Talk:Climate change denial

Useful here for the United States examples?

Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act ‎ was upheld in Federal Appeals court, per Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26, 2012; excerpt ...

The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

108.73.113.91 (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, the judges are not supposed to make their decision based on scientific arguments, but on legal arguments. If judges based their decisions on scientific arguments, there would have been no damages awarded for silicone breast implants. Hence, the judges' decision has nothing to do with "climate change denial". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal argument is over what scientific arguments the EPA is required to take into account: the appeals court has confirmed the legal validity of the EPA's reliance on mainstream science, and rejected arguments put forward by those commonly described as deniers. However, unless a source is provided which specifically mentions climate change denial it's not relevant to this article as inclusion would by synthesis. The Denver Post opinion piece doesn't look very suitable, Chris Mooney's opinion in a blog is a view of a published topic expert and might be used as such, in the form that "Chris Mooney said that,,," . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, better source from The American Prospect by Garrett Epps, the legal affairs editor of The American Prospect and apparently a law professor. Also, statement by Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman that "Today’s ruling is a message to Congress that it’s time to stop denying science." Enough there for a brief note on the case outcome, citing these views. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The references now provided show that I was wrong; the legal issue was "scientific uncertainty" (at least, according to Garrett Epps). Perhaps a brief note would be appropriate in some article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Add here or useful elsewhere?

• Cover Story How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused in current Volume 17 Number 2 Skeptic (U.S. magazine).

108.73.113.91 (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose some text to be added to the article. This serves no purpose. 08:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Further reading?

Combine two Further reading. 99.112.215.188 (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How about delete both and start over. The "Further reading" is longer than the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that a question, or a time waster? 99.109.124.95 (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundant header removed. And the list does need serious pruning... Vsmith (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Special:Contributions/Vsmith for your constructive efforts. 99.181.132.75 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Relation to what are currently called "extreme weather events" reference addition

• Extreme weather events forecast storm over climate change denial; The US media and meteorologists will be on the wrong side of history if they keep refusing to make the weather-warming link 5 July 2012 by Amy Goodman 99.181.139.218 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep - Global Warming explains every single weather phenomena - more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, rising seas, lower tides, etc, etc, etc. It's the perfect explanation for all that ails the world! Ckruschke (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Non-constructive comment Ckruschke. Please attempt to build a better Wikipedia. 99.181.133.134 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No one has a sense of humor in the Talk pages... Ckruschke (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

It's true that any weather change is attributed to global warming. There is a legitimate theory that there should be more extreme weather events with a change in climate, until a new equilibrium is reached, but there's is no denying that any hazardous or dangerous weather event is attributed by the media to global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't know what media you're reading, Arthur, but US media seem to be avoiding any mention of global warming: for examples:[1][2]... but there does seem to be a willingness to repeat fringe views without giving any weight to science.[3] As the article linked at the start of this section says, "The phrase "extreme weather" flashes across television screens from coast to coast, but its connection to climate change is consistently ignored, if not outright mocked." It goes on to discuss "the drumbeat denial of the significance of human-induced climate change" and is a valid source for this article. Now to think up appropriate wording. . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave - you must not watch NBC news - they ALWAYS weather extremes to global warming. Obviously our opinions (and biases) are formed by what we watch/read and how it's presented, but I disagree that the mainstream press is sweeping anything under the rug - despite the UK Guardian article. In fact I think that many of the major newspapers/networks wholeheartedly promote man-made climate change.

As a note, the UK Guardian article is an editorial and after reading it in total, appears to setup the strawman that "all US news sources are anti-man-made climate change" while only mentioning one source of this head-in-the-sand (CNN weatherman Rob Marciano). Not discounting it as a source, but since it's an opinion piece and it's whole point is based on one data point and the rest of the point is anecdotal, it should be treated in the proper context.Ckruschke (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

"Promote"? See Climate change controversy#Funding for partisans. Follow-the-money, for example to the Fossil fuels lobby. Also, see Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician) and Politicization of science#Global warming (example Political activities of the Koch_family#Anthropogenic global warming skepticism (Merchants of Doubt and Requiem for a Species). If you think this is a partisan comment, see The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth (2010) by Eric Pooley from Climate change policy of the United States. 99.181.133.208 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible WP:Sea of blue, most of which are obtained by adding inappropriate links to catch-phrases. Furthermore, if you want to use a reference, refer to what it actually says, not where in (another) Wikipedia article it is used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See The Heartland Institute#Global warming. 108.195.138.171 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) moved above comment, so Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin has less motive to delete. 99.181.153.228 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

• Media Avoid Climate Context In Wildfire Coverage July 3, 2012 Media Matters for America; related to media coverage of climate change and media bias in the United States

99.181.154.33 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please suggest content to add based on that or actually do it (oh, it's semi'd ... well then log in or create an account) - or did you just mean as an external link? Vsmith (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See Climate change controversy, in particular Climate change controversy#Funding for partisans? 99.119.130.123 (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)