it might be pushing up against WP:NOT, I wouldn't mind having such an author list.  So a rename/redesign of the existing content to make it into an author list would be okay by me.  The other half of the question is whether the list as intended would be useful.  In other words, can one construct an appropriate article listing supporters of AGW using the listed criteria or something similar.  My general belief is no, at least not one that serves as a meaningful counterpoint to list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  It is easy to support something that is "mainstream", and hence that list could easily balloon to not useful proportions (the hundreds of existing names already offer very little information, and that would only get worse if this continued to expand).  So, if the goal is to have a growing list with the structure presently presented, then I think that kind of a article is not workable and should be deleted rather than being allowed to fester.  However I am open to possibility that there might be some limiting principle that would allow one to identify a few dozen global warming advocates of particular prominence (rather than hundreds or thousands) and group them together in a useful way.  Such an article could potentially serve a useful purpose, but it would need a narrower organizing principle than the current one and presumably a different title to match.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This list, by it's very nature, must be synthesis or an author list or a list of people who've published scientific papers. The current list that this article was based on includes the sentences "It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."  The purpose of these sentences is to communicate that this is not a list of people who necessarily think that the IPCC got everything wrong or who think that carbdon dioxide is not likely to lead to global warming. This matching list up for AFD cannot have the similar language "This isn't a list of global warming advocates" because it is.  The current criteria for inclusion says that a person must have published a statement agreeing with the IPCC.   Because the IPCC is just a summary of the current state of research and it's conclusions, good scientists acting as scientists don't go around publishing statements that say "I agree with that!"; instead, they look at the consensus of current literature and find ways to test unanswered questions, reject currently supported hypotheses, and develop new testable hypotheses.  Essentially, doing science or doing advocacy can get you on the opposing the mainstream list, but only advocacy can get you on the list of those supporting the mainstream. And I just don't think that a "List of people who are both scientists and advocates of the reality of anthropogenic global warmaing" is useful. - Enuja (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider trimming the article in the course of improving it. It's looking like this will be a no consensus, which is fine.  I'm not opposed to a list of where scientists stand on the issue.  From what I can tell, this is the first article created by Hunter Hogan (and his first experience with the not-very-nice AfD Forum) and he's off to a good start on both.  He saw the need to balance out the list of scientists who oppose the mainstream (which has been up since '05), and it's a valid topic.  I'm withdrawing my delete !vote.  I don't endorse any of the personal sniping made by any of the people who argued for a keep or a delete, something that should be confined to the talk pages of the users.  Suggestions I would make for improving would be (a) consider User:Gergyl's approach (List of climate scientists to identifying signers of the four IPCC reports); and (b) since part of the point is to demonstrate that relatively few scientists oppose the mainstream, put in a section to this article that identifies those persons. Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Enuja, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.