Talk:Climate change denial

Silly revert war over nature of term denialism

After reading the article it seemed self evident that if you're comparing "climate deniers" with "holocaust deniers" it's a pejorative term. I added a simple edit to highlight that and have been reverted by Raul654, first without comment whatsoever, and now again without properly explaining himself as to why he's reverting but insisting that I take it to talk, as I now have. TMLutas (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you substantially altered the intro with no prior discussion. From your take page, I see this is par for your course for your editing here. If you continue to edit disruptively, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing your revert of the talk page. Do you have an itchy revert trigger finger? You've done 3 reverts in the space of 17 minutes to the article and one to the talk page (since reversed). You've not proposed any compromise or any reasoning why the edit is inappropriate in your opinion. Asserting that prior authorization in the talk page is necessary doesn't make it so. Give a reason, not a 4th revert. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A lead has to be a fair an duely weighted summary of the article. Your "holocaust" argument is old, and has been discussed here many times, as well as on the AfD. Unless you can come up with something more substantial than whats in the article already - its WP:POV. Your personal view is irrelevant, provide the argument in the article first, with a good measure of reliable sources to show that this is a significant view first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search for the word pejorative in both AfDs. It is used once and there is no discussion of it (ie no answering item to the editor using the term). Your references to the AfD do not work. Could you point out in the archive where this has been discussed before? I'm not fond of wild goose chases and you sent me on one already. TMLutas (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try holocaust instead of pejorative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure point of view is irrelevant, but plain english is not. You asked for WP:RS on the pejorative nature of the term, here's a 1st crack at it.

Can we start with a common definition of pejorative?

Now a list: [1] "They hate to be called deniers" "Ellen Goodman: ‘Global Warming Deniers Are Now on a Par with Holocaust Deniers’" The series name “The Deniers” is a disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame. I have protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail. The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention Sadly, the normal scientific progression is blocked as scientists who raise legitimate questions about the theory and the evidence are labeled skeptics or more pejoratively deniers.

I don't get paid for this stuff so you'll have to do with six entries. Google found about 10k and I hand went through maybe 40 entries worth of dross to find 6 decent ones. Where's that Scaife money when I need it?

More seriously, how about a proper link to find the archived conversation on this topic? It would be helpful.

Another thing, just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean that it is false. Baby killing baal worshippers is both pejorative and true for example because the cult of baal did practice ritual infanticide as a religious rite. This might be an opening for a compromise text, whenever protection actually gets dropped by our sysop/reverter. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also pointed out, for instance, that the sentence "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism" is totally unsupported by any of the six sources used as references. This article is beyond reason, just leave it to its current state. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As previous, i agree with you on that particular wording. But consensus was otherwise. Btw. have you finally figured that the article actually doesn't use Greenpeace as a source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not figured this out yet, no. Must be silly pov-pusher of me again. Can you help me with note 25? --Childhood's End (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, not this again. There's strong consensus that the passage is supported, let's just skip to the chace and avoid another dust up like the last one. Odd nature (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature, i still don't agree with the wording (or rather the reasoning) - but i also accept blindly that there is no consensus for my position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its note 25. Try checking it - the information isn't Greenpeace's. And while on their site, its not from Greenpeace ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there had actually been more than one reliable source in your links we could've discussed it. But once more you are putting more into the references than is there - which makes it WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you dial down the arrogance? The google search numbers should at least hint at the possibility that there's some acceptable meat there. That's why I called my rapid search a first cut. It wasn't by any means exhaustive. But you don't even do the courtesy of addressing the definitional aspect of the question. Are we agreed on what pejorative mean? I'm not interested in talking past one another, but rather on creating a decent article of the phenomenon of climate change denialism using NPOV and examining both those who are labeled deniers and those who apply the label. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed my session expired. TMLutas (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A small look at the choices you made would have told you that the sources actually doesn't support you. At least 2 in a spot check were in readers comments to blogs. And the "arrogance" is much more a sign of being tired, that you hadn't checked either the archives sufficiently or verified your links, nor even verified that there were any reliable sources in them. In a world with blogs all over the place - a meme spreads fast. That doesn't make it notable.

If you want us to react to your claim, then you'll also have to do some work. (hint: afaik noone gets payed for this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just par for the course in anything to do with climate change. You have to have reliable sources to demonstrate common english. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very willing to accept the definition of the word pejorative, it fits very well with the way i'd describe the word. Thats not whats being questioned - sorry.

Whats required is a demonstration of Reliable sources, and that its not undue weight, that its a notable description. And text in the article that merits its inclusion in the lead etc. Your links from Google did neither.

Denial can be a lot of things - i'm personally in some degree of denial about smoking, otherwise i'd stop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrator: please add the following

Since the page is protected, would an administrator please add the following quote to the article?: The December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, "discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... [The author] gives a name to those such as ExxonMobil who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... [The book] gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. '...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort'" (Hell and High Water, p. 25).

Suggested minor, non-controversial changes

- Wikify "the GOP". I am a well-read, educated, native-English-speaking non-American; I do not know what this refers to. - Fix this typo: "In autumn 2001, the admnistration contemplated changing a regulatory portion"

GOP is short for "Grand Old Party", a nickname for the Republican party. The change is a good one, it appears that this policy comes from the Whitehouse.

Stargate70 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Liam Proven (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs section on Kivalina lawsuit

Is there a way for me to get permission to edit this article? I would like to add a section on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al.

The suit is discussed here (CNN), here (NYT), and in the June 2008 Atlantic Monthly. Thanks, Cyrusc (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection level to semi, so you should be able to edit it. But has there been any finding of facts with regards to denial yet? The general topic of Kivalina might be better off in Effects of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what you mean by "finding of facts"? What the section I propose would describe is a federal lawsuit brought against the energy lobby for alleged conspiracy to mislead the public about climate change.Cyrusc (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the "alleged". If the lawsuit had produced any (positive) finding of facts on the conspiracy issue, that would be a very strong addition. But the mere allegation is very weak. People allege the most absurd things in lawsuits all the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It will take months or years before a court ruling on the factual issue, and any ruling will be appealed, so waiting on it could keep this case out of the article.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Looking at the lawsuit, the chances the court is going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs is rather unlikely. The amount of information inserted in this article should be drastically reduced at this time. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility (or right) as editors to take sides in the law suit, or to predict legal outcomes, but to chronicle information relevant to the entry. How could a widely reported federal suit about climate change denial not be relevant to the Climate Change Denial entry? The result of the case should of course be included when it's available.Benzocane (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By including it so prominently, you violate WP:WEIGHT. That is my only point. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven lines of text is hardly over prominent.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is for a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

UBer, your gut feeling that these are "unsubstantiated accusations" is not relevant; what's relevant is the fact of the high profile case. Several sources for seven lines is clearly not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. If you have credible sources documenting the speciousness of the case, we could certainly include that vantage. Do you have such sources?Benzocane (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, like Dr. Schulz explained, accusations are meaningless. They happen all the time, and they aren't appropriate for encyclopedic endeavors. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for merger with Global Warming Controversy

Any useful information in this article can be moved there. There isn't a need to have a separate article to bash one side of the issue. Twfowler (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree. Brusegadi (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article covers an important political movement. Detailing how they argue against scientific consensus is only one part of the story. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is mostly ad-hominem, slamming one side of an issue (without any similar article slamming the other, not that I think there should be such an article), based mainly on political issues, and sources of funding. Its clearly non NPOV, and while I think notability standards should generally be relaxed, its also questionable (under the current standards) in terms of notability. It doesn't cover an important political movement, or really a coherent movement at all. Twfowler (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per Eldereft. While I would agree that it is not as coherent as other movements (political or otherwise), various organisations have promoted denialism around climate change, and I believe it is important to separate legitimate scepticism on points of science (which Global warming controversy covers more) from agenda-driven pseudoscepticism. --Plumbago (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agenda driven pseudoscepticism is a relatively unsupported attack. And this article follows one of the definitions given for pseudoscepticism "Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument" Twfowler (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, as this article is just a massive 'beat up'. ^rossnixon 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opppose. Global warming controversy is already overly long. This article describes one aspect of it (namely how it is created) in more detail. See WP:SUMMARY. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. I don't see any more reason to have an article highlighting "climate change denialism" than to have an article highlighting "climate change alarmism." I would suggest that efforts both to minimize or to exaggerate potential adverse effects of AGW are merely aspects of the overall global warming controversy, and as such, do not warrant separate articles. If Global warming controversy is already overlong, then perhaps tighter editing of that article might be warranted. That is a different question than the issue under consideration. Of course, if Climate change denial remains, then perhaps an article detailing the attempts to exaggerate the effects of AGW (i.e. "Global Warming caused Katrina!", etc.) would also be warranted. J. Langton (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of reliable sources about climate change denial. If you can find a reasonable number of reliable sources (and that excludes editorials and think tank brochures) for "Global warming alarmism", feel free to create that article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point (WP:GOOGLE notwithstanding): "Global warming alarmism": 44,000, "Climate change denial": 41,100. Oren0 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stephan Schulz: I would certainly agree that editorials etc. are assiduously to be avoided on both sides as far as a presentation of facts is concerned. To what extent are they acceptable in terms of establishing the existence of a controversy? I'd certainly think it'd be wiser to err on the side of a more stringent standard for reliability than the alternative!

I'm a bit too lazy right at the moment to actually look up the correct links, but I'm more interested in the example anyway: If, for example, Time Magazine runs a story linking Katrina to global warming (which they did) and then one finds another reliable source explaining that the science doesn't actually establish a link between AGW and any single extreme weather event (and I did find such a source, I believe, although I'd have to recheck for reliability!), does this violate WP:OR? (Is is A+B, therefore C?) I have a pretty short editing history, and I know that the whole climate change topic is something of a minefield, so I'd like to make sure that I'm on pretty solid ground before I start any articles that are just going to add unnecessary fuel to the fire.

My issue with both the continued existence of the denialism article and the creation of an alarmism article is that I'm concerned that we don't lower the S/N ratio on this topic. I don't really think either article adds anything new to the material covered; skillful and concise editing should be able to incorporate both the presence of denialism and alarmism in the controversy article. Having both would be like having articles about the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, what Lincoln said at the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and what Douglas said at the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Why three articles, when one should be sufficient?

Re: Oren0: Oooh, that is interesting. But I'd bet you dollars to donuts that of those 80000+ hits, I can count the number of reliable sources without taking off my shoes. Yay, internet!!

J. Langton (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...in binary? Anyways, if you just list your two sources, there is no WP:OR, but also somewhat pointless. If you use this to establish that Time engages in alarmism, then yes, that is a perfect example of WP:SYN. I'd also be very careful with checking what Time has said - normally they may use suggestive imagery and words, but shy short of actually suggesting a hard link. So you will find a lot of "Katrina may be caused by global warming", "global warming is supposed to increase the probability of Hurricanes like Katrina", "many scientists think that global warming may have helped triggering Katrina", but rarely an absolute statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an article detailing a cluster of disinformation campaigns that are only tangentially related to many other controversies surrounding global warming. This isn't about science; this is about PR and manipulation; that, in and of itself, is enough to justify its separate existence.Benzocane (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. although the article is currently very "tar and feather" and full of "alleged instances" built off newspaper reports, the basic concept is sound. It should however stick to reporting encyclopedic facts, not the opinions of the pro AGW crowd that seem to think they own all GW related pages. For example, it now has "Fred Singer" as "see other", even though he is not even mentioned in one of the "alleged instances" - this is (currently) an original research slur with no sources given to back it up. On that note, im going to remove him from "see other" as well. Jaimaster (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Disproportion

To have an entire subsection dealing with one scientist's claims of harassment neither complies with community standards regarding weight (or notability) nor strikes me as particularly germane to general purpose of the entry. Why a separate section? What does this have to do generally with a well-sourced entry about corporate funded disinformation tactics? Benzocane (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree on irrelevance to this article, however those sources would be well placed in a Climate Change Alarmism (see above) article, perhaps in a #possible effects section. Jaimaster (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are sufficient sources for an article showing a widespread disinformation campaign to misrepresent a scientific majority, then such an entry would be justified. There are not, however, such sources. And the extreme minority of scientists disputing climate change is already overrepresented under the sign of balance in this encyclopedia, whereas in fact it is the kind of disproportion that violates weight, notability, and ultimately NPOV. The fact that there is' denial doesn't ipso fact justify an entry on "alarmism." Benzocane (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)