Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists opposing 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 keep. Suggestions: rename into "List of:..." and either expand the scope or tighten criteria. `'Míkka 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently POV-pushing list. Severe and probably unsolvable problems with 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)
 * 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)


 * Neutral - Comment Wow... this is an interesting one. One the one hand, the article seems POV-pushing even though the citations themselves are theoretically factual, and it does contain much useful data with examples and attributions. In a perfect world I would hope to see this article merged into something like "Scientific opinions regarding global warming", but even that could not likely be comprehensive... Arakunem 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete, obvious POV fork (even though it's one I largely agree with). 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realkyhick (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —Pete.Hurd 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Realkyhick. Jonathan 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. At first I thought this should be included on Wiki, or else there will be endless debate on the main Global Warming page. This would be a nice way to solve the argument.  But then I thought, wait, even the title is POV (i.e., "scientists opposing...") and therefore is unsuitable for Wiki.  I'm sure there are numerous blogs out there with this complete information.  Renee 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per ""Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" rossnixon 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it continues "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 is not doing that, since it is, effectively a long list of quotes that oppose the mainstream view, given without reerence to the mainstream viewpoint or counterarguments. The mainstream view is reduced to three dubiously-principal conclusions of a single report. Adam Cuerden talk 03:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete - Per POV, and the fact that its inclusion range is too broad... Spawn Man 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some articles probably inherent in POV to some extent, and can be edited, as such Keep and edit it.JJJ999 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy Delete - Read my comment above. Basically, Adam's quote is right on.  The article is merely a collection of quotes and does nothing to place them in perspective to the majority viewpoints. (I was caught skimming here, since it does do what I said it did not do.)  There has been much discussion about changing the article's name too, so a full re-write with a new name might be in order.  Finally, the article is a collection of loosely affiliated scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming.  By that I mean that if you placed most of those scientists in a room they would probably not reach a specific conclusion as to what is wrong with the scientific consensus-view since each one of them opposes the consensus in "their own way."  This makes the article more like a list.  This brings forward additional concerns about weight besides the already articulated concerns about POV. Brusegadi 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)  The name has been changed to "List of..." so I am happy with that and the weight problem I describe above is due to the high inclusion standard the list has given the political volatility of the main topic and BLP.  So I am happy with what has been done. Brusegadi 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep There's no barrier to this article being balanced out with the majority viewpoint; it would, on the contrary, improve it. Deleting this article removes an important set of information from Wikipedia and will surely serve to fan the fires of groups like Conservapedia. Chubbles 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete. A list of scientists that support a non-notable non-mainstream fringe view, with all sources being scientifically wrong? Delete. This reads like an advocacy piece because of the title alone and continues failing past that. • Lawrence Cohen  13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to keep. Per the great arguments below. • Lawrence Cohen  18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is non-mainstream doesn't mean it's not notable. Wikipedia policy specifically supports inclusion of minority views and, when there are enough of them that are notable in the sense of the word used by Wikipedia policy, a separate article is perfectly appropriate for them, as per the specific language in WP:NPOV. In terms of Wikipedia policy, "notable" has a specific meaning related to amount and quality of sourcing, as is plainly spelled out in WP:Notability. This article is heavily sourced. Any notability problems would therefore be problems with the quality of the sources, and that argument hasn't been made here.Noroton 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know--but I don't see the value of this page, which reads as presented as an advocacy piece to make their fringe views accepted. It is on par with a page saying Bigfoot is real, or Nessie is real. It's all junk science fiction, unfortunately. If the page was a simple list without a tone of advocacy (all the quotes must go) I would reconsider. But it gives undue weight since the casual reader may come away thinking their views are accepted by the scientific community as legitimate, when they are certainly not. • Lawrence Cohen  16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it "advocating"? The list starts out with a short concise description of what the consensus view is - with direct links to Scientific opinion on climate change. Then it lists the scientists with a specific quote to show succinctly that they are opposing the consensus (WP:V and WP:BLP). The list takes no view on how WP:FRINGE the view is - nor comments on them. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Could this article be merged cleanly into Scientific opinion on climate change, where both sides would have more equal representation? It first blush it looks like that latter article would bloat somewhat, so I throw this out to the more experienced. Arakunem 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, although I don't have an opinion on whether some of the quotes here would benefit that article. You mention "more equal", which is not the same thing as "equal". Equal represenation would be too much, because these are minority views. As a list, this article performs a useful navigational function that would be lost in a merge. Noroton 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly states consensus view, so does not breach WP:UNDUE. Gives a legitimate NPOV treatment to a POV subject. Most statements come from reliable sources. Volume of statements indicates notability. The fact that this whole collection of minority views is almost certainly wrong is not grounds for deletion. Precedent for articles on minority scientific theories is established by articles in List of minority-opinion scientific theories. Could possibly rename to Minority opinions on global warming so that emphasis shifts away from individual scientists. Gandalf61 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep Massive confusion about the purpose of an article always seems to result when an article is misnamed. This article is clearly a list and the first two words in the title need to be "List of". Lists perform a different function in Wikipedia than articles do. Articles describe; lists help readers navigate. Brief descriptions of items within lists help readers avoid confusion, allowing them to get where they want to go quicker. A list may also provide a good overview of a topic, but it's not the best format for that. The quotes next to each scientist's name are inappropriate and would better be replaced with one or two sentences describing each scientist's reason for dissent. Probably an extremely short summary of the mainstream view they are dissenting from could be useful at the top of each section. How else are we supposed to help readers navigate through this essential aspect of this complicated issue? The dissent itself clearly is prominent enough to be worth covering by Wikipedia standards. If we're going to cover it, we need navigation tools and categories alone are clearly inadequate. Noroton 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment. I renamed it to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and would consider changing to keep on the condition that all the frivilous and undue weight quotes are removed permanently. All this needs to be is a flat list of names with formatted reference links. Having the prior POV name and all their unscientific fringe views espoused is giving undue weight. • Lawrence Cohen  17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: An informative, clearly notable list of notable scientists. Assists in navigation and categorization.  Is highly well-watched and policed for accuracy and WP:RS.  While the view the scientists in this article have is in the minority, it is easily notable (contrary to some posts above). Oren0 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per WP:V), and has to be directly from the scientist (to ensure that WP:BLP is in order). They have to be quotes so that we can assure that interpretation of text is kept to a bare minimum. (again WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). All the scientists have to be notable (per WP:Notable - ie. no red-links), to ensure that we are not diverging into WP:FRINGE. All quotes have to be in reliable sources (of course) (per WP:RS). There are two common ways to view the list (which to me at least indicates that WP:NPOV is upheld):
 * as a list to show that consensus doesn't exist.
 * as a list to show how few scientists really are in opposition.
 * 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)


 * keep as per KDP. The quotes are there to justify inclusion; names without quotes would be pointless. The intro makes it clear that these are these peoples opinions. Weight is irrelevant in this case William M. Connolley 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. These scientists have received adequate coverage in reliable sources. Majority view is presented in global warming. Iceage77 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite right. GW presents all significant views, with due weight. This page presents only opposing views. This page *isn't* a POV fork of GW William M. Connolley 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Iceage77. The qualifications to be placed on this list are very strict. The scientists listed had to fit extensive requirements for notability, and all were subject to harsh scrutiny prior to final approval. Skepticism of global warming, while in the minority, is not a fringe belief by any means and certainly warrants mention. The fact that skeptics hold a skeptical point of view is hardly reason to delete the article, and suggests a simple attempt to silence a minority opinion. ~ S0CO ( talk 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep as per KDP. stolenbyme 19:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per KDP and per the arguments that convinced Lawrence Cohen to change to Keep. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV pushing, making such as list is POV inherently. Judgesurreal777 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article that opposes global warming would be POV. So i'm not sure why a list of people who oppose it isn't. Operating 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep. In keeping with wikipedia's intent of being a repository of all significant knowledge and ideas, and in keeping with overall neutrality, this article should remain.  There are substantial articles on the subject of Global Warming that pretty much repeat the IPCC report or conclusions.  That position is essentially a particular pov -- and needs some balance.  But messing up the main article with "debate by proxy" is not so good either. This page is thus a good link on other "mainstream" pages to help them stay neutral.  This page also describes those mainstream views and even holds those views as the standard for including names here, so the argument that the prevailing view is not represented does not hold water.  But whereas the main articles give very little credit to these alternative views, this article allows wikipedia readers to review the minority (and possibly it is a substantial minority) alternative views on Global Warming.  Some of what these people say is interesting and is both notable and worthy of mention.  It helps inspire people to think for themselves and ask questions about those things that we just do not know. It strikes me that this is a key part of the vision of wikipedia. --Blue Tie 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a reasonable solution to POV [problems on this subject. the very title makes it clear what the POV is, and implies that there is another view--and says so clearly. It's reasonable to let both sides have a chance to present their arguments. future events will make the truth of the matter clear enough, & this will be a useful historical sumary. DGG (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's important to have documentation for these people because questions about them come up often. &larr;Ben B4 10:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It think it's very POV. No criticism or responses are presented. Not really sure what this adds to the existing articles on Global Warming SolarBreeze 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Overlapping with Category:Global_warming_skeptics. --Drieakko 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It doesn't overlap with that category at all. In addition to scientists, that category includes businesspeople, politicians, media personalities (Rush Limbaugh), etc.  Not only does this page have entry criteria that limit it to the natural sciences, but this page discusses in a succinct way why exactly each scientist is a skeptic.  Furthermore, some people on this list aren't skeptics at all; they just disagree with the accuracy of the IPCC or the harmfulness of AGW. Oren0 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no reason to list any other than scientists' opinions about scientific issues. Listing radio DJs and others as global warming "skeptics" completely ignores the fact that those people have no competence whatsoever to present skeptical views on scientific theories in an encyclopedia. Another thing is to list prominent people who promote global warming skepticism. --Drieakko 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate encyclopedic topic, which is an essential part of any complete discussion of the global warming debates. The inclusion criteria are pretty well defined and the list is well sourced and presented from a neutral point of view. There is no need to include "the mainstream view" because the topic of the article is not global warming but people who oppose global warming. For example, we say that Richard Lindzen opposes the mainstream assessment for reasons X and Y, we do not need to include counterarguments to arguments X and Y, because that's not the topic here. We could include for balance sources that showed that Lindzen actually supports the mainstream assessment, if any existed, in keeping with NPOV. But if there are none, there is no POV problem. --Itub 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep POV can be fixed, but whatever one's beliefs are about global warming, it's important to have facts about who the dissenters are. Global warming is a problem where the solution is dependent on politics.  While a "it's a hoax" crowd can truthfully state that "scientists disagree", it's good to know which scientists disagree with a view that, as the title says, is in the mainstream.  There are people who deny that the Holocaust occurred, and I'd like to be aware of who they are as well.  Mandsford 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Seems to be POV pushing, but could be kept with a substansial rewrite. ff m  17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. While some consider this POV pushing, the article actually provides readers with interesting information about scientists who disagree with the IPCC and why. A number of peer-reviewed papers have been published recently questioning global warming.  This article provides important information for students and others who are researching the global warming science controversy, helping them stay on top of this changing controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, for much of the same reason that talk.origins was originally created. Also, opposition to the IPCC consensus is very diverse. Discussing individual dissenters will lead to WP:WEIGHT problems (the IPCC or the Royal Society represent several thousand scientists each) in nearly all global warming related articles. Keeping them in one place allows an easy reference to them without that problem. --Stephan Schulz 05:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - inherently POV and presents a completely skewed picture, obviously pushing an agenda. Such things should not be tolerated anywhere in Wikipedia. Moreschi Talk 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - There were some good suggestions here for improvement. keep on the POV tone of the article.  fringe views are not a reason for deletion, being non-notable is.  --Rocksanddirt 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Scientific opposition to the IPCC consensus is a notable topic in and of itself and must be covered. The fact that only verifiable quotes are included solves much of the NPOV concerns. A few problems remain with regard to the article's title and who's in or who's out, but they're not problems of the kind that would warrant this article's deletion. --Childhood&#39;s End 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Presenting the nonconsensus viewpoint is valid if that viewpoint is notable, and this article seems to contain primarily notable quotes. Nothing wrong with that. And there do seem to be enough quotes to justify a separate article. A similar list of quotes from those who agree with the consensus viewpoint might not be a bad idea either, but the lack of such a list does not right now does not mean that this list of clearly notable statements doesn't qualify for inclusion. John Carter 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Listing people who hold a particular point of view, along with accurate descriptions of each person's POV, is not in itself asserting a POV, but is asserting facts about a POV, spefically allowed by NPOV policy. DHowell 04:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure this list is going to be kept because participants on both sides of the endless wrangling about Wikipedia's global warming articles want to keep the list. Nevertheless, I don't think this list has encyclopedic value, and it exists to further POV-pushing at places like Talk:Global warming. Scientific disagreement with the IPCC consensus should be covered in an article, not a list/quotefarm. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wouldn't that be more like Rewrite instead of Delete?--Blue Tie 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * rename to an unambiguous title such as "list of global warming critics", and keep whatever is objective and sourced. The title "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment" is completely untenable, because it implies there is a fixed and unambiguous "mainstream assessment", and that the reader is familiar with it. This appears to be simple pov-pushing-by-article-title. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Strong Keep This is a factual list of people who oppose global warming. How could it be unworthy of wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.173.102 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Probably useful list. Not paper. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a factual and neutral list. To enumerate those holding a point of view is not to advance that point of view as Wikipedia's opinion. The mainstream view of global warming is well-covered elsewhere. EdJohnston 04:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarifying question. I'm inclined to keep. However, to evaluate the article from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, I would like to know whether these scientists are expressing a "significant minority" or a "fringe" position per WP:UNDUE? As many folks know, "mainstream" is a WP term of art, contrasted with fringe. If the "mainstream" wording implies that these are fringe opinions, I can see that this could be a notable fringe. However, if these opinions constitute a "significant minority," then it is much harder to justify a separate article on a single POV. (A significant minority would cover scientific opinions that are carried well enough in peer-reviewed journals, even though they don't sway most of the audience.) So, which is it? HG | Talk 07:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep factual, well-sourced and useful list with clearly stated inclusion criteria. There is nothing POVish in it. It doesn't state that this is a mainstream position. Quite to the contrary. If it is a POV-fork, as stated by some participants of the discussion, then fork of what? The opinions are not fringe, as stated by some people here, they are all scientific. There is a mainstream opinion, but there is no scientific consensus on the reasons of global warming as of now, so deletion of this article would amount to censorship of perfectly sourced information. A single article on "Scientific opinions regarding global warming", as proposed by Arakunem, would be more rather than less POV-pushing because it would assign some undue and easily manipulated weight to the number of listed opinions pro and contra. Colchicum 01:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs to be improved not deleted. POV isn't a reason for deletion. Rocket000 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, because this is a truly horrible article. Half of it is a list of quotes (but we are not Wikiquote), the balance is redundant to global warming controversy, which unlike this article puts both sides of the case - and that makes this a POV fork, I think.  Should we have a list of scientists supportive of the consensus, with a quote from each?  It would be absurd.  This looks very much like an article created to "correct" the fact that global warming controversy does not promote the skeptical case strongly enough, or perhaps to compensate for the fact that those pesky NPOV warriors will insist on pointing out that this is a tiny minority view. Cruftbane 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Delete, this article is no where near NPOV. Any information on scientists who don't agree with the "concensus" has been removed from darn near everywhere including opening paragraphs in wiki articles to limit what can be in it .  this is a great way to shut down any information that the environmentalist activist editors don't agree with.  to shut down any listing of debate that is actually going on, you RealClimate.org people or supporters should be Asshamed to call your selves scientists.  all the "Scientific opinion on climate change" should be included in the article Scientific opinion on climate change... but than again, we can't restrict what people read that way, can we?--207.250.84.10 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is interesting, well-sourced and useful list. I do not see any POV problems. If someting is missing, let's include it. It stands perfectly as an independent list that supplements other articles.Biophys 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - there are zillions of controversies in the world. An encyclopedia must cover controversies and arguments. Not to say that the list is inherently NPOV: wnat "mainstream" today is "obsolete" tomorrrow. Mukadderat 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The deletion of internet pages, or removal of books from the public library is a step down a dangerous path. This entry seems very well written.  I see no reason to delete it.  People, the next deleted page could be yours. Duncanbrowne 06:13, 2 October 2007 (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.