Jump to content

Talk:Climate change denial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 13 November 2023 (→‎Merge global warming controversy into here?: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2007Articles for deletionKept
March 28, 2008Articles for deletionKept
September 4, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 10, 2010Articles for deletionKept
March 13, 2010Articles for deletionKept
January 9, 2012Articles for deletionKept
November 29, 2014WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
March 16, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version

Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study

Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks worthwhile, including the point that two of the paper's authors were "physicists Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci" who "were named as signatories of the World Climate Declaration, a text that repeated various debunked claims about climate change, an AFP fact check article found." That's Agence France-Presse, Climate 'declaration' recirculates debunked claims | Fact Check, Roland Lloyd Parry, Updated on Friday 09 September 2022. Both are worth adding . . dave souza, talk 19:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I'm traveling, so it's a bit difficult for me right now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you have a good journey, I've got to give priority to several other articles so can't take this on for a bit yet.. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about overlapping articles

For those watching this page, please take a look at a related discussion at WikiProject Climate Change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Update_Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change_with_IPCC_AR6. Over there we are currently discussing there how various similar articles fit together (and which ones may need merging), namely these articles which probably all overlap to some extent:

Your inputs would be welcome. EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long, needs culling

I think this article has become too long (65 kB (10031 words) "readable prose size"); it needs condensing and culling. There is content here that could be moved to climate change in the United States to make this article less focused on the U.S.. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Table of Contents seems to show the article is well organized and easy to navigate, so it's hard to eliminate any sections altogether. Maybe the older or more microscopically detailed sentences from non-notable people could be removed, per WP:NOTNEWS. But I think this topic is still important enough, and the article viewed enough, to warrant a "long" article (~474 views/day over the past 365 days).
Sadly and embarrassingly, the US is home to a political party that embodies denialism, so that much of the US content is proper in this ~high-level article. Since climate change is a global phenomenon, CC denial also has global importance, so it's not relevant only to Climate change in the United States. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the main climate change article can stick to a reasonable length (55 kB), then I think this sub-article should be able to as well. As per WP:TOOBIG, articles over 60 kB "probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". I am particularly concerned given that we might merge some content from climate change conspiracy theory and from global warming controversy to here.
And yes, climate change denial is shocking in the U.S. but it also does exist in a bunch of other countries. Even my home country (Germany) has a fair share of it, amongst the far right (AfD) supporters. Not the main party of the country but still. So I think we should be mindful of not focusing this country on the U.S. more than necessary - making it seem like just (or mainly) a United States problem... EMsmile (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current section sizes, the sections on "history" and on "lobbying" seem overly long maybe. See also related (new-ish) article history of climate change politics which we might be able to interlink with the history section better. (I am not actually sure if the article history of climate change politics is indeed needed or not, see talk page discussion there). EMsmile (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section climate change conspiracy theories

I was just looking at the section on "climate change conspiracy theories". Firstly, this could be replaced by an excerpt from climate change conspiracy theories. Secondly, these last two paragraphs that were added recently are overly specific to the US and could be condensed or moved to climate change conspiracy theories, and grouping them in the respective type of conspiracy theory, i.e. getting rich / dying of CC policies.. I mean these two paragraphs : 

++++++++++

An April 15, 2023 tweet by Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said climate change was a "scam" and that "fossil fuels are natural and amazing", saying that "there are some very powerful people that are getting rich beyond their wildest dreams convincing many that carbon is the enemy".[1] Her tweet included a chart that omitted carbon dioxide and methane[1]—the two most dominant greenhouse gas emissions.[2]

When a moderator at the August 23, 2023, Republican presidential debate asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed human behavior is causing climate change, none raised their hands.[3] Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy claimed that "the climate change agenda is a hoax", and also that "more people are dying of climate change policies than they actually are of climate change"; none of his competitors challenged him directly on climate.[3] After investigating Ramaswamy's latter claim, a Washington Post fact check found no supporting evidence.[4] EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Click at right to show/hide references

References

  1. ^ a b Greene, Marjorie Taylor [@RepMTG] (April 15, 2023). "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸" (Tweet). Hapeville, GA. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023 – via Twitter. described in Al-Arshani, Sarah (April 16, 2023). "Marjorie Taylor Greene says climate change is a 'scam' and that fossil fuels are 'amazing'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023.
  2. ^ "Overview of Greenhouse Gases". EPA.gov. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Archived from the original on April 17, 2023. See pie chart for carbon dioxide and methane emissions totalling more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions.
  3. ^ a b Peoples, Ssteve (24 August 2023). "Presidential debate shows how GOP candidates are struggling to address concerns about climate change". AP News. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023.
  4. ^ Kessler, Glenn (25 August 2023). "Vivek Ramaswamy says 'hoax' agenda kills more people than climate change". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Ramaswamy's staff did not answer our queries on this statement — though it responded to another one. That's often suspicious. It usually means the staff doesn't have data to back up the boss's claim. Despite diligent searching, we could not find any study that accounted for such deaths. ... He earns Four Pinocchios.
EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These two paragraphs are specific to the section /* Conspiracy theories */, which is not unduly long. The content shows how conspiracy theories have reached the highest levels of government in the U.S. which emits more GHGs per person than almost all other countries—and is therefore important to this article as a whole. Excerpting always brings the problem of how the excerpted material "fits" into the flow of the article, which in this case is particularly problematic because of the vagueness of the opening paragraphs of Climate change conspiracy theory. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is overly long and bloated (see my comments in the other section of the talk page). Those particular politicians in the U.S. are not that important that these 2 examples should take up that much space and a quote box on the right. After all, this article is called "climate change denial" and not climate change denial in the U.S.. Yes, its per capita emissions are high but so are those of other countries. If we looked we could probably find similarly stupid quotes from all sorts of politicians around the world, they probably exist from politicians in Brazil, China, Hungary, even Germany (e.g. from far right politicians). Let's try to make this article less U.S. centric and move less important examples e.g. to climate change in the United States or its sub-articles. And once the merger is done with Climate change conspiracy theory then the disadvantages of an excerpt become a mute point. EMsmile (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the principle of shortening this article, but "those particular politicians" are extremely notable because they are the leaders of the dominant party in the highest-emitting-per-capita major nation in the world (see graphic). Greene is effectively a major force in that party, and with Trump, an epicenter of climate stupidity that is epitomized in the Green quotebox. Yes, we "could probably find similar quotes" from others—"If we looked", but it's not about quotes per se; it's about speaker notability and global influence. These two paragraphs aren't among the ones that should be culled. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge global warming controversy into here?

has been proposed by @EMsmile

In my opinion, denialism is the overarching term here. Things like "skepticism" and "alternative explanations" are just variants of denialism. I think this comes out quite well in global warming controversy and also in climate change conspiracy theories. I do worry though that climate change denial is currently overly long and bloated and would require some trimming before other content could be merged to here. EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also the explanation that we give in our own terminology section to explain that "skepticism" is really just part of denial: Climate change denial#TerminologyEMsmile (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, skepticism is fundamental to the scientific method. See Cargo cult science, and in particular read what Feynman said about integrity in his speech. Greglocock (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing things. I think the terminoloy is well described in the first paragraph of our terminology section: "Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part. Though there is a distinction between skepticism which indicates doubting the truth of an assertion and outright denial of the truth of an assertion, in the public debate phrases such as "climate skepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism or contrarianism EMsmile (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed further reading list

I've removed the "further reading" list as I would say it's impossible to curate it on an ongoing basis and making it globally relevant (not just publications about the U.S.).:

EMsmile (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&oldid=1184926904"