This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I identified some challenges a couple sections upthread. Dave souza responded, with what I read as largely a recapitulation of my observations. I was troubled by one word, but in view of the substantial agreement I initially didn’t want to dwell on a single word. However, I see that the word was taken from the lead paragraph, so I must comment on it as I think it is not the best word choice. The second sentence currently reads:
Climate skepticism commonly means climate denialism;[3] they form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change.
I see two problems, one minor one more substantive. The minor point is the awkward English (more details if anyone cares). The substantive issue is the choice of the word “commonly”. I don’t believe the literature will support that the equating of the two terms can accurately be characterized as “common”. As has been discussed above some writers do so. However, doing something on occasion does not qualify as common. Of course, if a reliable source says it is common, then we have to accept it or review enough sources to make sure the usage is appropriate.
The quote in the footnote supporting the term starts off with “"Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon”. We could discuss whether this supports the term even though it doesn’t use the term but we don’t need to. The author includes a footnote in the original article which is also included in our footnote: “ I shall use 'climate sceptics' here in the sense of 'climate deniers', although there are obvious differences between scepticism and denial”. This could hardly be clearer; while this author may use the terms interchangeably in this article she explicitly notes obvious differences which means they are not the same.
In fact, the rest of our sentence does a decent job of articulating the issues. The two terms do have an overlapping range of views. We should retain that sense and remove the opening clause which makes an inconsistent point. My suggestion follows:
Climate skepticism and climate denialism[3] form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change.
We might consider expanding and adding language suggesting that the two terms are sometimes used as if they are synonyms and sometimes not. I’m open to other that elaboration is necessary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Will review and discuss this in more detail, but initially note that you've left out part of the quote from the 2010 paper as cited inline: "However, 'climate sceptic' and 'climate scepticism' were commonly used during the 'climategate' debate as meaning 'climate denier'." Everyone agrees that skepticism is not the same as denial, the issue is that "skeptic" is misused as a euphemism for denial. That was written while the debate continued, since then there's no evidence the usage changed: on the contrary, as Deniers are not Skeptics discusses, the NYT of 10 November 2014 described "Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent skeptic of climate change" as having "gained headlines throughout his career for asserting that the science of human-caused climate change has been falsified. He is the author of “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” " – the CSI point to a contemporary report describing Inhofe as “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress", and the NYT has since agreed with them to reconsider its terminology. . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
As Lewandowski (Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial) points out, “For example, whereas the public quickly lost interest in the “climategate” imbroglio involving scientists’ stolen e-mail correspondence in 2009 (Anderegg & Goldsmith, 2014), the opposite trend has been observed in the blogosphere which has seen increasingly more “climategate”-related content since 2009 (Lewandowsky, 2014a).” So while it may be true for a short period of time, in a small subset of the universe, that doesn’t justify the broad term “commonly”.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Aside: from the blog of a topic expert, Dr. Katharine Blackwell, "Assistant Professor of Psychology at a small liberal arts college, specializing in cognitive science and child development", the online reactions to the initial paper – "accusing Lewandowsky of running a scam, lying, and faking results in one way or another – were in themselves a treasure trove of what climate change deniers believe." When he quoted these comments in the original version of the paper you cite, the blog commentators complained and the publisher withdrew on the grounds that "“the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics”. She comments, "the claims aren’t actually psychopathological. Believing in a conspiracy theory is not a psychological disorder, any more than a religious belief is. .... The difference is whether it’s a label they would like to have or not, but neither one is a mental disorder." In some ways pertinent to this article, but perhaps too complex to cover in a brief note. . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Taking this on board, and acknowledging the awkward phrasing, I've tried adopting your suggested wording of the sentence concerned, while reorganising other aspects to separate out the initial definition from the manufactured controversy and the dispute about terminology. What to editors think of this approach? . dave souza, talk 08:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes it seems okay to me. I used to think the main emphasis should be on the denial machinery but I didn't quite realize the depth and extent of the psychological denial. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
...in climate science is associated with neoliberalfree market ideology backed by industrial interests...
Latest comment: 8 years ago75 comments10 people in discussion
I'm dubious that the version we have now is correct (it might be supported by sources, I don't know, that's a different matter). "Backed by industrial interests" seems fair: there's a lot of coal money at stake; and Exxon certainly in the past. That money may or may not be flowing mainly to right-wing pols; but "free market"? Not really. Carbon taxes are entirely compatible with free markets William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but among the regulatory options available, only a few are, cap and share, carbon credit the others.
It is not the case that the recent regulation on cola burning plants encompass an exchange mechanism, however, and the opposition to regulating CO2 emissions is more centered on those types of regulations and involves private sector entities as opposed to governments.
Yes, that's definitely a link. But its not obviously of any relevance. the opposition... involves private sector entities. Yes, it does. But why would you describe coal interests as "neoliberal"? They don't seem at all liberal, or at all neo, to me. They are just straight forward old-fashioned special interests, influencing government in their favour. That's not at all neolib, and not at all free market William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with that. Libertarian and conservative would be about right I think but neoliberal isn't near that degree of libertarianism.. Neoliberals believe in taking notice of the possible consequences of actions. Dmcq (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The cited source for that sentence[1] calls them 'the right' and 'right-wingers' more often than anything else. Why not just say " ...in climate science is associated with right-wing ideologies backed by industrial interests..." rather than trying to WP:OR exactly which brand and sub-brand of right-wing they are? --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite right either. I'm acquainted with a number of prominent deniers, of which only a very small minority (one, maybe two) are "backed by industrial interests." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nigelj: "Right-wing" would be better than "free market", without a doubt, but neoliberal is far more precise and informative, as I'm trying to present in the body. There are three main aspects that are relevant here: anti-regulation, opposition to government intervention in markets, and supply-side economics.
@Nigelj: I just noticed that the source you mentioned also includes mention of "market fundamentalism".
In addition to reversing the thirty-year privatization trend, a serious response to the climate threat involves recovering an art that has been relentlessly vilified during these decades of market fundamentalism [bolding added]
The Koch brothers are the largest funders of denialism, and they are an "energy company"Climate Change ‘Denier’ Linked To Funding From Energy Companies, Including Koch whose industrial interests are at stake in the regulation of CO2 emissions. There are any sources that discuss neoliberal economic policy, etc., in this context
Since the 1970s, our political and financial classes have been in the grip of neoliberalism, the bedrock ideology of global laissez-faire capitalism. Neoliberals are wholly committed to mass privatization, unfettered deregulation, corporate tax cuts, trade liberalization, as well as a massive reduction in the role of government. Neoliberalism, regrettably, has become the economic orthodoxy of our time, with disastrous results. Our non-response to the climate crisis is attributable to the institutionalization of neoliberal values, which have seeped into our collective conscience. For decades, apostles of neoliberalism have assumed, fallaciously, that the market system is the only viable mechanism capable of regulating CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. art of the problem is that public discourse surrounding climate change is fraught with misinformation. This is not an accident. The Koch brothers, fossil fuel companies, and everyone else invested in the decaying industrial economy have deliberately muddied the waters. And why wouldn't they? They pioneered this model, and they profit from our predicament; it's natural that they would resist change. Their fidelity to the status quo is total. And they've taken extraordinary measures to ensure nothing changes. They've hatched think tanks, engineered elections, purchased politicians, organized PACS, and raised whole armies of propagandists whose sole mission is to manufacture doubt and slant the science. The result: a vast and woefully efficient climate denial machine.
It seems I'm behind the times in what I neoliberalism is about. Anyway reading the article on that I don't think it is a good term to use because it has different meanings and it has been used as a term of abuse. We should just use simpler terms as that just conveys heat without light. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What source is your opinion based on?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Of what in particular? I pointed at the Wikipedia article didn't I? Have you got a reason for wanting to stick in a misused and misunderstood term rather than just making things obvious and easy? Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If you don't have sources to counter the limited selection of those shown above, you don't have any grounds to assert your personal opinion, which is incoherent.
It doesn't matter if you don't like or understand the term, the reliable sources do.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It most certainly does matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize things and make them readable, not duplicate authors' own specialist in--clique lingo and confuse the audience. That you have found one description in a source does not change that more uses are made of other words in those sources that are simpler and describe the situation better, and in fact just looking at the first source in the article neoliberal is just used once whereas the terms I put in were used numerous times. If you really feel the urge to stick in things like that do it in the body of articles and not the lead, the lead in particular is supposed to be readable. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV instead of trying to dictate to others how to edit.
I've posted a small number of the numerous sources that use "neoliberal", and they do so because it defines a more specific set of specific principles and policy recommendations than the overly broad, general description of "free-market". Calling the term in--clique lingo and claiming I intend to confuse the audience is problematic. Making negative comments on other editors motivations is a violation of WP:NPA.
You have also misrepresented the fact that I have posted five sources above, not one, and three of them are peer-reviewed academic publications. Do not misrepresent other editors edits, as that is a violation of WP:TALK. Moreover, you have misrepresented the first source I presented, as the term "neoliberal" is used about ten times in the book. That is also a violation of WP:TALK.
Note that I have made some edits to the body of the article characterizing two think tanks as neoliberal, also based on scholarly sources, and I have added to the article on neoliberalism itself the concise summary of policies promoted by them according to the HP piece.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The claim that oil companies are behind 'denial' of climate change could be countered by the observation that an extremely high proportion of the cites on pages related to climate science or renewable energy products are from wealthy interests in the renewable energy sector, or from NGOs whom we know to to be financially backed by those operations, some cases to the extent of millions of USD per year. Much of this self-quoting material is presented as fact rather than opinion, and therefore could be considered to be WP:SOAPBOX. The factual accuracy of the claims regarding dispatchable energy generation by renewables have many times been disputed by reliable sources, yet this is skilfully omitted. Even if the claims for the products turn out to be wholly accurate, there is still no verifiable proof that renewables will have any beneficial effect on climate change, yet it is assumed in such pages that they will. Somehow, these considerations are completely overlooked where renewables are concerned, whilst any similar self-congratulatory praise by fossil fuel sellers would be ruthlessly edited out. --Anteaus (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There are good sources showing industrial interests funding denial of science, as well as ideological opposition to scientific findings, and you seem to be conflating IPCC WG1 and WG3 stuff. Your supposition of well-funded promotion of renewable skewing the science looks like original research, and your supposition that the effectiveness of renewable isn't questioned is clearly false: see WG3. . . dave souza, talk 06:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Scholarly sources yielded by simple google search
The search terms are "climate change denial", neoliberal[2] (720 hits)
I searched ""climate change denial", neoliberal and got 38700 and "climate change denial", freemarket and got 57300, and climate change denial conservative" and got 96700. RS doesn't require us to quote sources using the exact same words. The lead is supposed to be readable. Just because I believe you haven't written the lead well doesn't imply I believe you are actively trying to confuse readers. I wasn't referring to the source you provided but the citation that was in the article. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I have read you addition to the neoliberalism article. Adding a bit does not subtract the bits that talk about it having a number of meanings and there being a debate on the usefulness of the term in the social sciences and a bit about it being an academic catchphrase used mainly by critics as a pejorative term. I see some other user has also just now removed your addition though I thought the "unfettered deregulation" was a good description of the relevant bit needed here and would work in a lead. Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I see you have now sprinkled neoliberal within the article.
The word 'neoliberal' does not appear in the article about Richard D. North or the Institute of Economic Affairs except in a see also for the institute nor does it appear in the ciitation for the sentence wiith those in where you stuck it.
The 'neoliberal' in the lead of the George C. Marshall Institute article has just been inserted by you. There was no mention of the word in any part of the article before you went there.
I would ask you to be a bit more careful about changing the sources and their references at the same time that way, it does not look good to push things like that. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you check the edit histories of the articles as well as their Talk pages. You are not referring to sources, and your opinions about my edits are inept and off topic, with an accusation of "pushing things" to boot. I have not referred to North as a neoliberal, but there is no question that the Marshal Institute and IEA are frequently referred to as neoliberal, so what is your point?
You are also wrong, again, about the source for IEA, as the statement "Keith Joseph, a very active and committed publicist and polemecist with strong connections to the neoliberal think-tank Institute of Economic Affairs...".
The fact that There was no mention of the word in any part of the article before I inserted it is a sign of the pathetic POV state of the article.
Yes you just stuck in a link to something about neoliberalism at the start of that article about the Institute of Economic Affairs and somebody else again removed it. Just like what happened at the other article. Is that what what you are referring to? Have you considered that you might be wrong in sticking in a term into the lead of those articles for which the meaning is disputed and therefore not widely understood? Or that there might have been a reason they didn't use the term before you came along? Or like that I showed above it is not enough to get references shoring up ones point of view but also one should check other terms to get weight? Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You should check the other sources yourself regarding WEIGHT, if you think there is a discrepancy. Your pedantic comments here are not helpful.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I find this "pedantic" discussion very helpful, insightful, and revealing. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I got the same sort of results searching using Google Scholar, what kind of check should I be doing to quantify the results with the WEIGHT like you get? Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not an exercise in source counting. Produce concrete statements from RS to support the text you propose.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Extra texts would simply extend the number of descriptions with extra words. I was not proposing to make the text more verbose. My complaint all along was about the lead and your addition has been removed from the lead so that's fine. I said putting in things like that was okay in the body and that has been done by you - fine. What I was trying to get across was the basic idea of addressing the audience and determining weight. It seemed you were searching for 'climate change denial neoliberal' rather than seeing what the climate change denial articles overall said. You never addressed the problem of the meaning of neoliberal not being clear and being in dispute and being used in a perjorative way as is documented on that page which I believe makes it a bad word for the lead here. There are enough such disputes about what denial means without adding to the problems. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of hte term is clear according to the sources. That it has and continues to be used in different ways is something that is not relevant beyond the scope it is used in this context. Likewise for the assertion that it is a "pejorative". Your personal opinion does not matter, reliably sourced statements matter. The term will be re-added to the lead after I'e finished adding it to the body, then you will have no grounds to object whatsoever. Unless you have sources, I find the haranguing line of question to be disruptive, and certainly not collaborative.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In 20 words or less, could anyone summarize the basis for focus on "neoliberal" in this debate?
Yes that does point out a basic problem of the method used. I did a Google search of "climate change denial" fascist and it said there were 1,990,000 hits. Google Scholar even gave 133 hits.
On the point about neoliberalism being clear can I point to the article where it says with citations "Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time", "This leaves some controversy as to the precise meaning of the term and its usefulness as a descriptor in the social sciences, especially as the number of different kinds of market economies have proliferated in recent years.", " In the last two decades, according to the Boas and Gans-Morse study of 148 journal articles, neoliberalism is almost never defined but used in several senses to describe ideology, economic theory, development theory, or economic reform policy. It has largely become a term of condemnation employed by critics.", "According to Boas and Gans-Morse, neoliberalism is nowadays an academic catchphrase used mainly by critics as a pejorative term, and has outpaced the use of similar terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and "market reform" in much scholarly writing. Daniel Stedman Jones, a historian of the concept, says the term "is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises""
Doesn't that all suggest it is not a clear cut term never mind one associated with a neutral point of view? Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll rephrase the question. In 20 words or less why are we still talking about it on this article's talk page? BTW, that is in not meant as sarcasm to squelch discussion. It is a face value question. Is there a proposed edit someone cares enough about? What edit? Why do they care? What's the argument against. I'd like to see a triple distillation for those of eds (like myself) who think lack of concision reflects insufficient understanding of the issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to stop neoliberal being plastered all over this and related articles. It isn't clear or neutral. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like he is cherry-picking sources to try and carry out his above-stated agenda of excising the word neoliberal from Wikipedia. He is violating WP:NOTFORUM and has now crossed over into obvious ACTIVISM/ADVOCACY territory with his declared agenda. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That's AE stuff and beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. My question to you, Ubikwit, is "What article improvement is being discussed in this thread? In as few dispassionate words as possible... tomorrow is fine..... sleep on it.... revise it over and over to redact the personalizations..... why do you think said edit would be an improvement that meets our various policies & guidelines? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) PS.... can you get your CRUX ARGUMENT down to 30 words, not including RS? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Have you checked the edit history of the article? Just look at my related edits over the past two days. The editor above started making noise about the lead, but has since revealed his actual agenda.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When you're interested in making the sort of succinct summary of your view that would be appropriate when using the various DR tools, let me know. I'm unwilling to pick through the bitterness to try to guess what your proposal is, or the core issue in your supporting argument. If you believe it's solid, why not try a gentler WP:Dispute resolution sort of approach when a fresh ear asks for a restatement of the issue? Instead you're clobbering me for not sweating enough in the tl;dr bitterness to arrive at your conclusion that I also should join you in clobbering the other ed. I ain't gonna do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
Well I'll try the opposing side as I see it. Neoliberalism is a good clear description and sources support it. This opposition can only be based on some agenda rather than following NPOV. RS policy supports my edits and I want to see the article improved. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Updated Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As I read this, it sounds like mockery. If that's an accurate interpretation, then it isn't quite what WP:OTHERSOPINION has in mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It is how I read it and was not meant as mockery. I'll cut it down a bit more and perhaps it'll sound more reasonable to you then. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Dmcq, I think your view is "Ubikwit wants to add 'neoliberal' to the article but has failed to identify an applicable RS or explain the term's relevance in context of the proposed edit". Is that a fair summary of your perspective? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There are reliable sources using the term, however a quick look on the first couple of pages returned from Google for "neoliberal" will confirm what our article says, it is nearly always used in a abusive rather than descriptive manner. Plus the actual meaning is unclear.Terms like free-market, right-wing, deregulation, unfettered etc are more relevant to this article and describe the background better. It doesn't need a neoliberal economics ideology for someone to want to fight against regulation when it might reduce their profits. The term is fine in small amounts but it doesn't belong in the lead as a major factor. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
-arbitrary outdent -
Ubikwit, assuming Dmcq's characterization of the RSs is accurate, his reasoning certainly seems persuasive. Would you like to try to convince me he's wrong, without attacking either the ed or his motives (and conciseness helps your cause, at least with me) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
NAEG, why assume that? That is a non-starter suggestion, as it is not compliant with policy. "Neoliberal" is not a banned term; it's not even on the faulty WP:WTW list. The intricacies regarding use of the term is a borderline WP:CIR issue. I've stated above the three aspects that are relevant to discussions regarding climate change denial, right-wing think tanks, etc. There is a growing body of academic literature on the subject.
I'm not interested in wasting any more time than you, so please have a look at this one edit.
And note that I'd changed the lead to read "neoliberal economic policies" as opposed to "right-wing ideologies"[3], which I consider to be a more objective and informative as well as less inflammatory characterization, and which is a phrasing taken directly from a source. Furthermore, the use of "economic policies" constrains the scope of "neoliberal", putting the meaning in focus.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What I hear Ubikwit saying
The RSs say that the forces behind climate change denial finance have three main characteristics, and they are (1) anti-regulation, (2) opposition to government intervention in markets, and (3) supply-side economics. The RSs also say that "Neoliberal" describes the confluence of those three characteristics, so we should use "Neoliberal" when talking about the forces behind climate change denial finance.
Is that a reasonable summary, Ubikwit? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that diff, I'd also be interested how you square those criteria with [4] - the citation at the end of the line in in the lead with neoliberal stuck in it. The one mention of neoliberal says "And this is true for the statist left as well as the neoliberal right.". Dmcq (talk)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: That's not exactly correct, but getting closer. It would be better to say that the sources related to climate change denial that refer to neoliberalism do so with reference to those three well-documented aspects, primarily, but that is not an exhaustive list of aspect of neoliberalism or all of the associated approaches. The converse of the anti-regulation, anti-intervention stance is that the approach promoted by neoliberals claiming that market mechanisms, such as a carbon credit exchange, and the like can solve the problem.
Incidentally, the pipe link was intended to narrow down the type of "right-wing" policies for clarification. It would be better to go with "market fundamentalism", but that would require some copy editing.
@Dmcq: The question related to that comment in that source is so off topic (related to consumerism and the generation of greenhouse gases causing climate change as opposed to climate change denial, etc.) that it deserves no further response: WP:NOTFORUM.
NAEG THINKS After reading the whole thread, the sources cited, and some other sources besides, I think.... (A) The word "neoliberal" is unnecessary economic/political WP:JARGON which would interfere with many readers' comprehension of climate change denial. Instead of using the single adjective "neoliberal" we could easily use a plain English sentence or two covering the high points behind the word, assuming there is consensus that the RSs support those high points in the first place. (B) In a section on responses to climate change denial I would not object to a quote just because it happened to include the word. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's correct, of course, which is why it needs a wikilink, at any rate, but you do see it used frequently in scholarly publications on this topic, primarily because all of the denialist think-tanks aim at promoting those policies. In fact, market fundamentalism represents one move in rhetorical space to make the jargon more accessible. If you read that page, you'll see it referred to as a "the neo-liberal doctrines".
In any case, the present text isn't bad, and would be easiest to understand for the least educated members of the reading audience, and neoliberals/ism is wikilinked a couple of places in the body. It might be better to link to market fundamentalism, but it seems more difficult to use "economic policy" in such a phrasing. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, it seems you agree that to combat the jargonish nature of "neoliberal", "it needs a wikilink". However, that's exactly what we are not supposed to do. According to WP:JARGON, "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: No, no you're going to far. There is a difference between "wikiliniking" and "excessive wikilinking". The term is a historical term that serves as a common name for certain doctrines as much as jargon, as shown above regarding the quote on market fundamentalism by Nobel prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz. You should not confuse technical (i.e., science/engineering) terms with terms that are in common use in public discourse. The term is used repeatedly in relation to the topic of the article in scholarly and other RS, and is also used to describe almost every single "think tank" listed in the article, so the term belongs in the article. When I used the term "jargon" above, I used it in the sense of a kind of shorthand that stands for the three commonly associated policy positions described above. It is not so difficult that it cannot be made readily intelligible in the context of the body of the article with respect to the various positions that think tank advocates have publicly taken and the critical response thereto. There just needs to be more work done in this regard.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
(A) Though the intent is appreciated, please don't Template:reply when I've obviously participating and can be assumed to have the page watchlisted. You mean well, but it just makes extra work on the other ed's end.
(B) We agree that the word is WP:JARGON; you've highlighted the word "excessively" in that guideline. Well, true, that word does exist in the guideline so a hypertechnical reading does arguably support your claim that this instance would not be one of excessive hyperlinking. In my opinion that's a hypertechnical reading that defeats the over-riding principle that we should strive for clarity by using common understandable language instead of WP:JARGON when possible.
(C) Though I could be wrong, it appears you passionately want there to be a link between this article and neoliberalism. I can live with that, but it's easily done by linking the term when it appears in a quote under the "commentary" section, instead of obfuscating the text we present in wikivoice.
I do not appreciate your presumed reading into my comments, and it appears that you are not well read in the relevant topic area.
Just stick to the sources, and keep the pedantic comments to yourself, OK? The only hypertechnical reading of the policy is yours, not mine.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Feeling mea culpa a bit here, as it probably originated from me trying to summarise a source which referred to free-marked ideology. I think this article should clarify the point that individuals promoting denial commonly cite (1) anti-regulation views, (2) opposition to government intervention in markets. Their financial backing is often from businesses which share these views and have a commercial incentive to stall or block any limitations on fossil fuel use and production. Something to review, will aim to contribute on that, dave souza, talk 12:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No no, take a bow! It appears to be guiding discussion to the nontechnical verbiage describing the highpoints so thanks for that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dave souza: There was nothing "wrong" with that summary, but I thought it should go further, paralleling the statements in critical sources, to clarify the negative association with right-wing economic policies and corporate oligarchs, and not inadvertently obscure that by mis-association with the more benign use of "free market" in the general sense.
It's a bit of a tangle, but nothing that can't be straightened out, as there are ample sources. You are also right that it is those two aspects of the doctrine that critics using the term "neoliberal" in this specific context are addressing. I'm going on an extended break soon, so it will be up to you and others to build it up.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Market fundamentalism conveys the idea certainly certainly but if you look at the first line of that article it starts with "Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a pejorative term applied to a strong belief in the ability of laissez-faire or free market policies to solve most economic and social problems." Really we should try just describing things rather than applying terms that are outright pejorative. Saying something like unrestricted free-market or deregulated conveys things quite well enough without name calling. More than that I think fundamentalism implies they have some sort of thought out and firm policy whereas it isn't just one thing, there is a certain consistent attitude okay but a lot of what they come up with is incoherent - denial and clear thought tend to be a bit opposite to each other. Dmcq (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a pejorative term, and that was added to the article without a source, in violation of NPOV; obviously, I have deleted it and left a note at the offending editors UT page.
You are also attempting to falsely infer that denialism is incoherent, whereas the types of policies predominately promoted by denialists are consistently anti-regulatory, pro-market, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The change was reverted by another person as well with the comment WP:EGG, you just edit war to stick in pejorative terms against opposition so I have marked it as vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I see yopu went and changed the target article to remove the bit saying it was pejorative. Could you just damn well stop changing the targets of articles at the same time as here and then claiming different about them and obscuring things like that. When your edit has had a bit of time for others to agree or disagree at the target fine but changing things that have been that way for ages and then claiming here your change is correct and immediately edit warring to stick in your change here is just being a PITA. WTF is eating you that you need to do this sort of thing, the sources have plenty of ways of describing the same thing without that sort of annoying messing around. Dmcq (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't read the related discussions on this page and the support for "right-wing", for example. You also failed to see that the edit summary you mentioned was related to an objection to a piped link, not the term "market fundamentalism", which you are the only editor claiming is pejorative, based on an unsourced POV statement in a Wikipedia article that has been corrected. The piped link was removed, and the statement rephrased so as to be more informative without using the term "neoliberal".
There has been a lot of discussion as to whether "denialism" is pejorative, but not "market fundamentalism".
In the edit I made, "right-wing" modifies "economic policies", and "market fundamentalism" clarifies what is meant by "right-wing". It's fairly straight forward. "conservative", meanwhile, risks drawing false associations because the term has many readings that are not related to the present context, such as "fiscal conservatism", for example.
Not only are you POV pushing to remove criticism that you don't like and replacing the related terminology with terminology that serves to obscure the meaning of the assertions made in the sources, but labeling my edit "vandalism", which is a clear misrepresentation. I suppose that you did that because you could think of no valid reason to put in the edit summary, right?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking the two you might be well served by utilizing WP:Dispute resolution or alternatively a self-imposed temporary interaction ban. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Why would you suggest that? An editor is ignoring Talk discussion and sources in order to push a whitewashing POV obfuscating the policies promoted by the "right-wing" (or "conservative") think tanks under criticism in the sources and the article, and mischaracterizing my edits as vandalism, etc.
That is conduct on the verge of meriting a misconduct report. The notion of an interaction ban is ludicrous, and the editor in question is not engaging in a GF content dispute. Meanwhile, you are an editor involved in the underlying content dispute.
Here, more specifically, since the piped link you'd complained about has been removed, it is obvious that the concern you raised has been met, and the text revised accordingly, and that is what one would assume you'd be commenting on in this context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
"Oreskes and Connway (2010) also detail the support conservative think tanks gave these scientists and ask 'What's going on?' . The link that united the tobacco industry, conservative think tanks and scientists mentioned above is that they were implacably opposed to regulation... They felt that concern about environmental problems was questioning the ideology of laissez faire economics and free market fundamentalism."
"That feat was accomplished in large part thank to the radical and aggresive vision that called for the creation of a single global economy based on the rules of free market fundamentalism, the very rules incubated by the right-wing think tanks at the forefront of climate change denial.
"Lahsen (2004) has suggested that the science of climate change denial generally was more rooted in the "paranoid style" (the word is from Hofstader) of American politics: science and environmentalism were out to get market fundamentalism.
Choose what you think are the main sources on climate change denial without doing these special searches for phrases attached and see what they say. That is the way to get weight - not by trying to find sources with some favored phrase in. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, the pedantic comments trying to dictate how I should edit are not welcome, and are "off-topic posts" that are not compliant with WP:TALK.
At present, you are ignoring sources because you don't like what they say. Two of the three books listed above are scholarly books published by academic presses, which represent highly reliable sources. The other is by a high-profile author. You have yet to make a single statement based on a source, it would seem.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT is part of the basis WP:Neutral point of view and the second pillar in WP:5P. Searching for sources that support what one wants to stick in confers very little weight, that is simply self-justification rather than neutral assessment of the sources. If you look at the major sources on the subject itself instead you'll have a good basis for editing rather than getting into edit wars. Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
What major sources are you talking about? You have produced not a single source demonstrating that the above-sourced statements are UNDUE because they lack WEIGHT.
You are being duplicitous, because you haven't referred to a single source yet in your campaign.
The text at issue has been under discussion for some time, and you are doing nothing other than disrupting that discussion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay I'll take that a request to show how to find reliable sources on a subject and figure out what they say with due weight.
The best reliable sources are books and scholarly sources that have been out for a year or so then they can be reviewed and their weight assessed. A reasonable first step is to stick 'climate change denial' into Google books and google scholar, or just direct and find the ones that look like reliable sources in the first couple of pages of returns. A bad review isn't a killer, in fact it can sometimes indicate the source is indicative of one of the major weights on the subject. Tertiary sources surveying the literature can also be a good guide to weight. The WP:OR policy talks more about this. The WP:NPOV policy talks more on weight.
Assuming we don't have a tertiary source as guide we just take those sources and their introductions and summaries will probably give an indication of overall structure and weight. These should also give an indication of what should be in the lead. The lead should summarize an article and more sources can be used in the main body but it is very unlikely they have enough weight to support the lead.
Applying this to 'climate change denial' from Google scholar you get things like 'The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society By John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg', over 700 pages and not a mention of market fundamentalism. "Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society edited by Constance Lever-Tracy", one mention of market fundamentalism on page 250 of about 480 - and by the way that paragraph starts with 'The shared conservatism...' where you disagree with conservative being in. 'Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life By Kari Marie Norgaard', not a single mention again. Then we have one you found 'Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand By Haydn Washington' which has one mention on page 79 of 170. Hardly a convincing case it should be in the lead paragraphs of this article. Looking at 'Heads in the Sand' again, there was just the one mention because it was talking about 'Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway'. That book actually does have a section on market fundamentalism - but doesn't actually say anything about its application in this case except to the tobacco lobby though I guess there is implication by association.
So what is reasonable to say in the lead? Can I suggest that something from the big surveys - the Oxford and Rutledge ones would be good. For instance in the Oxford one there is a chapter on Organized climate change denial by Riley Dunlap Aaron and McRight. That sounds like it is precisely aimed at what all this talk is about. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You continue to engage in a pedantic metadiscourse about sourcing, without actually making suggestions for improving the article based on concrete statements.
The first two sources on the list below directly contradict one of your above statements, for example, and the others are obviously relevant.
Indeed, the historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, in their history of climate change denial Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury 2010), argue that climate change denial is rooted in “free market fundamentalism,” much as creationism is rooted in religious fundamentalism.
as well documented in 'Merchants of Doubt', the book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway which exposes how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by an over-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming and DDT.
Such an interpretation probably underestimates the importance of ideology – the anti-regulatory, anti-state market fundamentalism that shapes the funding agendas of the conservative foundations. The corporations and the conservative foundations sought to conceal their direct involvement by funding anti–global warming organisations, such as the dozens of market fundamentalist think tanks that became a vital dimension of the American political landscape during the Reagan era and beyond, and are at the centre of the climate change denial campaign.
Very little, however, has been written about how market fundamentalism has, from the very first moments, systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change.
Searching on terms that supoort your contention does not confer weight to it. Weight is in relation to the topic 'climate change denial'. What you're doing is called confirmation bias. I was trying to explain how to avoid that and get something that follows WP:Neutral point of view. I showed how to find major sources for an article, I showed a few and named a couple as being such and pointed to an example source on this point selected without using any search terms like neoliberalism market fundamentalism or whatever. If you must put in extra search terms for a more restricted part of an article put in questioning ones like basis or reasons or ones about the general area like organisation. Dmcq (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw the discussion at ANI. I have less of an aversion to WP:JARGON than some editors, because I think it exists for a legitimate reason. Many subjects develop precise wording to help the participants communicate. However, while these terms are appropriate within a body of text squarely associated with the relevant subject, the terms are less than helpful when used elsewhere. “Neoliberal” is a term well known in the context of a political discussion. “Market fundamentalism” is less well known, but is also a political term. Looking at the categories at the bottom of the page will provide insight. Both of those terms are in categories such as political terminology and political economy.
In contrast, this article is in categories such as climate change skepticism and denial. While there is undeniably some overlap between climate issue discussions and politics, the overlap is not so complete that it would justify the use of political jargon. I am not rejecting the notion that people involved with neoliberalism and market fundamentalism have an interest in climate issues, I am rejecting the notion that we serve our readership well by using those terms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; we can cover their views in NPOV fashion without using the single-word jargon terms. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with that. If jargon words appear in a major way in the first few sources for a topic then it might be okay for the lead but even then phrasing things to be readable by a general audience is very important there. The problem with these is one has to do a search for them and the Wikipedia articles about them said they were pejorative - being jargon that's a triple whammie for the lead I believe. Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, fully agree that labels tend to go offtopic, and what's needed is a simple summary: essentially, belief that; freedom and the free market need less state intervention, the science indicates that uncontrolled exploitation of nature will cause problems, therefore the science must be wrong. Next task, review and summarise sources for discussion in the body text. Slightly offtopic, an optimistic view. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for split of climate change skepticism
Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments13 people in discussion
I came across these pages several days ago when searching for climate change skepticism on my favourite search engine. I was surprised that there wasn't a page for it on Wikipedia since it's a big thing. Having read through this talk page, it seems like there is an ongoing debate regarding skepticism and denialism. Without going into the details of the debate which have been done to death, I think a reasonable compromise might be reached by splitting skepticism from denial. We could split the pages in the following manner:
Climate change skepticism noting that climate change skepticism is generally seen as a form of climate change denial and psuedoskepticism. It can discuss the relationship between climate skepticism and true skepticism, and how the term has been co-opted by people who wish to dismiss the science. This article would be short enough to not need sections. Any aspects of climate skepticism that are generally relevant to denialism can be confined to....
Climate change denial discussing the relationship between the various names used to describe denial, the history of denial, denial arguments, lobbying etc. (essentially most of this page).
Ongoing care would need to be take to ensure minimal information duplication on these pages (i.e. forking) and this would need to be suitably noted in the talk pages. This would have the advantage of simplifying the information on both pages, which would make it easier to manage them, and keep them clean. At the moment the denial page is quite messy, I suspect in part because it is being used to play out the denial-skeptic argument at the same time as trying to discuss denial in general.Mozzie (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment As I mentioned on Talk:Climate change skeptic, I don't see these terms discussed as separate entities in reliable sources. They are almost always used to refer to the same thing, and are sometimes used as synonyms. Do we have any reliable sources which show a clear distinction between the two, and give us a unique definition for each label? — Jess· Δ♥ 14:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I don't follow. The latter is a redirect, not a second talk page... — Jess· Δ♥ 18:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I know that. But new discussions belong at the proper talk page. I added the relevant template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem I suspect is activism spilling out onto several pages. I proposed this split because I thought it would be a pragmatic way to solve differences and improve Wikipedia. Bottling several issues up in one page with strong activism, and editing based on a rule (reliable sources) just makes ugly confused pages like this one that are ongoing editor battles. Separating the issues might help to separate the issues, and minimise wasting editor time going over the same issues. Mozzie (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Opposed Far too many RSs use the terms without specific distinguishing criteria; Still more RSs say some use the terms synonymously and other RSs say deniers try to "reframe" their views as skeptical; Those RSs that do attempt to distinguish between these terms with something akin to analyzable criteria do so as a matter of compare-and-contrast. This article should cover all of that; having done so, this article should link legitimate climate change skepticism to the article that is (or at least used to be) designated for that discussion, i.e., Global warming controversy. As for the RS coverage of illegitimate use of "skepticism", that's just another word for denial, so that belongs here also. As for which article the Climate change skepticism redir should point to, I think it should point here. Then people can read about the criteria for distinguishing between the two types of climate skepticism (the part that's true to scientific endeavor and the part that is just denial) and move on, if need be, to Global warming controversy. Alternative idea I'd be fine with changing title here to "climate change denial and skepticism", and carrying on much like we are already doing. Doing that should quell objections that the redir Climate change skepticism pointing here is intolerably biased. The objection to rename is likely to be "that suggests they are equal". No, they are not equal. Our text needs to compare-and-contrast; report RSs that provide analyzable criteria; explain that climate science skepticism is redundant (since all science is skeptical); for intellectually honest scientific skepticism, link to Global warming controversy; for the other kind of purported skepticism carry on just like we are. If the text does that, expanding the title to include both terms would be a reasonable solution, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The whole point is that there is no legitimate stance of 'skepticism' when it comes to the three basic tenets of global warming - it's happening, human activity is causing it, and it's a bad thing. Anyone saying that they have found a fault in that science either deserves a Nobel prize for finding the most amazing overlooked thing, or they are denying the existing literature. Creating a separate-reality article in which they are still right, despite all the science, makes no sense. Global warming controversy is badly named. The title seems to imply there is a controversy about global warming itself. As the article text makes clear, there is only a controversy about what to do about it, and that is mostly going on in the US where special interest groups can buy mainstream media coverage to confuse the public. Many of the references there are dated around 2006-7, so maybe it's in need of an update. The only reason this article is complicated at the moment is because a handful of people are still having trouble accepting the fact that things have moved on, and the game has been called. --Nigelj (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed Global warming controversy should be replaced with a navigation list related to the open scientific questions being subjected to the most skepticism via research and professional debate. These are the open questions flagged by IPCC. All the stuff about culture and media war "debate" or "controversy" should get axed or exported to the articles about those views, i.e., Media coverage of climate change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I support Mozzie's proposal. First step would be to review & update the old page, deleted some years ago. Does anyone have a copy, or a pointer? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(@Nigekj) Your list of tenets of global warming sound as if you are trying to invoke the Ramsdorf taxonomy (trend sceptics, attribution sceptics, impact sceptics). However, it is quite possible for an individual to accept that the world is warming, agree that the cause is predominantly anthropological and agree that on balance, impacts will be negative yet still strongly disagree with some of the mitigation proposals. If you are correct that “ article text makes clear, there is only a controversy about what to do about it,” then we have some work to do because that is not close to the truth. There is substantial uncertainty about the expected temperature trend, primarily because there is substantial uncertainty regarding the climate sensitivity variable. There are quite a number of other open issues but the climate sensitivity is a big one. The reason this article is complicated is because there are many open issues in the community has not yet even agreed on the terminology for those who are questioning some aspects of climate science itself or the climate engineering proposals.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a big difference between uncertainty and controversy. Uncertainty as to whether a place will be uninhabitable in 50 or 100 years, whether 2 billion or 5 billion humans will die by a certain date, whether 100 species or 200 are going extinct per day, these may be open issues, but only the most die-hard deniers will claim that these are reasons that there is a controversy about global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion that there is no controversy about global warming is simply astounding. Have you read any of the literature? Do you need pointers to it? What is your basis for denying that a controversy exists?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to True believers. Perhaps we need a new article on "CAGW as religion" -- see forex Jerry Brown's [climate science mixes with religion]. Ah, Gov. Moonbeam.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You two should acquaint yourselves with WP:CIVIL: Someone puts up a proposal, I !vote, and straight away I am having my intelligence, my religion, and my mental stability abused by random people. Your tactics will not drive me away, or make me withdraw my !vote. Please focus on article content, and your own !votes, not on me personally. --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
oppose: There is substantial uncertainty about the expected temperature trend (and so on): indeed there is; but discussion of that belongs on the global warming page and indeed already is. So what does that leave for a "skepticism" page? All the genuine (scientific) skepticism is already covered there. All that's left over is denialism, or so it seems to me William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC) (upgrading my comment to oppose) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We're not fighting here over the details of "genuine (scientific) skepticism", but about the nature of it versus the fake kind that is synonymous with climate change denial. The technical distinction between these terms made by some RSs, the failure of many RSs to distinguish at all, and the way that various sides try to use the terms all should be covered in a single article.... such as this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
STRONGLY Disagree: this article has been a mess from day 1, and (sadly) survived 4 AfDs. What hope is there for an article that starts with a slur, then goes to mealy-mouth extremes to say: "No, we don't mean it. You nigras er, DENIALISTS are just too sensitive, and who cares what you Fringers think, anyway?"
OK, over the top, but not by much. But there is (IMO) No Hope that this will ever turn into a decent NPOV article. Better to leave it fester, and try again. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Pete vacuous venom of that sort isn't really helpful since it does not identify specific shortcomings much less any RS based logic that demonstrates existence of problems. Since you admit it's over the top, please try again? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(upgrading my comment to oppose): PT, I don't think your comments really make sense. Your disagreement with practically everyone else is over substance, not form. Splitting the article wouldn't solve the disagreement, merely smear it out, which would help no-one William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pete,
Just so there’s no confusion, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we had an article on climate change skepticism and on denialism. Probably two articles, however, if a single article the title should not simply be climate change denialism.
When I said I agreed with WMC, I did, but I was agreeing with the observation that a discussion of uncertainty about the expected set temperature trend is on the global warming page and that’s an appropriate location for it. I haven’t formally weighed in on the proposal at the beginning of this section, because I see it as a hopeless task to accomplish. Some days I’m a pragmatist and some days I like to tilt at windmills but this one looks like a loser.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
[convenience break in Wall of Text]
Well, I see I touched a nerve with my "vacuous venom".... ;-] Heh. "vacuous Vicious Vermin is sous venom:, anyone? And I still can't figure out how to turn off the idiot auto-correct! [Verminous, I say]
Comments, in no particular order: we don't need anyones permission to re-create a CC Skeptic page, just the editorial muscle to get it past the inevitable AfD. A preview of abolitionist votes available here.
Yes, there will be a fight over the content, and yes, there is some relationship between CC skepticsnd deniers. But Deniers remains primarily a political pejorative, intende to isolate and denigrate the users opponents. A moments thought will determine that the pious pronouncements that "we don't mean it to be a Bad Name" are just smoke and bullshit: see Giggle test. Disappointing (but unsurprising) that the CC Denial page has virtually nothing on the politics involved. Yes, academics have politics too, and yes, it's in their peer reviewed sociological treatises. Use a bit of common sense, folks. Don't insult the intelligence of our readers! AS the present page does.
Yes, we should recreate a "CC Alarmist" page, to balance this one. Someone else can do that. Plenty of candidates for a Wall of Shame. Unlike skeptics, these clowns kill people! (by wasting resources that might otherwise save lives). Cites on RQ.
If no-one beats me to it, I'll dig up a copy of the old page, userify it, and post a link here to a draft page. Might have time this weekend, but I have a trip booked for early Tue. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
When I asked you to rephrase the vacuous venom you yourself admitted was "over the top", I meant with RS-based logic demonstrating an idea for article improvement. This last post is at least more polite, but still lacks a single tangible RS-based bit of reasoning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Question do articles by climate change skeptics count as reliable sources? Mozzie (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Some do, some don't. Reliable sources are described in WP:RS. We should follow the guidelines in selecting reliable sources. Finding sources which satisfy the criteria in WP:RS and then saying they are not reliable because we disagree with them is against WP:NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
climate change skeptics is not a well defined term, per all the endless discussion, and so your question is ill-defined. climate change "skeptics", or climate change pseudo-skeptics, are well defined terms William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Against a split. The two are too closely linked and not distinguished enough in the literature, such a split would be a WP:POVFORK. I used to think that climate change skeptic should redirect to global warming controversy on the basis that if they were actual skeptics it had the details they were looking for. I'm staying away from that now as skepticism is very close to denial nowadays so I'll leave that for others to argue. But I see no good reason to split this article up on that basis. Global warming controversy is the place for skeptics to look up the arguments against global warming. Dmcq (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
oppose: As pointed out above, both terms are mostly used to describe the same. Besides this there is the fact that scientists are natural sceptics (unless they are not following scientific methods, or act with bad faith), thus pretty much redundant to have a niche article on something which could be explained on the article about scientists. prokaryotes (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
oppose: Referring to deniers as "skeptics" at all just adds to confusion. Skeptics themselves have been working hard to distinguish themselves from deniers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-63 The best way to disambiguate the word "skeptic" would be to define it carefully every time it is used, or to not use it at all. When "skeptic" is used in the traditional way (normal scientific skepticism) the Wikipedia article on scientific skepticism can be linked. When it is used as a euphemism for climate change denial, then climate change denial can be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.198.17 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Although I lack any authority on the matter, it does bother me that both the main article and this page strongly imply that it is impossible for any credible source to hold scientific skepticism against climate change. In fact, due to the scale of the global climate, and the inability to create small-scale climates that account for all of the variables the Earth's atmosphere is regularly exposed to, in addition to a lack of empirically collected data on past temperature trends (predictions and estimates based on condition assessments, while reliable, are still too fallible and cannot account for unreported variable environmental conditions that may result in deviations, are therefore too reliant on assumption to be accepted as definitive evidence), there is an inherent lack of reproducibility that more than justifies scientific skepticism by definition alone. If anything, the refusal to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of large-scale scientific theory is in and of itself deeply concerning, as that is the hallmark of potential pseudoscience going unchallenged by appeal to authority and peer pressure to not even remotely suggest anything disputing the "absolute certainty" of the consensus for fear of being accused of being an "industrialist lackey" and having their professional credibility severely damaged, if not outright destroyed. 216.121.240.209 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
All scientists are sceptics, the wording leaves room for this but perhaps we can put more emphasis on it if you can suggest a good source relating to this point? The distinction is explored in the article: see Weart (2011). "Global warming: How skepticism became denial" . . . dave souza, talk 01:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
'"STRONGLY oppose'": There is absolutely no difference between "skeptic" and "denier" in the context of climate change. 174.29.81.203 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That's an opinion, which you are entitled to hold, but you ought not to write it as if it's a universal truth, as many respected sources take a different view.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Spelling, inconsistencies
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The extant article has endless instances of incorrect spelling but also inconsistent spelling, mixing British and United States variants of how things are spelled -- such as "skeptic" vs. "sceptic" with "sceptic" considered "by most" to be incorrect. There are also a number of type-os, and also factual errors -- such as suggesting that "communism fell" in 1989 (when in fact Communism did not "fall," that system of economic policy was rejected by many Balkenized States however 1.357 billion Chinese citizens live under a Communist system, 11.24 million Cubans live under a Communist system, yadda yadda, to the point where the supposition that "Communism fell" is not correct and the extant article might benefit from a slight rewording there.
I'd like to address the spelling errors, type-os, and inconsistent spelling, either tomorrow or the next day unless anyone objects strenuously. Normally I like to discuss significant proposed updates with other editors before posting significant updates, so if you have any objections to fixing the spelling here, please let me know. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL! I was educated in California, so I'll have to be extra careful. Damotclese (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Inconsistencies not Inconsistancies (Pixpixpix (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC))
Ozone Action is a broken link
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I see that Ozone Action Inc is defunct however there is some background covering the organization. Maybe rather than link to a non-existent Wiki page, the name of the defunct organization might be referenced to an external link instead. Damotclese (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
might be missing something, but why are we even discussing this? It's a joke award by a non-notable group. There are plenty of excellent sources for the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, why do we even need this? Guy (Help!) 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about awards in the article. We're talking about Ozone Action's efforts to break up the Global Climate Coalition. As for the redlink, see WP:REDLINK. I don't think we should misuse references to provide additional reading about OA (instead of their intended purpose to verify the content), especially in this case, where they are tangential to what's being discussed. I don't recall revamping that section, and it might be due for a rewrite based on a solid source, like Weart. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, Guy just removed it, which is probably fine. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Category: Psychiatric diseases and disorders
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
By the way, climate change denial is a form of mental disorder, specifically a dysfunction so I'm wondering if a category of Psychiatric_diseases_and_disorders might be suitable for the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Source? This is incredibly close to a BLP vio while unsourced. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree, source? is the appropriate answer. And in general things like pseudoscience or religion or most of the other silly ways of thinking people are prone to are not counted as mental disorders. As mental disorder says "A mental disorder, also called a mental illness, psychological disorder or psychiatric disorder, is mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life. Many disorders are described. Conditions that are excluded include social norms. Signs and symptoms depend on the specific disorder." They don't cause distress to the people, they are able to function normally, and they are social norms or held by large minorities" So it is not a mental disorder. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I was merely curious. There is a degree of pathology involved in the abject denial of stark reality, it is a dysfunctional human behavioral trait which is expressed among individuals who deny other aspects of reality, to the point where some must be hospitalized. I suppose that not accepting reality is a matter of degree, and there is a defined point at which denial of reality becomes pathology, and another point at which it achieves disorder. Any way thank you, I was wondering. Damotclese (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Priceless. Carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.225.145 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Redirects to this page (close)
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
User:Jess, the editor who opened the RFC on this talk page at Redirects to this page, has now done a "close" after the RFC had expired. I will maintain that closure by an involved editor is not proper when other editors have objected that the RFC was done wrongly and/or have opposed the RFC's proposition. Taking it to WP:ANI after discussion here per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is an option. Alternatively one could hope that Jess will realize the closure was not proper and will self-revert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
See WP:RfC. To quote: "If...consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable...Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." It is urged not to formally close in most circumstances, and consensus appears to be clear to everyone involved. Do you honestly believe the discussion would have been closed differently by another editor? You can request formal closure if you do, but it would be contrary to our guidelines and a waste of time for everyone involved. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not asking for a close by you or by anyone, I don't care if an improper RFC expires. I am pointing out that you are an involved editor closing with a comment that makes it seem as if your evaluation is authoritative. I have made it clear what I believe the options are: you can self-revert, or I can challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Again, read WP:RfC. "To alert readers that an RfC is closed, it may help to graphically enclose the RfC in a box using a template such as {{Archive top}}". Quoting from WP:CLOSE: "it often helps to leave a comment that the issue was resolved... closing by means of the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} templates, with suitable parameters, can provide a convenient summary of the result and preserve the fact that the discussion had been advertised through the RFC process." (emphasis mine). The very page you cited suggests this process. I don't know why we need to waste more time on this. The RfC and all comments are available for everyone to read, the result is clear, and it was implemented. Can we please move on? — Jess· Δ♥ 17:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If the RFC results in a redirect of climate change skepticism
Latest comment: 8 years ago46 comments7 people in discussion
I do not think that "climate change skepticism" Should be redirected to this article, but if it is there are a number of changes that should occur in this article. I would hope we can agree that if we direct readers looking for an article about climate change skepticism to this article that when we talk about subjects that are denial is him rather than skepticism we ought to make that clear. We do so partially in the second sentence of the article, but there are other sections that are solely about denialism. I thought it would be useful to identify some of these things so that if the redirect is accepted we can begin the overhaul of this article to conform to the revised remit. In some cases some of these things ought to be considered anyway. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [sig added 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)]
As the sources in the article show, there's overlap to the extent that CC skepticism and CC denial are essentially the same topic. Editors have repeatedly been asked for examples where reliable sources show climate change skepticism as something distinct, without results so far. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You have this exactly backward. When two ranges overlap, there is a sub-range of intersection which belongs to both. If that sub-range is identical to each of the two ranges, then we are talking about the same thing but that's not the case here. There are lots of examples of things that are appropriately called denial and do not deserve to be called skepticism, while there are some things that are correctly labeled as climate science skepticism, which are not called denial, except by that small group of individuals who can't or won't accept that the terms are different.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Michael E. Mann's list of "six stages of denial"
I do not question the fact that Mann made point number one, but I think it is so absurd we ought to question whether it belongs in this article. It purports to be a fact that some people do not accept that CO2 is increasing. Mann isn't simply asserting that there are such people, he is suggesting that this is a common sequence among climate change contrarians. It is pretty clear that this is not a position held by skeptics and that's probably true even if you are one of the people that believes that denialsts ought to be lumped in with skeptics. If someone can show that this is a common position among denialists, perhaps it belongs here but I doubt that's true. More importantly, it is absolutely not true of those who call themselves climate change skeptics or climate change doubters. I did a search to see if I could find that such statements existing and I just haven't run across them. Someone at the Daily Mail misread a paper by Wolfgang Knorr, but surely one incompetent journalist making a simple blunder is not sufficient evidence for suggesting something is widespread. If it is more common than my limited search suggests and it is common among to denialists then perhaps the Mann quote deserves inclusion but unless it can be shown to be a common belief among skeptics the article should note that this applies only to denialst and not skeptics. I think it is far more likely that we will not find sufficient evidence to justify inclusion of the Mann quote.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source that conflicts with Mann? — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As responsible Wikipedia editors, we are not obliged to include nonsense simply because it was uttered by a scientist. While we have to endeavor to remain clear of original research, when someone makes an extraordinary claim, it ought to be supported by extraordinary evidence. He is simply asserted this without any evidence and we would be remiss if we didn't at least check to see if it's a plausible statement. Note that he is implying that such people exist and it is common enough to talk about. If they do you could find an example. I can provide examples of people who do think CO2 is increasing, for example:
I doubt there are scientists refuting the claim as it is too silly to bother with. I doubt that you could find a scientific article to dispute that the man in the moon has spaghetti hair, but if some scientist happen to say that we wouldn't include it, and we wouldn't be asking for scientific citations that dispute it.
While I understand that your personal beliefs aren't relevant to a debate about inclusion in an article - I'm curious - do you think there are large numbers of serious people who dispute that CO2 is increasing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Mann points to it as an extreme, you're setting a new bar to support your original research. For example, are you claiming that the BNP aren't serious? . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No, they are idiots who cannot read. Did you notice I cited the report a couple sentences above as an example of those who do think CO2 is increasing? In fairness the original scientific report wasn't well worded, and it is understandable that someone reading it might think the first time through that when they say "the trend in the airborne fraction" is essentially flat, they might've erroneously jumped to the conclusion that it said something about the trend in CO2. But if you actually look at the article, and for those who can't read just look at the graphs, it is obvious that it says something else. I do not question the possibility that journalists, who often have a very limited understanding of science, may screw up on occasion. But misstating the conclusions of a scientific article (which happens just about every day) is not evidence that serious people believe it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "extreme". If Mann really does present it as an extreme why doesn't our article say so? Why would we be reporting an extreme view as if it is a common view among contrarians? And where does he say it's an extreme; I'm looking at the book and do not see it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ S Philbrick, seems you didn't read below the list, where Mann writes "Contrarians have tended to retreat up the ladder as the scientific evidence has become more compelling. With the ever upwardly trending curve of CO2 levels plain for anyone to see, few were calling into question the rise in atmospheric CO2 by the time I had entered climate science in the warly 1990s." . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss that, I read that statement. It supports my contention that it's a nonsense statement. He concedes it wasn't happening in the early 1990s, implying that it did happen earlier, while supplying zero examples. Our own article claims that "The terminology emerged in the 1990s" which means man is contending that the early stages of client science denial happen prior to there being any climate science denial. Either climate science denial has older roots, in which case our article needs revision along with reliable sources pointing to these earlier roots or Mann is just wrong. Which do you think is more likely? Do we have any evidence, anywhere, that it was a common practice to deny the growth in CO2? Mann provides no evidence and I haven't seen it so did anywhere by anyone who is considered a spokesperson in the field. We shouldn't be incorporating material that is blatantly and facially false.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your blatant original research, but your failure to find earlier roots is not a reliable source that they don't exist. Please read more carefully, I'll discuss this point below. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Mann clearly presents this as the development of denialism over time. Go back to the early days, to the first stage of climate denial, and yes, you will very definitely find large numbers of petrochemical shills pushing the idea that CO2 is not increasing. Here's a well-known denialist website pushing precisely that: [5]. There are differnet versions of his six stages, too. Here's another: [6]. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this lack of reading comprehension day? I've already cited that study. I responded to dave souza about it minutes ago. I refer the Honourable Editor to my earlier answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You might also check your calendar. That paper was published in 2009, which hardly qualifies as " the early days". You can look it up. The Youtube clip is interesting, as he doesn't mention the flat CO2 claim. While I have some differences of opinion with Mann, I don't think he is an idiot, so it is to his credit that he has abandoned his earlier formulation. However, if he has abandoned it, why would we promote it?
To put it differently, I can cite the Reliable Source Michael Mann to refute the present wording in our article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"I can cite the Reliable Source Michael Mann to refute the present wording in our article" Can you? Please do! — Jess· Δ♥ 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy/JzG just provided the link to the Youtube of Mann discussing the "Six Stages of Climate Change Denial". He doesn't mention the silly assertion about flat CO2. He states "Originally, the claim made by those who deny the threat of climate change, the claim was that the earth wasn't warming." That's a more plausible initial step. He roughly walks through each in the sequence, except for the flat CO2.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so that's an instance where Mann says something different. It doesn't "refute" the wording; it doesn't even talk about denial of rising CO2 at all. Mann doesn't have to quote himself verbatim every time he speaks to avoid "refuting" himself... and as an aside, that youtube clip is dated before the last publication of his book. If you can cite Mann indicating that denial of CO2 rise is not a part of his six stages, please do. — Jess· Δ♥ 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"it doesn't even talk about denial of rising CO2" That's the main point. This isn't a casual conversation, it is a presentation with the title "The Six Stages of Climate Change Denial" and it isn't even mentioned. It wasn't an offhand comment in connection with something else, the moderator starts out by saying that he has written about the six stages of climate change denial and asked him to walk us through them. And he didn't mention it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
At first search I too thought it might have related to the 2009/2010 flap: Guy linked to the blog post "No Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years | Watts Up With That?" in which Watts claims that "WUWT was the very first to cover this story back on November 10th, 2009." Clearly false, as his original article Bombshell from Bristol: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? – study says “no” « Watts Up With That? quotes coverage earlier that day from Pat Michaels' World Climate Report » Airborne Fraction of Human CO2 Emissions Constant over Time, including Michaels' caveat that "It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time". Others were too excited by the "bombshell" news that the IPCC had it right, or by a misleading Science News headline, and did make the claim. However, all rather off-topic: as noted above, Mann refers to denial pre the early 1990s. Before everything was on the internets. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is off-topic, as I noted. FTR, I mentioned the Wolfgang Knorr study, and even linked to it. Then you excitedly pointed to an article - in which the Knorr study is mentioned, then JzG/Guy provides a link to yet another site mentioning the Knorr study, all without any apparent comprehension that I had raised it and discussed it earlier. Can we move on?
Do you wish to assert that climate science denial started before the 1990's? If so, we need to modify the article, and provide supporting references.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for improvement:
If we are going to include the stages of denial, perhaps we should replace the mangled version by Mann with the five stages of denial in the Guardian. That article, while imperfect, at least lists stages that are historically accurate and better yet a supported by examples. I propose we replace the six stages with the five stages.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
RTFA: "A conservative reaction built up, denying environmental concerns which could lead to government regulation. With the 1981 Presidency of Ronald Reagan, global warming became a political issue, with immediate plans to cut spending on environmental research, particularly climate related, and stop funding for CO2 monitoring. Reagan appointed as Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards, who said that there was no real global warming problem." footnote [55] quotes the source: "Many conservatives denied nearly every environmental worry, global warming included. They lumped all such concerns together as the rants of business-hating liberals, a Trojan Horse for government regulation." Also, with specific reference to CO2, "Reagan's Secretary of Energy (a former governor of South Carolina, trained as a dentist) told people that there was no real global warming problem at all ... In particular, they would entirely terminate DOE's funding of CO2 monitoring."[7] . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You're suggesting we remove a notable book published by a renowned expert and replace it with a blog post in the guardian? I don't see how that's an improvement. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting that when a claim is made in a book, which is not subject to peer review, and that claim is absurd on the face, and when that subject is specifically asked of the author and he declines to repeat the absurdity, we would be better off with a claim that makes sense. The Guardian article makes almost the exact same point as Mann except for the absurdity of the claim about CO2 growth. If there's a better source I'm all for it but the five stages makes much more sense. In addition, the inclusion makes Mann look like an idiot—is that our goal? It isn't mine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Taxonomy of climate change denial
As noted in the terminology section " ...there are clear distinctions between skepticism and denial". It goes on to note that "phrases such as "climate scepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism..." The qualifying phrase is absolutely true it is often the case that the terms are used with the same meaning. But frequently is not the same as universally, not to mention the fact that the conflation is often the result of ignorance or deliberate deception. While opinions may differ on this, my present point is that the section heading refers only to "denial". The first paragraph talks about Rahmstorf's " taxonomy of climate change skepticism", And then the section goes on to discuss Mann's "six stages of denial".
As a positive note it is good that this section discusses both the aspects of skepticism and of denial (subject to my concerns about Mann's formulation), but the section heading suggest it is just about denial. The didn't trouble me when this was an article about denial, but if we choose to change the redirect we need to do a better job of choosing our section headings.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue is pseudoskepticism. Which is a form of denialism. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "pseudoskepticism" is not used anywhere in the article. If you want to take the position that the Rahmstorf piece, which mentions "sceptics" 38 times, but never uses the word "pseudoskepticism" or "denial", you've got your work cut out for you. Can you cite a reliable source claiming that Rahmstorf is really talking about pseudoskepticism? I know you equate them in your mind, but this isn't Guyopeida, it is Wikipedia, so we need a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop obfuscating. It is abundantly clear that climate change skepticism is pseudoskepticism, that horse has long since left the barn. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not abundantly clear and is not even correct. Can you provide some reliable sources making this claim? I've read hundreds of articles talking about climate change skepticism and frankly can't recall the claim being made once. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, there are plenty of ignorant reporters out there and I won't be surprised if you can find one or two the make the absurd statement, but that's not the basis for making a claim in Wikipedia. You should know this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Every active climate scientist who is not being industry funded, accepts that climate change is real. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists accept not only that it is real, but also that we are causing it. It's in the same realm of certainty as vaccines not causing autism, and homeopathy being bullshit, but not quite as certain as evolution being the mechanism by which life as we know it developed. Skepticism of climate change, by those who self-identify as skeptics, is not legitimate scientific skepticism, it is pseudoskepticism, motivated reasoning driven by ideology, cognitive dissonance and in some cases naked greed. I do not need to reference that because it is stated as my judgment from the observed and published facts. I do not need to source the fact that climate "skeptics" are not real skeptics because that's already cited on this page, hence the change to reporting guidelines. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
The statement "Climate change skepticism, while in some cases professing to do research on climate change, has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science." has several problems. The sentence has a reference at it and a quote from a report. Keep in mind that this is a report prepared by a partisan political entity, but that's the least of the problems. The statement used in the article isn't supported by the quote. While it does support the claim that climate change skeptics spend time influencing the public legislators and the media, it doesn't say that that activity is done in contrast to legitimate science. Do we really want to hold the position that educating the public, legislators and the media is not a legitimate function of science? Both groups (those who support the "consensus" and those who challenge some aspects of it) engage in activities that are narrowly defined as science as well as the broader responsibilities of the scientific community to educate the public, legislators and the media.
However one might view attempts to educate the public, legislators and the media, those efforts are not necessarily pseudoscience. There might be some examples which qualify but to include the sentence in a section heading with the title "pseudoscience" suggest the sentence has something to do with pseudoscience.
I've seen the sentence before but was not troubled by it when it was in an article about climate change denialism. That doesn't mean I agree that it applies to climate change denialism, it means my interest in making sure that an article about climate change denialism is accurate is low on my list of priorities. However, if this is going to be a redirect from climate change skepticism, then it is more important to me that we do it correctly. Pretending that actions to influence the public are not legitimate science and can be called pseudoscience is a long way from being correct.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You said the ref doesn't support the statement. Here's the quote from the ref: "a fundamental difference between the traditional scientific establishment and the emerging "skeptic" establishment relates to their ultimate scientific goals. The former has traditionally emphasized the generation of new knowledge as a measure of productivity... On the other hand, the emerging culture profiled in these hearings emphasizes... the ability to alter public opinion - through opinion pieces aimed not at their fellow scientists but at policymakers, the media, and the general public". How does that not verify our statement that skeptics focus on "influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science"? The paper cited is taken from the US House Committee on Science, explicitly discussing climate change. It is not the only source to verify that sentence, either; a very significant part of the article is devoted to that very topic. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't necessary to repeat the quote I've read it and it's in the article. At the risk of repeating myself I said it doesn't support the statement and you simply reciting the quote doesn't explain how it supports the statement. There is nothing in that quote that says skeptics are not engaging in legitimate science. We are not allowed to engage in synthesis. You need to show me that the statement supports the claim that skeptics are not engaged in legitimate science.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know what to tell you. The quote is so close to what we're saying, if I were to make it closer, it would be a copyvio. The part I quoted begins... "a fundamental difference between [science] and [skeptics]..." It then goes on to say the difference between them is that science pursues research while skeptics try to influence the public. That's exactly what we're saying in the article. To repeat myself, it's not the only source to discuss this phenomena, either. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want you to repeat yourself, I was quite capable of reading what you said the first time. I asked you to identify the other sources to discuss this. Can you do so?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We can avoid a copyvio by putting it in quotes if necessary but I suspect that will not help because an actual quote won't make that point. The partisan report tries to suggest that skeptics spend relatively more time influencing the public then those who are not skeptics. That might be true. But there's a gulf between that statement and any suggestion that skeptics are not engaging in legitimate science. If someone wants to say that denalists are not engaging in legitimate science, that may be the case. But if we're going to talk about skeptics we have to talk about them accurately.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are making the same invalid assertion that the article discusses, i.e. the false claim that there is a difference between "climate skepticism" and "climate denialism". As stated in the article, and backed up by sources such as the one mentioned by Jess, the term "skepticism" in this context is being misused by denialists to give their views false credence. And to help you understand why the quote provided backs up the assertion being made, peer review is an essential part of science, so "scientists" who produce opinion pieces aimed at the general public, rather than presenting research to their peers in the scientific community for review, are not engaging in science, but rather falsely presenting themselves as doing so, and co-opting and misusing the lexicon and terminology of the actual scientific community. Climate denialism is a fringe view, and the idea that there is separate and legitimate "scientific skepticism" of the accepted climate science is also a fringe view espoused by the same people. In the context of science, people simply calling themselves skeptics is not enough for us to label them as such when there is a specific definition of what what constitutes scientific skepticism what defines a skeptic and reliable sources assert that they fail to meet that criteria. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not a false claim that there is a difference between "climate skepticism" and "climate denialism". It is true that some sources treat them as equivalent. It is also true that some reporters are ignorant, some are lazy, and some are mendacious. If all sources made this false claim, it would still be false but per Wikipedia rules we'd have to report it that way. However, that's not the case. Some sources equate the two while others make a distinction. (And one, if I recall correctly concedes there is a difference but decides for the sake of convenience to label all as denialists.) Wikipedia has a well-established process for dealing with such situations. We state something like some sources say X and others say Y.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jess and UnequivocalAmbivalence.The sources clearly demonstrate that the focus of the denial industry is providing sciencey-sounding support for a political agenda. Oreskes makes the same point at length, and so do many others. To be clear, in politics it is fine to try to advance an ideology. In science, it is not. If you are writing papers to support a predefined ideological position, as Soon has done, for example, then that is the canonical definition of pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Best source that distinguishes between climate change skepticism and climate change denial
The claim is made that there are sources which are reliable which make a strong distinction between climate change skepticism and climate change denial. I would like to have a list of these sources. I already know about the sources which say that they are essentially equivalent positions. jps (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll second that --Jules.LT (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I bought a book today:
Lack, Martin (2013). Denial of science : analysing climate change scepticism in the UK. Authorhouse. ISBN1481783971.
Despite the title, which uses the word "denial", much of the text uses the term "sceptics" or "scepticsm.
Lack states (in the introduction)
Therefore, the term "climate change denier" is avoided herein because of the pejorative way it is often used, even though they would appear to be quite a variety of things that are actually denied (or questioned) by the sceptics.
While this is short of a clear delineation of the two terms based on definitional differences, it is very clear acknowledgment that the term "denial" is pejorative, and therefore avoided.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, pretty obviously it doesn't distinguish between the two terms. Context is needed, worth looking at Martin Lack (26 February 2013). THE DENIAL OF SCIENCE: Analysing climate change scepticism in the UK. AuthorHouse. ISBN978-1-4817-8398-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). Lack's defining his usage of "climate change scepticism" as deemed to include denial... so this doesn't distinguish between the terms. He does refer to use often being pejorative at the time of his [re]writing his thesis, but more recent sources refer to non-perforative use. The confusion of his usage is evident from p. 2 of the intro – "although scientific scepticism is healthy, widespread rejection of scientific authority is dangerous because, either way, it is likely to inhibit necessary action being taken. .....(in the US at least) this scepticism is actually being orchestrated by right-wing libertarian organisations with a vested interest in the maintenance of business as usual." So, scientific scepticism isn't the same as rejection of scientific authority scepticism. This lack of clarity is why reputable organisations are now avoiding this misuse of the word "scepticism". . . . dave souza, talk 23:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you consider the book an RS?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Good point. AuthorHouse says it "is a vanity publisher based in the United States. AuthorHouse uses print-on-demand business model and technology" . . dave souza, talk 08:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Global warming denial
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
...would be a more accurate title for this article, per Wikipedia's own definitions. The global warming article "is about the current warming of the Earth's climate system." It states that "'Climate change' can also refer to climate trends at any point in Earth's history." Meanwhile, the climate change article refers to "change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)." It instructs: "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see global warming." The deniers deny "global warming"--"the current warming of the Earth" and "current and future climatological effects of human influence"--not "climate change." In fact, as some you of probably know, many of these deniers acknowledge that the Earth's climate has always been changing, albeit as a way to diminish the current consensus.GeneralGreene (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
While that looks plausible in terms of Wikipedia references, this article is based on multiple high quality sources that use the wording "climate change denial". While "global warming denial" is shown as an alternative, it doesn't seem to be common usage: could you please identify sources that would support the suggested renaming? . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
GeneralGreene, notice that not anything warms, there is for instance cold air intrusion from the Arctic or cold spots forming in the Atlantic, or projected cooling in the scenario of drastic Gulf Stream changes, or increased winds in the southern hemisphere which keep Antarctica's air cooler, or the cooling in the Stratosphere/increase of water vapor. Therefore, climate change is a much better term. Hence, why the latter is more commonly used. But maybe add a redirect to help those who seek infos for GWD. prokaryotes (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirects to this page
Latest comment: 8 years ago35 comments22 people in discussion
Endorsing formal close of RFC. Consensus is to redirect. --Errant(chat!) 09:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The RfC has expired, and I don't see any benefit to continuing it longer. Consensus appears to support having these redirects point to climate change denial. It is clear enough that formal closure should not be necessary. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Removed Jess's involved close per WP:AN discussion. I also find consensus in this discussion to redirect, while noting that skepticism ≠ denial per the opposing comments. ~Awilley (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: Per outside input, the RfC question was changed slightly to make it a yes/no question. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Support directing to this article. This article is devoted to the topic, introducing it by name within the first two sentences, and includes extended detail. All our content on "climate change skepticism" is extremely well sourced to respected academic works, including Weart, Dunlap, Mann, Painter/Ashe, the NCSE, and many, many others. On the other hand, Global warming controversy does not discuss climate change skepticism by name, and is primarily devoted to the scientific consensus and controversy surrounding global warming. Readers searching for "climate change skepticism" who are redirected to global warming controversy are left to piece together what "climate change skepticism" is on their own. Our coverage in this article is well cited, neutral, and on-topic. I have difficulty understanding any objections to linking to it, besides wanting to hide the article from our readers. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Support per nominator.Global warming controversy is the wrong article . It is not about 'skepticism' as a position but is about actual scientific contoversies, mostly in the past, about details of the theory and projections. 'Skepticism' is a mostly political framing and position that some people take that whatever detail is provided, they will challenge and disbelieve it. This is fully backed by research and published RSs in the climate change denial article. --Nigelj (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment Without saying whether the redirect should be made as proposed (I tend to be against, but don't much care), the agreement that discussion should take place at Climate_change_skeptic#Centralized_discussion_plus_list_of_redirected_pages strikes me as odd. That's a talk page with no corresponding article. I didn't know such a thing was even possible and doubt many people are watchlisting the talk page of a non-existent article. Better for the discussion to take place on the talk page of a prominent related article or perhaps on a noticeboard. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a good argument, but it supports opposition rather than support of the change. A scientist who disagrees with some of the mainstream conclusions would be quite astonished to be told they are not engaging in legitimate science simply because they dared to disagree. Yet that's what the article currently says. (I understand you are unable to distinguish between denialists and skeptics, but that is not a universal position.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Except you've given us no sources which distinguish between "skeptics" and "deniers". Meanwhile we have a veritable library of sources that say the two terms in this context are synonymous. Now, it could be that every author in this library is incorrect, but when pressed to provide reliable alternative sources that make the distinguishing determination, it is you who have been spectacularly unable to come up with anything remotely close to the standards put forth by those who are pointing out that the two ideas in relation to the subject of climate change are synonymous. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are on some sort of righting great wrongs kick to establish a distinction where there is no difference. You are behaving poorly in this regard, with a kind of WP:ADVOCACY for the skeptics/deniers that is untoward. jps (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Improper RfC This is not a neutral request or description. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
While looking at correcting some of the spelling errors I noticed that a lot of the article is plagiarized without attribution. I ran parts of the text through on-line plagiarism detection tools and got numerous hits to scientific publications as well as news outlets. However nothing in the extant article is inaccurate or wrong, everything being reported here is 100% true, well referenced and well cited. Damotclese (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you're picking up WP mirrors or attributed quotes in the refs. Could you open a new section with examples of anything you find? This doesn't have to do with the redirect discussion, but if there's a problem like that, I'm interested in seeing it fixed as soon as we can. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Support This article is devoted to the subject. If some editors find it insufficiently balanced, they should help make it better instead of trying to direct readers to an article that is on a different subject --Jules.LT (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I added a {{about}} template to Global warming controversy; it uses the same language as the one on this page. This article discusses the politics and the other one the science. So any political term should redirect here. Roches (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Basically same basis applies as before, that the article climate change controversy is the article where questions on skeptics and public controversy should be directed to, but the reverse seems not true -- the denial article is a narrower one to efforts of lobbying of undermining. The controversy article also seems less of a 'surprise' leap (WP:R#PLA) and a more neutral title, and as said in May 'it is inappropriate to equate skeptics to "deniers" as a pejorative political term. Presume they want actual skeptics as typed rather than going to the partisam term. Markbassett (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Support redirects to this article, which explicitly discusses the common use of "skeptic" to refer to climate change denial or the denial industry. In theory there could be cases of genuine skeptical doubt falling outside the wide gamut of denial, but no sources show this in sufficient detail to sustain a different article: there have been repeated requests for sources about such cases, but no sources have been proposed. Good sources indicate that the term "denial" is properly used in an academic sense, without being pejorative, but claims about it being pejorative come from those politically denying the science. The CC controversy article isn't about this topic, redirecting there is uninformative and confusing. . . 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. I quote a sentence from this article with two sources: '"Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.' If the two terms are synonymous, why shouldn't they redirect to the same page? Banedon (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support, albeit that the title of the article may eventually change to something that reflects the wilful nature of denialism without including the ever-contentious D-word. Skepticism and denialism are one here, whatever we call them, and to equate pseudoskepticism with controversy rather than denialism is simply misleading. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support This article is currently our best place to go to begin to understand the denial v. skepticism dimension, a good example of where related subjects are more easily treated in one article. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. If I typed "climate change skepticism" into the search box, I would hope to be redirected to "Climate change denial" rather than to "Global warming controversy". Maproom (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Why? If you are interested in climate change skepticism, I would think you would hope to find an article talking about climate change skepticism. This article barely covers the subject and to the extent it does so it does so poorly. The global warming controversy article does a better job of covering items of interest to those interested in climate change skepticism.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment / Tentative Oppose Per Markbassett, I tend to oppose this move. This article has primarily been about organizations trying to undermine climate science. I might be able to support a move if the title was changed to one of skepticism which also describes deniers, rather than the reverse. The title of this article has often been a debated point, but since it's focus was narrow, it was allowed to stand. If the topic of this article is changing to one that encompasses skepticism, then the current title is no longer appropriate and neutral. Morphh(talk)12:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you identify a single organization that "encompasses skepticism" but is not identified by the majority of third-party independent sources as denying climate change? Note that "climate change denial" as defined by this page and almost all reliable sources encompasses more than simply refusing to believe that climate changes. It is a rejection of the mainstream understanding of the mechanisms and likely consequences of the current global warming trends. jps (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So this only applies to organizations? The redirect doesn't seem to indicate that. My concern is that the term, denier, is a political one. It's bad situation where we describe anyone that challenges the predominate views of science, generally referred to as skepticism, as a denier. Again, this wasn't a problem when the focus of the article was narrow, but as it broadens, it's no longer neutral or accurate. If the mainstream view is IPCC, then there is certainly plenty out there regarding the accuracy of their models. You seem to be making skepticism == denial, which common sense says is a false, or at the least confusing, correlation. Morphh(talk)14:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It surely applies to everyone. Do you have any source which indicates that anyone who challenges the predominate views of science is a "skeptic"? Scientific skepticism is an entirely different idea, in fact, nearly the opposite of that definition. Do you have a source which indicates that this is the main way that "skeptic" is defined? Or is this just your preferred definition? jps (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The basic definition of skepticism is "doubt as to the truth of something". In this case, skeptics doubt the conclusions or timeline reached by the predominate viewpoint due to various reasons, which may include certain models not reflecting some bit of empirical research. As you stated, the term is not limited to organizations. It's also not limited to scientists. In general, since it is both a political and science issue, the skepticism term could also apply to the solutions presented. Per WP:COMMONTERM, we should avoid addressing the terms as if they are the same. Clearly there is a distinction, be it skeptic, doubter, or whatever. Morphh(talk)15:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The basic definition of skepticism, I would argue, is misleading. Skepticism is a philosophical position that is much stronger than simply doubting everything. It is one that demands a standard of evidence on the one hand and criticizes claims which are opposed to the standard of evidence on the other. Thus, a "skeptic", properly, would criticize the position of global warming denialists/skeptics who do willfully ignore evidence or rely on faulty evidence or interpretations. Thus the confusion and the need to avoid the term. We cannot call someone a skeptic if they doubt that 1+1=2 if they do not doubt that 1+1=0, for example. The climate change skeptics in this case do not doubt their belief that the effects of natural variation on the climate are as large or larger than the effects of human-produced carbon dioxide emissions. jps (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - this article is devoted to the topic of climate change skepticism. Global warming controversy is a whole different topic, therefore readers should be redirected here. Also, like the nominator has previously stated, all of the claims and facts in this article are supported by very reliable and well-known sources. Cheers, ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This article is primarily about denialism. That should be obvious from the opening sentence. There may be some people who outright deny, dismiss or attempt to raise unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus, and those people are properly called denialists. There are also people raise questions about some of the scientific aspects or some of the more outlandish claims made in the name of global warming, or challenge some of the policies prescriptions based on economic grounds. There is no single best name for this group (the AP suggests "climate change doubters"), although they are commonly called climate skeptics. If the term "climate change skepticism" becomes a redirect, then the article needs a substantial overhaul to explain what aspects of the article currently referring to the nihilist do not apply to skeptics. I don't know that anyone is prepared to undertake that massive overhaul so it would be far better to simply continue to have climate change skepticism redirect to global warming controversy which is a better albeit imperfect choice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The differences that self-described "climate skeptics" claim there are between them and denialists, beyond mere terminology, are an absolutely valid topic that should be covered here. Why don't you write a well-sourced paragraph on that? --Jules.LT (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
SupportWe have long since reached the point where being skeptical of climate change is a euphemism for denying climate change. AIRcorn(talk) 05:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe it should stay as a redirect to Global warming controversy. "Skepticism" and "Denial" are two different words, and shouldn't be equated like this. I think "Climate change skepticism" should lead to an article talking about the debates and counter-theories that have been had about climate change existing. I then think "Climate change denial" should be about organizations or people that make public denials of climate change or that has publicly obstructed the progress of the climate change treatment movement. In fact, the bottom paragraph of the "Terminology" section of this article states that "skeptics" and "deniers" should not be put together. JaykeBird (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course the two words are different and they should not be conflated, but unfortunately, those opposed to actions that may limit and reverse climate change have conflated them - on purpose and by design. Now no one in their right mind would call themselves 'skeptical' about climate change unless they wanted to align themselves with the deniers who have co-opted, adopted and misused the term. We have to reflect everyday usage and reality in our articles and coverage. --Nigelj (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do changes in the consensus over time create deniers?
Latest comment: 8 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion
I'm curious. As the predicted amount of warming falls over time, what does that do to the category of "Climate change denier"? If, say, I predicted a change of a tenth of a degree per decade, was labeled a "Climate change denier", what would I be called ten years later when the climate only warmed a tenth of a degree? "Scientist who wasn't wrong"? What would the scientists who agreed with the wrong consensus be called? "Climate change deniers?" It's accurate because they were denying that the climate would change only a tenth of a degree per decade.
The entire article is premised on the idea that people who disagree with science cannot be correct. And yet every advance in science overturns previous science. Einstein was in his time a denier. Keynes overturned the idea that saving was good for an economy. More recently (during my lifetime), Alfred Wegener went from a denier to a discoverer of a new principle. (Please don't niggle with these examples -- I'm trying to be succinct, not perfectly accurate.)
I suggest that this article everywhere claims that denial of an incorrect idea is unscientific. If it were up to me, I would delete it, but it's not. Multiple attempts have been made, so I'm not going to go there. I suggest instead that this article needs a section noting that the IPCC has changed its mind repeatedly, and "denial of an incorrect idea is what the scientific process is all about." (note, of course, that I'm denying the correctness of this article, so feel free to call me a climate change denier denier.) RussNelson (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Willie Soon who received 1.2 million from fossil fuel interests to cook up some favorable studies, is like Einstein? prokaryotes (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The predicted amount of warming doesn't "fall over time". The figures have always been stated within bars of uncertainty, as with all scientific data, and over time the cumulative uncertainty has reduced. And no, the article is not predicated on the idea that disagreeing with science cannot be correct. It is predicated on the extensively documented activities of motivated parties in spreading deliberate disinformation about climate change, in the attempt to provide false balance and stave off regulatory actions. The tactics are straight out of the tobacco industry playbook, and in fact several of the individuals were part of the tobacco industry's FUD campaign against regulation of smoking. If you think that genuine scientific disagreement would ever be stifled, then you don't know many scientists. Any scientist who could provide convincing evidence that the consensus view on climate change is wrong, would face intense scrutiny followed by massive kudos. Scientists all would love to make their names by overturning prior knowledge. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice also, even before the IPCC we had predictions which turned out to be accurate: "In 1938, Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, and correlated these measurements with old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.[1] He concluded that over the previous fifty years the global land temperatures had increased, and proposed that this increase could be explained as an effect of the increase in carbon dioxide.[3] These estimates have now been shown to be remarkably accurate,[4] especially as they were performed without the aid of a computer.[5] Callendar assessed the climate sensitivity value at 2 C°,[6] which is on the low end of the IPCC range." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
There is universal consensus on what the future climate of earth will be according to the New York Times. So therefore that's Wikipedia's position. Being verifiable wins over truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My casual understanding of this phenomena is that non-denialists who are also scientists start by stating the current thinking and then "showing their work" that leads them in a modified/improved/refined direction, or on a rare occasion an entirely new direction. Sometimes when they show their work it boils down to, "This is interesting so far, but it needs followup work in xyz ways." That stands in contrast to the blather of denialists, who just make shit up, rarely show their work, rely on echo chambers and logical fallacies, and sometimes with a dismissive waive of their supposedly-expert hand refuse to accept others' work just because they don't like the others' work for some (usutally unstated) reason. For example, if the others' work stands in contrast to one's own beliefs many people tend to reject it no matter the evidence. See Confirmation bias ans System justification). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The core of denialism is either rejecting robust new evidence that contradicts your position, or deliberately setting out to create and promote an alternative set of "facts" that are at odds with the scientific consensus, usually for ideological or financial reasons. A holdout becomes a contrarian becomes a denialist as the evidence against their position firms up, and as they refuse to adapt their views in response. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually rather like Guy's formulation. I wish it were the operating definition used for this article. Unfortunately, the decision to redirect climate skepticism to this article means this article is not narrowly about those people who meet Guy's definition, but a much broader group of people including those often called skeptics. What that means, is that this article needs a lot of work because it doesn't have a lot of coverage of climate skepticism as distinct from climate denialism. If I recall correctly, Guy is one of those who thinks there is no distinction which is odd because the definition just provided, which is a decent summarization of the position of denialist, doesn't include many who are viewed as skeptics.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you are taking yet another bite of the oft-bitten apple. we regularly debate whether the RS's support meaningful distinction between climate denial vs climate skepticism. The redirect discussion you mentioned was the latest, and the result was that the RS's did not support a distinct article for the latter. With that now behind us, you seem to want to make such a distinction anyway, just under one article title instead of two. I hear no new reasoning to consider, so maybe you could explain why this conversation is new and different? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say you have it exactly backwards. I'm not revisiting the debate, I am urging that we follow the logical consequences of that consensus. If one accepts, as you suggest that we cannot support "a distinct article for the latter", then that means this article should discuss the concept of climate skepticism as there is no other place to put it. The current article emphasizes the denialism aspect, But has very little coverage of the positions of people like Andrew Watts and Judith Curry. If someone came to this encyclopedia with an interest in the positions held by people like that, they might well do a search for climates skeptic, and arrive at this article. If we are going to drive traffic to this article we ought to provide coverage. We don't.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You're still assusming that the RSs establish a meaningful disctinction between the two. That is the oft-bitten apple that you seem to nibbling again, but without pointing to any new RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2015
No. It is time to stop this. I am not religious about whether we call them deniers or contrarians, but the time for legitimate skepticism ended a decade ago. Those who describe themselves a skeptics these days, are pseudoskeptics. The spectrum of scientific opinion has a tail at either end, as normal (pun half intended) but there is no real scientific dissent form the view that the climate is changing and we're responsible. A very few genuine scientists (by genuine I mean not paid to have a view by the fossil fuel industry) think it's only warming a bit or that it's within the range of normal variation, but that number is dwindling and their views are no longer significant within the field. Anybody who, here and now, claims that the planet is not warming, or that we are not causing it, is a denier. They are as scientifically relevant as a homeopath who has gatecrashed a conference on ebola. I think I understand your beliefs here, and I like and respect you as a Wikipedian generally, but you do your cause no service at all by pretending the world is other than as it is. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who, here and now, claims that the planet is not warming, or that we are not causing it, is a denier.
Who disagrees?
I think I understand your beliefs here
I don't think you do, given the rest of your rant.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
With no RSs why should anyone try? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Some influential contributors to the climate debate largely accept the scientific conclusions of the IPCC but disagree with some of the proposals to address the problem. One example is [[Some influential contributors to the climate debate largely accept the scientific conclusions of the IPCC but disagree with some of the proposals to address the problem. One example is Bjørn Lomborg. I understand that many contributors disagree with his positions but that's off course not the point. He is a notable contributor to the debate. How should positions such as his be included in this article?
Judith Curry is one of the preeminent scientists in the field of climate science. She largely accepts the mean temperature projections of the IPCC, but has disagreements with the confidence intervals around some of the projections. How should positions such as hers be included in this article?
Anthony Watts accepts the existence of anthropogenic global warming, but has issues with a number of the mainstream conclusions. Unlike Lombard and Curry I think it's fair to say he is not on board with the main conclusions of the IPCC. One of the specific areas of interest is siting issues. How should positions such as his be included in this article?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Watts is a denialist in denial about his denialism. Curry is just at the fringes of the scientific establishment in terms of her views and I have no particular opinion on her in the context of this article but I think it is false to describe her as "one of the pre-eminent scientists in the field of climate science", she is certainly a climate scientist but the prominence of her name is due IMO largely to the cynical exploitation of her research by deniers. I do not think she would be a fraction as well known if she did not hold the views she does. Obviously I am not a climate scientist, but when I have discussed climate science and climate politics with a number of friends who are (my town has a substantial community of climatologists associated with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) her name hasn't been mentioned. I think it's unnecessary to make hyperbolic value statements about people in this case anyway. Curry's published work falls within the body of knowledge which, collectively, makes up the scientific consensus. Watts is probably really just a "useful idiot", he is very obviously not influential within the field of climate science and nor does he have credentials in the field. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Per Guy. Some of your characterisations are bizarre William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Your generalization isn't useful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Just compare your characterisations with those of the wiki articles William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I missed the editing guideline that explains that Wikipedia should refuse to include information about notable people in a field if Guy's friends haven't mentioned them lately. Seriously, that is one of the more bizarre non-answers I have even seen in a talk page. My question wasn't "Does Guy subscribe to their views" it was, and I repeat "How should those views be included in this article"? When the article was about denialists, I would have said "Well, duh, they aren't denialists". But now that someone has declared that a consensus exists that this article is also about skeptics, we ought to provide coverage of skeptics. If you disagree, please provide a more cogent reason than "my friends don't talk about them". We would have a slimmed down encyclopedia if we followed that rule.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You also seem to have missed the policy that proposed changes are to be backed with reliable sources. One point, Curry's research is generally of little note, it's her unsupported public statements that associate her with denial. For example, her false statement about "the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not increased [8] which she effectively repeated at the recent hearing called by Ted Cruz: her interjection at 8:11 in this segment is of interest. See also Johnson, Scott K. (9 December 2015). "Senate Science Committee hearing challenges "dogma" of climate science". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 December 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) and Mervis, Jeffrey (25 November 2015). "From a bully pulpit, Ted Cruz offers his take on climate change". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aad7548. Retrieved 19 December 2015. . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I was rebutting your unsupported assertion of Judith Curry being "one of the pre-eminent scientists in the field of climate science" with my own equally unsourced anecdote. As it happens, the burden is on you to prove your rather hyperbolic claim by reference to a reliable (i.e. non-wingnut) independent source. Our article on Curry does not make any kind of case for your characterisation. I don't see her on the IPCC panels, for example - was she there? Nor do I see any prominent primary research on global temperature trends, again I could be missing something. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In fairness, we should note that Curry said, in the testimony linked above, "that the IPCC and the consensus has no explanation for the increase of ice in the Antarctic", and she has co-authored a paper on that topic which explains that "Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades .... ". . . . dave souza, talk 23:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is now a decent explanation for the increase in antarctic sea ice extent which is also due, amazingly, to the increase in global temperature. That's the problem with cherry-p;icking anomalous results - when they are no longer anomalous, you have to find another one. Creationists have the same problem. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Can we get back on topic? Wikipedia has an article on the consensus view of global warming. This is not that article. This article originally covered " denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus" which has now been deemed to include those views often called, imperfectly, climate skepticism. Because of the origins of this article, which emphasized positions at the denial end of the "overlapping range of views" issues at the other end are underrepresented. If we truly believe that this article cover climate skepticism, it ought to cover climate skepticism. Is there any disagreement on that point? If not, then let's discuss views proposed by those who are often called climate skeptics, and decide how best to incorporate them into the article. I have identified three such views. I have no doubt many regular editors in this field disagree with some of the conclusions, but as editors our responsibility is to neutrally represent those views, to the extent that they are notable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
What reliable third party sources do you propose, showing how these views differ from majority scientific views? . . . dave souza, talk 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, what RSs do you propose that allegedly make meaningful distinction between climate denial vs climate skepticism? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. S. Philbrick has never, as far as I can tell, consistently argued for the use of "skeptic" rather then "de nier" for climate denialists. I doubt we're going to change his mind, given that the sources and the science don't seem to have done so. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
or maybe WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, given the lack of RS's despite frequent requests and criticisms that none have been offered.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure I am correctly parsing your comment, but I do not think the term “skeptic” should be used to describe those who deny the consensus of climate science. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Title
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Neutrality challenge based only on editor's opinion and later abandoned by the OP. Click show to read anyway
The article is entitled Climate change denial so one would expect that it would be about Climate change denial. Instead, it is a polemic against Climate change denial. It would be more appropriately titled Criticism of climate change denial. Biscuittin (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the reasoning here is based on the OP's characterization that the article is a "Polemic", I think this is really a naked assertion that the article is not neutral. Lacking any analysis or reasoning, much less RS-based analysis and reasoning, this user's naked assertion is really just more of their WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM in the climate pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You are dead right the article is not neutral. OP? Open proxy? What on earth are you talking about? Biscuittin (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
OP means "original poster". In this context it means you. In terms of neutrality, I'd like to see sources which demonstrate a neutrality issue. That would be helpful, since the current article is extremely well sourced, as far as I can tell. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful if editors would provide links to ambiguous abbreviations. I'm criticising the Wikipedia article, not the sources. The article is not neutral because it expresses a strong opinion against Climate change denial and uses sources selectively to reinforce that. Biscuittin (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Then the way you're using the word "neutral" is not consistent with how wikipedia uses the word. Here, the word "neutral" means it reflects the sources accurately, particularly with respect to their due weight. We can't change the article because you vaguely feel it isn't the way it should be. We can change the article because it doesn't reflect significant sources... but we need to know which sources those are. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, if you want Wikipedia to be as blinkered as Conservapedia [9] then so be it. Biscuittin (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This article is a disparagement and belittling of anyone who disagrees with what the author considers mainstream climate consensus, making it a political statement.
There are many in science and engineering who, while recognizing that global average temperature data shows a small increasing trend over time, do not agree with the purported dire effects of that slow trend. These dire effects have been the subject of papers, but papers regularly disagree in both the effect and severity of the studied effect as the results are heavily driven by the assumptions made for the study. There are scattered theories about different potential effects but little that is backed up by repeatable observations.
Whether you agree or disagree with a particular bit of science or politics is the fodder of lively discussions on sites like Yahoo, but disparagement to support your point of view has no place on Wikipedia and this article should be deleted.
Kris0013 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Kris0013 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
SUMMARY (and possible addition to article) (see below) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.[2][3][4][5]
Nothing to do with this article or even about CC denial crandles (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This material is being spammed to multiple articles and talk pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - Thank you for the comments - all recent related edits were added, in good faith, to a few selected articles - the edits seemed relevant afaik to this present one ("Climate change denial") and related articles (1, 2, 3) - please understand that if the edit is found not to be relevant for some reason - esp after a discussion for WP:CONSENSUS - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course (after all, according to "WP:OWN", All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively) - hope this helps in some way - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
"... hundreds of thousands of years" sounds like a long time when measured against human lifespan but is a blink of an eye in the history of the earth. If we limit ourselves to the last 550 million years, We can look at the graph in this article:Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere Reproduced here:
Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years).
As is clear, the current levels are some of the lowest in history. To be sure, the higher levels corresponded to different climates, but the oft-repeated remark that current CO2 levels are unprecedented is simply not true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You're mixing up your language, and seem to be complaining about a straw man, unless you can point to a source relating this finding to the supposed unqualified "oft-repeated remark". Current levels are above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years, history goes back around 5,200 years in one or two places: before that, you're in prehistory. It appears that anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago, so that suggests unprecedented in relation to homo sapiens. Nice weather for some other species, perhaps. . . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: The claimed inconsistency was simply a misreading. I see some concerns about sources, but the one I chose is sourced. Thanks for bringing those other options to my attention.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"As is clear, the current levels are some of the lowest in history" really means in pre-human prehistory: the phrase "Earth history" is in use in the geological time context, but in common usage history means within the last 5,200 years. Of course geological time is fine if you don't care about humans, which may be an attraction for some. . dave souza, talk 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Dave, fair point that many of the articles talking about levels of CO2 do include a qualifier for the time frame. However, that was a throw-away point (which I should have thrown away) and, as you know, doesn't change the point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
See above. All the discussions I've seen are clear that current levels have been exceeded in the deep past, say more than 23 million years ago. Of course that's not the only factor affecting temperature: the point it that you're complaining about something supposedly misleading by introducing phrasing that is if anything more misleading. Of course, if one of the cited articles makes a misleading use of "unprecedented" that can be discussed. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not following your point. I agree with you that current levels have been exceeded in the past. I agree with you that that's not the only factor affecting temperature. The rest of that sentence I honestly couldn't parse. My point is that this is an article about climate change denial, so I am not following why it would be helpful to add a statement about recent levels or of the fraction of emitted CO2 which remains in the atmosphere. Both of those points might be relevant to an article about the science but I don't see what they add to a discussion about the politics.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The material that starts this thread appears to be merely pr spam. It has no place at this article and has been in fact spammed all across wikipedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
As before (please see above) => Thank you for your comments - all recent edits were added, in good faith, to a few selected articles - the edits seemed relevant afaik to this present one ("Climate change denial") and related articles (1, 2, 3) - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove the link spam. These are contrary to talk page guidelines. We all know that these video streaming efforts are not suitable under any policy for addition to an article. Their addition here is mere advertising or blog posting and entirely inappropriate. If added in good faith they can be removed in good faith so as to comply with WP:TPG. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - please understand I have no investment and/or agenda whatsoever with the material - none - the material simply seemed relevant to the few articles that the material was added - and possibly seemed to be an improvement to the article(s) in some way - it would be up to others to decide afaik - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit - if agreeable with others of course - and - esp if there's WP:CONSENSUS - seems not everyone agrees the material needs to be suppressed (and/or censored?) (including, for example, at this link) - esp re an ongoing discussion that may be related to the material - iac - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikiquote neutrality
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Regarding this edit I wonder if there is any requirements at Wikiquote for balance or NPOV? I know the rhetorical power of a long series of quotes, even from people the reader has never heard of, let alone from minor TV celebs, putting forward a discredited point of view. Unfortunately I don't have easy access to all the equivalent quotes from scientists and intelligent commentators, nor the energy at the moment to take on a whole new wiki project. -Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Looks like a big hole in our NPOV policy if Wikiquote is not similarly neutral. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
New article, so best way would be to add quotes to bring it closer towards balance, particularly ones that point out the disconnect between deniers and the scientific consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
relation to climate adaptation
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Quote from lead section: "the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate". This is a half-truth. Skeptics are not hindering efforts to adapt to the warming climate, quite the reverse. They want the money currently being wasted on anti-carbon dioxide measures to be re-directed to something more useful, such as building up flood defences. Biscuittin (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Biscuittin, why do think this thread, which lacks RSs and lacks article improvement suggestions, and appears to be based soley on your personal opinion, is not WP:SOAP and/or WP:FORUM ? Ordinarily I'd just ask for RSs and not talk about behavior but you've posted enough of this lately I'm pondering whether its time to complain about persistent soap at AE. Before going there, I thought you'd like a chance to explain? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is a reference. [10] You may say that the farmers are wrong but the Wikipedia article is about Climate change denial or skepticism, not about whether that denial or skepticism is right or wrong. I see you are trying to intimidate me again. Biscuittin (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Only trying to impress on you the need for RSs. It's more effective way to make your point, it's required, and it respects everyone else's time. Else we have to ask, then followup.... if you start by offering the required RSs that would make for better discussion, and hence better articles. That's my only goal.
<break>
As for the RS you mention, it does not say anything about skeptics wanting us to redirect money from climate mitigation to climate adaptation, so it's off point.
<break>
However, there is a better criticism to be made about the lead's text you flagged and it's this -
A. WP:LEAD text needs to summarize the body of the article and it isn't clear to me which part of the body talks about climate denial hindering adaptation. Granted I only skimmed the body of the article. Can anyone point to the section of the body saying denial/skepticism is hindering climate adaptation?
B. Although WP:LEAD text does not require citations (which do have to appear in the body) lead citations are optional and sometimes desirable. In the text you flagged, we have three citations. The character string "adapt" does not appear in the three articles, at least not with respect to the assertion made in this text. Can anyone explain how the citations support the text about denial-skepticism hindering climate adaptation?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) PS, I'm confident RSs to support the assertion exist... just saying it isn't clear we've really substantiated it or discussed the appropriate context/extent of the phenomena yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have edited the article accordingly. Biscuittin (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you have edited the article according to the first part of NAEGs statement (that the current sources don't support the "adapt" part), not according to the second part (that NAEG is sure that sources do exist). In these discussions I find it helpful to be as precise as possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Still fails verification With this good faith edit, Nigelj has restored lead text claiming that climate denial is hindering climate adaptation. Although I'm sure sources exist to support this, (A) we shouldn't say it in the lead if we haven't discussed it in the body, and (B) Nigel has not address the problem of citation. In your edit summary, N, you say "For more detail, see linked article, especially perhaps section 'Climate Adaptation Denial'." There are three problems. 1. I'm unsure what to make of "perhaps". Do you know that section's citations support the statement or are you guessing? If you know, which one and what paragraph? 2. A quick look finds that the citations in that section suffer the same problem as the three citations now used - none of them contain the character string "adapt". Maybe there is other verbiage in one or more of these sources. But unless that's explained here, and the topic is discussed in the article body, we still have a small problem. 3. Even if the sources in the other article provide verification for this text in this article, they are there, not here. My activity for now is voluntarily restricted to commentary. I'm hoping someone will run with this, because right now, although I personally believe the assertion is true, our text still lacks clear citation and discussion the article body. Hopefully a fully functioning wikignome will fix this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
To me, the fact that the statement is self evidently true, and allows us to link to another related article with more detailed and cited information is enough. The statement is, "Although there is a scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate." The query is over the very last clause. The phys.org article linked above seems to be mostly about how some farmers in a few American states are pretty clueless about climate change, which is neither here nor there. The fact is that politics has been impacted by denial, and so it has hindered prevention and adaptation efforts. It would be extraordinary to claim that although politics has been impacted by denial, which has hindered prevention, it has had no effect whatsoever on adaptation, which has gone ahead at full steam, worldwide, for decades now. Clearly an extraordinary source would be needed to support that assertion. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Scientific opinion vs. the opinion of some scientists
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I don't want to edit war over it, but I'm not sure about Jess (talk·contribs)'s recent edit. We have had this discussion before at other articles and some people never seem to agree, but to me, there is a clear 'thing' called scientific opinion when named without a definite article. I know that I'm taking it to the other extreme to illustrate the point in the title of this section, but again, to me, as soon as you introduce the definite article, you begin to dilute the actual meaning you would get if you just said 'scientific opinion' and left it at that. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... to me, I don't see a difference in substance between "scientific opinion" and "the scientific opinion". There is a difference in grammar, however. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? "Both reject scientific opinion." sounds wrong to me, and I don't really see any benefit... then again, I don't read the current formulation as just "an opinion". Let me think... would changing it to "reject the scientific consensus on climate change" work for you, Nigel? — Jess· Δ♥ 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
e/c..... I'm not sure I grasp the issue but I'll offer an observation anyway. If the phrase is just "scientific opinion" we should still include the word "current". It is implied even in Jess' version in the DIFF, since that phrasing also uses the present-tense verb "reject". Instead of just implying "current", we should say "current" out loud. I have no opinion as to whether we should stick the article "the" in front of "scientific opinion", and no opinion whether adding "scientific consensus on climate change" is better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm more or less ambivalent on "current". I think the sentence is stronger (and more accurate) without it. Saying "current" sort of implies that they accepted previous scientific opinion to some degree, or that the scientific consensus is somehow new or modern. In reality, climate change denial (as a movement) has been rejecting the scientific opinion since there ever was scientific opinion, and the current consensus largely reflects the mainstream opinion from decades ago. That being said, I don't care all that much. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe in the crudest terms the top points are the same (it's warming/it's us) but at any greater level of detail since IPCC first met the "current" consensus has been continually moving to the right in this graph, and the rightward tail has continually grown a whole lot fatter and longer. Recently I showed this graph to Naomi Oreskes, and she immediately drew in that longer and fatter tail. (File:Distribution of professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change - by Tobis and Ban.jpg
Yea, I agree with that. I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I only meant that while climate science has been progressing, the arguments made by denialists largely have not, spare a little drifting (to appear more reasonable) as the mainstream consensus has firmed. As scientists have been adding precision to their numbers and forming new models, denialists have all the while just been saying "nope." I didn't mean to imply scientific opinion has gone unchanged, but that denialism has (aside from a few concessions). There isn't anything about the "current" scientific opinion causing that disagreement, nor is there anything "current" about denialists remaining contrarians... that's all been happening for quite some time. That's my only real objection to using the word "current". It's true, of course; denialists reject the current scientific opinion, just as they've done historically for decades. I hope that makes more sense (or maybe I misunderstood you, and we were both agreeing all along!) Thanks for the chart! — Jess· Δ♥ 02:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree that "current" is grammatically unecessary and potentially misleading, think on balance "the" works reasonably well: see below for modified wording. . dave souza, talk 06:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Since some links were merged, this emphasised excessive focus on the existence of global warming. To a large extent denial/skepticism is focussed on attribution, impacts and mitigation/adaptation, so have modified the lead as below" Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts. Thoughts? . . dave souza, talk 06:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Do we have an article yet, covering critical arguments of the IPCC estimates or similar scientific evaluation/reports, i.e. SLR estimates, AMOC observations, melt rates etc? Keywords underestimation, conservative projections, overly optimistic emission scenarios prokaryotes (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, wasn't aware of this. Considering the article size it would make sense to move parts to Conservative IPCC estimates. prokaryotes (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Is this article encyclopedic and does it comply with NPOV?
Latest comment: 8 years ago47 comments28 people in discussion
Responding to the request for closure at WP:ANRFC. This RfC was poorly written, as several editors pointed out. That said, there is a consensus among editors that the article is generally compliant with WP:NPOV with respect to the issues raised in this discussion, e.g. in assigning proper weight to the position of the scientific community. The arguments supporting the proposal are relatively weak, and in a couple of cases appear to reflect misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy (such as in the RfC writer's claim that "sources are irrelevant" in an NPOV discussion). If there are actionable proposals with reference to issues that were not already addressed in this discussion, then those can be discussed on a case-by-case basis in the future. Sunrise(talk) 02:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I also criticise the fact that Climate change skeptics redirects here. Climate change skepticism is not the same as climate change denial, although this article pushes the POV that they are the same.Biscuittin (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We just had an RfC on this two months ago, and consensus was quite clear. I don't see any benefit to holding another one so soon. RfCs should also have a neutrally worded summary and a clear question, both of which are lacking here; there's nothing obvious to "support" or "oppose". If you'd like to change the article in any of the ways you're suggesting, I think it would be best you have a simple discussion about it here, first. To jumpstart that, what sources do you feel have been excluded from the article? — Jess· Δ♥ 23:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Unactionable. You propose no specific change, all you do is state that the article is at odds with your personal beliefs without providing anything which an RfC can address. This needs to be closed. Try again with somethign specific backed by sources. Or drop it. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources are irrelevant because it is the unencyclopedic style of the article that I am complaining about. Biscuittin (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you post a specific change that you want to implement? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Specific changes are already suggested in my RfC submission above. Biscuittin (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You could use a little time iunderstanding the actual meanings of some of the words you use. Specifically, the word specific, which you use in a way that is quite unconnected to its actual meaning. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The article is neutral as per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not indulge in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Proposer also does not seem to be able to take onboard that global warming controversy is where the scientific objections are discussed and this is about a social and psychological phenomenon. That is where the theory that the main change is caused by solar variation is discussed. This is the article about denial and people pushing things like that despite the evidence being against them. This article is not about the science itself. Whether solar variation could or does cause the change despite the studies is not relevant to this article. If a person has a big lump growing on them and they are afraid to go to the doctor, or are told it is cancer and say that can't happen to them - yes it might be true that they don't actually have cancer. Yes it is worth checking the diagnosis. But saying it is something else is still denial and there's no particularly positive side to it. There is no need to say 'criticism of' at the beginning as if we were going to have an article about how marvelous denial is. This idea of some false balance with climate change deniers has been discussed on multiple boards and I would support a topic block if the proposer goes on to yet another venue after this. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
the previous RfC was about the redirect Climate change skeptics so I have struck out this part of my complaint. Biscuittin (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. This article is writtenn from one POV. It may well be the majority POV but it is not a POV that is universally accepted, by all climate scientists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Malformed RfC There is nothing proposed here. The article is written from the point-of-view of the scientific consensus on the subject. It discusses a social/political agnotological phenomenon relating to the denial of climate change. The OP has been told this by many editors on many pages. This RfC should be closed anf the OP should WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the poor dead horse else they may be fast exhausting the community's patience. JbhTalk 13:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Malformed RfC I agree that the RfC is malformed, as support would result in no actionable steps. The article is very problematic, but this RfC isn't going to solve that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please be more specific, Sphilbrick. In what way is the article "very problematic"? Biscuittin (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
An article to which “Climate change skeptics” redirects ought to have substantial coverage of the skeptic end of the spectrum. It does not. I could elaborate, but not in this thread.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yet another waste of time - find yourself something useful to do William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Shouldn't have WP:FALSEBALANCE. Only one content proposal 'doubt rather than 'unwarranted doubt'. This is in the definition of what the article is about. Therefore removing 'unwarranted', places all scepticism in same category category as denial which seems opposite of what the proposer wants. If this is not understood, I don't think we should take proposal, which is very thin or even malformed, very seriously. crandles (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of this RfC is to get comments from editors who have not contributed to this discussion before. However, there have been at least three attempts to sabotage the RfC. [12][13][14]Biscuittin (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Those diffs do not show "sabotage". Looks like one gives a valid criticism and the other two removed a notice of the RfC from Wikiproject Cosmology - where it did not belong. I mean seriously Cosmology? Really?? JbhTalk 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
General disagreement -- The article is generally fairly neutral, and the proposed title "Criticism of climate change denial" would not be better then the simple current title Climate change denial, because the current title is the actual noun used by a huge number of reliable sources, which indicates that it's a "thing" that is notable enough to describe in Wikipedia, which is what this article does. Sure, there are people who would not use this term, but this article describes them and their reasons for not using this term, so it does represent the variety of viewpoints accurately using reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Malformed RfC. Per C-randles: It is not denial if not unwarranted. Jim1138 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Neutral on remedy #1 (I'm not opposed to a re-write that makes the article more neutral, but I'd need more specifics in terms of what you see as a problem and how you propose they be remedied, and oppose the rename (#2) since that would be a daughter article of this one (and, I suspect, a poor choice for a daughter article). Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The premise of these assertions seems to be that those described here as climate change deniers might actually be right, and mainstream science wrong. If this were true, then more balance would be needed, but it is not true. All the references in this article and in all the other articles on global warming support this. There is no other valid POV to represent. --Nigelj (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it is just about conceivable that one of the myriads of theories might actually be right and most climate scientists are wrong even though it is extremely unlikely. And checking various ideas is always a good thing. But that is hardly the point. Going around and saying all those climate scientists are wrong and some other theory is right is simply denial with the current weight of evidence. One needs good evidence that passes as good science and is accepted by other people qualified to check the data before saying that to the world - which are climate change scientists unless one is a conspiracy theorist. So not as unlikely as pigs flying but more likely than winning the jackpot. It could be you - but you're a fool if you believe it will be you. Dmcq (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I personally dislike the term denial. The term's baggage means that it can be played upon by "skeptics" to create undeserved sympathy. But the term is well-sourced, so by Wikipedia policy that's what we're stuck with. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. This article does take a particular POV and the claimed "consensus" should not justify this stance. To quote Michael Chrichton:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Crichton was a writer of fiction. That you need to quote fiction to support your view is telling William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand what scientific consensus is do you? Scientific Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. Global warming is caused by the increasing levels of Greenhouse gases (Mainly CO2(g), CH4(g), and H2O (g)) which is agreed upon in scientific conferences that GHG concentrations in the atmospheres are increasing, Likewise, The correlation between GHGs and surface temperatures have also been discussed in scientific conferences, originaly to explain Venus's high surface temperature compared to its Planetary equilibrium temperature. Davidbuddy9 Talk 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The term Scientific consensus is well understood and perfectly valid. It is, of course, not hte same thing as the consensus at a Society of Friends meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a normal term in science. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with malformed RFC. The article is written per the overarching view of the scientific community. While I'm sure some sections could be more neutrally worded in general the tone of the article, that climate change denial is non-scientific and fringe among experts is perfectly matching to reality. SPACKlick (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Partially support I think getting rid of "unwarranted" is a good idea. Otherwise, any claim that a specific person or group is a climate change denier becomes impossible to support via citation; the question of when beliefs are warranted is a difficult philosophical one and can't be sidestepped by referring to an expert consensus, which bears directly only on truth and not warrant. David9550 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't have to make philosophical decisions, we just have to follow reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth. What is needed is for reputable secondary sources to give their opinion. Nobody is expecting Wikipedia editors to come to some sort of conclusion about people, the extent of our judgment is to assess how good the sources used are. Thanks for the reasons - I was wondering why some people were going on about the 'unwarranted'. There's no much room for unwarranted doubt nowadays but it would mean including any scientist who actually found a problem as a denier which would just be wrong as in denialism the hallmark is denying reality. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Are you saying that there are reliable secondary sources saying that denying climate change is unwarranted? I was under the impression that the sources only said that climate change existed, not that its denial was unwarranted.
I'm not quite sure what your last sentence means but I interpret the words "denier" and "denialist" very differently -- the first is just stating the fact that the person denies climate change, whereas the second is speculating on the psychological motives, and usually a POV assertion. So I think it is fine to call individual scientists deniers as long as we don't call them denialists. David9550 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Read the sources and you'll see for individuals climate change denial refers to denialism not to just them saying that there is a problem in the theory. Yes if we as editors decided from the evidence that somebody said climate change was wrong that they were deniers that would be POV by the meaning of climate change denial. We would need reliable sources that actually labels people in some way equivalent to that. This article does not label individuals that way but does describe a general problem of that sort as described in the social sciences literature. Industry denial is something different but is also covered in this article as in the denial machinery used to foster denialism in the public. The article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming does not label the people there as climate change deniers even though many of them could be properly labelled as such by WP:V, that simply lists those who verifiability oppose the general consensus. Dmcq (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that interpretation throws the whole article in a new light, for me. At the very least it would mean that we should get rid of the section labelled "Denial networks", which claims that specific individuals and groups are deniers = denialists. The second sentence also becomes problematic, because it implies that deniers = denialists exist and that their views can be described.
I understand that the existence of denialists is asserted in sources like NCSE, but this seems like a clearly POV source. I understand that the IPCC is NPOV and says that climate change exists, but it doesn't say that critics are denialists. For all we know, the majority of scientists who voted on IPCC think that the critics are not denialists and are performing an important part of the scientific process even though they are wrong. David9550 (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That says a study has identified 4556 individuals across the US as forming a network of deniers. They do not identify any individuals, they simply give a number of the ones they consider to be supporting denialism and discuss the organization of them. You are going against the second pillar of WP:5P in the way you are applying your own ideas instead of following the sources. There are multiple sources attesting to the denialism, have you read Dunlap for instance? Climate change denial is of course of concern to many involved in the IPCC, but social scientists and psychologists and suchlike are best qualified to write about something like denialism. And they are qualified to write about it as far as Wikipedia is concerned whatever about your reservations about it being POV to judge people's internal states. Dmcq (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree that Dunlap feels more like an NPOV source than NCSE does. So I'll agree that the existence of denialists can be taken as a verifiable fact. However, I'm still concerned that there may be a kind of "bait-and-switch" going on -- it's true that many sources are using the word "denier" to mean denialist, but to me that doesn't feel like a very natural usage of the word, and I wouldn't be surprised of other sources just use "denier" to mean someone who disbelieves in climate change. For example, the article currently states "In academic literature and journalism, the terms climate change denial and climate change deniers have well established usage as descriptive terms without any pejorative intent." (though there is no citation). Well, maybe I will have to look through the article to see if there are any conflicting word usages like this... David9550 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Unclear what the issues are in particular. Someone claims the article lacks a NPOV, but cannot pinpoint it, is bad communication, and therefore prevents evaluation of potential issues. Same for style of writing, in fact it seems just fine. The pseudoscience section is important, however, the content could be extended and issues be defined more exact, i.e. Willie Soon and COI due to funding. And just to make this point clear http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/28/willie-soon-s-climate-denial-wasn-t-ever-credible-climate-scientists (Follow the link if you're feeling masochistic enough to read more from scientists into the documented gap between reality and Willie Soon's research) prokaryotes (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The article is in harmony with the supported facts. Frank communication of the supported facts is encyclopedic, is the cleanest way to achieve NPOV. This article achieves that. --Paleorthid (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Support - the article does come off as comdemning and ranting a bit rather than an encyclopedic NPOV factual reporting of cites and the positions involved. It's kind of difficult with partisan labels involved, but at least have the lead point to Climate change controversy as well, be shorter and try to keep the article a bit more dispassionate. (a) For example, there a paragraph spent on putting in the vague slur 'pseudoscience' that seems not very relevant to the topic or significant part in the body of discussion, so why is it here ? (b) And in Public opinion it goes tasks the press on what 'has not been accurately communicated' before even getting into what IS the public opinion ... seems like sermonizing. Just follow the cites, and convey due weight what they're saying. Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think at the very least the article could have the hat note expanded to say for the scientific controversy see Global warming controversy. The term 'climate change skeptic' might just mean denialism nowadays but it is perfectly possible for a member of the public to be fooled and be genuinely skeptical and so look up climate change skeptic which directs to this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Unactionable/Malformed RfC - Apparent gripe by a probable POV pusher. 66.87.80.24 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I oppose the suggested changes. This RfC was not worded in a neutral manner, and aside from that, the term "climate change denial" is prevalent in many a source and has uses beyond politics and agenda-pushing. I also question the notion that this in not NPOV; there is a quite significant level of agreement among qualified scientists, and as such, those in opposition (particularly those with unwarranted doubt as noted above) to said agreement are indeed "denying." Here is a definition of denial that I was able to quickly find in a matter of moments: "an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false." This seems to fit that definition. Dustin(talk) 19:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this malformed RfC, which uses invalid objections to the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Unactionable RfC, the suggestion is entirely misguided. The article is factual, neutral, and properly cited, in other words satisfactorily encyclopaedic. In case anyone wishes to use it, I have a robust Trout which they may borrow to slap nom about the face. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Support a complete rewrite or deletion. This article is undoubtedly WP:SOAP. The very fact that it uses deliberately inflammatory terms like "denier", and makes claims of "scientific consensus" serve to illustrate that point. In addition those who oppose the measure are often relying on ad hominem (Crichton was a writer of fiction. That you need to quote fiction to support your view is telling" - William M. Connolley), argumentum ad verecundiam ("climate change denial is non-scientific and fringe among experts is perfectly matching to reality" - SPACKlick) and petty threats ("I have a robust trout which they may borrow to slap nom about the face" - Chiswick), which to me indicates that most opposition to this proposal is emotional rather than practical. Now I personally believe man-made warming is occurring; but I think inflammatory rhetoric and overblown claims, as found in the media and this article, are the number one reason why the public at large is still so suspicious of Climate Change research. Philip72 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
POV tag & "unwarranted"
Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
On wikipedia, "neutral" means "reflective of the sources". It can't be non-neutral without considering the sources. So, what source do you think has not been adequately reflected in the article? — Jess· Δ♥ 06:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I've made this comment on the NPOV noticeboard at the current discussion, and perhaps it can be useful here as well to focus the discussion in a fruitful way to determine whether there is a neutrality issue or not on this article.
The lede sentence reads:
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.
"Denial" is hyperlinked to denial which is very important to the meaning of the sentence. This carries psychological and moral overtones that are desired, i believe, to the meaning of the sentence.
"scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming" is hyperlinked to the article Scientific opinion on climate change. This is also important to the meaning of the lede sentence.
The sentence cites two sources: National Center for Science Education 2010, and Powell 2012, each with extensive quotes.
My reading is that this sentence is solid and in line with the bulk of reliable sources on the subject, though in sharp opposition to a small minority of sources that show a strong POV in line with climate change denial itself. It's not that the two sources used to support the sentence do support it, but that the vast majority of reliable sources also support it. It's not enough to have just a couple sources to claim that a point of view is "denial" (which is to say that its claims are bunk) but rather that it's a widely accepted viewpoint without significant opposition except among a clearly delineated minority group who are pushing it. Ultimately, there is no "absolute truth" within Wikipedia, but rather a complex triangulation (sort of a cluster map analysis) of many reliable sources, with us as editors evaluating the positions and likely truth values of each source and doing a complex meta-analysis. In this case, it pretty much comes down to a picture of a group of sources that have been partly funded by huge vested interests (the fossil fuels industry) to create the illusion that there is significant doubt about the reality of human-caused climate change.
I would prefer the sentence to be simpler:
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans.
This simpler definition removes the fuzziness about whether there is valid skepticism about the rate or extent of climate change, or about the extent or nature of impacts, and such things. I do think there is valid skepticism on those fronts, and it would not necessarily be included in the label "denial".
I hope my contribution is useful, and can be fodder for meta-level discussion about what NPOV (neutral point of view) means in regard to this article. SageRad (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. As I've noted there, the trouble with the suggested simplification is that it becomes over-specific, and excludes positions covered by the taxonomy cited in the article. For example, cases where there is acceptance of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans, but denial (or unwarranted doubt) that it's worth doing anything about it. The spread of coverage is well cited in the article. Adding to that comment, while there is valid skepticism on all fronts, it gets called "scientific skepticism" as "climate change skeptificism" has become a common code for denial. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
dave souza - "scientific skepticism" is just common code of the other side. You're dealing with partisan wording, and the most common usage is expectedly just rhetoric to win, not about something real or virtuous. Consider the alternative meanings of 'scientific skepticism' are: First a common distrust of politicized scientific bodies or scientism (see also distrust of politicians and salesmen, cynicism, perceptions of dogma); and Second a common doubt of a scientist or science generally (from change over time, fallibility, GIGO, corruption). Basically there's no such thing as "scientific skepticism" for "climate change" as the article seems to mean the term, though I'd be happy enough for someone to point me to actual applications of it in this topic. Markbassett (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Unwarranted doubt" is also important to encapsulating the whole topic. Yes, I know... the title of the article is "denial". That's because it's the term our sources use, even though the subject really encapsulates a large range of professed views. Anthony Watts claims he doesn't "deny" the scientific consensus, he just doubts everything about it despite mountains of evidence, and as such he's identified by many sources as one of the most prominent climate change deniers. I love simplicity, but we have to get the subject right foremost. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd go further: I think "unwarranted doubt" is the very definition of denalist activism. You can see this in everything from the tobacco industry playbook to the work of holocaust deniers. It is amazing how well two words can encapsulate so much nuance. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It is a beautiful term. It does encapsulate a judgment about what's reality and what's not. I would certainly say it in my own voice, but is it suitable for Wikivoice? It takes a position on what is warranted. It's conferring an authority, as is evident from the root word "warrant". In the case of climate change, i believe there is sufficient agreement among sources that there is a consensus that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and serious, and it's been documented sufficiently that much of the doubt is manufactured by a vested interest actively attempting to sow doubt, such as ExxonMobil's climate change denial. So in this case, i think that it's ok for Wikipedia to authorize the warrant to the actual consensus and to call unwarranted doubt what it is. SageRad (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed suitable for Wikipedia's voice, because it assumes nothing about motives, it does not demand outright rejection of consensus, only doubt unwarranted by the strength of evidence, and it is unliekly to be misunderstood by the reader (always an issue if we resort to jargon). Guy (Help!) 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been yet another editor removing 'unwarranted'. I think it is probably another one of these ones who wants to cast denial into a good light. Could anyone try and explain to me the thinking behind their wanting to remove the word as I'm just not getting any sort of even fuzzy idea of what's in their minds when they do it. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This may be helpful in discussing the word "unwarranted" in terms of POV versus NPOV. Keeley (1999) writing about conspiracy theories, categorizes them into "warranted" versus "unwarranted":
as more people must be brought into the conspiracy to explain the complicity of more and more public institutions, the less believable the theory should become. It is this pervasive skepticism of people and public institutions entailed by some mature conspiracy theories which ultimately provides us with the grounds with which to identify them as unwarranted.
I think this touches on the discernment between "warranted" and "unwarranted" that may help us in deciding and explaining the content. My point of view is that doubting climate change is unwarranted, because Occam's razor just doesn't go there very well. The fossil fuel industry's interest is to cause doubt, and that's been seen, so it's more reasonable to conclude that the bulk of doubt is generated by the industry. And, there's also the vast number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if it were false. SageRad (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes that's a good citation explaining the business and is in line with what the article denialism says about being irrational. I agree with you that nowadays doubt about it is unwarranted so the word is superfluous, but the line is saying what climate change denial is - and one shouldn't write conclusions into one's starting point. It is the same reason I support 'opinion' in the title of scientific opinion on climate change rather than something like scientific conclusions on climate change. The article then can give a fuller account of the reasons for what it says which is far better for an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Kintetsubuffalo - I think this thread was started looking for edits, so to bring it back to the thread topic and point it towards article edits, can you clarify what changes would suit for "Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone." ? I mean that sure, so I read the article and find it is a POV, nonencyclopedic manner that is not neutral -- but I also note the article title *is* a POV label. Generally 'denialism' is common rhetorical tactic, a polemic labelling something one side does to frame the others position dismissively and to imply wrongness and base motives. So not neutral from the get-go, and just follow the cites principle on that label will take you mostly to one side's view. Are you looking for article to get phrases heat toned-down, or for it to become about the label and just expand it as this POV position claims about their opponents, or to whack it into mostly a redirect to Climate change controversy or what ? Markbassett (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Markbassett, I was looking for article to get phrases heat toned-down, but as you say this is a polemic article and the inmates are running the asylum, given the flamewar below. Don't waste your time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Kintetsubuffalo OK, noting thread as closed then. I will open something else on one line though where the language becomes opaque. Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
So two people who think the real world is biased against them and Wikipedia should fix that, agree that Wikipedia is being horrible by supporting the real world and not them. Colour me unsurprised. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You can't resist insulting me at every opportunity, can you? This is deplorable behaviour by an administrator and proves my point that Wikipedia needs reform. Biscuittin (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"Help! I'm being repressed!" Guy (Help!) 14:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That is not helpful and doesn't seem civil to me, Guy. Generally, i really enjoy your thoughts and find them useful and sometimes profound, but then there are these insulting bursts that i think harm the editing environment, and tend to polarize things instead of working out our differences of viewpoint. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Biscuittin appears to dislike the fact that climate change denialists are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to fix this. This sort of BS has been going on for so long that we are by now well entitled to respond robustly to such claims. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No, Guy, he's referring to your incivility. I realize that it's frustrating when people don't listen to you when they're obviously wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place to express that frustration. Go punch a wall or something. RussNelson (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
