Talk:Climate change denial

Administrator: please add the following

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

Please add the link ExxonSecrets.org (Greenpeace USA). Thanks! --Gsälzbär (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose merge It takes little review of the media and recent books to establish that "climate change denialism" has become a common and notable concept and term; this is true whether one believes it's a "fair and honest" characterization or a "negative smear" - those judgements are not for our editors to make, we are only reporting the documented aspects of the culture, not "correcting" or "endorsing" the fairness or accuracy of such naming. However the article could be retitled to something about "non-scientific biases to climate change science" (with redirections from both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax"), and could seek a more objective reporting of the charges of bias from both sides. To achieve a NPOV it needs to stand outside that debate, and only report the documented cultural phenomenon, not try to "win" the framing fight for either side. If this article is broadened in that way, it will justify being a separate article from the science based ones - the (alleged and often believed) non-scientific part of the climate change controversy. The terminology part is not unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - we can only report the framings that have in fact achieved cultural impact and notablity, not decide which terms *should* be used or suppressed as accurate or inaccurate. In that context, both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax" have become widespread and influential terms and concepts, both alleging non-scientific biases are distorting the truth. The perjorative adjective and the opinion that that term "intends" to analogize to holocaust denialism should also be changed to an attributable assertion of some of the contending parties, not stated as a simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph93 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Both articles have enough content for standalone article. Both articles are notable topics. Both articles are on a specific topic, although there is some overlap (as there is with every single article on WP). Climate change denial is about denial of climate change and it is the process of the denail that is part of the Global warming controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Propose to close as "no consensus" - this has been under discussion for a month now, and without getting into the merits of all the arguments (a judgment call that many would no doubt disagree with) there just doesn't seem to be a consensus developing either way. My own two cents is that this should be a distinct article given its notability and considerable importance in contemporary politics, but it would be a WP:WEIGHT problem to add it all to the main climate change article. I haven't read it thoroughly so I don't have an opinion as to whether it is POV, but if it is the place to fix that is here. Moving the material elsewhere won't reduce any problems with POV or editing disagreements, it will probably make them worse. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge and believe this discussion should be closed. A consensus has been reached by the majority: Oppose. I would however not be opposed to this being renamed "Climate Change Truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.3.50 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge for reasons adequately stated above. Airborne84 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Skepticism vs. Denial

I wrote in the article that Climate Change Skepticism is the politically-correct term for Climate Change Denial. I provided citations, one of which was:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism

In one of the links of the Guardian's "scepticism" portal, this link appears:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

The writer uses the derogatory term "deniers" since this is a personal opinion, while the portal uses the term "scepticism".

The current Wiipedia article does not determine the difference between a skeptic who opposes the mainstream scientific opinion, and a denier who lies or uses manipulation.

Also, are the following "opposers" considered "deniers"? List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I call the editor who deleted my edit to respond. Other views are also welcome. Thanks. John Hyams (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your argument seems predicated on the idea that there are two legitimate scientific views - that maybe AGW exists and that maybe it does not exist - as well as a third camp, who know AGW exists and yet who deny that it does. So, of those who say "No AGW", you want to draw a distinction between sceptics (aka opposers) and deniers. Is that right? Well, the basic idea is wrong. There is no legitimate, mainstream, educated scientific viewpoint that leads to the valid conclusion that AGW does not exist. The science is solid, settled and established. If anyone says there is no AGW, they are denying the established verifiable facts. It doesn't matter what we call them, they are denying the existence of a worldwide, complex and unassailable scientific consensus. That some of them call themselves 'scientists', 'opposers', 'sceptics' or whatever makes no difference: They are either in the pay of Big Oil politics that wants them to say that, or they have been duped by those who are. They are either helping to solve the problems to minimise the human deaths that will follow from this global climate change, or they are perpetrating them. There are no other legitimate distinctions to draw in the text of the article. There is no third group. --Nigelj (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, I'm sorry but I sense some POV in your points. If is was a non-disputed science subject as you say, then there would have been no controversy. The list of "opposers" on Wikipedia is a list of certified scientists (they don't "call themselves" scientists), but they are not "deniers". Or are they deniers? Am I a denier? Personally I think the original data submitted to the IPCC was inaccurate, so I regard myself as a skeptic, not a denier, I want people to refer to me without using derogatory terms. John Hyams (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You think that thousands of politically motivated (or financially corrupt? or incompetent?) climate scientists wilfully submitted inaccurate data to the IPCC? And that's why some people think there is AGW going on? And that's the healthy scepticism that you want to encourage? No, that's how we all think science works. Really. No unusual POV there. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC didn't receive it from thousands of scientists, that wasn't the process. The IPCC comissioned the reports from a few selected institutions (including the University of East Anglia), not from thousands of individual scientists who spontaneously sent their papers. Also, the peer-review process included major deletions (some of it is described here: Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Debate. But that's a whole different discussion, and the issue of "skepicism" and "denial" still requires some answers. John Hyams (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a problem if we describe this as if "deniers" and "skeptics" are well defined terms in regard to the debate on climate change, with well defined boundaries. To say outright that "skepticism" is the politically correct term for "denial" is only possible if this is well accepted and uncontroversial. I see several issues with this. First, "political correctness" is a loaded term. I read you to be saying that "skepticism" is just a euphemism, but I don't believe that's correct. In Monbiot's definition, there's a qualitative difference in that someone is a "denier" only if they are paid. In general, though, particularly because the very use of this phrase is disputed, I think we should avoid trying to explain points like what is the difference between "skepticism" and "denialism," and instead offer the views of notable figures who have commented on the issue. For a comparison, consider talking in detail about the habits of a "bleeding heart liberal," or a "Bible thumper." When the term is pejorative (and if this one isn't then there shouldn't be a separate article on it), then we need to be careful to describe the use of the term without endorsing or adopting it ourselves. Mackan79 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackan79, good points, and I can understand the problematic nature of these definitions. However, since climate change skepticism does have a seaparate article, all skeptics, including sincere active skeptics, may be automatically categorized as decieving deniers. If denial and skepticism are not the same, we have to mention the difference somewhere. John Hyams (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is fundamental. As we say elsewhere, "97% of actively publishing [but mostly US] climate scientists agree" with AGW. The scientific opinion on climate change is that "since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." Yet, we allow the possibility that other people (some of whom work for the petrochemical industry, others have a BSc and so call themselves 'scientists' in print, etc) may have thought of something that disproves the whole AGW 'theory'? These, apparently, are the legitimate sceptics, that have every right to keep thinking up some new angle, not publishing it in any peer-reviewed process, but getting equal air-time with the legitimate scientists? That is not balance, it is a denial movement. They are simply playing for time, and mounting a slo-mo distributed denial-of-service attack on legitimate science as every one of their kooky ideas has to debunked in detail while they sit at home thinking up a new one. In the meantime, of course, they continue to drive their SUV, run their air-con, throw away x% of the food they buy, 'consume' every useless plastic/electronic product, and get rich in the process. --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, there is no need to have a debate on this here. That wasn't the issue I raised in this section. I was referring to the issue of "skepicism" and "denial". Your opinion is noted, thank you. John Hyams (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

" The science is solid, settled and established. If anyone says there is no AGW, they are denying the established verifiable facts. It doesn't matter what we call them, they are denying the existence of a worldwide, complex and unassailable scientific consensus. " Good God. And I thought Creationists were pedantic. Renaming article Climate Change Skepticism would be a help - except that the entire metre of the article seems to be directed to show that there is some big -ahem- fat cat conspiracy which fuels a manipulative campaign which is colloquially known as 'climate change denial'. So it would equally logical to call it 'Popular lies propagated about climate change'. Not that the article is not without merit - but it should be framed in a logical manner, imprisoned within tight societal and economic interrogation - not isolated as a soapbox.

Hmm.. looking at the moralistic overtones that accompany climate change discussion is an interesting aspect which should probably be looked into - albeit not in this particular article.

Is there any article which covers the scientific consensus on Earth becoming a global snowball (the theory is not terribly fashionable nowadays, but such an article does have merit) --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We are here to describe climate change denial, as reliable sources describe it. And as far as i can see no reliable source is saying that "climate sceptics" (CS) are the same as "climate change deniers" (CCD). What they do say though is that CCD is a subset of CS, specifically a subset that is defined by either A) a refusal to accept scientific reality B) bad-faith campaigns to undermine scientific results. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my own thoughts - there may or may not be RS that support this view: Sceptics, by definition, would change their view if presented with empirical (scientific) evidence that countered their particular objection, and appreciate such evidence. Deniers, by definition, are blinkered to the evidence, and choose (for whatever personal conscious or sub-conscious motivation) to disregard same. A denier (to me) is not a sceptic. Sceptics say 'show me your evidence', deniers say 'don't believe your evidence'. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that there is this third group of people (the sceptics) who haven't heard of all the evidence yet, and when they see it, they will believe it (like 97% of US CC scientists and 100% of scientific organisations already do)? Of course they have seen or heard of all the evidence, but they still refuse to stop spreading FUD against it. That is why there really are only two groups - those who accept the science, and those who deny it. Saying "I haven't seen all the evidence yet" is just another form of denial argument. This is fundamental to this article: excusing this third group as being only 'sceptics' (who are waiting for some more evidence) leaves this article discussing not very much at all (e.g. only self-professed deniers, who are few). --Nigelj (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are rational sceptics out there... Henrik Svensmark, Richard Lindzen or John Christy to give a few examples. You seem to be confusing issues, while there are no rational sceptics (that i know of) who doubt that CO2 will have a warming effect, there are sceptics who have doubts about for instance how high Climate sensitivity is, or whether feedbacks will be generically positive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Per K.D.P, Science is rarely united. Yes, the third group exists. One might argue that they are naive, perhaps, or whether the group is of any real scientific significance, or numbers more than a handful. But naive is not the same as 'in denial' - and respect for science and the scientific method requires that honest scepticism itself be respected. By highlighting, and respecting the distinction, the false label of 'sceptic' is, erm, denied, to those who are in truth deniers. The question "what would convince you?" is both potent and revealing. (NB: your 100% is false - we list several (7?) non-committal (geologists, /facepalm) organisations over at SOoCC). Seriously though, there are many geologists, good scientists, who perceive, based on their science, that the biosphere only ever changes slowly - they are honest sceptics. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[cut per WP:TPG - stay focused please, while we may digress at times, this is not the place to discuss general issues with climate change (moved to AAOU42's talkpage) Kim D. Petersen (talk)] --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if that is the consensus here - that some kinds of AGW scepticism are rational, but that other kinds are not and so are actually denial - then do we need two articles climate change denial and climate change skepticism? (I see that the latter exists as a redirect.) Then, would we be able to pick out and discuss the (hopefully finite number of) areas where rational, legitimate, scientific doubt exists wrt AGW in the scepticism article (e.g. solar activity, Iris hypothesis, low climate sensitivity, whatever) and leave all the other kinds of AGW denial for this article? --Nigelj (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate skepticism isn't terribly interesting. It's part of the normal scientific process. It's part of the back-and-forth by which science progresses. "Climate change skepticism" is a subset of environmental skepticism. The line between that and "climate change denialism" or "contrarianism" is muddy - and, of course, it's intentionally muddied, with the "skeptics" claiming people like von Storch as their own, and, of course, by the choice of a name. ("I'm a skeptic. All scientists should be skeptics". Which is akin to the language used by the intelligent design crowd - another group of so-called "skeptics".) Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But we aren't just talking about active research scientists who are actively sceptical in their work here, we are talking about, what is it? 65% of the population of the US, and a higher proportion of Australians, I think I read somewhere, etc etc. The vast majority worldwide of those whose votes are preventing global action on CC identify themselves as 'sceptical'. If this is a realistic and rational position for non-scientists to take, then we have to discuss it. I have been told above that I mustn't call them 'deniers', and now you say that we can't discuss them directly because they're so dull. But they are the whole problem driving AGW onwards from COP15 to COP16 and beyond, at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the most appropriate article for that is Global warming controversy. And this article is not about who's who, but what reliable sources describe climate change denial as being. What the public thinks belongs in Public opinion on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, I think this might be important. If we have an article that lists and discusses the finite number of legitimate scientific sceptical positions that exist in the current research: Kim listed Henrik Svensmark, Richard Lindzen and John Christy. I made up 'solar activity, Iris hypothesis, low climate sensitivity'. Then when someone says, "Oh I'm a climate change sceptic", anyone can say, "Which kind?" If the answer is, "Oh, none of them, I just think the whole thing's crap because it doesn't fit my lifestyle", it's easier to say, "Ah, you're not a sceptic then, you're a climate change denier". Job done. (I remember a similar process being used by a bunch of stuck-up musicians to weed out who really was and who wasn't a jazz musician in their terms: "Who do you listen to?") --Nigelj (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

May be an interesting excercise for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. We rely 100% on what reliable sources tell us, and such a separation of people would be WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting separating people but the issues of legitimate scepticism. We have all the sources here in existing articles, there is no WP:OR involved: I'm suggesting a new overview article, so WP:NOTABILITY judgements would be necessary. In the music analogy, the jazz article lists and discusses each major school (bebop, dixieland, etc) with links out to the main articles on each style and notable proponents. I'm suggesting a climate change skepticism article with sections and links out to each legitimate sceptical scientific viewpoint that currently is notable in the literature. Building such an article would mean that each sceptical viewpoint that is proposed has to be judged alongside the others, and the kooky ones rejected, by normal WP:N procedures. The extent of the 'threat' of each viewpoint to the central AGW thesis can be discussed too - if true, this means that A but not B or C is likely. I'm imagining a short article - maybe four to six such sections - that will get shorter as time goes by and sceptical theories are withdrawn or disproved by the scientific process (but I might be wrong on both counts, if AGW is shaky and crumbles). --Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Get shorter over time? Have you seen objections to evolution? They keep adding new ones, while no amount of evidence really takes the shine off the old ones. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The key isn't what people believe, it's about what they do. Denialism is about tactics as much as it is about belief. Calling people "denialists" can be problematic. Classifying their techniques as denialism, OTOH, is easier to do, and easier to source reliably. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided an additional example in the Jesse Ventura section below. According to the article, his show may be automatically defined as a "denial campaign" (some may say it's the worst kind of denial), while in reality it may only be a skepticism/questioning campaign. John Hyams (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please name me a person who denies that climate change happens. No one denies that climate changes, what people are skeptical of are the if a) Whether temperatures have risen, b) If (a) is true, whether or not the results are even worth caring about and c) if (a) and (b) are true, if humans are even a major cause of it for if they weren't theres nothing they could do about it. This title is entirely POV and is trying to prove a point. It does create a very stark image though. If you can give me one major "climate skeptic" in the news who "denies that climate changes", please present it. If not, the title is misleading

Carowinds (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Page structure

At the top level, there seem to be three aspects to 'climate change denial' that should be covered on the page, perhaps as the upper level section headings

1. The term 'climate change denial' - it's varied usage, interpretation and meaning
2. Organised 'climate change denial' - the "denial industry", media, political and business
3. Psychology of 'climate change denial' - reasons why so many people deny climate change

‒ Jaymax✍ 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Of interest? Why Psychiatrists Should Go Green By H. Steven Moffic, MD January 6, 2010. For reference see [1] from alexa. 99.88.228.140 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OUT OF BALANCE EXXONMOBILE

Intresting video about exxonmobile's impact on climate change. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8066462153626602821# —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuKu (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura

Is former governor Jesse Ventura a "denier" or a "skeptic"? Here's an example of why the term "denier" is problematic:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YCR9tClX8I

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3arkEld7I

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3arkEld7I

According to this TV show episode, oil companies even encourage Cap and Trade and other financial instruments that were invented to support the climate change financial agenda (which a bit contradics the ExxonMobil argument). John Hyams (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above 4 videos most likely belong in Global warming conspiracy theory, since that is just about the most describing term for them. I especially enjoyed the section on the scientist gone underground.... Who anyone with a bit of interest in sceptics, would immediately recognize as Tim Ball - who most definitively isn't "underground". Has nothing to do here (or really at GWCT), unless secondary reliable sources call Ventura a "denier" (or a gwct). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but is there a difference between climate change conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers? Is Tim Ball a denier? Or is he a scientist who just opposes the mainstream view? Is Jesse Ventura's show considered a denial campaign? That's my point. It's very difficult to define what a denier is, which leads me to question whether the definition of a denier is accurate. It's very easy to tag people as deniers, when in effect they raise doubts or claim for fruad/neglegence/agenda with regards to the IPCC (which is a political body, not a scientific body). John Hyams (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to define who is or isn't a denier, that is something that we leave to secondary reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not up to us regarding who but it is up to the article to define what a climate change denier is (as discussed above). John Hyams (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious passage

This cracks me up every time I read it: "Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate" LOL ! Six million people vs,. the entire human race (and perhaps the planet itself), who's being inappropriate?! That being said at least the author of this clearly has an ironic- if dry and cynical- sense of humour. 64.222.125.69 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You should visit a doctor soon Joepnl (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would Antisocial personality disorder be related to this denialism?