Talk:Climate change denial

This is an EXTREMELY biased article

This article, nearly in its entirety, is written in the POV of someone who believes in global climate change to be true. Currently, Global Climate Change is a highly disputed topic, and has been proved neither true nor false, as there is counter evidence to every evidence. Personally, I do not believe even rewriting this article could save it from being biased. Please tell me if you believe otherwise. WIKIPEEDIO 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I overall agree with you, but this article is some sort of playground for a political cause and WP must live with it it seems. There are several serious articles about climate change but the scientific editors involved in these, for some reason, have allowed this to live despite that it somewhat damages their cause. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

CE, the article is based upon a very real viewpoint in several reliable sources - thus it survived the AfD - which is why this article is still around. While i personally do not like some of the argumentations used, its a widely used concept. If you believe that its not - then you are welcome to resubmit it for AfD. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a very messy leftist blog entry, no more. It has 4 sections, among which 2 are titled with "alleged"-something and another with "possible"-something. Perhaps it fits in the NYT, but not in an encyclopedia. True enough, the concept is notable and widely used, but that does not excuse you or other editors to allow such a POV-pushing brochure to exist in this form. I see in the first para. that the mention that "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism" is still there, whereas this is a plain lie; this description is not made by any source. Then you have a series of implications that global warming is a fact rather than a theory, something that even the IPCC does not agree with, and that challenging scientific findings must amount to politically-motivated denial. I need not say more. I'd be comfortable with an article restrained to reporting the existence of the concept of "climate change denial" but as it stands now, this article is mostly about reporting various conspiracy theories. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The scientific opinion on climate change is rather clear - but that is in reality quite irrelevant for your statement of bias. The article is strongly referenced with reliable sources - so if you have more specific critique, or equally reliable sources to make the article more neutral then please add them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has the energy to rehearse all of this? The article's citations haven't been disputed; the entry has been extensively vetted. What's POV is the denial of documented denial, or the claim that "there is counter evidence to every evidence" of climate change (if I even understand the phrase)--a claim that is itself totally without evidence. But, yes, Kim is write; disturbing as such an assertion is, it's irrelevant to this entry.Benzocane (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, lets not confuse the state of the science with the state of public opinion in the US. We have to take a world-view on issues and on much of the rest of the world there is no debate, they are already taking action. Even in the US, this is still pushing it, since McCain said something about taking action on global warming in a GOP debate. If he was not afraid to talk about it there, I think public opinion in the US is moving forward and things are more settled then you think . Brusegadi (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with this statement. Despite what Newsweek and Al Gore state, there is absolutely no consensus among scientists and other "experts". There are many highly-qualified scientists that understand global warming is a hoax brought on by extreme environmentalists to attack oil companies and other industries that are crucial to the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.125.116 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There absolutely IS a consensus. With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

IP Address guy, I fully agree. Except, we cannot go about writing this article in an extreme right-wing POV either. I only want one thing to happen to this article: for it to stop making global warming non-believers sound like idiots. It currently is written as if the belief in recent climate change is fact, which it is not. It is theory. Oh, and Benzocane... My sentence was not that hard to understand. I know it may be hard for you sometimes when people dispute theories you believe in, but lets maybe keep it professional and not insult anyone who does not agree with you. If you want, I will clarify my sentence. "For any evidence found that supports Global Warming, there is evidence to counter it." WIKIPEEDIO 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this. Brusegadi (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. i know what a Theory is. But the definition of a theory, basically, just is that there is a lot of evidence supporting it and that it may be very highly accepted. However, the belief that climate change does not exist also presents a lot of valid evidence as well. Therefore, there are two theories: One that Climate change is real, and one that climate change is not real... But I mean, regardless of ANYTHING like that, this article is written in POV. So whether or not climate change is real or not is absolutely irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy says we can't have articles like this. So it has got to be fixed.

If you want me to explain more, let me demonstrate with Christianity, of which I am a strong believer. There is a lot of scientific "evidence" which disproves that there was any intelligence which created the world. However, that "evidence" does not stop millions and millions of people like me from going to church and believing that there was indeed a creator. So, if I were to use your attitude toward this article, and apply it to that of the Christianity article, then I could basically rename the article "Belief of a creator" and replace the intro line with "Christianity is a false belief that many people follow, which centers on the universe having an 'intelligent designer'." WIKIPEEDIO 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you have a misconception on how the size of those who disagree with some aspect of "Global warming". First of all, as you admitted before, there is a theory behind anthropogenic global warming. You also claim that "However, the belief that climate change does not exist also presents a lot of valid evidence as well." This is not true. First, there is no one single "belief that gw does not exist." Its just a bunch of individual guys who criticize different aspects of the theory but their criticisms are not consistent. So, do not view it as 'those who believe in gw and those who do not.' Instead view it as an almost unanimous body that believe is GW and one guy who says X, another guy who says Y and two other guys who say Z. So, by WP:WEIGHT we cant give them the same space as we give the main researchers. Finally, you attempted to construct an analogy between this and Christianity but I dont think the two are analogous in the way you pose it. Notice that this article is about "Climate change denial" as it has been used in the media. Since you cant "disprove" or "prove" the existence of God, and since religion is a sensitive issue, I dont think that the press will or can label Christians as the "scientific evidence denialists" and since that is not a popular term it does not deserve to have an article. Brusegadi (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Its just a bunch of individual guys who criticize different aspects of the theory but their criticisms are not consistent." Hey, we get to hear this one from time to time but that's a rather irrelevant argument. The AGW theory is built upon several assumptions so it is only natural that arguments to disprove it can be made on a large variety of grounds. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, the more fragmented the views are, the smaller the number of proposers for each view so it is misleading to talk about "the opposite belief" when, in fact, there is not one opposing belief but several each with limited support. Brusegadi (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Although I would suspect that what he meant by "the opposite belief" would simply be disagreement, no matter on what grounds, with the mainstream theory. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I now understand what this article is trying to say. After familiarizing myself with recent developments in this topic, I would have to say that you are indeed correct. It seems that the "evidence" I was referring to was either of rumor, or evidence that has already been disproven (or proven to be never true). And you are right, Wikipedia does say that you must go with the overwhelming majority.. so I apologize for my underresearch of this topic and will definitely try my best to do a little bit more research in the future, and not rely on what I have seen and read in the past :) WIKIPEEDIO 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. See you around, :) Brusegadi (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity, is there a source for anybody describing it as "climate change denial", or is the title intended to be a flagrantly biased NPOV comparison to "Holocaust denial"? Kinitawowi (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just check the references and the external links. Yes, the term is used repeatedly and by reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page still unmarked?

Someone needs to mark the ARTICLE itself with a warning that it is controversial.

That is, unless Wikipedia's goal is actually left-wing indoctrination rather than a global collaboration project.

There are three responsible options for this page:

1. Preferred: Delete this page and leave this is a section on the page regarding the climate debate at large.

2. Add a Global Warming Alarmism page that is just as biased, and link the two to one another.

3. Go through great pains to adjust this page to incorporate criticisms of both positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.106.234 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ponder that question long enough and you'll get the answer: Controversial articles are tagged because they are controversial. Ones that aren't controversial don't get tagged.72.78.154.17 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly revert war over nature of term denialism

After reading the article it seemed self evident that if you're comparing "climate deniers" with "holocaust deniers" it's a pejorative term. I added a simple edit to highlight that and have been reverted by Raul654, first without comment whatsoever, and now again without properly explaining himself as to why he's reverting but insisting that I take it to talk, as I now have. TMLutas (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you substantially altered the intro with no prior discussion. From your take page, I see this is par for your course for your editing here. If you continue to edit disruptively, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing your revert of the talk page. Do you have an itchy revert trigger finger? You've done 3 reverts in the space of 17 minutes to the article and one to the talk page (since reversed). You've not proposed any compromise or any reasoning why the edit is inappropriate in your opinion. Asserting that prior authorization in the talk page is necessary doesn't make it so. Give a reason, not a 4th revert. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A lead has to be a fair an duely weighted summary of the article. Your "holocaust" argument is old, and has been discussed here many times, as well as on the AfD. Unless you can come up with something more substantial than whats in the article already - its WP:POV. Your personal view is irrelevant, provide the argument in the article first, with a good measure of reliable sources to show that this is a significant view first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search for the word pejorative in both AfDs. It is used once and there is no discussion of it (ie no answering item to the editor using the term). Your references to the AfD do not work. Could you point out in the archive where this has been discussed before? I'm not fond of wild goose chases and you sent me on one already. TMLutas (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try holocaust instead of pejorative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure point of view is irrelevant, but plain english is not. You asked for WP:RS on the pejorative nature of the term, here's a 1st crack at it.

Can we start with a common definition of pejorative?

Now a list: [1] "They hate to be called deniers" "Ellen Goodman: ‘Global Warming Deniers Are Now on a Par with Holocaust Deniers’" The series name “The Deniers” is a disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame. I have protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail. The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention Sadly, the normal scientific progression is blocked as scientists who raise legitimate questions about the theory and the evidence are labeled skeptics or more pejoratively deniers.

I don't get paid for this stuff so you'll have to do with six entries. Google found about 10k and I hand went through maybe 40 entries worth of dross to find 6 decent ones. Where's that Scaife money when I need it?

More seriously, how about a proper link to find the archived conversation on this topic? It would be helpful.

Another thing, just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean that it is false. Baby killing baal worshippers is both pejorative and true for example because the cult of baal did practice ritual infanticide as a religious rite. This might be an opening for a compromise text, whenever protection actually gets dropped by our sysop/reverter. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also pointed out, for instance, that the sentence "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism" is totally unsupported by any of the six sources used as references. This article is beyond reason, just leave it to its current state. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As previous, i agree with you on that particular wording. But consensus was otherwise. Btw. have you finally figured that the article actually doesn't use Greenpeace as a source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not figured this out yet, no. Must be silly pov-pusher of me again. Can you help me with note 25? --Childhood's End (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, not this again. There's strong consensus that the passage is supported, let's just skip to the chace and avoid another dust up like the last one. Odd nature (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature, i still don't agree with the wording (or rather the reasoning) - but i also accept blindly that there is no consensus for my position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its note 25. Try checking it - the information isn't Greenpeace's. And while on their site, its not from Greenpeace ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there had actually been more than one reliable source in your links we could've discussed it. But once more you are putting more into the references than is there - which makes it WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you dial down the arrogance? The google search numbers should at least hint at the possibility that there's some acceptable meat there. That's why I called my rapid search a first cut. It wasn't by any means exhaustive. But you don't even do the courtesy of addressing the definitional aspect of the question. Are we agreed on what pejorative mean? I'm not interested in talking past one another, but rather on creating a decent article of the phenomenon of climate change denialism using NPOV and examining both those who are labeled deniers and those who apply the label. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed my session expired. TMLutas (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A small look at the choices you made would have told you that the sources actually doesn't support you. At least 2 in a spot check were in readers comments to blogs. And the "arrogance" is much more a sign of being tired, that you hadn't checked either the archives sufficiently or verified your links, nor even verified that there were any reliable sources in them. In a world with blogs all over the place - a meme spreads fast. That doesn't make it notable.

If you want us to react to your claim, then you'll also have to do some work. (hint: afaik noone gets payed for this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just par for the course in anything to do with climate change. You have to have reliable sources to demonstrate common english. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very willing to accept the definition of the word pejorative, it fits very well with the way i'd describe the word. Thats not whats being questioned - sorry.

Whats required is a demonstration of Reliable sources, and that its not undue weight, that its a notable description. And text in the article that merits its inclusion in the lead etc. Your links from Google did neither.

Denial can be a lot of things - i'm personally in some degree of denial about smoking, otherwise i'd stop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrator: please add the following

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

Suggested minor, non-controversial changes

- Wikify "the GOP". I am a well-read, educated, native-English-speaking non-American; I do not know what this refers to. - Fix this typo: "In autumn 2001, the admnistration contemplated changing a regulatory portion"

Liam Proven (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs section on Kivalina lawsuit

Is there a way for me to get permission to edit this article? I would like to add a section on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al.

The suit is discussed here (CNN), here (NYT), and in the June 2008 Atlantic Monthly. Thanks, Cyrusc (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection level to semi, so you should be able to edit it. But has there been any finding of facts with regards to denial yet? The general topic of Kivalina might be better off in Effects of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what you mean by "finding of facts"? What the section I propose would describe is a federal lawsuit brought against the energy lobby for alleged conspiracy to mislead the public about climate change.Cyrusc (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the "alleged". If the lawsuit had produced any (positive) finding of facts on the conspiracy issue, that would be a very strong addition. But the mere allegation is very weak. People allege the most absurd things in lawsuits all the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It will take months or years before a court ruling on the factual issue, and any ruling will be appealed, so waiting on it could keep this case out of the article.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Looking at the lawsuit, the chances the court is going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs is rather unlikely. The amount of information inserted in this article should be drastically reduced at this time. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility (or right) as editors to take sides in the law suit, or to predict legal outcomes, but to chronicle information relevant to the entry. How could a widely reported federal suit about climate change denial not be relevant to the Climate Change Denial entry? The result of the case should of course be included when it's available.Benzocane (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By including it so prominently, you violate WP:WEIGHT. That is my only point. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven lines of text is hardly over prominent.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is for a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

UBer, your gut feeling that these are "unsubstantiated accusations" is not relevant; what's relevant is the fact of the high profile case. Several sources for seven lines is clearly not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. If you have credible sources documenting the speciousness of the case, we could certainly include that vantage. Do you have such sources?Benzocane (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)