Talk:Climate change denial

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).

Denial Networks

The denial networks section is more about public responses to climate change, and not on the various networks supporting climate change denial; there is discussion of these in the History section. I suggest most of the Denial Networks section can go to the section on Public Opinion Xcia0069 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The extent that Heartland Institute is a main part of the climate denial network is not acknowledged. There is one section currently on a free climate denial pamphlet they sent educators but for decades Heartland has provided most elected officials in the United States with free climate denial newsletters, pamphlets, books, and videos. Most of the annual campaigns to influence lawmakers have been larger than the 200,000 booklets sent for that science educator campaign. In addition, there are annual conferences and occasional media blitzes. Elemming (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

Factual error - lack of source Under Section: Arguments and positions on global warming

Proposition: please change X to Y. Current Statement (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures.” [no citation]

Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 9 days) compared that of CO2 (five to hundreds of years) suggesting that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures <https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm>.”

Additional reasoning: Aside from discrepancies with data, the original statement may give readers the impression that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is at least greater than 100 years, which could cause confusion with scientific data regarding carbon deposition and ocean acidification. The original statement could suggest that current CO2 deposition and ocean acidification arises from pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 alone, which evidence suggests otherwise.

2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a long PRIMARY source, does it mention water vapor someplace? I didn't notice it on a quick read through. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The specific cite above (<https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm>) doesn't even mention water (bar a reference to seawater). Not the cite you are looking for? I'd be surprised if the IPCC don't have something about that somewhere. --PLUMBAGO 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

CO2 lifetimes are complex; but the effective lifetime certainly is greater than 100 years, as the text says, and our anon objects to. See e.g. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Something giving the current effective lifetime would certainly be better. I am a bit concerned by the posters idea that gases stay in the atmosphere for the duration of the lifetime and only then start being absorbed int the sea for instance. Is this a common type of misconception? Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

In reference to previous edit (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing <111>.”

Source added in updated page is sufficient. My apologies, as the water vapor value in the last edit request was not found in the source page I linked - valid points raised by editors - this edit is to address the CO2 residence time listed.

Suggested Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (decades to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing <111>.”

NOTE: The updated source provided suggests CO2 residence times of decades to centuries.

Updated Source 111 - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

The linked Wikipedia Page: Greenhouses Gases - suggests decades to thousands of years - “Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[32] The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[33] This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[34] Although more than half of the CO2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[35] [36] [37] “

The IPCC report (listed in the previous edit) provides a range of 5 to 200 years for anthropogenically sourced CO2

NOTE: I declare no ideological motivations to these edits. I am a scientist/communicator and a woman listed this discrepancy on Wikipedia as evidence of Wikipedia being unreliable. I merely hope to contribute to continued improvement of a very useful site. 2601:18A:C681:69F1:B8A4:9745:11F0:DDCC (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned that what you want to put in is both too detailed and not accurate enough for an article about climate change denial. We should I think be putting figures for the half life of the increase in CO2 rather than some figure which talks about it disappearing into the sea and other CO2 coming out and anyway the sea might get overloaded etc etc. We are not concerned about the fate of individual molecules - that is the concern of modelers. We are interested in the overall effect in this article. Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thinking again it is a bit difficult as half life implies an exponential decay and that is not at all what happens with CO2. Perhaps we need a Wikipedia page on this particular business, or is there one already? Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. There is a page relating to this matter, entitled “Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Atmosphere.” I merely wish to change the information in the parentheses from (hundreds to thousands of years) to (decades to thousands of years). An appropriate page is already linked to the page and together with the current source just listed yesterday, I believe these are sufficient for those who seek further clarification on both water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. The suggested edit simply corrects a discrepancy with other Wikipedia pages (e.g. Greenhouse Gases) and linked sources. 130.132.173.41 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a page for going into the science, so perhaps it would be best to simply delete the years and state the actual consensus which is that CO2 has a much longer term effect. At the rate this is going you'll have people sticking in more irrelevant things like the effects of other gases. Well they are relevant but do we really need all that here? Dmcq (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The real problem as I see it is that yes you have a person complaining about one set of figures and pointing to a place that says another, but really the figures only have a meaning in the context of quite a bit of explanation, they refer to different things and don't really mean anything easily understandable without a good feeling for how change works as in a differential equation. It is a problem but just sticking in different figures is not a real solution. So I think a general result is better with a link to Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for more. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact I see that article even does not go into it in any detail, so it definitely doesn't belong here. Dmcq (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree - the topic of CO2 residence time isn't a simple one, and a single figure (or even a range) isn't especially helpful. While it is a primary research source, so perhaps not wholly useful here, this article (which I believe is freely available) might help: Archer, D. (2005), Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time, J. Geophys. Res., 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.

A few pertinent quotes from it are:

"For the best guess cases, ..., we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr."

"In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon."

"A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’"

Hope this is helpful, --PLUMBAGO 08:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The lack of a good lifetime for CO2 is a problem. Ideally, we'd just delete the number. But then we'd be left with "much longer for CO2" which is somewhat unsatisfactory, or so it seemed to me. On reflection, no-one is going to use this page as a source for the CO2 lifetime, and "hundreds" is both vague and fairly true, so I tried just deleting "thousands" to see if that looked OK William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Copied from tabacco lobbyists?

This page states "This approach to downplay the significance of climate change were copied from tobacco lobbyists" and it does this without citing a source. Is there a basis for this claim? I know what the tobacco lobbyists did, and I know that some people have said they are similar (in that they are both trying to lie to the public), but this claim that they copied their approach from the tobacco lobbyists claims quite a bit more than that. I am wondering if there is a source for this claim or it should be removed. -Obsidi (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Same people, same organisations: Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, The Heartland Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs...

Merchants of Doubt is the usual source for that connection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As above, this is all documented in painstaking detail by Oreskes. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Typical leftypedia biased article with an agenda

Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tell us o supreme climate scientists, where is the 40 degrees by age 40 (40 by 40) you predicted twenty six years ago. I am over 40 now, and last I looked Sydney was not 40 degrees every day. What a massive fail climage change is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.34.201.158 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC) It wouldn't have been possible to make that accurate a prediction and I very much doubt anyone would say that it would be that even during Winter. But perhaps you should read the weather report for 2017 in Sydney [1] where you'll see that there were temperatures of 40°C or more for up to 15 days in parts of Sydney, and higher in the surrounding area with a record of 47°C in Richmond. I don't believe there are political activists altering those records! Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. talk page is for discussing possible changes to articles, you didn't give a change you wanted . And sources for any information like for instance the weather report I cited are also very desirable. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Forum type argument unrelated to improving the article remove, see WP:NOTFORUM. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of the denial

The article describes the climate change denial, but does not explain the root causes of this denial. I think that such an explanation is relevant and due. I added a short paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation. I suggest that other contributors will add further explanations, based on psychology or social sciences. Lenmoly (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Lenmoly:. The paragraph you have added does not contain any source. Remember that on Wikipedia, any addition needs to be verifiable (see V.) So I will remove the text for now. To re-add it, please make sure that you cite a reliable source that specifically ties Marxism to climate change denial. --McSly (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @McSly:. I added a reliable source that underpins the entire short paragraph, when combined with the well-known basic theses of Marxism.Lenmoly (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a reliable source? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Never. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that the contents of Conservapedia are reliable. However, Conservapedia is a reliable source in the present context in the sense that it is a mouthpiece of the capitalist class.Lenmoly (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I replaced Conservapedia with Forbes, a much more solid source. The role of the source is only to establish the fact that the capitalist class views the issue of global warming as a socialist conspiracy. When combined with the well-known theses of Marxism the version of the short paragraph I added now is well established and complies with Wikipedia's rules. The paragraph is of relevance and interest because it addresses the question of what causes the denial. Other explanations, apart of the Marxist one, are of interest too.Lenmoly (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lenmoly:, you don't seem to understand how sourcing works. Conservapedia is never a reliable source, and no, your paragraph does not comply with Wikipedia's rules. It doesn't like the Forbes source supports any of the text in the paragraph. In the future, I suggest that you propose any text change to the article on this talk page first and only make the change AFTER you have reached consensus. Thank you. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is not an explanation of denial: it is a crazy right-wing exposition of a crazy left-wing attempt at explanation.

Climate change is a market failure, and market fundamentalists do not believe in market failures. Further explanation not needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Forbes, a ghastly website littered with pop-ups and attempts to use the disk space of visitors, merely regurgitates James Delingpole, who's famously said that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but to be "an interpreter of interpretations." . . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of a good article on Wikipedia about the phenomenon. Michael Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things basically covers this sort of stuff though he doesn't explicitly deal with climate change denial. However one would also really need some more properly done studies with surveys to base such an article on. Elesvier have a tome on the subject of 'Psychology and Climate Change'. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience#Psychology has something along these lines. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@McSly: you tell me that "you don't seem to understand how sourcing works." So may I ask - is there any sourcing scheme that may open the door to adding a brief paragraph about the Marxist explanation of the phenomenon of climate change denial? If such a scheme exists, please guide me. However, I have a feeling that the door is being shut in front of my face when try to add a small piece of writing that does bring some added value to this article. I also think that citing other explanations of the denial phenomenon, e. g. according to the suggestion by Dmcq above, which mentions an Elesvier tome on the subject of Psychology and Climate Change, would bring added value to the article as well. Lenmoly (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is better to start from the outside and go into topics rather than present one thing without knowing its weight. Do we know whether this Marxist idea has got weight compared to any other explanation? After all there are lots of other ideas that are around like for instance God has created the best possible world and would not let it be ruined so easily, SUV's are wonderful are you asking me to give up driving one?, I don't like being controlled they should let me do as I like, look at the wide open spaces, this is bullshit - tons and tons of reasons. Wikipedia articles should present things with due weight so we should rally find out what the weight is first from some summary article rather than jump on some article that takes our fancy. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Forbes article. As well as being based on James Delingpole the Forbes contributor is a founder of something he calls the 'Community of Liberty'. Basically someone with an axe to grind. I definitely would prefer a proper reporter to give context if we can't get something based on an actual study. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note, that's not Forbes per se, but basically a blog platform hosted by Forbes. Nothing should be attributed to Forbes, they don't have any editorial oversight. Material from forbes.com/sites/* is basically self-published. Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

But the 'Community of Liberty' (as in taking a liberty?) – that sounds as though it's got nearly as much scientific credence as the Global Warming Policy Foundation – oh, weight a minute .... dave souza, talk 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dmcq: You raised the following question: "Do we know whether this Marxist idea has got weight compared to any other explanation?" I have suggested to include the Marxist explanation (properly supported by sources that show that this explanation indeed follows directly from the theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, under the prevailing circumstances) alongside other explanations. I propose to include all available interesting explanations that address the question of why the phenomenon of global warming denial persists so fervently. Lenmoly (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we even know it actually is a Marxist idea? As far as we know, some denialist crackpots derived it from their own understanding of Marxism. Is there any really reliable source on this? You know, a source where the writing does not leak hate of mainstream science and knowledge in every sentence? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: The common premise here is that mainstream science is valid. We are speaking about the need for explaining the root and cause of the denial of mainstream science. Lenmoly (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The "root and cause"? There are two basic ones: Ignorance and Greed. The greed part is tied to economy, which of course can be explained by Capitalism. Now find multiple RS which make that point. It will be easier to find those which explain it as corporate greed by big polluters, than find those mentioning Marxism. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like some reliable source that talks about causes, not peoples own WP:Original research. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried to add a brief paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation for the phenomenon of widespread and fervent denial of global warming. My paragraph was removed, and no guidance was offered as to how to improve the paragraph so it would fit within the framework of of Wikipedia's rules. I claimed that the Marxist explanation, as well as any other non-simplistic explanation for the said phenomenon, would bring added value to the article. This claim of mine remained unanswered. Lenmoly (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could summarize what you think people said to you the problem in communication could be found. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I ask your permission to add the following sentence to the article: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle." Lenmoly (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source such as an academic review article and you properly attribute the statement by prefacing it with "According to (whomever)...", then go ahead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be okay. It would also encourage others to get a survey or other opinions or a proper study. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle" consists of two parts. The first part says as follows: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle". This statement is founded upon the article itself: The article says that "the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate." The article also says that "Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions". The article also says that "the scientific community had reached a broad consensus that the climate was warming, human activity was very likely the primary cause, and there would be significant consequences if the warming trend was not curbed". Hence, the first part of the proposed sentence is supported by the article itself. Consider now the second part, whose wording is "reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle". To establish this second part I have to cite reliable sources that substantiate the assertion that the Marxist notion of class struggle pertains to a major and crucial social struggle. Such sources are found within Wikipedia itself. The cited article about class conflict says that "The view that the class struggle provides the lever for radical social change for the majority is central to the work of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin." Thus, the proposed sentence is well founded upon reliable sources. Lenmoly (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source and have you prefaced what you want to put in with "According to (whomever)..."? Dmcq (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

As to 'class struggle' have a look at Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. According to that your average citizen has near zero power. There ain't no class struggle. The main power is with rich people and organized interest groups. That paper is a good illustration that one needs to be very careful about assigning reasons to things in politics - careful study is needed. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Dmcq, thank you for the interesting article by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. I removed the Marxist part from my proposed sentence. I retained only the first part and propped it up on the preceding text. The sentence now reads as follows: "It follows from the description above that the struggle between those who claim that anthropogenic global warming is taking place (with a high probability) and those who dismiss this claim is one of the major and crucial social struggles of the present era." I inserted this version into the article. Lenmoly (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we can't say "it follows from the description above" for two reasons, namely the prohibition on synthesizing concepts to make an argument and the prohibition on drawing our own conclusions. As has been mentioned several times before you need a reliable, published source for your statement. For what it's worth I largely agree with the statement as you wrote it. But that doesn't matter. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

please change "The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million."

to "While reports have suggested that the income of climate change counter-movement-organizations approaches roughly $900 million, this was debunked yielding an actual aggregate figure around roughly $90 million over the past decade." Strakajagr (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References

No. That is not a reliable source, Forbes contributor articles are blogs not subject to editorial control. The writer is the president of an organization he set up the Spark of Freedom Foundation which kind of implies to me he has an axe to grind. He is not a researcher or a reporter. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Did you read the article? The person with the "axe to grind" is disreputable original source. If you actually READ the Forbes article, you will note that this has NOTHING to do with science. The original article aggregates the money spent by conservative think tanks on global warming by allocating 100% of their annual funding to global warming. This is preposterous. Use your brain. The Forbes article simply decomposes think tank spending. The fact that you won't publish this is really solidifies the argument that the left absolutely suppresses intelligent arguments that do not align with their thinking. It's pretty absurd, but great proof. How exactly you have been granted this kind of authority on a site composed by and meant for the general public is beyond me.

You can tell your bosses you cost them a donation by me this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strakajagr (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to figure out what your point is. The proposed change has been rejected primarily because the source article is not a WP:reliable source. What do you think is going wrong that you are annoyed about? You surely don't believe we should base articles on random blogs? Dmcq (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think Strakajagr (talk · contribs) can tell their own bosses that their comedy turn didn't work, then try to learn how to sign their posts. . . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)