Are the [[International Climate Science Coalition]] notable? (webcite in case they aren't and you care 7 days from now). By which I mean, in the sense of Wikipedia:Notability. Sources about them are thin on the ground, and those so far proposed only mention them in passing. Blogs don't count, of course, and nor does their own PR.
We'll find out in a bit, because its up for deletion (note: I didn't propose it, though I did PROD it).
I put this up just for fun. I don't encourage you to go there and "vote" (either keep or delete). You can if you like, but you'd have to have something to say - Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.
[Update: really dull so far (or possibly evidence of total NN): no-one has even bother to say "keep".]
[Update: based on the current state of the AFD, I think it will go.]
The Result
The result was redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer). That was on the basis that the ICSU isn't notable or well enough covered for its own article, and that pretty well all the coverage of it that had been found was actually about its director. And that ICSU itself is a valid search term.
- Log in to post comments
Yes, indeed, please vote to have us deleted from Wiki. Their listing is a nuisance and misleading besides.
Tom Harris
ICSC
[Welcome. But I'm afraid its not a vote. If you find it misleading you can attempt to correct it, of course. Its not clear to me what you find misleading about it. Most of the text is direct quotes from you, or ICSC. If you find the lack of coverage misleading, do please provide some links -W]
Since I don't want to get involved at the Wiki just a link that, maybe, shows some negative notability?
"Web leak shows trail of climate sceptic funding"
[I'm not sure there is such a thing. But notice that article says stuff like The chief science adviser to the International Climate Science Coalition is Bob Carter, an adjunct professor at Queensland's James Cook University. When the Herald asked Professor Carter... The coverage is about Carter, ICSC is a mere detail -W]
Somebody who is still unable to name a single solitary independent scientist anywhere in the world who supports the warming fraud tells us that he doesn't think the sceptics are prominent enough. Presumably if they were government funded proven cinuterfactual tellers like Hansen, Jones and the IPCC that wopuld be prominent enough.
Which in practice means that the state not only can but should control everything reported, including Wikipedia.
[Hobbes would agree with you, but few others would nowadays. Notice, BTW, your reading comprehension failure: no-one is suggesting that the septics in general aren't notable. Just that this particular lot are -W]
Ah Neil, the english language is not your friend.
We can't provide an independent scientist who believes in the fraudulent global warming is because they all agree it isn't fraudulent.
Given Mr Craig's well-publicised libertarian leanings, I believe he intended his remark concerning state control as a reductio ad absurdum, rather than an endorsement.
"Presumably if they were government funded proven cinuterfactual tellers like Hansen, Jones and the IPCC that wopuld be prominent enough."
Presumably if they were accountable with consequences, like Hansen, Jones and the IPCC, that would be prominent enough.
FIFY.
So still nobody even attempts to name an indepednet scientist who supports the purely political catastrophic warminmg fraud.
[We've already named one. We've done it loads of times. And its utterly irrelevant to the current thread. If you want to prove that yes, indeed, I will maintain S/N around here by deleting trolling, then do feel free to make exactly the same comment yet again -W]
Guthrie tries to rely on pretending an inability to understand the English language. This may be his most convincing claim so far.
Neil, let us suppose that no scientist exists, independent or otherwise, who supports any purely political fraud. Let us suppose instead that scientists, at least when acting as such, support what they perceive to be scientific truth.
Now what?
I reckon Wikipedia should have articles on every group that is trying to influence policy on climate change, with notability determining the length of articles rather than their inclusion, but if you want to weed out those with marginal influence and/or nothing useful to say, why not also have a look at Climate Outreach Information Network (a tiny but well-connected org specialising in sockpuppetry and hand-wringing waffle larded with ill-informed doomwankery - think C of E bishop, that sort of thing; given Marshall's connections, COIN gets surprisingly little press coverage and seems to have achieved nothing at all at any level that would influence policy), Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (annoying, effectless twats; article edited by at least one Clown; only one reference and it's from an anonymous blog at Indymedia; only two things worth knowing about CIRCA and the article mentions neither: the police thought they were dangerous enough to warrant infiltration and the Arts Council paid for them - and the undercover cop - to disrupt a G8 conference), Cape Farewell (annoying twats who specialise in ferrying other annoying twats to the Arctic for Arts Council-funded pranks, hand-wringing and ill-informed doomwankery; article created and edited by Cape Farewell itself; no sources given; quite a lot of press coverage but so what - they're twats), Climate Rush (annoying, effectless twats) and Environmental Parliament (simply barking; no influence at all; indeed it doesn't really exist), all of which orgs have dedicated articles in Wikipedia.
Then there are the various individual climate-obsessed or opportunistically climageddonist activists with minimal influence or expertise, e.g. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Gustavo Esteva, Mark Brayne and, um, Veli Albert Kallio. Do they merit Wikipedia articles?
Again, I'd say yes - though the Ahmed and Esteva articles need drastic trimming.
(If they get to keep them, I'd like to see one about David Green, the doom-ridden Welsh solicitor who has been writing to the newspapers about climate change since the 1970s - initially about global cooling, now about global warming. His published correspondence is so enormous - Wikipedia says he holds the record for getting letters published in The Times - and has been sustained for so long that, whatever its quality, it couldn't fail to influence opinion on climate change, but I know of only one proof that it has. In 2010, Paul and Anne Ehrlich cited Green in, and thanked him for reviewing the manuscript of, some typically daft doomwankery called _The Culture Gap and Its Needed Closures_.)
[I thought about this for a bit, looked at the refs, searched google and google news, and decided to PROD them -W]
Wait a minute, did Neil totally misunderstand my point re. his own mangling of the english language?
Also it is a cast iron law of the internet that any post complaining about grammar or spelling errors will have one or two in it.
WMC, by 'them' I see that you mean COIN. If you're going to PROD COIN (and I don't think you should) then why not also PROD Environmental Parliament or CIRCA or the very wonderful Veli Albert Kallio?
[Too late, I have. Though if you disagree you (even as an anon) can remove the PROD. Environmental Parliament: agree, done too. You can contest that as well, I won't mind. VAK: I'm not allowed to touch BLPs, alas -W]
Not only do you wiki bastards not have an entry for Eli Rabett, but you took down Ethon and Gerhard Kramm. Neither of them has been consolable since.
"Presumably if they were government funded proven cinuterfactual tellers like Hansen, Jones and the IPCC that wopuld be prominent enough."
Somebody call lewandowski. We have another specimen
Cut and paste from WUWT:
Lew Skannen says:
January 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm
I had a brief run-in with Connolley on Wiki over the subject of Chaos Theory.
There was a line which stated that “Chaotic systems could be seen in such phenomena as weather”. I remember that it used to say “weather and climate” but the reference to climate had been removed.
So I added “and climate” back in.
Within half a day it had been changed by Con-man.
So I decided that maybe the reference which backed it must be about weather only. So I looked at it. It was a paper about chaos and climate, not even a mention of weather!
So I changed it back with an explanation about the reference.
Within a couple of hours the con-man has removed the whole reference with a note “I looked at the article. It wasn’t very good”.
So it had been good enough to exist for at least two years when it was incorrectly referencing ‘weather’ but when it was changed to correctly reference ‘climate’ it suddenly was not good enough.
I suggest we work the con-man to death by all of us piling into Wiki and making correct changes to articles he guards.
[He's very brave when he knows I can't answer, isn't he? He's also a bit economical with the truth: see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chaos_theory As for the hollow threats to "all of us piling into Wiki" - that's just whistling in the wind to keep the Watties morale up. They fear wiki, because they don't understand it (as edit like this show -W]
Eppur si muove!
Hurrah - Wiki removed ICSC. Now can we get them to remove "Tom Harris"? I am very insignificant and not worthy of the great and powerful Wikipedia.
[I agree. But you'll have to take that up with them yourself -W]
Come now Tom, you're hardly insignificant. Why, with your reach and all those letters to the editor, you're probably Canada's leading anti-climate change propagandist. Don't sell your self short!