Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)

JohnWBarber's response to Shulz
Rather than mess up the AfD on one article with a long tangent on another topic, I'm responding to Stephen Shulz's request for reliable sourcing with a very short response there and a fuller one here. The following is Shulz's request from the AfD page and my full response:


 * The government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming has been documented in numerous reliable sources. - Name three. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it that there's no question that the IPCC is regarded as "academic" in that it is considered a purveyor of scientific knowledge and that scientists doing climate research, for instance at the CRU, are normally funded by governments. Now here's your government-funded, politics-influenced promotion of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, brought to you by reliable sources:
 * ONE:: Wall Street Journal 2/26/10 (get it before it goes behind the subscription wall ): scientists working with the IPCC say they sometimes faced institutional bias toward oversimplification, a Wall Street Journal examination shows. The "oversimplification" pointed out in the details of this report all pointed toward exaggerating the threat of climate change, never the other way around. Many conversations with policy makers—including Mr. Gore, the senators in Greenland and Christian Gaudin, a French senator—left the clear impression that "we scientists had better get better numbers," said Mr. Alley, adding that he understands their desire for detail.[...]Even some who agree with the IPCC conclusion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change say the IPCC has morphed from a scientific analyst to a political actor.
 * TWO:: The Guardian 2/10/10: The IPCC says its reports are policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers [SPM] chapters. Is that right, the Guardian asked? "The Nobel prize was for peace not science ... government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change," said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. "[...] The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists." If you look back to the WSJ report quoted above, the summary chapters are where the scientists' caveats about the data are left out: Government-funded scientists contribute to government-run reports that are skewed for non-scientific, government-directed reasons. That isn't me saying it, it's the sources.
 * THREE:: The Times of London 11/29/09: What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.[...]Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists. “It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.” Here's an opinion piece by Pielke with an assertion that should be provable one way or the other by reliable sourcing: while the IPCC has a mandate to be “policy neutral,” its reports and its leadership frequently engage in implicit and explicit policy advocacy.
 * --JohnWBarber (talk)

Close
TS very sensibly SNOW closed this. JWB unwisely reverted that. I've re-closed it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and now User:Uncle Dick reopened it. I see this heading to the Climate Change probation board soon... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the controversy on this issue, I think the AfD guidelines trump WP:SNOW. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing ever trumps a snow close. Unless (as here) somebody undoes it. The discussion continues. --TS 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not a neutral party in this, TS. Your close was improper on that basis, and obviously WMC is not neutral either.  Just let this thing run its course and stop trying to circumvent proper process.  As you are so fond of saying, there is no deadline.  --GoRight (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be appropriate for us to thrash out the finer details of Ignore all rules here. --TS 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To GoRight: assume good faith and drop the disrespectful sarcasm. Enough said. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I am really confused, what disrespectful sarcasm? What sarcasm for that matter?  These are all just bald facts, including the policy point.  That fact that TS is invoking WP:IAR to justify his action just makes my point.  --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't justify my action, because it failed, which is a cardinal sin in ignoring rules. However the good of the encyclopedia, rather than following rules, was my motivation. --TS 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept that. I never doubted it, actually.  But who cares if this AfD sits here for a week?  The article is unaffected other than having a tag at the top, right?  It just doesn't look like something where we need to WP:IAR to me.  YMMV, I suppose.  --GoRight (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)