Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 6

The word is "heresy" not "denial"

I'm amazed at the number of logical fallacies in this article (appealing to authority, appealing to numbers, etc.) when the gist is that anyone who speaks against doctrine is a heretic.

This article should be deleted as far below an intellectual standard needed for anything representing itself as an encyclopedia. As long as it remains it will simply be another example of why Wikipedia cannot be seriously considered as an accurate, reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.57.199 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the very title suggests that is will be a rather one sided article. The word "denial" suggest that the main theory is un-disputable, or not up to debate. That can not be known with complete certainty until AFTER it is completed which it hasn't.65.75.110.90 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to "see also"

It seems we should add Energy lobby to "see also."Benzocane (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Article half complete at best

Where are citations of those who argue against this term? Where are the voices of those who point out, such as Rush Limbaugh, the most obvious truth behind this term, which is that it was created to equate those who do not believe in global warming with Holocaust deniers? This is a fundamental point behind this terms creation and use, and not one citation? When there are dozens of articles that refer to it?

And where are the voices of those who believe this whole term is absurd, and simply an attempt by extreme leftists to push global warming politically and thus to vastly grow the size and power of government and raise taxes? The lack of neutrality is not only is what is included, but what is seemingly purposefully left out. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is hardly a reliable source, lacking any scientific qualifications and having somewhat of a reputation for shooting from the hip without checking his facts. If you can find a reliable source expressing this viewpoint, then by all means add it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who asserted that the origins of this word are in any way scientific? And to cite criticism of the word, in that context he would be reliable as a very prominent political pundit. I'll round up some sources when I get the chance. Judgesurreal777 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate change is a scientific issue, therefore so is the issue of whether various forms of dissent from the scientific consensus are legitimate "climate skepticism" or illegitimate "climate change denial". If you do not understand the science (and Limbaugh apparently doesn't), then how can you tell a legitimate scientific argument from an illegitimate one? Why does being "a very prominent political pundit" make him reliable? All that it means is that a large number of people within his political constituency listen to him, not that his statements are in any way well-substantiated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I just read that someone wants to use Limbaugh as a reliable source? Hold on, I think I'm going to blow out a carotid laughing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would point Judgesurreal777 towards the reliable sources guidelines....for why Mr. L is not a relaible source, even for his own opinions. --Rocksanddirt 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am afraid Rush, although entertaining, is in no way a reliable source. This is particularly true on a scientific issue. I stand by what I said earlier, lost above in a storm of nonsense, that there are features of denialism on all sides of this debate. The science that Judgesurreal is looking for resides in linguistics, which is not much of a science. New terms emerge in English or other languages all the time. And this is one of those times, apparently. So what?--Filll 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

and as an emerging new term, other terms that clearly influenced the evolution of this one should be referenced (and there are abundant references). they provide a uniform schema for the linguistics. denial that the term 'climate change denial' was influenced by the existence of the term 'holocaust denier' is, well, an interesting epiphenomenon, to say the least. Anastrophe 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And what about AIDS denialists? And other forms of denial and denialism? And what about those who claim denialism has nothing to do with denial? This is just a playground for those who want to obfuscate and confuse.--Filll 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. The term "denial" is a very loaded one, meant to infer that those with doubts about this climate change proposal are denying reality, that their POV lacks legitimacy. That's an extremely biased stance, and not in keeping with Wiki's neutral POV. As for obfuscation, no comment is necessary. -- jds 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.13.206 (talk)

I think the article really needs to mention Godwin's Law, at least in the "See also" section. --Helixdq (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Credibility

Articles like this one (there are several) damage Wikipedia's credibility. All attempts to delete these articles, or even make them NPOV, will fail, until the global warming alarmist movement itself collapses, which will happen eventually. Open skepticism among experts is building, and will continue to rise. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Vegasprof (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion if you like to contribute: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Senate_Minority_Report Brusegadi (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)