Talk:Glaciergate

Why is it deleted? It's sourced – redirect to Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers

I'm kind of fascinated by the way people try to keep unpleasant stuff out of the Wikipedia by all means. Even a redirect that is sourced by a lot of WP:RS sources is deleted:

News sources

See a lot more at Google News

• BBC: Harrabin's Notes: Reforming the IPCC climate body "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri is in full spate, and he is defiantly refusing to apologise personally for the Glaciergate bungle."
• The Daily Telegraph

  Lord Smith warns climate change argument has been undermined by 'climategate' "He also said a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the Himalayas will melt by 2035, known as "glaciergate", was being used by critics to suggest that the UN body is not to be trusted. "

  Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal

  After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate

• The Guardian: Glaciergate was a blunder, but it's the sceptics who dissemble
• The Australian (Australias biggest newspaper)

  Glaciergate threatens a climate change

  Climate options get airtime as Lord Monckton strides the stage "Glaciergate has hideously embarrassed the United Nations climate-change fanatics and done great damage to the cause of those who think there is a problem."

• Time Magazine: Explaining a Global Climate Panel's Key Missteps "Even as Glaciergate — yes, that's what they're calling it — unfolded, there were new claims that the IPCC had essentially trumped up the link between climate change and the rising toll from natural disasters."
• Discover magazine :Taking on “GlacierGate”, The Latest Climate Science Scandal
• Times Now (India): Stung by 'Glaciergate' Govt snubs Pachauri-led IPCC

Blogs

• Heritage Foundation

  Government’s Out-of-Step Agitprop on Global Warming "include Climategate, Glaciergate,"

  Rapidly Melting Credibility "There is another lesson from Glaciergate — it is high time to retire the distinction between the “skeptics” and the “consensus science.” All along, several so-called skeptics have complained about the Himalayan hyperbole. As is typical, they were denigrated as outliers or even kooks for doing so. As recently as a few weeks ago, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, derided such critiques as “voodoo science,” until he reluctantly had to admit they were true."

• American Thinker: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks "And "Glaciergate" opened the floodgates to other serious misrepresentations in AR4, including a boatload of additional non-peer-reviewed projections pulled directly from WWF reports."

Redirect to Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers

All these sources indicates very strongly that this term should be an article in itself, or at least be a redirect to either:

• Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4#Projected_date_of_melting_of_Himalayan_glaciers (a long section explaining it)
• Criticism of the IPCC AR4
• IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Criticism

or

• IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

I propose Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4#Projected_date_of_melting_of_Himalayan_glaciers. If no one objects strongly with valid arguments I will create the redirect. Nsaa (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting this article. It is hard to see why a term as widely used as this, is denied a Wikipedia page, and it invites criticism that Wikipedia is not neutral on the climate change topic. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)