Deletion of List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Comment: The article is well sourced, per , and clearly passes  and the scientists are notable, each having their own Wikipedia page. I take note of the delete arguments that some of these experts are of scientific disciplines that are on the outskirts or edges of climate science, fine then add sources stating that, per . As per these scientists being a small, even fringe, minority of scientists, they are still a notable prominent fringe minority and the article clearly states, even with a convincing graph, that these scientists are a very small minority. Science progresses with minority opinions criticising majority opinion as it usually helps the majority opinion strengthen and refine their opinion whilst refuting the minority opinion. I can see no benefit in deleting minority opinion, rather as an encyclopedia we should be educating our readers by saying, in an encyclopedic sourced tone, here is the minority opinion and notable people who support it and here is the reason they are wrong, per the majority scientific opinion instead of just delete, delete, delete, suppress, suppress, suppress, hide, hide, hide, pushing editors towards fringe POV poor quality websites instead. From reading the list, as a lay person with limited knowledge of climate science, I come away with the view that these scientists are a very small minority and on available evidence are highly likely to be incorrect in their opinions, but I still believe the list has encyclopedic value. I fear deletion of this article advances the outside opinion that Wikipedia is prone to biased editing and deletion decisions due largely to . Finally, as per the top right of this page, '''there have been 7 previous deletion discussions re. this article''', 4 of which resulted in ‘keep’ and 3 of which resulted in ‘no consensus’. It seems like we are voting again and again until we eventually vote the ‘right way’ and get the delete result. To me there needs to be an overwhelming delete consensus if we are to overrule or set aside 7 previous deletion discussions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:LISTN||WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Unencyclopedic |shopping list that causes grave BLP issues by lumping people together in (effectively) a club of fools, based very often on cherry picked things they have said many years ago
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Should have been done long ago. It's  and  by its own criteria. I never bought the arguments that Wikipedians were allowed to do this because it was a list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: this is not WP:OR or synth. The list easily passes  {{tq|Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.}} This is a list for research purposes. As a service to our readers it is good that we have such a list. It is not easy to find naysayers, and here we have a collection of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I can't tell whether this is a shrine to denialism, a wall of shame, or just a pile of , but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to be originating this sort of compilation. It appears that most or all of the sources are either on the general topic of denialism or on one specific person, not catalogs from which we can draw. And "people quoted for stuff they don't have expertise on" raises BLP issues as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: per  and ; the only possible justification for  (ie. that some fringe advocacy groups use such lists to advance their position) violates , since those lists aren't treated seriously by any mainstream source.  The sourcing is terrible and suffers from  issues, which is a problem in a list because their criteria has to be clear and uncontroversial.  More generally, we don't have comparable nose-counting lists on other scientific theories, so it's hard to see what the purpose of this list would be except to promote a  position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:PROFRINGE||WP:LISTN||WP:PROFRINGE||WP:BIASED||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: If someone is well known for being a climate change denier, that can be mentioned directly at their BLP or even better, handled by a category. As others have mentioned, it's also an incoherent grouping not suitable for , and has  issues inherent within trying to keep such an ambiguous listing, so that furthers the need for dealing with specific examples in prose at relevant articles if they truly are DUE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:DUE)

Comment: The nomination's claim that the topic doesn't pass  is blatantly false because entire books are written about these people – see below.  The other claims are likewise false because the list has been extensively curated, debated and developed ever since it was first created.  Its creator was not some wild-eyed denialist but was Robert Rohde who is a respectable scientist working in this field.  Others who have supported the list in the past include William Connolley who is likewise an expert in the field.  They seem to be away currently – perhaps they are burnt out or too busy to waste time on such repetitive and vexatious discussion.  There are obviously sensible |alternatives to deletion such as merger with climate change denial or environmental skepticism.  This would be consistent with our policy , facilitating further development and discussion as the years continue to pass and the outcomes become clearer.  Deleting and salting the page would clearly be an act of |censorship, trying to shut down further activity, contrary to .  As this is a sensitive topic, subject to arbcom sanctions, we should not take intemperate action contrary to the evidence and our policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:CENSOR||WP:CCC)

Comment: Intrinsically vague and |SYNTH-etic. Fails  for being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. We do nothing good by heaping together people who have no relevant expertise and said a thing one time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:LISTN)

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming_(3rd_nomination)|Even ten years ago it was clear to me and others that this article had become a |badly written nexus of non-notable fringe theories and advocacy for religious points of view. Ten years on, a dozen scientists formerly denying climate change have died. Outside of another dozen die-hards in the United States, virtually no credentialed scientist does not think that climate change is man-made and will, on the whole, have deleterious effects on us and our world. As a scientific community, we also have much more information and data, and the consensus has gotten stronger (close to 99.9 % of scientists agree) as the Max_Planck#Quantum_mechanics|obituary pages continue to publish the memorials to those who disagree with scientific consensus. Everyone has moved on with their lives. In the meanwhile, I've earned a master's of art in teaching secondary science. I still find students who don't believe in evolution, and in some quarters, natural selection remains controversial, but ''absolutely nobody'' -- not teachers, not students, not scholars -- ''seriously'' denies climate change any more. A list that purports to list the dozen or so people who still deny it to their grave is shrinking each day, and is an example of FUD|fraudulently spreading doubt and uncertainty, as noted by {{U|Johnuniq}}. At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemy, Luminiferous aether|ether, and astronomy. Sure there are a handful of believers in this, Area 51, cold fusion, Occultism in Nazism, AIDS denialism, and the Age of Aquarius, but it's so few that to list them in an article is to give |extreme undue weight to that side. The list also is written as a Gish gallop - a whole series of illogical arguments with their own adherents designed to obfuscate the lack of evidence of the other side
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The list is |synthesis to mislead the reader into thinking there is significant doubt about the reality of global warming. For an example of the FUD, consider what our articles claim for two entries: Garth Paltridge "believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, but disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion in that he thinks that the warming will probably be too small to be a threat"; Harrison Schmitt thinks "climate change is a tool for people who are trying to increase the size of government". An article Scientific consensus on climate change|on the topic should discuss  views, but this list is original research reflecting nothing more than it is always possible to find a hundred doubters in a planet of seven billion people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:DUE)

Comment: The nominator and subsequent arguments above have pretty much summed up the many issues with this list, including , the vague nature of the inclusion criteria, and the fact that the topic is far to nuanced to be able to create any sort of split between "agrees' and "disagrees".  The number of prior AFDs on this list are completely irrelevant to the current discussion, as the last one was close to six years ago, and resulted in No Consensus.  That is more than enough time to be allowed to revisit the discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I can see no conceivable reason why such a list should exist.  We don't need to have lists of people who agree or disagree with every particular controversial thing.  This feels very -y as an article, and I'm flummoxed as to how it survived through this many prior AFDs.  Delete it, kill it with fire, and burn the ashes again for good measure
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The !votes above to "salt" are concerning because  is intended for articles that have been deleted and then repeatedly recreated. In this case the opposite is true so far as I can see – the article has never been deleted but has been repeatedly kept, either through consensus or lack of it. Those here !voting "salt" may unintentionally have given the impression they have not given thought to protection policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: While I agree there problems with people trying to puff it up, and the inclusion criteria could be improved, yet it is a place where the generalized notion of "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" is particularized as ''these'' "scientists". And that is very useful for seeing who they are, what kind of records they have, and the generally pathetic nature of the "lots of scientists disagree" argument. As to "{{tq|no value in a list like this}}" because these aren't "real" scientists, or their statements are out of date: well, yes, that is the nature of ''every'' such list that the deniers have prepared or alluded to – these are not serious scientists, etc. Indeed, the main reason this list has gotten as big as it is because the deniers keep wanting to add to it. As long as the denialists argue that "there are scientists who disagree" with the mainstream view a list of such scientists is notable, and we should retain it. It is not |''UN''DUE for giving an inflated view of how much doubt there is, it is ''entirely''  in showing how thin and weak is this alleged doubt
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:DUE)

Comment: per  (the list can be improved to address the above concerns) and : almost all of these scientists are listed in :Category:Climate change skepticism and denial and a list is actually superior to the categorization since sourcing requirements can be more easily enforced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:CLN)

Comment: or '''Draftify.''' Ohhh, dear. This is like... oof. Idk. Basically, my hot take on this list is pretty simple: a notable scientist who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus on climate change is decently interesting while a scientist who accepts the consensus is... well just like the rest of 'em. I disagree with how the list is formatted (it should be more patently obvious what it is these folks are saying and how and why most aren't qualified to say it), but that is more of a matter for clean up than anything.Honestly, this feels more like a  arguement, but I'll just say what's on my mind. It's probably going to be either (1) we publish this list and get to inject necessary context for who these people are or (2) climate deniers publish this sorta list and make it sound like there is this huge secret group of dissenters that The Left™ doesn't want you to know about. I think people ought to know that these climate denying scientists happen to include Keith E. Idso the Botany|botanist and David Deming the geology|geologist.We need a better list, though. Maybe I'll clean this up later just for the fun of it. Were I to do so, I would probably use sources like these.https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.118-a536https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climatehttps://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/26/the-fp-guide-to-climate-skeptics/https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-11-29-climate-deniers-found-themselves-on-tvhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4 My point is that there is a right way to do this, but this currently doesn't reflect that. &#8211
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: any list with this title and scope will inherently give |undue weight to the fringe theory of climate change denial, because it will largely consist of a long list of people who support that fringe theory, giving the impression that it's a widely held view. A paragraph or two at the top of the page pointing out that they represent a tiny minority cannot hope to counterbalance this. It is also lumping together people with wildly disparate views, from people diagreeing with the IPCC assessment (including those who think it is too optimistic) to those who don't think global warming is happening or who don't think it's anthropogenic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)