Talk:Climate change denial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Inappropriate content[edit]

The whole page is a violation of NPOV and not appropriate content for an "encyclopedia". --WPcorrector (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How so? 'Denialism' is defined here as A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence [1][2] Some people do acknowledge that their position can fairly be described as denialism. Others are labelled such because they would sooner embrace alternative hypothesises in direct contradiction to one another. — TPX 13:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence — What truth are people refusing to admit? What proof exists that this so-called 'truth' is actually true? And how is a concept or proposition true before it is "supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence"? If the whole page is not a violation of NPOV and is entirely appropriate content for an "encyclopedia", then why are these basic qualifiers not addressed anywhere on the page itself? Balance should be sought in relation to the topic to avoid confirmation bias and turning its content into something akin to conspiracy theory.120.149.16.22 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Follow scientific opinion on climate change for answers about majority. For the scientific debate and skeptcism see global warming controversy. This article isn't about whether the science is true, it is in the main concerned about concerted efforts to rubbish the science for ideological or financial reasons. Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In popular media there is often not a clear distinction between skeptics and "deniers", and this article doesn't seem to be helping. Skeptics generally believe climate sensitivity is significantly below the IPCC's estimates. There's no "denying" involved in this belief, since climate sensitivity is not something which can be measured by repeatable scientific experiments. Believing CO2 is a greenhouse gas would be denial, since CO2's properties can be measured by repeatable experiments. However, very, very few people disagree over CO2. I agree with WPcorrector; this article is not written in a NPOV. Disagreeing with the IPCC about the significance and costs of global warming is not denial. --Grant Beaty (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you're thinking of fake skeptics: scientific skeptics don't believe anything, they make themselves aware of the scientific literature and, if they think anything's wrong, publish their findings and comments in peer reviewed scientific papers. The IPCC reports are no more than a well reviewed summary of the scientific literature up to the cut-off date. Climate sensitivity is a complex topic, as is shown in IPCC reports. Denial of climate science is well attested in reliable sources, which show what's involved in various facets of this topic. . dave souza, talk 12:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Equating those who challenge the validity of the dogma and science pertaining to climate change with those who deny the holocaust is beyond inappropriate. Wikipedia should not be promoting this highly inappropriate usage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.39.19 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, completely inappropriate of you to recycle this fake concern, trying to wrap climate science denial in a protective blanket of spurious history. Please desist. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia be participating in political smear campaigns?[edit]

This article is highly problematic. Rather than being a recumbent, critical observation of political adversity, of an obvious political smear campaign - badly veiled //ad hominem// attack en bloc on opponents of the falsified hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming - i.e. the logical fallacy "poisoning the well" - it uncritically participates in it. Evidence: "Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States".--80.212.87.80 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"...falsified hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming..." Yes, that's poisoning the well, all right. --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus involves more than one person, all with large amounts of training. You are an untrained individual. It is clear whose opinion qualifies as the majority viewpoint. 180.200.144.126 (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See Scientific opinion on climate change, it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The article global warming controversy covers skeptical questions about the subject. This article covers the denial of the evidence. It is covered in reliable sources and Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. See WP:5P for what Wikipedia is in aid of. WP:NPOV is the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view which I think you're meaning, a read of that might show you the basis of how things are done. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Anon, read your own words. The position of "[a whole lot] more than one person, all with large amounts of training" is that climate change is real. Guettarda (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Even so many people are rightly skeptical - the evidence they see has been obfusticated so in the circumstances they are acting correctly. This article discusses the campaign to misinform and mislead by various organisations involved in the denial campaign. Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Willie Soon in The Guardian[edit]

"Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. [...] “The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said."[3] I'm just not sure if he is notable or important enough for a specific mention in this article. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also in the NYT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought Soon was a major fixture of the denial crowd? Good background from blog ThinkProgress, "Climate Deniers’ Favorite Scientist Quietly Took Money From The Fossil Fuel Industry"].
  • Talking to his funders in the fossil fuel companies, Soon calls papers and congressional testimony "deliverables"
  • Fossil fuel companies got to vet at least some of Soon's papers before he submitted them to journals
  • Fossil fuel companies have given Soon at least $1.2 million, which has paid at least some of Soon's salary
  • Soon regularly ignored financial disclosure rules when publishing his papers
ThinkProgress writes

Valued for his legitimizing affiliation with Harvard-Smithsonian, Soon is a fixture at climate denier conferences, before state legislatures, and on conservative news programs. In congressional hearings and in news articles his presence embodies the other side of the “false balance” paradigm where expertise is evenly cited from a climate science denier and a mainstream scientist.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like clarification on two points:
  1. Did Willie Soon submit any scientifically skeptical facts or analysis in his peer-reviewed scientific papers that were accepted by reputable journals? That is, does at least some part of his work amount to scientific skepticism rather than mere denialism?
  2. Did the "fossil fuel" funds go directly to Soon, or to the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics which in turn passed on a portion of those funds to him? If the latter, what percent of the funds went to Soon?
Another interesting issue would be the extent to which observers of the scientific debate - and especially the political battles about the science - think that the source of funding can affect a scientist's findings. I'd love to see something in the article where a notable and quotable source says either:
  1. Everyone who receives funding tends to support the ideology or politics (or financial goals) of the person(s) funding him; or,
  2. Researchers who receive fossil fuel funding tend to support climate denial; or,
  3. Researchers who receive funding from sources that support the AGW theory tend to support that theory

Again, I'm not trying to inject any particular POV into the article. I'm just wondering how we can neutrally describe the range of views. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: Researchers who receive funding from sources supporting the round earth theory tend to agree the earth is round. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Shocking. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That's clever, Ed. It's almost as if someone's trying to create doubt where none existed. Do you have any sources for any of these doubts, or is doubt just some kind of product that can be manufactured at will by anyone? --Nigelj (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources? Who needs sources when an apparently predetermined goal will suffice? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my user talk page was unclear. What I want is for Wikipedia to document any reliable information it has on a "lack of a consensus" among the world's climate sciences on the theory of human caused global warming.

If there isn't any such info at all, then we're done, and thanks! :-) But if an RS has doubts, then do we (a) say no doubt exists are (b) report that X says doubt exists? (Your call!) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a short paragraph on the matter, using the best sources that I have been able to find. --Nigelj (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What's at issue?[edit]

Thanks for this edit] clarifying that opponents weren't opposing the issues themselves but rather "increased regulations".

I'm for anything that makes the debate more clear. Who's for what, and why? That's all I care about here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm for RS's and page numbers for verification. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

denialism vs skepticism[edit]

Earlier today there was a change that was reverted. The proposed change is

This sort of denialism should not be confused with is different than the scientific skepticism displayed by dissenting scientists (see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). that is widely employed in the application of the scientific method.

Comments anyone?
Pinging the involved eds so far.... @Capitalismojo:, @William M. Connolley:,@Ronz:,@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Agree that's even better new text NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The new version is a clear improvement, for the reason expressed above. — TPX 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015[edit]

The article currently reads: "Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17][18]"

Reference 18 is a link to the article: Borenstein, Seth (December 2, 2014). "Hotter, weirder: How climate has changed Earth". AP News. Retrieved December 2, 2014.

This article does not support the claim that there is a consensus. In fact it contains the following: "Sapir and others say it would be wrong to pin all, or even most, of these increases on climate change alone" This disputes the claim that the reference makes.

Amended text should read: "Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17]" and reference 18 should be removed.

Bugington

188.141.74.24 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done replaced with another reference. Stickee (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution and Koch Brothers[edit]

I don't have time to work on this, but blogger Joe Romm has been writing about what he says is the Koch Brothers' ties to the Smithsonian Institution, and a Koch-funded ancient climate change exhibit that, allegedly, is designed to impact museum-goers' unconscious assessment of current climate risk. Thought someone might want to follow up on this by (of course) first looking for supporting RSs. For background, Romm's posts are

I don't see anything at Smithsonian Institution or its talk page.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)