Talk:Climate change denial

Use of "Consensus" instead of "Opinion" for article name - Partial continuation of above

Be interesting to see what you say if somebody reverts something you are concerned about! Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It happens often. I don't usually mind, except its disappointing to see my input unappreciated. This wall-of-text discussion above could have easily been avoided with a few sources, but instead it quickly devolved into a rhetorical debate. Its obvious feelings run high when it comes to this topic; I understand now. I was frustrated by the volume of opposition my edit was receiving. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming lists categorically some convincing or at least logical arguments for neutral ground or skepticism. Considering this, it seems unfair to place a definite on what is scientific "consensus". Of course, individuals view things differently. I believe that certainty is intangible, thus I refrain from making statements of positivity where a definite is not almost absolutely certain. Most people believe that certainty is intangible, and thus they use definite statements in reference to things which aren't absolutely certain. debate about global warming.if this is sounds confusing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The citation I put in explains what a scientific consensus is and says why it is appropriate to say there is a consensus on this matter. The article scientific opinion on climate change describes the scientific opinion on climate change and it is clear there is a consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is to a large extent man made. The article describes the extent of the consensus and I believe it is better to reference the whole article rather than just a bit that lists organizations that specifically used the word consensus. For instance the bit that gives surveys shows how much agreement there is at the grass roots. In medicine people normally only look for another opinion if they don't like what a doctor says, but it isn't logical to be skeptical if nine out of ten doctors agree on a diagnosis. One might reasonably try and clutch at straws if the alternative is very bad - but in the climate change scenario all one can say about clutching at straws is that it would be nice if our actions weren't having an effect. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to use the word "opinion" I'd agree. But the section on "Scientific Consensus" explains how scientific consensus works. Wasn't that what you were worried about? I know you are confident in this estimation of climate change, but I don't see what the analogue has to do with the misrepresentation of an article's name. Do you believe that someone should not hear the opinion of that 1 out of 10 doctors? Why does the existence of an alternate opinion indicate that anyone listening to it just wants to avoid a painful conclusion? If someone was apprehensive about the idea of electro-shock therapy, despite 9 out 10 scientists approving of it, are those people just trying to avoid temporary pain? Its not the most buoyant analogue. Have you read any of those arguments? Most of them are concerning limited observability of the phenomenon. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A citation needed was put on the statement and I satisfied that, the citation describes how a consensus is arrived at and how that applies to climate change. The link descrribes the scientific opinion on climate change. The section was just one section that described where people used the word consensus. It didn't describe how a consensus is reached nor did it provide an overall picture of why there is a consensus. The article's name is okay, there's nothing wrong with it. If the consensus changed tomorrow to that there was global cooling or or there was a big disagreement and loss of consensus then the article's name could stay as it is and it could describe the new situation.

The existence of an alternative isn't the point, the point is to illustrate what denial is by contrasting it with a case where going with that one opinion out of ten might be reasonable. One has to take account of the relative costs and benefits as well as the odds. Arguments in global warming controversy are irrelevant to this article. As far as rational actions are concerned one should go by the odds and the cost benefits. Dmcq (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I just find it interesting that you're talking about denialism, when its not something I was discussing. Where did it come from? I also was referring to the opinions at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, not "global warming controversy". Do you think all or most of the opinions stated there are extremist or denialist?

Question: Is the entire article you're trying to link to about the consensus referenced in this article, or does the article consider all scientific opinions (even minority)? If it only considers the conclusion in this article, which is scientific consensus, then its fine to change the wording to consensus. If that's the case, the other article should be renamed. There's no reason to call it opinion when global warming's links give enough evidence to show that the opinion is consensus. Again, sorry if this is jumbled. Still getting over that infection. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking over it again, it just seems like a hard thing to address within that sentence. A person could think that it is POV, as I did, that they are being linked to an article which is called "scientific opinion" and yet the word "consensus" was used in the main article. This could easily be cleared by linking to scientific consensus within parentheses, but it would be unclear why the article does this in a printout. Rather than assume the reader will know what we mean, it might be better to take a sentence or two to describe what scientific consensus is. We can think of something. Otherwise, the section I linked to not only provides evidence of the consensus, it also accurately and clearly states what consensus entails. Its not a bad compromise. Thanks, by the way, for your patience. You have no obligation to hold back from making the edit you want to. I appreciate it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant climate change denial which is the subject of the article we're supposed to be trying to improve rather than straight denialism as such. The other article is supposed to consider all opinions even minority ones - just the due weight is very one sided. I suppose this article could say 'The consensus of the scientific opinion on climate change is that...', but as you say it then doesn't point to where it explicitly says that. I think at the very least I should copy over the citation I put in here to the section explicitly mentioning consensus in the opinion article so I'll go and do that now. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way this [1] is my opinion of the idea of working out for myself what the odds are rather than taking expert opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the edit you suggested. If someone can think of a better way to say it, they are welcome to make any beneficial edits. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

"Consensus of opinion" is widely considered poor wording, and often (though not always) regarded as ungrammatical.[2] The sentence didn't say anything that wasn't clearer and more grammatical simply by mentioning "scientific consensus." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry missed this when I reverted you. That dictionary does deprecate saying consensus of opinion, but it also shows that it is a very common expression and in this circumstance removing opinion would lead to awkwardness with the title of the other article. Removing consensus and just leaving opinion is a reasonable shortening when there is a consensus as here but there has been problems in this article about what consensus is so leaving it expanded means the reference can refer to consensus directly rather than getting mixed up about opinions and consensus. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"No credible challenge to theory or projections"

The quote in the header of the article, paraphrased above, is simply not correct. Citing an opinion piece from a newspaper is not enough to substantiate a scientific claim. Please see this wiki page subsection and check the credentials of the scientists listed. I am removing the 'offending' sentence. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That section says 'Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable', not that they're wrong or that these people have some alternative. Anything is questionable, but have any of them produced a peer reviewed paper to back up anything they said? I agree though a bit of thought needs to be put into whether having that statement there is okay. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a cited and attributed quoted from a named author. You cannot deny that he wrote it - just follow the link. As for referencing List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming for scientific facts, the clue is in the title and the facts are made very clear in the article: That is a list of the very few remaining so-called scientists who still maintain that if someone funds them, or changes the rules, or something, they will publish something in a peer-reviewed paper that will call something into question. Most of them either haven't done so, or have had what they did publish roundly demolished by the mainstream scientists in the meantime. That is not the science. See global warming and scientific opinion on climate change for an introduction to that. Per WP:FRINGE, this article has a duty to be very clear what the mainstream situation is. This is an article about climate change denial, not an article of climate change denial. --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If information is wrong, it doesn't need to be quoted. Your point falls moot right there. Just because an opinion is stated in a mainstream news article, that does not mean we have to consider it. There's no reason apparent to include such a broad statement. Please talk about the individual scientists I linked to; I don't think its fair to make general statements about them, unless it is actually true of all of them. I agree that we should make clear what the mainstream position is, but we should never take sides on any issue (in my opinion).

Those scientists seem to be held as reputable according to their individual Wikipedia entries. Each of them has a Wikipedia article of their own; and while there is lengthy discussion in those articles about the claims of those scientists regarding the observability of Global Warming, there doesn't seem to be concrete evidence against their statements. I'm referring to the ones in the first section of the 'list' article. The quote in this article says "there are no remaining skeptics" (not deniers, that's obviously different) but the 'list of opposed scientists' article shoots that statement down. Its going to take more than essentially saying "they're all kooks" to present a broad statement like "there are no skeptics". One of you above said it, too: its science - there are always skeptics.

Anyway, what this boils down to is that a value judgment or outright false/uninformed statement from an opinion piece is being presented as fact. If you want to reinsert the sentence, yet making it clear that it is a quotation from that author - then I would find its inclusion perfectly fine. The statement is, after all, a direct quote from his article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Check the current version of my edit. I have reinserted the sentence as a quote. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What I said was they should back up their statements with something :that's peer reviewed. Otherwise what they say may be interesting and newsworthy, but it has rather a tiny weight in science terms compared to peer reviewed work. That is far more important than that they are eminent or reputable. Science is not a religion. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree; but the 'offending statement' was not made by a scientist. The presence of skeptical scientists, even if their opinions are only verbal, disproves a non-scientific claim that there are "no skeptical scientists". The repute and eminence, and even existence of these scientists was called into question. That's why I referred to reputation. Although, I'm not sure if the opinions of such skeptics are only verbal; would have to do research. I'm having doubts about the inclusion of the quotation. I don't personally think whats said in that quote is true, considering that "credible" skeptics seem to exist; if the scientists from the 'list' article can be considered "credible". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well more political and social science rather than hard physics if that's what you mean andyes it isn't a peer reviewed statement any more than those of these skeptics. And you left the credible out as in 'no credible scientific skeptics'. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Add to this: One of the most prominent climate scientists with doubts about global warming specifics actually PREFERS to be called a "denier" than a "skeptic." This is Prof. Richard Lindzen, at MIT. The citation is a BBC interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009yfwl/One_Planet_Climate_change_pot_plants_and_small_frogs/.

The quote from him occurs in the first few minutes of this tape/broadcast. This should be added to the second paragraph as follows:

"Some climate scientists who challenge the mainstream opinion, such as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, actually prefer the term "denier" to the term skeptic. In this BBC interview [add weblink] he says "I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic." 24.7.99.39 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You could make an account (takes a few seconds) and be bold (make the edit yourself). --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More problems with the Header

The problems have changed from moral to grammatical. I want to put wikilinks in the header for scientific consensus, scientific opinion on climate change, and climatology. However, I can't seem to squeeze them in without making the sentence look odd. Remember that the first occurrence of an important term should be wikilinked. I thought about making "scientific consensus regarding climatologists' opinion on climate change" into "scientific consensus regarding climatologists' research on climate change" but I'm not sure. What does everyone else think? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly awkward wording. Why not just "scientific consensus on climate change"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes far too awkward, I've reduced it. However now I have gone back to a form I believe is deprecated in some dictionaries. However as I said before I can't see ho to phrase it without some such problem. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I simplified it further. Also took out the link to "anthropization" since that term usually is applied to landscape alteration and we mean something much broader here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Athropization is used to describe pollution altering the environment, and its especially (perhaps mainly) used in the context of Global Warming. You should probably take that one up with the scientists and other authorities who use the term. Please read the anthropization article for details. See if you like the recent changes I made. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthrop-

Thanks all the same but I prefer to take my scientific terminology directly from the scientific literature. Where on earth did you get the idea that "anthropization" was used especially in the context of global warming? In the scientific literature the term is used primarily by ecologists, and describes alteration of natural surface cover because of human influence (quick survey here). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Try the article on anthropization and the global warming article. If you think they're wrong, change them. Its pretty easy to impose your personal views on a page that only has 3-5 active editors. Better yet, try this google scholar search of the more commonly used word.The first few pages of your google scholar search indicate that the word is used to refer to pollution's effects on soil, water, and animal life. The term seems to refer to man-made pollution in general. American Heritage Dictionary says it means "caused by humans"; Meriam-Webster says "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anthropization" and "anthropogenic" are fundamentally different terms despite their common Greek root word anthropos. There are lots of scientific terms that have this root -- "anthropomorphize," "anthropometry," and (most tellingly) "anthropogeny," among many others -- but don't have similar connotations. If one means "anthropogenic" then one should say "anthropogenic," not a different term that sounds vaguely similar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why does the anthropization article discuss more than the pollution of soil? Why does the global warming article link to it in reference to human created pollution? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Note the global warming article only uses the term "anthropogenic" and not "anthropization"; the link comes about through an ill-advised redirect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the anthropization article discusses/is a discussion of anthropogenics. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be fixed. Note in passing, Wikipedia is unacceptable as a reference in Wikipedia articles -- see WP:CIRCULAR. Consequently you should base your arguments on the professional literature and other quality sources, not on what another Wikipedia article says. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This could be easily solved if you read the anthropization article and possibly helped it attain to Wikipedia's standards, if it is incorrect. So far, the evidence you've given for the word's meaning is inductive. Can you show me any source saying that anthropization can only refer to human pollution or modification of the soil? Or even any source clearly defining its meaning besides Wiktionary? I'm not sure why you're bringing up WP:Circular. It does not apply to talk page discussions, but article sources. Most Wikipedia Policy is a guideline for making articles, not a policy for behavior within Wikipedia. I'm saying there is a contradiction in thinking here, and the real answer isn't obvious at present. The other article is conflicting with your comments, not with any wikipedia page or source I've seen so far. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, you were right. User:Neelix's merger created the association. I undid the merger, as there is no apparent link between the terms. Neelix gave no evidence. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think we can mark that one "resolved." Cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain this article to me?

I don't want to go straight to AfD for it - does anyone want to try and explain its existence first? It seems, at least from the form it takes, that this article, by its very nature, cannot be NPOV. Certainly, it seems to consist of material covered elsewhere in more balanced fashion, where it is notable at all. Generally, it just seems like a thinly disguised harangue. It also verges on original research, since the points as made are hardly uncontroversial. I welcome your thoughts. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Dave