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 68.70.6.169 (talk) at 14:23, 6 June 2011 (talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Check the current version of my edit. I have reinserted the sentence as a quote. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

And here I thought Wikipedia had acknowledged they had been biased on this subject, among others, and promised to make a sincere attempt to publish a true and balanced account. Guess that was just flummery. Neil Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.65.207 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Wikipedia nor is anyone else here Wikipedia. Please see WP:5P for a basic start on what Wikipedia is about, you don't really need anything else to contribute. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here i thought wikipedia was non-liberal and non partisan; too bad i was proven wrong by this conversation and some of its articles.68.70.6.169 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note that the anthropization article discusses/is a discussion of anthropogenics. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, I think we can mark that one "resolved." Cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Could you be more specific please. Which particular bit in it do you think is original research? And what would be the grounds for an AfD? And could you also point out a bit which violates WP:NPOV thanks? Dmcq (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also before renominating for AfD it might be an idea to read why it has been kept the previous four times it was nominated as linked to at the top of the page. Dmcq (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because a point is controverted somewhere does not make inclusion of the point here original research. And do read the FAQ. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title to the article is vastly misleading. The words "Climate Change Denial", mislead in two ways: First most intelligent individuals who disagree with human caused climate change do Not deny that there is climate change. Second this is not an article about any counter theory. Rather it is a personal attack against some individuals. As such the article should either be renamed or removed. If renamed I suggest "Popular Personal Attack Against Opponents of Human Caused Global Warming." Or something to the same effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.67.33 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the article mainly is about corporations rather than individuals so it isn't a personal attack. Secondly I don't know where you got the 'Popular' bit from. Third they are not 'opponents of human caused global warming', I don't think you really do want to imply that climate scientists want human caused global warming. I would guess 'Or something to the same effect' would suffer the same problems. Titles are not articles, they are a way of finding an article which should in most instances involve using the commonest name, see WP:Article titles. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does in fact cite conservative groups, freedom think tanks etc. In fact individuals do belong to those groups so their views are indeed being impugned by this article. Impugning the motives without making an actual argument is in essence is a fallacy. Again the title is misleading. Because 1. The article is not about the arguments that dispute the view of anthropogenic global warming. 2. It implies that these groups are disputing climate change which may in some cases be true but most likely they are disputing anthropogenic climate change. This is important you cannot accuse entire groups of a view they may not even hold. Most do not dispute climate change so it is a fallacy to accuse them of that. Next the article is highly biased as it does not consider the money involved on the other side of the debate. Most scientists have vast incentives to receive grants, and many business can make large profits selling green technologies. This is not mentioned in the article nor are the views of the other side of the debate impugned. Being nothing more than a misleading article that turns into a fallacious personal attack I think it should either be renamed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.67.33 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are personal because they refer to particular people. Saying 'the government is load of idiots' is not a personal attack on anyone in the government. And I repeat again the title is determined by WP:COMMONNAME and the lead itself explains what the article is about. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"58.64.67.33" is right about one thing — "climate change denial" is not a proper theory. It's a mish-mash of of whatever might "stick to the wall" in trying to undermine the credibility of the AGW evidence. But for the most part his comments are not addressing specific points that might be improved. It's just WP:SOAPBOXing. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the title of the wp article or the content need to be a Scientific theory (Philosophical theory or whatever is meant by "proper")? Maybe review and potential discussion might include Global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, Public opinion on climate change (confusion related to Global warming controversy), List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, Merchants of Doubt, and Politics of global warming (including Politics of global warming (United States))? 99.181.158.235 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that articles are limited to theories; your question is based on an incorrect assumption. What I was referring to was the statement "this is not an article about any counter theory." Which is a true statement, because what the article is about is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. All of the rest of the anonymous remarks above are rather fatuous. (Lest my characterization of those remarks be taken as a personal "attack", I point out that "everyone knows" numbers are not personal.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'Arfle barfle gloop?' is more succinct. :) Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. But too subtle. Even more succinct (given the interrogative subject) would be: no. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Conservative" (as in Conservatism in the United States) does not equal Conservation (ethic) (in spite of Ronald Reagan's quote). 99.181.155.158 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are "personal" because of the attempt to discredit people rather than their arguments. The same fallacy occurs whether the attack targets a particular person or an entity comprised of people. It could even conceivably apply to other entities if we start thinking of them as having positions and arguments. ("I don't care about your opinion. You're just a computer; you have no soul!") Maghnus (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the IPCC or the Heartland Institute a load of idiots is not a personal attack. What you are talking about is called an ad hominem argument, it is classed as an irrelevant conclusion under fallacy. They are related in that one is often associated with the other but they're not the same. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are one and the same (in this case). Maghnus (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is being personally attacked and what argument is the ad hominem fallacy being used in? Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied versus dismissed

Could whoever is trying to change the wording from denied to dismissed please justify that as per WP:BRD as the change has been reverted. Plus has anybody involved in that actually read the citation thanks? Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Scibaby sock, something you just have to learn to live with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change deniers who changed their mind

I reverted the addition of a section entitled as above with [1]. However it contains some stuff that might be useful elsewhere. The article talked about skeptics not deniers and it only had a brief mention of the denial industry in its link to denial and I think it was right in its distinction. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me a distinction without a difference. There are some genuine climate change skeptics. Freemon Dyson is one. But most of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are really "deniers". Certainly, anyone who ostracises people who change their mind is in the denier camp. There are probably too many Wikipedia articles on this subject, but I strongly think information on people who change their mind is important. Since Dmcq and I disagree, I would appreciate hearing from others on this subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his writings, Dyson is clearly a denier. He admits to not having studied the literature, nor to having any knowledge of actual research on climate science. Dyson is a brilliant physicist, but his writings on climate science are woefully ignorant. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have we a source for him being a denier? Anyway the argument put there is that a dnier would not look at the evidence and change their mind so how can we go around changing an article cleasrly titled 'skeptic' and say it is about deniers changing their minds? Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about this particular article, focused on deniers, not skeptics, is a good one. I noticed that Rick Norwood added the text to Global_warming_controversy, but then self-reverted (any reason why?). I think it fits in much better there, and should stay. Rick: any reason you think it shouldn't? As to Dyson, I don't have a reference to him being a denier, but the quote at the end of his article's Global Warming section pretty much sums it up. Also, there have been a few recent interviews where he has said that he has not studied the models that he claims to object to, and where he showed no interested in discussing them. - Parejkoj (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that article would be a better place, probably under its own heading rather than where it was put. I think that main heading 'Political' is wrong in that article, what is political about 'Betting' for instance, and it should be in that subsection. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&oldid=432854203"