Talk:Climate change denial
![]() | 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. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Template:Archive box collapsible
Denialism Redux
The NPOV sentence "It has been descibed as a form of denialism" currently has six sources. The first never mentions the term 'denialism'; nor does it compare 'denialism' with 'holocaust denial', 'AIDS reappraisal', or anything else arguably a type of 'denialism'. The same thing is true for the second source. The third article compares 'climate change denial' with efforts to counter tobacco company efforts to counter passive smoking research, again, without using the term 'denialism'. The fourth article compares, in passing, opposition to the IPCC reports to holocaust denial in the sense that both involve denying scientific and historical evidence. It does not mention intent, morality, or motivation-- nor does it mention the term 'denialism'. The fourth article directly compares 'climate change denial' to 'holocaust denial'. Although it never mentions the term 'denialism', it implies it in a strong way. The fifth article does the same thing. The problem is that these are Op-Ed columns, one of which is by a former director of Greenpeace, and represent a small minority viewpoint that should not be given undue weight.
- It doesn't matter how many people you can reference who prefer to join you in a vile ad homienem attack on people who question your dogma. No matter how you cut it, it's still a vile and unwarrented ad hominem attack. I'm sure that the Nazi "scientists" of the 1940's could cite many publications that supported their views on race, but they were vile and worthy of being rejected and circumscribed regardless.RFabian 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Godwin in one. That's rather impressive! --Stephan Schulz 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, who would have guessed someone would bring up Nazis in response to an article equating people who question "global warming" with holocaust deniers. No really, it's people like you who hold our society back. If anyone has something to say that you don't agree with and you can't prove that you are correct you attack their character. What happened to being objective, or atleast TRYING to be? This article should be renamed. I suggest Criticism of Global Warming, or Controversy on Climate Change. It fits with the rest of wikipedia. Unless you feel like renaming all the other anti-whatever articles to "Tom Cruise sanity denial" and "flat earth denial". 64.230.7.46 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- There already are articles on the global warming controversy where the points are quite well addressed. This article is about the documented campaign to spread disinformation, as opposed to the science behind global warming. Please read the article to understand what it's about, and visit the sources to see how well it's documented. Thank you. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- But that's just it, this fits PERFECTLY into the global warming controversy page. I see no reason why it isn't put in there. Maybe we should make a 9-11 denier page for people who spread disinformation about 9-11. Last time I checked the entire 9-11 controversy page is full of examples of that very thing and debunked as that. 64.230.7.46 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- There already are articles on the global warming controversy where the points are quite well addressed. This article is about the documented campaign to spread disinformation, as opposed to the science behind global warming. Please read the article to understand what it's about, and visit the sources to see how well it's documented. Thank you. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, who would have guessed someone would bring up Nazis in response to an article equating people who question "global warming" with holocaust deniers. No really, it's people like you who hold our society back. If anyone has something to say that you don't agree with and you can't prove that you are correct you attack their character. What happened to being objective, or atleast TRYING to be? This article should be renamed. I suggest Criticism of Global Warming, or Controversy on Climate Change. It fits with the rest of wikipedia. Unless you feel like renaming all the other anti-whatever articles to "Tom Cruise sanity denial" and "flat earth denial". 64.230.7.46 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Godwin in one. That's rather impressive! --Stephan Schulz 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The eariler and since removed citation of David Roberts [1] compares 'climate change deniers' to the actual pepetrators of the holocaust. Again, the term 'denialism' is not mention but it's implied the clearest here. It's the only non-opinion piece that has been cited for the 'denialism' comparison. At the same time, still, it's an extreme minority position. How many journalists have made the comparison? How many climate scientists? Revolutionaryluddite 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's take a carefull look at each one then.
- The Truth About Denial by Sharon Begley in Newsweek writes "Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered."" and "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."". These quotes show that this source directly supports the passage in our article that climate change denial is "a form of denialism". When you say " The first never mentions the term 'denialism' " you seem to be misrepresenting the source since it's called The Truth About Denial. Read it; it's about nothing but denialism. And this Newsweek article not an "Op-Ed" or opinion article as you claim above, but a journalistic article in Newsweeks's 'Technology and Science' section. Op-Ed appears here in Newsweek.
- Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers is linked from The Truth About Denial under the section title of "The Global Warming Deniers". Follow the link and you'll see that the [Newsweek]] timeline gives as examples of "global warming deniers" Sen. James Inhofe, Fred Singer and Exxon, which Newsweek says have pursued attempts to "discredit" scientific evidence and consensus. Thus this source indirectly supports the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."
- The denial industry by George Monbiot in the Guardian Unlimited states "While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world. ... By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, ... It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies", directly supports the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."
- No change in political climate by Ellen Goodman in the The Boston Globe writes "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." and " 'when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don't see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial.' ", directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."
- Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect by Peter Christoff in The Age AU.com states "and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming" ,directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."
- Deniers of global warming harm us by Joel Connelly in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer states "As the world's scientists near consensus on human causes of climate change, even Exxon is cutting contributions and distancing itself from the global warming denial industry.", which ties climate change denial to scientific consensus, thus directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism", which is after all nothing but the rejecting of "propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence."
- I fail to see any issues at all with these sources, but I think 1, 3, and 4 are the most relevant and notable and should be the ones used. But I have no object to all remaining. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, I never stated that the Newsweek article is an Op-Ed. Secondly, the terms 'denial' and 'denialism' are not synoymns. The use of one does not automatically imply another. See [2] and the dictionary definiton of the word 'deny' mentioned previously in the talk page. Again, none of the articles cited use the term 'denialism'. You and I might believe that the articles describe 'denialism' as the Wikipedia article currently defines it, but that's purely a matter of opinion. The two Newsweek citiations do not compare 'climate change denial' with 'holocaust denial' or anything like that. The first Newsweek article includes a quote from a politican comparing 'climate change denial' to tobacco misinformation. That section might indirectly imply that 'climate change denial' is 'denialism'; that's it. In any rate, what about weight? The four articles cited that arguably describe denialism, while they do not mention it specifically, are Op-Ed columns. Again, how many journalists have made the comparison? How many climate scientists? Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since we're debating whether or not to equate living climate scientists with honest-to-goodness Nazis, the burden of proof regarding 'weight' and 'notability' should be on the side of those advocating inclusion. Revolutionaryluddite 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about "Since we're debating whether or not to equate living climate scientists with honest-to-goodness Nazis"?! The only issue being discussed here is whether these 5 sources The Truth About Denial, Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers, The denial industry, No change in political climate, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect, Deniers of global warming harm us simply support the passage in the article that says It has been described as a form of denialism. Equating scientists with Nazis has nothing to do with this. Please stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense objections. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- If all of my posts on this talk page have just been "wasting your time", why bother responding? Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Er, because you'll invoke 'consensus' or claim silence is assent. I think FM is justified in calling this time-wasting; you seem to be conflating two separate issues here. Odd nature 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Revolutionaryluddite holds a very strong position on this issue. I opened every reference that supports the term "denialism" in this article and used my search tool to find whether any of these sources use the word "denialism". I did not find one instance of the term (the "timeline" didn't work as well, being flash, so it could be used there). Because no actual, verifiable reference exists to the term "denialism", we should not make reference to it. Moreover, the sentence "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism." is clearly not factual and must be deleted. Unless one or more notable and reliable sources make the claim that climate change denial is a form of denialism, the term has no place in this article. Zoomwsu 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but no he does not. What "search tool" would you be using, Ctrl+F? Your reasoning here is as specious as it is clueless in regards to Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policy and guideline. Care to explain how an article titled "The Truth About Denial" isn't about denial? Or how it is an article called "Deniers of global warming harm us" isn't about denialism. Please become more familar with our policies governing sources, WP:RS and WP:V before wading into such nuanced topics. FeloniousMonk 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you fail to see the nuance in his argument--at least we know why you disagree. We should be precise with our language: "denial" is not the same as "denialism", which is a term that seems to be made up out of thin air as far as climate science is concerned. I did find one instance of the term in the Newsweek article, used in a quotation from an obscure Senate staffer named Manik Roy, in the context of 1990s-era political tussle over the issue. Please show me a notable, reliable source (you'll have to do better than a buried quotation from a nobody) that specifically uses the term "denialism" in the context of climate science and I will reconsider my position. Barring such an action, there is little grounds for including the completely untrue (and misspelled) statement "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism." Who are these others? Wasn't it Manik Roy, not Newsweek, who "descibed" it as a form of denialism?
- Also, please don't call me clueless or act like I'm an idiot. Assume good faith. Zoomwsu 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here we go with the [Ctrl]+F again. I'd like to assume good faith about that comment, but it really seems like it is meant to be uncivil. Am I misunderstanding your intent, FeloniousMonk? It seems that a certain group of people are not even trying to address legitimate concerns. Zoomwsu: when I have a chance, I'll provide you with a slightly bigger list of articles that actually use the word "denialism". You are correct that some of the cited material doesn't actually use the word, but I know I've seen the word in more than just one reliable source. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- None of the sources used to support the sentence refer to "denialism". Newsweek certainly does not (one occurence, but it's from a quote, thus it's OR to say that "Newsweek describes as denialism..."). As for FeloniousMonk, I suggest we take his aggressive comment with a grain of salt, as he does not make the difference between denial (a psychological state) and the new web buzzword 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here we go with the [Ctrl]+F again. I'd like to assume good faith about that comment, but it really seems like it is meant to be uncivil. Am I misunderstanding your intent, FeloniousMonk? It seems that a certain group of people are not even trying to address legitimate concerns. Zoomwsu: when I have a chance, I'll provide you with a slightly bigger list of articles that actually use the word "denialism". You are correct that some of the cited material doesn't actually use the word, but I know I've seen the word in more than just one reliable source. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not only do none of those sources use the actual word "denialism", I could not find it in any of the referenced sources for the entire article. (Yes, FeloniousMonk, I used [Ctrl]+F. You're welcome to use another search technique and tell me which article I missed.) I was able to find other sources (some of them reliable) that did use this word, however. So, we need to either find which of those sources we wish to use to support this claim, or preferably, just change this sentence to the more accurate: "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial." (This also involves changing "descibe" to "describe".) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This sad clutching at straw is truly a wonder to behold. "Denialism" is a perfectly legitimate noun for the act of denying in the face of evidence. Since we have WP:RS's that describe this phenomenon, or it's participants as "denial" or as being "deniers", there's really nothing more to discuss. Now the three of you can chase your tails and run in ever tightening circles till the end of time, but it won't change the fact, that any reader with even a modicum of intelligence, ( who doesn't have an axe to grind ) will understand that. ornis (t) 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can put forward your belief that "denial" and "denialism" are the same thing, it remains at best amusing to read (clue for further thought: usually, there does not exist two words to describe the exact same thing) --Childhood's End 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This sad clutching at straw is truly a wonder to behold. "Denialism" is a perfectly legitimate noun for the act of denying in the face of evidence. Since we have WP:RS's that describe this phenomenon, or it's participants as "denial" or as being "deniers", there's really nothing more to discuss. Now the three of you can chase your tails and run in ever tightening circles till the end of time, but it won't change the fact, that any reader with even a modicum of intelligence, ( who doesn't have an axe to grind ) will understand that. ornis (t) 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not only do none of those sources use the actual word "denialism", I could not find it in any of the referenced sources for the entire article. (Yes, FeloniousMonk, I used [Ctrl]+F. You're welcome to use another search technique and tell me which article I missed.) I was able to find other sources (some of them reliable) that did use this word, however. So, we need to either find which of those sources we wish to use to support this claim, or preferably, just change this sentence to the more accurate: "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial." (This also involves changing "descibe" to "describe".) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually what's more amusing here is reading those who are trying to deny that the sources given are talking about denialism using fatally flawed semantics. Especially when anyone can read them and see that the authors clearly are referring to those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly; in other words, denialism. Oh the irony: Using denialism avoid evidence of denialism. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your stubbornness and irresponsibility in advancing your positions have no limits it seems. You have not shown understanding of what are semantics. You have not shown understanding of what is denial. You know what is denialism only to the extent that you read the Wikipedia article about it. You openly admit that 'the sources' dont use the word 'denialism' but you maintain that, somehow for you, it's clear that they talk about 'denialism' and still, you wont realize this is textbook OR. Duh. Further, your definition of 'denialism' is the one provided by the WP article and thus, this implies that what you keep claiming is that it is so obvious that all these authors were talking about 'denialism' as it is understood by this Wikipedia article. Sad, sad, sad. --Childhood's End 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually what's more amusing here is reading those who are trying to deny that the sources given are talking about denialism using fatally flawed semantics. Especially when anyone can read them and see that the authors clearly are referring to those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly; in other words, denialism. Oh the irony: Using denialism avoid evidence of denialism. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- "the waiter noticed that the guests were done" == "the waiter saw that the guests were done"
- "the waiter denied that he padded the bill" != "the waiter denialism that he padded the bill".
- this is fundamental english folks. one cannot suggest that these terms are synonymous with a straight face - or a decent dictionary. Anastrophe 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Stop wasting your time and ours with silly semantics. The sources given clearly reflect that the authors are very clearly talking about those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. In other words, denialism. Move along now. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- translation: "don't bother us with facts and accuracy." as pointed out by others, the article states 'denialism' followed by six citations, none of which use the term 'denialism'. that's unencyclopedic. i'm sorry you consider being encyclopedic to be annoying. Anastrophe 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Stop wasting your time and ours with silly semantics. The sources given clearly reflect that the authors are very clearly talking about those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. In other words, denialism. Move along now. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- We're getting lessons in semantics from someone whose nick means inversion (in a linguistic sense of course)? Look, semantically and syntactically the denial --> denialism sentence makes no sense, as you likely know. Yet, it doesn't prove your point, either. Try again. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Critique of the references
- Lets do a critique of your references:
- <Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day
WP:SPS.[corrected: its a reprint of an Op-Ed: Single person view]. Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The MediaObjects to usage of the word.Newsweek, The Truth About DenialSingle mention of the word (in a quote). Non attributable - or only as a single person view.- The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth - Op-Ed - single person view.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection EffortNon-WP:RS, unpublished (WP:SPS - and intended as humor - read the abstract)
- <Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day
- All in all - not a good collection for support. --Kim D. Petersen 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- And just to put a line under something: Only one of the references describe it as a "form of denialism" (the cards one does - but is WP:SPS - so in effect, there are no references to the comparison). --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lets do a critique of your references:
- I would like to add that I find the entire sentence unnecessary, since clearly climate change denial is a form of denialism. It seems sort of like saying that "media sources and others have described African elephants as being elephantine". Seeing as how these are just cognates (as someone pointed out earlier), what does this sentence add that the category Category:Denialism does not? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ben, as for myself, I dont know what is denialism. Wikipedia suggests something in an article that barely survived a deletion review, but this is no reliable source to attribute a proper meaning to the term, and the term does not exist in dictionnaries. Outside Wikipedia, my feeling is that most of those sparse (mostly non-notable) authors who have used the term essentially meant 'denial' or 'denier' so to me, there is no way to determine that these media sources have really referred to 'denialism' as it is understood by the WP article about this. --Childhood's End 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I find the entire sentence unnecessary, since clearly climate change denial is a form of denialism. It seems sort of like saying that "media sources and others have described African elephants as being elephantine". Seeing as how these are just cognates (as someone pointed out earlier), what does this sentence add that the category Category:Denialism does not? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the sources do not show the viewpoint, climate change denial is a form of denialism, is verifiable per WP:V? Or are you claiming that the sources are not reliable per WP:RS? WP:NPOV calls for articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Clearly the viewpoint exists and is verifiable. Look at all the sources provided. Do you intend to dismiss them all so blithely? This viewpoint is not so small that it will be brushed under the rug, it is central to understanding the topic. Ignoring, dismissing, discrediting and even misrepresenting the sources will never succeed in making the viewpoint go away. Odd nature 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- You have just described your own behavior with regard to the reasons that have been explained over and over to you as to why your 'sources' do not meet encyclopedic standards and to why it cannot be verified that Newsweek or other notable sources have actually referred to what you understand as 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, you may think you've explained away these sources, but in reality you haven't. But please, carry on as you have, you're helping me make my case. Odd nature 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- In reality i've cut the sources down to
2[corrected: 3].Both[corrected:All] of which are presenting the views of individuals - so what we have are2[corrected: 3] personal views to support the statement. Rather weak dont'cha'think? --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- In reality i've cut the sources down to
- The problem is, you may think you've explained away these sources, but in reality you haven't. But please, carry on as you have, you're helping me make my case. Odd nature 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes i'm saying that the sources do not show that viewpoint, one even argues against it. And yes, one of these isn't WP:RS - none of them indicate that this viewpoint is "significant" - we have
2[corrected: 3] views of individuals left, which definitively doesn't make the view such. I'm neither "ignoring, discrediting or misrepresenting" the sources - and frankly i find that accusation very uncivil and very far from WP:AGF. This viewpoint might be significant, it might be correct, it might be supported by several reliable sources - but these sources are not even close to showing this. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)- Actually, I think it's 3: Richard C. J. Somerville (San Diego Union Trib), John Quiggin (Australian Financial Review), and Manik Roy (Pew Center on Climate Change). Maybe you're not counting Somerville because he used the word "denialist"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, its 3. (i forgot my own comment to the strikeout of Newsweek and M. Roy) - corrected in the above comments. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it's 3: Richard C. J. Somerville (San Diego Union Trib), John Quiggin (Australian Financial Review), and Manik Roy (Pew Center on Climate Change). Maybe you're not counting Somerville because he used the word "denialist"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in reality, it is your position that is shockingly weak. So weak, that I wonder about those taking your side.--Filll 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Filll could you try not attacking the editor - but instead react to the content? (please see: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). What is weak in my criticism? What exactly does "my side" have to do with this? --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I attacked you somehow or other editors here? I am afraid I missed that. If I did attack you or offend you, my apologies.--Filll 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Pointless exercises abound
So if I understand correctly, we have a group of editors who believe one or more of the following claims:
- Denialism has nothing to do with denial
- Denialists are not involved in denialism
- A state of denial does not involve denying anything.
- The words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier have no connection with each other.
- One or more of the words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier do not exist.
- A denier is not someone who denies anything.
- A denialist is not someone who denies anything.
- No one uses words like denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier.
- No notable, reliable verifiable source uses words like denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier.
- The words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier have no meaning.
- The words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier have not and cannot be applied to one or more of the following topics: AIDS treatments and diagnosis, Climate Change, addictiveness of tobacco, effects of second hand smoke, alien abductions, Holocaust history, etc.
Even when multiple references are produced, somehow this seems to meet with disapproval and rejection by this group. I have to admit I am completely puzzled. Do you deny that languages change? And that this might be an instance of the English language in flux? I can generate tons of references on each of these above and discuss them at length with you (for example, here is a recent newspaper article connecting denial, denialism, denialists, and suggesting a connection with the word deny:[3]).
We can bring in linguists and other authorities. However, I get the impression that no matter what is done, you will just deny it all, for your own purposes and to satisfy some obscure agenda. Weird. This does seem to be veering towards a violation of WP:POINT and the time might be at hand to address this using other mechanisms.--Filll 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that this pointless and specious stuff be deleted. --Childhood's End 16:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- How is it pointless and specious? I am trying to understand what the debate is about here and what the points of view are.
- I would also ask you to mind your tone because it seems to be on the verge of violating WP:NPA. Would you like others to start a formal administrative proceeding against you for personal attacks and not WP:AGF ? Please try to remain civil in this discussion or else there might be negative consequences. Thank you so much for adopting a more reasonable approach than what I have observed above. I really appreciate it.--Filll 16:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Out of your 11 bullets above that you tried to attribute to "a group of editors here", I fail to see a single one that has actually been proposed by anyone on this talk page. So outside of being a total waste of time, your post is specious and pointless, yes. --Childhood's End 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would also ask you to mind your tone because it seems to be on the verge of violating WP:NPA. Would you like others to start a formal administrative proceeding against you for personal attacks and not WP:AGF ? Please try to remain civil in this discussion or else there might be negative consequences. Thank you so much for adopting a more reasonable approach than what I have observed above. I really appreciate it.--Filll 16:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Amazing. Perhaps some are trying to be humorous, I guess. But it comes across differently.--Filll 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- CE is actually correct here - most of these are completely pointless and bear no connection to what is being argued by anyone. for instace for #1 boils down to: "denialism implies denial" which is correct, but the reverse isn't true, and since its whether denial implies denialism that is being discussed, its a pointless bulletpoint. Most of the rest are based upon the same kind of fallacious implication - and have nothing to do with what is argued in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Amazing. Perhaps some are trying to be humorous, I guess. But it comes across differently.--Filll 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's be honest about this. This dispute about denialism is not just on this single talk page. It has continued unabated on several administrative pages, user talk pages and other talk pages of other articles, for weeks on end. Some of the same editors have been participants in some or all of these venues. These and other even more tenuous and tendentious arguments have been made over and over. And I have to admit, I am confused by them and I do not find them particularly convincing or compelling. Sorry. I have tried to understand where these editors are coming from, but I just have been unable to grasp it. It is not for lack of trying, I assure you. Perhaps it is my own linguistic shortcomings. I am not a linguist or a philologist or an expert in the English language and usage. I just do not get it. I am buffaloed here. I strongly suspect there are other hidden agendas involved, as I noted below. And this is what makes this such a difficult issue.--Filll 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- You all seem to be dragging a lot of baggage from other articles - it would be really nice if you'd leave it at those articles - and argue the merits of your viewpoint within the constraints of what this talk-page contains. (some of us really don't want to walk through a lot of irrelevancy, to find out where a particular gripe stems). --Kim D. Petersen 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's be honest about this. This dispute about denialism is not just on this single talk page. It has continued unabated on several administrative pages, user talk pages and other talk pages of other articles, for weeks on end. Some of the same editors have been participants in some or all of these venues. These and other even more tenuous and tendentious arguments have been made over and over. And I have to admit, I am confused by them and I do not find them particularly convincing or compelling. Sorry. I have tried to understand where these editors are coming from, but I just have been unable to grasp it. It is not for lack of trying, I assure you. Perhaps it is my own linguistic shortcomings. I am not a linguist or a philologist or an expert in the English language and usage. I just do not get it. I am buffaloed here. I strongly suspect there are other hidden agendas involved, as I noted below. And this is what makes this such a difficult issue.--Filll 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok sure. Sounds nice, but not realistic.-Filll 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith here, Filll, you're either not talking about me, or you're completely misunderstanding my point. My point is that (similar to Jim's point) saying that a form of denial is a form of denialism is like saying that pain is painful. Furthermore, the body of the article clearly spells out how climate change denial is denialism. The sentence is poorly worded, and difficult to match up with sources (one source says X, the other says Y, trying to mesh them together to get XY is tricky) if you think it's important to find a reference that says that climate change denial is denialism. (It would be similarly difficult to find an article that said that pain was painful. Doesn't mean it's not true, of course.) Whether or not you agree with me, do you understand how my point is different from the points you listed above? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your point might be different. However, it appears to me that other editors have different points and different agendas. This is an entire confused mess and it appears to me that some people hate the words denialism and denialist for some reason. Is it that they have a negative connotation? Is it that they are relatively new words in English? Is it that they have only recently been used with more frequency in English, and therefore do not have dictionary entries? --Filll 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm pretty much in agreement with user:Ben Hocking. All I am arguing for is precision in language, logic and supporting sources. Zoomwsu 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, denialism has been used, sporadically perhaps, for at least 80 years (someone, I think it was Odd nature, found a 1927 reference). But yes, possibly a couple editors here do not like the negative connotations. However, I believe most of the editors arguing against that particular sentence share my viewpoint, or a very similar one. There may be a bad reason for getting rid of the sentence. That doesn't mean there isn't also a good one. Look at the entire body of the article, which clearly makes the point that climate change denial is a form of denialism (while differentiating it from mere skepticism). Then consider that there are a few problems with the sentence (possible redundancy, possibly not completely agreeing with the sources, or possibly using sources with low weight, awkward wording). Is the sentence necessary? If you want me to shut up on this point here, I will — but I feel that there is positive communication going on here. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may believe whatever you like Ben, but most of those supporting your Proposal 3 are doing so for reasons that are explicitly diametrically opposed to the reason you gave for proposing it. Hrafn42 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, those who have seemed to voice support (in one form or another) of my proposal 3 are: Me, Kim, William (indirectly), Revolutionaryluddite, Zoomwsu, Childhoodsend, and Anastrophe. I won't speak for the last 3, but the first four have all stated that they believe that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Assuming the last 3 are diametrically opposed (you could be right, but I don't want to put words into their mouths), that's still 4:3. A slim majority, yes, but a majority. If you discount William (since he didn't actually vote, and has been trying to avoid the debate), that's 3:3, so perhaps we're both wrong. If I've misrepresented anyone, I apologize, and would ask them to correct me. Also, if Zoomwsu, Childhoodsend, or Anastrophe want to say whether (or not) their reason is diametrically opposed to the one I gave, that's fine, too. Of course, at the risk of being repetitive, just because there's a bad reason, doesn't mean there's not a good reason. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would hardly call Revolutionaryluddite's stated reason for supporting P3 to be at all similar to your own. Even Kim's is somewhat divergent -- that puts it at two including yourself (or maybe one and a bit). Hrafn42 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- In re-reading their comments, you have a point about Revolutionaryluddite's comment, but Kim's comment is quite close to my own — her response is to cover both points made by those supporting the sentence. Either it's a truism and is unnecessary, or it's not and those arguing that denial=denialism for inclusion of those sources are wrong. I'm sure he agrees with me that the rest of the article supports the point, and I think he's even said so. I would point out, however, that although RL's point is arguably diametrically opposed to mine, he has stated multiple times that he believes that GW is real and anthropogenic. He does appear to be more sympathetic to the denialists, presumably because he's a Republican (that's a guess, so I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Long story, short, you're right. It's either 4:3 or 4:2 (of supporters of my proposal) against my primary point, even though the majority of them do believe that global warming is anthropogenic. Doesn't change the validity of my argument, however. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis of my replies. (and i'm male btw. :-). --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dang, I fixed all my "she"'s to "he"'s, but forgot to look for "her". I knew that, but my mind is in some odd gear anyways. With my own first name (Ashlie), you'd think it'd be easier for me. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis of my replies. (and i'm male btw. :-). --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- In re-reading their comments, you have a point about Revolutionaryluddite's comment, but Kim's comment is quite close to my own — her response is to cover both points made by those supporting the sentence. Either it's a truism and is unnecessary, or it's not and those arguing that denial=denialism for inclusion of those sources are wrong. I'm sure he agrees with me that the rest of the article supports the point, and I think he's even said so. I would point out, however, that although RL's point is arguably diametrically opposed to mine, he has stated multiple times that he believes that GW is real and anthropogenic. He does appear to be more sympathetic to the denialists, presumably because he's a Republican (that's a guess, so I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Long story, short, you're right. It's either 4:3 or 4:2 (of supporters of my proposal) against my primary point, even though the majority of them do believe that global warming is anthropogenic. Doesn't change the validity of my argument, however. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would hardly call Revolutionaryluddite's stated reason for supporting P3 to be at all similar to your own. Even Kim's is somewhat divergent -- that puts it at two including yourself (or maybe one and a bit). Hrafn42 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, those who have seemed to voice support (in one form or another) of my proposal 3 are: Me, Kim, William (indirectly), Revolutionaryluddite, Zoomwsu, Childhoodsend, and Anastrophe. I won't speak for the last 3, but the first four have all stated that they believe that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Assuming the last 3 are diametrically opposed (you could be right, but I don't want to put words into their mouths), that's still 4:3. A slim majority, yes, but a majority. If you discount William (since he didn't actually vote, and has been trying to avoid the debate), that's 3:3, so perhaps we're both wrong. If I've misrepresented anyone, I apologize, and would ask them to correct me. Also, if Zoomwsu, Childhoodsend, or Anastrophe want to say whether (or not) their reason is diametrically opposed to the one I gave, that's fine, too. Of course, at the risk of being repetitive, just because there's a bad reason, doesn't mean there's not a good reason. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may believe whatever you like Ben, but most of those supporting your Proposal 3 are doing so for reasons that are explicitly diametrically opposed to the reason you gave for proposing it. Hrafn42 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, denialism has been used, sporadically perhaps, for at least 80 years (someone, I think it was Odd nature, found a 1927 reference). But yes, possibly a couple editors here do not like the negative connotations. However, I believe most of the editors arguing against that particular sentence share my viewpoint, or a very similar one. There may be a bad reason for getting rid of the sentence. That doesn't mean there isn't also a good one. Look at the entire body of the article, which clearly makes the point that climate change denial is a form of denialism (while differentiating it from mere skepticism). Then consider that there are a few problems with the sentence (possible redundancy, possibly not completely agreeing with the sources, or possibly using sources with low weight, awkward wording). Is the sentence necessary? If you want me to shut up on this point here, I will — but I feel that there is positive communication going on here. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Folding the discussion about the reality of "global warming" into this entire dispute is very silly. This is like watching a bunch of ants debate whether squid have a good sense of rhythm or not. Let me try to enlighten this with a few observations, from an expert perspective:
- the earth is clearly warmer now than it was 100 or 120 years ago, on average
- humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, by their activities
- this forcing might cause cooling or warming or other climate responses; our models are pretty lousy
- there is no good statistical evidence that humans have influenced the climate
- a host of climate scientists suspect strongly that anthropogenic influences are evident in the data
- some climate scientists are skeptical
- the jury is still out on this issue
Both sides in this debate exhibit classic symptoms of denialism/denial, just as they do in the AIDS reappraisal issue and the 2nd hand smoke debates and in alien abduction discussions and Holocaust denial and any number of other topics. BOTH SIDES. Do you read this ? BOTH SIDES.
Denialism is rampant in all quarters here. There is not less denialism than usual in this debate, but MORE, because both sides are engaging in it. The article might have to be rewritten slightly to address this concern; I am not sure I want to be bothered given the level of understanding I have seen here on the talk page. Even though I am a Subject Matter Expert, you are just so busy fighting you do not want to write an accurate article. So be it. I can't be bothered with nonsense. I have other things to edit. You are free to engage in juvenile battles if you want however.
On the linguistic front, the evidence is clear, at least to me. Why fight it?
On Hocking's claim, I am afraid I do not find it particularly compelling. I think encyclopediae have to be explanatory. I do not think that the readers want to have to interpret the tea leaves and hermeneutic penumbrations because you or others think this word is politically incorrect for some reason. I am afraid you have not convinced me with your arguments, and it looks like many others agree with me as well. Too bad.--Filll 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't claim expertise you lack: your first false statement is that increased CO2 might cause cooling; this is clearly wrong: there are no indications of this William M. Connolley 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You are free to believe whatever you like. And I am free to continue to decline to edit articles on topics in which I have expertise, since I do not have to encounter these kinds of attitudes. But carry on. I can't be bothered to fight this kind of nonsense battle.
On the linguistic issue, I cannot even begin to fathom what is driving this kind of political correctness frenzy. Amazing. It must be that somehow there is a negative connotation here that is not apparent to me, and the political part of global change is being incorporated into the battle somehow by people who know almost nothing about the issue except what they have gleaned from the press and movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Global Warming Swindle". Good grief.
So this article will not ever be of much value, but that is no skin off my nose; after all, this is just an encyclopedia so it is not the end of the world. I have better things to do and there are lots of other articles to edit.--Filll 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Filll for pointing out the obvious and saying what needed to be said to all the gainsaying denialism deniers and downplayers here. It's a tough gig, I know from experience. Odd nature 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear Odd nature, you do realize that Filll has stated:
this forcing might cause cooling or warming or other climate responses
- That sounds to me like a page out of the denialists' handbook. I've got to say, there are some very strange bedfellows on both sides of this particular debate. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear Odd nature, you do realize that Filll has stated:
- I might suggest you re-read my posts. You seem to misunderstand my points. Very interesting...--Filll 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible. It sounds like what you're saying with that particular statement is that global warming is uncertain. Perhaps you could clarify what you really mean, if that's not it. I do realize that it was not your primary point of the post, but it appeared to be the point of that particular statement. Please clarify if I have misunderstood you. I was not the only one to misunderstand that particular phrase if that is not what you were intending to say. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're about the last person who's reading of other's work I'd accept on its face, given your history here and elsewhere of selective reading of sources. Filll on the other hand has consistently always come down on the side of neutrality and sanity. Odd nature 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Translation : "Filll on the other hand has consistently always come down on my side" --Childhood's End 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Want to explain to the community here how that is not trolling? Odd nature 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that CE's comment is trolling - but yours isn't much better. You might attempt to assume good faith (which your comment explicitly lags) --Kim D. Petersen 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Want to explain to the community here how that is not trolling? Odd nature 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Translation : "Filll on the other hand has consistently always come down on my side" --Childhood's End 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I might suggest you re-read my posts. You seem to misunderstand my points. Very interesting...--Filll 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- My comment is based on my personal experience and the project-wide acceptance that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Odd nature 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- So you are saying that you have a personal history with Ben? And are unable to assume good faith when he is presenting an argument? In that case i suggest that you take it to WP:ANI, WP:RfC or another appropriate place, instead of here. --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- My comment is based on my personal experience and the project-wide acceptance that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Odd nature 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cute. No. Discussing problems other participants have with content that hold up earnest discussions is a community interest, not a personal interest. And experience has shown here and at Talk:Denialism that he has a problem with representing sources accurately. For example in this discussion an admin, Guettarda, points out what he calls a "dishonest" misuse of sources on his part: [4] This seems to a recurring issue that is hampering progress here. The only question is if you're really interested in collaborating and a resolution why are you enabling him? Odd nature 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- And i'll repeat once more: Take it elsewhere. On a side-note: I have no interest in the denialism article, all i see is that there was a dispute between Guettarda and Ben on content and interpretation. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the admin is correct, and the user is incorrect - that is assuming too much. (Guettarda might be correct or Ben may be. i really don't know, and frankly i don't care - it doesn't belong here). --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reading OddNature's last post made me realize how odd it is to see someone blame another editor of misrepresenting sources while he himself keeps arguing endlessly to make Newsweek say that climate change denial amounts to denialism... --Childhood's End 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- And i'll repeat once more: Take it elsewhere. On a side-note: I have no interest in the denialism article, all i see is that there was a dispute between Guettarda and Ben on content and interpretation. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the admin is correct, and the user is incorrect - that is assuming too much. (Guettarda might be correct or Ben may be. i really don't know, and frankly i don't care - it doesn't belong here). --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cute. No. Discussing problems other participants have with content that hold up earnest discussions is a community interest, not a personal interest. And experience has shown here and at Talk:Denialism that he has a problem with representing sources accurately. For example in this discussion an admin, Guettarda, points out what he calls a "dishonest" misuse of sources on his part: [4] This seems to a recurring issue that is hampering progress here. The only question is if you're really interested in collaborating and a resolution why are you enabling him? Odd nature 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I indeed trolled after his trolling. Could not help it. Apologies. --Childhood's End 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>In the case of the linguistic issue, I suspect I probably agree with Odd nature. In the case of the science, politics and likely future scenarios associated with Global Climate Change, then I do not know if this is true, and I suspect this statement is probably incorrect. However, the linguistic issue should be paramount here, and I remain puzzled completely about the opposition to these emerging terms in the English language.
I suspect strongly that there is a hidden agenda among some who oppose the words "denialism" and "denialist" because they do not want them to be enshrined in Wikipedia. This is probably, in my view, BECAUSE there is the potential that these words might be applied to some editor's favorite pet issue (which in several cases, is not global climate change). These editors really really really badly want these words to not exist because they are afraid of where else they might be applied. That is my personal evaluation of the situation. And this leads to a fairly irrational discussion here. --Filll 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a subsection should be added clarifying the differences between a denialist (a person who denies a fact, and is a logical extension of the act of denying something) and the new buzzword, denialist; which holds severe implications about the person.
If I understand correctly the debate seems to be centered around
1)whether the new english buzzword should be used,
2)whether there are enough sources in the media at large that assert the buzzword use of denialist,
3)That: stating that people who deny something are denialists; is redundant and should be removed.
-If I have misunderstood an argument you have personally made, please let me know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.209.159 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Article half complete at best
Where are citations of those who argue against this term? Where are the voices of those who point out, such as Rush Limbaugh, the most obvious truth behind this term, which is that it was created to equate those who do not believe in global warming with Holocaust deniers? This is a fundamental point behind this terms creation and use, and not one citation? When there are dozens of articles that refer to it?
And where are the voices of those who believe this whole term is absurd, and simply an attempt by extreme leftists to push global warming politically and thus to vastly grow the size and power of government and raise taxes? The lack of neutrality is not only is what is included, but what is seemingly purposefully left out. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rush Limbaugh is hardly a reliable source, lacking any scientific qualifications and having somewhat of a reputation for shooting from the hip without checking his facts. If you can find a reliable source expressing this viewpoint, then by all means add it. HrafnTalkStalk 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, who asserted that the origins of this word are in any way scientific? And to cite criticism of the word, in that context he would be reliable as a very prominent political pundit. I'll round up some sources when I get the chance. Judgesurreal777 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Climate change is a scientific issue, therefore so is the issue of whether various forms of dissent from the scientific consensus are legitimate "climate skepticism" or illegitimate "climate change denial". If you do not understand the science (and Limbaugh apparently doesn't), then how can you tell a legitimate scientific argument from an illegitimate one? Why does being "a very prominent political pundit" make him reliable? All that it means is that a large number of people within his political constituency listen to him, not that his statements are in any way well-substantiated. HrafnTalkStalk 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did I just read that someone wants to use Limbaugh as a reliable source? Hold on, I think I'm going to blow out a carotid laughing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would point Judgesurreal777 towards the reliable sources guidelines....for why Mr. L is not a relaible source, even for his own opinions. --Rocksanddirt 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I am afraid Rush, although entertaining, is in no way a reliable source. This is particularly true on a scientific issue. I stand by what I said earlier, lost above in a storm of nonsense, that there are features of denialism on all sides of this debate. The science that Judgesurreal is looking for resides in linguistics, which is not much of a science. New terms emerge in English or other languages all the time. And this is one of those times, apparently. So what?--Filll 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- and as an emerging new term, other terms that clearly influenced the evolution of this one should be referenced (and there are abundant references). they provide a uniform schema for the linguistics. denial that the term 'climate change denial' was influenced by the existence of the term 'holocaust denier' is, well, an interesting epiphenomenon, to say the least. Anastrophe 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And what about AIDS denialists? And other forms of denial and denialism? And what about those who claim denialism has nothing to do with denial? This is just a playground for those who want to obfuscate and confuse.--Filll 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Balanced Coverage, a story with two sides?
Does a corresponding opposite article exist in Wikipedia? I can't find one and believe it would be a useful and interesting comparison. Such as article would be, correct me if I'm wrong, discussing attempts, efforts, activities to spread misinformation supporting AGW theories, political and commercial agendas, financial gain etc etc - in other words, all the things the 'deniers' are said to be engaged in. Thx. BadCop666 10:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you can find enough reliable sources that discuss it, to create such an article, then go ahead and create it. Here is something to work with: [5]. --Kim D. Petersen 11:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thx KDP. It's a cute article, I did break a slight smile, but it's unfortunately light on substance, mostly assertion for the amusement of the converted. To put it more objectively, he carried out his experiment with little thought for scientific methods, and, I am tempted to suggest, probably disingenuously, if I'm reading the tone right. Equating the 'blog sphere' with any sort of scientific audience, is perhaps a mistake made by those who take their own blogging existence a little too seriously ("Blogging: We're going to need more monkeys" - my favourite web2.0 deflation quote). The consideration of 'the other side' by the pro-AGW camp is really dissapointing, crass even. It's a critical part of a scientific position. The potential for the AGW debate to produce huge leaps in understanding of climate mechanisms isn't served well by articles of this type. Regards. BadCop666 (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Although clearly there is a camp that exaggerates the effects of global warming, it's hard to imagine any financial gain on the scale that fossil fuel companies enjoy. So, similarly, it's hard to imagine (and more importantly I have not seen any documentation of) an "alarmist" campaign as well organized as the denialist one. Of course, as Kim has said, if you can find documentation that supports such an article, feel free to create it! Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- You could possibly start with climateaudit.org (Climate Audit} where the pseudoscience of climate alarmists is being exposed. rossnixon 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have never seen any documentation from them of alarmist campaigns. Do you have a link? As JQ below suggests, the best documentation for these supposed campaigns is a book that even its author does not deny is fiction. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- One example, which is, if this report is at all accurate, very strange behaviour on the part of a high-profile political bureaucrat, reported here The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science. Would this be considered 'alarmist' - if we put any weight in Landsea's scientific opinion, as reported. Can these events be corroborated or 'denied'? [ sorry, couldn't resist that ] Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Very little of this story, or even headline, is correct. Trenberth (a scientist) gave a press conference (not speaking for the IPCC) and Landsea resigned. The treatment of the climate change/hurricane link in the published AR4 has been praised even by Roger Pielke, who is not in the habit of speaking out in favour of the IPCC. See e.g. Christopher Landsea for more sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll examine your angle. Thx. Have you read [Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC]? BadCop666 (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Very little of this story, or even headline, is correct. Trenberth (a scientist) gave a press conference (not speaking for the IPCC) and Landsea resigned. The treatment of the climate change/hurricane link in the published AR4 has been praised even by Roger Pielke, who is not in the habit of speaking out in favour of the IPCC. See e.g. Christopher Landsea for more sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- One example, which is, if this report is at all accurate, very strange behaviour on the part of a high-profile political bureaucrat, reported here The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science. Would this be considered 'alarmist' - if we put any weight in Landsea's scientific opinion, as reported. Can these events be corroborated or 'denied'? [ sorry, couldn't resist that ] Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have never seen any documentation from them of alarmist campaigns. Do you have a link? As JQ below suggests, the best documentation for these supposed campaigns is a book that even its author does not deny is fiction. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You could possibly start with climateaudit.org (Climate Audit} where the pseudoscience of climate alarmists is being exposed. rossnixon 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Global warming conspiracy theory covers much of what you want, with sources such as Michael Crichton. The problem is, of course, that whereas the evidence of Exxon-funded denial is abundant, the best sources for the other side are writers of fiction. JQ (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Quiggin, thx for the pointer. I note that perhaps the above should read The problem is, in my opinion, that whereas...etc.
The conspiracy theory in 'State of Fear', is clever fiction from an author capable of first-rate drama when he isn't writing dross for the Hollywood production line. I believe also that he is due considerable respect for the massive body of material he digested in preparing that novel, and an admirable taking of sides - whatever you believe. In reality though, the absence of conspiracy makes the bias and disinformation on both sides of this debate all the more interesting. The first-hand experiences of some of the most respected researchers in climate science makes very interesting reading. And their careers and credentials carry much more weight than the offhand dismissals seen far too often in these Wikipedia talk pages (by people perhaps with more time on their hands for wikipedia editing than time spent knowing what they are talking about) - in my opinion, of course ;-). I'll certainly follow up on the page you suggest. Regards. BadCop666 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)- This article would be a good place to start. Iceage77 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks - v. interesting material. Please keep in touch. BadCop666 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article would be a good place to start. Iceage77 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Quiggin, thx for the pointer. I note that perhaps the above should read The problem is, in my opinion, that whereas...etc.