Talk:Watts Up With That?

The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer

The blog does indeed feature guest contributions - indeed, nowadays, the bulk of the posts are not by AW. But the bulk of the guest postings are by "non notable" folk. Why does the list of contributors only mention notable folk?

Currently, posts in reverse order are: by AW, Steven Capozzola, AW, Howard Lowe, Bob Tisdale, AW, Richard Betts, copy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, David Archibald, Eric Worrall, AW, Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Eric Worrall, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, AW, AW, AW, AW, Bob Tisdale, SEPP (*not* FS), Paul Driessen, Tom Quirk. And so on. On what basis have " Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer" been singled out? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Goklany is on the masthead - not an independent source, but a source. The rest of that was unsourced, so I removed it. Guettarda (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeeessss... the about page says "Contributors: John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach". Why pick just one of them out? And why add "regular"? Goklany clearly isn't regular William M. Connolley (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this helps either. Why are we picking out some contributors? Because of the quality of their contributions? Their frequency? Their not-redlinkiness? Why is BobTisdale, who contributes rather often, ignored? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WMC, I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts, for example his latest, a nice BOTE look at ocean thermal circulation. He's a fine writer and an interesting guy. I'm fine with adding Tisdale, although I find his writing style opaque & very hard to follow. But you're right, any selection of contributors will be arbitrary..... unless someone wants to do a frequency analysis of posters. Not me! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've realised that I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts Just won't fly. We're not recommending people. You might just as well add Bob Tisdale or David Archibald, on the grounds that their posts are particularly stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Have removed names as a reliable secondary source needed for associating BLPs with this blog. Not straightforward: for example, the recent post by Richard Betts was a reposting of a blog article from ATTP, with minimal attribution. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just "a blog",

@A Quest For Knowledge: made this edit, which changed the lead sentence to read "Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog created in 2006 by Anthony Watts." I'm not sure I agree that is the best description of the topic. The blog is predominantly (even exclusively?) devoted to climate change denial, and that's what it's known for. We even discuss its prominence in that respect later. Doesn't it make sense to describe the topic of the site when defining the topic? "a blog" doesn't tell the reader much at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, these edits removed the subject of the blog from the lead altogether. At best, it was described as a "climate blog" and a news site, which is definitely not representing the sources accurately. I've tried to incorporate the labels back in so we are at least covering the subject fully. I'd appreciate some discussion if there's disagreement. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're having the very first sentence be a derogatory label of WUWT. Is this Wikipedia? Or highschool? (very unprofessional) Besides, I'm not sure Mr Watts or those on his site would call themselves "deniers". Skeptic is the appropriate word. All you've done is set up a red flag that this page is biased and therefore probably inaccurate.24.9.166.120 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We're having the very first sentence represent what the sources say. It doesn't matter what Mr Watts prefers he be called in the article. It matters how our reliable sources describe him.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as far as policy goes, there are a number of other things that matter.

One is that the sources offering analysis or interpretation of a topic must be secondary sources, not primary sources like those now referenced in Notes section (see WP:PRIMARY).

Another is that regardless of what references are used, the resulting article must be impartial in tone "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (see WP:IMPARTIAL). Hopefully we can all agree that whether accurate or not, the term "denial" is meant to reject Watts' perspective. (And if we can't agree on that, it is no less true.)

Finally, statements of opinion (such as the statement that Watts up with That is a blog dedicated to climate change denial) must be attributed to the person expressing that opinion, e.g. "a blog that such-and-such-a-person says is dedicated to climate change denial" (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)

A number of recent edits appear to be out of policy on all these points. --DGaw (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The RS sources support "skeptic". Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source list from Anthony Watts:

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. pages 72, 222. page 27: Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog. Manne, Robert (August 2012). A dark victory: How vested interests defeated climate science. More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established. Dunlap, Riley E... The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. page 153: In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine...the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)...Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message. Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.

Some of those sources are extremely strong, including Mann and Dunlap.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

All primary sources, and thus inappropriate to cite for statements of analysis or interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Can you please cite your reliable secondary sources, and upon including them, also attribute statements to the source in the body of the text? --DGaw (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Rolled back to last half-reasonable version. Jess: would you please stop this? It's getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted a significant number of edits which added high quality sources authored by recognized experts in their field, with no explanation or discussion, and then accuse me of being a POV pusher? Can you respond my comments above any substantive way, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the contrary, Jess, keep up the good work, until someone who objects to your edits makes a substantive post to this talk page. Pete Tilman, as I understand it, rollback is not for use in content disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dedicated to climate change denial?

Hmm. Could there possibly be a problem with opening our article with:

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts.

Think about it for a moment. Could this possibly be considered inflammatory? Derogatory? Do you think this shows the project at its best?

This is even sillier than the great "Campaign to Quote Michael Mann" over at Watts' wikibio.... Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Do these silly remarks even need a reply? You've already been pointed to relevant policies. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Watts aligns himself as an opponent of mainstream climatology... We're not going to avoid citing experts because, by being experts, they are considered his "opponents". Put another way, we're not going to write Watts' bio using only sources from him and his friends.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course we are not going to write a bio based solely on sources form him and his friends, but this is a strawman, I don't see anyone proposing it. Have you actually read the blog? Characterizing it as a denialist blog is ludicrous. I have no doubt that some denialists post to the comments, and there may be blog entries discussing articles by denialists, but that doesn't make it a denialist blog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My assessment of the blog doesn't matter. Neither does yours. What matters is how it is characterized in high quality sources. And yes, there has definitely been a strong suggestion that only sources not critical of Watts should be used. We can't do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is absurd. What if several high quality sources referred to the site as "trash?" Would it be okay in an enyclopedic article to describe the site as trash in the opening line? Of course not. High quality sources can and ought to be cited when they make comments relying on their expertise. "Denial" is not a scientific assessment but just an ad-hominem attack, no matter how many "sources" it has. If not, if it is scientific, you ought at least be able to say what it is the site denies. Do you claim it denies climate change? Do you think one of your sources makes this claim? In light of these arguments, I am reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.50 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "dedicated to climate change denial", as long as one can point to what it is that is being denied. Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice. Regarding that word "denial". Does Watts deny that the climate has changed from time to time? I suspect not. Does he deny that it is changing now? I suspect not. Does he deny the radiative effects of CO2? I suspect not. Does he deny that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere? I suspect not. So. He asserts that climate changes, CO2 can affect it and humans increase CO2. Seems he is part of the 97% consensus. Stating that his site is dedicated to climate change denial is just plain wrong. Some of those who assert this know this. I'm curious why the word is used when it is so obviously wrong, inflammatory and possibly defamatory. John G Eggert (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the statement "Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice." may be construed as a legal threat and hence a violation of Wiki policy. This is not the case or the intent. It is a statement of fact that was meant as a favour to those making such statements as they may not be aware of what they are doing. If this is indeed a violation of policy, I will not do this in the future. I'd appreciate a representative of Wikimedia clarifying. I am not Anthony Watts, nor do I speak on his behalf, hence I have no ability to threaten anyone in these matters.John G Eggert (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not going to receive a response here from the WMF, but see WP:NLT, which is our official policy on the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

When deciding if using the term "climate change denial" blog injects opinion and bias, maybe we should look at how we categorize other blogs...is the Skeptical Science blog categorized as a "climate change alarmist" blog? If wiki is trying to be objective, I don't think you would use either term...just my two cents worth...Steve Armstrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarms58 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That first sentence should include "man-made", which would make clear what WUWT is really about. 68.40.50.81 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This page linked from WUWT, requesting his viewers sway consensus

FYI, our article was just linked on WUWT's homepage, requesting his readers try to sway consensus, because "it's a numbers game".   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page. If anyone considers me too involved to do that, I will undo it. But given the sudden arrival of all these brand new accounts, I was starting to think it needed doing. Given this, I think it's strongly warranted. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I was about to do the same and endorse the semi-protection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I had made a request at RfPP, but it hadn't been filled yet. I appreciate you getting to it quicker!

To any of Anthony's viewers who were linked here from his blog, please feel free to contribute to this talk page to discuss changes to the article. Wikipedia works through discussion, so we're trying to focus on doing that instead of "edit warring". Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Watts had posted a statement of his position on climate change, and I feel it would be appropriate to post it somewhere in the article to clear up any misconceptions as what he and his blog are about.

"For the record: I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate."
Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit this, but I will give it a whirl. This does appear to be a very biased article. Most of the references are to media articles and blogs expressing the opinion of the author and are often little more than ad-hominem attacks and name calling. In which case balancing opinions should also be quoted and cited. It is clear from many articles written by Anthony, including the one referenced here, that he is not a "denier" of climate change. He does not deny that the climate has warmed, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the climate, nor that man's production of CO2 contributes to that warming. He is, like many of us, sceptical of the positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity necessary to support the more extreme predictions of global warming. That is a fairly nuanced position and not one that deserves the tag "denier" - or at least it should not be stated as if it were a "fact" that he is a denier (as the first line does), just that some commentators think he is. If you read his blog regularly you will see that nearly all the articles from other contributors come from that "sceptical" position. Many of the comments are from people you might class as deniers, but you cannot judge a blog by its most extreme commentators. This article needs to be adjusted to make it clear that most of the references and articles cited are opinions and they should be better balanced by citations of the many other articles that take an opposing view. Oefinell (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed below, this article has to show how the opinions expressed on WUWT have been received by mainstream scientists, and how they're covered by academic publications discussing the topic area. Please put forward good quality sources supporting the points you want covered, and be as specific as you can: generalised complaints can only be discussed in principle. Note that blogs can only be used in certain circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, using the word "denier" is derogatory and inflammatory, which, I'm sure, Wikipedia does not want. Surely this would go in a "Controversy" subsection? Shame on Wikipedia for allowing Gatekeepers to drag it down :( CWernham (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what impact this will have, and I'm not sure how to sign this. But... Is this how you build consensus? You block any changes from those who disagree with your unbalanced and biased editing? I will no longer be contributing financially to Wikipedia in future. It has gone from being a light and hope for correct and unbiased information on the internet to being a political weapon for special interest groups. Shame on you.16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Gmakwiki (talk)

Jess, swaying consensus is a good thing. If done properly. Are you suggesting there is an attempt to do something inappropriate? Did you notice that the article doesn't even urge readers to make any specific edit, and states clearly If you do participate, please stick to facts, not opinions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? You might enjoy a reading of WP:VOTESTACK and the (in-)appropriateness of one-sided recruiting of a partisan audience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I am serious, although I think I catch your point. I see a fundamental difference between an established editor, who is expected to know how this works, going out to recruit contributors by visiting a biased sample of sites, and the subject of an article explaining the process for editing. Had Watts pushed for certain types of edits, or slyly suggested ways around the rules, it would be problematic, but he is the victim of a few editors pushing a lie, and his response is to provide links on the proper way to edit, and urge people to stick to facts. I would be on board with you if some editor here decided to go only to skeptic sites and encourage edits, but that isn't what happened. To put it another way, what action would you think is acceptable by the subject? Do you think we can realistically require that he contact sites who disagree with him?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Watts may have made a mistake by mentioning only this WUWT article. For a long time the action has been in the article Anthony Watts (blogger). On that page, clicking History will show that there has been conflict since about March 15 about whether to call Mr Watts and WUWT denier/denialist (including in the lead), and whether to remove the original mentions of words like skeptic. By the way, Mr Watts is not the first person to blog about Wipedia's coverage of the issue, he was preceded by William Connolley. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For new editors: good sources needed

Hi, and welcome. Wikipedia has a trio of interrelated policies: "no original research" requires that we don't use unpublished arguments, articles have to be "verifiable" from good quality published sources, and "neutral point of view" requires due weight to mainstream views. Specifically, fringe views about science have to be shown as such, in the context of mainstream views of that minority view, to meet fringe and pseudoscience policy.
Watts clearly promotes fringe or minority views in opposition to mainstream science, and so we have to reflect that, and find the best academic sources covering the issue. Good quality academic sources describe Watts' blog as promoting climate change denial, and we should therefore show that mainstream view. Other more flattering terms appear in the mass media, but good quality sources are explicit that the so-called "climate skepticism" of WUWT is similar to climate change denial, while lacking essential qualities of scientific skepticism.
Bottom line: find high quality sources discussing Watts and his blog, and discuss them on this talk page with suggestions for wording based on these sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For new editors: hi and welcome (really)! Now that you've seen Dave souza's advice, have some more from someone who has been disagreeing with him about WUWT: (1) Most of the known reliable sources describe Watts and/or his blog as skeptical not denialist, and one of our "issues" on the Anthony Watts (blogger) article is that editors have removed mention of those sources and emphasized anything that says denier/denialist. (2) Currently the editors pushing quotes re Watts/WUWT denial are in the majority, but there is dispute that they have achieved consensus, and they may not represent the mainstream attitude of Wikipedians. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales told Dave souza in 2011

Yes, as always, good sourcing is crucial. Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent.

Bottom line: discuss on this talk page and the Anthony Watts (blogger) talk page, and edit when you can and when you've read the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As on the other page, Peter's counted quantity of google hits showing up news sources, but fails to recognise that good quality academic sources point to climate change denial, in one or other of its manifestations. As for the holocaust assertion, that's a strawman reversing history of the term, and a disrespect to the famous holocaust: denial long predates that usage. Also, mainstream views can't be disregarded because Watts opposes the mainstream: weight policy requires quite the opposite. So, let's see more sources, and discuss their quality. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there's enough disagreement about the quality of the existing sources, and how they are being used, without further complicating the issue. Let's correct that first. --DGaw (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Detailed discussion welcome, we're currently in the process of improving sourcing and there's some way to go. Assistance welcome. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I'm out today for the holiday, but things seem to have blown up. Yes, new editors (and established editors who are new to this page) need to propose specific proposals to change the page, and provide reliable sources to back up their proposals. We can't really make changes unless that's done. All the requests below seem to be vague complaints without any references to sources. Unfortunately, those don't really get us anywhere. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

Use of the term "climate change denial" is both inaccurate and non-scientific. Please don't let this section of Wikipedia become another useless political blog like other sections of Wikipedia. AnotherProf (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for specific wording and sources to support that wording? Note that there currently are supporting high-quality sources, and we can't simply ignore them. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought sure when I looked at the recently protect article, the recently added term "denier" had been removed. I guess I misread. but I guess I was wrong. This is borderline libel ,and should be removed while we debate whether it should be added. Given that Watts is not a denier, it seems highly unlikely that the consensus of reliable sources will say otherwise. There might be the odd source which is misinformed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why should it be given that Watts is not a denier? At least one good quality mainstream source describes him as that. However, more sources describe him as enabling or supporting climate change denial, and that's the issue that needs good coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

He is not a denier, and claims not to be a denier. While first party claims are properly given little weight in many cases, this is one time it deserves weight (not 100%, but considerable weight). If Wikipedia is going to say that someone, who claims not to be a denier, actually is one, we need very solid sources. Not just one or two but a clear consensus among knowledgeable sources. I haven't seen close to such a consensus, only a few cherry-picked claims from some biased observers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, multiple family members just showed up, so I must exit, but I strongly suggest that the word denial be removed, then open up a debate for inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources for the first phrase that WUWT is a "denialist blog" not one of them could remotely be called a "high quality source" - they are all politically slanted and not objective in any way. For instance this one "Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate". I was aghast at the page Wikipedia linked to. It is simply a list of insulting statements - nothing objective, scientific or "quality" about it at all. Cook is a well known political blogger with a visceral hatred of anybody who disagrees with him. He tries to recruit psychology on his side to "prove" that those who disagree with him are all deranged conspiracy theorists, but does nothing of the sort and just ends up insulting the very people he should be trying to convince. High quality? I think not. As for "mainstream views", once upon a time it was "mainstream science" to believe the world was flat, that black people were inferior to white, that women were not as intelligent as men, the shape of your head indicated your personality and your future is written in the stars. Science needs to be continually challenged. Bias in favour of the mainstream is not balance.Oefinell (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is a book written by a senior and a junior academic, and published by Springer Science+Business Media, a widely respected academic publisher. That makes it an excellent source. Yes, science needs to be continually challenged, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's laughable to call John Cook an excellent source -- see, for example, our discussion of his lame 97% Consensus paper,

and The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' at the Wall Street Journal.

And it's definitely against our policies to use Wikipedia's voice to state as fact that

"Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial. " (until yesterday our opening for this article)

-- based on opinions by opponents of Watts, be they academics or whatever. This is pretty elementary stuff, guys. I'm taken aback that experienced editors don't seem to see a problem with this. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I've not called "John Cook" an excellent source, but rather a book of which he is the junior author and that was published by Springer. And I see nothing in the section you linked to except for undue weight given to the usual echo chamber (Legates, Idso, and "God will save the planet" Spencer). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just mentioning an article written by Joseph Bast on the same page as the word fact is probably undue weight. Gads. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

The frequent use of the pejorative term "denier" is inappropriate. It would be the equivalent of frequently using the term "nigger" in a post about civil rights. Please replace 'climate change denial' in the first sentence with 'climate change skepticism'. In the third paragraph, it would also be more appropriate (and better grammar) to say, "...and among the most influential climate change skeptic blogs..." KMAnomalocaris (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

From a quick search, the only use of the word "denier" is in a footnote, a quotation from a reliable source saying that WUWT provides "a rallying ground for other AGW deniers". Published by Prometheus Books, perhaps you don't appreciate a genuine skeptical view? Good quality academic sources refer to climate change denial as a specific topic, and that's what's shown in the article itself. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The blog's subject matter is covered in its about page. I'm reproducing it here for the convenience of the community:

About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts

This science news site feature original content from myself as well as several contributors:

Editor:

Anthony Watts

Contributors:

John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach

Moderation Team:

charles the moderator DB Stealey Evan Jones Mike L. Mike J. Andy C. Verity J. Lee K. Robert C. Keith B.

Moderator Emeritus:

Robert E. Phelan (REP)

TMLutas (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMLutas: as I asked above, do you have an edit suggestion, based on high quality, third-party sources, which also takes into account the existing sources? (Obviously the website itself isn't an independent source.) Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to stop exclusively using unfriendly sources to describe the blog which is why I put the NPOV tag on. TMLutas (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is ridiculous, a proposed hagiography for fringe views when policy requires us to show how they've been received by the mainstream. If you've got good quality published "friendly" sources, they can be used too but not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ridiculous not to exclusively use sources hostile to the outlet. Right. To seek to have a balance between positive and negative sources is fringe. Right. TMLutas (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMLutas: - What sources do you want included in the article? And how do you propose to use them? Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a preconceived notion as to what sources to use. The usual habit is to give a neutral depiction followed by friendly and critical characterization. The characterization by Watt's frequent debating opponents right up front needs to be worked out to consensus. It can go back in when the criticism section is sorted. I do notice that the current first footnote is wrong. The url does not go to the cited publication. I don't feel like getting past the FT paywall to see whether there's anything else wrong with it. That's as far as I've gotten. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're referring to the Fiona Harvey article "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue"? I was able to pass the paywall once by going here, but no longer. Anyway: it doesn't say the year that the blog started, it doesn't mention denier/denialism, and says "Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science." A citation to it was recently removed from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My original complaint was just that the ref went to a different publication than the link but your analysis does make it appear to have worse problems than that. What's the reason that ref is in there? According to the FAQ page on the site, it started out as part of norcalblogs.com in 2006 and still has a link there. It then seems to have made a move to wordpress in 2007 and later on to its own domain according to the archive.org site grabs. TMLutas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It started off as a cite for the sentence "Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a science blog created in 2006 by former broadcast weather presenter Anthony Watts which concentrates on the global warming controversy from a global warming skeptic perspective.", five years ago. If your sole interest was in sourcing the date, yes the WUWT FAQ page http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/ might be better for that. But I guess originally it was intended as a cite for the skeptic-perspective bit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm loathe to edit a reference to an article I can't read because I can't personally verify that it belongs there at all. My impulse would be to kill it for being behind a paywall, and claiming to point to a publication it doesn't. If you'd like to rescue it and move the cite further down in the article for the skeptic perspective bit, I'll take your word for now, that it's on point somewhere. TMLutas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's already cited further down. There's no rule that says cites to paywalled sources should be regarded as bad, but I wasn't objecting about keeping it exactly as is in this particular spot. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question for those who favor the term "denialist"

It's clear that there are a group of editors here that feel strongly that the term "denialist" should be included on this page. And I think it's equally clear that another group of editors believe otherwise.

A number of references have been added to the article that use the term—but the fact that a source chooses to use a term does not require that it be used on Wikipedia. And in fact, if the term is critical of one side in a political dispute, Wikipedia policy pretty clearly indicates it should not be used.

So. The obvious solution would be for us to find an alternate term that is not in dispute by either side, or to avoid characterizing the web site entirely.

Thoughts? Any objections? If so, what?

If retaining the term "denialist" is important to you, why?

--DGaw (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're putting forward a false premise: the word "denialist" does not appear in the body text of the article. However, it appears in two footnotes as quotations from good quality reliable sources. So, at present we use alternative terms in the article, not sure that we should. As for "sides", WP:WEIGHT requires us to show how the mainstream "side" has received the minority views promoted on the website. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: The term "denial" appeared in an earlier revision of the page, and "denialist" appeared in one of the notes cited to support its use. We should not split hairs. --DGaw (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The word denial is what should have been used in this section title. Denial, denialism, and denialist are propaganda terms used by one side of the debate. TMLutas (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: I haven't taken a position on precisely what wording to use. But we have high-quality sources - several published by major academic publishers - that use that term. So we obviously can't ignore it. We can "give both sides", assuming there's another side to give. But we need to give due weight to sources. What do you propose? Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis. And all stating an opinion about the topic—which is fine, so long as it is called out in the text as a statement of opinion. And of course we can ignore it; there is no requirement that we incorporate any characterization at all of the site, let along any particular one. --DGaw (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: "All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis." - No, that's most definitely untrue. Dunlap and McCright is a secondary source ("The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society") while Farmer and Cook is a textbook. The Robert Manne article isn't a primary source either. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: It appears there may be some confusion about what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. Which a source is isn't a function of the type of document it is (e.g. an encyclopedia or textbook) but its relationship to the article topic.

In this case, The "Watts Up With That" site is the topic. A primary source talks about the topic. A secondary source talks about a primary source talking about the topic.

So where Dunlap and McCright talk about "Watts Up With That" in Chapter 10 of their book, they are a primary source for the topic. Another reliable source that references Dunlap and McCright talking about "Watts Up With That" would be a secondary source. It might therefore be acceptable to cite that secondary source to say, "Dunlap and McCright say that "Watts Up With That" is..." so long as the resulting article remains impartial.

The essay WP:USINGPRIMARY has a pretty good explanation of primary and secondary sources. --DGaw (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your evaluation is incorrect. Please try reading WP:PRIMARY again. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: Sorry, but you're incorrect in your understanding of primary vs. secondary sources. Nonetheless, though Dunlap & McCright have written primary source material, their chapter in the Oxford Handbook is a secondary source - it "talks about...primary source[s]" (some of which happen to be their own, some not). It doesn't present primary research findings, it discusses previous findings. Anyway, that's one of the three sources I discussed. Does that mean that you agree on Farmer & Cook and Robert Manne? Or not? Let's sort through these sources properly. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what policy says we should not use terms "critical of one side in a political dispute", particularly when it's a political dispute arguing against science? . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. ...The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." --DGaw (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: That would be a violation of WP:GEVAL. The blog in question is WP:FRINGE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It'd be OK to tell what is Dr Michael Mann's opinion on wuwt and how Dr Mann is treated in wuwt, but not to claim his opinion is true. NPOV means we can tell the major views on wuwt. They can't be represented as a fact but as a claim. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Denier" is a pejorative term, implying that disputing a prevalent climate attitude is equivalent to denying the WW2 holocaust, the only other widespread use of the term. "Denier" and its derivatives do not belong in the body of the article, though its appearance in the citations may be unavoidable.Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not pejorative by its strict definition. Certainly, many denialists think there is an implication of holocaust denial, but I think that argument is a bit hollow. The problem is, there is no really good synonym that is easy to apply. "Skeptic" isn't correct. Some have suggestion "contrarian", but, alas, that designation hasn't caught on. jps (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reading a recent challenge to the AntiDefamation League is enlightening. http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

Those who argue, as Watt does, that it is a reasonable scientific position to be skeptical of many political aspects of climate science are referred to without prior definition as 'skeptics.' It is also taken at face value that the application of the word 'denier' to these scientists is not only a reference to holocaust denial, but in fact trivializes the millions of lives lost in the holocaust. In searching for the NPOV, skeptic cannot be dismissed out of hand as "not correct." It is fairly clear that the term "skeptic" accurately identifies the WUWT position on the issue, and "denier" is a pejorative term for the same opinion holder that is used only in a derogatory manner by those politically opposed to that position.KMAnomalocaris (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive, and it seems to be used with the same intent to offend. Most people who are not AGW proponents would seem to be more appropriately classified as "skeptics"... They are not convinced by the AGW arguments but are open to discussion and willing to change their opinions with rational, unbiased information. Perhaps there were significant numbers of "Deniers" in the past, but most thinking individuals not convinced by AGW would now classify themselves as "Skeptics" I believe. When I see someone use the term "Denier", it flags the discussion as likely biased. If the discussion had merit, they wouldn't need to use the term "Denier".

AClimateSkeptic (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find I have trouble taking seriously someone who says 'I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive'. This seems like a tactic of taking offense to preempt criticism of unscientific viewpoints. I am not surprised to see it being used by a campaign that is apparently being coordinated off-wiki. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion is that the denier label was applied to attempt to create a psychological linkage to Holocaust deniers. There are documented examples of this on the climate change denial page. You're certainly free to say that people labeled deniers should just put some ice on that but it's not only their credibility at stake TMLutas (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All you arrivals from Watts' call-to-arms miss the point. There is not yet a better synonym in the literature being offered. The idea that you all are "skeptics" has been roundly criticized in the mainstream scientific press so we're left without a label that we all can agree upon. "Contrarian" hasn't yet caught on. Sorry. This is not something Wikipedia can solve. Until you all can convince those who are not in your camp not to call you all "deniers" or "denialists" or "those who engage in denial of facts", you will be stuck with contortions of that description. How we do it will be according to the best sources we can find which will be people who are acknowledged experts either in scientific communications, global warming controversies, or climate scientists themselves. The goal for all of you should be to come up with a term that you like that those whom oppose you will also accept as a decent label. For example, the creationists were successful in doing such a thing. Good luck! (Until then, we're stuck trying to do our best to describe the beliefs of Watts et al. as the beliefs of those who deny basic facts and outcomes of climate science.) jps (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some publications decry using "skeptic" does not mean the word is inaccurate, it merely illustrates the extent to which the discussion has degenerated into name-calling. Skeptic is an accurate term for one who doubts, for example, that the predictive power of climate models is as great as their advocates claim. On the other hand, the pejorative connotations of "denier" are plainly evidenced by the militancy with which it is insisted upon by overtly hostile writers. Use of the deliberate insult is a stain on Wikipedia's respectability. Peter (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources by experts in the appropriate field. A "skeptic" in science is someone who has good scientific reason to believe that certain claims may turn out to be significantly incorrect or incomplete. There are self-described skeptics who believe vaccination is evil, and self-described skeptics who believe various conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, and self-described skeptics who believe 98% of science is wrong with regard to climate change. Articles at Wikipedia do not use misleading terms to put such beliefs on an equal footing with the reliable sources—there is no equal time here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we are not entitled to dismiss some sources simply because they are "pejorative". The standard by which we accept or reject sources is this: WP:RS. In that outline, you will find no means to allow editors to determine when a particular sourced description is pejorative or whether it is not, and while it is undeniable that people who are sympathetic to Watts Up With That?'s position tend to, on the whole, dislike the term "denial", it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, the idea that these people are simply "skeptical" is not as well sourced. The way we make decisions about how to handle these types of situations is to look at what sources are best and stick to them. We are not in the position to right great wrongs when it comes to the perceived insults by those who feel slighted by the way the wider literature on a particular subject treats them. jps (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I agree with you that we cannot dismiss a term simply because it is pejorative. However, when a term is pejorative, simple human courtesy requires that we be scrupulous, and make absolutely sure it is well-supported, and there is no better term that could be employed. We have an article on the subject of Climate change denial. WUWT does not fit within the implied definition. I am surprised to see you say ...it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. Well, yes, it is easily deniable that the term as used applies to the site. We not only have Watt's own words, we can look at the articles posted. While a careful cherry pick might find a few that fall into the denial end of the spectrum that isn't the case for the vast majority. Please try it. Read the last 20 articles, and tell me which ones qualify as denial that AGW exists, as opposed to skepticism of some of the claims of AGW proponents. Surely, if it is valid to label the site as a denial site, most of the articles would fit that description. If you are willing to take up the challenge, I suggest that you start with the article posted prior to the post about Wikipedia, to avoid the possibility that subsequent articles were chosen in a biased manner. I picked the number 20 out of the air, more could be used if you want.

As editors, we do not have the latitude to interpret claims and assess their truth. All we can do is check reliable sources and see what they say. Searching academic publications and the experts in the field have led to several sources which suggest Watts advocates climate change denial, and in fact, is one of its foremost advocates. We haven't cherry picked; Mann is among the most respected experts on both climatology and the global warming controversy. Other sources are academic textbooks, books published by academic presses, and authors widely cited and respected on this very topic. It is unfortunate that Watts doesn't like the label which has been widely given to him in academia, but we haven't written this article as a service to him; we've written it as an encyclopedia entry, summarizing the best academic sources. If you have another source we haven't considered, please propose it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This issue arose because of your edit describing WUWT as a denialist site. We aren't debating the possible inclusion of an edit along the lines of Some sources describe WUWT as a denialist site. Such an edit might be supported by a modest number of cites. (Perhaps we should discuss this.) We are debating whether we can say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that WUWT is a denialist site. The hurdle for such a claim is much higher, and needs to be supported by virtually all sources which proffer an opinion. That hurdle isn't close to being met.

I see several editors making claims that there some sources supporting the claim. Apparently Mann said it somewhere, and there may be a paywalled source with a similar claim. Would someone be so kind as to cite these properly, so we can see how many there are, to determine whether there is a consensus in the literature?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are presupposing that there is a spectrum between denial and what many in Watts' camp call "skepticism". Unfortunately, there is no evidence that such a spectrum exists except that the people who are on this spectrum claims that such a continuum is what is found. We are not in the position to accept that claim at face value and I have seen no reliable source which demarcates a difference between denial and other forms of rejection of scientific consensus on climate change as such. What we are ultimately talking about is how to describe a perspective that rejects (read "denies") the scientific consensus on climate change. Whether we use the word "deny" or "reject" or "oppose" or "au contraire", etc. are editorial decisions, but the synonymity of these proposals remains. Arguing over the implications related to the holocaust is a red herring -- a switch from what we're actually trying to decide which is the following: we need to give the reader an understanding of what this website is and how it works. We cannot simply say, for example, that it is a website devoted to "discussing climate". The blog is a whole lot more than that. It definitely has an editorial bent and it definitely opposes/rejects/contradicts/denies/rejoins/disputes/argues against the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. That's where we start, I think. To move forward we have to acknowledge that this is where we start. jps (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There clearly is a spectrum of belief (although I don't understand your use of the word "between"; a spectrum implies a continuum of points, "between" suggests two camps - which do you mean?)

@jps Your post seems to be denying that there is any "spectrum" of opinion on climate change at all. Just what exactly is this "consensus"? Watts' own post sets out his position: "I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate." .

The real point at issue is how much additional "forcing" amplifies the pure CO2 effect. Those on the extreme "warmist" side of the argument (some call them "climate jihadists" ) suggest large additional forcing (and suggest anyone that disagrees with them is a "denier"); those on the opposing side of the argument think little or no additional forcing . Indeed some believe that the additional "forcings" may in fact attenuate the pure CO2 effect. Some recent research on the impact of aerosols on climate point to a lower Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - indeed below the supposed 2 deg C danger limit .

Whether one believes in CAGW or not, it is entirely legitimate to be sceptical of the idea that building endless windmills and solar farms is going to make one iota of difference to climate or temperature, especially as developing countries are increasing CO2 emissions very much faster than the West is reducing them slide 8.

Use of the pejorative terms "denier" or "denialist" is deliberately provocative and childish and does nothing to advance the debate about climate science at all. I suggest it best to drop all talk of denialists and jihadists and return to a rational debate based on science and research.

Rex Forcer (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some who do not believe CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. There are some who concede it is, but do not believe that humans can create enough gas to cause climate change. These are not the same point on the spectrum they are two different points, both of whom could be labeled denialists, but there are position not held by Watts or most of the contributors. (You are welcome, of course to provide contrary evidence).

It appears, from your words, that you think anyone who does not fully support the so-called consensus position, as well as the calls for massive changes in human endeavors, can be labeled a "denialist". This may be central to this discussion, as you have a profound misunderstanding of the term. Would you label someone who fully accepts CO₂ as a greenhouse gas, but thinks the feedback multiplier is closer to 1.0 than to 3.0 should be called a denialist? Would you call Lomborg, who thinks it is fine to accept the IPCC scientific conclusions as is, but disagrees with some of the policy recommendations which some propose as a consequence, as a denialist?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To move forward we must start with reliable sources, and jps is not one. Most known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and that includes academic sources -- the reason this is isn't clear is that the put-denialism-in folks destroy mention of skeptic sources in the articles. And despite the talk about how sources must meet a high standard or be academic, the article cites blogs (Deltoid, SkepticalScience), somewhat controversial sites (Media Matters for America), people who clearly didn't have post-bachelor degrees when they wrote or whose education I don't know (Cook, Grant), and six Guardian columns. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I can only say this so many times. It doesn't matter whether we, as editors, think the labels are appropriate. It matters what our high quality, academic sources say. If you have a source to propose, please do so. Right now it's backed up by Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook - all high quality, academic sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess, then why do you keep saying it? Has someone disagreed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a section below, which I hope editors will populate it. Simply claiming that the words are supported by e.g. Grant, is not enough. I want to look at the source and see for myself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of your comments above, which intend to debate whether the label is appropriate, based on your own assessment of Watts' positions. That can never be useful to the article, and WP:NOTFORUM indicates we must stay focused on article improvement here. The best you can do is provide sources and content proposals, not your own assessments.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which of my comments? Yes, I have pointed out that Watts himself claims not to be a denialist. As I have also pointed out, this itself is not sufficient, although it is relevant. I have asked for the external, reliable sources supporting the term. I hope someone provides a few, so we can move forward.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann for one, of course. There are others. How many do you require? jps (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Do we really need to crib from Media Matters here?

At time of writing footnote three goes to a Media Matters attack piece that seems to bear a suspicious resemblance to that section of the Wikipedia article it's serving as a reference for. Is there any problem with rewording the point to not use any of the same phrases and hunting down a less abusive citation? TMLutas (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're looking at the part of the result of this edit. I doubt that Fred Singer is really an active guest columnist. You might try using WUWT's own "about" page, which used to be the basis for (quoting from a month-ago version) "The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry and Christopher Monckton." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed above, a reliable secondary is source needed for associating BLPs with this blog to meet WP:BLPSPS policy, so not WUWT's own "about" page. MediaMatters reflects scientific mainstream views, it's wrong to describe any criticism of WUWT as "an attack piece", but it doesn't look ideal so we could simply delete the points covered until we find a good quality secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Media Matters, whatever else it is, is *not* a reliable source for science. It's a media criticism group with a very well defined POV. Fortunately, what it's being used for is not a scientific matter. However, the hostility dripping off the page is a real problem here. To delete text when there's no challenge to the text but merely the citation is a good way to destroy an article. Are you challenging the text? If not, then you should not be suggesting we delete it. TMLutas (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not require that our sources lack a POV, or be "neutral". See WP:BIASED.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

True that POV is allowed, but off point. Media Matters, as it happens, published that in 2012 and is actually inaccurate (though they might have been accurate when published). I don't think that WP:BLPSPS extends to excluding mastheads (lists of contributors). The actual contributor list from the blog would be appropriate but the whole treatment of contributors doesn't belong in the intro paragraph, perhaps as a separate section? TMLutas (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying to list every contributor, just a few significant ones. That is, contributors that have their own WP article, or contributors that are an integral part of the site. Ideally, our list should only be a few names long, at most.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. We should not attempt to list every contributor, and listing those who have their own article in WP is a decent starting point for a cutoff.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we also agree not to list people that are not on the site's masthead? Listing someone who isn't actually contributing would seem to be a WP:BLP issue. TMLutas (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

List contributors who have been described as notable contributors by reliable sources. The fact that someone is notable themselves isn't really reason enough. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that a one time or rare contribution by someone who happens to be notable, but isn't a regular contributor should not be listed. Is it as simple as the intersetion of listed contributor s and notable? In other words, those who are identified by Watts as regular contributors, and meet our notability guides?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lists of sources

In connection with some discussions above, it may be helpful to populate the following:--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't particularly useful, no. The quality of the source matters, not just the number of references. We need to assess each source independently. There are several sources in the article already (Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook) which are respected, often-cited academic sources. Could you provid a source of that quality for us to consider?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just add the caveat "not already in the article" as of the current revision? I actually think it would be very useful to see the latter section populated. People (some new, some established editors) are up in arms about the sources being used, but they don't seem to be willing to provide comparably high-quality sources in defense of their favoured wording. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would rather that all sources he added to the list. The article is a fluid concept, maybe those in the article today will be different than those tomorrow. If someone wants to review the sources, it makes the process more difficult if they have to look in two places. Why not simply copy the ones already used to this section?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the case for "denialism" has been made (and discussed at some length in the past). I'm not adverse to listing those sources, but I really think the onus is on people calling for change to list the sources they would like to see added. So far, as best I can tell, they have proposed zero. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The article didn't have denialism until Jess added it, controversially. It was removed and added again, a few times, leading to a minor edit war. Despite the fact that there is a section or two starting a discussion, no consensus has been reached. Per well-established procedures, when controversy exists, you do not include controversial items until a consensus has been reached.

I suggested compiling some sources.

Zero have been added to the list so far.

If you want to propose an alternative way to resolve this, propose away, but edit warring is not the right approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there is consensus, and has been consensus for some time. Unfortunately, since this article was linked on WUWT, editors have been repeatedly removing incredibly well sourced content. You're right, no sources have been added to your list; many sources backing up the content you removed have been provided above, but none have been provided to support the removal. This is tendentious. Please provide sources for discussion, or we have to reintroduce the sourced material.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the quality of the sources matter. But we have to start somewhere. I proposed a way to start listing sources, we can then decide how to assess the quality if necessary. I see a lot of words added here, but no sources. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no one has added a single source yet. It appears, based upon some comments, that it is OK to used the highly charged pejorative term "denial" or "denialist" and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. That isn't how this place works, as any regular editor should know. I see that some sources are in the article. I suggest we start discussing some of those, first to see if they qualify as supporting the claim, then as Jess suggests, for quality. I'll start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources supporting the use of the term "denier" or "denialist" to characterize WUWT

1. Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis. created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.
2. John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1616144009. Retrieved May 2015. #:: The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism

   the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That

   Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 83 (help)

3. Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 0199566607.

Sources supporting the use of the term "skeptical" to characterize WUWT

1. "Anthony Watts". DeSmogBlog. Anthony Watts is a climate skeptic best known as the founder and editor of the blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), which primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change.
2. Morello, Lauren (December 14, 2012). "Early Drafts of Next Climate Report Leaked Online". Scientific American. ... a popular skeptic blog, "Watts Up With That?"
3. Samenow, Jason (May 12, 2011). "Say goodbye to the sunshine". Washington Post. The conservative/skeptic blog WattsUpWiththat ...
4. Schneider, Birgit; Nocke, Thomas (2014). Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. ... on Anthony Watts' skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" ...
5. Moran, Michael (February 3, 2010). "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs". Times Online. Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts: One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs ...
6. Coady, David; Corry, Richard (2013). The Climate Change Debate: An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry. ... the well-known skeptic website wattsupwiththat.com
7. Harvey, Fiona (March 9, 2010). "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue". Financial Times. Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science.
8. Kirilenko, Andrei; Stepchenkova, Svetlana (May 2014). "Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide" (PDF). Global Environmental Change. The most authoritative climate change skepticism web sites included Watts Up With That?
9. Elgesem, Dag; Steskal, Lubos; Diakopoulos, Nicholas (December 2014). "Structure and Content of the Discourse on Climate Change in the Blogosphere". Environmental Communication. Routledge. ... the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat.com
10. Lott, Maxim (March 5, 2015). "Google works to rank sites based on 'truthfulness'". Fox News. ... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims ...
11. Hayward, Steven (August 21, 2013). "Climategate II: Sequel as ugly as the original". Orange County Register. ... WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website
12. Also according to the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, journalist Fred Pearce described WUWT as "a soapbox for the largely sceptical news and views" of Watts, but I don't have access for an exact quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
13. Curry, Judith (June 28, 2014). "Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?". Climate Etc. Who do I include in the technical skeptical blogosphere? Tamino, Moyhu, Blackboard, Watts, Goddard, ClimateAudit, Jeff Id, Roman M. There are others, but the main discriminating factor is that they do data analysis, and audit the data analysis of others. Are all of these 'skeptics' in the political sense? No – Tamino and Moyhu definitely run warm, with Blackboard and a few others running lukewarm. Of these, Goddard is the most skeptical of AGW. There is most definitely no tribalism among this group. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources supporting CCCM to characterize WUWT

1. Brulle, Robert J. (2013). "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations". Climatic Change. 122 (4): 681–694. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7. ISSN 0165-0009. (available as a downloadable pdf by searching for "Climatic Change Brulle"; I was unable to find a direct link) --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

• Farmer/Cook (Denial support #1) It is interesting that Farmer/Cook claim that WUWT "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis". They don't cite a single example, but that's an aside. The source is being used to support the term "denial", which is not the same as misinformation, even if that claim were true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• DeSmogBlog (Skeptical support #1) I trust most here are familiar with DeSmogBlog , one of the leading blogs on climate science issues, and decidedly not in the denialist or even skeptical (in the climate science sense of the term) camps. Thir discussion of him uses terms like skeptic, skeptical, and lukewarmer (as a quote) but no where do they describe him as a denier.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think third-party blogs are acceptable because of the close relation between Watts and Watts's blog, that is, they'd be WP:BLPSPS even in this WUWT article. So I added only RS non-blog. Some are academic i.e. published by academic presses by authors with PhDs (unlike Grant and Cook, as far as I know). However, academic sources are not "better" according to any policy that I know of -- WP:SOURCES merely says they are "usually" the most reliable, but that wouldn't apply where lack of expertise is demonstrable, and we can set that against the fact that the put-denialism-in crowd are stuffing in statements with no consensus, but according to WP:NOCONSENSUS we "commonly" are supposed to stay with the version as of before the stuffing started. The above is not including additional sources saying Watts himself is a skeptic, such as PBS, New York Times, Science Magazine, and of course Watts himself -- it's acceptable for Watts to be a source about what is the opinion of Watts. On the same grounds it would be acceptable to quote WUWT about WUWT, but I didn't look for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• John Grant(Denial support #2) This is a very accomplished science-fiction author some of whose books I have enjoyed. This book is a non-fiction polemic of some skill. It is published by the non-fiction wing of the publisher that also does the Pyr science-fiction imprint. I would suggest that this is reliable for the opinion of Grant. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Grant (Denial support #1) I agree it supports the claim. I don't know the source, and eyebrows raise at the purple prose - I'll be interested to see if they back their claim up with evidence, as opposed to opinion, but there's no question is supports the wording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Dunlap (Denial support #3) At first blush, this seems to be a clear example of a supporting source. Although the exact phrasing of the reference to WUWT doesn't use the word "denial" it is clear in context that it is being added to the list of columnists, scientists, companies, newspapers, foundations, and other organizations which are claimed to be part of the organized denial machine. I started counting the entities involved, got to 30 before reading halfway through, and marveled at the sheer number of organizations involved in denial. The answer is found in the footnote at the end. Rather than make a distinction between those actually denying the concept of AGW from those who express some skepticism of any of the claims, they simply decide that "denier" is a more accurate term than "skeptic". They are, of course, entitled to define terms any way they want, just like you can call a tail a leg and declare than most dogs have five legs, but if you do so, you will find that you aren't contributing to knowledge, you are obfuscating it. I get that it makes their life easier, they don't actually have to do any work to distinguish true deniers from mere skeptics, but it means, in any broad conversation about denier versus skeptic (e.g. Wikipedia), that their comments need to be excluded, or at least caveated, to note that they are not using a definition consonant with the prevailing meaning of the word.

In other words, this fails to support.

It isn't a chapter about denial as used in Wikipedia, it is about both the entities involved in denial, and those involved in challenging one or more aspects of climate science issues in an honest way. An honest title would be "Organized climate changes skepticism or denial (sorry, we are too lazy to sort out the difference)."--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to footnote 1 on page 156? If so, that footnote doesn't say what you're claiming: "The actions of those who consistently seek to deny the seriousness of climate change make the terms 'denial' and 'denier' more accurate that 'skepticism' and 'skeptic' (Diethelm and McKee 2009), particularly since all scientists tend to be skeptics (Scneider 2010: 205)." I get that you feel the word "denial" applies only to certain people, but our high quality sources are consistently saying this is the appropriate and most accurate term for the topic. That matters more than our opinions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the high quality sources are NOT consistently saying this. There are probably some who take the lazy approach, but the burden is on you to show that virtually all reliable sources equate denialism and skepticism. Good luck accomplishing that, because I've read many of them and they do not all do that. Are you one of the people who feel that way? If so, it might explain why you are trying to use the term. You seem like a generally reasonable person other than this one fixation, so perhaps it is simply that you are under a misunderstanding about the term.

By the way, if denialism and skepticism are the same thing, then given the highly charged emotional content of the term "denial" it would be best to use the more neutral term. (I personally do not think they are the same thing, not that my personal belief counts for anything, but for those that reach the curious conclusion that denialism and skepticism are not distinguishable, what is the argument for using the loaded term over the neutral term?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

From the sources in the article and proposal above: 1) which are the highest quality, and most academic? 2) Which sources suggest "climate change denial" is incorrect? Which suggest "skepticism" is incorrect?

1) Mann, Dunlap and Farmer/Cook are the highest quality academic sources we have right now. The Times, Scientific American, etc, fall in second place. Fox News, the Washington post, etc, fall in third. 2) None suggest "climate change denial" is the wrong term. 3) Several suggest "skepticism" is the wrong term, including Dunlap, Farmer/Cook, and Mann.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are seriously claiming that Mann qualifies as a high quality source? He has strong credentials as a scientist, so his statements about climate science make up solid sources, but surely you are aware of the many controversies involving Mann, and the extensive criticism, often included at WUWT. Being criticized does not make one wrong on the science, but we ought to tread very carefully when considering sources for characterization of those who criticize him. Can you possibly imagine that Mann might have a bias, even if unconscious, when it comes to labeling WUWT? As for Dunlap, I'm fine with calling it a high quality source, but as noted, they punt on the distinction between denialism and skepticism, so you either need to show that the consensus equates the two, or concede that this source isn't helpful for the present question. As previously noted, Farmer/Cook doesn't call WUWT a denialist site. Which means, of your three best sources, one doesn't call WUWT denialist, one does, but only because they label all skeptics and denialists, and one has a massive POV issue. These are your best sources? BTW, are you in the camp that doesn't make a distinction between skepticism and denialism? It might help explain your position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying that Mann's book is a high quality source? Being smeared in WUWT isn't a good reason. As for Dunlap, his more recent publication draws a continuum between climate change denial and climate skepticism, and a sharp distinction between what bloggs like WUWT promote and the scientific skepticism of Mann and other scientists. You appear to have massive POV problems. . dave souza, talk 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but I am seriously making a distinction between the quality of his observation on the science (which I would rate as high) and his personal vuews about WUWT (which are obviously subject to potential bias). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All sources are biased, and you've not been slow at putting forward sources involved in the climate denial machine. Mann's bias is clearly in favour of mainstream science, a view we're required to show to meet weight and WP:PSCI policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Farmer/Cook (Denial support #1) As an amusing aside, I just ran across an article by Cook There is no such thing as climate change denial. He isn't saying there are no denialits, he is simply challenging the accuracy of the label.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Brulle (CCCM support #1) An intriguing third option is CCCM. (Climate Change Counter-Movement) This currently has a fatal flaw; it is not used enough at this time to justify its inclusion. However, it does have two nice attributes, which will be relevant if the term catches on. It avoids the pejorative "denier" while also avoiding the more accurate, but still misleading "skeptic". As has been pointed out, all good scientists should be skeptics, so this term, while known in the climate change community as having a narrower scope, is short of ideal. Even though it may not work for us as a source, some will find it interesting reading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on analysis

Have you actually read the source, not just that single quote? As a start, I'd suggest reading through section 23.4: "Drivers of Climate Denial", where that quote is found.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've read it, except for pages 457 and 458, is there anything interesting on those pages? It does not support the claim that WUWT is denialist. The present question is whether it says WUWT is denialist. It does not. One things it does say is that the denial machine is funded by fossil fuel industries. This seems plausible. But Watts gets zero funding from fossil fuel companies, so that discussion of denialism is not about him. Is there something specific you wanted me to read?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how someone who's read the book could come to the conclusion it does not support the claim that WUWT publishes information on climate change denial. The full quote, by the way, is "This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficed climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis" and WUWT is listed in the section "Drivers of Climate Denial".   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Headlines (section headings) are not Reliable Source for anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone made such a claim? Seriously Jess, I don't know where you dig up these straw men. Does anyone challenge the notion that some deniers contributes to comments? No. Does anyone challenge the notion that there might even be some contributors who would qualify as deniers? No. That's what happens when you have a blog interested in pen open inquiry; instead of closing your mind and only allowing narrowly vetted opinions, you will get some contributors who say some things that some, myself included, consider absurd. Calling WUWT a denier blog simply beaause a few items might qualify as denial is like calling Instapundit an anti-education blog becasue he had a post today advocating the firing of education administrators. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it a strawman to say that anyone has called WUWT a "denier blog"? Those two words don't seem to appear in the article now, nor before. Or are you looking at what you consider to be a synonym? If so, can you see how someone may not see it as a synonym? jps (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the terms as synonymous, but it seems others do, which may be the key to this debate. Where do you stand?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Farmer and Cook's words are: "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis." They didn't say "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis in the comments". Had they meant that, they probably would have said it. As for the claim that the section entitled "Drivers of Climate Denial" isn't about drivers of climate denial, if you're going to make that (somewhat absurd) claim, you should really read the section in its entirety. The first paragraph of 34.4 Drivers of Climate Denial are pretty explicit that this section explores, you know, the driving forces behind the climate change denial movement. Or, to use their words: "We shall now explore the driving forces behind the climate denial movement and the growing polarization." As for the subsection itself, they cite Johnson et al. (2009), a journal article about blogs, not blog comments as "CyberGhettos".

Read in context it's clear that Farmer and Cook are talking about WUWT as an example of a driver of denial. Any other interpretation requires an incredibly convoluted reading of the chapter. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deniers rarely self-identify as deniers. Science deniers achieve very little coverage outside the walled garden of their own denialism. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence. I suspect the second sentence is true is you mean true deniers, not skeptics. I recently searched for evidence of denial that CO₂ is not a greenhouse gas, and I was pleasantly surprised at how hard it was to find. Other than a screed by Tim Ball, not much. In contrast, the points made by skeptics are getting coverage.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed criticism section as a possible resolution to NPOV problem

Since Watts explicitly says that he is not a denier/denialist/believer in denialism and that WUWT does not promote that, it would be reasonable to conclude that such labels are contested. The association of climate change denial with holocaust denial makes this a sensitive issue. I'm not saying get rid of any mention of denial. That would certainly make this page inappropriately hagiographic. It does make sense to segregate the accusations using the widely used mechanism of a criticism page. Are there any objections? TMLutas (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally a feature of poorly-written articles. So yes, I strongly oppose this. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See WP:CSECTION. We can't relegate mainstream views to a separate section. If we have a secondary source indicating the label is disputed by Watts, we might be able to include that somewhere in the article, but right now I'm only aware of a primary source on WUWT, which signifies to me there may not be a significant encyclopedic controversy. Let me know if you're aware of a better source, however.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I object, largely along the same reasoning as Jess. I suggest you are getting ahead of yourself. If we list all the sources, and Case 1: the overwhelming number and quality support the term "denialist" it belongs in the main section. Case 2: If the overwhelming number and quality support the term "skeptical", then it belongs in the main section. Case 3:If a large number support one term, but a significant number support a different term, then I would support the concept of relegating the minority position to a subsection. This isn't a new idea, it is SOP for all articles. However, I do not yet know that we are have concluded that Case 3 prevails.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that would work, as long as the rest of the article went into a section called "nonsense WUWT spouts". Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problem solved

Just put everything in, this stops the war. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It fixes nothing. Calling it a denialist site is factually inaccurate, and propagandistic. But that's Wikipedia, which is completely unreliable on any controversial topic, no matter what it is. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what Andy Schlafly believes. Feel free to use his wiki instead, I understand some people manage to make dozens of edits before Schlafly bans them. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is going to be liberalopedia, then. No wonder no one has any confidence in this horror story of a so-called encyclopedia. This is just one more example of how Wikipedia is unable to deal with ax-grinders like you. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember, it's about wording the article

The mildly absurd thing in all this fighting, it seems we have lost sight of one important issue here: the terms "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism" are (well documented to be) synonyms, at least in the context of scholarly communication about the topic. In fact, when people use the term "climate change skepticism" in scholarly communication these days, they tend to add a footnote to say "denial is more accurate, but..."

So how do we capture that? How about "to climate change denial/skepticism" or "skepticism/denial"? We can (and should) argue over which word comes first, but the rest of it is just pointless. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And also, per this. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct, they are the same. Keep in mind, we have two arguments going on. One is whether we should say "climate change denial" or "climate change skepticism". That argument has been reasonably tame. The other argument is whether we should include (and link to) the topic of climate change denial at all. This second argument appears to suggest we define the topic as simply "a blog by Anthony Watts" and say little aside from him "discussing news and the climate". I find this second argument significantly more objectionable, since it fails to define the topic or encapsulate the mainstream pov. I don't prefer your wording, but it's certainly an attempt to resolve dispute #1, and without question preferable to dispute #2. Thanks, Guettarda.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If its about the wording, and cos he's a Brit, shouldn't we at least spell it "sceptic? Just sayin. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Watts isn't a Brit, is he? Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be wrong. Although some people try to equate the terms in some contexts, that doesn't show that in the specific cases of Watts and/or WUWT the meaning is the same. That is, if WUWT is described as skeptic then nobody has any business declaring themselves to be dictionaries and plunking in denier. And -- this is mostly for Jess but applies to all the put-denialism-in crowd -- you do not have a consensus for any of your recent changes in this article or in the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, there is significant opposition and it might grow. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "some people try[ing] to equate the terms in some contexts". On the contrary, the high-quality sources agree. There are two scholarly sources on the "skeptic" list. One (Elgesem et al.) explicitly discusses the skeptic/denier label, acknowledges the argument that 'denier' is probably the better term before saying "Still, in this study..." while the other (Schneider & Nocke) cites WUWT as an example of "Cherry picking obsolete graphs". Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Read further, Elgesem et al say "we classified a blog as skeptic if it explicitly rejected that global warming is happening (trend skeptic), questioned that human activity has an effect on climate (attribution skeptic), or that climate change has serious consequences (impact skeptic)." -- so if WUWT "questioned" then it was classified as skeptic, and Elgesem et al did classify it as skeptic, this is a plain verifiable fact. The other three sources (yes there are four in all, Guettarda miscounted) also say skeptic, the fact that one criticizes WUWT is irrelevant since this is not about whether the source says WUWT used bad graphs, it is about whether the source says WUWT is a skeptic blog -- which it does. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter, please read WP:CON; consensus is not a matter of numbers (despite what Watts claimed on his blog), it's about the strength of the arguments. A good starting place to establishing a strong argument would be providing sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Who decides an argument is strong? Editors. How do we know what editors decide? Count. Or appeal for moderation or arbitration of some sort. Or WP:AE. Or change the majority (Watts's hope, I suppose). Or loop till the current majority out-reverts the minority because our fingers might get numb more quickly. I suppose that last might be called consensus, but since it hasn't happened, your claims of consensus are false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment is completely at odds with WP:CON. If you want to suggest a change to policy, feel free to do it at WT:CON, not here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The policy is fine, the problem is when people say there's a consensus that isn't there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the article on AIDS denialism should be renamed HIV-AIDS skepticism. What next? Moon landing "skeptics"? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is outrageously non-neutral. It starts with a factual error (denial) and then devotes itself to a one-sided argument against some of the articles that appear there. Very much par for the course for Wikipedia, which is why this "encyclopedia" is universally distrusted when it comes to any topic on which there is disagreement. People here can tell themselves whatever they want. We know they will. But the article is garbage, and quite transparently so. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that our definitions of "factual error" differ. The blog certainly hosts content which denies certain aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Watts also disagrees with certain aspects o such. Do you dispute this? jps (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The term climate denialist is political jargon. This is just one more example of how Wikipedia is routinely manipulated by zealots and can never be trusted on matters subject to controversy. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Is a lukewarmer a denier?

Watts puts himself in a camp he calls the "lukewarmer". Apparently other blogosphere nattering nabobs seem to adopt that position when parsing the difference between certain people who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. That's fine with me, but I have yet to see a reliable source (read "not a self-published blog") which demarcates with authority how one might distinguish between a lukewarmer and a denier as imagined by Watts and others on this kick. Does anyone have such a source?

On the other hand, I see many sources which lump (fairly or unfairly) the whole lot of those who thumb their noses at the IPCC as those who "deny" climate change. They may not deny the sum total of climate change, but that's not really the concern of most of the sources who actually study what these groups do. I have been unable to find any reliable source (read "peer reviewed" or at least "published by an academic publisher") which makes the distinction between lukewarmers and denialists clearly. Please provide one if you can find it, preferably that references this blog.

jps (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a rather transparent attempt to distance himself from the obvious lunatic fringe. As one of the leading enablers for said fringe, he doesn't really get to choose. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they can.

Based on this description, it could be argued that lukewarmers should not be regarded as skeptics. But it should be noted that they often express very critical views of climate science, for example, by describing the behavior of some scientists as being appalling, or saying that climate models are useless. One individual refers to himself (perhaps ironically) as a “lukewarm denialist,” and others describe themselves as skeptics and lukewarmers.

Guettarda (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Guettarda. I think that seals the deal unless someone can find a source that is more reliable which disputes this evaluation. jps (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Watts called himself lukewarmer somewhere -- you don't say where -- but what matters is what he usually calls himself (which I think is probably skeptic), and what most reliable sources call him (which is definitely skeptic). As for claiming that something said about an unknown "lukewarm denialist" proves something about all people who've said they're "lukewarmer" -- er, no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Source for lukewarmer. There are no reliable sources which make a strong distinction between "skeptic" and "denialist". The best I can find is an interview with Muller where he provides his personal opinion that seems to indicate he agrees there is a spectrum and that Anthony is on the "skeptic" end, but it's a weak source: [1] I haven't seen any other reliable sources which actually make the point as forcefully as the source provided above by Guettarda. I await your listing. jps (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In the source you refer to, Watts appears to refer to himself as both skeptic and lukewarm, not denier. Your "there are no reliable sources" claim has now been refuted by TMLutas, and I see you're not replying about the irrelevance of "lukewarm denialism". In any case, your logic seems to be the usual "WUWT is an X, some people say X equals Y, therefore Wikipedia must say WUWT is a Y." Wrong. Wikipedia must say what the sources actually say about WUWT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this article from the Guardian might help. Lukewarmer does seem to be a non-synonym for denier. TMLutas (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Very nice find, but it remains an acknowledged isolated view by the author and also it seems he identifies "lukewarmers" as people who think something different than Watts does from the source I link above. Still, it's a good starting piece. I wonder if the UK-ness of the distinction is at all meaningful. jps (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What sort of expert could be an authority on denialism?

I think it's worth asking just what sort of expert is qualified to associate the label "denialist" with a person or a collection of writings or a website.

I don't think citing experts in climate is enough. Experts in climate know climate. They're not experts in human psychology or behavior.

It seems to me that only psychologists or anthropologists are qualified to make such a judgement. Others are acting outside their area of expertise. Mc6809e (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Any expert in a field where there is robust consensus, including climate change, is qualified to judge whether contrarian statements amount to legitimate scientific skepticism or denialism. It's a lot like the pseudoscience demarcation issue. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mc6809e. Denialism is, according to the Wikipedia article, is more than just contrarian statements it is associated with paid flackery and ideological motivations. How is a climate expert to judge the base motivations of dissenters to judge whether someone is skeptical or a "denialist"? Capitalismojo (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Denialism does not imply paid flackery (though WUWT passes that bar, with its obscure funding and documented handouts from the Koch-funded Heartland Institute). Denialism is wilful denial of the evidence. And WUWT does just that. Science judges new facts according to how well they fit the data, denialism judges them by how well they fit the narrative. You could more accurately characterise it as pseudoscience, but denialism is more widely used in this context. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick trawl of Google finds that the idea of WUWT being a denialist blog is pretty widespread, and Scientific American don't seemt o have a problem with this characterisation:

Rather, the big problem was that the poll was skewed by visitors who clicked over from the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That? Run by Anthony Watts, the site created a web page urging users to take the poll.

— Do 80 percent of Scientific American subscribers deny global warming? Hardly

Naturally, the “stupid” — which are most likely those considered “climate deniers” — have a response. A well-known “climate denier” Anthony Watts posted on his blog Watt’s Up With That this response:

— This Is Bloomberg Businessweek’s Hurricane Sandy Cover

Michael Burgess (R-TX), cited an online public opinion poll (in and of itself an unscientific way of sampling opinion data) as reason for rejecting the science of global warming. Making matters worse, it turns out the particular poll was targeted by well-known climate science denial website Watt’s Up With That in a campaign to skew the results.

— House Energy and Commerce Committee Votes for Science Denial

The blogging heart of climate change denial, Watt’s Up With That is calling for their army of winged monkeys to descend on the local theatre company’s contact page.

— Global climate denial industry turns its sights on Joy Burch

The blog features the fringe views of climate misinformers like Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors and conservative media have previously seized on its misleading content.

— Meet The Climate Denial Machine

Before the numbers were even in, the science denialist blog Watts Up With That began downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects — and even death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan — a ferocious storm that may have claimed as many as 10,000 lives.

— Skeptical climate blog shamefully downplays Super Typhoon Haiyan

Watts and McIntyre characterize themselves as skeptical on some climate change issues, and Muller agrees that they are skeptics not deniers. Unfortunately, the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog,

— Science Denial and the Science Classroom

Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. It does not disclose its funding sources. Anthony Watts, its proprietor, has worked as a broadcast weatherman for years but has no degree.

— Denier blogs

The best of them — and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the web site Watts Up With That — have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp.

— Denying global warmign despite no actual expertise

This is not exactly a controversial view, other than among climate deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mc6809e and Capitalismojo: Excellent point. As I'm sure you know, Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright are sociologists, while John Cook is working on a PhD in psychology. That's a strong argument in favour of "denial" rather than "skepticism", since it's being made by the most relevant experts. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mc6809e: I brought up that question in relation to climatologist Michael Mann in an earlier thread but the majority decided he's not a poor source. That does leave, however, the objection that Mann represents a minority view and should not be a star featured source. I say "minority" based on reliable sources acceptable in Wikipedia on the topic, Guy doesn't seem to have made an effort to filter those. Guettarda correctly notes that Dunlap + McCright are sociologists, but re John Cook: he has a BSc in Physics from the University of Queensland, and if he someday gets a higher degree that won't show that he was an "expert" when writing for a book published in 2013. His claim to fame is the blog Skeptical_Science which trades barbs with WUWT frequently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we really using Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, the Blaze, a Bill McKibben opinion piece, the io9 sciencefiction site, and the Blaze? No, that doesn't wash. I note that the nbci.nml.nih.gov ref actually cuts against the argument, using "skeptic". Judith Curry's blog post also cuts against the argument as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is correct, of course, that these sources are by and large not high quality. The NIH and scientific american are ok, salon and theblaze are not, particularly considering we have significantly better sources to use in their place. This list, however, is on par with the "skeptic" sources provided in a section above, and it's a good example of why we shouldn't be cherry picking blogs and newspapers to settle a dispute when we have recognized expert opinion on the topic instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by and large not high quality. The NIH actually runs counter to the argument being made and the Scientific American is explicitly an "Opinion" blog piece. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV: Skeptic vs denial

Please note that both terms are under discussion here. Both terms are synonyms. Saying the term denial is in dispute is true, but so is the term "skeptic". Removing one and leaving the other is just POV pushing. Guettarda (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also frustrating that the content is being continually removed under the guise of "no consensus" or "under discussion" by editors not participating in the discussion. We established consensus to link climate change denial prior to the canvassing that took place off-wiki. After the canvassing, new editors began disputing that consensus without advancing any significant argument or providing sources. Finally, we have a few low to medium quality sources that say "skeptic", but not one that disputes the list of high quality sources that back up denier. Guettarda's compromise to include both words was just removed, now leaving the intro sourced to the lowest quality sources we have available... and without participation in the relevant section. This is getting insanely disruptive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your "consensus" claim in this particular case, but do know you've made such claims before and been wrong. Your claims about "high quality" sources are of course wrong as well. As for the accusation about "new editors" -- perhaps if you would name names and point to diffs, there would be something to refute. If the diffs merely show that some editors were restoring well-sourced or long-established material destroyed by the put-denialism-in folks, good for them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We established consensus to link climate change denial... Where do you find this consensus? I see a section above where you asserted that "denier" is the right word, but you immediately got pushback. As an editor with over 10,000 edits, I would have thought you knew what the word consensus meant. No, it doesn't mean without any opposition, but there is substantial, in-depth opposition. None of which means you are wrong about the term, but it does mean you are wrong to claim the inclusion was done with consensus. Please do some reading about how this place works if you intend on further contributing to this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Both terms are synonyms? I've been puzzled that otherwise sensible editors seem so intent on using the wrong word, but you may have hit on the problem. Maybe you have been swayed by Dunlap which does claim (without a single backup source) that "denier" is the better term to encompass anyone who questions ant aspect of climate issues. If that source is driving your position, it is understandable, but you need to demonstrate that such an equivalence is virtually universal. Otherwise, you are attempting to use a highly charged word based upon a minority of sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, on what academic sources do you base that claim? Citation, please. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an academic source stating that tails are not legs, but I don't intend on assuming they are the same. I suggest that the burden is on those claiming equivalence to provide the sources. There is sort of one, Dunlap, but even they don't say the terms are the same, they just declare that they are going to use the term "denial" for all who question the so-called consensus. Can you cite some academic sources equating the two terms?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

See below. dave souza, talk 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you mean Dunlap, they clearly state It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum which is not the same as equating the two. They then reject the use of the term skeptic for the skeptics, with interesting reasoning, but that doesn't mean they are claiming that WUWT is close enough to the denialist end of the spectrum to deserve that label.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Dunlap, R. E. (2013). "Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction". American Behavioral Scientist. 57 (6). {SAGE: 691–698. doi:10.1177/0002764213477097. Retrieved 27 May 2015. pdf – "skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists (e.g., Mann, 2012; Schneider, 2009), making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics." Further on; "It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up." Plenty of other sources are cited in the paper. . dave souza, talk 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for providing that quote, which supports my belief that there is a spectrum.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good, glad we're getting into agreement. You'll note that the quote about those not skeptical of climate science but in full denial "appears especially true of core actors in the denial machine, ranging from many representatives of conservative think tanks to some contrarian scientists to several bloggers and many of their followers." That source doesn't specifically name Watts or WUWT, but others do. While popular media sources make inappropriate misuse of "skeptic", there's clearly expert option on climate change denial which belongs in this article. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect we are in broad, perhaps not specific agreement. I think there are some full-blown denialists at some conservative think tanks, and some bloggers and certainly some of their followers (not so sure about scientists). However, Watts isn't one of them, which is the key issue here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The key point is that good quality sources identify Watts as denying aspects of climate change, and it's wrong to try to exclude these sources because you don't like them. More will follow, as time permits. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagreeing with some of the positions put forth by some climate scientists is what makes one a skeptic, not a denialist, which requires much broader denial of climate science claims. I honestly don't know where the exact placement of the line should be, but it is clear that Watts accepts many of the important claims of climate science, therefore is not a denialist (except to those lazy writers who can't make a distinction and lump all together.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagreeing with some of the positions put forth by some climate scientists is what makes, for example, Mann a scientific skeptic. Casting unjustified doubts on climate science, then refusing to change his opinion when the facts are clearly against him, is what makes Watts an AGW denier or promoter of AGW denial for political or ideological reasons. If that's not covered by good sources put forward already, will aim to cover it soon. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a very strong charge and a borderline BLP violation, if not over the border, if not supported by citations. Please provide.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

However, I am not following why you assert there's clearly expert option on climate change denial which belongs in this article. Why? I agree that expert opinion on climate change denial belongs in climate change denial, but I do not follow why it belongs here. Would you push for its inclusion in DeSmogBlog, or Climate Audit? --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann's quote is one example of a good quality academic source, others have been pointed out. More to follow. If you find such sources discussing the other blogs, do please add what they say to the relevant articles. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought your suggestion to include expert option on climate change denial meant general commentary, not specific commentary on WUWT. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

To appear in this article it has to specifically mention WUWT, and for Watts' bio it has to discuss him. The general source was provided to help clear up confusion about the relationship between scientific scepticism, climate skepticism and global warming denialism. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree up to a point. Climate change "skepticism" is denialism, and there's nothing wrong with a very short sentence establishing that fact, just as we would with a site on holocaust "revisionism". Guy (Help!) 08:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not correct to simply equate "skepticism" with denialism. Not even Dunlap does that. I won't be surprised if some sources do that, but it will be the minority, probably a small minority. The burden is on you to show that the vast majority of sources treat the terms as identical, if that is what you think should be done in the article.

There is, admittedly, a complication, as all good scientists ought to be skeptics, so I suspect that some members of the climate community are annoyed that the term "skeptic" has come to mean a subset of the community which disagrees with some of the climate science pronouncements. I don't know the history well enough to know whether the so-called skeptics co-opted the term themselves, or if it was used by warmists to distinguish others. (I don't know whether "warmist" is viewed as pejorative by members of that camp, if it is, and there is a better term, please let me know.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article is tagged as if neutrality of the entire thing is disputed. The only actual dispute I can see (other than from the ignorable fringes) is precisely how we cover the issue of denialism, specifically, how we contextualise the fact that Watts claims to be a skeptic while the reality-based community frequently characterises this as a denialist blog, and climate change "skepticism" more generally is also generally understood to be denialism. On that basis I think the NPOV tag should go and we should simply RfC which of a small number of potential alternative forms of words we should use. Give off-wiki canvassing I think a franchise requirement would eb prudent in any RfC. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And you don't see any bias in your choice of the words "reality-based community"? Your comment alone is evidence of the need for great caution in ensuring that we stay within our policies on NPOV. The tag should stay until that issue is clearly resolved. Rossami (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

since I'm the editor who placed the tag up, I find bias on the following issues:

1. Overemphasis of hostile sources

2. The use of inflammatory/propaganda terms (denier/denial/denialism/denialist)

3. Not a particularly fair treatment of surfacestations.org

4. Minimizing Watts' multi-year role in watchdogging the temperature records in the "Temperature records" section

This does not include some of the other problems in the article such as the climategate coverage which is arguably also an NPOV problem. While the denialism issue is certainly part of the problem, it is not the whole problem or even the majority of the problem. TMLutas (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

TMLutas, your justifications are contrary to specific provisions of NPOV policy: please re-examine WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL for a start. Also note that denial and denialism are terms used in the scholarly literature on this topic area, not "inflammatory/propaganda terms". You might remember that WP:NOTCENSORED. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You might consider reading the policies you are referring to instead of just referring to them. From WP:NOTCENSORED "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States will also be removed." This, of course, begs the question of whether or not there's an actual NPOV violation. WP:WEIGHT violations are what I'm asserting, that the use of hostile sources is overdone. We can discuss it but there very much certainly is not consensus on this point. Since the surfacestations.org effort produced an actual peer reviewed paper, accusations that it is pseudoscience seem a bit odd without backing. The use of a term in scholarly literature does not mean that it is not inflammatory or a propaganda term or that it could not be used differently based on context. As an example, there are scholarly studies out there that use the term idiot, imbecile, and moron (they originated as psychological classifications) but calling another editor such things is quite definitely inflammatory and should not be done. TMLutas (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The blog is not a living person, so WP:BLP does not apply. We have abundant sources showing that this is a climate denial blog, even if it were a WP:BLP issue, that policy does not mandate that we sugar coat the facts. When someone sells out to people who are determined to put profit before the future of humanity, they tend to get a rough ride in the reliable sources. This isn't our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say in this section that WP:BLP applied. I came up with 4 issues justifying the NPOV tag on the entire article when it was erroneously claimed that the only problem was denier/denialist/denialism. Up to this point, I didn't want to open up all the cans of worms at once because that tends to get messy. I think the resulting discussion justified my (unfortunately failed) attempt to do these one at a time.

All your reasons require one to first assume that WUWT adopts a scientifically defensible approach. WUWT's approach, as noted by numerous authorities, is scientifically indefensible and driven by a pre-defined agenda that is primarily political. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

TML has a history of abusing NPOV tags in GW related articles William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

William Connolley has a history of abuse in GW related articles and come under sanction for it. Nice to see you too WMC. There is personal animosity here between Watts and Connolley that would make this editor a particularly poor participant in editing this particular page. TMLutas (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I support TM Lutas's attempt to clean up the NPOV and (likely) BLP problems with this article. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete, you seem to be promoting fringe views again. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As is explicitly clear from the article and Watts' publications, he's opposed to the overwhelming majority view in climate science and is an obvious minority in this topic area. "n articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." WP:PSCI also applies to fringe views. As for the terms, they have to be used properly, not censored because you don't like the sociological and psychologcial research into this topic area. The surfacestations.org effort didn't produce an actual peer reviewed paper, it produced data which others analysed (with Watts as co-author on the second paper) and confounded Watts' expectations, which he still clings to. . . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to what he opposes that is the overwhelming majority view? My understanding is that his biggest beef with climate science is that a particular number (the CO2 feedback number) is not currently the right number. My understanding is that between the AR4 and AR5, the IPCC actually moved closer to his position and lowered their own estimates. That's not the stuff that fringe science is made of. TMLutas (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

He's noted in reliable sources for promoting denial that the world has warmed measurably since 1900, by making unwarranted assertions about the temperature record. Your understanding looks rather flawed, sensitivity is a complex area, but delighted if he's backing a number more in line with mainstream views. . . . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to slap an NPOV tag on the entire climate science literature, not this article. This article reflects the reality-based perspective, if reality is not to your liking, it's not really our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that this article is just a proxy fight for warmists vs skeptics? That wouldn't be policy compliant. You know what, I think you're right on that point that this page isn't being edited honestly. TMLutas (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The word warmists is the end of this conversation. It is a pejorative used by those who do not want to believe the science. The climate is changing, we are largely responsible, the science is absolutely clear and if anything understated via IPCC due to the political influence of deniers.

This blog exists to undermine the science. You clearly don't like either the science or the implications of the fact that this is a science and climate denial blog, which is your prerogative, but your views as stated are inconsistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV and we are entitled to discount them. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as the Koch brothers would wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not wish to have a productive conversation as I'd have been perfectly happy to switch to a neutral label you were more comfortable with. On abortion, I use pro-life and pro-choice, for example, when it became clear that these are preferred labels but I won't use "reality based community" because it's got an implied insult in for its opponents. TMLutas (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

TMLutas, you are right, and from other comments on this talk page I gather that several more editors share your concerns, or have further reasons to disapprove of what's been done to this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bluntly unable to deal with controversy. This is why Wikipedia is regarded an unreliable for anything other than the blandest information. This article is blatantly and laughably slanted. It is completely worthless! 68.116.52.99 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals very well with controversy. The problem here is that there is no controversy about climate change: there's science, and there are people who, for usually political or financial reasons, do not want to believe it. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE tone down your incendiary language. Please read WP:CIVIL and follow appropriately. You treat everyone that disagrees with you with such disdain it is all but impossible to have an adult discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I respect people, not ideas. As I say above, people are entitled to hold incorrect views. They are not entitled to assert them as fact on Wikipedia. Climate change deniers are often charming people, but any attempt to assert that their beliefs are empirically valid, must and will be firmly rejected. Pretending otherwise is rude: it gives false hope and prolongs the agony. And attempting to rewrite Wikipedia articles to reflect a view which people know perfectly well is rejected by the relevant professional community, is equally rude. Wikipedia policy on this is abundantly clear: we portray these topics from the reality-based standpoint, as defined by the scientific consensus. Same applies for creationism, homeopathy, everything. I am well aware that some people are so deeply vested in their belief that they are unable to unpick criticism of their beliefs from criticism of them personally, this is unfortunate but not our problem. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't even listen to the idea, thus you show no respect. So long as the climate models are unable to accurately predict temperatures, there will be people highly skeptical of the actual modeling process. As someone that has done a lot of predictive analysis, I know how difficult it is to do so with any degree of accuracy. To call people like me a denier because I don't agree with the prediction models, which don't predict, is not a sign of respect. These continued claims of scientific consensus are nothing of the type. Science is empirical not consensual. Several years ago I was told that not enough time had passed to accurately asses the AR4 models and that a minimum of 15 years were required. Those 15 years have passed and as was true then those models have been unable to accurately reflect the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since then the models have been updated and excuses have been made to explain the discrepancies, fine, only now those that claim the science is settled need to show some evidence (in about 15 years) that their models are correct. I grew up being told that the world was going to freeze, so the hysterics that the end of the world is at hand don't sell very well. You should look in a mirror and read your last sentence to yourself. While I agree with you that certain things (like creationism) have no scientific evidence to back up their claim, I don't treat those people like morons because you never know when Random error will come along and smack you upside the head. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather has put this page on full protection until June 8. This is unfortunate since it freezes in place the recent changes by editors insisting on "denial" etc. despite the lack of consensus. Perhaps on June 8 we should revert to an article version as of prior to when those changes began, and then allow only changes which clearly have consensus, as commonly happens under WP:NOCONSENSUS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate principally because it enforces two unreferenced sections of no obvious merit (see below). Perhaps Watts should have held back on his attempts to astroturf, since that has brought increased scrutiny on the flummery promoted by his followers in this article. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that it freezes in place a recent, highly controversial addition. However, I disagree that we should simply plan, on 8 June to revert to an earlier version. What we should do if debate how the lead should be written, reach a consensus, and if we reach it before 8 June, we can get it changed via an edit request. I'm trying to contribute, I asked for a list of sources supporting each term, and so far the list is overwhelmingly in support of skeptic. There may be enough support for denial to include a minority position, but that debate has not run its course.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On this, at least, we agree (up to the point where you started begging the question, at least). You have to remember that no denialist self-describes as such, and it is only recently that the mainstream have started to describe this particular non-agricultural manual earth-turning implement as the spade it always was. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If it really is only recently that the term is being used, then please review Wikipedia:Recentism. We can then label WUWT as a denialist site when reliable sources actually do so. Until that time, you are well aware that WP deliberately want to follow sources, not be at the forefront.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite obviously, "climate change denial" has been around significantly long, and attracted significant enough coverage in that time, to not meet the conditions of that essay. Dunlap was published in 2011, for instance, earlier than all but one of the sources you provided above. So, where shall we shift the goalposts next?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we be clear that your comment is addressed to Guy, rather than to me. I don't think it is a recent term, I was responding to Guy's assertion that the description is recent.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• @ Guy, deniers have self-described as such: see Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE. As for timing, the 1997 book The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan says "some individuals do not want the public to know the immediacy and extent of the climate threat. They have been waging a persistent campaign of denial and suppression that has been lamentably successful". . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections

The sections on Climate Fail Files and climatereferencenetwork.org, added just before full protection by TMLutas ([2]) have no sources at all and appear to serve to advance an agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia's purpose: TMLutas has established over a long period that he is a climate change denier, which is fine, but out of line with the reality-based focus of Wikipedia. We need reliable independent sources establishing their significance and showing their reception by the reality-based community, otherwise they need to go per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bill Nye video in question (here) was an illustrated experiment showing the effects of CO2. In other words, the gentleman in the video is not a genuine scientist; rather, he is simply a member of the production team, wearing a white laboratory coat in order to pose as one. Anthony Watts blogged to absurd length to expose the video as "fake" and "fraudulent", and generally used the opportunity to poke fun at people who think increasing concentrations are a real and growing problem. The incident, once again, demonstrates how deeply irrational Anthony Watts is. But as acts of stupidity go, Watts' blog post on the topic isn't particularly notable, and should not be conflated with his other projects (which at least have some value, though not as he intended) and therefore should be removed when page protection expires. — TPX 10:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspected as much. If we are not presented with reliable independent sources demonstrating the significance of the video, and detailing the reaction of the reality-based media, the section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The final edit prior to protection, [3], introduced two completely unsourced sections. Since this text is not only unsourced but also controversial (see above), this single edit should be reverted.

I obviously can't do this myself because although the reversion of unsourced content is not controversial, it is a substantive change to content (unlike fixing minor spelling and grammatical errors). Guy (Help!) 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The larger problem is the many poorly sourced and controversial changes made or remade by (among others) Guy. Removing all recent edits would be acceptable, in fact I believe it may be the only neutral solution. Removing "this single edit" would be supporting one side. Please ignore this request. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Of the recent changes, this is the only one that is unsourced. Your suggestion that we keep in one bad edit to balance other "bad edits" is obviously not how wikipedia operates. If you want to suggest other edits be reverted, you should discuss that in a new section.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose specific changes and see if they have consensus. Meanwhile, this unsourced text needs to go. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done I've undone the unsourced edit. What is and isn't a neutral course of action is debatable, but whatever your position is, Wikipedia:Verifiability is pretty clear that unsourced content that has been challenged should be removed from articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is absurd. You have a projects section in the Wikipedia article for the website. There is a projects page on the website itself. It lists three projects. The wikipedia section entitled "projects" (note the plural) only covers one of the three. I added minor coverage of the other two so that there wouldn't be a WP:UNDUE issue. I request that the edit be restored as the source obviously the website which is reliable about itself. We can work up a cite if you really want to but it should be unnecessary. It might be interesting to cover past projects, like the stevenson screen project and the UHI transect project but because those are no longer on the current version of the website, it's reasonable to cite them (the citation would be to archive.org archived versions of the site containing the information). If we're going to cover projects at all, let's cover the projects. Picking and choosing them is a manifestation of bias and another NPOV issue. TMLutas (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Dunlap

I've now reread the chapter on Organized Climate Change Denial twice. This source was identified as a high quality source which labels Watts as a denialist.

However, I'm interested in making a different point. A cursory read of the chapter sounds damning; it lists company after company, organization after organization, pundit after pundit, all working, sometimes separately, sometimes concertedly, as part of the big denial machine. However, I looked in vain, for specific examples. Other than one quote by Inhofe, what specific actions do they identify that honest observers would castigate? I recognize that it is written as a survey article, so maybe some of the specifics are buried in their references, but it is usual even in survey articles to provide some specifics.

Can someone please identify some specific examples of denial that are contained in that source?

Let me be clear, I am not asking as a suggestion that none exist. I have no doubt that many organizations are engaged in denial, and I'll work with anyone to help castigate them. I have no doubt that some of the entities mentioned in that chapter are guilty. However, if you are going to write a comprehensive chapter on the denial machine, shouldn't it be full of specific examples? This book is supposed to be one of the high quality sources talking about denialism but I challenge readers to identify a half-dozen examples of denialism covered by the chapter. Is this an unreasonable expectation?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? This isn't a burden we place on other sources: we require sources to back up our content, not go into additional detail, even if we might like them to. As you put it, the source is clear that WUWT promotes climate change denial. Is that not sufficient to verify the wording "...promotes climate change denial" in our article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This article, and this talk page, reads like the collaboration of a bunch of writers for MSNBC or Daily Kos. It's fatally slanted right from the start, and shows that Wikipedia is routinely manipulated by zealots and can never be trusted on anything that's controversial. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not very helpful. Do you have something useful to contribute?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia hates to be criticized, and then acts surprised when their follies are exposed. It's "helpful" to tell you people that you're headed straight down another rabbit hole. But zealots never like to be told that, do they? What would be "helpful" would be to eliminate this travesty of an article and start over. You people could begin by following your own rules about "neutrality," but I realize that Wikipedia really doesn't have any fixed rules. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It should not be necessary to try to evaluate a source provided it's reliable etc. But that is a burden that the put-denialism-in side tries to place on other sources, by pretending that the minority of sources supporting their view are the "high quality" ones. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I enjoyed the irony of a supporter of climate denialism castigating the reality-based community for supporting a "minority" view. You do know what proportion of credentialled experts agree with the scientific consensus on global warming, don't you? Hint: it's not a minority. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You missed my point. We do not necessarily require that sources go into great detail. However, when someone characterizes a source as a high quality source, which purports to talk about climate change denial, I suggest it is a reasonable expectation that it talks about climate change denial. It doesn't really, it is a long list of actors, and claimed inter-relationships, with claims they are all part of the denial machine, yet doesn't give examples. I've explained elsewhere why this source fails to work as support for the claim about WUWT, but as I mentioned, I am trying to make a different point. I assume readers of this page are interested in climate change issues, and I thought it was interesting that one of the major sources on the subject contains no details. I am interested to know whether any readers think I missed something, or if other readers think it is perfectly acceptable to list a large number of people and companies, made strong claims about their action, yet not explain what they've done wrong. Do you?

To put it differently, do you consider this a quality source which identifies actors involved in the denial machine? If so, can you give an example, from the source, of a specific act of denial?

It is my opinion that this chapter uses a lot of words to smear many entities, without any specifics. Is my observation accurate? Is this considered acceptable in scientific discourse?

I do realize that the talk page is to talk about the article, not to be a soapbox, and this is borderline, but the source has been characterized as a high quality source, so I think it is on subject to discuss whether the source says anything of value.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't determine a source is high quality because it is detailed. We determine it is high quality based on its author, publication, and reception. There is no part of WP:RS that says a source must contain examples to be valid. You're doing your best to place undue burdens on sources you find disagreeable, but are not not applying the same standards to your own sources, the majority of which also fail this new requirement. We have a page for that. The constant denigration of experts in the field, and the suggestion that those experts represent "the minority viewpoint", has to end. Let's have a conversation about who the experts are if we must, but this behavior isn't helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not doing [my] best to place undue burdens on sources [I] find disagreeable I am doing my best to ascertain what this source says. My reading is that they list a lot of actors, declare them all to be villainous members of the denial machine, but do not actually provide a shared of evidence to support this view. I posted my query here, in case editors interested in the subject might have another view. You haven't identified any such examples, but I don;t know whether that means you didn't find any, or just cannot follow my question.

Let me try again—can you find any examples of climate change denial in the source which purports to discuss climate change denial?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The authors are credentialled experts in their field, writing on an area where they have specific expertise. We do not require that they inline-footnote every word that might be challenged by those whose beliefs they challenge, only that we do (they include the sources at the end of the chapter, and the sources credibly support the claims made in the chapter). Having had someone challenge Mann as a source on WUWT being a leading climate denial blog, because he is not a blog expert, to now have this book challenged even though its editors, John Dryzek is a professor of political theory, Richard B. Norgaard is a professor of ecological economics and David Schlosberg is a professor of environmental politics, looks awfully like an epic piece of goalpost-shifting. These are genuine experts in the specific field of the politics of the environment and climate change. However passionately you might believe that they simply make stuff up so that denialist blogs look bad, their academic reputations (a) make it extraordinarily unlikely and (b) provide a strong disincentive to do so, as academics who make shit up tend to suffer real-world consequences. It is also notable that the same allegations can be found elsewhere: even if you magically waved away this source, there are others. The advantage of this one is that it's well written, specific, on-topic and readily available. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing them of making stuff up, I am asking for an example of "stuff". They wrote a long chapter about climate change denial. I am not setting the high hurdle that every word be footnoted, I am setting a low hurdle - it seems reasonable to expect that a chapter about climate change denial would include examples of climate change denial. Is that a reasonable expectation?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, expecting a chapter on denialism to have examples, is an unreasonable expect ion? Astounding.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes to the first. No to the second. It shows a certain savvy of the authors, who avoid being lost in minutiae. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it shows great savvy by the authors, because then the clueless fawn over them and proclaim them a solid source because they didn't say anything, so cannot be challenged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And who, exactly, are you identifying as clueless here? Guy (Help!) 21:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No one yet. I accept that people make mistakes, and it is possible to read Dunlap, see the allegations that actors are denialists, and leave thinking that something has been demonstrated. Yes, something has been demonstrated—a number of actors know each other, but the article didn't provide examples of denialism, so once that has been demonstrated, if one continues to call it evidence of denialism, then yes, one is clueless.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that readers who don't understand what kind of article they're reading (in this case, a review article in a handbook) are clueless. Fortunately, it is possible to acquire a clue, if one is willing to learn... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The chapter by Dunlap is a long chapter, and maybe today's attention challenged won't have time to read it all, so as public service, I'll provide a summary:

Did I miss any substance?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And of course clueless self-proclaimed "skeptics" promptly quibble that something clearly presented as an overview lacks allegedly crucial details, thus pulling a version of the Courtier's Reply to dismiss academic opinion. Perhaps they should check if details are in the various cited sources? . . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand Courtier's Reply.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Clue: spot the Watts . . . . .* Dunlap, R. E.; Jacques, P. J. (2013). "Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection". American Behavioral Scientist. 57 (6). SAGE: 699–731. doi:10.1177/0002764213477096. Retrieved 28 May 2015. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) . .

I read it. I didn't see any mention of WUWT, did I miss it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you look for Watts? The question is, what connection is there between SurfaceStations and WUWT? . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I did find Watts, in connection with his SurfaceStation project. They were actually somewhat complimentary. However, I'm not catching your point. This is the talk page for WUWT. While that site is mainly run by Watts, and Watts had a lot to do with the SurfaceStation project, how does knowing this contribute tot he debate over the correct label for the website? For those who don't know the relevance - an oversimplified summary follows: Watts had concerns about poorly sited temperature readings. His concerns were valid, as he found many sites that were poorly cited. However, some wondered if poor siting could lead to material impact on the reported temperatures. That was studied, and found not to be the case. AFAIK, he does not dispute that broad conclusion, although he thinks there is some impact (I'm not convinced) and he thinks siting of temperature gauges should be improved (I share that conclusion.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have full text? I have requested a copy via a contact. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the full text is here--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

pdf . dave souza, talk 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So that paper barely mentions Watts, and is irrelevant. I am now aware of another substantial source in press that makes the specific and explicit allegation of denialism, but we do not do the crystal ball thing. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: While not yet an acceptable source, if it is free online, I'd like to read it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, I only have a statement that it's in there, I have not had sight. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism

There is dispute over the significance of WUWT being described as a climate change denialist blog, particularly in the lede. There appear to be three main possibilities within the lede:

1. Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog.
2. Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution.
3. Go with denialist.

Please discuss, identifying whether you support or oppose each of the three options.

Note that due to canvassing, as per normal practice in Wikipedia debates, the closing editor or admin is likely to disregard the opinions of editors with little or no prior contribution to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I oppose the first, strongly support the second and weakly support the third. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not ripe. One might hope that an RfC on a content question would be heavily influenced by what the reliable sources say. I started an initiative to identify the relevant sources c.f. Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Lists_of_sources and although it is strongly weighted toward support of skeptical only (with a possible inclusion of a minority section), I don't think it is close to complete. I would urge us to gather some facts before pronouncing sentence, is that fair?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not a neutral question about the issue. Guy did not discuss this wording or follow the WP:RFC suggestion to "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". One alternative is not to base just on "self-identification", the alternative is to follow the prevalence of the reliable sources on the matter (which generally say skeptic). I should warn anyone wishing to engage here that Guy has referred to those who don't call it a denial blog as "idiots" here, so bring a thick skin if you're joining this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What is not neutral aboutbt he statement that "There is dispute over the significance of WUWT being described as a climate change denialist blog, particularly in the lede"? That is precisely the question at issue above. I offer three alternatives (exclude, include alongside Watts' preferred characterisation, include without Watts' preferred characterisation). You could have started an RfC yourself if you wanted the question phrased differently, but you didn't. Someone has to break the logjam. Also you appear not to have understood the meaning of the term "useful idiot". We have an article, do read it. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, it's the wording of your "alternatives" that is not neutral, and the example I gave was that you pretend the desire to allow skeptic is due to what Watts self-identifies as / prefers, when in fact it's due to what most reliable sources say. Others would probably have concentrated on other alternatives or wording, if they'd been asked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If I could add to this, this rfc as presented has major problems with all three options.

Option 1: "Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog." Aside from inserting his own opinion in this option, this option is presented as an "all or none" choice for the entire article. The question is relating to the article's lede, but this option is asking if we should remove all mention of word 'denial'. The option could simply say; "Identify WUWT as a blog committed to climate change skepticism. Omit the word 'denial' from the article's lede."

Option 2: "Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution." This option is vaguely worded and could be interpreted many different ways by the usual POV-pushers. What exact wording is being suggested? What is being presented as fact in the article's lede? Does this mean clarify 'denial' as being used be Watts' opponents? Does it mean clarify that 'skepticism' is a self-identification, or to present it as fact? I'm not sure how anyone voting for this option could possibly know what they are voting for.

Option 3: "Go with denialist" Again, not sure what this means exactly. I guess it might mean state as fact in the lead that "WUWT is a blog dedicated to climate change denial". Is so, it should be more clear.

I suggest this rfc be rejected entirely and reworded by someone who understands the concept of neutrality. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Confusing RFC -- see PG's comments above. What we should be working towards is a short NPOV article that represents RS's fairly. This may be difficult to achieve. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And one step towards that is to settle the vexed question over the issue of whether to describe it as a denialist blog in the lede. Feel free to give your opinion on that. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not a neutral question about the issue I question Guy's motives and sincerity. (and Jess's also). The efforts to use the label 'denial/denier' in the lede is an obvious attempt to smear the WUWT blog. It's quickly obvious to anyone who reads the wuwt blog that neither Anthony Watts, nor any of his contributors "deny" that the climate is changing, that 20th century warming has occurred, or that co2 has an effect on climate. The sources being cited in favor of using 'denial' are just opinions written/published by known enemies of Anthony Watts, and with a vested interest in suppressing criticism over CAGW. If "denial" is used at all, it should be demoted to the body of the article, with clarification that "denial" is a label used by Anthony Watts' opponents, and be accompanied by a quote of Mr Watt's official position on climate change. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

btw, just in case there's any question, I was not "canvassed" by WUWT to sway voting. I've been following this article and posted a comment as early as May 21, several days before this controversy was ever mentioned on the WUWT blog. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose' first, support second, don't think the third would fairly represent Watts' characterization of the blog. I'm having trouble seeing why Sphilbrick, Peter Gulutzan, Pete Tilman, and 24.9.166.120 don't want to answer the question Guy poses. If you think the question is badly worded, simply rephrase it to this: how should WWUT be described? Should any mention of denialism be excised from this article, should Watts' self-identification of skeptic or lukewarmer be used along with attributed descriptions of denialism, or should the blog simply be described as denialist? Not a hard question to answer, I'd think. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose first, support second and third. My preference is #3, since (thus far) the highest quality sources we've been able to find identify the blog that way. If it's contentious enough in reliable sources (though I haven't seen that), we can discuss the controversy over wording in the body and express Watts' views explicitly. I can also live with Guettarda's proposal, which is in the article now. Several claims above (such as "denial" being a minority position) are untrue, but unfortunately, it is necessary to read the entire talk page to see why. I have additional concerns about starting an RfC only several days after this page was canvassed by the subject, which has led to disproportionate participation from editors sympathetic to the subject's pov. Of course, we should therefore expect disproportionate !voting in that direction, which is going to make this RfC less useful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE stop talking about sources for "denial" and "denialist." This is patently absurd. These are not scientific terms. No one can believe that Watts actually denies the climate is changing. He acknowledges it over and over. So what you have is a derogatory colloquialism. No matter how many "experts" use it, it is completely unencyclopedic. If they all called the blog a "dogsh-t," would you reference them and make the argument that term should be used in the lede? Of course not. This is blatantly POV and reflects on all the worst problems with Wikipedia.Darkthlayli (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why ? "dedicated to denial" is not wrong, although quite logically leading to a full characterization of denialism at the end of the lede. Note that there are two major kinds of motivation for expecting reading denial ( of climate change. ) Interest, such as in aggressive productivism, and anguish, "maybe it's simply not so after all". --Askedonty (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Please stop talking about sources"? No. We are not saying "denialist", or even just "denial"; we are saying "climate change denial", the common name for a topic that WUWT promotes. You should read that article; it is not only about denying climate change broadly, but also dismissing and downplaying facts about climate change. WUWT is not only identified as an actor in climate change denial, but one of its primary promoters. Academic sources back that up, which is the whole reason it should be included in our coverage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So, your argument is that "climate change denial" does not, literally, mean denying climate change. Used as a term, it actually includes a much wider array of activities. And you think it is better to use this term, which, read literally, does not mean what it says, than just to use words which do mean what they say. And to establish that "climate change denial" means what you say, you point to... another very contentious wikipedia page. "Climate change denial" does not appear in Oxford English Dictionary. It does not show up in scientific texts. It appears only in various articles and books published by people on one side of the issue. If we set up a wikipedia page on "Global Warming Alarmism" we could find references of equal quality, from famous scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Happer, Pielke, Singer, Christy, Dyson, Koonin, etc. Would you be okay with that, and with subsequent references to Mann as an alarmist and Skeptical Science as an alarmist site (as though anyone would take the time to write about Skeptical Science). Do you really contend, seriously contend that your choice of this terminology is because you feel it is most descriptive, and has nothing whatsoever to do with its pejorative connotation? I can't believe any objective administrator would believe that.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If a reader doesn't know what it means, we provide a link to our article which describes the topic in detail. You seem to be under the misconception that opinions are divided on the topic of climate change within the scientific community. They are not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Most people know exactly what climate change denial means, and will not check your link. They rightly believe that climate denial means denying that climate is changing. Wattsupwiththat is not guilty of this. I don't see what the opinion of the "scientific community" has to do with this. It is not a matter of opinion. I can link to hundreds of quotes from Watts and his contributors that acknowledge climate is changing. But, if what you are saying is that I believe many, many experts use the term "alarmist," I certainly do. Do more experts use the term "denier?" Undoubtedly. Is that an argument for employing one term and not the other in an encyclopedia? No. For the record, I doubt you know what percentage of the scientific community believes what about climate change, since there is only one reliable survey out there and I've never seen an alarmist cite it.Darkthlayli (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• If this were a political topic, it would be self-evident that the appropriate approach to neutrality is the second. Further, it would be self-evident that the sources required to substantiate the pejorative description must be held to a higher-than-usual standard. Specifically, that mere accusations from those holding the opposite opinion in the debate are insufficient. The sources themselves must demonstrate some level of neutrality in the characterization.
  For example, if Republican Politician Alice calls Democratic Politician Bob a socialist, that statement would not be enough to rewrite the lede of the biography to describe Bob as a socialist even if Alice's statement was definitively sourced and witnessed by millions. The fact that Alice said it might be encyclopedic but that mere claim does not become an assumption of truth. Nor does it become "more true" when other Republicans repeat the same claim. Actual evidence of independent evaluation is required. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  I should clarify. The approach to the article is the second option. The opening paragraph should be more neutral. Critical characterizations by opponents in the debate are included in the body of the article but almost never in the opening paragraph. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this is a bit more than Alice and Bob. Mann is a significant figure and a world-renowned expert in the field. This is more like the Speaker of the House castigating Bob for socialist propaganda from the chair. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WUWT is not a colleague of Mann, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook, engaged in a political dispute. WUWT is repeatedly identified by nearly all the sources we have available as an actor in a movement known as "climate change denial", and Mann, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook are the experts in the relevant field we are citing to demonstrate that. There are many other experts who say the same thing. This isn't "republicans vs democrats", it is "science vs pseudoscience" or "experts vs non-experts"; it would be absurd to weight the claims of republicans over democrats, but we are not only allowed, but compelled to weight science over non-science, and experts over non-experts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2: obviously the important thing about the blog is that it takes a particular position (or range of positions), and so the lead needs to reflect this fact. Obviously also there is disagreement about the terminology used to describe this position. The most natural resolution is to include both the preferred "skepticism" label of the blog-owner, and the well-sourced "denialism" label. (I would also be open to something like "opposes the scientific consensus on climate change," which was in use at Watts's page at some point, but it did not seem to garner a lot of support there.) --JBL (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3: obviously the important thing about the blog is that it takes a particular position (Denial), and so the lead needs to reflect this fact. This is of course backed up by solid mainstream scientific sources, as discussed at length on this page, and denied by some editors. I don't understand why. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The RfC is pretty heavily weighted toward using Watts' self description primarily. There are several variations of option 2, including:
  1. Guettarda's suggestion: is a blog dedicated to [[climate change denial|climate change skepticism or denial]]
  2. ...opposes the [[scientific consensus on climate change]], with Mann's quote linking to climate change denial later.
  3. The most direct reading of Guy's phrasing in the RfC: is a blog dedicated to [[climate change denial|climate change skepticism]] with Mann's quote later.

It would be helpful to rephrase the RfC so option 2 read "use both labels", and if it receives enough support, have a follow-up discussion about what precise wording is most appropriate. As it stands, I had supported option 2, but there are definitely versions of options 2 I would be opposed to. For instance, I dislike my 3rd variant above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2 or 3; leaning towards Jess' suggestion above. It seems obvious to me that using high quality sources (weighted most heavily to peer-reviewed literature and books by academic presses, less to books by other mainstream publishers, less still to more ephemeral sources like newspaper and magazine articles, and least toward SPSs) we end up with "climate change skepticism/denialism" in some form. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, I say put all the sources in, all the valid information, and make it an encyclopedic entry, with a bunch of factual sources. Trying to slant the article by removing sources, and removing information, is not NPOV, in fact it's the opposite of NPOV. If all sources and all data is included, the reader can either make up their own mind, or realize there is a fair bit of controversy and vastly different views of the blog. Which is of course, the actual situation. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, if there had been a choice for that -- something like "include in the article all the known reliable sources that say denier or skeptic (or words with the same roots)" -- I'd have "voted" for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2 - self-description and description by high quality reliable sources seems most pertinent to include in the lede. Try to ensure both are given equal-ish weight. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: This RfC is a complete waste of time. None of the 3 possible solutions included in the RfC are even options. Per WP:WTW, the term "denialist" should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is not the case here. The outcome of the RfC is completely meaningless as local concensus cannot override community concensus. We simply cannot violate the rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose false trichotomy Per WP:LABEL, the term "denialist" should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is not the case here. Therefore, so all three aren't even realistic options. This RfC is a complete waste of time as none of the 3 'solutions' apply to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We have peer-reviewed scholarly publications and books by major academic publishers that support the usage. These are the best possible sources. As you well know. Guettarda (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the vast majority of peer-reviewed scholarly publications do not use the term 'denier'. This has already been discussed at length and the fact remains that the vast, overwhelming majority don't use this term at all. As you well know (or at least should if you've been following this discussion). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good thing we're not discussing the label "denier", then! You say "peer-reviewed scholarly publications" largely use your preferred wording, but the only sources presented on this talk page have been low quality, non-scholarly sources, like news clippings and blogs. The academic sources presented thus far (from experts like Mann and Dunlap) all say "climate change denial", and having reviewed the sources personally, I assure you there are more that haven't been listed too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That is false. Sources saying skeptic blog are listed and quoted in an earlier section of this talk page here. Ignoring the two blogs (#1, #13), there are four academic reliable sources (#4, #6, #8, #9) and seven mainstream-media reliable sources (#2, #3, #5, #7, #10, #11, #12). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, where has this discussion taken place? Please link to it. Not here, not on this page, not as far as I can see. Seriously, calm down; you're making wild claims here, you're edit-warring on Watts' bio... You have a hard time abiding by the norms of the community on this topic, hence your topic ban from the arbcomm. Given your past behaviour, the onus is on to you abide by a higher standard than the bare minimum we expect from editors. For your own good you need to step away from this topic. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, of course we're discussing the label "denier". And no, I don't have preferred wording, I check my policitics at the door. I look at the sources first and then form my conclusions based on empirical evidence. Not the other way around. I suggest that everyone do the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google):

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Watts is a skeptic...he even stated in his own words this and claimed he also believes that some of the climate change is due to humans. Why is it that unless one absolutely agrees with everyone else they get misrepresented?--MONGO 01:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• I suggest option 2.a which is to use the terms he does which is that he is skeptical in regards to AGW. His arch rivals opinions are not really very important. I may feel otherwise if Watts outright denied that humans are impact climate but he does not do that.--MONGO 18:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 1 as the other 2 are pejorative and unencyclopedic. There is nothing scientific about "denial". it's all political which makes no source authoritative about it. --02:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, support 2 and/or 3.

Watt's is a pseudoscience pundit funded by industry culprits seeking to disinform the public so as to prevent government regulation of CO2 emissions. Wikipedia's guidelines related to pseudoscience apply.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Calling Watt's [sic] a "pseudoscience pundit" is a BLP violation. As is alleging funding by "industry culprits". As is claiming his goal is to "disinform the public". About the only thing you said correctly is that Wikipedia guidelines apply. Please self-revert. (I know should probably remove it myself, but there will be less drama if you do so.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What are "deniers" supposed to be denying

I think I am in the "lukewarm" camp; agreeing that CO2 impacts climate; that increasing concentration of CO2 is largely manmade and therefore some component of recent warming is also man-made. But I am far from convinced that this is either a) alarming or b) likely to be catastrophic. Moreover, I do not think that Western energy policy will make a discernible difference to climate or temperature, but it is having a devastating effect on economies and jobs.

But given the lack of warming over the past 18+ years, just what are denialists supposed to be denying. Surely before promulgating such petty name calling, there ought to be some discussion about what the alleged "consensus" is, and whether said "consensus" is actually tenable as a proposition.

See image linked below that shows the discrepancy between predicted warming by the models and actual warming measured by satellites and balloons.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

Rex Forcer (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's another denialist talking point. Without a credible suggestion for a content change, it makes no odds either way. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Lack of warming over the past 18+ years" ? I'm not a supporter of the current RfC and you can also call me a warmist if pleases you. I've witnessed twisters in Germany ( not that one ) and other such funnies - wind columns, standing lightnings - now give me the historical data showing that's standard climate for the area, I'll subscribe WUWT at once I need entertainment. --Askedonty (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Even the climate scientist have said that there is no connection to current weather events. However, you could use the lack of Hurricanes, the low number of tornados in the US over the past few years, and numerous other weather events to make the opposite conclusion. Also Tornadoes are not uncommon in Germany or other parts of Europe for that matter. Over the past 60 years the number of tornadoes in my town have decreased very slightly, beyond the ability of the human mind to quantify. Arzel (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There are the so-called "tornado alleys" identified at the bottom of the Alps in Austria: Local topographic conditions are held responsible for the formation of "tornado alleys". Nonetheless in 1999 scholars in the Karlsruhe Universitat (de) already did not know how to not complaining about the weather anymore. In List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks the comparison between the 20th and 21th centuries is not revealing any statistical inertia, if trusting the 20th century meteorological data. --Askedonty (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Arzel, you appear to be badly misinformed. For a current example, "This year's deadly heat wave in India was made much more probable by the fact that Earth is experiencing its hottest temperatures on record--the past twelve months were the warmest twelve-month period in recorded history, and so was the January - April 2015 period. According to the India Meteorological Department, a warming climate increased heat waves in India by a third between 1961 to 2010. As the planet continues to warm..." by the reputable Jeff Masters, with links to relevant scientific papers. . . . dave souza, talk 07:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no statistically significant warming since about 1998. This is acknowledged in AR5. It's also acknowledged that these are natural weather cycles. Master's can get his blog peer reviewed but so far there is no link to the minute amount of warming we have seen. It's no more significant than the record cold winters in the U.S. IPCC is geared towards stopping much larger changes by 2100, not the miniscule changes that cannot be extracted from the noise of natural variation or the variations that occur geographically through natural phenomena like El Nino. The issue today is that the climate models are supposed to have sub-decadal accuracy but they obviously do not. Incidentally, Watts' comments on climate put him clearly in the "97%" camp based on the criteria used. --DHeyward (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The noise of natural variation is why climate is classically defined over a 30 year period, not a cherry-picked calculation from the strong El Nino year of 1988. See global warming hiatus. Watts' comments in the context of a lot of interesting weather lately don't seem to include any discussion of India, but on 22 March he did headline a comment So far, 2015 seems to be a bad year for the ‘severe weather caused by climate change” meme. And, oddly enough, he seemed to be solely interested in the short term prevalence of U.S. tornadoes, where there's not so much consensus about changing patterns. Think he'll get around to noticing recent flooding and heatwave events? . . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

WP is actually not a reliable source. No credible scientist will claim a warm year or cool year (or even more so, a cold region or warm region) is climate change. When weather patterns such as tornadoes start to reach decadal scales, they become much more interesting for climate but even 30 or 60 year cycles have variations that are larger than AGW. Stratospheric ozone production, for example, varies by 50% over a 22 year cycle and that's just the average. There is variation on top of that average. --DHeyward (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No reputable scientist would claim a cherry-picked period demonstrates a statistically significant deviation from the continued warming trend: see AR5, which covers these various topics. WP isn't a reliable source, articles cite published sources but tend not to be up to date. And so, goodbye. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is the SRM's are sub-decadal accurate. They don't match. There's a reason why there are so many theories (competing, not complementary) as to the reason. CO2 has not abated while surface temperature has. That's a fundamental forcing disconnect that becomes more significant with passage of time. AR5 revised it's 2100 forecast down for a reason and it wasn't because AGW continues at its pre-AR5 levels. The cherry pick appears to be the spike in warming, not the flat parts. There's a big difference between 0.12C/dec and 0.02C/dec. --DHeyward (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

But given the lack of warming over the past 18+ years - there's your denialism. See for example https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/ William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

He should publish in peer review and add to the list. So far all the papers explaining it have not been widely accepted. Whether it's reformulating arctic temps, or trade winds, or deep ocean warming or stratospheric water vapor or stadium wves or microvolcanoes or ENSO - they haven't gained traction. And let's not lose perspective as to why those theories are even researched and published: it's because of the pause. Without it, there is no need or interest. --DHeyward (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

. However, your continued denial is getting rather offtopic. . . dave souza, talk 13:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, this page isn't for debating the topic of climate change. Your opinions appear to conflict with the mainstream scientific assessment. Like Watts, you are welcome to those opinions, but per our policies, we cannot represent them in the article without explicitly detailing the scientific view.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann jess says "our policies" and links to WP:FRINGE, but there is no such thing as a WP:FRINGE policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the 3rd paragraph of WP:FRINGE, please; it is a summary of how our policies apply to fringe topics. No, we cannot just ignore it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The deniers are denying the scientific consensus on AGW.

We don't break that down here and perform WP:OR analysis and reach our own WP:SYNTH conclusions, nor do we admit any halfway maneuvers into gray zones by deniers attempting to rhetorically situate between recognizing and not recognizing the scientific consensus, as if that weren't denial.

And WP:PSCI applies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop the WP:SOAPBOXing and off point discussions. This is supposed to be about the biography article not diatribes about AGW. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Despite my disagreements with some aspects of climate science, I do not agree it is pseudoscience. Not even close.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, climatology is not pseudoscience. However, some portions of the anti-AGW community do engage in pseudoscience, which is undoubtedly what Ubikwit was referencing. Watts' claims are certainly fringe, so that portion of NPOV applies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded. Those are not my opinions. Rather there are editors arguing there is no pause or hiatus (this is not a forum for that) and that opinion is contradicted by the vast amount of research being done to explain the pause/hiatus. I find ironic that editors would make such attacks and link to global warming hiatus while not even bothering to read the attribution for the prominent graphs. Nice show. Please stop soap boxing and join the reality brigade. Scientists investigate the pause because it exists and those scientists are not sceptics. --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Scientists investigate all the data about climate as it's obtained, and seek explanations. These scientists are skeptics: for example Michael E. Mann is a skeptic, and publishes papers questioning climate science. His publications include investigation of what he, quite reasonably, calls the "faux pause". On the other hand, deniers commonly claim that this so-called pause is an end of global warming, conveniently forgetting that it relates to surface temps and warming of oceans continues apace..... dave souza, talk 22:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Now you've just joined the "denialists" if you are claiming surface temps have stopped/slowed rising as your citation takes issue with it. There are varied views from reputable scientists about the pause, including Mann's and they are far from monolithic. This is why the "pause" is an awful topic to base the word "denialist" on. That is undeniable. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Read [4] and [5]. Both theories made Nature. It's part of scientific process. Neither author is a "denier." --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts' claims are certainly fringe? For example?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If the word "denial" is used at all, it seems only fair that the article state specifically what it is that is being denied. e.g. "wuwt is a blog which denies many of the findings of the IPCC", etc. Use the word "denial" alone (especially in the very first sentence of the article) is vague, denigrating and obviously lacks neutrality. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Will add more well sourced info as time permits: essentially Watts has promoted denial that surface temps have measurably increased. "We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher. The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. . . . Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable." Of course since Menne et al. and Fall et al. he's had to back down a bit, but has he really recanted? . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

He said recently " it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable." Do you disagree with his observation that some gaps in data records were filled from nearby sites? Do you disagree that NOAA and NASA make adjustments to the raw data, the result of which is to increase the trend? (This is wading into the weeds, if you have an example of fringe conclusions, please identify something substantive, not just esoteric rounding issues.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in Menne (2010) and Fall et al., and his falsehoods led to fringe conclusions identified as climate change denial in reliable sources currently being provided. Only question is, how much is Surface Stations connected to WUWT? Since there's a section about it, these points should be covered summary style. More later. . . dave souza, talk 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Our sources cover several of Watts claims which the scientific community strongly rejects. Among them: carbon dioxide plays a small part in global warming; solar irradiance, solar wind and the sun's magnetic field are major influences on climate change; humans are not responsible for current warming trends; climate change will have significantly fewer consequences than predicted, and so on. The net effect of these claims is to suggest the climate may be warming, but not too much, and it's not our fault, and there's nothing we can do about it, which is in direct contradiction to the mainstream scientific view and the evidence. Monckton, and other guest contributors, make even more stark claims. If you're interested in investigating this further, the sources we've added recently discuss them in some depth. Yes, we should expand that coverage; feel free to help do so.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Then there is no reason not to accept "WUWT is a blog which promotes skepticism towards the mainstream scientific view on climate change." This would be a fair, neutral and accurate assessment which would also not contradict your sources. "Denial" has several different meanings. One of which, in the field of psychology, is "failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism." Is this really what you want the lede to say? As I asked a week ago, are we on Wikipedia? Or is this highschool? Can we finally, please, cut through all the false pretenses and get to what this debate is really all about, which is a blatant attempt to smear Anthony Watts and his blog? 24.9.166.120 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)