Talk:Climate change denial: Difference between revisions
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
::Think tanks aren't a reliable source of anything except their own opinions. What's so much better about this than anything the Heartland Institute says? We need some decent third-party source like a newspaper which has taken some notice of it and reports on it or some academic source. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC) |
::Think tanks aren't a reliable source of anything except their own opinions. What's so much better about this than anything the Heartland Institute says? We need some decent third-party source like a newspaper which has taken some notice of it and reports on it or some academic source. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::We agree, of course the two sources reporting on the study are reliable for the contents of the study itself, and so are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia with in-text attribution as per [[WP:YESPOV]], please see. [[User:ECarlisle|ECarlisle]] ([[User talk:ECarlisle|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:55, 7 September 2017
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?
A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming.[1][2] According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence.[3] Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable."[4] Q2: Is this article a POVFORK?
A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion."[5] Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers?
A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust.[6] Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?
A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this.[2] Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along?
A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:
References
|
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmonteleon (article contribs).
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): K15brbapt (article contribs).
Global warming hiatus
The article states, "Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming stopped recently, a global warming hiatus, or that global temperatures are actually decreasing, leading to global cooling" but doesn't mention the mainstream viewpoint. There should be another sentence explaining the mainstream view. I know that readers are directed to Global warming hiatus but I think a short summarization in this article would be helpful. I will leave it to regular editors of this article to make any appropriate changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good point, the source already cited covers that point so I've summarised it, and copy-editsd the next paragraph to avoid misunderstanding the length of the observed warming trend. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106081048/http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf to http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Suspect sentence
Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.
The problem here is that "climate change" has become a grab bag of loosely related propositions.
One should not be accused of being a climate change denier if one is nihilistic about human potential to remediate the wheels of fate already set in motion.
One could add "... to translate their acceptance into action, whether that be by attempting to forestall worsening of the situation, or laying in survival gear to ride out the inevitable calamity."
Only that isn't very encyclopedic sounding—mostly because the sentence I just modified wasn't exactly a winner in the first place, having overstated its case.
Much of the calamitization of climate change derives from "tipping point" rhetoric. Even if one believes in climate change, there can be skepticism about tipping point mechanics. And even if the tipping point is accepted, there's a choice to be made about whether to board the "precautionary" bus—attempting to ameliorate what "might" happen—or to hew to a more conservative "what seems reasonably incontrovertible" stance. And finally, there's scope for a divergence of opinion on the magnitude and urgency of the intervention demanded—supposing one believes an intervention could accomplish anything at all. Many scientists with outstanding credentials in environmental science seem to feel qualified to pontificate on intervention cost/benefit analysis. I have to admit that annoys me sometimes: it's the flip side of coin of buying into the buffet model, where it's just one giant theory joined at the hip, accepted or rejected wholesale; likewise, if you're qualified at one end, you're qualified for the whole deal. But it's actually not joined at the hip in that manner. There's an entire set of related propositions, each of which can reasonably be argued independently, on different expertise. — MaxEnt 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be your original research, please show reliable published sources for any changes you want to make. The sentence summarises an issue discussed in this source. . . dave souza, talk 04:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Center for American Progress#Center for American Progress Action Fund
I've removed some additions citing that fund as a source. I don't think we can count think tanks as reliable sources or just quote what they say - we need a reliable secondry source like a newspaper to say something about what they said I believe. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The reliable sources noticeboard which is good for resolving this type of problem is at WP:RSN. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress defined a climate change denying legislator as any who:
- has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change;
- answered climate questions with the “I'm not a scientist” dodge;
- claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming);
- failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or
- questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change.[1][2]
Also
A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were members of the Republican Party.[1][2]
References
- ^ a b "RELEASE: CAP Action Releases 2017 Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus". Center for American Progress Action Fund. April 28, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
- ^ a b Moser, Claire; Koronowski, Ryan (April 28, 2017). "The Climate Denier Caucus in Trump's Washington". ThinkProgress. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help)
- This update to the article summarizes a recent source which contributes an explicit, recent, operational definition of "climate change denial." The definition serves as a useful characterization of diverse dimensions of climate change denial. The source is an example of a study which offers an explicit definition. The source is reliable for its own definition of climate change denial. The sourcing is documented via citations and in-text attribution for possible bias in full conformance with policies and guidelines including WP:YESPOV. The article talk page is the appropriate venue for article content issues. ECarlisle (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Think tanks aren't a reliable source of anything except their own opinions. What's so much better about this than anything the Heartland Institute says? We need some decent third-party source like a newspaper which has taken some notice of it and reports on it or some academic source. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- We agree, of course the two sources reporting on the study are reliable for the contents of the study itself, and so are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia with in-text attribution as per WP:YESPOV, please see. ECarlisle (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Think tanks aren't a reliable source of anything except their own opinions. What's so much better about this than anything the Heartland Institute says? We need some decent third-party source like a newspaper which has taken some notice of it and reports on it or some academic source. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)