Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 21

"See also" used as a backdoor CCD label: BLP violations?

I recently removed Fred Singer and Ian Plimer from the "See also" list here, the obvious implication being that both Singer and Plimer are "Climate Change Deniers", a pejorative term with serious WP:BLP implications. Editor William M. Connolley reverted, commenting "disagree: singer and plimer both belong."

Plimer was recently added here by an editor who is apparently attempting to justify his labeling of Plimer as a "Denier". See BLP/N for the current discussion of whether this is justified. IMO, controversial additions while a BLP/N is in progress are to be avoided until the matter is settled.

Singer has no such accusation on his page. He is listed as a "Scientist opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", a category that is specifically excluded here at Denial vs. skepticism. Singer's inclusion here is (imo) a violation of WP:BLP rules. Unless a RS cite for such an accusation can be promptly provided, his name MUST be removed from this page's "See also" list. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. Singer is a scientists (well, it's a stretch, but we decided on very weak criteria for the Sotmsaoga page), and he opposes the mainstream opinion on global warming. So he's in that list. He also is, without doubt, a denier. He is not a sceptic in the scientific sense, otherwise he wouldn't publish complete crap like his "unstoppable global warming". Where is the contradiction? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we would need a statement ("Singer is a climate-change denier", blah blah blah) from a WP:Reliable Source, to use this label, by WP:BLP rules. I haven't seen one. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't checked the references for this article then. Because the Newsweek story does include Singer... And that is a WP:RS --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, and I missed that one. Apologies, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Denial literature"

Editor Ratel recently added this subsection, a part of his ongoing campaign to label Ian Plimer as a "Climate change denier". This effort is currently being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. I think it is poor practice to add this contentious material while a BLP violation discussion is in progress. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This section was added long ago, and has nothing to do with the misplaced blpn entry (which looks like it's going nowhere anyway). ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(Squeezing in) -- sorry, I misread your recent change as starting the section. I see you actually added it on July 22, 2009, after the BLP/N filing. Apologies, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead to this article specifically asserts that "climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change". Do you have a WP:RS that links either the book or Ian Plimer to a "disinformation campaign" which has been "funded by a group with a finanicial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change"? If not he does not belong here. Singer has been so linked, but I am unaware of a WP:RS that links Plimer to such a campaign. --GoRight (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The key word there is usually, which means denialism is not exclusively the domain of paid disinformation campaigns. Besides, books like this one, written by someone who has money to lose if carbon trading is instituted, could easily be construed as part of a disinformation campaign. In fact many have raised the question, to which Plimer responds with non sequiturs and bluster [1] And we already know he's a member of the industry-funded body Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group. ► RATEL ◄ 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:OR does not matter, as you should know by now. Show me a WP:RS, not an opinion piece, that indicates that Plimer or the book are part of a disinformation campaign. Do you have anything other than opinion pieces that even call him a Denier? In the case of Singer there were legitimate news stories done on the denial industry and Singer was specifically mentioned as such. Plimer was not mentioned. Where is the comparably fact checked news article to suggest that Plimer even belongs in this article? Show me the source. --GoRight (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention to what I said please. (1) The book does not have to be part of a funded disinfo campaign to be on the page, and (2) the author is a member of a paid disinfo group. Got it yet? ► RATEL ◄ 01:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Ratel, where is your WP:RS fact checked news article that says Plimer is a "climate change denier"? Opinion pieces (and bluster) don't count, and that's all you have presented, so far. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given you RSes for this before, Tillman, but you have decided, on your own, that the pages of The Guardian and others sources are not RS, so there's no satisfying you. Go off to the RS noticeboard and get a ruling on that before we can take you seriously. ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) For convenience, here are the "reliable sources" you presented at BLP/N, and my reply there:

1. Plimer is called a climate change "denier" or "denialist" all over the place, eg [2] [3] [4] [5] etc etc. [-- quoted from ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)]

None of the sources you mentioned above are WP:reliable sources. In order,

1. Plimer mentioned only in a reply to this newspaper blog posting.

2. Personal blog post.

3. Opinion column by a virulently critical opponent of Plimer.

4. Personal blog post. [quoted from --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)]

I hope you can do better than this. Once again, where are your WP:RS fact checked news articles that say Plimer is a "climate change denier"? Do you understand the difference between a news article and an opinion piece? C'mon, Ratel. Get serious here, please. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• This entire issue is a red herring debate. Plimer denies that AGW exists. Ergo he is a climate change denier, and is labelled such on hundreds of pages on the web, including The Guardian. No further justification is needed. Deniers are now demanding "fact checked" sources. I suppose they'd actually like a peer reviewed, published study .... but even then, they'd say there was something substandard about the study's authors, or the journal. If we cannot agree, looks like RfC time. ► RATEL ◄ 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But for completeness, here's another RS for you anyway: Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer (remember that blogs by experts like Prof Brook are RS). Plimer is labelled a denier there several times, by an expert and a colleague who knows him well. Then there's this, by Dr Kamala Emanuel : "Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a critic of creationism and author of Telling Lies for God, has apparently borrowed his method of climate denial from his former sparring partners" [6]. And that's just from a 5min web search. This is silly, I'm off to do something in the real world. ► RATEL ◄ 03:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

These are still an opinion pieces and not WP:RS for this purpose. All you have demonstrated is that Plimer's detractors are willing to smear him with a derogatory label. This is exactly why WP:BLP demands stronger sources. Please provide a solid news article to substantiate the claim.

And by substantiate the claim, I don't mean simply find a news article that uses the word "denial" or "denier" in some haphazard way. I mean a news article comparable to all the other sources on this page that substantiates the charge that Plimer was working with or for the energy industry, some powerful political organization, or someone with some substantial amount of interest or influence in skewing public perceptions related to AGW. The "usually" in the criteria listed in the lead (which you are relying upon) is to allow for things like the political influences (as opposed to the energy industry funding) described in the article, not to let you put whatever you want into this piece.

The premise of this article is basically that there are large and powerful interests at work to discredit AGW and the IPCC. You have to demonstrate with actual news articles, not opinion pieces, that Plimer was actively involved in the "denial industry" in some substantive way for him to be a legitimate candidate for this page. Thus far I have not seen such evidence, and lacking such evidence Plimer should be more properly considered to be a skeptic than a denier. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, but your interpretation of the wording of the lede, as well as your demand that Plimer be proved to be part of some powerful plot, are unique to you. You have an interesting take on the situation, but it's not my take. For me, the fact that Plimer himself denies the reality of AGW —without trying to hide it at all— as well as the fact that he is identified as a denier/denialist/having denier views by commentators and experts in the field, is ample justification for his inclusion on the page. I really think it's pointless for all the editors with entrenched viewpoints to argue this point repetitively, and I suggest we get this RfCed. Yes? I'm fairly confident that the preponderance of evidence is with me. ► RATEL ◄ 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've come here from the BLP notice board link. I have no previous interest in this article. The lede to this article currently states "While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby." If that's the definition of "climate change denial" it's not enough to merely establish that someone "denies the reality of AGW" to label them as engaging in "climate change denial." You have to show bad faith and participation in a industry funded disinformation campaign. For a living individual WP:BLP requires the very highest quality sources for such a claim. I am removing the section in question until such sources are added or the lede is changed.--agr (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple solution, change the lede, which I have been meaning to do for some time. The restrictive "definition" of climate change denial there seems to have been sucked out of someone's thumb. It's not a definition cast in stone anywhere AFAIK. I invite someone else to rephrase it so that the denial literature section can be re-included. ► RATEL ◄ 10:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think AR is taking too hard a line here, but I agree that "In 2009, an Australian geologist with commercial interests in the mining industry..." is probably broken and needs to be fixed before it goes back in William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the definition of "denier" as it is currently scoped is appropriate because it allows for the distinction between the people listed on this page and the people listed as scientists skeptical of AGW. If we weaken the definition as Ratel wants to do, then every skeptic on the list of scientists skeptical of the scientific consensus can automatically be argued to also be a denier and the distinction becomes moot. The distinction was put in place for a reason and I don't believe that said reason has disappeared. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. There are sceptics and there are deniers on that list. The distinction to me (at least) is rather clear... You will find it rather hard to argue that Lindzen or Christy are sceptics (no matter your definition) - but its rather easy to show with Tim Ball or Singer. (also no matter your definition). The distinction lies (seen from WP) in reliable sources, and only with reliable sources, and for me (personally) it turns when they are denying reality/hard data. (for instance by claiming the Sat record shows cooling) - for Plimer it is clear to me on a personal level - less clear on a sourcing level.

The definition in the lead has the wording "usually" for a reason, not just because someone found it interesting to put in there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this directed at me specifically or are you simply continuing the thread? I am confused because you seem to be arguing with me by stating things that support my position (i.e. that there is a distinction to be made between the skeptics and the deniers). I believe that the line that has been drawn is already adequately scoped and articulated in the article. And very much like you maintain a tight control on who is added to the list of skeptics using a specific definition for inclusion, so too should we maintain a tight control on who is added as a denier based on the definition already provided. You also seem to be admitting that there is a lack of WP:RS to back up Plimer's inclusion based on the stated definition, or am I misreading your point?

"The definition in the lead has the wording "usually" for a reason, not just because someone found it interesting to put in there." - I completely agree and I have posited a logical reason why it exists based on the existing content of the article: "The "usually" in the criteria listed in the lead (which you are relying upon) is to allow for things like the political influences (as opposed to the energy industry funding) described in the article, not to let you put whatever you want into this piece.". More importantly it has not been established with WP:RS that Plimer fits the more complete description of "denier" contained in the article. That definition, and indeed all of the existing examples within the article, clearly suggests that to be a denier you have to have clear ties to a powerful lobby or group within either the public or the private sector who has been alleged to have significant interest in obscuring AGW science. No such link has been established with Plimer as far as I know, and more importantly no such link has been demonstrated in a WP:RS news article. Because of that, he does not belong on this page. --GoRight (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's simply self-serving sophistry, and you know it. Climate change denial is a broad church, operating at all levels of society, and for many reasons. If you want to make a page about "powerful lobbies" funding disinformation campaigns, go ahead and do it. Call it Climate change denial campaign. But this is a page about the phenomenon of denial, a psychological term referring to a well-understood defence mechanism. And since it concerns what is arguably the most important issue facing mankind today, I think it is most unwise to allow this page to be overrun by the petty concerns of what appear to me to be partisan operatives, whether they be called GoRight or GoLeft. ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I see there is a page on denial in the wikipedia, but also one on denialism. It would seem that this page would be better named Climate change denialism because denial and denialism are two different things. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Plimer a Denier? Proposed edit

Disputed text

Denial literature

In 2009, an Australian geologist with commercial interests in the mining industry, Ian Plimer, published a book called Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science. In it, he argues against the scientific consensus on climate change, rejecting the view that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" and asserting that the debate is being driven by what the author regards as irrational and unscientific elements. The book has been widely criticized by scientist and academics, who have accused Plimer of using selective evidence and obsolete research, and pandering to conspiracy theorists while insulting those committed to science. The book has received positive reviews from the conservative press, who have hailed it as a "campaign document" for climate change skeptics. A Financial Post columnist wrote that "Thanks to Plimer .... Australia is likely to become the developed world’s third Denier Nation".

I am asked by sysop agr for "the very highest quality sources" to justify the claim that Plimer is in any way related to the AGW denier camp. Supposing that the definition of "global warming denier" does not only apply to people in funded campaigns, as some editor has decided when writing the lede, but also applies to people who have made a concerted effort to "debunk" the concept of AGW, let's look at some of the reliable sources:

• "[Plimer] has boarded the denialist ark" (Leigh Dayton, Science Correspondent for biggest Australian daily newspaper) [7]
• "Professor Ian Plimer, author of the book Heaven and Earth, is the new champion of the climate change deniers" (George Monbiot, correspondent for The Guardian) [8]
• "Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer" (Prof Brook, Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide) [9]
• "Thanks to Plimer .... Australia is likely to become the developed world’s third Denier Nation". (Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud) [10]

So here we have major newspapers, correspondents, expert scientists and book authors all linking Plimer to AGW denialism. Therefore the proposed edit, or something like it, should go onto the page, even if the lede has to be rewritten somewhat to be more inclusive. ► RATEL ◄ 07:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is our article says While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby. You need sources that establish Plimer is in the second category not the first, i.e. he is acting in bad faith as part of a disinformation campaign. You have supplied no basis for tying the quotes you provided to the later charge and, in any case, such a charge would require more than opinion pieces. You would need multiple hard news sources in highly respected publications that specifically tied Plimer to such a disinformation campaign. --agr (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While i agree with your argument on references, i have to object to the first part. Climate change denial is not just "part of a disinformation campaing" and neither the article nor the text you quote in the lead states so. There is (as i've said elsewhere) a reason for the "usually" part of that text - while denial can be a part of a deliberate disimformation campaign, it can just as easily be based on purely ideological stands... the usual part refers to the fact that in the literature there are more instances of the former than the latter. Leads are summaries, they are not supposed to be definitions that are completely exhaustive (as you seem to be indicating that it is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede speaks for itself and its the first thing our readers see. It attempts distinguishes between "climate skeptics" and "climate change denial." The former are acting in good faith. The latter are usually part of disinformation campaigns. Given that distinction, if you want to assert that a living person is part of the second group you need proof of the implied charge of deliberate misinformation. Alternately redefine climate change denial to clearly include good faith positions. --agr (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The book is full of misinformation and directly wrong information, every single scientist (i've seen so far) that has reviewed the book has stated so (and there are an abundance of such). So that part is rather clear. As for "deliberate", i'm sorry but deliberate is not part of the definition unless you (once again) are talking about the campaign part - the whole definition of "denialism" goes against that. (ie. its rather hard to be in denial and at the same time fake/misinform about something).

The springing point (where we agree), is whether or not the references are weighty enough to assert this about the book. And please separate Plimer (the author) from "Heaven and Earth" (the book). BLP concerns are on the former - but not the latter. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem criticizing a book for being full of errors. But when one suggests a book is part of "disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change" one is attacking the author as well as the book. You seem to agree the climate change denial can spring from good faith personal conviction. Perhaps Climate change denial article should make that clear. --agr (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• [Reply to Ratel, 07:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]: "I am asked by sysop agr for "the very highest quality sources"" [to demonstrate that Plimer is a "climate change denier"].

Ratel's "very highest quality sources," in order:

• 1) Dayton, opinion column, inadmissible for WP:BLP
• 2) Monbiot, opinion column, inadmissible for WP:BLP
• 3) Brook, blog post, statement of opinion. This one is at least by a scientist, and might be judged a RS, but would have to be vetted. The bar for admission of blog posts as RS's is deliberately set high, and must be argued case-by-case.
• 4) Solomon, opinion column, inadmissible for WP:BLP

Ratel, if this is the best you can find, give it up. Only one of these is remotely a RS by BLP standards, and I doubt that one would fly, either. All you have are a bunch of opinion pieces; these "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." WP:RS#Statements of opinion --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead update to broaden scope of article

I'm having a stab at updating the lead to allow not only organised campaigns and paid deniers onto the page. It's a grey area. Take Plimer, a denier to most thinking people, and someone who has published a book known as the "denier's manifesto". He should be here, surely. Feel free to suggest further updates to the text below, or make changes directly to the text, using strikeouts to show deleted text:

Climate change denial and climate change denialism describe efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. A distinction is drawn between denial and denialism; the former is a term denoting a psychological state of mind —a classic defence mechanism— while the latter describes individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists, such as when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate when in actuality there is none. While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on the global warming controversy, climate change denialism usually refers to disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby. Newsweek, as well as numerous journalists, including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, describe it as a form of denialism.

Thanks ► RATEL ◄ 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your efforts to broaden the scope of this article. It is currently well defined in scope and that scope is appropriate for drawing a distinction between skeptics and special interest driven denialism. Your changes are, in effect, equating the two and I simply disagree with that notion. --GoRight (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can we not distinguish between climate change (a) denial, (b) denialism and (c) skepticism? I'm not talking about equating them. This would make an evolutionary change to the article and make it a more sensible article too. ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I consider (a) to be even more sensitive than (b) from a WP:BLP perspective and as such I would demand even more stringent controls on the allowable sources. (a) Requires at a minimum some form of psychological examination to determine and given the Doctor/Patient privilege at play there I seriously doubt that you will ever obtain adequate sourcing for such a notion. Perhaps some trial transcript noting the results of a court ordered evaluation or something similar might be acceptable, but armchair psychoanalysis written in opinion pieces authored by the man's detractor's are clearly NOT sufficient. I would also argue that any discussion of (a) raises serious legal and privacy concerns that are better left untouched by the encyclopedia but it is not my place to make that particular call.

(b) is another matter entirely. Special interest driven denialism can certainly be substantiated to some degree via objective evidence as presented by high quality WP:RS. I believe that the current article at least attempts to do so, as demonstrated by the current contents and the references provided. We can quibble here and there on a case-by-case basis but this seems to be the general line that has been drawn here and I see no real need to change that. Others may feel differently. --GoRight (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• [Reply to Ratel's first draft, 13:44 10 September 2009] First, thanks for posting this here -- a good approach for a contentious change to an extraordinarily contentious article.

Second, I don't really understand the distinction you're trying to make between climate change denial and denialism -- it does appear that perhaps this article should be titled "Climate change denialism", and probably wsn't because that would be a neologism-phrase. Can you discuss your thinking a bit? As a side note, denialism is a weak and oddly-written article, imo.

Third, I agree that this article got to its narrow scope by an arduous, contentious process -- it appears to me that it just barely survived its first deletion review. You are reopening a can of worms that is perhaps best left closed.

Fourth, half or more of the references you cite in the draft are opinion pieces -- not exactly a gold standard for an article with WP:BLP implications. Are you clear that, for any BLP review, you must have (at least) fact-checked, highest-quality WP: reliable sources. Sorry, but Monbiot's columns won't do.

On balance, I recommend we leave the scope of the Climate change denial article unchanged, with the possible exception of giving it a more-accurate title. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"...disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups...", ???

From our lede,

...climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns allegedly [emphasis added] promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change...

Could someone who participated in earlier discussions here parse this for us a bit? I'm assuming that the intent was that there is a substantial allegation from a reliable source, and not just anyone flinging mud? It might be best to add language clarifying the reliability of the allegation required here. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How about reading the references? Most of this is captured in the major references that are cited several times in the article. Your focus on "allegedly" is strange, since this is simply a word that balances that there are contrary opinions... Or in other words: It was inserted to ameliorate some editors objections. As for the reliability of sources - why don't you tell us? I've been through these several times over the lifetime of this article, and while i have raised several objections (amongst other things about the link to "denialism"), i've found that there is a substantial amount of reliable sources that cover the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Tillman is properly questioning the English usage here. One might say "Smith was arrested for allegedly embezzling from his employer" when Smith was not yet convicted. However one does not say "An embezzler is someone who allegedly misappropriates money." That would mean anyone who was ever accused of misappropriating money would be an embezzler. Instead one says simply "An embezzler is someone who misappropriates money." One might then call Smith an alleged embezzler. This gets to the heart of the BLP issue here. In saying someone is a climate change denier, what standard of proof is needed to show they are involved in "disinformation campaigns promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change." Surely a mere allegation is not enough. --agr (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources who state this, are you saying that we should follow WP:V to the word, and remove the "alleged"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely remove "alleged". The pretence that this is a controversial and tenuously supported claim is not good for the article or for Wikipedia. --TS 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV article WP:SYN

This article seems to be very POV and I am doubtful that it could in principle be rewritten as not POV. I do note that it has somehow withstood 3 AfDs.

The trouble with the article is that it seems to be trying to elbow its way past the Oxford & Webster dictionaries in blessing construction of a new English language concept. As such, the entire articles is frankly very bad WP:OR.

Here is the lead:

Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby.[1][2][3] Newsweek,[4] [5] as well as numerous journalists, including George Monbiot[6] and Ellen Goodman,[7] among others,[8][9] describe it as a form of denialism.

Note immediately the ambiguous "it" -- "numerous journalists ... describe it as a form of denialism". So what does "it" refer to here? Is that the energy lobby? Well you can't call the energy lobby a form of denialism! So is it "climate change denial"? If so it's a bit odd to be saying that "numerous journalists ... describe climate change denial as a form of denialism."

So, the circularity of reasoning underlying this very first sentence is hardly surprising given that the article is almost entirely the original WP:SYNTHESIS of our editors (see also WP:OR). According to WP:SYN:

Synthesis of published material that advances a position: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

We have a number of newspaper articles given as references, some of which reference the idea of 'denial' in quotes, others of which simply give the English word 'denial' in its original usage, and none of which lay any claim to any new definition of a concept, and the editors of this page have taken them all together in order to define (in my opinion quite imprecisely) a new concept, viz. climate change denial.

Since the article has survived so many AfDs I'd be interested in other editors' views on how the article can be made to obey the Wikipedia policies of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mount this argument, you must mount it against the pages holocaust denialism and AIDS denialism too (there are probably other such pages). Wikipedia needs consistency. ► RATEL ◄ 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to one thing at a time, please. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to this article, not for general discussion. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you're looking for a basis in the literature for the concept and the term, I suggest using Google Scholar. Here's an interesting quote from this paper:

The science historian Naomi Oreskes has made the case that Anthropogenic Global warming denial... may represent ideological opposition to government regulation of large multinational corporations such as by the imposition of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade policy to limit carbon emissions rather than a scientific hypothesis. This ideology curiously opposes subsidies for conservation and alternative energy presumably because small government should not regulate the private sector but supports subsidies for existing extractive industries. This ideology supports the elimination of all government regulations even those intended to protect human health and the environment. In fact, several of the “prominent scientists’ such as S. Fred Singer, are also former tobacco lobbyists and others such as the oft cited blogger Jennifer Marohasy, work for lobby companies which are chartered to oppose government regulation of the large corporations which fund them. Oreskis’ observation may explain why so many of the collected comments reflect flawed economics rather than bad science.

Lots more like that available. ► RATEL ◄ 08:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note the linkages to powerful lobbies in all of these examples, Ratel. This is the distinguishing characteristic that justifies the existence of this page, IMHO. This is the characteristic that has allowed it to survive so many AfDs. I would personally support keeping this page so long as the scope continues to be limited to this one notable part of the political spectrum and as long a very high quality news sources, not opinion pieces, are required for inclusion here, but if this article becomes a dumping ground for everyone certain people want to smear then I shall object and I believe others will as well. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem here is with "it" - it of course refers to the subject at hand "climate change denial" - if you want it spelled out, but in a less readable form, then change it to "Newsweek, as well as numerous journalists, including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, describe climate change denial as a form of denialism." But in my opinion it is redundant and (as said) less readable. I fail to see the circularity since just because CCD includes the word "denial", it isn't a given that it is linked to the specifics of "denialism". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I admire your apparent immunity to the reductio ad absurdum! You are now saying that you're quite happy to run with the definition of "climate change denial", being, according to such esteemed sources and Newsweek and Monbiot, specifically, "a form of denialism." That's great, and did you know that "GNU" is an acronym that stands for "GNU is Not Unix"? This is what is known as a tautology. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i do know what GNU means - i've been using GNU (from the GNU tapes) since the early 80's. Try reading the article denial and denialism, the word "denial" does not automagically imply "denialism" (in fact if you look through the discussions here - you will find that i was actually against that link, because i felt it was spurious) - that has nothing to do with tautology, and everything to do with the fact that an X-ism is a distinct subset of X. (ie. X-ism is part of X, but not the reverse). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cites in lede

Editor KD Peterson recently commented re this article: " Leads in general shouldn't contain references if it can be avoided."

If so, we have quite a cleanup task in this article lede -- as we currently have nine(!) cites there. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

References are totally appropriate in the lede for controversial material. See WP:LEADCITE.--agr (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it controversial? Please note the edit, and try weighting why i specifically noted "if it can be avoided".... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the editor that put the cite request in [11] included an edit summary that reads add cite needed to lead, see talk, as the whole article appears to actually be WP:SYN and WP:OR. That seems like a legitimate challenge to find a reliable source that says "Climate change denial" is what our lede says it is. If the term has a well defined meaning in the literature it shouldn't be hard to find a source. From WP:V "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." There's no exception for ledes.--agr (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would reply, that this needs to be addressed in the article, and not in the lede then. Tagging is useful if it has the purpose of improving the article. We have several references in the article - i mention here: Newsweek, The Royal Society, Vanity Fair who all make this distinction. Now they do not use the exact words - but that is not required by WP:V.

In other words: Looking through the references and the article, i find no lack of sources nor description to support that leading statement (see 2nd paragraph in the section Denial vs. Scepticism for just an example). So exactly where is the controversy? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To explain why i'm against referencing it, despite there being no problem in doing it - is: If we take your very strict interpretation of WP:V to the extreme, then we will end up with over-referencing and unreadable lede's. (and article text). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing extreme about my position. This is bedrock Wikipedia policy. Per WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. The sentence has been challenged in good faith and a citation is needed. Telling us to go read the sources cited in the article is not good enough. --agr (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one editor stating that its controversial doesn't make it so. We are expected to fill out all reasonable citation requests - yes. But i'm still asking for the reason and rationale that it should be controversial (and haven't been given such ... yet). As said if you want to over-cite the lede, then put in a reference to Newsweek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC) and please read my post again - i did not say that your position is extreme. I said "taken to the extreme" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, but one editor stating that its controversial doesn't make it so." - Actually thus far it is two as AR seems to agree with Tillman, and perhaps now three as I can certainly agree with the notion that "climate change denial" does not seem to have "a generally accepted meaning" outside of this article.

Reading through WP:CITELEAD I note that "Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." Since this term is inherently contentious and it applies to every living person mentioned on this page it should be cited, no? --GoRight (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read (at that point) that AR agree's with Tillmann, except for the request part (without a stand). And No, BLP doesn't come into effect unless it is directed at a living person - the lead doesn't mention any such. (as far as i can tell - every such within the article is cited). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That characterization is clearly being leveled at every living person on this page simply by their inclusion here. It is implicit. Please reread this part, "... must be cited every time ...". --GoRight (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i am unable to read your mind... Can you please point me at someone mentioned in the article, where there isn't a citation? Because that certainly has to be addressed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the Newsweek article and did not find the term "climate change denial." There were 16 occurrences of "denial machine." So I'm still not satisfied we are talking about a term that has a generally accepted meaning. But your clarification about extreme is appreciated and it suggests it's time for me to take a break. --agr (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, how about just focusing on the basic point: Is there an authoritative reference somewhere that gives an actual accepted meaning for "climate change denial" or isn't there? I do not believe that there is, as I am personally aware of so many contradictory usages for "climate change denial":

• a general term of abuse (an expletive substitution that can be published -- e.g. Joe Romm calling Roger Pielke Jr. a "denialist", despite his family & lifelong dedication to environmental policy). This meaning is reserved only for skeptics you particularly dislike.
• a term used to denote people who know, deep inside, that climate change is entirely caused by the radiative effects of CO2 combined with the hypothesis of strongly positive water vapour feedback, but who find the concept so terrible that they are unable, psychologically, to admit to themselves that it's really happening. This might also require identification and classification by the medical sciences of a new form of "Armageddon neurosis". This meaning would exclude those who know it's true, but pretend otherwise for money.
• a term used to denote anyone who is skeptical of climate change theories, whatever their motivation. Such is the overwhelming certainty of climate change science, that any unconvinced is by default a denialist. This meaning allows for anyone to be called a "denialist" without having to worry about what it is the skeptics actually believe or why.
• a term used to denote people who actively spread dissent and disinformation climate change (e.g. allegedly ExxonMobil activists) for monetary gains, whatever their actual beliefs about the causes of climate change. This meaning unfortunately excludes the armageddon neurotics.
• (insert) I have found another use at George Marshall's climatedenial.org: a term to refer to those who know climate change is real, who say they want to stop it, but continue to take long haul emissions-intensive flights all the same. here. I like this one, indicting as it does the hypocrisy of the far left. Another usage I never even considered. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So you tell me, apart from here in the disputed Wikipedia page, where is "climate change denial" actually defined? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, denial and denialism are separate things. If we want to be pedantic about it, and we probably should be, there should be a page on climate change denial and another on climate change denialism. The CCDenialism page would encompass any organised effort to sway public opinion against the concept of AGW. The page on CCDenial would talk about the common psychological defense mechanism a lot of people employ when confronted with the bad news of AGW. ► RATEL ◄ 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, that's fine -- you are entitled to your original views of these concepts just as I am entitled to my different view which I've given above, but you are not entitled to have them published in Wikipedia. I suggest getting in contact with the chaps at Oxford to see if they agree and if we might look forward to these new ideas being published in a forthcoming edition of the OED. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, we describe it how reliable sources are describing it. And your #1 and #3 are certainly minority uses that aren't found outside of columns by political pundits, in the blogosphere, and in other SPS's (which is also the reason why we make a clear distinction of this in the lede). The article describes what is found in mainstream media, and that is a varied mix of your #2 and #4 with the weight towards #4. (who btw. are "armageddon neurotics"? I've never come across that term?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean up needed

This article has some severe problems with neutrality. It presents the views of leftist periodicals like the Guardian as the sole basis for an indictment of those denying global warming. The sourcing needs to be improved. The content should be based on a variety of reliable sources, and appropriate weight given to the viewpoints that exist. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be made clear what the consensus on the science is (or isn't) but I am saying that if we're going to accuse those with a particular viewpoint of being involved in disinformation campaigns we need very good sourcing for that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also the see alsos should be integrated into the article so they are given appropriate context and so that lengthy section (with everythign but the kitchen sink thrown in) can be shortened. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a "variety of reliable sources" used in the article - and the Guardian is not used for any "indictment of those denying global warming". If you can find other (or better) reliable sources on the subject, then please use these.

You seem to have something wrong here, it is the reliable sources that state this, not the editors (ie. "we're going to"). I suggest that you look at the sources, which are very varied. If there is anything in particular that you have a problem with, then please note this down. (ie. what parts are badly sourced in your opinion, what can be improved). I also suggest taking a look at the AfD's we've had on this article, where a lot of issues have been turned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, instead of just saying "it isn't so" how about actually responding to my challenge and actually producing a source that purports to define "climate change denial" for us. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are several in the article. How about doing a little work? As for having a clear definition - nothing requires us to, this is not a dictionary... We are describing how the term is used in reliable sources, and as can be clearly seen from the sources --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I have indeed looked at the articles -- well certainly the ones cited in the lead. And that's the whole point: the article does not describe how the term is used in the reliable sources at all. If the article really did that, it would read, "According to X, "climate change denial" is P. According to Y, there is a "denial industry" which does Q. And according to Z, there is a "denial machine" which does R. There is no consistent picture arrived at sufficient to define "climate change denial." Indeed, many of the sources are mutually inconsistent and incompatible with each other. Thus, to arrive at the simple statement, as this article does, that "Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change" is original research. An honest reading of the sources suggests a nebulous term of abuse, deliberately imprecise so that it can be applied to anyone who dares to oppose the consensus. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense Alex (sorry), there is a clear common denominator in all sources, and guess what it is? .... they all "describe efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change" (find me a source that doesn't - please), and they all describe climate change denial. WP:OR applies if we (as editors) had invented the term, or in other ways tried not to describe the subject according to what the sources say. For instance by claiming that there is a clear definition. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's late here so I'll give you just the first example. The big question is how the word "denial" is actually used in the articles. Sure, they all mention efforts to counter the theory of global warming at some point, and they all include the word "denial". But that hardly proves anything, as you'd quickly find if you just typed the words into google. In the Ellen Goodman there is mention of an effort to "counter" the theory of global warming -- an effort supposedly made by the Bush Administration: "This great divide comes from the science-be-damned-and-debunked attitude of the Bush administration and its favorite media outlets." But as far as the use of the word "denial" is concerned, that refers to something else -- the people who feel powerless to do anything about climate change; it's referring to the public. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion and further investigation of the sources I removed this bit:

climate change denial usually refers to bad faith disinformation campaigns promoted by either individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly those with ties to the energy lobby.

It has problems of POV and is not an accurate reflection of the sources which discuss funding for campaigns and individuals critical of global warming science. This is also what is covered in the body of the article. I tried to fix it up to make it accurate to reflect what the sources and the article say but was reverted. Please don't restore it until the sourcing and POV problems are addressed. The "usually refers" to part is particularly problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tweak untweak

I revert [12] CoM. Because:

• "views that refute" is (a) wrong (views can't refute, arguments can) (b) mistakenly therefore implies argument rather than assertion. The original "efforts to counter" is what "denialism" refers to.
• I think the While a / contrast b structure should stay. Denialism needed to be contrasted with skepticism (though they blur at the edges). I've tried my own tweak for this.

William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we all please mark reverts as such. It is regrettable that we have now gone through this [13] because that, to me, reads like indiviudals have to be funded William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They do. Or more properly, they have to have demonstrable ties to a special interest group with a financial interest. Singer is a good example. The claims against him that put him on this page are all tied to his funding being from special interests. --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to be funded, but often are. I'd like to try and clarify this. Verbal chat 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• A climate change denial is not an effort. So the opening sentence needs to be fixed. I think my edit headed the text in the right direction, so I'm sorry to see it be reverted wholesale in favor of the weasel worded abstraction now in place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Taking any position is an effort, and in this case multiple definitions of effort apply. What do you mean? Verbal chat 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A climate change denial is not an "effort". Climate change denial is an expression of viewpoints that refutes all or part of the theory of global climate change. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there is an effort applied when you go public and attempt to sway opinions, be it personally or through a directed campaign. We aren't talking in the article about what happens privately or in the living room (completely out of scope here). The effort lies in the advocacy, and that is also what all of the references describe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change denial is an expression of viewpoints that refutes... nope. I've explained that above. Expressing a viewpoint cannot refute anything William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword it to opinion then or use rebut instead of refute (a word whose full range of meaning you don't seem to grasp). A denial is not an "effort" and does not describe an effort. That wording is ridiculous. Every time I fix something it's reverted. Then when I tag the problems, the tags are removed. Tags identify an issue that needs discussussion and resolution. Please stop removing them. The refusal to collaborate is getting a little frustrating. Please don't be obstructionist and help address the concerns expressed by good faith editors who want to improve an article that has a lot of problems. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, have a nice cup of tea, remember WP:AGF. Maybe "Every time I fix something it's reverted" for a reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More lede problems

The article opens with:

Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change.

This is a bad opening line, as it could be construed as applying to good-faith efforts. Changed to "bad-faith efforts".

Note that the term CCD itself appears to be a neologism-phrase, unique to Wikipedia. Editor GoRight has also pointed this out, ims. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but have you read the references? If you have - how can you with a straight face state that CCD is "unique to Wikipedia"? (its even the title of one reference) I'm also wondering here, how you can say so - when on the Heaven and Earth article you've commented on and about several articles that use this particular phrasing? As well as on BLP/N... I'm having a rather difficult time accepting that statement in good faith, so i am going to assume that you've written something that is unclear. Can you please elaborate? (just as an indicator - check google news for the phrase (in quotes to make sure you only capture things with this phrase)).

But then again, i'll play along, this time. Without using the articles references, here are 3 articles in reviewed journals - all use the phrase.. One of them even in the title:

• Williams, Nigel (2005), "Heavyweight attack on climate-change denial", Current Biology, 15 (4): R109-R110, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.02.002
• Fritze, Jessica G; Blashki, Grant A; Burke, Susie; Wiseman, John (2008), "Hope, despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing", International Journal of Mental Health Systems, published online, doi:10.1186/1752-4458-2-13{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Lowe, I. (Sep 2007). "A critical vote down under". Science. 317 (5845): 1649. doi:10.1126/science.1148839. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17885098.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put the peer-reviewed one in the lede. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's actually a news report. But still... RS, I'd think. It's actually a pretty balanced article. More substantial than Monbiot's & Goodman's effusions, for sure. Thx again, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for Denial literature section

There are most certainly books produced and funded by groups who fall under the current def. of CCD. Here's a start:

Another climate denial campaigner sponsored by Cato at the time of Murdoch’s

involvement was Steven Milloy. Cato published three of Milloy’s books including Silencing Science which argued that ‘real science’ – which involved scepticism about climate change – was being silenced by the withdrawal of funding, social pressure and intimidation. As well as being an ‘adjunct fellow’ at the Cato Institute Milloy was a recipient of ExxonMobil’s largesse (Thacker 2006). At an earlier stage he helped the American Petroleum Institute to develop a plan to promote doubts about climate science

in the mass media. (Guardian, 7 May 1998).

Pg 7, TELLING THE STORY OF GLOBAL WARMING: NEWS AND OPINION AT NEWS CORPORATION

More to come. ► RATEL ◄ 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

more lead problems

The lead closes with:

Newsweek,[5] [6] as well as numerous journalists, including George Monbiot[7] and Ellen Goodman,[8] among others,[9][10] describe climate change denial as a form of denialism.

This sentence doesn't make any sense, and seems to me to be there gratuitously just to provide a link to the denialism page. It has bemused me that people are arguing with a straight face for a real linguistic distinction between "denial" and "denialism." The above discussion has made it abundantly clear that there is no agreed usage in the reliable sources for "climate change denial". That being the case, and given that you can whack an -ism onto just about any English word, it follows that there is no agreed usage of "climate change denialism" either. To then argue further that "denialism" refers to one idea and that "denial" refers to another suggests we are getting a little intoxicated by our own made-up distinctions. I suggest we just delete this sentence, and move the cites to the end of the previous sentence. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What is denialism? ► RATEL ◄ 04:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Denialism: what it is and how should scientists respond ► RATEL ◄ 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The first is a blog so wholly insufficient for our purposes. The second? Heh, hard to believe that this was actually published. It it is based on the work of the two guys that run the blog. An interesting find, though. You have to love the last two sentences of the second reference though:

"Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so."

In other words, they argue that it is actually NECESSARY to NOT argue the subject on its merits but rather to engage in ad hominem attacks on their opponents. Hey, these guys must be denialists because they are engaging in logical fallacies and that's one of the signs. Oh, and they seem to be projecting their own tactics (using logical fallacies) onto their opponents as well, that's another sign. :)

Oh, and this paper is published under the heading "Viewpoint". If that another way of saying, Opinion Piece? It sure sounds like it to me. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your sneering comments are irrelevant. The paper was published in the refereed journal European Journal of Public Health, in which the term denialism in relation to global warming is defined. It is thus fully eligible for inclusion as a term and concept in the wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 06:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

People, I think Ratel has actually found a good source. I agree that appearing in "Viewpoints" probably makes it an op-ed and therefore probably not a WP:RS but what it does have going for it is that the author has actually made a serious go at defining the concept. My biggest concern is that it's probably of more value over at the denialism page than it is here. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, you are simply wrong when you say that because a published paper appears in a particular sub-section called Viewpoints of a respected Journal, it is no longer RS. Have a look at the current issue's Viewpoints section. It is merely the journal editors' way of grouping papers by general content. Other sections are, for instance, Commentaries and Social Determinants. You show a lack of understanding of the weight given to thoroughly reliable secondary sources like this. I ask you to withdraw your comments about the term and concept of denialism at this stage please. We are a tertiary source, and reliable secondary sources clearly exist. And of course this paper has weight here on the Climate change denial page, because it defines the 5 aspects of denialism, including CCD, namely:

1. The identification of conspiracies (such as the one Plimer claims exists amongst climate scientists — Google "plimer" and "conspiracy")
2. The use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases’.
3. Selectivity, IOW drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
4. The creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer.
5. The use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies (Plimer does this extensively, see the critiques).

You may have an argument if you say that this page should be renamed from CCDenial to CCDenialism. I'll support you there. HTH. ► RATEL ◄ 09:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in favour of using the McKee article, although it be made clear that it is the opinion of the author and not a definition with general acceptance (i.e. I can't find this word "denialism" in any dictionaries). I have raised the question at RS/N. Can involved editors please let uninvolved editors respond this time, instead of trying to steer the discussion to a preferred outcome and setting up a warzone at RS/N so that genuinely neutral editors don't want to get involved. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If we adopt this definition then we should set explicit criteria for inclusion on this page like we have done on the list of skeptics. The article elucidates 5 criteria that distinguish "denialism" and states that "Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way." What makes something a process? Multiple collaborators? Is simply writing an article a "process"? How many is "some"? 2 or more? 3 or more? What constitutes "concerted"? Having a single publication? Multiple publications in different venues? Having objective criteria on these points is critical IMHO, to avoid never ending arguments such as we have here. --GoRight (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I disagree. The "list of skeptics" page is another BLP nightmare. Any attempt at boxing someone as a "Denialist" based on our own application (i.e. original research) of largely arbitrary criteria is a very terrible idea. The question is, do you really believe in "Denialism" in the first place? I do: I believe there would be people out there who actually deserve to be called, for instance, "Holocaust deniers". I've met one, actually. The guy was an absolute nut case, no question about it. A severely maladaptive personality who was in serious need of psychological help in a lot of ways. He's the only person I can think of, in my personal experience, who would fit the bill of actually deserving to be called a "Denialist." But I am quite sure that there would be "Climate Change Denialists" out there. It's just that I've never met one, and I don't know of any famous ones, either. Alex Harvey (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern is that we draw a line using objective criteria and then stick to it. You wanted an outside definition. Ratel has found one and you have suggested that we use it. I merely want it to be made objective so that its subjective nature is not used to turn this page into an unrestricted dumping ground. --GoRight (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Count me as opposed to this. Denialism is a subset of denial, a very specific subset. And that is not what the article is about, it is about how the term is used and described in reliable sources, with examples given from various such. I think i've pointed to the AfD's once, where this has been discussed indepth before. (iirc I was strongly against the sentence "is a form of denial") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article is not about denialism, Kim, then I fail to see why the lede is so restrictive. Plain old CC denial is a very widespread phenomenon that embraces the bad faith propagandists as well as the witless and the ideologically opposed. Denialism is much more focussed. ► RATEL ◄ 23:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if there's a distinction to be drawn between "denial" and "denialism" then what is a "denialist"? Is the "denialist" a practicioner of "denial" or "denialism"? And shall we also try to distinguish the "denier"? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this question? Is there any references to "denialist" in the article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an obvious question that would need to be answered. If "denialism" is not just "denial" + "-ism" then the "denialist" must be a modification of either (a) "denial" or (b) "denialism" but not both. :) So if the distinctions are not in fact that arbitrary inventions of Wikipedia, then you should have no trouble in telling me the answer -- (a) or (b)? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I will ask again: Where in the article is there a reference to denialists? If it is not in the article, and there are no intentions to put it into the article - then what is its relevance? We are not here to discuss the merits of things, but to write an encyclopedia. And we are certainly not here to do original research as your question indicates. If you find some reliable sources that discuss this, then take it up at that time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"We are not here to discuss the merits of things, but to write an encyclopedia." - Actually we can't do the latter without doing the former, IMHO, that's why we have talk pages. "And we are certainly not here to do original research as your question indicates." - Its not clear what you meant by this but it is clear that Alex is not promoting the use of WP:OR, quite the opposite. He is trying to insure that we are NOT doing WP:OR by asking for WP:RS references that define the terms being used in this article and ones that are obviously related to them. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Alex is asking what a "denialist" is... A topic which is not in the article, and one that hasn't been brought up as an addition to the article. This is not the place to discuss that, nor is this the place to figure out what a sceptic is. The time to take such a discussion is when or if such an insertion is placed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, it is totally beside the point whether this article happens to use the word "denialist". If you are genuinely concerned about how the terms are used in the reliable sources you would have to agree that the terms 'denier', 'denialism', 'denial' and 'denialist' are used interchangeably and imprecisely throughout in all of the reliable sources. That is the point. It is utter nonsense to say that the reliable sources are reserving 'denial' for the Freudian sense and 'denialism' for the industry-sponsored disinformation campaign sense. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ratel - This is of course your own opinion on the subject, not established fact or precedent. --GoRight (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not completely irrelevant whether the article says so or not. This is not Philosophy 101 - or a course in defining words. We go by what sources say. That is what WP is about - everything else is original research. Sources are using denial in both senses, and as i can see below - you've also noted this.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. See denial and denialism and the footnotes on those pages, and see the footnotes of the paper I reference above. ► RATEL ◄ 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm apologize, I was unclear in my previous post. I was referring to the highlighted part of this comment: "Plain old CC denial is a very widespread phenomenon that embraces the bad faith propagandists as well as the witless and the ideologically opposed. Denialism is much more focussed." Do you have a WP:RS news article, not an opinion piece, that substantiates your claim of this being a "very widespread phenomenon?" If not I stand by my statement that this is your opinion and not an established fact or precedent. It would also be WP:OR on your part without a source. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"CC Denial" is referred to in a bazillion places in the media, books, scientific papers, etc. To claim that I or any other editor has anything to do with OR because we're discussing it is laughable. "CC Denialism" is apparently, according to its usage in the paper above (and in other RSes) a fairly recent coinage with more focused meaning. Note that Climate change denialism redirects to Climate change denial at the moment. Aside: It would be helpful, Alex and GoRoght, if your input here could be a little more aimed at building a proper encyclopedia and less at trying to expunge valid topics from the 'pedia based on idealogical POV motivations. ► RATEL ◄ 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel wrote, Aside: It would be helpful, Alex and GoRoght, if your input here could be a little more aimed at building a proper encyclopedia and less at trying to expunge valid topics from the 'pedia based on idealogical POV motivations. You mean, ideological? Actually I'm genuinely trying to stop you making an ass of yourself. Here's a suggestion: actually read through all the sources in the article, write down each occurrence of four different noun forms, 'denial', 'denier', 'denialist' and 'denialism', make a table, and write next to it the actual sense used (disinformation campaign or psychological denial). If you do that, you will see that the distinction you are proposing exists nowhere in the sources and entirely in your own head. By the way, I have already done that, and will shortly summarise the results. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a spelling Nazi, it's very bad form. I have a real life and type quickly, so expect more spelling errors, and don't call people "asses" because that's a blockable offence. ► RATEL ◄ 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, if you continually assume bad faith & insult me you can reasonably expect to be called an 'ass' and I will not expect to be blocked, okay? The point I am making is that you are proposing an absurd linguistic distinction between four forms of exactly the same noun. Was 'idealogical' a typo, or were you confused between 'idealism' and 'ideology'? I couldn't tell. Given you want to invent a distinction between 'denial' and 'denialism', who would know? Now instead of continuing to behave like an ass, answer the question: can you find any evidence in the actual reliable sources to justify the distinction you are proposing that 'denial' means psychological denial and that 'denialism' is organised disinformation? If not, can we end this ridiculous discussion please? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From one ass to another then, let's see: (1) wikipedia has articles on both denial and denialism that make the same distinction that I do, (2) I have given you a published paper that makes the distinction, and (3) wiktionary carries denialism as a separate entry to denial. If that's not enough for you, perhaps I can pass the asshat? ► RATEL ◄ 06:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well Ratel, I have no idea why I'm helping you fix a page that I think should actually be deleted but here goes:

Moved long analysis (which seems to be work in progress) to: User talk:Alexh19740110/denial analysis --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back and finish this, but Ratel, it should be clear that there is zero support for your distinction in the sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"it should be clear that there is zero little to no support for your distinction in the sources" Agreed. And his incivility and assumptions of bad faith are growing rather tedious as well. --GoRight (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede opening problem

Our lede currently opens:

Climate change denial[1] describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change.

I had recently added back "bad faith efforts", and there's at least one discussion upthread re bad faith as a prereq for CCD -- which was the previous consensus definition. The present definition seems open to defining good-faith skeptics as deniers -- as some editors would like to do in the case of Ian Plimer.

At any rate, Verbal reverted "bad faith", commenting "not always bad faith - a bit stronger than "wrong headed"."

I don't quite understand this, but I don't believe we have a consensus to broaden our definition of CCD. What's the objection to including bad faith? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of inserting it myself - but stopped, because both a incorrect (or ambiguous). There doesn't have to be "bad faith", and certainly not Bad faith in the legal definition. It is entirely possible to be in denial for (for instance) ideological reasons, where you close your eyes for (ignore) evidence to the contrary of your stated opinion. A better introduction text is needed here. (the bad faith holds for most of the reliable sources we've found, which is probably the reason that no one has changed it before).

A sceptic like for instance Lindzen is arguing from a scientific view that may be contrary to consensus or mainstream, but it is not denial. When someone on the other hand, is using arguments that have been wrong (or discredited) for years, and has been pointed this out, and still won't change the argument, then there is denial involved - either by deliberate misleading - or by having ignored this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are engaging in a False Dichotomy - Or (c) they may simply not accept that the arguments of their opponents (i.e. the arguments you refer to when you claim "wrong or discredited") have any valid foundation. This is not the same thing as being in psychological denial. --GoRight (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GoRight, but when someone is arguing (as an example) that the increase in CO2 isn't human caused, then failure to accept arguments is not a defensible position. You will have to reject: A) direct measurements of fossil usage B) oxygen measurements C) isotope measurements (C13,C14) D) ice core evidence E) ocean acidification etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Off topic debate about global warming
20px
Really? All I have to do is point at the variances in atmospheric CO2 prior to humans, and say that those changes are on the same order of magnitude as current changes. Even if your evidence did show that the largest change in CO2 is in the current era, all that measurements can indicate is the existance of a trend, not the cause. Most of the evidence you just listed simply doesn't even support the existance of a trend of atmospheric increase in CO2 proportional to human use of fossil fuels. Even if it did, it doesn't support the conclusion that an increase of CO2 is causative of, or even a leading indicator of, changes in climate. There are many other good-faith reasons to consider the conclusion "Human use of fossil fuels is a primary cause of climate change." Not all of them reduce to willful ignorance. Treedel (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC) No, its not enought to just state that they are of the same magnitude (first of all it would be wrong) - you would have to explain why the current increase has a different isotope signature (different from: low in C13 and low in C14), why the Oceans are getting more acidic instead of going more alkaline (characteristic of earlier increases), why there is an equal loss of oxygen (its disappearing somewhere - but didn't earlier) etc etc. When you are then changing to "causation of warming" you are changing the subject - we are talking about a specific argument that is indefensible scientifically. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC) You are of course right. In the Paleozic era, CO2 varied from 7000 ppm to 200 ppm. This is not on the same order of magnitude at the changes since humans invented fire--it is almost two orders of magnitude higher. And I also have to point out that the same (unexplained) effect that caused that variance could easily be causing the current variance. With that alone, I can say that the case for the cause of the increase in CO2 is currently unknown. How are you determining isotope ratios in prehistoric samples? For that matter, what does variance in isotope ratios actually imply? Oh, and when you said "when someone is arguing (as an example) that the increase in CO2 isn't human caused . . . have to reject: A) direct measurements of fossil usage B) oxygen measurements C) isotope measurements (C13,C14) D) ice core evidence E) ocean acidification etc etc." you named the issue (Is the current increase in CO2 caused by humans?), and claimed that any one of the five things you listed was airtight proof that the answer was yes. I have made my counter to that fairly well, then I brought it closer to the subject of climate change. The actual concern as relates to CCD is "What is the effect of human activity on climate?", with the subset "Is human use of fossil fuels causing a first-order effect on global climate?" The claim that human use of fossil fuels will significantly increase global CO2 levels, which will cause an increase in global temperature through some undefined mechanism, can be rejected on several valid bases. First, I can show that there have been unexplained changes in global CO2 far greater than any of the explained changes; Current variance is much smaller than historic variance, which was not caused by human factors. Second, I can argue that increased CO2 might not cuase climate change. No really valid mechanism for such causation has been implied. (Increased infrared reflectivity is a cooling factor, since the same proportion of infrared radiation from the sun would be reflected, and the heating effect of solar radiation is greater than the cooling effect of terrestial radiation.)Treedel (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) You can't be serious? 7000ppm to 200ppm over the Paleozoic took several hundreds of millions of years. Even with a fast change that is something like: <70 ppm per million years ... Even if we took the change since Man invented fire - it would be orders of magnitudes faster than that. And surprisingly enough, we know quite alot about where that carbon went (much of it is now in oil), or in carboniferous rocks. (And a little hint: Carbon-13 is measurable over that amount of time, and Oxygen content is as well). The "mystery source" that you claim, cannot be volcanoes (C13,O2 wrong), it cannot be the Oceans (C13,O2 wrong), it cannot be the biosphere (C14,O2 wrong), it also cannot be mountain weathering (C13 wrong) etc etc. Thats the trouble. And that is what all the various lines of evidence show. So, what was the distribution of CO2 isotopes in the paleozic? And what factors affect distribution of CO2 isotopes in the atmosphere? (Hint: Include all sources of carbon from other elements, and add all sources of neutron bombardment and emission from/of carbon) Yes, fossil fuels have a different distrubtion than the atmosphere does, but the percentage change in atmospheric carbon isotope levels is on the same order as the accuracy of the early measurements. I don't claim a mystery source, evidence shows that there is a source, and does not clearly show what it is. The entire period of time since the discovery of carbon dioxide is less than the error in dating ice core samples--to assert that there were not short-term trends (~3 thousand year cycles) for most of history is not supported by evidence. Treedel (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) The only way to claim that humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 - is by completely ignoring all lines of evidence. Sorry again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC) And sorry, all of the A-E evidences show that the carbon source is fossil fuels. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) So are you saying that someone was burning fossil fuels 250-300 MYA? What does the A-E evidence say THAT carbon source was? Treedel (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Indefensible in your opinion, perhaps, but that is NOT an indisputable fact by any stretch of the imagination. I won't bother to address your WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) No. This is science GR, not opinion. (And of course its not OR, since you can find everything i've written above in reliable sources). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC) "Indefensible" has no scientific definition. It can only be used in a discussion of opinion. Treedel (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP: skeptics, deniers, and See also

This page appears to be trying to draw a distinction between global warming skeptics and climate change deniers. At the moment I find the lede is unclear as to what the distinction is, but I gather that is a work in progress. So far so good. But when specific living individuals are tied to the term Climate change denial or called deniers or denialists in a Wikipedia article, our Policy on Biographies of Living People (BLP) must be carefully followed. If the distinction between skeptic and denier is contentious, for example an implication that the latter act in bad faith or have irrational psychological motivations, each implication for a living individual must be established by a high quality, reliable sources that make that specific allegation for that specific individual. It's not enough, for example, to cite several sources say deniers generally act in bad faith and then find another source that say "So and so is a denier." Per our Verifiability policy:

• The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. (footnote:) When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

I would suggest getting agreement on the distinction between skeptic and denier before attempting to assign the status of living individuals. I would also point out that a more neutral definition (for example, something like "skeptics express doubt about the reality of human-induced climate change, deniers say it just isn't happening") would be easier to defend. In particular, attempting to assert a psychological state for a living individual (e.g. "so and so is in denial") would be very difficult under BLP in my opinion.

Note that BLP policy is strictly enforced and repeated violations after counseling and warning can lead to sanctions. See Special enforcement on biographies of living persons. --agr (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, there is a shortcut for this: WP:BLPBAN. --GoRight (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

While i agree with much of your comment, on how we must have documentation if we mention BLP's... I have to object to the next: We can't just define the distinction between sceptic and denier, we will have to go by what the sources say. To narrow it to something like your "more neutral definition" would first of all be original research (ie. we define, as opposed to sources define), and your example would certainly not be supportable by the sources available. We can't go by "what is easier to defend" since that is plain and simple POV. The distinction between sceptic and denier, lies in what what the objections are - if they state that the increase in CO2 can't be human-caused, then they are arguing against several scientific lines of evidence (ie. its about as certain as anything can be within physics that the increase is human caused).... but it would be entirely within scientific scepticism to argue that climate sensitivity may be low (for instance by cloud or other means). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the links to Fred Singer, Philip Cooney, and the list of skeptics opposing the scientific consensus per the BLP policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And i've reinstated it. You are misrepresenting BLP policy. Both Singer and Cooney are well-documented (with several RS's in the text). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• My question is this: Is it worth having 3 subdivs on the CCD page, such as skeptic, denier and denialist, or are we going to say that the last two are the same thing? Note that Google News shows that the first ever use of "denialist" was in about 1992 in South Africa in relation to AIDS denial. ► RATEL ◄ 06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I agree with you that the definition must be sourced. What the final definition is should be determined by the editors on this page; I'm merely trying to provide some guidance here if you plan to use the definition with living persons. The definition I gave as an example is based on the ordinary definition of the words skeptic and deny. Note that the Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism pages use the ordinary meaning of deny and then try to specify exactly what is being denied. If there is a special meaning of denial here that is widely accepted in this field then of course it should be used, but there would need be citations to where that definition is given in pretty much the form we intend use. Those citations would have to meet the WP:V criteria I quoted above if the definition is applied to living persons. But that is only the beginning. If the definition is contentious, such as the present definition which suggests bad faith, applying it to a living person requires high quality sourcing that the the person meets the definition, in this case is acting in bad faith. Quotes from sources that say the person is a denier or denialist are not enough. It's one thing to include quotes from critics in a living person's bio that accuse them of bad faith (and even that is hard to justify). It's quite another thing to say or imply that in Wikipedia's voice. That's extremely difficult -- likely impossible -- to do under BLP. Also note that we do not generally allow lists of people who are accused of something. I am removing all living persons from the see also section. They should not be added there or elsewhere unless the definition we are using can attributed to the individual through high quality sources that are cited in this article in full accordance with the WP:V section I quoted. Please consider this a warning that reinstating them without meeting those requirements is a violation of BLP policy and subject to sanctions, such as page protection, blocks or a ban on editing this page. Again please see Special enforcement on biographies of living persons.--agr (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's happening here? Why are good editors being warned because they're inserting well sourced factual statements about living persons? The BLP does permit that subject to due weight. "Quotes from sources that say the person is a denier or denialist are not enough", you say. Well that depends on the source. A scientist qualified in his field is certainly equipped to determine whether someone making claims about the science is talking nonsense. In the case of Plimer, for instance, he claims that global warming is in effect a "missing science" and he has been caught blatantly misrepresenting papers he cites in his book. He's a denialist and we have the sources to prove it. You must not abuse the BLP to stop well sourced factual information being put into articles. --TS 18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of BLP makes any article where anything remotely controversial is being discussed, completely unable to mention names - no matter how well-documented they are. If we take one of your current removals Philip Cooney, we have a confession to the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That he "doctored" reports to downplay the adverse effects of emissions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, why cast this as a disputed-interpretation BLP issue when WP:SEEALSO is perfectly sufficient? Cooney is discussed and linked in the text, and Singer appears at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, actually it is rather important, since apparently we are being given a "lecture" on BLP here. I'm of the opinion that this is a content issue - but i'm trying to understand the above warning.

As for the two links, i'm rather disinterested in Singer - but the Philip Cooney article goes significantly more into detail than what is mentioned in this article. Something which isn't simply covered by a name link inside the text - the alternative is to rewrite the section on Cooney as a summary (where it probably should have been all along) - but now that would be seen as gaming, and isn't an option. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the schoolmarmish tone is what rubbed me the wrong way - it turns what could be a minor editorial dispute in presentation into an escalating conflict, with a potential chilling effect (pun intended). What about a subsection for the Council on Environmental Quality? I think in this context that would have substantially the same content with a slightly broader focus. Also, I changed the section header. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the CoEQ article gives that much more detail related to this subject...but of course it could be expanded with some more of whats in the Cooney article - but all that would do is to push the problem to the next article. When does it stop? The CoEQ article should (imho) be more generic, regarding the role and responsibility of the office, and while it should cover the Cooney incident (as a major incident), it should be covered according to weight (ie. just enough to describe it). Imho the Cooney article is the place for this information, both because it is highly protected on BLP issues (ie. its not just incidental there), and because i don't think that there is enough to merit a full article. (hope i'm not rambling - its getting late). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The main issue I see is the lede that pretty much defines the subject of this article as bad faith actions. Tying claims of bad faith to living people is always a BLP problem. The way Cooney is handled in the text of the article seems about right to me. His role in keeping global warming info out of government documents is described without trying to characterize him. The bad faith accusation is, as I read it, primarily directed at the Bush Administration, which is not a BLP issue. We normally do not have See also links that are linked in the body text. Kim has suggested on my talk page that the See also link is needed to call attention to additional pertinent information in his article. I don't buy that completely but it puts this into more of a BLP grey area. A main tag would seem more appropriate for the purpose me. Alternatively, adding some context to the Cooney see also tag, would eliminate the bad faith innuendo of his See also inclusion.--agr (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I put a subheading on the Cooney material, with {{Further}} to the relevant section at his article. Does this put everything in proper prominence and context? As a side note, I believe it is possible to set the table of contents to display only down to a certain level of header, but it does not seem so unwieldy at present as to require it. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that pretty much satisfies me, though to nit pick from a BLP standpoint, I'd prefer the subhead read Philip Cooney and the G W Bush administration or Philip Cooney and the Council on Environmental Quality or some such, since he appears to be just a cog in the gears.--agr (talk)

Well I'll have to say that I find it more than a nit-pick to see wrong in a section heading stating simply, 'Cooney'. It's like, we've got "the public sector", we've got the "private sector", and then, wow, we've got this Cooney. You know, I sort of want to know, is this guy the most Evil climate change denier to have ever walked? So my problem with it now is that Cooney is propped up and made an example of. Who knows what goes on behind the closed doors of government? I certainly don't, and agree that many in the Bush Administration must have been as accountable. But even then -- the truth is, thousands of politicians around the world have done exactly the same thing. I read a book called Scorcher about this same sort of political 'denialism' here in Australia during the Howard era. The book drops the names of plenty of Cooneys, but the prime minister takes most of the blame. In John Howard's case, I don't think there's any doubt that he was a genuine skeptic. In some of the other cases, perhaps there's a real case to be made for a campaign of disinformation. So I think Cooney's elevation in the article fails WP:UNDUE. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Either of agr's suggestions would be good by me. I am leaning vaguely towards Philip Cooney and the GW Bush administration, with a {{Further}} link to Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration#Global warming. This section covers the Kyoto Protocol, the 2002 Climate Action Report from the EPA, and describes the administration's position as 'global warming is real but not necessarily human-caused'. Some of this is already treated here. I will let someone else bold that in if there is agreement.

AH: Cooney is actually a subheading of Public sector, as is The Washington Post reported in June 2007 (which could probably use a better title). Would agr's suggestions above alleviate your concerns? In a similar vein, I think this article would definitely benefit from additional well-sourced descriptions of politically motivated editing of climate science reports and similar incidents. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2/0, yeah it sort of would. Or why not just "the Bush Administration" and mention Cooney -- and hopefully others -- inside that section? It strikes me as scapegoatism to blame the whole thing on Cooney. I don't buy that. I'm not going to make a fuss about it, mind you. What the article really needs is a complete rewrite I think, but I'm not going to volunteer for that because it's really not my area. My concern is the BLP issues only. Cooney's not high on my list of people to defend though. I'd like to help fix the lead section but my edits keep getting reverted... Alex Harvey (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even better would be a section Government sponsored denial. Poor old George W. has taken such a rap that I genuinely start to feel sorry for the poor guy. You could include the Bush Administration, Canada's government, Australia's government and the present government of New Zealand. I think that would be a much more generally interesting topic. I can contribute a paragraph from the Scorcher text I have here. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think naming Clooney here is fine. Modifying reports and then resigning a day after it is revealed, with all of it documented and reported in the NYTimes, is enough of a smoking gun for Clooney to be included here. ATren (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Point of order Many of those advocating for strong action on global climate change also have a large financial interest in doing so. These include promoters of various alternative energy schemes, authors promoting books, and other profiteers. I think the coverage should be more balanced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Many"? "Other profiteers"? "Authors promoting books"? Can you be a bit less specific? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What is this with the point of order? If you want to argue about global warming, go talk to Al Gore. Here we're writing an encyclopedia and, guess what, on science matters we go with the science. not parochial American politics. --TS 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for 'energy lobby' 'misrepresenting'?

I see cited sources for ExxonMobil, by name and alone 'misrepresenting' what the "scientific consensus" is; i.e. making the claim that the current "scientific consenus" is one thing when it actually is another. I also see cited sources for other groups 'challening' "scientific consensus"; i.e. claiming that it is inaccurate. Does anyone have a source which generalizes the claim of misrepresentation to a majority of the groups reprenting energy companies? If so, where? Treedel (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no responses to the requested talk page discussion, I'm having a little difficulty with still WP:AGF The last two edits were reverted in an average of 5.5 minutes; why so long to explain why? Treedel (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm plain baffled by your comments, both here and in the edit summary where you reverted me. I see the sentence clearly and directly supported by the given sources. And I suggest you take a look at my user page for your other question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources makes the claim that someone is 'misrepresentating' the scientific consensus. That source limits its claims to ExxonMobil. The other sources makes the different claim of 'challenging' the scientific consensus. Those sources claim that the entire industry is involved.

Briefly: The sources indicate that ExxonMobil, and only ExxonMobil, has been accused of misrepresenting the scientfic consensus. The entire energy industry as a whole, including ExxonMobil, has been accused of challenging the scientific consensus.

What first hit me about this sentance was that final dependant clause. To what is it referring? To "denials and disinformation campagins"?

Some denials and disinformation campaigns, particularly those with ties to the energy lobby, have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change.

To "Individuals or groups?"

Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups, particularly those with ties to the energy lobby, that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Or to "Special interest groups"

Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups, particularly those with ties to the energy lobby, with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Which of the three sentences is "Clearly supported" by the sources? For that matter, the sources cited don't even establish the "financial interest" portion of the sentence.

Proposal--Edit to

Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or special interest groups with ties to the energy lobby.

Or simply omit the sentence from the opening, since it really doesn't belong there at all.Treedel (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I conclude from their abstention from this discussion that Verbal and KDP are satisfied with either compromise. Stephen? Treedel (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wasn't very interested, I haven't abstained from anything. I think it should remain how it is as it's supported by the sources, per Stephan. Verbal chat 19:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Which? How it is, or as supported by the sources?Treedel (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make disruptive edits, and keep edit summaries as summaries of your edits rather than disparaging commentary. It seems clear that Kim was agreeing with me/Stephan. Verbal chat 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 3v1. That means nothing. Why is it that you don't respond meaningfully to comments on sources for... ever, so far? You respond to edits with alacrity, and so far have made neither an attempt to compromise, nor a counter to the comprimises I offered. WP:AGF is starting to streach for me. Which source makes either of the claims that a)A player in the energy lobby other than ExxonMobil has 'misrepresented scientific consensus' b)ExxonMobil unilaterally represents the energy lobby? I'm willing to let the statement of fact stand, even though I would prefer "The Gaurdian claims that ExxonMobil has enganged in a campaign of disinformation, misrepresenting scientific opinion on climate change."

I found and included an additional source for "misrepresenting". Paragraph 247 on page 62 is the only instance of "misrepresenting" in the document. It is specifically limited to ExxonMobil. Treedel (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Except of course that it isn't just ExxonMobil, and that only 1 of the 3 references given to that sentence is limiting comments to that particular firm. The first source says a lobby of oil companies, and Goldspan expands to many others. Considering also that the other references to the article doesn't limit it to Exxon is a factor as well. So i'm sorry - its not just one player, and not just the one source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The same 2 sources that limits it to EM are the only ones that mention misrepresentation. There are tactics for changing pubilc opinion other than misrepresenting, and that is what the energy lobby is about. Claiming that the energy lobbby as a whole is engaged in lying is clearly NPOV unless there is a RS for it. Treedel (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Except of course that this is what Gelbspan's articles/book is about as well. Same with "While Washington slept" (which is in the body - but the lede is a summary. Gelbspan goes very much into detail on the Global Climate Coalition - which was Oil, Coal, Car, ... But we can add Hertsgaard to the refs for that sentence if you refuse to acknowledge Gelbspan... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Closest thing I could find in there to your position "Created and funded by the energy and auto industries, the Coalition spent millions of dollars spreading the message that global warming was an uncertain threat. Journalist Ross Gelbspan exposed the corporate campaign in his 1997 book, The Heat Is On, which quoted a 1991 strategy memo: the goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.'"

Unless you are claiming that "positioning global warming as theory" is "misrepresenting scientific consensus" as opposed to "challenging scientific consensus", I can't find any evidence to support your position. The only instane of the word or concept of "misrepresent" accuses the Clinton administration of misrepresenting the science. That claim is not very defensible. Perhaps you think that the analogies to the tobacco companies indicate that the two situations are identical, and since the tobacco companies lied, the oil companies are lying?

There's a lot of bad rethoric in each of the sources, and I won't accept a sythesis that requires accepting a bad arguement to work. Got any sources that include misrepresentation and sombody other than ExxonMobil? Treedel (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no synthesis - perhaps you should try to read Goldspan? Why are you ignoring that reference every single time? Finally: Its not up to us as editors to decide whether reliable sources are using "bad arguments" or not (that would be original research). We go by what the reliable sources say - and the weight of these. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It IS our job to determine if they are making a claim or stating a fact. Perhaps you have a page and paragraph number that you think I am missing? The bad argument I'm referring to is "Since the energy lobby is using similar techniques, and in some cases, the same people as the tobacco lobby, they are identical in every way. Therefore, since the tobacco lobby lied, the energy lobby is lying." No source outright claims that, but many imply it strongly, and it is the closest thing I can find to what you have been claiming. Treedel (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a source that says so. Perhaps you missed it.... I'm going to repeat it again: Gelbspan (and the Newsweek story does as well) - and then i will stop discussing, since you seem to be caught up in not hearing what is said --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that there is a consensus that :

"A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on." This refers to the energy lobby as a whole, and not ExxonMobil

'He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."' This indicates that there is no possible doubt, even though one of the top researchers indicates that there is doubt.

"The plan was to train up to 20 "respected climate scientists" on media—and public—outreach with the aim of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom' " and, in particular, "the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings"" This is not a case of "Challenging" conventional scientific wisdom, but "misrepresenting" it as something else.

'Frank Luntz, who had been instrumental in the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, suggested a solution to the PR mess. In a memo to his GOP clients, he advised them that to deal with global warming, "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue." They should "challenge the science,"he wrote, by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view."' To "Challenge the science" is to "misrepresent" it, and scientists who find evidence that disagrees with the 'mainstream' view cannot be acting scientifically.

It's pretty clear that there is is propoganda, misinformation, real science, and junk science on BOTH sides of the issue. I'm trying to find a way to accurately describe this side of it. Do you have another wall of text that you want to declare I haven't read specifically looking for points that assert your position? It's becoming clear that you can't find an excerpt that agrees with you any more than I can. Treedel (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Treedel's argument seems sound to me. I'm particularly bothered by the heavy reliance of this article on the Sharon Begley Newsweek piece -- which looks like advocacy masquerading as reporting to me. Treedel, have you looked for published criticisms of the Begley piece? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)