Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 3 March 2010

Climate change exaggeration

Climate change exaggeration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• This is a neologism and essentially a POV fork of climate change controversy. The only sources which use this term as it is used here are some blogs and some partisan sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article does not cite any blogs. The article does cite U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com. Why would you say the article only cites blogs, when it doesn't cite any blogs, and it does cite four reliable, non-blog sources? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well sourced and represents a legitimate viewpoint. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The article is needed in order to balance out Climate change denial. Also, the article does not cite any blogs. The article does cite U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com Grundle2600 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are other ways to balance it; do it there, for one. See wp:neo
• Delete per nom. Could be traited with one line of text in the climate change controversy article. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1 line? really? How are you going to handle treatments of the IPCC exaggerations along with other science problems as they arise, plus over the top treatments in the popular press in one line? Given that climate change controversy is weighing in at 127k, normal process would be to be breaking out sections such as climate change exaggeration into their own pages and not adding more material (and the phenom deserves much more than one line) over there. TMLutas (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"per nom"? What are you talking about? The article does not cite any blogs. The article does cite U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com. Why would you say the article only cites blogs, when it doesn't cite any blogs, and it does cite four reliable, non-blog sources? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Google scholar has 66,500 hits on the term. This AfD is *very* premature. I think that given the number of hits on the term, simply asserting that this is a neologism is insufficient. At worst, the undeveloped level would deserve incubation but I don't think we should even do that unless there's something more than naked assertion here. TMLutas (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• As was pointed out below, you are not searching correctly. If I search Google scholar for telephone miami dog jesus I get 11,500 hits, however the exact phrase "telephone miami dog jesus" understandably comes up with nothing. "Climate change exaggeration" also bring sup nothing. Hopefully this information will cause you to rethink your vote, otherwise it is based on a falsehood. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Next week on Wild Wacky Misplaced Pages Deletion Debates®: Telephone Miami Dog Jesus ZS 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that I was sloppy, but subsequent search on climate change alarmism with quotes yields enough actual scholarly articles that keep and name change might be a better solution. Another thing to look at is that people on both sides of the climate debate are improving the article. Old !votes to delete should be taken with a grain of salt, such as WMC's as he's improving the article as well. Unless, that is, he and others are vandalizing it to try to sway the AfD in which sanctions would be a better response. TMLutas (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith and don't attempt to discredit fellow Misplaced Pages editors' opinions without good reasons. Even if you're right and some of them did change their previously stated positions, they already know the location of the Edit button and are free to use it whenever they like. — Rankiri (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• As somebody who has been separately accused on this discussion of bad faith, I'm sensitive to the question. The plain fact is that there are a remarkable number of edits for an article that is AfD by people who have !voted to delete. Why ever would you do that except as an implicit admission that there's something there worth editing? That's relevant to this discussion and reason for the grain of salt comment. Since this is also on article probation because of significant past sabotage of articles relevant to this topic, the subject of hostile edits and sabotage aren't beyond the pale in my opinion. TMLutas (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork and unsubstantiated neologism. People on all sides of all issues exaggerate all the time; there's nothing to suggest that this particular pair of exaggerations comprise an entity. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you also support deletion of Climate change denial for those same reasons? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Just as Climate change denial constitutes an entity, from the "denialist perspective" this lemma does comprise an entity. Joepnl (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork. If done properly (search for the term, not the individual words), Google Scholar has no hits at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the subject of climate change exaggeration, not the phrase "climate change exaggeration." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not shown that to be a notable topic. And TMLutas search above is worthless to support the notability or sourceability of the topic. His search returns e.g. "climate change and other scientific matters. These problems are often clearly inspired not by any inclination to exaggerate" as the very first hit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article states that a Gallup poll shows that 41% of the population believes that the news media exaggerates the effects of climate change. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That hardly constitutes "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" (WP:GNG).04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it's premature to delete. It's a notably growing topic with many scientific and especially political source examples for quotations. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep Though it might be renamed to Climate change alarmism (52000 hits) being the exact opposite of Climate change denial. I've heard our (Dutch) Minister of Environment claiming on national TV that "the world might come to an end within 30 years". This highly educated person wasn't talking about hungry polar bears but an actual "end of the world" which even the IPCC would deem ridiculous. This psychological phenomenon of people making outrageous claims in the area of climate change they must know aren't true certainly deserves a lemma. I guess in other areas it's called suspension of disbelief but that would probably violate WP:OR :). (also amazed that this article got listed here within 16 minutes.) Joepnl (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether you believe the topic to be important or existent is irrelevant; until the topic itself is given substantial coverage in reliable sources and can be written in a NPOV way, there should not be an article on it. And Stephen Schulz's Google Scholar search seems to indicate that no such sources exist. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism does so if that's your problem please strike your "Delete" and create a proper redirect page.Joepnl (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How many of those are actually about the topic of "climate change alarmism" as a whole, and are not fringe pieces trying to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming? — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a typical heads I win, tails you loose argument. You would define any source critical of alarmism as a fringe piece for the mere fact that it would inherently have the heretic opinion that the effects of climate change (or man's contribution to them) are smaller than "consensus" says they are. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the IPCC is exactly right, and its reports comprise nothing but the truth. Undoubtedly there are many people saying that the IPCC makes claims that are too strong and a nice article already describes the situation on that side. It is also undoubtedly true that there are notable people making notable statements that go beyond what the IPCC is saying. This article (though I would like it to be titled "climate change alarmism") would be exactly the same as the article on denialism. It should list politicians, movie makers, etc. claiming things that are not backed up by any science, and I trust you and the rest of the community will make it clear that many accusations of alarmism made by the "fringe people" are not backed up by science, whereas some are. I really don't see why this article could not blossom into a very nice, perfectly neutral place where people like you can refer to when someone says "Al Gore is lying about X" where all those false accusations are rebutted. It is not the mere existence of an article that constitutes a POV. If it did the existence of Climate change denial is indeed an example of an article that should be deleted as well, which I would strongly oppose. Joepnl (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note - It would be better named "Global warming..." rather than "Climate change..." given the structure of our Global warming and Climate change articles. Shadowjams (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that before I created the article, and since Global warming denial redirects to Climate change denial, I wanted it to follow the same pattern. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete it's merely a label applied to a term. Belongs on Conservapedia for "truthiness", but not on any reputable site. User: TeamZissou but not signed-in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.101.198 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning This user has vandalized the article by removing all the sources, and adding multiple unsourced claims which make the article look ridiculous. Does that invalidate their vote for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mu, because this isn't a vote ZS 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - An ill-advised, hastily-written, and poorly-timed entry into the growing global warming topic area, doing little more than inciting the battlefield mentality. Obvious POV fork of exiting content, as noted by SA and others. That the author in his keep vote cites a "The article is needed in order to balance out..." rationale is of concern though, as this is a fundamental misunderstanding of ] that Grundle has repeated again, and again, and again, and again across the project, leading to an ArbCom sanction, several blocks, and a topic ban. It would seem that the later needs revisiting, as it was last up on the admin boards just 3 weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you also favor deleting Climate change denial? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a clarification of my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That note from Thatcher is from last June. You're put on a lot of mileage since then, as can be seen in several subsequent AN and AN/I's, the most recent of which I linked to above. It is quite frankly an impossibility to separate just "the science" from politics, especially in the present in the middle of all this battleground mentality around the topic area. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this page was about discussing articles that should or should not be deleted. There are enough other pages especially designed to discuss individual users. Assuming good faith, I guess you didn't have Grundle in mind when you decided to write "Delete". Joepnl (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely had grundle in mind, as this is the same sort of problem we've had to deal with him over the last year; a critical misunderstanding of WP:NPOV that results in disruptive article creations such as this. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the misunderstanding of NPOV and why would this article be disruptive? Joepnl (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Based on the comments above there appears to be sufficient reliable material to expand the article and it provides a reasonable counter-point to balance Climate change denial and bring things to a more WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Aren't articles supposed to be internally NPOV? We're not supposed to balance one article against another one. If that's the case, why don't we just go the whole hog and balance wikis against one another? That way we could let Conservapedia collect all the trash. It would certainly save some time here ... --PLUMBAGO 10:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course they should be internally NPOV. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. The information here is the logical counter-point to the denial article that has already been allowed to exist. These articles, Climate change denial and Climate change exaggeration are both properly viewed as specific content forks from Climate change controversy and they should be treated as such. NPOV applies at the Climate change controversy level and any content forks which are related to it. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, perhaps Climate change exaggeration does have a place in this world — we need a name for the climb-down strategy of climate change contrarians when they can no longer deny the blindingly obvious. At that point, outright denial will gradually slip into "not-as-bad-as-you-said-it-would-be", and political point-scoring can continue as normal (cf. here). Probably a bit early just yet though, but worth bearing in mind for the future. --PLUMBAGO 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I guess Orwellian support is better than no support at all. At a time when the IPCC has had to clime down from a number of exaggerations (Himalayan glaciers, N. African agriculture) you can't conceive that some on the alarmist side of the discussion might be exaggerating. This is double plus ungood. TMLutas (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. What really would be doubleplusungood was if we started representing changes (actually tweaks) in relatively minor angles of the IPCC climate science as being highly significant (per WP:UNDUE). Further, presenting a heterogeneous morass of competing scientists as a faceless, monolithic Big Brother is kind-of amusing given that truly faceless and monolithic corporate interests (Big Brothers?) are demonstrably engaged in Minitrue activities. --PLUMBAGO 10:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per GoRight. Agree with Joepnl that article might better be named Climate change alarmism. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just created that article. Joepnl (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it for speedy deletion. Wait for the outcome of this discussion. Copy-and-paste also has other problems - in particular, you have no valid attribution information per CC-BY-SA (your creation comment is probably insufficient now and certainly will be so if this page gets deleted). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Any criticisms or errors in IPCC reports can be recovered in articles on the IPCC or whoever; the assertion that any of these errors constitute alarmism or exaggeration is pure original research and a fringe POV often propogated by GW skeptics who wish to discredit the AGW hypothesis. Global warming denialism is completely different, as it is a term used in scholarly literature and a cultural phenomenon in its own right. Also, the USNEWS piece is a blog. Also, delete Global warming alarmism. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article says that a Gallup poll shows that 41% of the population believes that the media exaggerates the effects of climate change. That's not original research - it's a verifiable fact. The U.S. News & World Report article is labeled "Science News' Science & the Public Blog." That means it's an article, with a "blog" for the "public" to comment on the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete and indef anyone who thinks it should exist. This bullshit is what's wrong with Misplaced Pages and the people who advocate for this garbage should be removed so people who actually are competent to write on science topics can do so. -Atmoz (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the person who created the article. In response to your comment, I'd like to point out that I have created many other science articles, which have never been nominated for deletion. My userpage has links to them. Some of those articles are even about technologies that were created to reduce the problems of global warming. I am quite competent at writing articles on science. I also happen to believe that manmade global warming is real - but I do believe that its effects have been exaggerated. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, article should be cleaned up, but this is clearly a valid topic, given the number of sources addressing the topic. It's not original research when we have plenty of sources on the topic. Oppose blocking of supporters; personal attacks are not necessary. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - that's a critic of climate change, which already has its article. -RobertMel (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. Gobonobo 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Sorry but this is not even close, and those supporting this need to get a lot more convincing than "clearly a valid topic" and the like if they want to avoid deletion. The lead sentence tells us that "Climate change exaggeration is a set of beliefs which overstates the effects of climate change." Really, according to whom? Because if we are going to title an article by a given term we should not be defining it based on the perception of one editor (which is exactly what is happening here, and that's why this is original research). But let's actually look at the references, surely there we'll find reliable sources that define the term "Climate change exaggeration" as we do in the lead sentence. Source one, a US News story, does not have the word "exaggeration" in it (thus it does not back up this phrase) though it does speak to an exaggeration by a climate scientist (this is literally the only source that does). It does not refer to "Climate change exaggeration" (or anything similar) as a term or a phenomenon, it just says one guy made a claim based on little or no data and later admitted it. The Reuters story talks about a simple error, something which was "wrongly stated" and which related to the percentage of the Netherlands under sea level. So it's not an "exaggeration", it's a mistake, and it's not even about climate change, it's about European geography. The NYT article is about an ill-advised slide that Al Gore used to use in his slideshow (the article does not say he was trying to exaggerate), but also about an error by AGW skeptic George Will—i.e. the subject of the articles is errors/exaggerations on both sides, not solely among those who "overstate the effects of climate change" as our "article" says. The fourth footnote is about a poll that says many people think global warming is exaggerated. Surveys also say that many people think football is too violent, American Idol is not worth watching, and Disneyworld is more fun than EuroDisney (or is it the other way around?), but we don't have articles on those things, I guess because public opinion polls are not a good basis for an article, despite Grundle's repeated claims above. The fifth footnote supports one of the most ridiculous, WP:OR/SYNTHish sentences ever, as it points out that kids are scared of global warming (and from that the reader should, I suppose, conclude that the exaggerators are evil, scaring the kids!). Obviously it does not establish that "Climate change exaggeration" is some known, discussed phenomenon. Neither do the five total hits on the phrase in a Google News archive search, all of which seem to refer to the NYT article that happens to say "Climate Change, Exaggeration" in its title (compare with over 500 for a search on "Climate change denial"—see the difference?). In short, there are no reliable sources in the article that establish that there is an observed and discussed phenomenon called "Climate Change Exaggeration" (or any similar name). Some people think climate science is exaggerated, of course, but climate change controversy (and probably elsewhere) is a perfectly fine place to discuss that viewpoint. I'm afraid it's unsurprising that this article was written by the same person who gave us the quickly deleted Michelle Obama's arms, among other bits of egregious original research, and hopefully this one will soon go the same way. The !keep comments are completely unconvincing so that seems likely. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• The article is about the subject of climate change exaggeration, not about the phrase "climate change exaggeration." This old version of my sandbox shows that the article on Michelle Obama's arms was very well sourced - it never should have been deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you really just go there? Tarc (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that made me smile! But I think the more pressing need is over at Dolly Madison's bosom. Her décolletage was apparently the talk of the town before those cursed redcoats destroyed it! (the town, not her low neckline). As to this AfD I'm afraid you rather missed my point Grundle, and I already read your comment about what you think the article is about above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

These articles haven't been deleted: Rasputin's penis, Isaac Newton's tooth, Oliver Cromwell's head, and Lord Uxbridge's leg. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please just have one AfD where we don't talk about where Rasputin's penis up and ran off to? Let's agree to disagree on whether or not it's in St. Petersburg! But seriously Grundle, you seem to be at the wrong AfD here, though it's fun to remember how you somehow forgot that you created that Michelle Obama's arms article just 14 minutes after you created it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Original research, no neutral point of view, no redeeming merit. StuartH (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's a little raw in it's appearance but that happens quite often in new articles and I'd like to see it given a chance to improve. There should be no lack of sources these days. I see it just added an Anxiety in Children section and from first hand experience with kids from K-5 this is so true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that section is a disaster. For one thing it completely misrepresents what the article says, since the articles do not remotely say anything about "how global warming exaggeration had effected students," it talks about how the science around global warming has effected students. In fact I'm going to delete that entire section right now because the WaPo article is not about this topic in the slightest and we cannot misrepresent sources like that. And Fyunck, are you really saying that in your experience kids are anxious about "climate change exaggeration?" Because that's what this article is about. I think you are saying they are anxious about climate change, and maybe you (or maybe not) and others think that's unfortunate because they feel the science is exaggerated, but I highly doubt kids are losing sleep over "climate change exaggeration," which is the ludicrous claim made in this article. It's not a matter of being "a little raw," it's that this is not anywhere near being an encyclopedia article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am saying that children are being psychologically affected by Climate Change Exaggerations. I see it in my extended family and in children I work with. I have seen grade school teachers put on probation for exaggerating to the point of idiocy and the kids going home scared and scarred. I've seen them talk about it on the nightly news. It's a valid topic in today's world and whether one believes the science or not, exaggeration of global warming is happening. And since people are looking it up online it's better if they have a nice neat package right here on wiki where the sources can be checked and everyone can argue to the death what should be included :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Wow, what a nice mine field this is. I agree with Bigtimepeace that the opening sentence is a problem, quite a big problem. However, I do believe that "CC Alarmism" is a notable enough term to warrant an article. Unfortunately, if a significant number of people start believing that man-made climate change is a hoax or at least overblown, if newspapers start reporting on it, if right-wing demagogues start making money off of books indicting environmentalists and scientists for said "alarmism," then WP should have an article on the topic. The article doesn't need to be a POV fork: I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of notable sources stating that plenty of people think that this alarmism exists. That those people in my opinion are idiots (sorry Grundle, excuses Joep) doesn't change the fact of notability. Grundle, I didn't think that the day would ever come that I'd vote with you! How about it? Drmies (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• My only concern is that you apologized for calling me an idiot - you should never apologize for saying what you believe is the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hehe, I think I may have been in the US too long. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Drmies, is that this article is not designed to be the article in which you are interested—i.e. about the people who think there is alarmism in global warming and what they say. This article is about the supposed fact of "Climate change exaggeration." That's an irremediable problem in my view, and we're better off starting over from scratch if we must and coming up with some alternative title, possibly combining it with something else. But really I do not see why this cannot simply be covered at climate change controversy. We absolutely cannot have an article about every particular belief of a particular group. "Climate change liars" gets about as many Gnews hits as "Climate change exaggeration," and undoubtedly lots of people think these scientists are liars, but that ain't going to be an article any time soon. If you think this need not be a POV fork (as it currently is), you should explain how we are going to make it not be one, otherwise it should be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I advocated "Climate change alarmism" as a better title. What an article is designed to do--that is a tricky question, but the alarmism is, in my opinion, a notable enough topic, which can cover nuts like Imhofe. Sure, one can argue plausibly that this (kind of) content could be covered in another article also--Climate change denial, for instance--but that in itself is not a reason for deletion, given that, for instance, the Google hits are there. And look at the "See also" section in Climate change denial; one could easily argue that we have too many articles on the topic already. I think I would argue that--and merge the lot of them, including this one, but without singling this one out and beating up on the creator. There's some local warming here, and we all need to cool down some. As to your other (and valid) question, How does one prevent this from being a total POV fork? By careful editing and extensive scrutiny. The latter is certainly there, judging from the article history. That's a start. How this discussion is going to turn out, I don't know, and I'm glad I'm not a closing admin on anything. No one is going to be happy with the outcome. Until then, I'll be squirrel fishing, using one of Rasputin's balls as bait. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Seems like a valid article mark nutley (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin will ignore that comment unless you provide an actual rationale—"seems valid" is not one. I advise the closing admin to carefully peruse all of these reflexive supports that do not actually make an argument of any kind (there may be some delete !votes like that too). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• delete blatant POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Though the title is funny, it is inherently biased and the article is a clear POV fork. Sole Soul (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear POV fork. Seems to also be WP:POINTy to complain about Climate change denial. Personally I'd remove climate change denial as well as I think the material about businesses funding opposition can go into the Climate change consensus article without making it unduly bigf or losing the plot. However that something else exists is not a good reason to have this blatant duplicate article with a point of view title. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC).
• Comment. Administrators should note that the above "keep" votes from Tillman, GoRight and TMLutas appear to have been votestacked by Grundle2600. StuartH (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  On what are you basing this accusation? Please substantiate your charge. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)I have requested a response from the user here. --GoRight (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  For my part I was NOT canvassed about this AfD. I was informed by Grundle that the new article had been created. The timeline was: Grundle created the article at 01:53, 25 February 2010, he was informing interested parties about the article from 01:58, 25 February 2010 until 02:04, 25 February 2010. This AfD was created by SA at 02:03, 25 February 2010 and he put the template up on the article at 02:09, 25 February 2010. This hardly looks like canvassing for the AfD to me. It is quite conceivable that Grundle wasn't even aware of the AfD until after SA posted the template on the article at 02:09 by which time Grundle had already informed everyone he did about the article. --GoRight (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• . — Rankiri (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• GoRight is right. Unless I'm missing something, the accusations of impropriety seem unsubstantiated. — Rankiri (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Grundle2600 would have known that the article would be immediately nominated for deletion, and selective notification of a partisan audience is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS. Administrators should be made aware of this. StuartH (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So now you are also accusing Grundle of WP:ABF? I believe that the correct approach here is for you to WP:AGF and WP:AAGF in which case Grundle was doing a very reasonable thing, namely he created an article and began to seek out interested parties to help him improve it. You are trying to turn a reasonable action into something nefarious and requiring precognition on the part of Grundle in the process. For me that's a bit thin.

I leave it to the administrators decide but I certainly don't feel as though I was canvassed about this AfD. I only became aware of it because of the template on the article which is the normal process. --GoRight (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also consider it a matter for the administrators to decide, and I don't assume bad faith -- just that with foresight the appearance of impropriety could have been avoided. In the interests of transparency, the fact that several votes on one side appear to be a result of selective notification by the author should be known. With a clear consensus developing, it seems like a moot point anyway. StuartH (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that I informed those editors about my creation of the article was because I had seen them complaining on talk pages that there was no place on wikipedia where this kind of information could be added without getting erased, and I thought they would like to contribute to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Jeez, I don't even know what to say about this one. I know every en.wp article that's in any way related to a dramatic real-life issue is bound to be pissy and opinionated, but this article just feels wrong. ZS 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry--I can't find an entry for your feelings anywhere in the extensive set of Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I am having a hard time spotting a real argument in your comments. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess what I meant to say was that the idea of counteracting a biased article with another equally biased article in the opposite direction is fundamentally asinine and leaves us with two crappy articles instead of one decent article. Got to stop debating before bed. ZS 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Reasons do not have to be stated in terms of policy or gudelines and they don't even have to be covered by them either. The policies and guidelines reflect practice not the other way round. A good cogent reason is better than a pile of badly applied alphabet soup anyday. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Meaningless gibberish when one considers that climate change estimates range widely. "My model's exaggeration is your model's unresponsiveness", etc. That, and it's original research and / or neologism. Another attempt to smuggle denial in by the backdoor? --PLUMBAGO 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Plainly a POV-fork born of a regrettable battleground mentality. There is nothing that can be put into this article that would not be better covered elsewhere, with balance and more thoughtful context. E.g. Public opinion on climate change, Politics of global warming, global warming controversy, criticism of IPCC AR4 (although the latter is likely to be renamed to something like Reception of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for clarity and NPOV), etc. --Nigelj (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete This all can be added to one of the many article on GW. Also, I fear this is just going to be another article for arguments and division between editors. The last thing needed is another article to battle over. Add the information to one of the other articles. I also agree with the nom on this. --CrohnieGal 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Global warming controversy. The title is probably a valid search term, but it is a poor title for an article as it implies that the climate change predictions are indeed exaggerated, causing all sorts of WP:NPOV problems. The global warming/climate change issue has enough political controversy to justify one article, but hardly enough to justify 6-7 articles, each titled with a different term used by global warming skeptics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete as POV fork, the redirect to Global warming controversy appears reasonable. The items listed include incorrect statements on issues properly covered in the crit of AR4 article, and trivia such as the "Inaccurate description of polar bear photograph" which, interestingly enough, claims that exaggerated statements were made by the same British newspapers that are now publishing exaggerated and incorrect accounts claiming that global warming has been exaggerated. Press wrong is not news. . . dave souza, talk 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  Do you likewise consider Climate change denial to be a POV fork that should be deleted? --GoRight (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. . . dave souza, talk 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  I may be mistaken, but I think WP:NPOV (a policy) trumps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (an essay). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to actually be on my side of this issue when it says "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'". So, again, is Climate change denial a POV fork that should be deleted in your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hopeless I don't see any way this ends up anything other than an eternal battleground. I fear that it doesn't matter what the article could be, because it will never be more than POV warfare.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be destined for OR, Merge any non-OR into appropriate Climate Change related articles. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. For an encyclopedia, the subject of the article appears to be inherently non-encyclopedic. The article starts from stating that Senator James Inhofe frequently uses exaggerated language to describe climate change. To me, it's like having a page on Fishing exaggeration and filling it with "Fisherman Bob Dumbell often claims that he once caught a fish THIS big". And are my eyes are finally failing me, or does the article actually have a subsection called "Exaggerations made by children"? To me, this is ridiculously obvious POV fork. Whatever substantial information it may offer, it's already covered by Global Warming and other related pages. — Rankiri (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can read my comment above, but let's be fair. The Inhofe section was added by someone who's !voted delete as a "blatant POV fork".--Cube lurker (talk)

• Still, taking the article's title into account, doesn't that subsection have a right to be there? Considering that this looks like a new rallying point for climate change deniers and antiscientific propagandists, I think that that line is a pretty decent indicator of the article's future development. I also want to mention that by providing misleading criticisms of the subjects fully covered by other pages and having no separate informational value of its own, the article is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE. — Rankiri (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I'm clear that this article is a hopless battleground. But when user "A" creates an article, and user "B" says it's a bad article then adds a bad section, I think it's poor form for user "C" to rail against that section in the AFD without noting the context.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, I didn't actually notice that when I posted my first comment and I'm thankful for your correction. What I'm trying to say is that I didn't choose that particular section because of its singularity. The article quotes a nine-year-old boy, for crying out loud. — Rankiri (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. That other section is fair game.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I removed the section that explained that some kids, shockingly, are not in full possession of the basic facts surrounding global warming and are also prone to exaggeration. Not only was it ridiculous to the nth degree, it was also original research given what the source article actually says. Of course it was soon re-added by the article creator, which is a pretty good indication of where this thing is going in the future. See the first section of the article talk page for more discussion on this "issue." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete obvious POV fork. Anything useful can be merged into global warming controversy. Vsmith (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork -- with tines in each POV camp, no less! Or redirect. To pissing contest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The article seems to have begun as an opinion piece based on original research and has continued in that vein. I think Grundle2600 should be encouraged to publish this material on his blog. --TS 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Wow! All these comments in favor of deletion make me think it's time to create a new article called Climate change exaggeration denial. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• But that would then presumably lead inexorably to Climate change exaggeration denial exaggeration (people are going way overboard with their talk about how others are in denial about climate change exaggeration!) and I think that's just too long of a title. I feel for the admin who takes on the task of closing this, but at least there is some funny stuff to read along the way! :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Heh heh heh! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep If Misplaced Pages is going to have a climate change denial article, then this seems only fair. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse to delete a Misplaced Pages article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let me get it straight. Your answer to your own red herring "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is WP:OTHERSTUFF? Very constructive. — Rankiri (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per A Quest for Knowledge Str8cash (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing that you just commented on 11 AfD discussions in less than 14 minutes, what particular part of Quest for Knowledge's comment caused you to to believe firmly that the article in question didn't have any problems with WP:CFORK, WP:NEO, and WP:UNDUE? Perhaps it will force me to change my opinion as well. — Rankiri (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. It is a Misplaced Pages:POV_fork#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV whose subject is a POV itself. Tangurena (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete First of all, the article isn't about exaggeration (or alarmism), and hasn't been at any point in its brief history. It rather seems to be a WP:COATRACK for various "embarrassing" items relating to climate change, the first section is almost entirely on errors/inaccuracies that doesn't seem to have been described anywhere as exaggerations (or alarmism) - most (if not all) of these are good faith errors - instead of exaggerations. Now there might be a place for a well-researched article on climate alarmism, if a sufficient number of journalistic or scholarly articles can be found for this topic, but this article doesn't even attempt to move there. Secondly the errors in the first section are almost entirely POV versions of items in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, as well as a few cherry-picks. This is (as others have said) a clear WP:POV fork. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with that characterization. The Boston Globe reference (since deleted for what I consider quite bad reasons) was all about alarmism and some very sad people who have actually gotten mentally ill based on climate change exaggeration/alarmism. TMLutas (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• KEEPWhile I haev every expectation this will get deleted, not because of its validity or lack there of but because of the shameful bias of those in charge of this website, it should stay. It represents a side of the argument, and while Misplaced Pages has shown a very real attitude of conspiring to cover up any dissent on this particular subject, I think that's a disgusting attitude to have. While the comments here may annoy the alarmists, that is NO excuse to remove this information. It's already a complete travesty what you do with this webpage with regards to the climate change issue anyway. When this page gets deleted, it'll be further evidence of the focused efforts by some to hide debate and discussion of the climategate fiasco. The exagerattion is real, the hiding of this exagerattion is real, and wikipedia deleting this would be nothing more than an extension of that ongoing cover-up by people with no interest in debate, discussion, but only in pushing their agenda under the guise of truth. It's pathetic, it's damaged my respect for this website, and I hope whomever is making this decision is honest abotu what it means to delete stuff like this. It's not about making sure we have truthful information...it's abotu pushing a political agenda. It's pathetic, and so will you be if you delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.3 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for defending the article. Since you posted without being logged in, I don't know if your comments will offically count toward the outcome of the proposed deletion. But to me, they count very much. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If the comments don't count, it will be because they're solely the poster's opinion, and cite no policy or objective argument whatever. Discussions about reforming Misplaced Pages's alleged politics belong somewhere else. PhGustaf (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms was to delete, even though most of those who favored deletion did not cite any specific wikipedia policies to justify their votes. This old version of my sandbox has the article. People wanted it deleted because they didn't like the article, but most of them didn't cite any wikipedia policies to justify their deletion votes. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I respect the fact that the consensus is leaning in the direction of deletion. I do like the fact that many of those who favor deletion also favor merging some of the info into climate change controversy. I will respect whatever the consensus is. I do not like the personal attacks against me which attribute bad motivations to my creating the article. I read a lot of news articles, and sometimes I think that adding some of those things to the encyclopedia would make it better. The vast majority of the articles that I have created have never been nominated for deleition. It has never been my intent to harm the encyclopedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reserving judgement. There does seem to be something to the term "Climate change exaggeration," but the article as written appears to have a little too much synthesis. Of course, that could be because of all the revert warring over various tidbits of information in the article that has occurred. If anyone wants a good laugh, I suggest looking at the edit summaries in the article history and observe the silly squabbling that has gone on since the article was created. Anyway, after this weekend I'll look up the term in Infotrac and NewsStand to see if there is more sourcing to support it. If the article gets deleted in the meantime, I guess we'll have to figure out what to do about that. Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, this seems to be a very POV edit. It's unsourced and appears to give a personal opinion. Was the editor who did it someone who should know better? Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you think it is POV? Do you think that exaggerations about climate change is limited to ... well - no one really, since most (in this article) aren't exaggerations - but errors.... it is on the other hand implicit POV to assume that the errors where deliberate and made to cause exaggeration - think about it. Inhofe's statement can be found here btw. In case you are looking for a reference. The statement that it has "no clear meaning" may be considered a bit pointy - but it is unfortunately correct, the article doesn't even attempt to define it. (ie. the change was from a completely original research sentence to a correct but (perhaps) pointy sentence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Considering that Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar and NewsStand.com show zero results for "Climate change exaggeration", the statement that the expression is "a neologism with no clear meaning" doesn't seem to be all that controversial. — Rankiri (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just wondering how much "news" does google news carry? There are news sources that have Climate Change Exaggeration as their headline that google news doesn't seem to find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that Google News' aggregation of headlines has a pro-scientific bias? — Rankiri (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the term neologism is really that appropriate..., some believe it is an exaggeration, much like some believe natural selection is an exaggeration or that the risk of cancer associated to tobacco is also an exaggeration. -RobertMel (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The edit was unsourced and was a BLP violation. Anyway, it appears that "Climate change alarmism" may be a more appropriate title. I'll check that in the database next week and start an article on it if appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I just checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand. For the search term "Global warming exaggeration" or "Climate Change exaggeration" Infotrac produced 48 hits and NewsStand 177 hits. The search terms "Global warming alarmism" and "Climate change alarmism" garnered 136 hits in Infotrac and 299 in NewsStand. "Alarmism" appears to be a better title for an article such as this, but I'm not sure at this point if the term deserves its own article or not. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (or merge) WP:NEO Don't use phrases like this as names of articles unless they are legitimate terms of art. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. This doesn't appear to be a coherent topic for an article, but rather a collection of disparate bits. It's not just a matter of it duplicating bits from other articles, but rather, that by doing so it creates novel synthesis. Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Merge with Climate change controversy. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The title is by itself POV.David Olivier (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear POV fork created by an editor who is topic-banned from this topic area and is currently blocked from editing, so it should never have been created in the first place; see WP:AN/I#Grundle2600 violating his topic ban?. I suggest that the closing admin should take into account the illegitimate circumstances of this article's creation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  The one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. These are two totally separate issues. If there's justification for keeping the article, it should be kept; if not, not. Quit the personalizing of the issue. And I'm someone who agrees that this should be deleted, and even agrees with you about it being a POV fork. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Delete pure WP:POVFORK, badly written and conceived, full of WP:OR. Better dealt with in our existing articles, of which there are a multitude. Verbal chat 14:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Just a passing comment, some suggest it to be merged. The problem here is that a possible section on exaggeration in a main article is not appropriate. Every critics can be tagged as evidence of exaggeration or alarminsm which means anything in such a section could be retrieved to fit in other sections of the main article on crticism of global warming. Of course, if there is something worth keeping to be merged in the first place. -RobertMel (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. Points may be valid section within context of an article on climate change scepticism, but don't warrant own entry. --Haruth (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Extreme POV fork. In addition, the inclusion of isolated comments from various sources, as selected by editors, is a severe breach of WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant POV fork of climate change controversy and related articles which fails to deal with minimalism/denialism but instead merely cherrypicks arguable overestimations of CC. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete then hard redirect to Man Bear Pig.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - original synthesis/POV fork, with insufficient evidence of notability in its own right to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - at least change the name, which is clearly POV. The article appears to be pushing a POV. Bubba73 , 05:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Article Status

• comment - NOTE: this article is undergoing active editing and has significantly improved since it was nominated. Article was created on the 25th and has had 56 edits as of this writing from about 20 editors. Early comments on the article's content may have been overtaken by events. TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but it's lipstick on a pig. Sourcing was never the primary issue, nor was the initial hastily-written prose. The article's subject matter itself is still a neologistic POV fork. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning behind deletion still stands. There's no problem with improving an article to meet Misplaced Pages standards, but the subject itself is a POV fork which also violates WP:UNDUE. This is little more than an attempt to undermine the clear consensus that the article should be deleted. StuartH (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But consensus is supposed to have no bearing in the eyes of the administration on whether the article is deleted or not. Per wiki deletion policy "These processes are not decided through a head count." It's only the arguments that are supposed to be taken into account by the Administrator deciding this. If said administrator feels there is even minor merit then the article may wind up staying, even if temporarily, to be worked on for continued improvement. I don't see it violating WP:UNDUE at all, since the title is Climate Change Exaggeration you simply want the content to stick to that topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"...consensus is supposed to have no bearing in the eyes of the administration on whether the article is deleted or not." That's quite wrong, "consensus" (which is guided by policy and argument) is exactly what decides an AfD. To be clear, consensus and a "head count" are not remotely the same thing.

Right now the intro is arguably as bad as it's ever been, and there's nothing here that would convince me to change my !vote above. I wholeheartedly reject the implicit notion that earlier comments be disregarded or given less weight because they have been "overtaken by events." The problems are exactly the same, we just have different unsourced sentences ("As politics, it can be a cynical attempt to grab power or an innocent belief that exaggeration is a justifiable nudge to get people to do the right thing."...wow) that are incredibly POV and original researchish. I think the consensus as to what to do about this is quite clear, recent edits notwithstanding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It still looks like an op ed to me. From the lede: "Climate change exaggeration as science can relate to scientific fraud, or a more innocent confirmation bias. As politics, it can be a cynical attempt to grab power or an innocent belief that exaggeration is a justifiable nudge to get people to do the right thing. There is a psychological dimension as well."' Whoever wrote this isn't even trying to be subtle.

Not an article but an essay, and a POV fork at that. Having seen what the "improvers" have in mind for it, I'm more than ever convinced that it cannot ever become a Misplaced Pages article. --TS 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, rather than improving, the article is only getting worse. It should still be deleted because of the multiple guideline violations mentioned above and the fact that there is no possibility for it to be anything but the lightning rod for editorialising, original research and fringe POV pushing it has turned out to be. StuartH (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Bigtimepeace's and TS's comments could also be made about that other AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article -- Climate change denial -- and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold. (And, please, nobody throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me -- this is the kind of argument that that essay suggests is a valid one.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates