Talk:Climate change alarmism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

Rv: why[edit]

I don't think User:BryantLee's (another sock?) changes were improvements William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Some info that might be included[edit]

In my secret vault I kept this article. —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

At the very least, you need to include a full list of authors there. Copies of deleted articles should retain a record of the editing history. Guettarda (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know that. Since the article has been deleted I can't recover the edit history either.. Any recommendations? Joepnl (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Guettarda! Joepnl (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy article[edit]

I think a short, two paragraph section summarizing this article should be included in the Global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Economic alarmism[edit]

Can't find a really good source, but there is a counterpoint charge of "economic alarmism" levelled against those who claim that action to mitigate climate change will cause serious economic damage, contrary to the view of most economists who have studied the issue.JQ (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Herman E. Daly, the former World Bank economist, has been writing for decades about the need for steady-state economics (what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called a "zero growth economy") to replace what he called "growthmania" ( and Karl Marx labelled "money fetishism"). Given the worldwide predominance of capitalism and liberalism, it seems that few are willing to listen to his "voice in the wilderness" and, no doubt, would consider this to be "economic alarmism". However, is it so odd to point out (as Daly did) that "the Earth may be developing but it is not growing!"? This therefore potentially links to Wikipedia's pages on "Limits to growth" and "Tragedy of the commons" (et al).Mlack65 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article[edit]

Just a quick start, as it's late:

1) The definition of "Climate change alarmism -- which is truly baroque:

...alarmism is a critical description of an alleged rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming as a technique for motivating public action.

-- is apparently uncited. Besides being unintelligible. Cf. Climate change denial.

2)The followon amplification,

The term "alarmist" is primarily used by those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change as an epithet for those who treat the issue objectively.

-- makes even less sense, and is cited to an opinion piece by Kerry Emanuel, who doesn't strike me as a disinterested scholar in this matter.

Anyway, the article starts off just as badly as does Climate change denial. In my view. It doesn't get better. What a mess. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  • [Later note] This came out more confrontational than I intended -- late night post, sigh. Apologies, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not just merge if the articles don't work as free-standing units? Certainly alarmism/exaggeration, whether real or imagined, is a factor in denial. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually "alarmism" is used to describe the other end of the spectrum - denial/'skepticism' represents one fringe, alarmism the other, with a broad centre including the mainstream position. It has another use, of course, which is as a slur to attack the mainstream. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
While alleged should not (IMO) be in there, the basic statement is was cited. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"Use of a linguistic repertoire" = "rhetorical style", does it not? Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The sentence starts "Alarmism is described as..." implying you are adopting the term from the source. But your comment sounds like you are coming up with the phrase yourself - which is it?--SPhilbrickT 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Most of the sources I used are accessible online, including the Ereaut & Segrit (you have to google it though, couldn't link directly). Writing articles involves summarising text, not simply quoting blocks of text. "Rhetorical style" is the best phrase I could find to summarise what they said. If you can find a better phrase, that would be great. Trying to find hidden meaning in my words - not so useful. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The opening is awkward. Why not say Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is an expression used by global warming skeptics to describe scientists and commentators who stress the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, As I understand it, both "alarmist" and "denialist" are pejorative terms used by people on the opposing side of argument. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Because that's not what the sources say. It means x (per reliable, academic sources); the fact that certain commentators and bloggers use the term for people in the mainstream doesn't mean that they are using the term differently, but rather, that they are claiming that those they describe that way hold fringe positions. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Well OK, fair point. But I was hoping for a bit more context if possible. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not even kinda perfect. But the problem is that we need sources, preferably high-quality, reliable sources. I suppose I need to reset my search parameters and try again. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There's no searching for hidden meanings. When I saw the phrase "x is described as…" I expected it to be followed by a quote or a close paraphrasing of a source. However, I've checked a few other examples of the formulation, and it appears my expectation was wrong.--SPhilbrickT 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I understand what you're trying to say. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why 'The term "alarmist" is primarily used by those who reject the scientific consensus on climate change as an epithet for those who treat the issue objectively makes no sense. Nor is it obvious why it is POV [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using Kerry Emanuel as a source. No, he's not disinterested, but that isn't a requirement. What is (or should be) a requirement—when using an interested source,—is to endeavor to find additional support, especially from someone with different viewpoints. While that should be done in this case, there's a more basic issue to address. The sentence makes a claim about who uses the term, and then identifies a characteristic of the target of the term. The Emanuel source does support the target characteristic, but is silent on who uses the term. Given that the main point of the second sentence is the identification of those who use the term, and the source doesn't support the claim in the sentence, at the very least, another source is needed. The Emanuel source can remain as a citation for the secondary aspect of the sentence, but someone needs to find a source for the main point. I'll hold off adding a citation needed tag, on the chance that someone with a careful reading of the Emanuel article can find the support I missed.--SPhilbrickT 15:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

*Kerry Emanuel citation [2] -- this article is the sole cite (at present) for our definition of CC alarmism in the lede. But the only mention of alarmism that I could find in Emanuel's article is:

Meanwhile, those interested in treating the issue as an objective problem in risk assessment and management are labeled “alarmists”, a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake. This deployment of inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor....

Editor Guettarda seems to imply (above) that he wrote the lede by summarizing several sources(?), not all online. Do we have a WP:Synthesis problem? Or am I all wet? It would be best to quote any definitions we find as a footnote, I think. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the Emanuel quote does not adequately support the sentence. It does not identify who uses the term. I don't think it will be easy to find a good source for the claim, as it may not even be true, but if true, would be quite challenging to verify. If someone wants to search for one, go for it, but in the meantime, perhaps we could rewrite the sentence to match what the sources say.--SPhilbrickT 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- I should have read your cmt more carefully. I'll have a go at finding something better, and wait for Guettarda's take on this. I did mean to mention that KE uses "alarmist" in scare quotes -- which I see you have already mentioned as a problem. Oh well -- I'm doing this for momentary relaxation as I supervise a contractor tearing up our house. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that the sentence has been rewritten, I agree the source supports it. The problem of identifying those who used it has been eliminated, and "epithet" is an acceptable word given the use of "infantile smear". I'll remove the tag.--SPhilbrickT 15:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the second Kerry Emanuel paraphrase,
"According to Kerry Emanuel, the term "alarmist" is used an epithet for those who treat the issue objectively."
-- it's really not supported by his article, and we now have a direct quote in the first para. of this section. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POV fork merge[edit]

We have a new POV fork, Climate change exaggeration. It has a fair number of refs. Could we see what's worth merging is fairly short order and redirect the article? — kwami (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe it's a POV fork? Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It's exactly the same subject, but the POV of the author is pretty clear in the article. I can provide examples if you like. Of course, this is not to say that this article too doesn't need work, but having dueling articles on Wikipedia is not a good idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored SA's redirect to here. This is yet more disruption by MN. Didn't we have all this discussion before? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also a discussion page on the article proposed for merger. Collect (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is now at User:Marknutley/Climate change exaggeration if anyone wants to merge stuff from there. Whilst not a recreation of the deleted article, the March 2010 AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration seems to establish "alarmism" as the preferred term, and this article was created in June 2010. Global warming alarmism, by the by, has existed as a redirect since 2004. Rd232 talk 14:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • It's not a POV fork. It appears to be a "redundant content fork" with a POV title. The subject matter is identical. Not "almost" identical but identical. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Global cooling?[edit]

Any sources supporting this addition? Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The source I just added doesn't quite do it. It relates more to warming alarmism than cooling alarmism. I'm still looking. Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I found one from the Irish Independent. The global cooling alarmism relates to the global cooling scare which was all over the mass media in the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the article you sourced from the Deseret News significantly different from this one, on their web site? If so, how? This article (same author, same news service) does not support the statement you have cited.
  • Can you please explain what part of the Irish News article you are using to support your assertion. While it compares "alarm" over warming with "fear" of cooling, it does not suppose the statement in the article. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, found the Murdock article in Nexis. Definitely does not support the assertion. Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I kept the Murcock citation because it supports the first part of that sentence, about warming. The Irish newspaper definitely relates alarmism to the global cooling hysteria spread by scientists and the media in the 1970s. So, I don't agree with your addition of the "not in citation given" tags. Cla68 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The Irish Independent article appears to be an op-ed or editorial, judging from its first few paragraphs[3]. Can you or Guettarda provide the full text so that it can be more readily verified by editors who don't have database access? (I'm not having any luck with "accessmylibary" except for the opening.) An op-ed or editorial commentary would be a questionable source, except for the opinion of the writer. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The "global cooling hysteria spread by scientists" is not a widely accepted view. Peter Hadfield has the details on his YouTube channel I'm not suggesting YT s a possible source but rather the studies he cites, and the press coverage they received, that help us gauge how much weight to apportion. Wikispan (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You're better off with global cooling William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Statement to which sources are attached: Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, global cooling

Murdock op-ed
[4]
  • Main point: global warming "proves fictional", "global cooling accelerates". That should be enough to show that the article does not meet our standards as a source for factual information, but we can ignore that for argument's sake.
  • Parts relevant to this article:
    • As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream and push their pet theory — just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve
    • This capsizes the carbon-phobic global-warmist argument

Neither of these statements support the statement to which the reference was attached. The only place the word "alarm" even shows up in the article is in the headline (which, as we all know, is rarely written by the author of newspaper articles). Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) [Analysis of the second source to come, but I need to run to class. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)]

I took it out. Its fairly obviously silly William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I put it back. I found a peer-reviewed article that described the situation perfectly - the article was about the "myth" of global cooling and listed a number of major media sources that had published alarmist articles on global cooling. You might be familiar with it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What does this article have to do with the statement Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, global cooling? I see nothing in the article which can serve to connect the term "climate change alarmism" with global cooling - in fact, the only use of the word "alarmism" I can find in the article is a quote from Inhofe which talks about "global warming alarmists". Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing at all. It is a shameless abuse of sourcing, presuambly in a POINTy sort of way, so I've removed it again. At a guess, this is part of the "skeptics" campaign to promote as many edit wars as they can in order to provide juicy findings for arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not, it is a perfectly valid source, and describes the material cited perfectly. The sidebar article clearly lists numerous popular media sources that were crying doom and gloom because we were facing a new ice age, to the point that WMC et al. had to write a scholarly article to "debunk" the "myth." The fact that the word "alarmism" does not appear is not relevant - clearly the common use of the words in the article describe an alarmist take, without having to resort to WP:OR. GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Its a perfectly valid source which, errm, doesn't actually describe the concept at all. So please stop abusing it. As you've noticed: the article is about a *myth* not a reality: and it is about the abuse by the "skeptics" of the idea that there was scientific worry about cooling in those far off days. Oh, and don't make edit comments that erroneously try to shift the burden from inclusion to exclusion: suchlike really don't help you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Irish times article

The piece is entitled "Don't believe doomsayers that insist the world's end is nigh" and is listed in Lexis as "analysis". In addition to 'global cooling', the article speaks of the "population bomb" that wasn't, the ozone hole that went away, the acid rain problem that was "miraculously...averted". In other words, it's a testament to know-nothingism.

  • Relevant parts:
    • The widespread alarm over global warming is only the latest scare about the environment to come our way since the 1960s. Let's go through some of them. Almost exactly 30 years ago the world was in another panic about climate change. However, it wasn't the thought of global warming that concerned us. It was the fear of its opposite, global cooling.
    • If the 'scientific consensus' has been so wrong before, could it not also be wrong this time with regard to global warming?

The content and tone of the article make it pretty clear that it does not meet our standards as a source for factual information. That aside, how does it support ''Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, global cooling?

  • It actually uses the word "alarm" (exactly once) to describe the reaction to global warming, which certainly puts it a step above the previous source in terms of relevance. In the context of cooling, it does talk about "panic about climate change" and "fear of...global cooling". But it makes no attempt to define "alarmism". If it actually used the word "alarmism" one could argue that it could serve as an example of usage, but we can only use examples for illustrative purposes, we can't use them to build a generalised case for usage. To do that would be to draw conclusions from a source which go beyond what the source actually says. And that is not permissible, per WP:NOR. So like the previous source, this one is quite useless for the purpose for which it is being used. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You made it clear that you don't agree with the Irish article, but it does clearly equate warming alarmism with alarmism about the other hysterias you mention, including the global cooling panic of the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with? You used it to support a specific statement that it in no way supported. The problem isn't whether I like the source or not - the problem is that you made false and claims about what the article said. And that sort of behaviour is in no way acceptable. That's all. You just need to stop doing things like that. Guettarda (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I just added four more sources discussing the cooling alarmism of the 1970s, one of them even names someone as being an alarmist both then and now. It didn't take me very long, as there appears to be plenty of sources out there that discuss the climate change alarmism of the 1970s associated with the global cooling hysteria. We probably need to discuss including WMC's paper as a source also for cooling alarmism. I would suggest that instead of looking for ways to remove sourced information from an article, that more effort be made by all the participants here to find more sources to support it if they don't think it's sourced sufficiently. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Count Iblis' recent edit is that it is not only skeptics who compare warming alarmism with the global cooling scare. He probably inadverdently didn't notice that one of the sources I added was by someone defending the AGW theory. I'll change the wording to reflect what the sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted back to CI, since your version is badly wrong. Your sources look like the std "skeptic" nonsense: people were predicting cooling then, therefore AGW is false. Since that view point is false (and we have a paper to prove it) we shouldn't be using such sources William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The sourcing is poor. I agree. There are too many opinion pieces from people who are less interested in describing the issue in a way that helps the reader and more interested in advancing some anti-AGW argument. Wikispan (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
What does it matter what they believe? We don't take sides on the issue, remember? We just report what the sources are saying. There are six reliable sources there which state that alarmism is related to the global cooling alarm in the 1970s. Also, none of the sources state that they were written by skeptics, in fact two of them were written by people who obviously support the AGW theory. So, to state that only skeptics use the term alarmism to describe the 1970s global cooling hysteria is misrepresenting what the sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
No. You have sources all of which are deliberately trying to push a (false) POV. And we *know* that POV is false, because we have a paper to prove it. Incidentally, I notice that you've deliberately avoided giving links to the refs you quote, presumably to make it harder to check up on your misquotations. So, starting with your first one, The Hindu. I didn't find that directly, but [5] seems to match your quotes (if you have the proper link, please provide it). Which continues Russian scientists say that today's alarmism over greenhouse gases is as baseless as concerns about man-raised dust were 30 years ago... and the more of the usual nonsense. That isn't a good, high-qulaity article. And even *that* distinguishes todays "alarmism" from yesterdays "concerns" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"We just report what the sources are saying" That single factor alone is not the foundation of a good article. In situations like this, we should start with high quality, neutral sources, in order to describe the topic in a clear and reasonable way. Once this basic goal is achieved, we can look to add opinion pieces -- both from people who say hysteria over global cooling is evidence why we should not take seriously global warming 'alarmists' today; and people who say such hysteria is fiction, invented by people who reject global warming today. Wikispan (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
To the extent that there is any discussion of the cooling scare. it needs to be emphasized that the cooling scare wasn't supported by the scientists, it was more of a media misreading of the science. That's in contrast to the situation today, where there is, as always, media over-reaction, but concern about global warming is well-grounded in science. The parallels are far weaker than many attempt to portray.--SPhilbrickT 12:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I question whether there was a cooling scare at all. There seems to have been some scary media articles, but there are scary media articles on many subjects all the time. Back then, there was nothing like what we see today. It's important we not impose a 21st century perspective on 1970s media articles. Remmember that back then climate change just wasn't the big issue that it was today.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Alarmism as a pejorative" section[edit]

I cleaned this up a bit, in a few free minutes. We should probably add the use of "warmer"/ "warmist" as another commonly-used pejorative and/or epithet. I don't think finding RS's of such uses will be hard. I have little time now, but will return to this, especially the lede problems I mentioned above. Thanks to all who've commented and pitched in, and sorry for the confrontational tone there -- hazards of late-night posting. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Peterson's paper as a source for global cooling alarmism[edit]

Page 1326 presents several quotes from climate scientists referencing, in their opinion, the cooling alarmism of the 1970s. "Hysterical fears," "consensus panic", and "fashionable panic." Pages 1330-1331 also reference the perceived alarmism of the cooling 1970s such as Time magazine's "ominously worried." These are all synonyms for alarmism. This article is about the concept, not about the word. The other references used in this article also use synonyms for the alarmism related to cooling and warming. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's really about the concept and not the word, then why did you begin the sentence with "The term..."? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
SBHB, we're debating a topic here, not the debaters. Do you feel that the paper does not reference the alarmism related to cooling in the 1970s? Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue is WP:SYNTH. You might take that message from the paper. But 'reading between the lines' isn't the way we extract information from sources. Worse yet is taking one's preexisting ideas and forcing the facts to fit your preconceptions. We don't write an encyclopaedia by means of Procrustean fact-fitting. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please answer my question: if it's really about the topic and not the word, why did you begin the sentence with "The term..."? That is a logical inconsistency. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • @Cla68: rather than twist the original source so as to fit into a preconceived notion that "global cooling alarmism" existed in the 1970s, why not utilize this source, in this or another article, in a manner consistent with the content of the source and the intent of the authors? I would have hoped that the appearance of one of the authors to reaffirm the plain intent of the source would have been sufficient, but it is not. This (wiki) article's topic is specifically "alarmism." What you're doing, Cla68, is imposing a 21st century viewpoint onto 1970s media articles that contain the customary media hype. No one other than Wiki editors are saying that those articles constituted "global cooling alarmism" during the 1970s. The question that you're posing has already gone through dispute resolution in at least two venues, the CC enforcement board and AN/I, with the conclusion that its use to justify "global cooling alarmism in the 1970s" is a misreading of the source. This is going beyond stubborn and is becoming disruptive. What strikes me as odd is that it is unnecessary. This is an interesting paper. Certainly some use can be made of it that does not involve synthesis? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Scotty, it's not "twisting" the original source to use bits of information in it -- facts -- to show the existence of something, regardless of the purpose the original source had for that information. Apparently the source is being used to demonstrate that there are a number of examples of "alarmism" in the media in the 1970s. Apparently the source has quite a number of them. For that limited purpose -- to demonstrate that global cooling alarmism actually existed in some articles -- there is no twisting, no misues of sourcing. If we believe the source is reliable on the facts, the uses that the source itself has for the facts are irrelevant. The source's conclusions may even be contrary to the point being made in the article: Any source that describes a controversy in detail will have a multitude of facts that can be used in the article. If the source's conclusions don't affect the reliability of the facts reported -- that so-and-so said such-and-such at a particular time, for instance -- the conclusions simply don't matter as far as using the facts in the WP article is concerned. We should be careful to avoid misleading readers about what the source says, and a statement in the footnote can clear that up. We should be especially careful to do that if one of the source's authors raises objections about using that source in a particular way, but we're not obligated to come to the same conclusions about that use of the source that the author has. It isn't WP:SYNTH to use information in a different way than a source does, as long as we're not misrepresenting anything or drawing some extended conclusion. Simple, obvious conclusions -- like the use of synonyms of "alarmism" are not violations of WP:SYNTH. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • "No one other than Wiki editors" is one step too far. Several sources posted on this talk page say, explicitly, that those articles constituted "global cooling alarmism". ["Alarmism over global cooling continued well into the 1970s (Ponte 1976) ...", "alarmist predictions of both global warming and a new ice age dating back to 1895". --JN466 21:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sentence[edit]

From WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources

Global warming sceptics and others sometimes invoke the fact that media in the 1970s reported about the possibility of global cooling to suggest that the current discussions on global warming are of an alarmist nature.

This statement is supposedly supported by Kapitsa & Bashkirtsev from The Hindu, an opinion piece from the Irish Independent, Schmidt from the Jerusalem Post, Wilson from the Sunday Times, a quote from the National Post and Peterson, Connolley & Fleck. Working from the quotations supplied:

  1. Kapitsa & Bashkirtsev reportedly wrote: Who remembers today, they query, that in the 1970s, when global temperatures began to dip, many warned that we faced a new ice age? An editorial in The Time magazine on June 24, 1974, quoted concerned scientists as voicing alarm over the atmosphere 'growing gradually cooler for the past three decades', 'the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland,' and other harbingers of an ice age that could prove 'catastrophic.' Man was blamed for global cooling as he is blamed today for global warming
  2. Irish Independent: The widespread alarm over global warming is only the latest scare about the environment to come our way since the 1960s. Let's go through some of them. Almost exactly 30 years ago the world was in another panic about climate change. However, it wasn't the thought of global warming that concerned us. It was the fear of its opposite, global cooling. The doom-sayers were wrong in the past and it's entirely possible they're wrong this time as well.
  3. Schmidt: If there is one thing more remarkable than the level of alarm inspired by global warming, it is the thin empirical foundations upon which the forecast rests. Throughout the 1970s, the scientific consensus held that the world was entering a period of global cooling, with results equally catastrophic to those now predicted for global warming
  4. Wilson: Throughout history there have been false alarms: "shadow of the bomb", "nuclear winter", "ice age cometh" and so on. So it's no surprise that today many people are sceptical about climate change. The difference is that we have hard evidence that increasing temperatures will lead to a significant risk of dangerous repercussions.
  5. National Post: Throughout history there have been false alarms: "shadow of the bomb", "nuclear winter", "ice age cometh" and so on. So it's no surprise that today many people are sceptical about climate change. The difference is that we have hard evidence that increasing temperatures will lead to a significant risk of dangerous repercussions.
  6. The link to Peterson et al. is not specified. The only place "alarm" or "alarmism" is used in the article is in the following paragraph: Given that even a cursory examination of Fig. 1 reveals that global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus, it is worth examining the ways in which the global cooling myth persists. One involves the simple misquoting of the literature. In a 2003 Washington Post op-ed piece, former Energy Secretary James Schlesinger quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as saying, “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age” (Schlesinger 2003). The quote repeatedly appeared other places in the political debate over climate change, including the

floor of the U.S. Senate where Inhofe (2003) followed up that quote by stating, “That was the same timeframe that the global-warming alarmists are concerned about global warming.” The actual report, however, shows that the original context, rather than supporting the global cooling myth, discusses the full state of the science at the time, as described earlier. The words not extracted by Schlesinger and Inhofe are highlighted with italics:...

Taking a look at the sentence in depth:

  • "Global warming sceptics and others sometimes invoke the fact that media in the 1970s reported about the possibility of global cooling to suggest that the current discussions on global warming are of an alarmist nature"

What would a source need to say in order to support this statement without imply[ing] a conclusion...that is not mentioned by [any] of the sources? It would need to address usage: Global warming sceptics and others sometimes invoke the fact is a statement about usage by certain people. If a source simply supplies an example of this sort of behaviour, it cannot be used to support the meta-commentary that "[various people] sometimes invoke the fact". Stitching together several examples of usage is a violation of WP:SYNTH. So what do the sources say?

None of the first five sources (Kapitsa & Bashkirtsev; the Irish Independent; Schmidt; Wilson; the National Post) say anything (in the quotes provided) about anyone "invok[ing] the fact..." While they could be taken as examples of people invoking "global cooling", using them to support statements about usage is classic WP:SYNTH. They are examples which, putatively, illustrate the behaviour that the sentence is addressing. None of them can be used to support a statement about usage. While the Peterson et al. article does say some things about usage, it does not say anything about this sort of usage.

There is, of course another major problem with this sentence - one of relevance. Even if the statement about usage were supported, it stands there, alone in the lead, without any context. It simply illustrates one of the many ways that certain groups have tried to discredit mainstream science. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, why don't you suggest below how you think it should be worded? Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of wording, it's a matter of sourcing. If you believe that this should be in the article, find sources that actually support what you want to say. If its actually notable enough that it belongs here, it should be easy enough to find sources that say so. If you have to engage in OR and SYNTH, if you have to misrepresent sources, just to be able to fit the article to your preconceived ideas about what it should say, then it's likely that the problem is with your preconceptions. Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And, by the way, you've been asked several questions on this page. If you want answers from others, you really should have the courtesy to answer those asked of you. Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources[edit]

Um, thanks. But I really don't know what you mean by this. How are you suggesting that these be incorporated into the article? I think we all understand how to do Google searches. But what is the Edwards source? And unpublished ms? And the Lindzen article - is it published? Is it unpublished? Why is the Leo Gold blog a reliable source for this? What's the Leiserowitz article have to add that isn't already covered in the existing article of his that I did cite? Guettarda (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have done this while in a hurry. :)
  • Per [10] and [11], the Edwards/Lahsen chapter seems to have been written for an MIT Press book, Volume II of The Changing Atmosphere: the Science and Politics of Global Warming, which hasn't seen the light of day as yet.
  • Lindzen is included in this book (Brookings). I would probably be better to cite the book rather than the convenience link. I found this passage interesting: "The public discourse on global warming has little in common with the standards of scientific discourse. Rather, it is part of political discourse where comments are made to secure the political base and frighten the opposition rather than to illuminate issues. In political discourse, information is to be “spun” to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition. The chief example of the latter is the perpetual claim of universal scientific agreement. This claim was part of the media treatment of global cooling (in the 1970’s) and has been part of the treatment of global warming since 1988 (well before most climate change institutes were created). The consensus preceded the research."
Basically, I was trying to help you guys find sources to get this sentence right --
The term is also used to describe, usually in a pejorative way, an alleged consensus of scientists and media said to have propagated a global cooling scare in the 1970s.[citation needed] Often,[citation needed] the putative episode of alarmism related to global cooling[citation needed] is compared with the perceived alarmism tied to global warming.[1][2][3][4][5][improper synthesis?]
  • Leiserowitz (pp. 9-10) says, e.g. "Further, the “naysayer” interpretive community articulated five distinct reasons why they doubted the reality of global climate change: ... 3. "Doubting the science (“There is no proof it exists” “Around ten years or so ago it was global cooling” “Junk science”)." That seems to be one of the points marked as SYN in that sentence.
I was also trying to find sources documenting that the concept of "climate change alarmism" has been used in reference to global cooling theories 40 or 50 years ago. That seemed to be one of the things that editors here didn't see eye to eye on -- and I agree that the paper WMC co-wrote is not the right source for that. --JN466 21:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have the Lindzen chapter up, and it does look promising. He specifically comments on [climate change] alarmism in several places. Let's see if I can extracts some useful quotes. More soon, I hope. Good work! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Views of scientists" section, Schneider quote[edit]

I've added a quote from Lindzen from his paper on alarmism. Thanks to editor JN466 for bringing it to our attention.

I also added a footnote to the Schneider quote. This is because many readers will recall this famous quote, "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." -- which Schneider always maintained was pulled out of context (as indeed it was -- but still....). In any case, cognitive dissonance (for me) on reading the bit about Schneider opposing alarmism. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor Cardamon removed this footnote:
Note that Schneider himself has been sharply criticized for writing, in the context of scientists "working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change": "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." See Stephen Schneider#Media_contributions for a discussion of this quote, which Schneider maintained was taken out of context by critics, in order to misrepresent his views .
-- commenting "Wikipedia does not cite itself as a source."
That's not what we're doing here -- this is a footnoted "See also" (see above) to resolve my cognitive dissonance on reading the Schneider quote opposing alarmism. If there's a better way to do this, please advise. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
How about something like just: "See Stephen Schneider#Media_contributions for a longer discussion of his opinions"? Cardamon (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd say what you added was unacceptable for a different reason: you're simply perpetuating the deliberately truncated quotation. It isn't acceptable to give the designed-to-be-misleading truncated quote without giving the full quote. As you should know William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Damn...when I looked at the text Cardamon removed, I realised that it was basically an aside attacking Schneider, and thus should be removed. I didn't realise that this was actually a previously debunked quote mine. Totally unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that you, Tillman, added the quote. Will you please explain why you chose to perpetrate this smear? Guettarda (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't at all my intention . Like it or not, that's the short version of Schneider's remark that circulates, so it seemed worthwhile to me to footnote it. Since three editors object, so be it. But many readers are likely to have the same reaction I did, and that is what he wrote, albeit with the caveats we list at the link I gave. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We should either use the complete quote or not use the quote at all. --JN466 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the contentious quote with a simple "see also" in the footnote, per Cardamon's suggestion above. See what you think. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Cardamon (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the AGU's revised (2007) statement to be considered as "alarmist" or not? As it is, this is unclear. However, (IMO) the AGU's intent is clear - they are not trying to alarm anybody - they just want people to take the problem of climate change seriously. Any comments?Mlack65 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to people editing Wikipedia to decide questions like that. If a reliable source describes it as alarmist or says somebody has described it as alarmist then the article could say something about that. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More sources, thoughts[edit]

Climate change: biological and human aspects By Jonathan Cowie, Cambridge University Press refers to brief fears of a new ice age threatening civilisation in the 1970s, but also adds that subsequent research and data showed that on balance, the factors investigated had a warming effect on the climate.

This book review by William Rusher chronicles a history of alarmist media reports about climate change, highlighting a paragraph in the reviewed book, "This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science."

Lindzen argues, The public discourse on global warming has little in common with the standards of scientific discourse. Rather, it is part of political discourse where comments are made to secure the political base and frighten the opposition rather than to illuminate issues. In political discourse, information is to be “spun” to reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and to discourage opposition. The chief example of the latter is the perpetual claim of universal scientific agreement. This claim was part of the media treatment of global cooling (in the 1970’s) and has been part of the treatment of global warming since 1988 (well before most climate change institutes were created). The consensus preceded the research. That media discourse on climate change is political rather than scientific should, in fact, come as no surprise. However, even scientific literature and institutions have become politicized. Some scientists issue meaningless remarks in what I believe to be the full expectation that the media and the environmental movement will provide the ‘spin.’ Since the societal response to alarm has, so far, been to increase scientific funding, there has been little reason for scientists to complain.

Peterson, Connolley and Fleck demonstrate that there was no scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s, studies warning about global cooling being outnumbered by those that warned about global warming.

Summarising, it seems clear that the media have a long tradition of alarmist reporting about climate change, be it cooling or warming, generally claiming scientific consensus in their reporting, even where no such scientific consensus exists. They do so whether the message is cooling or warming. It is equally clear that the scientific consensus that has developed over the past 30 years (as described in the scientific literature, rather than claimed in the media) does support the notion that the climate is warming, and it is clear that at least some scientists that support the scientific consensus have been accused of buying into and fuelling the alarmist approach of the media.

Would editors more knowledgeable than me agree that that is a fair characterisation of the situation? --JN466 11:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks fair to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be an accurate summary of the sources. Minor4th 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

'Views of scientists'[edit]

I have tagged this section as it does not seem to follow from the rest of the article. First we learn about 'Alarmism as a pejorative', although that section seems badly cited. Then the article tells us about 'Alarmism as an extreme position', but that 11% of the US population takes this position - half as many again as the US skeptics. We are told that 'Media coverage' understandably leans towards searching out such extreme and pejorative views in their coverage. Finally we get to what sounds like the sensible conclusion, 'Views of scientists', but then we are presented with nothing but vociferous criticism of 'alarmism', and that from only five individual spokesmen (Stephen Schneider, Mike Hulme, Hans von Storch, Richard Lindzen, and William Gray). Do these five represent the whole of science? Looking again at the title, 'Views of scientists', this is hopeless - this isn't the 'Findings of the scientific community' or the 'Scientific view', but is set out to be a representative survey of every individual 'scientist' in the world! (An impossible task). The title needs changing and then a representative section needs writing, giving the considered view of the worldwide scientific community on the degree of alarm that is to be considered appropriate under the known circumstances. --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is surely that the article title is itself POV, and a term more likely to be used by one side of the debate. We might be able to find some sources repudiating the charges of alarmism, but even that may not quite level the playing field. --JN466 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Since the article is about "alarmism", the views of scientists should properly describe scientists views on alarmism, and not necessarily scientists' views on the underlying science. I think I agree with Nigel in a sense though -- what good does it do to have scientific opinion on phenomenon that is more properly a part of popular culture? Minor4th 23:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the section as being POV. What the reader sees is that both mainstream scientists and contrarians object to alarmist exaggeration. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say that reading the whole article, with quotes from these five as the final, 'scientific' conclusion, the message of the article is that there is nothing to do with climate change that we need to be alarmed at, it was mostly media hype, Al Gore was wrong, and the views of scientists are that CC is not alarming at all. The IPCC, for example though, speaking with some authority on behalf of 'science', has some pretty alarming predictions for sea level rise, desertification and large-scale displacements, does it not, for 50 - 100 years time, if no action is taken and CO
2
levels continue to rise unchecked? Where is the balance based on all reliable sources in our conclusion on the 'views of science'? --Nigelj (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added an introductory paragraph to this section in an attempt to mitigate the problems described above. I have based it mostly on the paper by Hansen et al (2008) Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?. This covers enough of the ground to give a context for what follows, and is fairly middle-of-the-road in terms of mainstream published science. It may have been better to use the IPCC summaries and projections, but they seem to be upsetting people who claim they are 'too political' in other discussions, so I chose to go straight from a mainstream published paper. Further suggestions welcome. --Nigelj (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Living people should not be described as 'alarmists' without reliable sources[edit]

I've just removed a sentence from this article which listed some people who have purportedly been described as 'alarmists'. This sentence didn't have any sources. This really should be obvious, but per WP:BLP, we can't say negative things about living people without sources - and saying someone has been called 'alarmist' is certainly negative. If a particular person must be mentioned by name in this article, they should be backed up by a collection of reliable sources, either directly describing that person as 'alarmist' or noting they have been described as such. I'm not convinced it's necessary to mention any particular person in the first place. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of citation to sentence?[edit]

In what way does the New York Times citation:

support the sentence:

In the United Kingdom, alarmist messages are often subject to "subtle critique[s]" in the left-leaning press, while the right-leaning media often "embrace" the message, but undermine it using a "climate skeptic" frame

Surely, no one argues the NYT is right-leaning. And while it can be purchase in the United Kingdom, it isn't properly characterized as a member of the media in the UK, left or right. The article itself is not about the UK media, but about a private meeting in California.

I don't see how it is remotely related to the sentence.--SPhilbrickT 12:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't support that sentence, or anything even in that section. It seems relevant to the topic, as a whole, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it may belong somewhere. It does mention as noted, a link to tea parties, but not in the context of Climate change. The only climate change mention I can find is the support of the suspension of the greenhouse cap, but I don't see how to work that into an alarmism article, not without a lot of OR. It works better as support for denialism, but even that is sketchy. Frankly, it looks like someone found an article mentioning the Kochs and a climate related item, and is looking for a place to include it. I'm not averse to including it if it fits, but I don't yet see the natural place.--SPhilbrickT 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Those efforts, the letter makes clear, include countering “climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care,” as well as “the regulatory assault on energy,” and making donations to higher education and philanthropic organizations to advance the Koch agenda


Koch Industries is an oil and gas concern, the largest privately held company in the United States. It and they, the Kochs, lobby extensively with politics, funding, and support for decades. David H. Koch, the wealthiest person in New York City, for example has been quoted denying the existence of global warming (the current climate change due to human activity). They resist any regulation, especially when it is international and effects the fossil fuel industry (Energy lobby). This is not a trivial connection, this is Superclass Billionaires think tank lobbying over decades. This is a key difference in the Politics of global warming (United States) and Politics of global warming in most of the rest of the world. The economics of the few in the short term, versus the medium term and everyone. 99.52.150.69 (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the reference to alarmism. On balance, sounds fairly weak, as a single comment in an article covering a range of topics. Surely there must be something with more substance discussing activities related to alarmism? I personally don't see enough of a connection to include it, but if others feel it is worthy of inclusion, I don't object, as long as it is put in a proper place, not as a reference to the UK media. (BTW, Koch is not the largest private company, as your link will show.)--SPhilbrickT 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Add "Koch Industries (an oil conglomerate)" as a clarification?[edit]

"Koch Industries (an oil conglomerate)" as a clarification? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Examples of exaggeration"[edit]

This section on "examples of climate change exaggeration" has quite a few problems. To begin with, it's cherry picked. The source doesn't discuss the a "rhetorical style", it merely uses the word "exaggeration". It's an opinion piece about an issue that's covered far better elsewhere. Likewise for the second part, about the Netherlands (here). Calling this "exaggeration" fails NPOV, since it takes one narrative where there are many and presents it as if it were an unambiguous truth. Guettarda (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"What about the children"[edit]

This edit doesn't belong here at all. The connection to this article is tenuous at best. It's not actually from Current TV, it's from Treehugger. And it's a tagged "Culture & celebrity (kids)". Treehugger is a blog and the author, Jasmin Malik Chua, is a journalist, not a subject-matter expert. Guettarda (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Climate Change Denial page[edit]

Categories[edit]

User:Rossnixon has repeatedly added Category:Propaganda and Category:Fringe science to this article, without providing supporting citations. His last edit summary says: "Propaganda (as per Media coverage paragraph). Fringe science (media again, e.g. reporting extreme and unsubstantiated scientific 'findings')." However, nothing in that section "easily classifie[s it] as propaganda" (a requirement for cat:propaganda. As for calling it "fringe science", the article clearly identifies this as a "rhetorical style", a communication style. Guettarda (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IWell it certainly isn't fringe science as it doesn't conflict in any major way with the scientific consensus. I had a look at Category:Propaganda as I wondered if that might be appropriate but the heading there makes pretty plain it isn't. It is for systematic spread and the entries there make it pretty plain that it is for that rather than just labelling every bunch of people who feel strongly about something and talk out about it. So the categories are inappropriate. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If you define climate change alarmism to be the same as agreement with the scientific consensus, then we would need to invent another term to describe those who grossly overstate the potentially catastrophic effects of predicted changes in the earth's climate. One example; in 2000 it was predicted that within a few years winter snowfall in he UK will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." ( Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html# ) Either in the year 2000 there was no scientific consensus that the UK would become snow-free in a few years (and indeed it didn't), or the scientific consensus was very, very wrong. There will always be TV and newspaper reporters, bloggers, politicians, etc. who go way beyond the scientific consensus. What do you suggest they be called? Guy Macon 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read the article. It's a communication style, one that highlights certain aspects of the range of possibilities. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I always read Wikipedia articles several times before commenting on them on talk pages, so there is no need to write "please read the article." I simply do not agree with your conclusions. Guy Macon 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If you had read the article, your question should have been answered. Do you believe that the sources are misrepresented, that the sources are inaccurate, or that the sources are incomplete? And if the latter, what additional sources should we utilise? Guettarda (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Also note that the very same article states "Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time" - which seems to be a very fitting prediction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I repeat my question: If you define climate change alarmism to be the same as agreement with the scientific consensus, then we would need to invent another term to describe those who grossly overstate the potentially catastrophic effects of predicted changes in the earth's climate. There will always be TV and newspaper reporters, bloggers, politicians, etc. who go way beyond the scientific consensus. What do you suggest they be called? Guy Macon 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what we think. This isn't the place for that debate. Our opinions are irrelevant, what matters are what high-quality academic sources say. And that's what we are trying to report here. WP:SOURCES. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)What I propose to call them is somewhat irrelevant. But what I observe is that the term is almost invariably used by the US political right to refer to everybody who is in vague agreement with the IPCC (basically, climate change is real, is anthropogenic and, overall at least somewhat negative). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I observe the same thing. I also observe that "denier" is almost invariably used by the US political left to refer to everybody who disagrees with the IPCC. That's why both properly belong in Category:Propaganda. Guy Macon 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The personal observations of editors cannot be used in articles. We need reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And I didn't say it was the same as climate change, I said "it doesn't conflict in any major way with the scientific consensus". There are two different articles because they are two different topics. 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
But climate change alarmism does conflict with the scientific consensus, and properly belongs in Category:Fringe science (as does denialism), unless you redefine it in such a way that it doesn't. And if you do that, a new term would have to be invented to replace the perfectly good term we have now. Guy Macon 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
We're just going back and forth with assertions. If you believe that this is a "fringe" subject, please provide a supporting reference. Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Differentiation from sounding the Alarm for Planetary boundaries Environmental management Planetary management ... as in ... ?[edit]

Differentiation from sounding the Alarm for Planetary boundaries Environmental management Planetary management ... as in a Distributed control system? In other words should the article differentiate from alarm sounding for breach of Planetary boundaries, in lack of Environmental management /Planetary management. By analogy as in a Distributed control system Alarm management? Seems this current wp article is thinking in an unnecessary and non-existent "box". 99.181.140.224 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no real difference, without an objective target, which we are in no position to evaluate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you intend to write Objection? 99.181.128.200 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a proposal to object to. What changes do you suggest making to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Was your Intent to object (or is this a Disputes in English grammar?) Why proposal (business), fixation on Business action on climate change only ... why not all Individual and political action on climate change? 99.181.149.190 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see sarcasm is not in your vocabulary. However, "proposal" includes non-commercial proposals. However, you haven't made any specific suggestions for changing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I see generalization is not in yours ... 99.56.120.86 (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Another Easter Egg. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you plan Easter egg (media)? 99.119.128.233 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm doing it often enough, I'll have to create a redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition could do with some work[edit]

"Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of predicted, drastic changes in the earth's climate, which usually means global warming." - that's simply not a correct definition. Alarmism means more than just rhetoric stressing catastrophic effects. It extends far beyond that. A scientific paper which stresses the catastrophic effects is alarmist, however dry the wording. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Have you a citation for that? Dmcq (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, now that you mention it, I have some questions. It seems to me that (in regards of climate change) the skeptics/deniers are trying to portray "alarmism" as somehow perjorative, and as a rhetorical counter-balance to the bad odor that has accrued to the skeptic/denier crowd. Like we are supposed to discount massive scientific evidence because it is "alarmist"? So I would ask: is it "alarmist" to say that sea-level is rising? Is it "alarmist" to describe what the consequences of a meter of sea-level rise to, say, Miami? Is it "alarmist" when a fire marshal says a ten inch fire alarm bell is needed because a six inch bell isn't loud enough, even though there is currently no indication of a fire?
And if so much prominence is to be given to the alleged over emphasis on the coming catastrophe, shouldn't that be balanced with more prominence about the concerted effort to under emphasize the consequences of AGW? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to improve that opening sentence by... wait for it... reading the cited reference and finding out what they say. It wasn't a book, but a freely available paper that was cited, so I've also added a link to it for others more easily to do the same thing. Genius, this web-thing isn't it? --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
What a novel idea! I must try doing that myself sometime. :) Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You guys are soooooo radical! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 :-D --Nigelj (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Merchants of Doubt; Requiem for a Species[edit]

Pete: I reverted your recent removal of Merchants of Doubt and Requiem for a Species from the See Also section because I feel Merchants (at least) is very relevant as to why there even is this notion of "Climate Change Alarmism". As to your re-removal of Requiem: I have no opinion, can neither agree or disagree, as I am not familiar with it; I leave the decision on that to others who are familiar with it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Requiem for a Species is about the psychology of climate change, which is integral with alarmism, include wikilink. 99.190.85.150 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else have any knowledge regarding the suitability of including "Requiem"? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.worldcat.org/title/requiem-for-a-species-why-we-resist-the-truth-about-climate-change/oclc/489636734&referer=brief_results 99.19.47.120 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the quote in WorldCat a summary, or a quote from the dust jacket? In either case, I'm not sure of the relevance of the link to the question asked here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
WorldCat 99.109.126.27 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That would make it a tertiary or quadrenary source. We need find the secondary source, to determine if it is reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ravula_Suryanarayana_Murty&diff=425016136&oldid=410039437 add ... 99.181.155.158 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Huh? What is that for? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I decided to try to source a random biography, and WorldCat was the only reference I could find which I was sure was that person. Almost all of the first two pages of google search results were supposed to be works by the person. I still have doubts about WorldCat being reliable, but it was the best I could do for that particular person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Contrast with global warming alertness or Climate change alertism?[edit]

Contrast with "global warming alertness" or Climate change alertism? 99.181.149.175 (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Be alert. You country needs lerts. I don't believe such a term is notable, it isn't up to Wikipedia to invent things. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How 'bout Climate change awareness or global warming awareness, or would that be Public opinion on climate change ... :-P  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.138.160 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  How "bout" what? You are asking for an opinion on a phrase you have heard? Want another article? Want to change the name of this article? Can you even formulate a proper question? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

My impression of this article is that it is hopelessly POV. Isn't the information already in other articles that discuss various points of view on the climate change issues? Why have an article on one side's opinion of the other side? BigJim707 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is POV? This isn't about climate change, it is about the branding of a number of people as climate change alarmists which I believe is a notable subject. Whether or not something alarming is actually about to happen is almost wholly irrelevant to the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
There is WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary if the article is about the expression "climate change alarmist" or "climate change alarmism." It seems to me that one sentence in another article would be enough to tell readers that the expression is being used. For instance: "Climate change skeptics have called some people 'climate change alarmists'..."BigJim707 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That they are called alarmists is what the article is about, not about what they are. Te article is about people, relationships politics, that sort of stuff. It isn't about whether climate change is actually happening or not. Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That's what "not a dictionary" is talking about. Articles should be about real-world topics, not names people call each other. I don't think we'd have an article about what Republicans call Democrats, or vice versa. BigJim707 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that being (as you say) "new here", you might not fully understand the concept of WP:NPOV? Especially that it is not based on your personal subjective impression? May I also point out that your unilateral and undiscussed removal of the link to Merchants of Doubt does suggest that you have a definite non-neutral POV? You might want to temper your boldness until you have a fuller understanding of matters here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am a 100% supporter of doing everything we can to, at least, slow down human-caused climate change. If that is what you are concerned about. I just don't think WP needs an article whose purpose seems to be to slam one side of the debate. BigJim707 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Which side of the debate is it slamming? Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the "slam" is the elephant of scientific opinion on the fleas of doubt. Invariably (I can't think of any exceptions) those who claim a NPOV violation here are the "skeptics", whose purpose is to deny, diminish, delay any response to AGW. I would expect quite the opposite course from a "100% supporter of doing everything we can to, at least, slow down human-caused climate change". Curious. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I get the impression that calling someone an alarmist is a bit of a slam. However that opinion, if noted by reliable sources, could be included in a balanced article. An entire article about name-calling somehow doesn't seem right to me. BigJim707 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well we've got another 'slamming' article on the other side then Climate change denial. Does that one strike you as POV as well? Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you think about the idea of combining the two articles? BigJim707 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Not much. They're about different topics. There's no source which covers both. It would only be for the sake of 'giving equal time' like some newspapers. That's not a basis for anything in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about something like Climate change name calling. :-) -BigJim707 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alarmists and denialists not actually in opposition?[edit]

If I understand the article right, the view conveyed by the "alarmists" (treated as a unified group in this case, which of course it is not, just a collection of disparate individuals employing a certain pattern or style of depiction of the AGW problem) is that climate change is happening, that its outcomes are negative – or more accurately, catastrophic –, and decisively, that there is nothing that can be done about it. I have actually seen denialists eagerly latching onto the alarmist view, seeing their own position validated by it. Foolishly, a person challenging the denialists seemed to imply the alarmist view, in an exchange on a right-wing website, which had the denialists rejoice and argue that if there is no way to stop global warming, their own position that politics directed at combatting climate change are really counterproductive and harmful is completely justified. This way, denialists actually feed off alarmists, and doomsayers unwittingly (or even consciously?) become useful idiots for (or allies of?) the anti-environmentalists. Which means that both extreme views, while theoretically in polar opposition, are not necessarily so incompatible in practice. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I just realised that this problem is already covered in the article. Sorry. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

resource[edit]

Is Al Gore now a help or hindrance to the global warming cause? Al Gore's Climate Reality Project is broadcasting its message to 24 time zones across 24 hours by Leo Hickman 15 September 2011 11.12 BST in The Guardian; excerpt ...

A no-doubt sincere presenter from the Solomon Islands was showing slide after slide of extreme weather events around the world that have occurred over the past year and linking everyone, it seemed, to the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As anyone who follows the climate debate closely knows, that is a very contentious peg on which to hang your hat. That kind of talk traditionally requires lots of caveats and careful explaining. Done with abandon and raw emotion – as this presenter seemed to be doing – and you are quickly labelled in some quarters as a climate "alarmist".

And, for me, this is one of the key challenges the Climate Reality Project faces. Who exactly is it trying to convince with its urgent, sometimes breathless campaign? Is it preaching to the converted? If so, it is doing a good job.

Or is it trying to win over climate sceptics? I suspect not. I get the sense from Climate Reality's tone and focus that it believes sceptics are a lost cause who are beyond redemption or reason.

That leaves the middle ground – the unconverted.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alarmism is not Fatalism[edit]

The opening paragraph states that climate change alarmism rhetoric "stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming to the point where the scale of the problem appears to exclude the possibility of real action or agency by the reader or viewer." This is inaccurate. Climate change alarmism is not limited to this. In fact, while such rhetoric can be called alarmist, that's not the way the term is typically used at all. A much more common example involves people exaggerating the scientific data to argue that, for example, the seas are going to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. Al Gore is arguably the poster child for alarmism, with both skeptics and environmental activists finding him to be a problem, and it's not some fatalist "we're doomed" talk that makes him one:

While accepting the broad arguments of the film, the judge pointed out nine scientific errors and omissions that he believes Gore raised in the context of alarmism and exaggeration. For instance, Gore refers to a study indicating that polar bears have, in recent years, started drowning as they swim up to 60 miles (97km) in search of ice. According to Justice Burton, "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." He also dismissed what he called the film's "Armageddon scenario" in which the world's melting ice caps could cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet (6m) in the near future. Such a rise could take place, he said, but "only after, and over, millennia." (Time, Oct. 2007)

-- Glynth (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate merge tag removed.[edit]

I have removed the merge tag User:King of Hearts over boldy added, the discussion having been closed inappropriately, and was running towards "keep". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I was rather surprised by the decision to merge given the comments. However I do have to ask what procedure is there for overturning such decisions or what's happening here? Dmcq (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
One possibility is simply to ignore the merge, and delete the tag, as JJ has done. The other option is to follow the advice on the AfD main page, which says to discuss it with the closer (JJ has), and if that does not resolve the issue (it didn't), go to yet another wikiprocess forum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review to revisit closure. FWIW I do not think a merge is appropriate, and that the subject stands in its own right, and that the close summary was misleading at best, he says politely. If it does go to deletion review I'd like to be involved. Greglocock (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
How can it be premature? The discussion was open for two weeks. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything about premature. It is a disagreement about what the discussion indicated should be done which is I suppose what deletion review is about. King of Hearts I think indicated they thought discussion here or at the controversy article would probably be a good idea. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think a merge review probably is a good idea. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It was premature in the sense that a majority of the comments voted to keep.Slowjoe17 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
AfD aren't vote counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That is correct. But then again AfD's do not decide whether to merge or not - they decide to delete or not. And there was apparently consensus for not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You were not the arbitrator; the correct outlet is to bring it to a deletion review. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually i'm almost verbatimly quoting the closing admin. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It was premature because comments were still being made, and there had been no statement or other indication of consensus. And while I would agree that "vote counts" (polling) are not a substitute for consensus, it was doubly incorrect to state that a decision had been made (it wasn't), and that it was for merge when polling showed a preponderance of editors in favor of keep. It was wrong, even uncivil, for an editor to arbitrarily, even capriciously, and certainly incorrectly, to close the discussion and tag the articles. Okay, he was bold (to the point of audacious abuse of process). This was not a proper result to delete or merge, so the proper response is not a deletion review, but to simply revert an improper and flat-out bad edit. The tags should be removed, and the disussion should be un-archived so it may resume. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
IRWolfie is correct though - the venue for complaint is deletion review. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If someone "boldly" deleted, unilaterally and incorrectly, an entire article, would reversion (per WP:BRD) be hobbled with procedural constraints? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If its done via AfD - then yes it would. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Here the article was not deleted and the deletion review seems to only be about where the page was deleted. All that happened was that the admin recommended merge or redirect. Thinking about it as far as I can see JJ's action is correct. However it does feel to me that some sort of review of the AfD summary would be better. I'll post a question on the deletion review talk page about what should be done in these circumstances. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly like the closure to be examined... i share JJ's incredulity about what was and wasn't consensus in that AfD. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've asked a question about where we go next at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#What_should_be_done_about_a_disputed_merge_summary.3F, I guess the people there will be fairly familiar with this sort of thing and can advise us what to do next. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You bring it up in deletion review like any close (this includes AfDs for/against deletion etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Have started a review of the decision, follow link at top of article page if you want to see. Dmcq (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with lede[edit]

The opening sentence is problematic.

It currently reads:

Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style that stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming to the point where the scale of the problem appears to exclude the possibility of real action or agency by the reader or viewer

(Emphasis added)

The first problem is technical: the closing phrase " exclude the possibility of real action or agency by the reader or viewer" is a copy and paste from the source. It is properly attributed, and some might argue it is too short to be a copyright infringement, but I think it is long enough to be problematic. However, there is a larger problem, that if others agree, make the first problem moot. It is not remotely true. Like most people who are reading this page, I have read literally hundreds of article about climate issues. While there may be the occasional odd article claiming nothing can be done, they comprise such a small proportion of the total, that I don't think that notion deserves inclusion, much less the imputation that it is the common theme. In fact, it is so counter to my reading of the literature that I wonder if the authors were making a subtle point – that actions by individuals are ineffectual, and governmental solutions are required. If that is the point, it needs to be made more clearly, but even that point is arguable. My sense of the alarmist literature is almost the exact opposite; it makes the point that dramatic action is needed, and needed soon.

If there's agreement with my second point, then the lede needs rewriting so it is accurate. If I'm missing something, and it is accurate, it needs rewriting to steer clear of copyvio issues.--SPhilbrickT 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Merge discussion taking place at Talk:Global warming controversy#Afd-merger. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the deletion review has gone with merge to Global Warming Controversy. Not one of the best decisions I've seen as it means sticking in more stuff which is peripheral at best to that article into it when it is already overloaded and people want to split it up. Anyway the stuff can be split out again in another six months or a year if it starts getting written about more and better citations are found. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Strangely i read it the other way. Specifically because most of the endorse arguments are(ins:n't) substantial - but even if we don't consider those, the !votes are roughly 50:50. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. Now that the need to merge has been upheld, II'm going to merge to Media coverage of climate change, as the obvious subpage. 86.** IP (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant close for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Climate_change_alarmism_.28closed.29 IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Afd closure (albeit disputed) was "merge to Global warming controversy". So as long as we have to abide by it – abide by it. Don't be freely interpreting the closure to redirect somewhere else. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So what exactly is your disagreement? 86.* already moved any content. If you want to redirect to Global warming controversy fire ahead although redirecting to the media article appears more relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Both the AfD and the DRV asked that there should be a discussion on the merger. 86.* hasn't done so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there some aspect of the merger you wish to discuss? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think i've made that clear already - on both talkpages, and in the DRV discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It isn't part of the topic of media coverage so it shouldn't be merged into that article. Looking at it I am coming more and more to the conclusion that we should just let this degenerate into a major content dispute since the admins didn't do their job properly. It is I believe the obvious path now and dictated by WP:IAR. The encyclopaedia is what is important and if there is trouble and admins running round the place then so be it. That is not important. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


My objection is clear enough: it is to this redirect to Media coverage of climate change, which is not the supposed consensus of the Afd. Is there a difficulty of reading? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Issue solved [13]. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It most certainly isn't/wasn't. The result was "merge to GWC" not "delete and redirect". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not solved by redirecting to an un related topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


Could someone give a reasoned argument for what they are doing instead of just moving things for the heck of it? Thanks. If this was going to media coverage what evidence is there that alarmism is a media phenomenon other than that they have reported on it? One might as well say murder is a media phenomenon. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that the "merge" !votes weren't thought through... and evidently none of the closers were looking into more than the superficial argumentations. This article doesn't describe the media, so merging to media coverage would be wrong. What we need now is a discussion of the merge argumentation (what little there was) - and figure out if it can be merged into GWC.... if it cannot (which i believe is the case), then we should look for other solutions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
For god's sake. Alarmism is by definition a media thing, because facts alone can hardly be alarmist: alarmism has to do with the spin put on the facts, and spin is applied in media coverage that would make it so. You lost the debate in the official channels. Please deal with it, and stop edit warring to refight battles you lost at AFD and DRV. I've merged the section on alarmism in the media to Media coverage of climate change, I don't think anything else is at all worth saving. Please stop the obstructionism; you can still take more content from this page after it's redirected, but trying to keep the page up just makes you ælook like you want to edit war to ignore the AFD/DRV result.
The page must not be restored again; that's a bad faith action. Content MAY, of course be moved from it elsewhere, at any time. [User:86.** IP|86.** IP]] (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Is it really by definition (who's?) a media thing? That is not what this[14] reference says. Do please stop your assumptions of bad faith here. The AfD result was to merge, but you haven't merged, and you haven't engaged in any discussions here. DRV was closed as no consensus. So it is up to us as editors to figure out how to do so, and we've already started. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 86.* has seen fit to refactor the comments. My reply was not to his comments above - but instead to this[15], which he further edited after my comment was written, thus the edit-conflict). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I bloody well did merge. [16] And that's no consensus to overturn - e.g. the result of the AFD remains in place, hence the page is set to merge. Finally, it's fine to call bad faith when your actions cannot anymore be interpreted any other way: you are lying about my actions, Dcmq is talking about how you intend to use IAR to ignore the result of the AFD, and if you really wanted to have a good faith discussion on how to merge this, you wouldn't mind it being redirected while the merge was being sorted out, because the content can always be taken from past revisions. 86.** IP (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: I've given up on trying to discuss with 86.** - bullying has worked. Lesson: Be tendentious, edit-war, don't engage in discussion and ignore everyone else - it works - since others give up in fatigue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the personal attack, I've found a way to salvage two more sections of this: [17] - It needed some major rewrites, cropping some awkward content, and a little balancing, but it was doable. This is pretty much the entire article moved over (save "Views of scientists", which is redundant to elsewhere and very, very badly written); but gets around the horrible framing this article suffers from. Can we call this done? 86.** IP (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No, i doubt if we can call this done... since no attempt at reaching an agreement on the merger has been done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough.[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Climate_change_alarmism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.** IP (talkcontribs) 01:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Having won the battle here, 86 is now deleting Global warming conspiracy theory. Q Science (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination at AfD is not the same as "now deleting." Thatmight be construed per se as polarizing language. The DRV ended as not overturning the AfD close - time to simply accept that instead of fighting old battles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The AfD was not reviewed. The closer of the AfD was reviewed and found not to be egregiously wrong. Why should that callers decision be followed any more than that of any other editor? There was no consensus to remove this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Warriors do tend to polarize things despite peoples efforts at NPOV. I wish people would realize that Wikipedia summarizing about something is not the same as endorsing it. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia and whilst I support the science I really do not want Wikipedia turned into a scientifically correct organ like conservapedia is a right wing organ. We should just follow neutral point of view in summarizing notable things. It should not be used as a propaganda machine and such use would I believe cause grave harm to it. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The AfD said for the article to be merged. The deletion review did not overturn that decision. It is completely proper to now redirect this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought the AfD said to merge to Global warming controversy and what has an explanation of a term, mostly used by AGW skeptics, to do with how the media coverage CC?94.208.67.65 (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Media coverage is a subpage of Global warming controversy, which is a top-level article for a series of subpages. Also, if you'll review the actual content, instead of just looking at what the article purports to be about, you'll see it's 99% about media coverage. 86.** IP (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It most certainly said to merge to Global warming controversy - but that is being ignored, as is any discussion or attempt at reaching consensus on what to do with the results from the AfD.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I did ask you this on your talk page: Do you have any specific objections or desired changes to how the merge itself was done, or is this merely a desire for discussion for discussion's sake? You can't insist on endless circular discussions, which fail to discuss any practical points related to doing the mandate, and merely whine about the AFD.
If you have any productive discussion you want to have, such as specific points on handling the merger, then discussion is reasonable; however, it absolutely cannot be used as a mere delaying tactic to try to wear down the people actually trying to do the mandated action. 86.** IP (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i do have very specific objections - but they do not matter as far as i can see - since you haven't bothered to ask at any point, or even bothered to engage in any of the attempts that have been made here to start such constructive discussions. My first attempt at such was December 2nd. You've simply unilaterally decided what must be done, and edit-warred to ensure the outcome. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you have unstated objections which you won't tell anyone when specifically asked. Right. Helpful. 86.** IP (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
To judge by your whining at WP:ANI#Claims that a POV tag is forumshopping, any statement of objections or explanation is tantamount to a personal attack on you. So why bother when you seem unable to hear? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ Kapitsa, Andrei, and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, "Challenging the basis of Kyoto Protocol", The Hindu, 10 July 2008, "Who remembers today, they query, that in the 1970s, when global temperatures began to dip, many warned that we faced a new ice age? An editorial in The Time magazine on June 24, 1974, quoted concerned scientists as voicing alarm over the atmosphere 'growing gradually cooler for the past three decades', 'the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland,' and other harbingers of an ice age that could prove 'catastrophic.' Man was blamed for global cooling as he is blamed today for global warming".
    • ^ Irish Independent, "Don't believe doomsayers that insist the world's end is nigh", 16 March 2007, p. 1. "The widespread alarm over global warming is only the latest scare about the environment to come our way since the 1960s. Let's go through some of them. Almost exactly 30 years ago the world was in another panic about climate change. However, it wasn't the thought of global warming that concerned us. It was the fear of its opposite, global cooling. The doom-sayers were wrong in the past and it's entirely possible they're wrong this time as well."
    • ^ Schmidt, David, "It's curtains for global warming", Jerusalem Post, 28 June 2002, p. 16B. "If there is one thing more remarkable than the level of alarm inspired by global warming, it is the thin empirical foundations upon which the forecast rests. Throughout the 1970s, the scientific consensus held that the world was entering a period of global cooling, with results equally catastrophic to those now predicted for global warming."
    • ^ Wilson, Francis, "The rise of the extreme killers", Sunday Times, 19 April 2009, p. 32. "Throughout history there have been false alarms: "shadow of the bomb", "nuclear winter", "ice age cometh" and so on. So it's no surprise that today many people are sceptical about climate change. The difference is that we have hard evidence that increasing temperatures will lead to a significant risk of dangerous repercussions."
    • ^ National Post, "The sky was supposed to fall: The '70s saw the rise of environmental Chicken Littles of every shape as a technique for motivating public action", 5 April 2000, p. B1. "One of the strange tendencies of modern life, however, has been the institutionalization of scaremongering, the willingness of the mass media and government to lend plausibility to wild surmises about the future. The crucial decade for this odd development was the 1970s. Schneider's book excited a frenzy of glacier hysteria. The most-quoted ice-age alarmist of the 1970s became, in a neat public-relations pivot, one of the most quoted global-warming alarmists of the 1990s."