Talk:Climate change denial

Until someone comments on the Talk page, I do not see how the {{npov}} template could possibly be appropriate! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is hopelessly POV and out of date

The article is out of date in that it pretends "big oil" and "big coal" are still funding climate research. All of the large firms, stopped funding research a year or two ago. The article is hopelessly POV in that the climate changes all the time. No one seriously denies that, not even "big oil" or "big coal." What is currently being denied by some scientists is that the current alarmism is justified or that the recent warming is predominantly the fault of anthropogenic CO2. These scientists include Pielke, McIntyre, Christy, Shaviv, Svensmark, Akasofu, Kukla, Giegengack and on and on. These guys have never taken money from "big oil" or "big coal." This article is attempting to ridicule a valid scientific position held by some of the most respected and prolific climate researchers on the planet, including professors of climate science at Ivy League schools. Cyrusc has evidently bought into the idea that "the science is settled." Nothing could be further from the truth. The more science that comes out the more we realize that this whole idea has been overblown. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, even according to Phil Jones. The PDO has switched to a cooler mode and South America is currently suffering through the coldest winter it has had in 90 years. And it turns out that a good many of the weather stations in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) are poorly sited due to land use/land ocver changes resulting in an artificial warming bias in the temperature record. See www.surfacestations.org to see some of the pictures for yourself. The weather stations are located right on top of parking lots and next to buildings with a/c exhaust blowing on them. See Instrumental temperature record for more information. The article should be speedy deleted. RonCram 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I recognize any of the other names from your list (and without first names, they might be hard to otherwise identify), but are you seriously suggesting that Stephen McIntyre, "the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited which merged with CGX Energy Inc., an oil and gas exploration company", has never taken money from "big oil"? Provide me with references for the other names on the list, and we'll see if that's equally true for them. I do not dispute that there are laypeople who exaggerate (i.e., misrepresent) the science, and that there is uncertainty in the extent of climate change, but without citations, you're not really helping. If you have more recent material, by all means, present it. As for the surface stations argument, check out the Wikipedia article on Satellite temperature measurements. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that some scientists oppose the consensus on climate change without being funded by major corporations in no way justifies the deletion of this article, which accurately tracks the history of corporate involvement in the claims of certain scientists. Also, if the links between corporations and scientists have been severed (a claim I would dispute, but that's neither here nor there), that doesn't mean the encyclopedia shouldn't record what transpired. By that standard, every historical entry would be "out of date!" Of course credible sources citing the end of corporate/political-funded denial should be included in the article and any innacuracy should be corrected. Finally, Ron's opinion about climate change (like mine) is irrelevant to an entry documenting "a public relations campaign promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining this scientific effort, such as groups with ties to the energy lobby.[1][2][3]"Benzocane 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article clearly presents a non-neutral point of view and should be deleted. Zoomwsu 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is non-neutral about the documented fact of Exxon et al's involvement in denying climate change science? Could you respond to any of the sourced assertions within the entry? Could you please respond to the link provided by Stephan? My hope is that we can move beyond polarization and start addressing the entry itself! Benzocane 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a) The sources (UK Guardian, NY Times, Climate Science Watch) are biased in support of the AGW orthodoxy.

b) The title "deniers" is biased itself, suggesting that Exxon et al's support of AGW critics is not legitimate. Why don't we judge the merits of the arguments and research they support, instead of who is funding it? Exxon's campaign against AGW does not necessarily imply anything underhanded or anti-science, whereas this article implies such nefarious motives. Exxon could simply be bringing to light scientific opinions and research that otherwise would have gone unnoticed were it not for their (admitted) self-interest. Zoomwsu 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a) The original sources for some of the evidence is Exxon itself. Surely that's a reliable source in this case?

b) Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf? After a few dozen demonstrations as to why the science behind denying AGW is faulty, it gets old. Furthermore, once the science is discredited, it is natural to ask, "what were the motives behind publishing faulty data/conclusions?" Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BenHocking, Steve McIntyre never took money for research. He was a hard mineral exploration guy and had very limited contacts with an oil company when he sold out. They never funded his research into climate. Are you saying you have never heard of Roger A. Pielke, John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, George Kukla, Bob Giegengack. [1] Perhaps you need to spend some time reading Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. BenHocking, I do not think of you as intentionally misleading, just as ill-informed. You might also benefit by spending some time reading Global warming controversy and try to spend some time actually understanding some of the issues. You also might spend some time reading this. [2] Earlier studies indicate more than 12% of weather stations are poorly sited and subject to an artificial warming bias of more than 3 degrees. If this is accurate and averaged over the globe, more than half of the perceived warming is an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. SurfaceStations.org is auditing the U.S. network now and then will audit globally. Again, this article is ridiculing some of the leading climate scientists for a valid scientific position. It should be speedy deleted. RonCram 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It´s ironic and funny that the talk page to "Climate change denial" has become such a hotbed of, well, climate change denial. It's safe to say that the contributing authors of the article are familiar with the many sources of disinformation about climate change - hence the article. Envirocorrector 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm "ill-informed" when it comes to certain areas of denial. However, I'm informed enough to know that the criticisms of land surface temperature record are not well-founded, since those records are weighted, and, more importantly are supported by satellite temperature measurements. The Pielke name is somewhat familiar (presumably due to his stance on Global Warming), but the other names mean nothing to me. I suspect that you might benefit from reading more about Global warming and not just about the scientists who think it's not real/not anthropogenic/a good thing/will be fixed by peak oil and/or technological progress. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Point by point with respect to the scientists you mention:

• McIntyre: I find it hard to believe that the president/founder of an oil and gas exploration company had limited contacts with them.
• Pielke: "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Not exactly a climate change denier, then.
• Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
• Shaviv: I have read about his work before, after all, but the name did not stick in my head. This scientist is clearly a skeptic/denier and almost definitely not in the pocket of big oil, etc. Although his theory is unconventional, it should be falsifiable, and in fact, appears to have been falsified. It should be pointed out that contrary to what many in the AGW denial industry claim, Shaviv has received more publicity than he deserves exactly because he is going against the mainstream.
• Svensmark: See Shaviv.
• Akasofu: I'm skeptical that he's a skeptic (although I'm not denying it) since I see no evidence of it.
• Kukla: Similar to Shaviv and Svensmark, he seems to be a bonafide skeptic/denier of global warming.
• Giegengack: More of a skeptic than a denier, if you read what he says in the article you linked. He says Al Gore got the science wrong. Tell me something I don't know. To say that people are exaggerating global warming is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. You have to read the entire article before you can finally find out that he's skeptical about CO2's influence on global warming, and that it doesn't really matter because eventually it would be self-correcting and the world will survive without humans (presumably part of the self-correction is to get rid of humans).

Finally, note that skepticism and denial are two different things, as mentioned in this article. I see four deniers in that list (only one of which has ties to the oil industry), one skeptic, and one unknown. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely one-sided. They are basically making people who disbelieve the GW hype into holocaust-deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.80.87 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit on Dick Cheney

I don't see how the bit on Dick Cheney has to do with climate change denial. From the very definition within this article, "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," the idea that "'unwavering ideological positions' prioritizing economic over environmental interests" led to bad policy do not mesh.

I'm also curious how this article will differentiate between "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," and plain misunderstanding and ignorance surrounding the topic. ~ UBeR 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They are related, in that the former is designed to take advantage of and exacerbate the latter. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you referring to my second question, or Dick Cheney? I reckon "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus . . ." can be used to take advantage and exacerbate misunderstanding and ignorance. But I what I was trying to get at was whether this article will argue that one who is ignorant of the subject is therefore a denier (by this articles definition), because I reckon one needs not to be paid by the oil industry to be confused. Of course, I'm still curious about Dick Cheney. ~ UBeR 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cheney bit needs to be expanded to include information regarding his Energy Task Force and its link to Exxon et al. That will clarify the connection, I think. Benzocane 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, what I get from that article is that the NEPDG met with several large energy companies, suggesting they might have influenced national energy policy. What I get from this article is that Cheney prioritizes economy over environment, which this article argues led to bad environment policy (or at least making the head of the EPA quit). What I don't see is the connection between that and climate change denial. It looks, to me, as if someone just put it in the article to make jabs. Still curious. ~ UBeR 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to why the information was initially included, but assume good faith. If Cheney and/or others knowingly misrepresented scientific concensus -- that is, didn't disagree with the science per se, but misrepresented the agreement of the scientific community itself -- that would fall within the purview of the article independent of a connection to Exxon; but I think you're right, the connection should be clarified, as it exists and is well documented.Benzocane 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane is right about expanding the article and clarifying the connection re: Energy Task Force. I included mention of Cheney because of this passage from the Washington Post describing both his efforts to deregulate emissions and his portrayal of the science regarding anthropogenic carbon emissions and/or warming as remaining in a state of indecision: "The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem." Cyrusc 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And that's precisely what led to my second question. How will this article differentiate between those who deceitfully spread "disinformation campaigns . . ." and those who might be confused on the issue but nonetheless espouse their ignorance. I cannot say whether or not Dick Cheney is the former or latter, but this article fails to make the connection between his prioritizing economics over economy and "climate change denial" as it is defined here. ~ UBeR 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Seems to be textbook WP:SYN. --Childhood's End 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I should note that the current revision that includes the NEPDG meeting with the energy industry makes an even weaker case towards "climate change denial," as defined in this article. ~ UBeR 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some information regarding the link between Cheney's environmental positions and the corporations funding disinformation. Could you explain why it makes a weaker case? Regardless, you ask an interesting question--there is a difference between dissenting from scientific consensus and misrepresenting that consensus. But what Cyrusc has made clear in the article is that Cheney's rhetoric regarding climate change science as being characterized by "conflicting viewpoints" or as existing in a state of indecision is a misrepresentation of the overwhelming consensus, no matter if he dissents from that consensus or not. That's what the article has to differentiate between -- dissent from consensus and the misrepresentation of consensus. Cyrusc does that effectively, I think, but you are right to emphasize the importance of the distinction.Benzocane 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your reply. I think the main argument in the NEPDG bit just recently added is that the energy industry influenced its decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol. One problem here is that the Protocol is a political treaty that, regardless of one's view on climate change, can be dismissed as undesirable. Another problem is that I don't see Cheney making a disinformation campaign. Can one quote that he made ("Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem") really be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? Can Chaney's prioritization of economics over environment, i.e. a rational personal opinion, be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? This is what I'm concerned about. ~ UBeR 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are all smart questions. While this article is mainly about the corporate funded misinformation campaign, it covers any other misrepresentation of the consensus. You're right that one could oppose Kyoto on grounds that do not fall under the purview of the article, but what's relevant here is the link to Exxon. Re: misinformation vs. rational personal opinion: If Cheney were to say "the position of this administration is to dissent from the consensus," that would not be disinformation, but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public. The claim of the UCS etc. is that Cheney et al know dissenting from the consensus is not politically viable, and so they have denied it exists (which is not the same thing as dissenting from the science).Benzocane 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public" Are you hereby proposing that Richard Lindzen, John Christy or for that matter, all the scientists quoted in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming are misrepresenting existing information to the public? Who is the legitimate judge of what is the correct existing information regarding the existence of a consensus? --Childhood's End 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the small minority of dissenting scientists admit there is general consensus, but they depart from it. They disagree with the conclusions of the majority of their peers, but they do not attempt to convince the public that majority doesn't exist.Benzocane 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you must acknowledge that you are mistaken. Perhaps you did not know, but 'majority' and 'consensus' have different entries in every dictionnary (i.e. they're not synonyms). You may want to read [3] or [4] before claiming again that these scientists admit that there is general consensus. --Childhood's End 15:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, consensus doesn't mean unanimous - and the opinion of 2 or 20 doesn't budge a consensus consisting of thousands. --Kim D. Petersen 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose thousands? Got a list of names? And please dont mix up issues Kim. This article is not about the existence or not of a scientific consensus. The issue at hand is to determine whether we can legitimately call "misrepresenting existing information to the public" the fact of denying the existence of a consensus and/or of climate change. As of now, there are a few credible scientists who fall in the basket of making misrepresentations by this article, whereas this article awkwardly tries to support its existence by distinguishing the skeptical scientists' positions from some conspiring organizations' positions. --Childhood's End 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to acknowledge I'm mistaken about the existence of consensus when "the conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by...all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" (quoting Climate change controversy)? Even if -- no matter your reasons -- you want to dissent from that position, the consensus quite obviously exists. Kim is of course correct about the difference between consensus and unanimity. If the latter were the test, we couldn't speak of a consensus re: the roundness of the earth, etc.Benzocane 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "majority" and "consensus" ? If so, please stop this non sequitur and revisit your previous post. As for quoting Wikipedia to support your view that a consensus exists, that might work here, but that would not fly too high before more serious instances. --Childhood's End 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for Benzo, but I do; do you? You don't seem to... Nil Einne 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to re-read Benzocane's edit [5] before posting further such ridiculous rant. But I'd be curious... how do you define 'majority' and 'consensus'? --Childhood's End 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My view can be mostly explained by reading Majority, Scientific consensus & Consensus. As stated, I can't speak for Benzocane. However given that you appear to deny there is a consensus when it comes to climate change, when as benzocane nearly said, even the extremely small minority of scientists who's view differs somewhat from the consensus view don't usually deny that it exists, it appears to me that you don't quite understand what a consensus is which was why I asked... It seems to me that if you are going to get all worked up about whether or not Benzocane understands the difference, you should at least understand it yourself first Nil Einne 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep ranting. As for myself, I acknowledge that you use WP articles to indicate your understanding in such matter. --Childhood's End 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we still talking about Cheney and the NEPDG? ~ UBeR 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Benzocane was arguing that since Cheney denied the existence of the consensus, he is guilty of misrepresenting existing information to the public. I'm trying to show him that if this is the case, Lindzen and other credible scientists would thus also be guilty of such blashpemy. The differenciation between denial and skepticism that this article attempts to make is just falling to pieces. --Childhood's End 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for the Cheney section to remain in the article with the provided information. There isn't anything there showing he allegedly denied anything, he just prioritized. Saying he has been alleged of climate change denial when he has not (as defined) is probably a WP:BLP violation. --Theblog 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One so-called denier's response

I strongly encourage everyone to read PBS Frontline's interview with Dr. Frederick Seitz [6]. My own two cents: The reporter was a bit of a wiener (did I spell that right?), but I might have acted the same way in her position.

Some interesting quotes from Seitz:

"I would say about half of my waking time was devoted to money and the other half to science."

"When money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used, not the old."

"Most scientists are Democrats. I think, what is it, 93 percent?" The Scientist claims that there is a majority [7]. I don't know where '93 percent' comes from.

"As a president, a responsible president, of an institution that can devour enormous amounts of money usefully, I would take any green money for that cause. It's who spends the money that's important. At the same time, I would tell people to stop smoking, as I did."

"Life's a hazard."

"Well, you have to take my word for it."

"Well, I had decided long ago that to support this institution, I would accept almost any money. I don't know whether I would have accepted from Hitler, but that's another matter."

"Oil people are some of my best friends; this institution was created by oil money. When I came here, I was the one who started private contributions. We got lots of oil money then to support this institution."

"Well, if you're going to stop the use of oil, God help you."

"You know, one-third of the public questioned believes that the lunar landing was faked by Hollywood in the Arizona desert. When you have to deal with a population that is at that level, you can expect almost anything, including confusion." This is false. According to Gallup polls, the number is about 6 percent. [8] It was higher in the past.

I think that this article should have an applicable quote from Seitz regarding the allegations against him given that the article currently has a statement from Exxon. Revolutionaryluddite 06:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this give-and-take somewhat revealing:

So you think I'm being influenced by politics and not science?

That's right.

Is it possible that oil money at the George C. Marshall [Institute] influenced positions --

Not a bit, not a bit. ...

This is a theme throughout the interview. He's convinced that the mainstream scientists are influenced by politics and money (i.e., funding), but that institutions he has been in charge of are not influenced by these things. I also found it interesting that "environmentalists ... said [to him] personally, in private, 'I would take your side, but I would cease to be funded if I did.'" I'm just a wee bit skeptical about that claim. I also thought his comments on R.J. Reynolds were somewhat revealing. I second your comment that it's an interview worth reading. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that this article should use any of Seitz's statements from the interview (with proper context of course)? Revolutionaryluddite 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Most of his comments require quite a bit of context to fully appreciate, IMO. If either "side" tried to pare it down to just the "necessary" context, it'd probably be labeled as POV by the other. I don't feel strongly about not including it, though. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most of his comments require quite a bit of context to fully appreciate"-- No fooling, although I really like "Life's a hazard" (I put it on my user page). Still, it just seems unfair that the article gives Exxon a chance to reply to their critics and does not do the same for Seitz. Revolutionaryluddite 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I just want to follow on your previous post. Claims such as those made by Seitz above make us feel skeptical at first sight, but there's plenty to dig provided one cares to investigage the point he makes. You can get a glimpse there but that really is the tip of the iceberg. Since a lot of material taken from Global warming controversy is reproduced and developped here, I wonder if that would not be a sound exercise of neutrality to develop herein this part as well as a counter-claim or criticism of the denial theory.

Note that I may not see your answer as I removed this page from my watchlist. --Childhood's End 13:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As for quotes that could easily be taken wrong out of context, this one is the winner: "I would say about half of my waking time was devoted to money and the other half to science." I've heard from more than one department chair that this is their primary complaint about taking that job. This statement is an unfortunate truth at that level, regardless of what field you're in. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News' Brit Hume in denial

Check it out: Man-Made Global Warming Links Challenged. Thank God for Wikipedia. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article, but it's really not that big of a deal-- some skeptics' small attempts to push back at the global warming public relations machine. Anyway, I strongly think Wikipedia has a long way to go before ordinary people will start being glad it exists. Revolutionaryluddite 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problem, of course, is that Brit Hume isn't funded by the oil or energy industry. That's the problem with this article. It treats scientific skepticism with the same regard as ignorant "skepticism" so long as there is no connection with ExxonMobil et al., in which case it would be labeled "climate change denial." ~ UBeR 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Brit Hume is an honest, responsible journalist; he's just reporting that some global warming skeptics, not 'deniers' as defined by this article, are doing what they can to combat the recent media blitz. I do agree that parts of this article are embarassingly POV. Revolutionaryluddite 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to get out of here for tonight, but I want to say "i love it!". Kenosis is apparently in denial of Revolutionaryluddite's denial of Brit Hume's denail of denialsim of being denialistically accused of being in denial about responsible journalism. Thankfully, the notion of "denial", like the notion of "pseudoscience", depends on denial of something a bit more specific than "I deny what that person said". Indeed the WP standard is a great deal more specific than the aforementioned [ (a) gobbledygook - (b) confusion - (c) revolutionary ludditism - (d) Kenosisism - (e) Brit-Humism - (f) ______________ (enter a brief essay in the space provided or on an attached page) ] ... Kenosis 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Category: Denialism Redux

Since the category has survived deletion, is there an editorial consensus that 'climate change denial' should be considered 'denialism' like 'holocaust denial' and so listed? Revolutionaryluddite 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree I'm pretty sure it was pretty much the archetype for the creation of that category (although not the archetype of denialism itself). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I see your point, but I'll go along with whatever the majority thinks. Revolutionaryluddite 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a majority of two is still a majority. Revolutionaryluddite 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Denialism in the introduction

Yes, 'climate change denial' is denialism by that article's definition. But why does the term have such prominence? Why can't it mentioned in the pertinent section-- 'denial verses skepticism'? I know that since 'denialism' is a neologism, it should be probably given a brief discription; most readers are completely unfamiliar with it. But other 'denialist' articles such as AIDS reappraisal and young earth creationism don't describe 'denialism' like this one does. Revolutionaryluddite 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference is that for those other categories there's no claim of a distinction between a skeptic (loosely, one who isn't sure) and a denialist (loosely, one who's sure it isn't). There are few notable people, for example, who aren't sure whether evolution happened or not. (Agnostics on this issue rarely make waves.) That said, the last sentence in the lede could be removed, IMO. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just read the introduction I am struck by this comment, "While the terms 'climate skeptic' and 'climate contrarian' generally refer to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy... " I don't believe that that is at all the case. The terms "skeptic and "contrarian", in the area of GW debate, are pretty much interchangable with "denialist". 4.246.206.105 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A skeptic is someone who hasn't yet made up their mind. For example, one could argue that Lindzen is a skeptic and not a denialist since he does not state that humans are not responsible for global warming, but merely states that he's not convinced that the evidence for it is convincing. As for "contrarian", I'm not sure what the distinction is myself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrarian at least in James Hansen's work - is the same as this pages definition of denialist. (i'lkl find a link). He differentiates between sceptics and contrarians. --Kim D. Petersen 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) link :) --Kim D. Petersen 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So then, perhaps that bit that 4.246.206.105 mentions should be reworked to "While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, the terms 'climate contrarian' and 'climate change denial' usually refer 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." What do you and/or others think? (On a tangential note, what's up with the single quotes? Why not double quotes or italics?) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In re-reading that, it doesn't flow right. "Climate contrarian" does not refer to a disinformation campaign. The phrase should probably just be dropped altogether. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'Contrarian' has been used to describe several scientists also known as 'skeptics'-- see John Christy and the Wikipedia definition of 'contrarian'. Revolutionaryluddite 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then dropping it altogether is probably for the best, as apparently it can mean skeptic or denialist depending on who is using it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Still though, Hansen's statement is the first time I've seen/heard/read the term 'contrarian' used as a synoymn for 'denialist'. Revolutionaryluddite 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Benhocking, that's a good point; this article makes a distinction between 'skeptic' and 'denier' that others don't. But why not put dicussion of Denialism in the relevant section rather than in the introduction? "There are few notable people, for example, who aren't sure whether evolution happened or not."-- What about Peter Hitchens? Revolutionaryluddite 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In reading what is attributed to him, he sounds more like someone who is trying to pretend to be skeptical but who already has his mind made up. Thus, he fits the definition of a denialist and not a skeptic. (Yeah, yeah, this could be called WP:OR or WP:SYN, but I'm not putting this onany article page.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that he just doesn't want to decide one way or the other because it's not an issue that he cares about. Revolutionaryluddite 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The chronic use of 'single quotes' is a personal preferance of mine. I guess that have a small, subconsious bit of animus twoards the shift key. [9] Revolutionaryluddite 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed "It is a form of denialism-- the rejection of views that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence by governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes." from the introduction. The statement makes no logical sense whatsoever when juxtoposed with the later sentence "Several Op-Ed commentators have argued that the 'denier' and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial.". Revolutionaryluddite 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If these different terms are kept maybe someone can categorize the professional doubters [10] into "skeptics", "contrarians", and "deniers". Of course there are shades of these too. For example you can have genuine skeptics and then there are the phony ones who are "skeptical" for reasons having to do more with trying to create an aura of unbiased objectivity for the purpose of creating doubt in the public consciousness. Contrarians and deniers are pretty much the same people I suspect. I suppose a denier can be genuine though. Contrarians probably more describes the Exxon crowd. Still I've seen the terms used interchangably on the net (including Wikipedia) and that is probably how most people see it. Another point, the term "skeptics" also includes popular but non-scientific people and groups [11]. Perhaps there should be a delineation for those vs those with scientific credentials. By the way, it's kind of funny and telling that the only major "scientific" organization that opposes the science of AGW is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists [12]. 4.246.203.148 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of sourcing. 'Skeptic', 'doubter', 'dissident', and so on are neutral while 'denier' and 'denailist' are blatantly pejorative. I've only came across the term 'contrarian' as a synoymn for 'denialist' once-- the Hansen interview. Where else has it been used that way? Revolutionaryluddite 06:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (I freaking love 'single quotes'.)

Lots out there. Here's some examples: "The fourth witness to testify was Jeff Kueter, President of the Marshall Institute, one of the most active and visible industry-funded global warming contrarian/denialist policy groups inside the Beltway." [13]. Another "The 'contrarian' view on global climate change has a number of different arguments. Some of them deny that any warming is taking place..." [14], "In recent years, a small number of vocal climate "contrarians" have energetically worked to distort, deny, and suppress the growing scientific consensus over the risks of climate change" [15], "However, there are those who deny that climate change is happening at all. We don’t hear much from these people. Climate change contrarians say their lack of a voice is all part of the conspiracy and so in many cases they have banded together."[16] etc. see also WM's [17]. Here they are all equated [sceptic/contrarian/denialist][18]. Lots of equating of these terms on blogs too. Seems that others are also wrestling with these terms [19] comments section.

To expand on my prior comments, maybe further delineation could be made between scientific deniers on the industry payroll and those which aren't (if any). I suggest calling the former "professional skeptics". 4.246.203.52 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The second article you cited describes every scientist in disagreement with the consensus as 'denialist'. "The “contrarian” view on global climate change has a number of different arguments. Some of them deny that any warming is taking place; others admit that it is, but dispute the cause and the rate of warming. Some say it is an honest mistake within the scientific community, while many others say it is either a hoax or some other kind of intentional exaggeration. Either way, most of the contrarians” agree that global climate change is a pseudoscientific tactic by pushed alarmists, and that it can be compared to “global cooling” and eugenics. They see themselves, by contrast, as the honest scientists who have the courage to speak out against the prevailing notions." Even someone like Roger_A._Pielke would be considered 'denialist' under this definition. The third article does the same thing. "In recent years, a small number of vocal climate "contrarians" have energetically worked to distort, deny, and suppress the growing scientific consensus over the risks of climate change. These contrarians use public forums and opinion pieces as their principal avenue of communication, rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals. And recently, they have become more aggressive at trying to silence anyone who challenges their "theories" about climate change." It also never mentions the terms 'denier' or 'denialist'-- just using the abstract term 'deny' once. The third article is an opinion piece from a University student-run newspaper which includes silly phrases such as "The good guys wear white sunhats" and "Meet the sceptics, a modern Stone Age family". The next three citations are from blogs; please review WP:SPS. Look, has the term 'contrarian' been specifically linked to 'denialist' by Newsweek, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, or a news report like that? Revolutionaryluddite 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, as I said before "I've seen the terms used interchangably on the net (including Wikipedia) and that is probably how most people see it". IOW, no one has created an 'official' definition of these people yet, so it doesn't matter what big media wants to call them. The terms as they are used and known by both average people and professionals alike are pretty much interchangable. Note for example that WP itself includes all of them under the umbrella of "skeptic" here [20]. Anyway, the fact that people are not sure what specifically to call them and the fact that they come in different shades of conviction implies that perhaps they ought to be categorized so that it will be clearer where they stand. I suppose that could go for proponents of AGW science too. I'm not sure why you're refering me to WP:SPS. Anyway, it's just a suggestion. 4.246.206.127 00:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the terms used interchangably on Wikipedia; I'm not sure why you brought up Category:Global_warming_skeptics given that it doesn't mention the terms 'contrarian' or 'denialist'. I'm sure that the many average people and many parts of the blogosphere have made the connection, but I've read the term 'contrarian' and 'skeptic' used as symoymns by third party news reporters [21], pro-global-warming partisans [22], and anti-global-warming partisans [23] [24]. Of course, the linking of the term 'denialist' with anything-- 'creationist', 'contrarian', 'AIDS revisionist', or 'anti-psycatrist' -- is a completely subjective judgement call. It's a boolean decision; how many people make the connection? Right now, Google has only 46,100 hits for contrarian+denialist. Revolutionaryluddite 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why you brought up Category:Global_warming_skeptics given that it doesn't mention the terms 'contrarian' or 'denialist'". Okay, look at the list. Is there anyone there that you would categorize as contrarian or denialist? Now, notice how they are all called "skeptics" by WP? Only 46,100? Gosh that's NOTHING! 4.246.206.127 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Look, has the term 'contrarian' been specifically linked to 'denialist' by Newsweek..." Absolutely, and it's even in this WP article. Note that the title of the Newsweek article is "The Truth About Denial". Now notice this paragraph, "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists.... (they hate being called deniers)" [25]. 4.246.206.127 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading the The Truth About Denial article again, I see that it uses the term 'contrarian' twice while primarily using 'doubter' and 'naysayer'. The article's first use of 'contrarian' is clearly meant to be sarcasm. As far as Category:Global_warming_skeptics, it's meant to be a blanket category covering a large group of people, a guide. My point in bringing up Google is that the term 'contrarian' has been used a lot and generally in a non-pejorative way-- 'contrarian' has 2,550,000 hits-- while 'denier' and 'denialist' are undisputably negative and are rarely used-- 'denialist' has 125,000 hits and "climate change denier" has 20,700 hits. In any rate, if you just want to strike out the word 'contrarian' from the introduction, that's fine with me. Revolutionaryluddite 02:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I count four times. Note also this, "In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers...". Anyway this is a bit of a silly debate. 4.246.202.102 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It has gotten silly, hasn't it? Looking back at the sentence, I agree with Ben Hocking that the term 'climate contrarian' should probably be dropped from the article. Revolutionaryluddite 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect of Climate Change Denial (2)

The article currently includes the quotes "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. [...] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." and "...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing." The Newsweek article that included these quotes argues that the American people oppose actions to mitgate global warming, and that the reason they do so is because of efforts by the 'denial machine'.

I included this paragraph:

American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45% think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42% think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, even though 56% "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants".[37] A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64% would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research.[38] Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard." [39]

in response to Newsweek's claims to provide editorial balance. The paragraph may be too long, but I don't see how it can be called "irrelevant" if the Newsweek quotes are relevant. Revolutionaryluddite 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, the whole section is honestly a mess and needs a complete rewrite. I will at least rename the section now while I think about it. --Theblog 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, my opinion is that this and the two paragraphs preceding it do not belong on this page since it is supposed to be about climate change denial. Maybe a new page can be created, Climate Change Solutions. 4.246.204.207 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Newsweek article that this page is based on made the claims cited in this section. As much as I would like to have the whole section removed, these are their arguements and it makes no sense to list some of them in this page with ignoring other ones. Revolutionaryluddite 06:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Salmon

The section:

The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:

Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991-2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?"[28]

The source is a blog which violates WP:BLP find another source or delete it. Additionally, the information doesn't even fit the definition of denial given in the article. --Theblog 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Cheney' stuff has been debated earlier in the talk page. Personally, I agree with you that the section doesn't add much to the article and should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal experiance is that Wikipedians become extremely snippy when another user posts at the end of an earlier thread that's over two weeks old or so because they believe it's a underhanded trick to get the last word. Revolutionaryluddite 04:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, will repost below. --Theblog 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How is Climate Science Watch a blog? It's part of GAP, it's a non-prof with institutional status, etc. How is this a violation of BLP? Revolutionaryluddite is correct--your edit strategy does risk coming across as underhanded. I AGF, but don't think this is the way to encourage that assumption.Benzocane 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a self published source, same thing according to WP:BLP. Its pretty much in a blog format. I also hereby notify everyone that I added a comment to the Cheney section above apparently falsely thinking that we didn't need new sections every 2 weeks. I have since also added the comment and the Cheney quotes below for easier access and to clear up all questions of underhandedness. Thank you both for your lessons on wikiedicate. --Theblog 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" --Theblog 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it looks like "blog format" to you -- and how is this the case? You mean it's a web page? -- is hardly justification for deletion. Also, by what standard is this self-published? The regulations re: self-published materials have to do with an editor publishing a book out of his basement and citing it as a source, not an institution -- no matter what you think of its conclusions -- posting its research on a web page. Also, have you identified any inaccuracies in the quoted material?Benzocane 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its self published, the article itself doesn't list the author. Why? Because its one guy running the whole shebang, I quoted the relevant information from WP:BLP regarding self published sources which hold for institutions, it makes no distinction. Regardless, in the actual article itself there is nothing that fits the definition of denial. Perhaps you could point out where it is? You are trying to prove he meets the following threshold: "Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data." (Also not good is the editor trying to show this, instead of some other source saying this) --Theblog 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a partisan source with a self-published source. While care should be taken about information referenced to partisan sources - they are not covered under SPS. Whats your evidence for it being a "one guy runs the whole shebang" institute? As far as i can see its a legitimate think-tank/lobby group - surely partisan - but not an SPS. Why btw. are you invoking WP:BLP? This is not a biography of a living person page. (i presume you meant WP:SPS). --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Benzocane about GAP's websites being in "blog formats"; that indicates a lack of imagination on the part of their computer guys rather than any kind of editorial statement. However, Benzocane, WP:AGF is a rule, not a friendly guideline. The fact that it is regularly disgarded like clockwork has been a source of undying frustration for me. Revolutionaryluddite 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If its not self published, why is there no author listed on the article? --Theblog 05:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its important to keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to this section and we must follow it. This section is not at all balanced, we have zero responses by the people in the article or people representing them. --Theblog 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Climate_change_denial#Dick_Cheney. While the section is obviously unbalanced, I think that the GAP referance-- as a statement made a group of people-- should stay in the article. Wikipedia tends to use blogs quite a bit if they meet specific WP:BLP exceptions; see Real Climate. Revolutionaryluddite 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that the site is not self published. I still believe there are issues with the entry as related above. Real Climate does not meet WP:BLP in any way, but that is another issue. --Theblog 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Real Climate does not meet WP:BLP in any way, but that is another issue." And all the air suddenly rushed out the room, and the other users slowly began to raise their heads to offer their jilted glaces at Theblog... Revolutionaryluddite 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Most institutions release statements or reports or news without primary authors. They're quoted all the time across Wikipedia and have nothing to do with BLP! Revolutionary, I share your sentiment about AGF.Benzocane 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

This:

In 2007, the Washington Post's four-part examination of Dick Cheney's powerful role in the White House alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" prioritizing economic over environmental interests [1] had led to significant conflict regarding greenhouse gas emissions standards

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. ... And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem."[25]

Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby and to ExxonMobil in particular have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry."[citation needed] In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies. [26] Exxon was also personally thanked by the White House for advising President Bush on the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists

In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’"[27]

There is no reason for this Cheney section to remain in the article with the provided information. There isn't anything there showing he allegedly denied anything, he just prioritized. Saying he has been alleged of climate change denial when he has not (as defined) is probably a WP:BLP violation. Additionally, there are some inaccuracies which I will correct shortly. --Theblog 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing and wording is horrible; I'll try to edit this. Revolutionaryluddite 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just delete it and I wouldn't complain. I've spent some more time looking at the sources and I still don't see a link- its not like there is a shortage of negative material on Cheney out there either, if you can't find something clear it shouldn't be in here. --Theblog 05:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, please complain. I'm rather tired of seeing articles undergo drastic changes without any explanation given whatsoever. I'm considering rewriting the first paragraph to:

The Washington Post reported in June 2007 that Vice President Dick Cheney "has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests." The article also alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" and "deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy" influenced a Bush administration "pro-business drive to ease regulations". In autumn 2001, the admnistration contemplated changing a regulatory portion of the Clean Air Act called "New Source Review" that required older power plants "to install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in a way that increases emissions." Energy industry officials argued that the Environmental Protection Agency had applied the program to "routine system maintenance and repair activities" and impeded "safe, reliable, and affordable electricity." The Post stated that the administration's changes instigated in August 2003 "allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls." The Vice President had previously argued that "The aim here is efficiency, not austerity" and "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

The second paragraph should mention [26] and [27]. The description of the recent Supereme Court decision is factually incorrect. It was a split 5-4 decision on technical legal grounds. The fact that the administration is currently taking action against climate change [28] should also be included as a counterpoint for the third paragraph. Revolutionaryluddite 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless this paragraph can actually be linked directly to one of the references that cover this subject directly (ie. climate change denial) - then it should go (as speculative) - since if falls somewhat outside of the articles topic. This is not a article about Exxon (or other fossile fuel companies) lobbying, to get influence. While climate change denial may be tightly coupled to lobbyism - the reverse is not the case, ie. That lobbying on a particular position on climate change issues by necessity is climate change denial. --Kim D. Petersen 13:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific - such discussions on action/non-action should in general go into Politics of global warming or Global warming controversy. It is only where we have a direct linkage (via reliable secondary sources) to climate change denial, that we should/can mention it here. Otherwise we do end up with something close to a WP:POV fork of either article. If information from either of the two articles (or others) should be provided here as background, then it should be a WP:SUMMARY of the relevant articles - and clearly marked as such. --Kim D. Petersen 13:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But it seems that this is indeed the case (that its linked) - the Rolling Stone article cites this particular concern as its first page introduction into the subject:

.... But a new investigation by Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove. An examination of thousands of pages of internal documents that the White House has been forced to relinquish under the Freedom of Information Act - as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration scientists and climate-policy officials - confirms that the White House has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.

--Kim D. Petersen 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Petersen, I don't understand at all why you think that the paragraph violates WP:NPOV. I do see your point about the questionable relevence of the 'Cheney' section in an article specifically about 'climate change denial'. Still, I think that editing the section is a much better idea than wholesale deletion. Revolutionaryluddite 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all - i wasn't saying that the paragraph or section was POV (POV-forks do not necessarily violate WP:NPOV). I was saying that: If this controversy wasn't directly linked to climate change denial - then it should be moved to the appropriate article. I've since then found that the Rolling Stone article does link it, and thus making my own complaint mute. --Kim D. Petersen 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see; I misunderstood your referance to WP:POV fork. Anyways, I've edited the section. Revolutionaryluddite 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are going the other way than I was thinking Revolutionaryluddite. What I would really like to see is the section in list form with something along the lines of:

X was accused of climate denialism (or whatever term we're calling it) by Y for his involvement/role/comments in Z situation.

We don't really have anything good right now, its all just innuendo and not completely on topic. For example:

Rolling Stone has speculated that Dick Cheney has promoted climate denialism due to his 2000 Energy Task Force which favored energy companies over environmental group's concerns.

Or something along those lines with maybe another sentence of details and leave it at that (yes I know I broke my own format suggestion, but thats the best I could come up with quickly, right now I'd say at least 50% of the stuff in the entire section is off topic. It should be clear that the person was alleged of this and then detail when or how it came about, it shouldn't take 4 paragraphs of innuendo that don't really do a good job of spelling stuff out. --Theblog 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Invoking the C option

The proposed sentence in Ben Hocking's sandbox "Several Op-Ed commentators have made the comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial,[6][7][8][9][10] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[1][2][3][4][5]" makes more sense compared to the sources than the current wording. Revolutionaryluddite 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "Several Op-Ed commentators and environmental activists have equated 'climate denial' and 'climate denialism' with 'holocaust denial', [6][7][8][9][10] whereas others have decried those comparisons as hyperbolic and inappropriate. [1][2][3][4][5]" Revolutionaryluddite 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the section. Revolutionaryluddite 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Users

Has user 'Childhoodsend' been blocked from editing this article? If so, why exactly? Also, how does Wikipedia's blocking-of and removal-of process work? I ask because, honestly, I'm paranoid about being removed myself. Revolutionaryluddite 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that i know of. And don't be paranoid :-) --Kim D. Petersen 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been barred from editing two Wikipedia pages already-- Denialism and Category:Denialism. I admit that I do have feelings of 'sour grapes'. Logically speaking, though, I don't understand why a user that's barred from one or more pages can still edit other pages. After all: falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. If a user is grossly incompetent or deliberately malicious, why give them the opportunity to damage other pages? Revolutionaryluddite 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (To be clear, I'm not angry about being barred, more like frustrated-- I am human after all. I must also admit that I made some rather stupid mistakes.)

I have numbered two headings that were identical in name "Effect of climate change denial" since it seemed to be screwing things up. 4.246.206.127 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more confusing for me now. Revolutionaryluddite 02:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have been barred from editing any article. There are very few mechanisms for this - little short of an ArbCom decision. And no, CE has not been blocked, either, as you can see here. Blocking is a technical measure. It stops users from editing anything but their own user talk page. See WP:BLOCK. It is, currently, an all-or-nothing option. A ban is by community consensus or ArbCom. It can in principle been very finely tuned. In practice, it's usually either for a small set of articles, or for Wikipedia in total. It has no technical implementation, but may be enforced by blocks. There is no reason to be paranoid. --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay; after reviewing the pages I see the differance between WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Revolutionaryluddite 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, I chose to stop my participation to this article (although I did participate to Ben Hocking's sandbox) but Raul654 and others did try to have me banned. I still maintain that as long as this article will attempt to present 'climate change denial' as something that is true or factual rather than some theory, I think it is hoplessly POVed. I also think that it looks bad on those supportive of this kind of news, what suits me fine, but it also looks bad on Wikipedia, what is quite unfortunate. When an article needs to start off with words like "are believed to be acting out of vested interests", "usually refers to" or "alleged to be promoted and funded by", you cannot ignore that you're walking into speculation territory, but I felt quite alone in my camp, like some mere contrarian, and thus decided to leave this article to its promoters. --Childhood's End 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone, my friend. Zoomwsu 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if you are skeptical about "climate change denial"--funny that those who are skeptical about climate change deny there is denial--that doesn't mean it's not notable, as evinced by countless articles and the use of the phrase in various discourses, and it certainly doesn't make it POV. What's interesting about your above objections is that the language you criticize is carefully phrased to avoid asserting there is no room for skepticism (even though, given the sources, I'm nt sure what you base your skepticism upon--but that's another conversation). What's been troubling about the debates--particularly surrounding the early days of this entry--is how certain editors have conflated their personal beliefs with arguments against notability and assertions of POV. Anyway, I never supported banning you, as you seem to abide by concensus, ultimately.Benzocane 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "funny that those who are skeptical about climate change deny there is denial" — I don't think it's odd at all. If you think that the consensus of scientists are wrong about global warming or if you think that consensus is invented, then it makes perfect sense to believe that there is no denial. If the scientific consensus were that the Earth were flat, then you'd have a hard time seeing denial in the idea that it were round — even if that POV were being mostly advocated by people who had something to gain from that idea. Now, don't get me wrong — I don't think the consensus of scientists are wrong about global warming (and I do think there is such a consensus), but to deny denial when you are skeptical about such things seems logically consistent and not odd at all. (OTOH, it's also possible to be skeptical and realize that some fossil fuel companies are spending a lot of money in fighting the consensus.)

I think this is an important point in trying to assume good faith. There are people posting here who (to us) seem quite out of touch with reality and as if they have been manipulated by the denialism campaign. However, I think that most of these people genuinely believe what they claim to believe — and some of them are even open to changing those beliefs when exposed to new evidence. That doesn't mean that we should allow them to distort Wikipedia to reflect their own beliefs (AKA POV), but it does mean that we should remember that they are humans, too. If they make an edit that we disagree with, we should tell them why we disagree with it (which might be by simply pointing them to a prior conversation on it) and not simply revert it — although the telling them why might coincide with such a reversion, depending on the case. (Note: I am definitely not claiming that you, Benzocane, have been guilty of assuming bad faith. This second paragraph is not directed at you, but at some of the behaviors I've witnessed in general.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree with you about AGF. But the problem I've had with the denial of denial is that it has primarily come from a gut feeling, not sources. As you'll recall, it required an immense amount of energy to protect this article from editors who simply claimed every one of its sources was biased because they didn't agree with the content of those sources. I believe these editors believe what they claim, but the beliefs of particular editors should not determine Wikipedia content--notable facts from credible sources should always carry the day.Benzocane 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am again flaggerbasted by such POV-based arrogance ("it required an immense amount of energy to protect this article from editors who simply claimed every one of its sources was biased because they didn't agree with the content of those sources"). I did not "disagree with the content of those sources" as you put it (disinformation anyone?). I said that I disagree with an article that is based on the assumption that global warming is a fact rather than a theory, something that even the IPCC would not say. I also said that I disagree with the creation of an encyclopedic article about a topic which exists almost exclusively within partisan sources. This point has not been accepted, and I then pointed out that this article has POV problems due to the fact that it implies that many claims it makes are verified facts rather than speculation, especially with regard to other people's intentions. That's about it, but hey, you're free to believe what you want. --Childhood's End 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

White wash attempt again

I see that the recent changes to the intro removed any mention of Climate change denial being a form of denialism, which it is. In fact, it's one of the most notable forms of denialism currenty. Not only did the changes move mention of denialism out of the intro but out of the article altogether, reducing it a link in the See Also section. That simply will not do. The same changes also implied that the only climate change denialists were in industry, whereas in actuality governments and individuals are as well. Any accurate and complete article on the topic of Climate change denial is going to need to reference the aspect of denialism front and center. We've had trouble with OR and misrepresenting sources at the denialsim article from editor who made these changes to the article, so we're going to need to carefully review changes are made for accuracy and pov in the future. Odd nature 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature - its not white wash. Its keeping within the constraints of what the reliable sources (several) say. You may have a different opinion - and think that this is broader than this - but then you will have to come up with the equally reliable sources that make the specific connection/widening of the subject that you think is correct (and from what i've glanced at references in denialism - that will take quite a bit of work). --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming Climate change denial is not a form of denialism? I've read the sources. Have you? Odd nature 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - i've read the sources. I've also noted that most of them are primary sources, Op-Ed's and self published sources. As a side-note: i would probably vote delete if an AfD came up about the denialism article as it currently stands, based on the article having no secondary sources to define the subject - and link the subjects. It seems to me to be WP:OR based upon a common word "denial". --Kim D. Petersen 06:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs needed

Citations needed for the following two claims:

• the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy
• 'climate change denial' usually refers to willful denialism

They are not supported by the four citations at the end of the intro. Iceage77 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the sources at Denialism and then read WP:NPOV Making necessary assumptions and tell us again that they are unsupported. Odd nature 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy: The section used to say "terms 'climate skeptic' and 'cimate contrarian'", and I changed it when reliable sources were presented indicating that the term 'contrarian' may have ambiguous meaning. I changed the inaccurate, POV-worded phrase "'climate change denial' usually refers to willful denialism" to "it has been accused of being a form of denialism". It has been by columists like this one [29] although none of the sources currently cited in the sentence right now does that. At the same time, I'm mindful of 'synthesis' and 'undue weight' here. I don't think the fact that some political activists have accused 'climate change denial' of being 'denialism just like holocaust denial' is particularly notable in the context of this article (It's important in the context of the denialism article). I think that the article as it is right now is a reasonable compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

POV: environmental propaganda

I've returned POV. This article is absolutely outrageous POV. It is like written from the servers of an ecoterrorist movement. All comments in this text are plain lies. It is neither true that the oil corporations fund people who are called in this way nor it is true that it would matter.

This article should honestly explain that the term "climate denier" is used by radical environmental activists to insult honest but inconvenient people, including scientists, by associating them with holocaust denial. Everything else is absolutely unacceptable at Wikipedia and contradicts every single rule of this encyclopedia. --Lumidek 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Iceage77 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Sounds like an opinion to me. Have a neutral, reliable source for that? Odd nature 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you replaced an intro that was accurate and neutral and supported by 4 significant and neutral sources with one that was neither neutral nor sourced:

Climate change denial is a special term for the scientific approach to the questions about the so-called global warming. The term replacing the previous term global warming skeptic was invented by the ecoterrorist movement in order create connotations with the Holocaust denial.

Then you slapped a POV tag on the article when your changes removed. Your intro read like a personal opinion. Do you even have a single reliable and neutral source to attribute it to? Because if not, your use of the POV tag is completely unwarranted. Odd nature 20:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ecoterrorist--that's a new low. This article has already been vetted by the community. It's sources are unchallenged. It easily beat back an attempt at deletion. Please prove this assertion prior to altering the body of the text: "All comments in this text are plain lies." Iceage, although we've never agreed about these issues, I'm surprised to see you "couldn't agree more" with such an irresponsible post. I thought you respected Wikipedia process more than that!Benzocane 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on Lumidek, you are ignoring all the talk and work that has gone into this. If you think it is POV, substantiate your claims with sources that provide new information or challenge the current sources! Simply adding the POV tag without evidence or real argument is, well, POV. SlipperyN 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I qualify as an eco-terrorist then. I'll have to trade in my Armani suits and italian loafers for cargo shorts and birkenstocks. Gotta love these name-callers. In lieu of facts, call 'em a name. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean like "climate change deniers"? Iceage77 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Voilà... --Childhood's End 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(new indent)

Lumidek,

Wikipedians have steadily and cooperatively raised the standard of debate here by refocusing discussion, time and again, on the relationship between claim and evidence. If we've achieved consensus on one thing, it's that the encyclopedia is founded on reliable, published sources. You're of course welcome to express your opinion here on the talk page without backing up your claims--those directly at odds with the article's own abundantly sourced claims would include:

• This article is absolutely outrageous POV.
• It is like written from the servers of an ecoterrorist movement.
• All comments in this text are plain lies.
• It is neither true that the oil corporations fund people who are called in this way nor it is true that it would matter.

But please don't act on any of these opinions until you can bring reliable, published evidence to bear against material that has already withstood increasingly rigorous, as I said, debate. Cyrusc 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lumidek's POV tag is entirely unwarranted. This article has been extensively debated and amended by the community, as Lumidek could see if s/he bothered to consult the documentation on this talk page. The sources cited in the article are reputable, the claims notable, and the article as a whole meets encyclopedic standards. Unless Lumidek can supply reputable NPOV sources for his/her claims on this talk page, we are forced to view his/her actions not simply as POV, but as plain vandalism. Sea.wolf4 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Op-Ed commentators"

This passage "Several Op-Ed commentators have argued that the 'denier' and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial.^{[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]}" contained 7 sources allegedly supporting the intent to equate the former with the latter to its detriment. A careful reading of those source though reveals that all of the sources but two are being misused. Only one of the sources given, that of British conservative commentator Richard D. North[30], makes the claim on it's own that the term is intended to equate the two concepts in order to tar climate change denialists with the holocaust denial brush. Brendan O’Neill's article directly relies upon North for the issue: [31] Ellen Goodman makes the connection, but is mute on intent, [32]. While Dennis Prager's article [33] is in response to Goodman's article but does not claim that "and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial." This source [34] added nothing new, and this one [35] was not even related. Again, these were inserted by the same editor we've had issues with misrepresenting sources at Denialism before, so more of the same. I've fixed the issue by attributing the views and placing them in the order they were made to preserve the statement/response relationships and removing the last two mentioned above. Odd nature 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed (and fixed) at least once before. I'm not sure how this version got back in there. See version C in my sandbox for a sourced version where the sentence agrees with the sources. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The current content is a marked improvement over that. Your version in your sandbox fails to properly attribute the views to their holders or keep them in the order they were made to preserve the statement/response relationships and still gives undue weight to the view the term is nothing more than a smear. I can't support your version at all. Odd nature 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It attributes them in the best way possible without giving undue weight, IMO. Naming each contributor is unnecessary. Also, this was arrived at after at least a modicum of consensus. I don't think it should be removed without the same. I don't really feel that strongly about it, as I agree that most people aren't using it that way. However, our POV that the term is not meant to conjure images of the holocaust is just that — a POV, and one unsupported by any reliable sources, as far as I can tell. You also seem to be making a false attribution in your statement when you say "nothing more than a smear". To say that the term is meant to be a smear is not the same as saying it is nothing more than a smear. Do you honestly believe that the commentators who are saying that those who deny AGW are similar to those who deny the holocaust want you to believe that they're using this as only a smear?!? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Attributing the views to who published them is central to understanding the notability and significance of each. In that respect alone odd nature's edits are a substantial improvement over both what was previously in the article and what you proposed for all the reasons he mentioned and one more: WP:UNDUE Your version gives undue weight to a minority view. Your version puts the partisan rhetoric of conservative radio pundit Dennis Prager on par with the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. That will never fly. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this again - i do not like the B/C version particularly either (see earlier discussions), but accept that there seems to be a consensus about either of those (or at least mentioning). I haven't yet in this seen an argument that addresses the WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR problems that we've discussed earlier, about such a section. --Kim D. Petersen 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus never trumps NPOV, of which Undue Weight is a central value. Your version clearly violates Undue Weight because it give the views of conservative pundits Dennis Prager and Richard D. North more weight than that of the scientiifc community as described by pulitzer winning journalist Ellen Goodman. There. How's that? Care to rebut? FeloniousMonk 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but Goodman is not an expert on climate change issues - and all of these are opinions of single persons. The question on WP:Undue_weight is not on who we focus, but rather whether all of these individual opinions are significant enough to get weight. What you are saying is that the opinion of Goodman is worth more than the opinion of Prager and North, which may be possible, but is serious POV. I'll state what i've said before: Unless we have a reliable secondary source that makes this connection, and expands upon it - we are in the area of original research, by taking opinions of individuals and make conclusions from it. --Kim D. Petersen 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's a straw man you're ripping apart. Per WP:RS and WP:V Goodman doesn't need to be an "expert on climate change issues", as a journalist she only needs to accurately reflect the current scientific consensus, which she does, and which no one has offered any evidence that her article is out of step with. Odd nature 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And exactly how do you conclude that Goodman views on denial and holocaust accurately reflect the current scientific consensus? (Hint: the scientific consensus has nothing to do with whether or not the phrase "climate change denial" is connected to "holocaust denial"). --Kim D. Petersen 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Feh. You're either intentionally ignoring the obvious point or just plum missed it altogether. In either case, the essential fact is that Goodman spends the preceding paragraph covering the level of scientific consensus for the human role in global warming. [36] Meaning the issue at hand is the degree to which climate change denialists ignore evidence, not that they are being tainted with guilt by association, which is the spin your little group here has been trying to make. Odd nature 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Goodman's correct information on one thing - doesn't make everything she says kosher or making her opinion worth more. You are simply applying your own opinion and POV here. Goodman's article is opinion (its an Op-Ed what did you think?). Finally - please tone down your incivility, attacking the editor is not civil. (incidentally i suspect that i'm mostly seen as being in "your little group", not in the "other little group"...). --Kim D. Petersen 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you'd agree that the views of partisan pundits shouldn't be given the same weight as nonpartisan journalists? So, unless you have some evidence from someone other than a partisan pundit that Goodman is a partisan source, please explain to us all how is it that an opinion of a nonpartisan journalist like Goodman's that reflects the majority view (scientific consensus on cause of global warming) actually weighs the same as the minority view (naysayers of the scientific consensus on cause of global warming) such as Prager's, et al, who are partisan pundits? While your at it, please explain to us why the two views should not be attributed to their holders. Odd nature 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your argument fails when you call Goodman "non-partisan" - she is not acting in her capacity as a journalist here - she is acting here as an opinion writer, stating her own POV. Please read up on what an Op-Ed is and the difference between these and Journalism. --Kim D. Petersen 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am a journalist, and writing op-ed falls squarely within the bounds of traditional journalism, silly. Do you have any evidence that Goodman is partisan other than your personal opinion of what journalist do? Because without a notable and neutral source that she is as partisan as Prager, your opinion carries no water here. Odd nature 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Your version puts the partisan rhetoric of conservative radio pundit Dennis Prager on par with the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist." Yet, putting climate change denial and holocaust denial in the same category (denialism) is fine by you? My response to your assertion is the same as my response to assertions that the categorization is unfair: putting two things in the same sentence/category is not the same as saying they're "on par". (E.g., both George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler are in the category Time magazine Persons of the Year.) Just to be clear about something (that I think was lost in the previous discussion about this), I'm not thrilled with the assertion, either. We initially had version A (well, we initially had nada, but I assume you know what I mean), which satisfies your complaint about attribution (as I understand it), but results in increased weight. Then we had "B" which combined those making the comparison with those complaining about the comparison. I think version "C" has been fairly stable and uncontentious. It's a single sentence that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources. I find it hard to argue that a single sentence in a fairly large article is undue weight. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your comment about Ellen Goodman being a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist seems at odd with your assertion that this single sentence represents undue weight. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" So finally, comparing global warming deniers to holocaust deniers is a reasoned analysis. And even more reasoned I suppose is that Ellen Goodman, a non-scientist, actually asserted that global warming is impossible to deny (as if she knew for sure...). --Childhood's End 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of available credible evidence will always carry more weight than opinion. In this case that evidence being relied upon by Goodman being the consensus of the scientific community. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear — although CE might or might not believe that Goodman's POV reflects consensus, that is not at all what is currently stated in the article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your version that has been added to the article still misrepresents sources, using them to support statements which they do not, and violates NPOV/Undue Weight by giving equal weight to the views of conservative pundits in relation to the consensus of the scientific community. As FM said, that will never fly. I'll have to fix it. Odd nature 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's primarily a matter of 'weight' given that the specific section is more or less a logical 'synthesis' based on several varied sources. I agree with Petersen that the sentence probably should not be in the article, but- in the spirit of compromise- the current phrasing Several commentators have made the comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial, [12][12][13][5][14][15] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[16][17][18][19][20] is best. Odd nature, do you have exact sourcing indicating that climate scientists themselves have made the 'climate denial' = 'holocaust denial' connection? Just among left-wing political activists, how many believe the connection exists and how many do not? Revolutionaryluddite 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a compromise. Unfortunately you're giving equal weight to partisan pundits like Prager and nonpartisan journalists like Goodman alike. Anything so flawed will be recognized for what it is by others and fixed eventually. Odd nature 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a compromise. Well, You Can't Always Get What You Want. Revolutionaryluddite 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me an example, because I'm not seeing where I've misrepresented sources. As for weight, I thought the primary claim by "our side" (once again, I'm going to point out that we're on the same side on this debate in general) was that there were actually more conservative pundits claiming that the comparison was being made than there were supporters of the scientific consensus actually making the comparison. Most of us on "our side" at least have made that claim. Do you disagree with that? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed in my first post that starts this section are the problems with the sources and how they are used, and they're still used in the article in the same manner the net effect is that nothing has changed. Odd nature 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to spell it out for me (us, whatever) explicitly, article by article, why the sources do not support the statement they're linked to. I don't understand what your talking about. Your essential arguement seems to be that left-wing ideological Op-Ed columns are somewhow "non-partisan" while libertarian and/or conservative ideological Op-Ed columns are "partisan". Incidentally, I am completely "on your side" as you have put it if you consider yourself to be a 'climate change believer'. Revolutionaryluddite 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you won't find a shortage of editors willing to do that, given your record. FeloniousMonk 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would respond to your post, but it has no logical connection with what I just typed. So... What exactly is your definition of 'partisanship'? Revolutionaryluddite 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Goodman

[rm per NPA William M. Connolley 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)] I prefer to be positive and explain where the term actually comes from - something that this long slanderous article doesn't even mention.

Climate change denial was actually coined by Ellen Goodman, a journalist in the Boston Globe [37]

She wrote: I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

The intent was to put climate skeptics on par with holocaust deniers, and every single person who has used the term "denier" meant the very same thing. It is also a lie that the people who are labeled in this way are supposed to have moral flaws or anything like that. The term is being used for all climate skeptics, see e.g. this NBC video linked here [38]

[rm per NPA William M. Connolley 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)] --Lumidek 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment to free speech. But anyways, you are wrong. The Goodman article is from February 9th, 2007. This Guardian article[39] uses the term (in the headline, no less) on January 27th, 2005. Even quantum loops should not cause such a distortion of the time/space continuum. Here[40] is another one from 2006, which references the Royal Society letter to Exxon[41], which also talks about "denial", although it does not use the exact term "Climate change denial". Or what about George Monbiot's 2005 comment on Bellamy?[42]? "Climate change denial, as David Bellamy’s claims show, is based on pure hocus pocus". Several of these sources are already in the article. And, BTW, none of them suggests any analogy with Holocaust denial. It's ok to have strongly-held opinions and argue them passionately. But especially for a scientist, it is not acceptable to ignore facts. --Stephan Schulz 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The earliest reference uncovered so far is this 2001 op-ed piece by George Marshall. Whether his intent was to equate it to holocaust denial, he does essentially compare it:

Firstly, we can expect widespread denial when the enormity and nature of the problem are so unprecedented that people have no cultural mechanisms for accepting them. In Beyond Judgment, Primo Levi, seeking to explain the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination, quotes an old German adage: ‘Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.’

In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity. Indeed, the most powerful evidence of our denial is the failure to even recognize that there is a moral dimension with identifiable perpetrators and victims. The language of ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘human impacts’, and ‘adaptation’ are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse; they are scientific euphemisms that suggest that climate change originates in immutable natural forces rather than in a direct causal relationship with moral implications for the perpetrator.

We don't necessarily know this is the earliest use of the term, and I'm quite certain that many notable people who use this term are not trying to make any such comparison, the term and the comparison appear to be about the same age. It should also be pointed out that George Marshall, in addition to being a conservationist, is also a co-founder of the American Jewish Committee. One could actually take that two different ways, depending on your bias: (1) He was merely drawing a comparison to something he was familiar with, and if he was trying to equate them he would have done so, or (2) He is very familiar with Holocaust denial and feels so strongly about Climate Change denial that he was still willing to make the comparison. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it that you can know her intent? FeloniousMonk 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Common sense? --Childhood's End 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...usually isn't. --Stephan Schulz 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, troll much? Odd nature 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, when she says "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers", it's not much of a stretch to say that her intent "was to put climate [denialists] on par with holocaust deniers". However, the rest of that sentence "and every single person who has used the term "denier" meant the very same thing" is patently false. (I say that as someone who has used the term and not meant the very same thing). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And what is meant by was "put climate [denialists] on par with holocaust deniers" would be ambiguous were it not for the fact that Goodman spend the preceding paragraph covering the level of scientific consensus for the human role in global warming. [43] Meaning the issue at hand is the degree to which climate change denialists ignore evidence, not that they are being tainted with guilt by association, which is the implication your group has been trying to stretch the source to fit (unsuccessfully). Odd nature 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, you mean the part where she says that "The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get." Funny how a statement that sounds to me so unscientific is brandished by global warming science supporters. Unless we should all know that there's a good 10% uncertainty with regard to gravity, evolution, AIDS and these things? Perhaps you should reconsider your view that this statement by Goodman really supports what you claim she meant instead of what Lumidek suggests... --Childhood's End 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then go edit Scientific opinion on climate change and scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is what it is, or at least what the sources say it is from the Wikipedia editor perspective. Odd nature 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an Op-Ed column, not Chaucer. There's no literary meanings, interpretations. Goodman states that "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future" after reviewing the IPCC process and the consensus. She believes that 'Global warming is real', 'The fact that global warming is real is now so obvious as to impossible to deny', and 'It's so obvious that, in fact, people who dispute the IPCC's methodology and conclusions have the same kind of mental seperation with reality that holocaust deniers do'. As shown before on this talk page and in the article itself, the term 'climate change denial' has been used many times without mention of 'holocaust denial'. Of course, 'climate change denial' is still a pejorative neologism based on media allegations- allegations with substance, but still just allegations- and the article represents it as such. Revolutionaryluddite 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's "pejorative neologism" is another's apt description. That it's a pejorative neologism is itself a viewpoint. It comes down to attributing views and giving them due weight based on their credibility and prominence, something the policies require and we'll need to be very careful about moving forward apparently. Odd nature 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's "pejorative neologism" is another's apt description. What makes you think I disagree? That it's a pejorative neologism is itself a viewpoint. I just typed that this page is based upon "media allegations- allegations with substance, but still just allegations- and the article represents it as such." I've posted repeatedly that I object to the inclusion of this section because I think that it violates (or comes close to violating) 'undue weight' and 'synthesis' policies. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(A) Odd nature, I've gone to great lengths to point out that this is not "my group". Either you're not reading what I'm writing or you don't believe me — I don't know which. I don't like the claim that the term "climate change denial" is meant to equate to "holocaust denial" any more than you do. However, I do believe in following Wikipedia policy, and I've explained how and why I am interpreting the policy the way I'm interpreting it. (B) It sounds like your complaint is one of ambiguity. How do you think the current sentence gives a false sense of what she's saying, and do you have any suggestions for improving it other than deleting it? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"However, I do believe in following Wikipedia policy..." As if I don't believe in following Wikipedia policy. Poison the well often? I simply do not agree with your interpretation of policy, and neither do several admins here and elsewhere, so I'm comfortable standing my ground. I've seen some clearly specious arguments and claims made around these topics, but I'm not going to force the issue. I'll continue to respect consensus, such as it is, and bide my time until the winds shift. Odd nature 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does this "in my group"/"in your group" stuff come from? Most of the editors here explicitly believe in global warming. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The "However" was meant as a contrast to the fact that the statements don't support my position and not as a contrast to your beliefs, Odd nature. I realize (now) that the comment could be taken the way you took it, however, and I apologize for not being more careful in choosing my words. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Introducing denialism in the introduction

I object to the article's introduction with regard to how it introduces the idea of "denialism". No connection with "climate change denial" and "denialism" seems to be made by any source so far, and the Christoff article makes no reference to the so-concept of "denialism" (a web/newspaper buzzword). I can easily see why some people want this article linked with the other, but WP:OR should prevail, or so I hope. --Childhood's End 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For once i agree ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. As far as the Christoff article goes, it seems to describe 'denialism' as an ideology although it never mentions the exact word 'denialism'. Assuming that, which is WP:OR or close to it, the article still has undue weight. I think that the sentence should not be included, but I also think that moving the sentence next to the 'holocuast denial' sentences (or single compound sentence, whatever) would be a reasonable compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than some weasel words, the intro is reasonably accurate and well sourced. Odd nature 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What weasel words? Also, the statement that 'climate change denial' has been linked to 'denialism' in the abstract sense doesn't have specific sourcing-- as I've pointed out. Revolutionaryluddite 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite, I see you've moved the sentence from the intro to another section. However, I still disagree that this sentence ought to be kept. As I mentioned, neither the Christoff article, nor any other source, seems to make the link between "climate change denial" and "denialism". Pending such a link is made, I think that this sentence should be removed. --Childhood's End 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should be removed since there's no specific soucing, but the page as it is right now is a good compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There can hardly be a good compromise that does not comply with WP:OR... ;) I'll remove the sentence. --Childhood's End 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No sources have been provided that explicitly link 'climate change denial' with 'denialism'. I moved the sentence back to the appropriate section after Oddnature reinstated it. While I really think the sentence should not be in the article becuase it violates or comes close to violating WP:OR, I recognize that "a good compromise leaves everybody mad". Revolutionaryluddite 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong sources 1,2,3,4

The introduction is POV, more precisely it is composed of lies, and the sources 1,2,3,4 that are used to support the outrageous attacks against climate skeptics mentioned in the introduction are not at the level that would be tolerable by the Wikipedian standards [removed per NPA William M. Connolley 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)] POV returned. --Lumidek 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd watch your language there Lumidek, that's not very helpful or constructive. Regarding climate skeptics, the introduction makes a very clear distinction between them and climate denialists (i.e. they are not the same). Are you suggesting that all ostensible "climate skeptics" really are climate skeptics, and there is no such thing as a climate denialist? Or am I missing something? Cheers, --Plumbago 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded William M. Connolley 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Plumbago and William M. Connolley. Lumidek's changes to this page have from the beginning flirted with vandalism. See Cyrusc's very measured post above requesting encyclopedic sourcing and argumentation in the face of Lumidek's rhetoric (""it is composed of lies," etc.).Benzocane 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction seems like the most concise and NPOV section of the article, especially compared to the "Alleged instances of climate change denial" section. The introduction used phrases like "when those involved are believed to", "While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions", "'climate change denial' usually refers to", and "campaigns alleged to be" to make it clear that the existence of 'climate change denial' is based on allegations made by specific reliable sources. Revolutionaryluddite 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We're going to need to review all the sources to ensure that they support the content forward. We've already found significant issues with sources being misused to support content they do not, so I'm reading each and every one against the content its intended to support. Any that do not will be moved from the article to here for discussion. Odd nature 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete entire sentences and paragraphs wholesale without giving detailed explanations on the talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Public/Private sector denial

After the IPCC released its Feb, 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 letters making the actual offers are up at the AEI website.[44] The letters say:

First, in the public mind at least (which is to say, the news media) climate change has tended to be caught in a straightjacket between so-called 'skeptics' and so-called 'alarmists,' with seemingly little room left in the middle for people who may have reasonable doubts or heterodox views about the range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension. This perception is mistaken, of course, as Andrew Revkin's recent New York Times article on "an emerging middle ground" on climate change made evident. Nonetheless, we would like to attempt to break out of this straightjacket and see if it is possible to create a space for an identifiable 'third way' of thinking about the problem that is similar to the various 'third way' approaches to other social policy problems that were popular in the 1990s.

We had thought to produce a series of essays to review and critique the forthcoming IPCC FAR, early drafts of which are circulating, but have been persuaded that an IPCC-focused project is too limited. Although some commentary on the IPCC FAR is in order, our latest thinking is broaden our scope. One idea is to solicit essays in two categories. The first category would be along the lines of a blue-sky essay on "What Climate Policies Would I Implement If I Was King for a Day." The second category would be specific critiques of existing or proposed policy responses such as will appear in Working Group III or have been put forward in reports such as the Stern Review.

The proposed project was primarily about "climate change policy"-- "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process". Still, I'm not familiar with how the scientific honoraria process. Is $10,000 considered 'generous' or 'above average'? AEI describes it as "modest" and "conventional" and says that "AEI has never paid anyone to conduct research with a predetermined result and has never accepted a donation premised on such research."

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'.

The quotations from the letters seem to be put of context. The AEI has published a variety of different materials on global warming, one of which supports a carbon tax [45]. Also, it's $1.6 million out of what? AEI has stated that "no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget".

More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.

What does this have to do with anything? The adminstration employs large numbers of people. In general, this section on the AEI has nothing to do with the 'public sector' per se. Revolutionaryluddite 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise some interesting questions, and I suspect (i.e., this is pure conjecture) that part of the problem arises with conflating AEI with CEI, maker of the "We call it life" campaign. As for your last question/comment, you are right that the statement is somewhat useless without proper context: how many employees are at AEI? How many consultants has the Bush administration had? How many would you expect to work for the Bush administration if it were unbiased? If it were biased only towards conservatives? I have no answers to any of these, but I do expect (i.e., pure conjecture again) that number is a bit high even if one assumes a conservative bias. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither AEI, which has not taken an ideological anti-global warming position, or CEI, which has, are "public sector" organizations in any sense. I personally think that the current paragraph--

After the IPCC released its Feb, 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.[30] 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."[9]

--should be removed entirely. If the information stays in the article, it should really be moved to a new section, "Private Sector Denial" or something like that, with the appropriate context added. Revolutionaryluddite 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the public sector connection is being made by that sentence without much context as to its significance (i.e., 20 employees yada yada). As this isn't a burning issue (IMO), I'd probably give people a little while to give reasons for why it belongs in the section before you move, however. As for its merit for inclusion in the article, if the claim is true about the $10k offer "to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today", then it seems relevant, and the claim is properly sourced. That said, your AEI source seems (to me) to suggest that, at the very least, it needs to be rewritten to include that information. After being fixed to agree with that additional source, moving it to "Private sector denial" (with Exxon included there) does make sense to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the section titles and moved the paragraph over. I'll wait a bit before editing the paragraph itself to make sure that there are no objections. Do you think the CEI commercials are notable enough to mentioned on this page? Revolutionaryluddite 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How many would you expect to work for the Bush administration if it were unbiased? Even if AEI is completely unbiased or has a anti-Bush bias, I would still expect to see that several of their employees work for the administration. It's a matter of personal convinction. If the President's associates asked me to help them audit Office of Management and Budget data or calculate EPA emmissions requlation specs or so on, I would try to help becuase I would see it as my duty as an American citizen to my President. I would say the same thing if Hillary Clinton was President. Of course, this all just my POV and I wouldn't put-it-in/imply-it in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Even if AEI is completely unbiased or has an anti-Bush bias, I would still expect to see that several of their employees work for the administration." I guess you haven't been following the news about loyal "Bushies", then? ;) Still, I agree it is all POV. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what's known as the politicization of science. It's notable, it's sourced and it's staying. FeloniousMonk 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. What's the context? It's 20 out of... what? Revolutionaryluddite 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, do you think the CEI commercials are notable enough to mentioned on this page? Revolutionaryluddite 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. ... And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem. Like I typed earlier, this is a small minority viewpoint. Assuming for the sake of arguement that the recent court decision was pertinent to this article, it was a 5-4 decision on technical legal grounds. It may be a "rebuke" of the administration in the eyes of the Post, but other websites [46] [47] recognize the limited approach and application of the verdict. Revolutionaryluddite 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm surprised you would think it was a minority view point. I can't say I've heard any other view point. In addition to the so-called Clear Skies Initiative, you could also take note of the so-called Healthy Forests Initiative, the weakening of the Clean Water Act (by redefining waterways), and the endorsement of the so-called Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (there's no Wikipedia article for that yet?). Luckily, that last one never became law. This was not just a one-off with the Bush administration. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By "small minority viewpoint", I was referring specifically to the Post's coverage of the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency decision and not to their general coverage of the Bush Administration's evironmental record. Revolutionaryluddite 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll edit the AEI section with appropriate balance and context. Revolutionaryluddite 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of quotes

Given that the terms "denial machine" and "denial industry" are exact quotes from the primary source(s) of this article, I don't see why they shouldn't be in quotation marks when used. Revolutionaryluddite 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement. --Childhood's End 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Emphasis as to why not - you only do it in a context where you want to be sure that this is attached to a single source, and remind the reader that its a direct quote. Otherwise it ends up as scare quotes. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my concern as well, but the source you provided seems to suggest that he's using it correctly:

Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name "Aaron" instead of the spelling he used during his life.

I suppose what you're saying is that when the quotation marks are used, a citation should follow, right? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, without presenting them attributed and in context, they're nothing more than 'scare quotes', something that's proscribed. Read WP:WTA. There's a number of WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL issues with this article that we're going to need to fix here. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, so, looking for a fix, what we want is that the first time these quotes are used in the article they should be quoted and sourced. From then on out, they need to be neither quoted (since they involve fewer than four words) nor sourced. Agreed? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

References

The References section needs editing for clarity, text size, proper attribution of dates, and several other things. Revolutionaryluddite 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Litmus Test Article

Isn't whether or not Wikipedia can properly handle an entry on the most contentious issue so far this century with neutrality? If Wikipedia can't "get it right" with this page, how can we expect Wikipedia to "get it right" with anything else? Denial implies refutation of a true fact.

As original research is not allowed in Wikipedia, even the title of this article implies that Wikipedia endorses a specific point-of-view or conclusion in a hotly debated scientific issue. This seems in contrast with the stated goals of Wikipedia.

(By the way, I'm not talking content of the article -- just the title. I think all angles, even the influence of external factors like "Big Oil" involvement in public relations, are important and should be represented. I just find the title incredibly offensive to actual scientific work.)

67.149.220.91 00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." and "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

As long as the concept of climate change denialism is verifiable through reliable sources, which it is as the sources in the article attest, it cannot be original research as you claim. Neither this article nor Wikipedia is taking a stance, but is merely reporting both sides of the concept of climate change denialism. If there are omissions from either side that you feel are missing and have sources for, please present here for consideration. FeloniousMonk 01:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Is the protection indefinate, or is it only for a specific period of time? Revolutionaryluddite 02:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (This is an honest question, not a sarcastic one. Personal attacks will be ignored.)

Protection expired a short while ago. Vsmith 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

expired a short while ago When, exactly? Also, doesn't the protection tag go away when the effect expires? Revolutionaryluddite 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At 02:12, 3 September. And, no it doesn't - would indeed be nice if it did. Vsmith 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism Redux

The NPOV sentence "It has been descibed as a form of denialism" currently has six sources. The first never mentions the term 'denialism'; nor does it compare 'denialism' with 'holocaust denial', 'AIDS reappraisal', or anything else arguably a type of 'denialism'. The same thing is true for the second source. The third article compares 'climate change denial' with efforts to counter tobacco company efforts to counter passive smoking research, again, without using the term 'denialism'. The fourth article compares, in passing, opposition to the IPCC reports to holocaust denial in the sense that both involve denying scientific and historical evidence. It does not mention intent, morality, or motivation-- nor does it mention the term 'denialism'. The fourth article directly compares 'climate change denial' to 'holocaust denial'. Although it never mentions the term 'denialism', it implies it in a strong way. The fifth article does the same thing. The problem is that these are Op-Ed columns, one of which is by a former director of Greenpeace, and represent a small minority viewpoint that should not be given undue weight.

The eariler and since removed citation of David Roberts [48] compares 'climate change deniers' to the actual pepetrators of the holocaust. Again, the term 'denialism' is not mention but it's implied the clearest here. It's the only non-opinion piece that has been cited for the 'denialism' comparison. At the same time, still, it's an extreme minority position. How many journalists have made the comparison? How many climate scientists? Revolutionaryluddite 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's take a carefull look at each one then.

• The Truth About Denial by Sharon Begley in Newsweek writes "Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered."" and "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."". These quotes show that this source directly supports the passage in our article that climate change denial is "a form of denialism". When you say " The first never mentions the term 'denialism' " you seem to be misrepresenting the source since it's called The Truth About Denial. Read it; it's about nothing but denialism. And this Newsweek article not an "Op-Ed" or opinion article as you claim above, but a journalistic article in Newsweeks's 'Technology and Science' section. Op-Ed appears here in Newsweek.

• Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers is linked from The Truth About Denial under the section title of "The Global Warming Deniers". Follow the link and you'll see that the [Newsweek]] timeline gives as examples of "global warming deniers" Sen. James Inhofe, Fred Singer and Exxon, which Newsweek says have pursued attempts to "discredit" scientific evidence and consensus. Thus this source indirectly supports the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."

• The denial industry by George Monbiot in the Guardian Unlimited states "While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world. ... By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, ... It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies", directly supports the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."

• No change in political climate by Ellen Goodman in the The Boston Globe writes "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." and " 'when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don't see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial.' ", directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."

• Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect by Peter Christoff in The Age AU.com states "and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming" ,directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."

• Deniers of global warming harm us by Joel Connelly in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer states "As the world's scientists near consensus on human causes of climate change, even Exxon is cutting contributions and distancing itself from the global warming denial industry.", which ties climate change denial to scientific consensus, thus directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism", which is after all nothing but the rejecting of "propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence."

I fail to see any issues at all with these sources, but I think 1, 3, and 4 are the most relevant and notable and should be the ones used. But I have no object to all remaining. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I never stated that the Newsweek article is an Op-Ed. Secondly, the terms 'denial' and 'denialism' are not synoymns. The use of one does not automatically imply another. See [49] and the dictionary definiton of the word 'deny' mentioned previously in the talk page. Again, none of the articles cited use the term 'denialism'. You and I might believe that the articles describe 'denialism' as the Wikipedia article currently defines it, but that's purely a matter of opinion. The two Newsweek citiations do not compare 'climate change denial' with 'holocaust denial' or anything like that. The first Newsweek article includes a quote from a politican comparing 'climate change denial' to tobacco misinformation. That section might indirectly imply that 'climate change denial' is 'denialism'; that's it. In any rate, what about weight? The four articles cited that arguably describe denialism, while they do not mention it specifically, are Op-Ed columns. Again, how many journalists have made the comparison? How many climate scientists? Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since we're debating whether or not to equate living climate scientists with honest-to-goodness Nazis, the burden of proof regarding 'weight' and 'notability' should be on the side of those advocating inclusion. Revolutionaryluddite 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about "Since we're debating whether or not to equate living climate scientists with honest-to-goodness Nazis"?! The only issue being discussed here is whether these 5 sources The Truth About Denial, Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers, The denial industry, No change in political climate, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect, Deniers of global warming harm us simply support the passage in the article that says It has been described as a form of denialism. Equating scientists with Nazis has nothing to do with this. Please stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense objections. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If all of my posts on this talk page have just been "wasting your time", why bother responding? Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, because you'll invoke 'consensus' or claim silence is assent. I think FM is justified in calling this time-wasting; you seem to be conflating two separate issues here. Odd nature 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite holds a very strong position on this issue. I opened every reference that supports the term "denialism" in this article and used my search tool to find whether any of these sources use the word "denialism". I did not find one instance of the term (the "timeline" didn't work as well, being flash, so it could be used there). Because no actual, verifiable reference exists to the term "denialism", we should not make reference to it. Moreover, the sentence "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism." is clearly not factual and must be deleted. Unless one or more notable and reliable sources make the claim that climate change denial is a form of denialism, the term has no place in this article. Zoomwsu 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no he does not. What "search tool" would you be using, Ctrl+F? Your reasoning here is as specious as it is clueless in regards to Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policy and guideline. Care to explain how an article titled "The Truth About Denial" isn't about denial? Or how it is an article called "Deniers of global warming harm us" isn't about denialism. Please become more familar with our policies governing sources, WP:RS and WP:V before wading into such nuanced topics. FeloniousMonk 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you fail to see the nuance in his argument--at least we know why you disagree. We should be precise with our language: "denial" is not the same as "denialism", which is a term that seems to be made up out of thin air as far as climate science is concerned. I did find one instance of the term in the Newsweek article, used in a quotation from an obscure Senate staffer named Manik Roy, in the context of 1990s-era political tussle over the issue. Please show me a notable, reliable source (you'll have to do better than a buried quotation from a nobody) that specifically uses the term "denialism" in the context of climate science and I will reconsider my position. Barring such an action, there is little grounds for including the completely untrue (and misspelled) statement "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism." Who are these others? Wasn't it Manik Roy, not Newsweek, who "descibed" it as a form of denialism?

Also, please don't call me clueless or act like I'm an idiot. Assume good faith. Zoomwsu 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go with the [Ctrl]+F again. I'd like to assume good faith about that comment, but it really seems like it is meant to be uncivil. Am I misunderstanding your intent, FeloniousMonk? It seems that a certain group of people are not even trying to address legitimate concerns. Zoomwsu: when I have a chance, I'll provide you with a slightly bigger list of articles that actually use the word "denialism". You are correct that some of the cited material doesn't actually use the word, but I know I've seen the word in more than just one reliable source. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources used to support the sentence refer to "denialism". Newsweek certainly does not (one occurence, but it's from a quote, thus it's OR to say that "Newsweek describes as denialism..."). As for FeloniousMonk, I suggest we take his aggressive comment with a grain of salt, as he does not make the difference between denial (a psychological state) and the new web buzzword 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only do none of those sources use the actual word "denialism", I could not find it in any of the referenced sources for the entire article. (Yes, FeloniousMonk, I used [Ctrl]+F. You're welcome to use another search technique and tell me which article I missed.) I was able to find other sources (some of them reliable) that did use this word, however. So, we need to either find which of those sources we wish to use to support this claim, or preferably, just change this sentence to the more accurate: "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial." (This also involves changing "descibe" to "describe".) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This sad clutching at straw is truly a wonder to behold. "Denialism" is a perfectly legitimate noun for the act of denying in the face of evidence. Since we have WP:RS's that describe this phenomenon, or it's participants as "denial" or as being "deniers", there's really nothing more to discuss. Now the three of you can chase your tails and run in ever tightening circles till the end of time, but it won't change the fact, that any reader with even a modicum of intelligence, ( who doesn't have an axe to grind ) will understand that. ornis (t) 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You can put forward your belief that "denial" and "denialism" are the same thing, it remains at best amusing to read (clue for further thought: usually, there does not exist two words to describe the exact same thing) --Childhood's End 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually what's more amusing here is reading those who are trying to deny that the sources given are talking about denialism using fatally flawed semantics. Especially when anyone can read them and see that the authors clearly are referring to those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly; in other words, denialism. Oh the irony: Using denialism avoid evidence of denialism. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your stubbornness and irresponsibility in advancing your positions have no limits it seems. You have not shown understanding of what are semantics. You have not shown understanding of what is denial. You know what is denialism only to the extent that you read the Wikipedia article about it. You openly admit that 'the sources' dont use the word 'denialism' but you maintain that, somehow for you, it's clear that they talk about 'denialism' and still, you wont realize this is textbook OR. Duh. Further, your definition of 'denialism' is the one provided by the WP article and thus, this implies that what you keep claiming is that it is so obvious that all these authors were talking about 'denialism' as it is understood by this Wikipedia article. Sad, sad, sad. --Childhood's End 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"the waiter noticed that the guests were done" == "the waiter saw that the guests were done"

"the waiter denied that he padded the bill" != "the waiter denialism that he padded the bill".

this is fundamental english folks. one cannot suggest that these terms are synonymous with a straight face - or a decent dictionary. Anastrophe 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time and ours with silly semantics. The sources given clearly reflect that the authors are very clearly talking about those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. In other words, denialism. Move along now. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

translation: "don't bother us with facts and accuracy." as pointed out by others, the article states 'denialism' followed by six citations, none of which use the term 'denialism'. that's unencyclopedic. i'm sorry you consider being encyclopedic to be annoying. Anastrophe 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We're getting lessons in semantics from someone whose nick means inversion (in a linguistic sense of course)? Look, semantically and syntactically the denial --> denialism sentence makes no sense, as you likely know. Yet, it doesn't prove your point, either. Try again. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection re: denialism

I see that OddNature reverted again the deletion of the OR mention of denialism in the intro, what prompted JoshuaZ to protect the article again. This is a most obvious instance of OR as there is no connexion made towards "denialism" made in any of the supporting sources. I am happy that JoshuaZ monitors this, but as it is, the sentence remains protected. If JoshuaZ is not ready to settle this issue by deleting it, I will seek to bring this before the appropriate review process.
As a sidenote, it seems to me that only OddNature (and perhaps FeloniousMonk?) support the inclusion of this sentence, so I dont get why community judgment does not prevail here. --Childhood's End 12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't really understand OR do you? It's just an acronym you throw about willy-nilly hoping against hope that you'll hit something eventually if you use it enough. There are plenty of sources that clearly and unequivocally describe this phenomenon as a form of denialism. Clearly.. unequivocally... there's no need for SYNTH, or OR, there's no need to hold the page up to the light and go cross eyed to see the hidden message, they say it right out. I'm mystified that you don't see that. ornis (t) 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am myself mystified by both your own lack of understanding and your quasi-religious belief in the idea that the sources "describe this phenomenom as a form of denialism". First, "denialism" is defined only in Wikipedia (which already tells books) and therefore is not an English word. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, it thus involoves that what is exactly "denialism" is essentially up in the air to everyone's own idea. So since these sources do not even use the buzzword "denialism", not only is it WP:SYNT (and thus OR) to say that they describe this 'phenomenom' as such, it is also OR beforehand to claim that what these sources describe as 'denial' is 'denialism'. Like FeloniousMonk above, you have not yet realized that there is a difference between denial and what you call 'denialism'...

Now please, help yourself by not erroneoulsy attempting to ridicule someone else with such a clear admission of your misunderstanding. --Childhood's End 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of other places that use the word denialism in the context of climate change. However, it doesn't appear that we are citing any of them, which is a problem. As I don't really see why denialism is any better than simply denial, I'd prefer to go with simply using denial in lieu of denialism. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wheeee.... round and round and round you go. Got anything to say that isn't completely specious? I didn't think so. ornis (t) 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to be more specific and/or constructive? What exactly was specious about what I said? Are you disputing any of it, or do you not think it's relevant that despite the claim in the article, none of the sources we reference actually use the word denialism. Do you see anything wrong with my compromise that we simply replace the word with the more widely used denial? Please be specific and civil. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I took a quick look at this google search and if anything, it seems to confirm that "denialism" is a blog/web buzzword to which reliable sources have not made the connexion with "climate change denial". --Childhood's End 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a quick look would give you that idea since it's at least 10:1 blog/reliable sources (depending on how you define "reliable sources" it could be more like 40:1). That doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's one from New Scientist. Of course, that source is really just reporting that ExxonMobil has been accused of "climate science denialism", and is not actually describing "it as a form of denialism". Presuming I could find a reliable source that does and that you'd be willing to accept as reliable (e.g., not TreeHugger.com) — and I really think I could if I were willing to spend more time on it — WP:WEIGHT seems to lean towards using the more obvious word denial over denialism. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stay tuned. But as of now, the sentence ought to be deleted. --Childhood's End 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, would you be amenable to editing it to remove the "ism"? I.e., "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial." Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually would be, but I find it would be an empty statement (or that it would go without saying). Let's say I would object less... ;) --Childhood's End 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, read WP:ATT, contentious viewpoints need to be attributed. And the only reason the view is contentious here is because of three editors here who continually dismiss, ignore and misrepresent RS and V sources. Odd nature 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do need to be attributed. I'm glad you agree. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the sources: Newsweek, The Boston Globe, The Guardian. There's obviously a significant viewpoint out there in the media and in the scientific community that climate change denial is a form of denialism, period. There's no shortage of sources that show this to be the case. Stop denying esaily verifiable facts. And there's a lot more people watching this article now who recognize that the view is signicant enough to warrant mention with proper attribution in the intro, many of them admins, thanks to the disruptive edit warring and ignoring and misrepresnting sources of the denialism deniers here. Keep misrepresenting sources, edit warring and ignoring community input and I'll personally walk you through the steps at WP:DE. Odd nature 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, please tell me exactly which source says that, because I cannot find one that we've used that even contains the word denialism anywhere, let alone states "that climate change denial is a form of denialism". If no such source exists (i.e., one that actually uses the word "denialism"), then what is wrong with us using the same terminology that they're using? (This is a serious question, please don't dismiss it as "specious".) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, please. Read FM's analysis of the sources above. And read cognate while you're at it. The authors of the sources clearly are referring to denialism, regardless of whether they use the exact word 'denialism', and they are clearly using cognates of it, 'denial,' 'deniers', etc.

Prove me wrong. If Denialism is "the position of governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly", then explain to us how "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."" ... "Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered."" (From: Newsweek's The Truth About Denial) is not about "the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly". I got about a dozen other equally significant sources for you to explain away when you're done with that one. Odd nature 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, FM does not realize that there is a difference between 'denial' and 'denialism', and his "analysis" can be dismissed. And as I also said, using Wikipedia to define a word (denialism here) is not acceptable with regard to WP policies. --Childhood's End 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is a difference between denial and denialism, no one has said there isn't. But you've failed to show that the sources given are not referring to denialism, which they clearly are reading them and their use of denialism cognates. Dismiss FM's analysis at your own risk. And no one has suggested using a Wikipedia as a source in the article, BTW. Odd nature 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a little headstrong arent you? I dont have to prove that the sources given are not refering to denialism - you have to prove it if you want the article to claim that the sources refer to it. And since you admit that you need to interpret what the sources say rather than take them for their words, no matter how clear you think your interpretation is, the veil is lifted and there is your POV, which relies on the definition of 'denialism' made in the WP article of the same name. Thanks for stopping this time-wasting, provocative and useless argument. --Childhood's End 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are just as many editors here who accept the sources, maybe more, than do not. One one side we have those that accept them, of which two are admins who likely know quite a bit more about WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV than do those who do not. One has provided a compelling analysis showing that the sources are indeed referring to denialism. On the other side we have a lot of arm waving about the sources not being about denialism, but not a single shred of evidence or source to the contrary. You have the burden of discrediting the evidence already provided. Either do so or move along. Odd nature 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be either omitting or misrepresenting another set of opinions: the sources appear to refer to denialism, but they definitely do refer to denial. Therefore, denial is a better word to use. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that climate change denial is a form of denialism. I'm denying that the referenced articles make that specific claim. However, if denialism is just a cognate of denial, then what is wrong with using the word denial instead of denialism? I notice that's one question that keeps getting avoided. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then either prove it or drop it. Simply repeatedly claiming that the sources are not referring to denialism but rather denial is a waste of time and the community's patience. Odd nature 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proven it — and you appear to have acknowledged it with your claim that they're cognates. What is wasting our time is insisting that we use the less frequently used word denialism over the more commonly used word denial — especially when (a) I've seen no argument made for why denialism is a better word than denial and (b) denial is the word actually used in the sources! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're simply playing a shell game with semantics. But Newsweek's The Truth About Denial seems to be clearly referring to denialism, and you've still failed to prove it's not. Your ability to deny the obvious is astounding. Odd nature 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you can still claim this. Let me get your non-shell game straight:

1. Denial and denialism have two different meanings.
2. Newsweek uses the word denial, but they're referring to denialism.
3. There's no synthesis or original research involved in this assertion whatsoever.

Is that what you're asserting, or have I misrepresented something somewhere? (If so, tell me which of those things you're not claiming.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Its rather simple: There is no source that says "denialism" - therefore no attribution. Stating that Newsweek "seems" to refer - is WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So you say. Others here, among them admins, do not agree with your take on policy. So point us to the exact passage of policy or guideline that says the exact term and not cognates thereof must be used for a source to satisfy WP:V. Odd nature 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ben has just shattered your glass house. Please move on, or address the point. --Childhood's End 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you would. The fact remains that others and I have asked the denialism deniers here to explain what the authors of the sources are talking about if not denialism and no one has been able to. We're still waiting. Odd nature 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Feels like I wont say where. Ok, they are talking about cli-mate-change-de-ni-al. Not de-ni-al-ism. Free cookie if you dont ask this again. --Childhood's End 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your still dodging the issue: Show us how the authors of the sources are not talking about denialism. And denial is a necessary condition of denialism that must be satisfied for the condition of denialism to be true. Odd nature 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature - you are reversing the burden of proof. Its the person who wants to retain or expand an article with content, who has the burden of proof. Not the other way around. Please go and read the very first paragraph of WP:V. You have to convince us that the actual meaning is denialism (and if my count is not completely off - we seem to have a consensus that you need to convince us that your interpretation of the references is correct). --Kim D. Petersen 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Read FM analysis again and tell us how these sources are not talking about denialism. Clearly FM thinks so, and I agree as does Guettarda, Filll, Orangemarlin and a number of others. So, again, there are just as many editors here who accept the sources as supporting the content, maybe more, than do not. of those at least two are admins who likely know more about WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV than you or I. FM has provided an analysis showing that he believes the sources are indeed referring to denialism. I agree. We've made our case, you have still to make yours. Read Newsweek's article The Truth About Denial then show us how thay the authors of the sources are not talking about denialism and I'll move along. Odd nature 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been studiously ignoring this debate, but someone asked my opinion. Having read this-n-that, I think I'm obliged to weigh in on CE's side and say that the use of denialism isn't supported by the newsweek source (or, presumably, the other ones, otherwise ON would have said so). "Show us how the authors of the sources are not talking about denialism" is, obviously, the wrong way round: its up to ON to find sources that *do* say denialism William M. Connolley 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this one? "In the climate change debate, denialists claimed that we did not have enough historical information to make determinations about global temperatures. In 1998, Michael Mann's research allowed scientists to view 1,000 years of temperature data. That wasn't enough for the denialists. New advances enable a far deeper knowledge of global temperature, but with each new advance, denialists say it does not go far enough." Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts, Chris Jay Hoofnagle. Like I said, I've got at least a dozen other sources that support the content, many using the exact term 'denialist', since some here are going to ridiculous levels of hairsplitting. We've got sources showing this a notable and significant viewpoint that is a defining feature of the article's topic and we'll go over each and every one if we have to. Now lets all give it a rest and accept the that this is a notable viewpoint central to the article. Odd nature 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ON, I'm afraid that you're probably going to have to list them, looking at the way this nonsense is going, and even then the denialists will cry foul. Anyway, I've created a section at the bottom of the page, if you'd like to list anything you can turn up there. ornis (t) 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Denial / Denier are well-known words that appear in dictionaries. Denialism/Denialist are poorly known terms that appear in no dictionary. That alone should be enough reason to prefer sentences that use the former rather than the latter, provided you can construct sentences that carry the same meaning either way. 169.229.142.180 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So very wrong. Check the section at the bottom of the page. Denialist/ism have a great deal of currency. ornis (t) 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

i don't know the mechanics of archiving talk pages, so i figured i'd just toss out there that perhaps it's time for someone in-the-know to do so. this page is unweildy in its length. time to roll it over? Anastrophe 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a template for MiszaBot to auto-archive (which it does about once a day). If someone objects, they can remove that template (set for 15 days) before MiszaBot gets around to doing its thing. On a side note, it is interesting to read some of those early comments. Perhaps some people *cough* will realize that I don't actually tend to agree with you and Childhood's End on a regular basis. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I would not normally visit a page like this, because it is an area I know a lot about, and I normally avoid such pages. However, I think there is a lot of unnecessary confusion here.

English changes all the time. Words get added. Words disappear. Denialism is clearly a popular new word that will soon be in many dictionaries. It is easy to find it with google. It can be found in newspapers and magazines aplenty. It is common in people's speech. Perhaps numerous definitions will be assigned to it, when formal dictionary definitions are written. To me, denialism and denial are obviously closely related. Denialist and denier are closely related, in my mind. I reject all the hair splitting and other nonsense I have seen associated with this over the last few weeks on this and other pages (only political action, someone with a financial interest involved, etc). This is all sort of speculation and OR, as near as I can tell at this point. And just ways to create a huge fight over nothing.

In the case of global climate change, a lot of the jury is still out scientifically. However, both sides of this debate are sometimes using similar tactics, particularly in the public sphere and political sphere in the media. There is selective quoting of data and statistics. There is selective quoting of science. There are "denials" of confusing facts. There is an attempt to turn the topic into a series of sound bites to use as political slogans by people who know nothing about the topic. There is denialism on both sides, but believe me, there is plenty of denialism involved. I have watched the Gore movie and the BBC rebuttal "Global Warming Swindle" (available on the internet) and they were both just vacuous.

Denialism lives. On both sides of this debate. The tactics that are employed by the environmentalists and the commercial interests and those who are suspicioius of global climate change are both reminiscent of other denialists; the holocaust deniers, the AIDs denialists and others. So this frenzied pitched battle here is just pure nonsense.

And you can take this from someone who has often been quoted in the RS literature on the subject. This is the biggest stupidest tempest in a teapot conducted by ignoramuses I have seen in a long time.--Filll 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. Thank you. Odd nature 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for sharing your low opinion of your fellow editors. i happen to be the pre-eminent scientist worldwide investigating climate change - there is nobody more well informed than i am. it's true. i just said it's true, so therefore, you should take it at face value that i am who i say i am, and that my opinion is more important than yours. Anastrophe 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Useless comment that should be ignored. Or, to be passive aggressive, whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

no more or less useless than your own commentary, or that of user Filll. on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Anastrophe 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And yours. Reasonable and responsibile editors consider and weigh each comment on its' merits and act accordingly, thus Filll's observations are a reflection of what he's seen here. Odd nature 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just have to ask, why? Do any of these naked personal attacks improve the article? Do they really accomplish anything? Do they really matter? Revolutionaryluddite 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one side of this arguement regularly uses personal attacks, assumes bad faith, and completely disregards civilty-- while the other side does not-- says something clear about whether or not that first side is right. Revolutionaryluddite 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother responding to me with more personal attacks, I won't read them. Revolutionaryluddite 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Which side would that be? I seem to remember you making a blatant personal attack against Felonious Monk [50] when he tried help you. Pot, meet Kettle. Odd nature 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this dustup obscures the facts:

• The earth is warmer than it was 120 years ago or so
• Most of the CO2 introduced into the air since the 1950s was from combustion of fossil fuels
• We do not know for sure if human activity has affected the climate, although some suspect it might have
• Our "proof" or statistical evidence of anthropogenic climatic influence from fossil fuel consumption and other human activities is lacking at present.
• Both sides in this debate deny some of the important facts, and engage in denialism/denial style tactics.
• Denialism is a useful term for describing this activity of denying facts in this kind of debate and one that is gaining huge currency.
• No matter how you slice it, whether you personally believe that humans have effected the earth's climate or not, it is clear that both sides have elements in them which deny important information. Therefore, denialism/denial in this context exists. What is the problem?--Filll 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I could go through the Gore movie and the BBC Swindle movie and find 100 examples of denialism in each. They are both replete with denialism. Depending on which side of the debate you are on personally, you might call the other side denialists. That is what makes this a more complicated issue than many others; the science still is not firm.--Filll 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism references

Just so everything is crystal clear, let's list here all the WP:RS's that can be found on the topic, divided into those that use the term denialism/ist and those that use its synonyms. ornis (t) 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism/ist

1. Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort
2. Testimony by Fred L. Smith, Jr. President, Competitive Enterprise Institute before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works On the U.S. Climate Action Partnership Report
3. The Australian - Sceptics forced to contain hot air on gases
4. Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day
5. Newsweek, The Truth About Denial
6. Multinational Monitor, J'Accuse: The 10 Worst Corporations of 2006
7. Rolling Stone, The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming
8. The West Australian (oped) How PM left us high and dry on Kyoto deal
9. The New Republic - Global-warming denialists in denial
10. Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 4 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 816..
11. The Age - Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change
12. Huffington Post - Bashing Dirty Hippies and Getting Played: A Case Study in Six Chapters
13. Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The Media
14. The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth
15. Canberra Times - Warming skeptics struggle to resist the new orthodoxy

Denial/Denier

1. The Guardian UK, The denial industry
2. No change in political climate
3. The Age AU, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect
4. Seattle Post Intelligencer, Deniers of global warming harm us
5. Climate change special: State of denial
6. Senators Rockefeller And Snowe Demand That Exxon Mobil End Funding Of Campaign That Denies Global Climate Change
7. The Guardian UK, Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
8. CBC-TV, "The Denial Machine"

Sub categories

'Cause Ornis rudely reverted my work, here it is again. 136.152.153.36 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism

1. Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort
2. Testimony by Fred L. Smith, Jr. President, Competitive Enterprise Institute before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works On the U.S. Climate Action Partnership Report (used only in direct quote)
3. The Australian - Sceptics forced to contain hot air on gases (used only in direct quote)
4. Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day
5. Newsweek, The Truth About Denial (used only in a direct quote)
6. Multinational Monitor, J'Accuse: The 10 Worst Corporations of 2006
7. Huffington Post - Bashing Dirty Hippies and Getting Played: A Case Study in Six Chapters

Denialist (but not "Denialism")

1. Rolling Stone, The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming
2. The West Australian (oped) How PM left us high and dry on Kyoto deal
3. The New Republic - Global-warming denialists in denial
4. Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 4 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 816..
5. Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The Media
6. The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth
7. Canberra Times - Warming skeptics struggle to resist the new orthodoxy
8. The Age - Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change

Do you not realise how completely inane that is? No? Let me spell it out for you...

• An atheist, engages in atheism.
• A feminist, engages in feminism.
• A theist, engages in theism.
• A humanist, engages in humanism.
• An islamist, engages in islamism.
• A communist, engages in communism,
• A capitalist, engages in capitalism.

I mean I could go on, but honestly if you don't get it by this point then you never will. A denialist is someone who engages in denialism. ornis (t) 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking most of those are more "believes in/supports" than "engages in" (i.e. you can be capitalist even if not currently able to practice capitalism). But the more relevant point is whether the equality holds consistently. X-ist (literally X-person) implies X-ism (literally X-belief) is not a universal. For example, there are many examples where an -ist is a common word and the -ism doesn't exist, e.g. bassist, biologist, florist. A biologist believes in biology, a jurist believes in the law, a purist believes in purity, etc. A denialist could believe in denial, without needing to invoke "denialism". Since both "denialism" and "denialist" have the neologistic quality of not appearing in dictionaries, establishing that they are well-defined and recognizable words, really requires considering them each individually. If, hypothetically, denialist were much more common than denialism, then it may make sense to use one and not the other. 136.152.153.36 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous. You're just dancing around the issue, moving the goal posts and setting up a false dichotomy between the terms. It's obvious that the terms all refer to the same thing, we have provided references to their use in mainstream media, by industry groups, by scientists and by government officials for christ's sake. Just give it up, I find this embarrassing on your behalf. ornis (t) 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism in Newspapers/Magazines

Per Talk:Denialism#Denialism_in_LexisNexis, the specific word "denialism" in reference to climate change was never used in any newspaper/magazine searchable in LexisNexis prior to 2006, and only twice in the year 2006. The majority of "denialism" uses in searchable works published during 2006 or earlier were in reference to HIV/AIDS denialism. 136.152.153.36 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And that has what precisely to do with the price of rice in china? ornis (t) 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply on the grounds of clear writing, common terms like "denier"/"denial" should be preferred over uncommon terms. I am arguing that "Denialism" is an uncommon term, especially in relation to climate change. 136.152.153.36 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you're wrong. Look at the section above you. Also denialism gets around 497,000 ghits, and denialist around 128,000. Denier and denial obviously get a lot more, but so what? They're much more general words. ornis (t) 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: LexisNexis gives 311 hits for the phrase "climate change denier", 136 hits for "climate change denial", 11 for "climate change denialist" and 1 for "climate change denialism". Google results are 18800 for "climate change denier", 51200 for "climate change denial", 1180 for "climate change denialist" and 2420 for "climate change denialism". 136.152.153.36 03:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)