Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 8

Climate change alarmism

I propose a new article with the above title. (Wikipedia should be balanced). The first sentence could be "Climate change alarmism describes efforts to foment increased bureaucratic controls over normal human activities when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data." Any comments? ^rossnixon 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:RS...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, checked all those. There is no problem complying with those. Maybe Schulz has not read widely on the subject. Sure some of the sources will possibly be blogs, but the authors are notable and have credentials in the relevent fields. ^rossnixon 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want our advice, list the sources, don't be cryptic. So far, I doubt that it is a term used outside the fringe, but give it a try. And if you insist on being formal, it's "Dr. Schulz", please. Plain "Stephan" is fine, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing to be careful about is WP:SYN (which technically falls under OR.) I have heard of climate change alarmism in the media, but the link to a governmental conspiracy would have to be done by a reliable source. Also, the media alarmizes everything, so it would need to be extra alarmist to be notable and not just a piece of a bigger article on media alarmism. Brusegadi (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Climate change alarmism" is not a synthesis. It would be easy enough to show that this exists (e.g. The British Court ruling on Gore's "propaganda" film). The problem area would be the various theories on why the alarmism has become so popular - it may be hard to get good reliable sources to back up each theory (conspiracy, group think, bandwagon/popular cause, mass delusion, media sales or whatever). ^rossnixon 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The judgement does not even mention the phrase "climate change alarmism". It might be interesting if you can find good sources to back up one of your "theories", excepting, maybe, the very predictive "whatever" theory... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, the synthesis is when you try to link the concept of climate change alarmism (which exists, but is not unique to climate change, it happens with anything in the media) to a world government conspiracy. You need your sources to put them together, not yourself. Brusegadi (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An article about the view held by scientists who think things could be considerably worse than that predicted by the IPCC, like climateprediction.net, James Lovelock, maybe Jim Hansen and Joe Romm, might be a good idea but I don't think it quite fits Ross' definition. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Got sources? FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ross, I dont suggest trying to change this article. Imo it is very nice as it is. It's so hopelessly out of encyclopedic borders that it self-evidences the double standards being applied to climate articles in Wikipedia. It's also a distinguished demo of what kind of sources and theories some environmentalists are ready to stick to, and of how sources can be used to say things they dont actually say. Unfortunately, it discredits those other climate articles with a more reasonable and encyclopedic approach, but a majority of editors herein are ready to live with it. Whenever you get the chance, point people with a neutral point of view here, and see how they react. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are in luck! He did not suggest that. Brusegadi (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just having an article like this is propoganda

While I'm sympathetic to the view that there is a lot of LOT OF crap skepticism out there, this article is being written by someone who is actively engaged on the other side of the people labeled here and who is trying to label them negatively. CAN ANYONE imagine a skeptic writing this article? Does anyone think it needs to exist (who is ambivalent about climate change)? Sheesh, let's have another article labeled: "cowardly, peacenik leftists". I mean...I think they are a bunch of pussies. So why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.204.104 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject is covered in several notable reliable sources (try looking over the reference list). And while i'm not particular fond of this article - it does have its merits. You may also want to read the discussion when the article was at deletion review (you can find the link at the top of this page). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a vote last year about deleting this article. It failed. That's not to say another vote can't be taken sometime in the future. ^rossnixon 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct (although an AfD isn't a vote, even if it looks like it) - and this seems to have been done now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)