Talk:Climate change denial

Administrator: please add the following

Since the page is protected, would an administrator please add the following quote to the article?: The December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, "discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... [The author] gives a name to those such as ExxonMobil who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... [The book] gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. '...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort'" (Hell and High Water, p. 25).

Merge

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Global warming controversy. I support this sugguestion. this page would do well to be included as a component of the Global warming controversy.--Zeeboid (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Zeeboid, could you please present your rationale for the merge? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree There can be no rationale, the Global warming controversy page is 122 kilobytes long and this page is 41 kilobytes long. One page is about the history of some attempts to disprove the scientific basis of AGW over the years (which have now amounted to very little), this one is about political lobbying, big business and legal matters. One is about a scientific controversy that eventually reached consensus, the other about corruption and politicking. Two different subjects. The practice in WP for big and growing issues is to split off detailed articles on sub-topics, not merge them into 160 kilobyte behemoths. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead there should be a page spicific to political lobbying, big business, legal matters, corruption and politicking in reguards to the AGW believers. Climate Change Fraud for example--Zeeboid (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead, and see what you can come up with. --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ClimateGate? Although, it should be pointed out that the estimated global warming through 2100 hasn't changed significantly this decade, and it was clear to any rational observer that, as of 2001, the data and climate models did not support significant global warming. I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But i'm not surprised that you haven't got a science source for that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did, but it's been retracted, apparently not for legitimate reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. You are too quick to lable discenting opinion as "deniers" -likening them to holocaust denial. There are also some factual errors in thie page; beginning with the premise that the hypothesis (and that is ALL it is) has the support of every major scientific body with NO DISCENTING view ever being given. Wrong. THE IPCC report has been disavowed by numerous climate scientists. I suggest you start your research by looking up James Hogan's "kicking the sacred cow" and then moving into science. Especially given the leaked CRU data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.9.215 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge — This is a significant and terrifically important subject all on its own, and should never be downgraded through merging with any other topic. Dreadful idea. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Grumble. Bad faith claims of global warming or global cooling should be separated from legitimate disputes. However, not all the entities named here may fit. (I just corrected the merge templates. I didn't necessarily consider it a good idea.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. No rationale given other than "i don't like it" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Note that Global warming skeptics is a redirect to Global warming controversy. This one is not... because... well, there is no logical reason why it is not treated the same as Global warming skeptics. Since there is no logical reason, there must be an illogical one, and that reason is to push a POV. This article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Wikipedia's voice, supported by supporters of that POV. • Ling.Nut 04:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "This article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Wikipedia's voice, supported by supporters of that POV." - Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be merged to anything, shouldn't it be upmerged to its parent article, denialism? After all, this simply discusses a specific case of that larger phenomenon. The whole "global warming skeptics" seems like a bit of a red herring - that phenomenon isn't a subset of skepticism, it's a brand name that unites denialist with contratrians and curmudgeons. One could write an article about that, but it would lack focus and coherence. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009

• The point of this article is to say potty words about people who are skeptical about AGW. basically the article quotes many folks who likewise say potty words about skeptics. Where's the beef? No substance, just blah blah blah you're a denialist. OTOH, the confirmation of wrongdoing on the part of CRU is pretty much all out there. This whole article can be blanked and replaced with "Bush Lied People Died" or somesuch, and it wouldn't really reduce the article's factual content. • Ling.Nut 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You really should (a) familiarise yourself with the topic (I take it you're unfamiliar with the phenomenon of denialism?) and (b) stop engaging in attacks against living people, in violation of our BLP policy. In addition, you seem to be imputing ill motive to your fellow editors - you seem to be skirting very close to violating our policy on personal attacks. You're usually a responsible editor, and I'm quite taken aback at this. Have you considered the possibility that you're too personally worked up about this issue? Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• YES, POV problems, now & forever. Dodgy sources, especially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece, cited 9(!!)) times. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "[E]specially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece". Um, Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW, are you sure you posted in the right section? "POV problems" ≠ merge. Not normally. Guettarda (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this would be a POV renaming. This name is used by world leaders, the popular press, and the scientific press. Changing the name would be pandering to a fringe group. This is an interesting subject in its own right (denial, rather than disagreement). Verbal chat 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• The whole article is POV. Not kinda POV. Very POV. Forex, the quote about the Supreme Court "rebuking" the Bush administration. Sure, it's a word-for-word WaPo (liberal publication) quote. But it is presented as unadorned fact. I think it's not uncommon for the SCOTUS to disagree with Administration policy; to call that a "rebuke" is editorialism. The quote should be completely removed. I would do it, but y'all would revert me. Let's not pretend you wouldn't. You would say the quote is sourced, which it is, but you would neglect the fact that the quote is not literally true. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone. Meanwhile, we have Monbiot and Mother Jones listed as reliable sources. Mother Jones? While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill? And the Private Sector section lists AEI funding as denialism. That whole paragraph is one more thing that should be deleted, since all it establishes is that someone disagrees with your POV, and is willing to fund research to probe the relevant issues... is that denialism? Only from your POV. You see denialism, I see someone offering to fund legitimate research. Who says it's denialism? Aside from Monbiot and Mother Jones.. well.. you say it is. But the fact that you and Monbiot and Mother Jones all agree with one another doesn't establish any kind of wrongdoing. Forex, you also have a cite that shows that many AEI folks were Bush administrations folks. And... so... what? Essentially, you're saying, "Look, look, they're Bushies!!! BusHitlerExxon! That Effing Proves that they are denialists!" What is this? Is this evidence of wrongdoing? is this evidence of anything at all? No. And that is a key point. As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications accusing folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None. That's why this article is POV. Deny that. • Ling.Nut 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, let's see. "[Y]ou would neglect the fact that the quote is not literally true. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone". So you are arguing that your analysis should replace reporting of the Washington Post? And that's consistent with our content policies in what way? Mother Jones is a reliable source. You have any evidence to the contrary? Certainly it's more reliable than the Weekly Standard, which you recently quoted as a reliable source. "While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill?" Much like the Weekly Standard, I don't think he's the sort of source we'd want in this article. Reliable sources are much better. "[Y]ou have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing". Hmmm...I seem to recall something about Wikipedia being about verifiability, not truth. "No proof. None." Yep, just like there's "no proof" that Obama is an American citizen.

    We have notable, verifiable information. About a well-known, notable topic that's documented by reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with a topic, the onus is on you to educate yourself about it before expressing an opinion. Guettarda (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Merge, this article is very POV, as much as the leftist editors do not want to admit it. I opposed this article a year ago, and am shocked to see it is still here. Even the title "Climate Change Denial" implies that it is some sort of disease or something, and that it goes against scientific consensus. WIKIPEEDIO 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Which it does (denial of the facts does go against overwhelming scientific consensus). Just read the lede to Scientific consensus on global warming. There's nothing 'leftist' about this. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. This article should not be merged into Global warming controversy, as too many issues would be conflated, and this would not help us improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand the point of view concerns about this article need to be addressed, even if they are overstated, and the POV tag should not be removed while concerns are ongoing. At the moment, this article wears a point of view on its sleeve, and even its title may need further thought. The best service articles like this can do for Wikipedia—and the climate change issue—is to be scrupulous in their impartiality, to describe and not engage in disputes, and to trust the reader to come to their own informed judgment. This article does not achieve this goal at present and I am willing to comment further on where it fails and how to improve it in due course. Geometry guy 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - IDONTLIKEIT is not a merge rationale. Nor are long (or short) rants against 'liberals' and 'leftists'. And verifiability, not TRUTH, is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The POV stuff is in the right section, or the merge stuff could be in the POV section as well. That is, if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged. And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial. You know as well as I do that presenting it unadorned (as it is) creates the impression that SCOTUS actually and literally scolded someone. You know as well as I do this is dishonest and POV. Does WP:NPOV mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of WP:5P • Ling.Nut 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You do, I hope, realise that there have been other attempts to delete or merge this article in the past, and they failed. One is reminded of Don Quixote. ► RATEL ◄ 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Piffle. Let's rmv all the POV. Then we can merge the remaining two paragraphs.
• This article takes as its starting premise the presumption that AGW is TRUTH^TM, then says, "...and anyone who disagrees is engaging in denialism". Its very premise is POV. From there, its structure looks like a melange of half-truths, circular reasoning, guilt by association and other examples of fatally flawed logic. We'll have to go through it sentence by sentence and rmv all the nil content. Then we can merge.
• I have listed a few starting concerns above. Please address them. Note that I have already stated that WP:NPOV trumps the rather lame "Wikipedia is about verifiability" associated with the SCOTUS quote. I will delete that quote about two hours from now... • Ling.Nut 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a scientific consensus in the world that AGW is occurring, no matter what you may think. Therefore, people who disagree with the concept are ipso facto deniers of AGW, and fall into much the same category as deniers of evolution. See wp:FRINGE. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote a friend of mine, "Bzzt. try again." There may be a consensus that global warming is occurring.. though even that is crumbling... but there is not a consensus that it is anthropogenic. I listed a few starting concerns above. 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Nut, perhaps it would help if you knew what you were talking about. A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. ► RATEL ◄ 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I really don't think Ling.Nut is seriously making a classic climate change denialist argument to argue against climate change denialism. His whole argument here has obviously been poking fun at the denialists. Good one, Ling.Nut. You had me fooled. Seriously though - this is a bit POINTy, don't you think? Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged." Your hyperbole aside, {{cleanup}} isn't a merge rationale. Nor is {{expand}}.

  "And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial." You appear to be conflating these two. Not sure why. You wrote: "As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications accusing folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None." You're using truth claims (or rather, TRUTH claims) as the basis for your argument. But, as you well know, we work on a standard of "verifiability, not truth" specifically because of TRUTH claims like yours, which, it would appear, are predicated on the assertion that anything coming out of "liberal publications" cannot be "true". It saddens me to see you argue against WP:V.

  But you save the best for last, don't you? "Does WP:NPOV mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of WP:5P". And that after you have argued against the first line of WP:V. Though they aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I am tempted by terms such as "broken irony meter" and "lulz". Thanks for the laughs, Ling.Nut. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let's cut to the chase. Aside from simple distortion/misrepresentation of facts (as in the quote I just rmv'd), what this article does is present an extremely excellent job of verifying that the media and other biased commentators have repeatedly accused folks of denialism. What it does not do is show that denialism has taken place, after providing a meaningful definition of denialism. Moreover, what this thread does not do is... you know.. actually look at the text of the article. Wouldn't that be like a good idea, in theory? • Ling.Nut 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Come on, Ling.Nut. You good as admitted your position is a parody in response to Ratel. I admitted you had me fooled. It was a good joke, but now you're taking it too far. You're not Stephen Colbert. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Given previous (failed) efforts, this all seems rather POINTy. I did get a good laugh from "I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time", though. --PLUMBAGO 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh too. You looking to get another fish in the face? 99.54.138.153 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. See WP:Summary and the article length. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This topic is notable separately from Global Warming Controversy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not parodying anything. You can't keep the SCOTUS quote, because WP:V doesn't warrant taking a purely editorial assertion and framing it as an unadorned assertion of fact, using Wikipedia's voice. Please do not abuse WP:V to support your POV. You can't keep the AEI stuff because, basically, it uses fallacious logic. It states: AEI funds research that runs counter to the AGW POV. Former Bush administration folks work for AEI. Boxer says there's a denialist conspiracy of some sort. BEHOLD: connect the dots, all Bushies are denialists, all AEI folks are part of a denialist conspiracy, etc. Really, THERE IS NO CONNECTION between the statements you have strung together and the conclusions they leave unstated. • Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose merge Very bad idea. That article is for the generic discussion of issues related to global warming, this article is for the discussion of very specific incident. Not enough overlap to justify a merge.Sorry, misread the proposal, will try again.--SPhilbrickT 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge This article purports to be about those who deny reality dishonestly, while the global warming article covers a much broader range of issues, including those who honestly question some aspects of the issue. Whether this article should be in W is a separate question, but the other article belongs, so this article should not be used to poison that one.--SPhilbrickT 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Merge Note that Global warming skeptics is a redirect to Global warming controversy. There is no logical reason why it is not treated the same as Global warming skeptics. I agree that this article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Wikipedia's voice, supported by supporters of that POV. = Brittainia (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This is a valid article which stands on its own merits. If anything, Global warming controversy should be moved or renamed. StuartH (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge. Climate change denial is a valid part of the conroversy between global warming is real/no, it's fake. I support the merge wholeheartedly.

I made a username! Aren't I smart? 05:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge This article currently is a splendid example of a single-sided POV article in esse. Collect (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The terms in question have an established basis in literature and usage. Also see discussion about merging huge articles.Airborne84 (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge or create an article entitled "Climate change hoax" to balance if you seriously think being this POV is alright. --π! 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Global warming controversy is a very long article, and climate change denial is only one small part of the topic. It's a separate issue, and certainly notable enough to deserve its own article. 'Climate change denial' is a neutral term, being widely used in both the scientific literature and the general media. Robofish (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge on the basis that the "denialist" term is a derogatory term used by the climate change "believers" or "warmists". Both are not neutral POV. Alternatively, create a counterbalanced article on "warmists". Note that "skeptic" is a term happily owned by those who are skeptical and is more neutral than "denialist". Alternatively then, rename the denialist article as "skeptic" --Blouis79 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge Essentially for the reasons given by Blouis79 above. Climate change denial is a intentionally derogatory term used to discredit skeptics and liken them to 'holocaust deniers' or ' evolution deniers'. Unlike to two aforementioned subjects there is an ongoing debate involving many respectable climate scientists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge if Climate change scepticism is to redirect, then certainly Climate change denial should also redirect. To do otherwise would be a clear and blatant WP:NPOV violation.jheiv (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

bold;">π!]] 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The article, as is, demonstrates a NPOV. The merge would alter this for the worse.

98.216.186.55 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge It takes little review of the media and recent books to establish that "climate change denialism" has become a common and notable concept and term; this is true whether one believes it's a "fair and honest" characterization or a "negative smear" - those judgements are not for our editors to make, we are only reporting the documented aspects of the culture, not "correcting" or "endorsing" the fairness or accuracy of such naming. However the article could be retitled to something about "non-scientific biases to climate change science" (with redirections from both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax"), and could seek a more objective reporting of the charges of bias from both sides. To achieve a NPOV it needs to stand outside that debate, and only report the documented cultural phenomenon, not try to "win" the framing fight for either side. If this article is broadened in that way, it will justify being a separate article from the science based ones - the (alleged and often believed) non-scientific part of the climate change controversy. The terminology part is not unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - we can only report the framings that have in fact achieved cultural impact and notablity, not decide which terms *should* be used or suppressed as accurate or inaccurate. In that context, both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax" have become widespread and influential terms and concepts, both alleging non-scientific biases are distorting the truth. The perjorative adjective and the opinion that that term "intends" to analogize to holocaust denialism should also be changed to an attributable assertion of some of the contending parties, not stated as a simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph93 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Both articles have enough content for standalone article. Both articles are notable topics. Both articles are on a specific topic, although there is some overlap (as there is with every single article on WP). Climate change denial is about denial of climate change and it is the process of the denail that is part of the Global warming controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Move: Balancing Page

If there's going to be a page on Climate change denial, what is the objection to a balancing page on Climategate denial? Surely, Climategate denial is a real and well reported phenomenon. Even in the vaunted "reliable sources" of the mainstream media, the efforts to kill the Climategate story on the spike have been obvious. Or is The Wall Street Journal now suddenly (like Climate Research among Dr. Mann's "Hockey Team") no longer held to be a reliable source?
A balancing page on Climategate denial will serve to describe this phenomenon, and will help to lucidly collate information helping the reader to ascertain the degree to which this denial has thus far operated, why it is so prevalent, and the extent to which it persists over time.
The term "deniers" is deliberately pejorative, and was chosen over "skeptics" for an obviously POV reason. Failing treatment of the conscientiously skeptical examination of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis with due regard for the moral and intellectual integrity of those in the sciences who simply despise the sloppy and dishonest pseudoscience of the CRU correspondents, we might as well sling the scornful language in the direction of those who are deliberately stepping on the Climategate story in order to "ignore it to death." 71.251.133.248 (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Any article can be created if its A) Notable B) you can find the reliable sources to support it. I doubt if this can be done with your example. You may want to read the talk page guidelines and find out why you shouldn't use talkpages as soapboxes (because posts like yours would regularly be removed), and finally the argument "I don't like it" is not a good reason for arguing against an article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Top marks for ingenuity, though. --TS 05:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Or use the polices as exemplified in this article to just make it Climategate denial, even if all your sources only marginally support the statements you make. Anything 'you don't like' will, of course, come from unreliable sources. Treedel (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP (as Kim pointed out) where it states "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Scandal Mongering is also covered under WP:SOAPAirborne84 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AEI paragraph

I removed the disputed paragraph:

After the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.<ref></ref> Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."<ref name="Newsweek" />

Reasons:

1. "Reportedly" is a weasel word, which, together with naming living persons, makes it inadequately sourced.
2. The relevance of the funding source for think tanks is, at best, marginal. If it were a lobbying organization, that might be different.
3. The Guardian is a biased source, although generally reliable. Hence anything resembling opinions must be expunged.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The US$10000,- offer for critical papers certainly needs to go in - it caused quite a splash and is more or less unprecedented in its obviousness. We can probably lose some of the dressing (e.g. the consultants section), but I think the link to Exxon is very relevant - Exxon has been named in several reliable sources as a major driver of climate change denial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll find CNN is a direct source too [1] ► RATEL ◄ 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I did it before seeing that CNN had the story too. Anyway, I've just added it back in crediting the Guardian with the reporting explicitly (which is not really necessary unless this was an op-ed piece, which it isn't. And we had the Guardian ref at the end anyway.) There's similar stuff all over the media now anyway. There is no doubt that Big Oil and others have been paying for this 'research' and paying PR houses too to target socio-economic groups with carefully designed 'sound-byte' quotes that they can remember and use in these arguments. The people who spout them here are as much the victims of manipulation as anything. --Nigelj (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We'll talk later. I'll accept CNN as the source for the material, but not as for relevance. AEI and CEI have a definite ideology, but it would be libel in either case to imply that their research results are determined by their sponsors. If CNN wanted to say that explicitly, we could include it, but it would be a BLP violation to make a statement whose only purpose is to imply something (about a living person) we could not include.

I'm off for minor surgery in a few minutes, so I don't have time to explain my arguments further at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that pargraph relevant to "efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change by dishonest means"? Isn't offering grants to scientists standard procedure? Were any papers published based on this grant? (If so, why aren't they mentioned anywhere? If not, why is the offer relevant.)

This paragraph needs serious rewriting to get to the point where it is reporting facts, and not just speculative innuendo. Treedel (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not "standard" to give grants for pre-determined results. In fact it is about as far from "standard" as one can get. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also not standard to offer grants to a pre-selected group of scientist - standard grants work the other way round (there is an open call for applications, scientist apply, applications are peer-reviewed and the most worthy ones are funded). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said above that discussion of this kind of corruption is all over the media, this is what I had in mind. In that article we have links to four case studies (US coal companies targeting specific socio-economic groups, Patrick Michaels getting paid 'lavishly', the Heartland Institute with its list of 500, and the Bush presidency working with oil companies). There are also books about it all (The Heat is On, Boiling Point and Heat) and websites devoted to the subject (http://DeSmogBlog.com and http://exxonsecrets.org). I hardly know where to start. --Nigelj (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In regard "It is not "standard" to give grants for pre-determined results": That means we cannot imply that that occurs unless there's evidence, even if it's implied by a WP:RS. If a WP:RS states that it's done, it's OK to include it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to question the funding of skeptics the we should also question the funding of climate change proponents, this has long been an issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

progress report

• Progress = none, of course. This page is watched by a POV group. The only way forward is a careful line-by-line analysis of the article. That will take a very long time and I am very, very busy. The Merge and POV have little hope of standing long.
• I was just 3RR warned for the first time in three-plus years; congrats gang. Good work.
• Here's another one I will delete later: "Several think tanks funded by...". Again, this does not pass the "so what?" test. Guilt by association is hardly good encyclopedia writing. Feel free to delete it yourselves; I'll have to wait a while.
• Also, your poll data is really outdated. It could use some newer data. • Ling.Nut 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking about this last night, and came to two conclusions: First, focusing solely on this article is not the way to go. I need to go back to square one and add academic rigor (if possible) to global warming and denialism. [Don't tell me GW is FA and is therefore academically rigorous; the FA star does not even come within discus-throwing distance of establishing an article as "academically rigorous."]. Second, your system of defending this Wikipedia page (notice I didn't say "article") is completely airtight, because you hold control over all of the definitions. Join any high school debate team and they'll tell you, if you own the definitions, you own the debate. And the problem here is this: you define anyone who disagrees with AGW as a "denialist"; and you define everyone who agrees with you as an "expert." Done! The page is impregnable. Take forex the quote by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. Using her comments as supporting evidence of the page's (not "article's) thesis is a flagrant act of POV that proves this page (not "article") is an op-ed piece from start to end. Barbara Boxer is a politician. Every bit of power, money and prestige she has comes from her ability to do one thing and thing only: to characterize herself as a noble public servant, and stereotype her opponents as villains, buffoons or both. Even more — and this is important — Barabara Boxer is not a run-of-the-mill politician. It would be nearly impossible to find someone more unwaveringly partisan than she is. In short, the Boxer quote is another bit that does not come close to passing the "so what?" test. I intend to delete that one sometime soon too. I also wonder whether I should give one of those damn wikicookie templates as a thank-you to the editors who revert me, every time they do so. Or maybe a barnstar? I dunno; some token of gratitude or other. • Ling.Nut 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Awwww! Mr Nut is not happy. . Looking at the number of edits you've done, you really should not need to be told to review the concept of consensus. Stamping your little feet in frustration because you can't get your way is not going to change consensus. And your edits above make me suspect that you're reverting to verbose Talk page edits in an attempt to out-talk the opposing editors. That will not work. As for your idea of templating other editors, remember don't template the regulars. Also, please learn not to characterise other editors as a "gang" or "tag team" working to insert "POV" edits into wikipedia. You're approaching a position of disruptive editing. Bottom line: climate change denial exists, and is apparent in the press every day. The costs of any form of carbon emissions control will be enormous, so the forces trying to stop it are likewise, enormous. Given what happened with tobacco, it would be naive in the extreme to assume the opposite, and indeed, companies like Exxon have been caught red-handed, funding denialism. You also seem to want to take issue with the very existence of GW. Is that true? Because if it is, you're going to get very short shrift from us. ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel: Try to focus. Focus on the article. Focus on my comments on the article. • Ling.Nut 05:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ExxonSecrets.org

I came across this website, and it provides an interesting background to this page, and possible material for inclusion:

www.exxonsecrets.org Comments? ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible background, and if it points to reliable sources, those could be used. I can't imagine this being considered a reliable source except as to Greenpeace's policies and beliefs. Greenpeace cannot possibly be considered a reliable source any more than ExxonMobil would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it can. I It cannot, however, be considered sufficiently reliable on most issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been accused of failure of imagination, at times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased? Of course....

I'm a rabid environmentalist who feels that strong measures should be taken to try and prevent and reverse climate change, and even I think this article is obviously one-sided, biased, and has absolutely no place in Wikipedia. I am passionate about my cause, but this sort of vitriolic bias should be stricken from the site. It serves no useful purpose, and only serves to widen the divide between the factions. --Heterodyne (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so passionate about your cause that the only environment-related edit you've made to wp so far is this one, asking that wp not carry information on the proven campaign to obfuscate AGW. ► RATEL ◄ 00:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative

I see that Manscher and Arthur Rubin want to edit-war the word pejorative into the lead of this article without discussion and without citation.diff This word is highly value-laden, and its use compared to the previous studiously neutral language, "...describes efforts to state..." is unjust. It is also unjustified with no citation of any reliable source that applies that term to this subject.

I also note that, just to confuse the discussion we're are going to have to have, they are trying to remove "and disinformation" from a later sentence in the lede. This is despite the fact that that word is used no fewer than four times in the cited source at the end of that sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has commented here, and the lede is still misleading. There is no mention of denialism under Category:Pejorative terms for people, there is no mention of pejorative anywhere in Denialism. There is no reference cited for the use of the word in the lede. And there is no further mention of pejorative anywhere else in this article that the lede is summarising here. It is simply a value-laden and unwarranted distraction where it is in the first line, that confuses the issue before the article even gets started. --Nigelj (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see the objection, if I can suggest you are actually reading it in the opposite way in which I believe it's intended. The word made sense to me solely to clarify that nobody would use this phrase to describe themselves, e.g., this is a phrase used to denigrate a particular group or argument, and not a neutral term for any position. I think it's actually rather necessary to make that point. The point is not supposed to be that anyone who "denies" the significance of anthropogenic global warming is thereby a "climate change denier." Of course this is then difficult in the article, because we say things like "Climate change deniers downplay the significance of global warming," and you say we shouldn't take an editorial position on anyone who does that, but at least if defined correctly I think we're not. (I guess next thing we'll get some denialists in here saying "Hey, I'm offended, I worry a great deal about global warming!") I did try to improve this by pointing out that the term doesn't always refer to "hidden political or financial motives," but ultimately the point is that this article can't just be on the general debate, or it should be merged with the other articles; to be a distinct subject, it has to be specifically focused on the debate about "denialism." It does concern me whether there is sufficient material on that debate itself, although of course that's a slightly different issue. Mackan79 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

'The way I am actually reading it' has no bearing. My point is that labelling the term 'denial' as a 'pejorative' is not supported by any other article on the subject in Wikipedia, nor by any cited source. That 'you think it's actually rather necessary to make that point' first thing in the lede is also entirely irrelevant unless there is considerable support for your view in the reliable sources, which there is not. The use of the term changes the whole slant of the article. What it is about is a denial trend or movement, its possible causes and extent etc as per cited sources. Starting off by stating a personal opinion of one editor that the term itself is a kind of insult to the person so labelled changes what should be a neutral, impartial overview of this type of denial. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you are missing the heavy connotations of the phrase, which I have seen discussed by at least two sources who say the very purpose of this phrase is to draw parallels to Holocaust denial. To say "Climate change denial" is just the rejection of current prevailing views is for that reason incorrect, in my view, and more prejudicial than the way we have it. "Pejorative" is just a word here, incidentally; we could say "critical" or "derogatory" or "accusatory," or any number of other words to note that this is intended as a negative. I think "pejorative" is good. I would certainly be persuaded by sources that describe "denial" just in the neutral sense of skepticism, or even "denying" that there is climate change altogether. This is noted in the second sentence, but I think the first sentence describes the more common use of this phrase. Mackan79 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Peterlewis: Please don't revert-war in the article - please rather join the discussion here.

Attribution

I am paraphrasing some of the quotes in the article, which seem quite overdone. Good and well, I just want to say that people should really be more specific in attributing material to its correct authors. To say that "The Guardian has reported" a particular point, for instance, when in reality it is a piece by George Monbiot extracted from his book, is poor form; that is George Monbiot writing in the Guardian, not a statement from the Guardian itself (it may be with a straight news story that you can attribute it to the paper, but with an extract from a book surely this is not the case). The same is true with Newsweek; I'm not an expert on journalism, but when you have a feature story of this type, I think one should attribute it to the author. Much of the material I am finding is similarly quite imprecise in telling the reader where it came from. This was very much the case with the material taken from John Cushman, that I revised here, which was going back and forth between quotes of the leaked memo and Cushman's representations of it without any clarity as to which was which. When people are concerned about neutrality, or whenever, it's very good to be as clear as possible. Now commence any criticism of my edits. Mackan79 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

fixing refs; ongoing process

• I'm trying to help the refs along to a state of decreased suckiness. At this point, I am correcting only the formatting. Yes I will make mistakes & be inconsistent as I go. I intend to fix things in a process of several steps. Things will be better eventually.
• After the formatting is fixed and we see what we have, THEN we can do fact-checking etc. One thing at a time. • Ling.Nut 06:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"disinformation"

• Hi again Ratel. I was kinda missing you. Hope you're doing well.
• While we're here, please do stop adding crap to the article. It would be very very nice to get it up to encyclopedic standards. It's too late to get it done by Christmas – probably won't even get done by the end of January – but can we consider this one a belated Christmas gift and knock off the editorializing? Thanks so much. • Ling.Nut 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As defined currently in the article, climate change denial is disinformation. --TS 15:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

...which is precisely why the article is POV. Gotta go teach now; will rmv the disinformation part in about four hours. • Ling.Nut 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You could well be right. I'm not comfortable about this article and could be persuaded that it is largely based on speculation. Can we go through the sources and see if anything reliable can be retrieved? --TS 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Th answer is "Yes". I'm busy busy busy in real life. My plan was to do this article little bit by little bit, probably over the next month. In fact, I've been pondering starting a line-by-line review (probably in user space, only to prevent it from getting too messy). I'd be looking for things such as:

1. implicit assumptions
2. circular reasoning
3. Guilt by association
4. Statements by unqualified or patently POV people (see esp. Boxer)

Then I was thinking about posting the final results of my review here on TALK. If you have a plan that seems more effective etc., please do post it here... • Ling.Nut 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[E/C}A good place to start is with Sharon Begley's Newsweek article [2], which is arguably the heart of this article -- we cite it 8(!) times. Tony, why don't you read this and see what you think? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that we are not really sticking to material directly on the topic of "Climate change denial." To fix this I think we need to keep in mind the preliminary question, of what it is that justifies the delineation of a sub-topic in a way that bolsters or attacks a particular point of view within a larger debate. That is generally seen as a POV fork, if, for instance, the article doesn't amount to anything more than "Bad arguments against climate science." The justification I've seen in other contexts is that there is a distinct topic relating to the specific phrase or idea, e.g., people don't just use the argument or phrase in the larger debate, but have analyzed it in depth. But, the obligation remains to avoid a POV fork. This leads to the principle that if you have a concept that bolsters or attacks one side in a debate, but the concept is distinct enough to warrant its own article, it should still be restricted narrowly to the topic of the article, and not allowed to bloat into anything that uses, mentions, or tends to support the idea covered in the article.

To do that, I get the impression we would cover a great deal more controversy over the use of the phrase "Climate change denial," and less of other issues. We have half a dozen sources already disputing the analogy to Holocaust denial, and more than one of these that states the whole point of this phrase is to make that analogy. Our article discusses this in one sentence. We'd need to continue cutting material such as about Cooney's actions under the Bush administration, unless I've missed the reliable sources that discuss this as "Climate change denial" or even "denial." Ideally, the sources should be discussing the concept of denial, and not simply making one-off statements. Per Tony's comment, I think those are the sources, discussing the idea in depth, that should be consulted in deciding whether there is material to support an article. Personally I find it hard to tell, which is why I support continuing to clean up the article so we can get a better view. Mackan79 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of multiple edits removing off-topic and adding topical material

Ratel, your reversion here undoes several edits which are explained quite clearly in the edit summaries. Much of the material that I removed comes from sources that do not discuss any sort of climate change denial; this is a violation of WP:SYNTH, as a reliable source has not "published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" (emphasis added). Some material I added which does relate to this topic, and you removed, such as here. Some of the material is bizarre, as if the United States' largest conservative think tanks decided to question climate change for some money from ExxonMobil (which is not the point Monbiot is making).[3] I have been going through the article in detail, have posted my thoughts on the talk page, and would appreciate if you explain in detail why you have undone each of these edits. Mackan79 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I too am waiting for cogent, point-by-point explanations of these examples of text removal. • Ling.Nut 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This section for any rmvs done by Ling.Nut

• This darn talk page is gonna become a ball of twine as we try to check its refs. From this point on I'm gonna put all rmvs that I do HERE. I'll refactor another one (above) in a couple minutes.

• Here's disinformation for you, though WP:AGF leads me to assert that it must have been unintentional (and thus, merely "misinformation"): "The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial a major topic on its agenda..." Incorrect – unless of course you're willing to delete the word denial. Then it would be correct. But then it would also be irrelevant to this article. Which is why I'm deleting it immediately. I can hear Ratel's footsteps behind me, though... • Ling.Nut 11:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• 'Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."' VanityFair is getting this info from page 34 of "The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription ISBN 0738200255 (Paperback)by Ross Gelbspan. The Gelbspan cite is referring to a quote from the Information Council on the Environment that seems to date from at or near 1991 (not the Global Climate Coalition, which did not exist in 1991). Needless to say, the ICE does not speak for the GCC; the sentence survives by making a tenuous link between the two seem natural and strong. More importantly, though a painstakingly slow parsing of the sentence would suggest that at least one interpretation of its content is that organizations "such as" the GCC have resolved to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," I think the default parsing of this sentence—the meaning that most readers would take away after reading—is that it was in fact the GCC whose literature included that verbiage. RMV as inaccurate; VanityFair does not dictate Wikipedia text (and VF took liberties with Gelbspan).• Ling.Nut 12:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Haven't had time to look this through - but there is at least one error in the above. The Global climate coalition was created in 1989 so it did exist in 1991. () --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  That comment struck through, thanks. But unfortunately it's peripheral at best. • Ling.Nut 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've looked through the data on this - and Gelbspan makes the same connection (several times (for instance here) by linking the GCC and the ICE campaigns. So the text is supported by both VF and G. By the way, this is bordering on original research, so please be careful in drawing conclusions (such as "teneous connection"), and while i agree that the text needs to be correct, care must be taken to stick to what RS's say. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  The text I rmvd is simply sloppy writing. While I think it could be revised to present facts more accurately, the OR is gelbspan's.. and I submit that his research needs to be questioned. The link is not established by flat assertions that are little more than slapping a single label on a number of groups... Do other groups say they want to reposition the conventional wisdom etc.? I doubt it. In short – are we letting gelbspan and VF drive Wikipedia's text on this point? Unquestionably. • Ling.Nut 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Erh? We cannot as editors discount reliable sources on the spurious grounds that we don't like them. Either they are reliable or not. We can on the other hand discount RS's because they are undue weight (regular part of the editing process), but i fail to see an argument for this... In fact as far as i can see the parity of sources do count the GCC and the ICE as pure astro-turf groups with the intent of disrupting regular dissemination of science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Possible effects" and WP:UNDUE

• Quoting McCright, Aaron M. & Riley E. Dunlap. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Social Problems, Vol. 50, No. 3. , pp. 348-373.:

The continuing failure of the United States to participate in international efforts to ameliorate global warming therefore likely reflects a combination of the crescive nature of global warming; the public framing of global warming as a costly, future problem; the institutionalization of the dueling scientists scenario in the media and Congressional hearings; lobbying by the business community; the tepid involvement of the environmental movement and its allies; and the mobilization of the conservative movement to define global warming as "nonproblematic," and therefore policies such as the Kyoto Protocol as unnecessary.

• Does anyone else out there think our "possible effects" and other sections kinda elide the fact that the countermovement is not the only cause of these "possible effects"? That would place it firmly within WP:UNDUE, at least until it is corrected. • Ling.Nut 14:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One of us is misreading WP:UNDUE. The article may be terminally POV, but I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article really creates the impression that, you know, the entire universe will collapse because not everyone is on board with the AGW crowd.. and here's the UNDUE bit... it further presents the viewpoint that not everyone is on board with the AGW crowd solely or principally because of the evil "deniers". Now, common sense suggests that many folks are not on board with the AGW crowd for reasons other than "denialism". In fact, "denialism" is one of many, and may not even be the most important. But I don't see that here. Just saying. • Ling.Nut 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says that no view should be given undue editorial weight. You seem to be more interested in whether or not the view is correct. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's genuinely trying to sort out this mess of an article -- and thanks, Ling.Nut, for taking it on! As for editors' POV -- weel, we all have one, which is why other editors (with other POV's) keep an eye on the thing. Of course, this only works when people are genuinely committed to improving the article... Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ever exagerated too much? Try without the POV interpretation. "evil" has no place in any discussion. "AGW crowd" is a rather stupid derogative, which apparently includes most of the Worlds scientific and political population.

It represents the viewpoint (which is shared in large parts of the literature) that the reason that the US is "standing outside" to a large extent is caused by industry campaigning. Nothing really strange there. There is a very recent precedent for such, which is also presented. That industry by default is inherently conservative towards change that may influence its profit margit, is normal and expected (it is even beneficial to a large extent), the "new" thing (primarily in the US) is that this is being done via disinformation campaigns (which have been documented (fx. GCC and ICE), and not by regular lobbying, and influence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Denial vs. Skepticism

Reading through this section, it's remarkable to find that there is not actually anything on "Denial vs. Skepticism." Is there material that distinguishes between these two phrases?

Or maybe it's just intended to be an overview, as in, "Is it denial, or is it just healthy skepticism?" If so perhaps we should just call it an overview. In either case there is still woefully little material here discussing what makes something "denial," in comparison to the large volume of examples. If the article has merit, it seems this is one of the major discrepancies that needs to be improved. Mackan79 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP and other concerns

I noticed the construction tag and wanted to add some words of caution. This article currently defines its subject as a pejorative. It's fine to have an article discussing a pejorative and the controversy surrounding its use. Applying that pejorative term to a specific organization or person, however, is almost always a matter of opinion, not a question of fact. The only exception I can think of is a final conviction for a crime by a court of law. It may occasionally be appropriate to report use of a pejorative by an otherwise reliable source, but only in the name of that specific source. A pejorative term should not be applied in Wikipedia's voice. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label. Listing organizations (much less living people) under "Instances of climate change denial" would seem to violate that guideline. I would also point out that briefs submitted in a law suit are never considered reliable sources for the facts they aver. --agr (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely. I am attempting to clean up some of this, and encourage you to do the same. I think the point about how we define the topic is especially important; it's something I tried to improve by noting in the lead that the term is sometimes also used without this specifically pejorative intention, simply to mean that someone denies common or scientific views about global warming. These are, after all, three words with generally understood meanings, and by no means exclusively a term of art, which ultimately makes it incorrect for us to assign a purely technical meaning (which then results in the stream of people saying, "hey, I deny this or that about climate change, but I'm not all of that!"). The best way I have found to address that is to acknowledge up front the different ways in which the term is used, and then as you say to attribute all assessments of the term in the body of the article. Mackan79 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

References for use as pejorative

People keep disputing this, when I think the point is pretty clear. Here are a few sources.

• It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers.[4]
• I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action — it illustrates the immorality and potential damage of climate change denial. / Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science.[5]
• Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust.[6]
• I notice in your 'The gathering pace of change’ piece (RSA Journal, February, 8) that the phrase “fear and denial of climate change” is used. It appears to me that it is becoming more and more common to see the term 'denial' and, in particular, the phrase 'climate change denial' used with reference to those who question some of the current scientific thinking in this area. The use of a phrase like 'climate change denial' is particularly worrying since it immediately suggests an analogy with 'Holocaust Denial'. In this way it assigns to any doubt expressed concerning those climatolgy models which advocate ever-increasing, damaging and man-made warming the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust Denial itself.[7]

I am sure the term has at some point been used in a non-pejorative sense; sometimes, as is well known, people even decide to embrace a pejorative used to describe them. Nevertheless, the phrase is a pejorative. It is often used as a pejorative. We have sources for this, so if people want to discuss other ways to write it let's do so with reference to what these and other reliable sources say. Mackan79 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and for your continued diligence in trying to bring some encyclopedic rigor to this miserably-contentious article. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The more appropriate word is that it is sometimes perceived as a pejorative. Most of the sources given above are individual opinions. Please see the various discussions in the archives as well as the lively discussion on precisely this issue in the AfD. Your inference that it is a perjorative is based on incomplete and dubious material - and has a very high chance of being Confirmation bias (add: I agree that it is often used as a pejorative, but it is also used descriptive. And i surmise (without knowledge) that the holocaust link is confirmation bias) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This article itself makes the holocaust link and cites 8 separate sources. --agr (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does - because there are reliable sources that surmise that this is the reason for the wording, and others still dispute it, and i do not think that we have a good RS to determine weight on the issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked the 8 references given in this article. One, to the RSA Journal Feb 08, was a dead link. Six made the holocaust connection. One was a 2006 weblog where the connection was being debated. That's six to one--or unanimous if you remember that weblogs are not considered reliable sources.--agr (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the sources discussing this phrase as a phrase seem overwhelmingly to note the link to the term, "Holocaust denial." I don't think that's surprising, since it's hard to imagine someone discussing the phrase without mentioning the obvious analogies. These are the sources that are talking about why this term is used, what is meant by it, and what it has for connotations, e.g., secondary sources discussing the term. Whether there is confirmation bias I can't say; you suggest there are sources disputing that the term intends to make this link, but I have not seen any sources saying that. I have only seen sources disputing whether the link is legitimate. That isn't to deny, as you suggest, that people may use the word "deny" in any of its recognized meanings when talking about climate change, and I think this is a significant point. Perhaps we could say, "Climate change denial is a phrase, generally pejorative, used to describe views...." Mackan79 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative means "expressing disapproval." The article says, "Climate change denial is a term... used to describe views that attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to hidden financial, political or personal interests." Is that definition correct? (I don't see a source for it.) If it is, can anyone offer an example of where the term is used to say someone is secretly motivated by personal bias in an approving way? Are there any sources documenting its use that way? Does the article itself include any examples of such approving use? If not, can some be added? I'm surprised that this is a point of contention. --DGaw (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, and other online definitions, a pejorative must go beyond "expressing disapproval" "A disparaging, belittling, or derogatory word or expression" - consequently, usage can be neutral, or near neutral in intent, for the term to not be a pejorative in all cases. There is no requirement to find an approving case. Assuming "global warming denial" is an analogue, I offer: Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaymax. The source you cite (Sandman) says he is not using the term "denial" in the sense it is defined in this article (and by the examples included here.) "Nor am I talking about intellectual denial, the position of climate change skeptics and contrarians." He is speaking of psychological denial, which he explains as a different thing. --DGaw (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Indeed. However the two (actively motivated deniers and passive responsive denial, or vv.) are connected, and the article should (I believe) address both. This relates directly to my addition of 'personal reasons' to the unsourced lead definition. (and now to new section below) ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "climate change denial"

The definition of the term and more broadly, the first paragraph of this article, appears to be original research. Does anyone have a reliable source that can provide a neutral, accepted definition of the term? --DGaw (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From the source I gave above (might be helpful)

"So we can distinguish three kinds of global warming denial:

• Strategic denial: I pretend to disagree for reasons of my own – to keep my job, enrich my business, get elected by my constituents, placate my spouse, whatever.
• Intellectual denial: I genuinely disagree (whether based on evidence or based on intuition and mistrust).
• Psychological denial (the focus of this column): I can’t bear to let myself agree; I have a strong cognitive or emotional need to avoid the issue or to be on the other side.

In the real world the three can be hard to distinguish. Most people in psychological denial avoid the issue that gives them pain. But some are unable to push it away, and become scoffers instead … which makes them look like the intellectual deniers, the contrarians. And of course the strategic deniers work hard to look like contrarians. Moreover, the three are sometimes intermixed."

‒ Jaymax✍ 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me from this discussion that the term "climate change denial" is a rhetorical device used mainly in opinion pieces whose meaning varies greatly with the writer. It does not have a single, broadly accepted, reliably sourced definition. I can see value in an article that traces the term's various meanings, but I have great concerns about then going on to describe various organizations and individuals as engaging in climate change denial. In the Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial example cited above by Jaymax, the reusable shopping bag is called a form of climate change denial. Therefore the sections describing specific activities should be moved elsewhere, either to one of the other articles on climate change or a new article, perhaps Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change, a phrase that occurs in the current article and at least has the virtue of being clear.--agr (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the AGW crowd will scream, but ClimateGate must be discussed

• There's a very legitimate reason why Climategate must be discussed. It is germane. This article (in an inexcusably POV manner) tries to make the case that public skepticism is because of those ignorant "denialists". Not so fast -- skepticism has increased tremendously recently, mainly due to Climategate:

Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 40 percent of Americans distrust what scientists say about the environment, a considerable increase from April 2007. Meanwhile, public belief in the science of global warming is in decline.

• While I'm here, the poll info in this article is embarrassingly outdated.
• • Ling.Nut 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a reasonably-current AGW poll at [8] "World concern about climate change has fallen in the past two years, according to an opinion poll..." (OCT 2009 poll). Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil section

I commented the section out since it adds systemic bias and a comment in a court case it not notable for this article. A one line comment if anything may suffice. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the well-documented allegations that Big Oil money has funded much of the climate change denial that we have seen in recent years are fundamental to the topic. What do you mean 'systemic bias'? Are you trying to create an article that is balanced in the sense of saying 'most climate change denial is good denial'? That would be an extraordinary view of lack of systemic bias. I shall revert this blanking of sourced material. If you want to shorten the summary here, considering that the topic is notable enough to have its own entire article, I shall be happy to consider realistic proposals. 'One line' is not reasonable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest pagemove to "Climate change dissent"

• The very title of this article is POV. To wit: Some folks passionately subscribe to the belief in AGW. Some folks do not. The folks who are true believers call the dissenters "denialists". The folks who are NOT true believers... would probably call themselves "skeptics" but perhaps "denialists" would not be as offensive. And the two key points are

1. The term is offensive, and
2. Wikipedia titles its articles based on the terminology of one camp, but not the other. That's the flaming definition of POV.

• I don't know which one is better: pagemove or merge. But if we can't get a merge, then I suggest a pagemove to "Climate change dissent". It accomplishes two goals: it intimates that AGW is conventional wisdom (at this time, and most particularly, among a limited but extremely influential group) and it is non-pejorative. It is not an insult. It is not POV. It could perhaps be an interim solution, with merge as a future option. However, Wikipedia should not indulge in the purple pleasures of POV.
• 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)