Talk:Climate change denial

Pointing Climate sceptic to here

Viriditas redirected Climate sceptic and a variant to this article rather than global warming controversy and I reverted. I have copied below the discussion so far and believe further discussion should be here as too few people would be looking at the redirect page. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For the moment this page should point at global warming controversy and not denial. Calling a skeptic a denier is just partisan insulting so I'll be redirecting back again. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism is really just climate change denial under a fake name and most so-called climate skeptics are connected to the climate change denial industry. Wikipedia should not be used to promote propaganda. See: Jacques, P.J., Dunlap, R.E, and Freeman, M. (2008) "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics, 17: 349-85. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576 Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the Meanings of the term section in climate change denial. Also environmental scepticism is yet another term again. There is no consensus to describe sceptics at climate change denial, quite the opposite. The global warming controversy article describes the arguments that sceptics might bring up. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq, I think it is you, not me, who needs to read up on the sources and our article on environmental skepticism, because you don't appear to understand that climate skepticism is a subset of environmental skepticism, both of which are a form of denial according to the sources. It doesn't matter how many ExxonMobil reps. you trot out to dispute this. The one in the climate change denial article accuses the Royal Society of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, so clearly, your understanding of weight is at fault here. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want a proper decision on this I guess the talk page of Climate change denial would be the right place to centralize discussion get sufficient eyes. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would much rather see the sources you are using to justify your revert of my edit. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you read meanings of the term which has a number of sources. Also it is just your idea environmental scepticism is the same. Sources do not confirm that. I will copy this to the Climate change denial so the talk can be properly done there. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in your original research. Please provide sources defining the term. As Jacques et al. 2008 makes clear in its sample, 90 per cent of conservative think tanks support environmental scepticism, and all of the think tanks that have climate change as their primary interest promote environental scepticism. Most importantly, environmental scepticism is defined by "denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or climate change that threaten ecological sustainability". Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I support a redirect either to Environmental skepticism or Global warming controversy. Climate change denial has historical roots in other forms of denialism, and specifically in the US. I don't know which sources Viriditas is referring to: Oreskes on p. 24 of Merchants of Doubt specifically refers to "healthy skepticism" in science being positive; although she sometimes calls deniers skeptics, she also refers, for example, to statistics as a discipline being "set up to be skeptical" (p. 156). Generally sources analysing climate change denialism are at pains to express a distinction between denialism and ordinary skepticism. It's certainly true that many denialists label themselves as skeptics, but I think it would be unhelpful to let those people - whose motives are specifically questioned - determine wikipedia content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, climate skepticism is a subset of environmental skepticism, so a redirect there would be perfectly appropriate. However, as that article makes clear, "this process has been termed a form of denialism", and I cited Jacques et al. 2008 in support. This has nothing to do with "healthy skepticism" at all. I've analyzed the arguments made by climate skeptics, and they are identical to those made by climate deniers. And when you trace a so-called "climate skeptic" to their parent organization or sponsor, you usually find a climate denial group behind them. I've previously aksed Dmcq and others to define "climate skepticism" as opposed to "climate denial" and they can't, presumably because they are one and the same as I've been saying all along. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you any sources claiming that climate sceptics are environmental sceptics? Your personal analysis is WP:Original research. Just because environmental sceptics will be 'sceptical' about global warming does not mean that climate change sceptics are in general environmental sceptics. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq, Jacques et al. 2008 makes it clear that "climate sceptics" promote "environmental scepticism". Did you get a chance to read it? Although the entire document supports this idea, page 363 is the coup de grâce. In other words, your argument is finished, done, finis. It is in turn, supported by dozens of other sources. As this discussion shows, I have not provided any "personal analysis", but continue to offer you a source, which you refuse to read. BTW, do you have any sources supporting your position? Since you've ignored my question over and over again, I can only assume that you do not. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what on page 363 are you referring to? I have read it and see nothing supporting your position. It says some conservative think tanks say they are sceptics and they are are very interested in global warming. That as I said is saying an A says it is a B. It does not mean a B is an A in general. And I pointed you at the sources in this article in the section aboout 'Meanings of the term'. And you goy=t a quote above as well. Plus evidence of a close identity is required, not evidence of the non-existence of such identity. No one has to prove cat is not a dog. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The page does not say that. My position is that our redirect on climate sceptic should redirect to climate change denial. VsevolodKrolikov says he might support a redirect to environmental skepticism, and I agree with him, however I have pointed out that environmental skepticism is also indistinguishable from denialism, and as Jacques et al. have said, it is defined by denial. In other words, a redirect from climate skeptic to climate change denial is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What does page 363 say that supports your position? Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Explained above at 23:13, 24 July 2011. I just explained to you my position and I gave you one source. I would be happy to provide more, but I would like to see your sources. Why did you revert my redirect? Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your redirect because it was simply wrong. You have no sources saying climate sceptics are climate change deniers whereas the arguments by sceptics against global warming are very relevant to a query about climate sceptics. In the bit I pointed you at twice before see for example Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect by Peter Christoff; "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics". How much clearer can one get? Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I also would not support pointing climate sceptic at environmental scepticism. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq, I asked you why you reverted my redirect. Your answer, "because it was simply wrong", is not acceptable. I gave you the Jacques et al. 2008 showing you that environmental skepticism, and the climate skepticism that is a part of it, is deeply rooted in one thing: denial. Therefore, a redirect to climate change denial is appropriate. In response to my request for sources, you offer me a 2007 opinion piece from Peter Christoff which proves my point and shows that you don't understand what you read. Christoff says: "There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." In other words, when we use the term "climate sceptics" we are really talking about climate denial. Thank you, Mr. Christoff, I agree with you. Dmcq, you completely misunderstand what Christoff was trying to say. He said, "climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics", because he is arguing, as I have been saying all along, that good scientists are sceptics, and the kind of climate sceptics he is criticizing are deniers. Read the entire Christoff article again, Dmcq, as you don't understand it. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't see how that Christoff piece supports what you are saying. It states that there is a difference between the labels of skepticism and denial. It may say that there are no credible skeptics any more, but that's not the same thing as making skepticism and denial identical. I get the impression that you are after the WP:TRUTH. You appear to be arguing that climate change skepticism is indistinguishable from climate change denial, whereas there are enough good sources that outline a difference; it's the sources rather than the wikipedia editor that we go with. It would not be NPOV to have the redirect as you wish.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim that "there are enough sources that outline a difference" between climate skepticism and climate denial, yet neither you nor Dmcq have been able to provide just one. The Christoff opinion piece that Dmcq brought to the table supports what I've been saying all along about scientists as skeptics and climate skeptics as deniers. Could either of you please show me the sources that shows the difference? I don't want another reply telling me what you think I believe or what you think I'm arguing. I want to see the many, many sources you say exist showing the difference. While you're busy doing that, I'll be preparing to offer additional sources that show no difference. Since you and Dmcq missed the point of what Christoff was saying, here is the same point in Haydn Washington's words:

They are actually opposites. Skepticism is about looking for the truth, denial is about hiding from it. All scientists should be skeptics, but when you get an overwhelming ‘preponderance of evidence’ from many different types of research, a true scientist will accept it – a denier won’t. Many climate change deniers call themselves ‘skeptics’ and say the word ‘denier’ is an insult, as if they are ‘holocaust deniers’. However, people can deny anything, but when people deny the fact that every Academy of Science and 97% of practicing climate scientists say human-caused climate change is happening and very serious – it is important to call these people by their true name. They are deniers.

I hope these sources are beginning to make sense to you. I'm looking forward to reviewing the ones you have to offer. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, if you're going to interpret an article that says Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics as saying Climate change deniers should NOT be distinguished from climate sceptics, then it's not clear what evidence would change your mind. Don't you see the irony in that?
Anyway, here's an exchange in letters to the proceedings of the NAS. The first letter complains of "the lack of nuance in defining the terms “climate deniers,” “skeptics,” and “contrarians” both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate" while the reply acknowledges that "our UE category may encompass climate change skeptics, deniers, and contrarians" and explains why the paper was unable to make a distinction that the authors themselves clearly accept. The letter, in case you're not clear what "denier" refers to in the literature, states that it is someone in possession of "frequent financial support from industry or ideological motives".
You appear to be confusing the debate over whether to call particular self-styled skeptics "deniers" (such as the Monbiot article below), with a much stronger assertion that anyone who is, or in the past has been, a skeptic about AGW or any of its major aspects is a denier. This latter assertion is not supported in the sources, and indeed is specifically rejected by several sources brought to this page. The point is that deniers are not skeptics, not that skeptics are deniers. Deniers are active advocates against AGW theory for financial and/or ideological reasons. That is not true of all people skeptical about climate change.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Christoff & Washington do not say "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics". They say scientific skepticism should be distinguished from climate skepticism because "climate skepticism" is synonymous with climate denial. This is even reflected in the current literature. More on this below.
2. Anderegg et al. 2010 treat the terms "climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers" as synonymous, and that is reflected in the wider body of sources cited in their paper. In response to the paper, a letter by O'Neill & Boykoff 2010 finds fault with these terms. I find that O'Neill & Boykoff's letter ignores that the "language of denialism" is already in wide use on issues such as AIDS and genocide, and regardless of whether it is appropriate or moralistic, the term is part of the accepted discourse, particularly in regards to climate skepticism. I agree with Anderegg et. al and their reply to O'Neill & Boykoff: "...their semantic objection...does not adequately consider our methods or the background literature on denialism or climate change contrarians...denialism has been well established in the literature as a relevant and appropriate concept and frequently applied to the ACC discourse. Furthermore, Dielthelm and McKee recommend that denialism be responded to by public scrutiny and examination of denialist expertise as our article provides."[1]
3. You are confusing climate skepticism with scientific skepticism. The assertion is that climate skepticism is in fact climate change denial and is equivalent and synonymous with climate denial in usage. In Australia, professor Robert Manne at La Trobe University says that "the phenomenon of denialism has come to be called...the phenomenon of skepticism. This change in language seems to me to be both dangerous and wrong. Skepticism is in general, as it should be, a positive word, denoting scientific or humanistic curiosity, and in particular, the presence of an open mind. That is not the mindset of those who are now denying the reality of climate change." (The Politics and Science of Climate Change Denialism 2009)
4. VsevolodKrolikov, please show me a notable "climate skeptic" who cannot be considered a "climate denier" according to the published criteria (and reliable sources) of your choice. This is a very simple request. Here's an example: we can apply the Hoofnagle criteria to climate skeptics to see if they can be considered denialists.(Diethelm & McKee 2009) Do the arguments of climate skeptics use any or all of these tactics? 1) Conspiracy 2) Fake experts 3) Selectivity of sources 4) Impossible expectations, moving goalposts 5) Misrepresentation, logical fallacies. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a little surreal, Viriditas.

1. You baldly state that Christoff & Washington do not say "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics". But it's a verbatim quote from Christoff. He is clear that denialism is different to skepticism. He argues that there are no credible climate skeptics now, not that every skeptic going back into the recent past was a denier.
2. You also completely misread Anderegg's reply. It is not that he does not distinguish between skeptic and denier, it is that his analytical model grouped them together for lack of data to distinguish them. He explicitly accepts the distinction (going so far as to list the criteria commonly found in the literature to identify denialism). An argument logically parallel to yours would be to claim that anyone using the word "dog" to distinguish dogs from cats is thereby refusing to admit that there are different breeds of dog, and that Great Dane, golden retriever and Jack Russell are all interchangeable terms (and in so claiming, one pointedly ignores where the person admits to the existence of different breeds).
3. Furthermore, Anderegg's defence of the word denier is not the same as a claim that all skeptics have been deniers. It's a defence of the use of the word "denier". Such a defence has been made frequently, as the word itself has caused some controversy. But it's used only to describe certain kinds of people, not anyone who has doubts about climate change. In other words, you simply repeat the error I outlined above, whereby you confuse people arguing for the validity of the label "denier" with an argument that all climate skeptics have been deniers. That, I believe, is behind Arthur Rubin's note about Monbiot's article not supporting your proposal.
4. I won't take you up on your offer to do WP:original research and compare notes on what we think of various climate skeptics. It is irrelevant what you or I think. What is relevant is what the literature says, and to those of us who read what is actually written, it is clear that the distinction is made often enough. Seriously, denying a prominent verbatim quote from a very short piece that you complain others haven't read properly doesn't instill much confidence in how you handle material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Christoff's 2007 opinion piece[2] says "...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." Note, this is exactly what Robert Manne said as well and both Christoff and Manne conflict with O'Neill & Boykoff on this point. Christoff goes on to say, "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics". But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Since you've expressed major confusion on this point, I will repeat it yet again: Christoff is not distinguishing climate change deniers from the "climate skeptics" we are discussing. He is distinguishing climate change deniers from scientific skeptics who do climate science. This point has been made clear to you now at least twice so you should clearly understand it by now.
2. I did not misread Anderegg's reply, nor is there a need to distinguish it here because even if you assume per O’Neill and Boykoff that Anderegg's entire "unconvinced" group are climate contrarians, that group is still a member of the climate denier group per Hoofnagle, Monbiot, and others listed in this article. If one defines the climate contrarians using McCright's definition in O’Neill and Boykoff's letter as "those who vocally challenge what they see as a false consensus of mainstream climate science through critical attacks on climate science and eminent climate scientists" this meets the denier definition of Hoofnagle as one who "has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." (Diethelm & McKee 2009) Anderegg et al. even meets the Hoofnagle criteria when the terms are introduced: "A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims. This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention..." Now compare that with Hoofnagle via Diethelm & McKee: "All of these examples [of denial] have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question." You can twist and turn, VsevolodKrolikov, but you can't escape the "denier" category.
3. Again, if all notable climate skeptics are not members of the denier class as you argue, then show me one as an example. Use whatever published criteria and reliable source of your choosing. Please note, that is not original research. If it was, we would not have a working category system on Wikipedia. Please do not ignore this opportunity to show me the error of my ways. I am patiently waiting for you prove that there is at least one climate skeptic who is not a denier. That should be incredibly easy for you to do if one exists. I predict that you will not be able to find one because all "climate skeptics" are members of the class "climate deniers" regardless of which classification you choose to use. Because this obviously needs to be said yet again, I am not talking about scientific skeptics who practice climate science. I am referring to people who self-identify as climate skeptics today or who are referred to as climate skeptics in the media. Viriditas (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are trying to impose your own original research on wikipedia. Your statement If one defines the climate contrarians using McCright's definition in O’Neill and Boykoff's letter as "those who vocally challenge what they see as a false consensus of mainstream climate science through critical attacks on climate science and eminent climate scientists" this meets the denier definition of Hoofnagle as one who "has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." is quite clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH, as is also what follows: Anderegg et al. even meets the Hoofnagle criteria...compare that with Hoofnagle via Diethelm & McKee . Have you thought of getting yourself published somewhere before bringing this here? Your opinion may very well be correct. In real life I might (or might not) agree with you entirely. But this is wikipedia, not a vanity press. You've been on here long enough to know this. You've also been on here long enough to know that there's a preview button; my watchlist is clogged up with your self-corrections.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In a talk page discussion about competing sources, it is not an act of original research to show which sources agree and which conflict. To summarize, you have shown that in a letter to PNAS, O’Neill and Boykoff prefer to define climate contrarians and climate deniers differently. However, you have indirectly shown that they dispense with the notion of "climate skeptics" just like every other source we have discussed, and agree that skepticism "is frequently misapplied in such phrases as 'climate change skeptic'".[3] They also complain that the terms used by Anderegg et al. "does not include individuals who are thus far unconvinced by the science...or individuals who are unconvinced by proposed solutions". In terms of individuals who self-identify as climate skeptics in the media and fall into one or both of those categories, the sources show that denialism already accounts for it. It is interesting that O’Neill and Boykoff cannot give examples of this type of individual. Aside from a strongly worded letter from O’Neill and Boykoff, and their own definitions that never really caught on, a review of the climate-related literature shows that in common usage, the terms "climate skeptics", "climate contrarians" and "climate deniers" are used synonymously, and therefore, climate skeptic should redirect to climate change denial. If you disagree, all you have to do is show me one notable individual who either self-identifies or is referred to as a climate skeptic but cannot be considered a climate denier in the literature. This does not require any OR; all you have to do is pick a notable subject and find a source supporting their categorization. We do this everyday on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is disagreeing that climate "skeptic" is frequently misapplied. (That's the point of the term "denier", for pity's sake - that these people are not skeptics, and they abuse the term). You're getting all wound up because you think this means it is always misapplied (if you want to direct dmcq to critical thinking, could I direct you to Venn diagram?). Whatever journalists write, in the academic literature (taking the lead from Oreskes) a denier is someone who (a) actively casts doubt on key parts of AGW and/or on the need for human beings to do something about it (b) where there is convincing evidence they do it for commercial/financial gain or ideological motivations and (c) they do all this pretty much outside of the realm of peer reviewed science (in the popular media). Motivation and funding is not enough; they also typically circumvent normal scientific debate. (They are, after all, "Merchants of Doubt", seeking to disrupt the formation of public, rather than scientific opinion). There are climate skeptics who have carried out their work in the peer reviewed literature - people like Richard Lindzen, Hendrik Tennekes, in fact quite a few people in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming do not qualify as deniers. Lots of them probably do qualify (Fred Singer leaps off the page as he's often criticised as a shill for commercial interests), but that's another matter. Then there are others who were skeptical, but have changed their minds as the evidence emerged. Were they deniers before? Or just skeptics? Given that you are opposed to redirecting to Global Warming Controversy, which would leave the question of the status of climate skepticism open, but insist on redirecting here, it really looks as if you are pursuing a POV. Like Original Research, this isn't something you're supposed to do on wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources show there is no difference between climate skepticism and climate change denial. That's not "pursuing a POV", that's going with the sources. You also don't seem to understand the concept of our OR policy, which has little to nothing to do with this discussion about a redirect. I'm still waiting for you to support your argument with evidence, which you completely failed to do. What are the names of the climate skeptics who are not climate deniers? The redirect for climate skeptic is currently used by three articles.[4] Climate sceptic is also used by three articles.[5] We also have four articles using climate change skeptic[6] and two articles using climate change sceptic.[7] We also have three links to climate change skepticism[8] and one link to climate change scepticism. [9]. We also have 14 links to global warming skeptic[10] Would redirecting these (per the sources) impact its current usage in these articles? Note, these are legitimate questions we ask about creating and using redirects on discussion pages. This has nothing to do with OR of any kind. You should also know that we've had a previous redirect to climate change denial from Climate change skepticism (denialism) to this article since 2010.[11] It doesn't matter what the outcome of this discussion is, just that it is based on the sources. That's hardly a position "pursuing a POV". Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When evidence is provided, you flat out deny its existence - even to the point of denying the existence of verbatim text. Just now, I gave you some names to look at - which you then completely ignore by asking for them again! This is disruptive editing, pure and simple. If it genuinely doesn't matter what the outcome is, then I suggest that you recognise that three editors at least do not find your arguments convincing for the same reasons and that you give it up. You might find something better to do with your time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be working with a different notion of "evidence" than I am. I specifically requested that you provide names and sources. Instead you gave me your opinion about two people and told me to look at a list. In other words, you ignored my request for sources again. If there is anything disruptive here, it is your continuing deflection of my request for sources. "Giving me names to look at it" doesn't do that. This discussion shows that you believe there are actual "climate skeptics" in existence, even though the sources show that "climate skeptic" is a euphemism for "climate denier". More to the point, you paradoxically apply the Oreskes classification to deniers, yet at the same time you ignore this classification when it comes to Richard Lindzen and Hendrik Tennekes. According to the sources, Lindzen is connected to the coal and oil industry,[12] and Pilkey et al. 2011 classify him as a denier. And while Tennekes hasn't published a professional paper in almost two decades, he's had his papers hosted by denial groups such as the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Science and Public Policy Institute. Lindzen and Tennekes meet your own Oreskes classification for denial, yet you completely ignore it. That, my friend, is denial. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting about the industry funded bit I would also say that a lot of climate sceptics are quite correct in being sceptical. Is it really reasonable to suppose that so many sources saying it is rubbish and a conspiracy are wrong? The position is a reasonable and tenable one for someone to have given the amount of work that has been put into fogging up the issue by deniers. What it is reasonable for a person to suppose is to a large part determined by what they know and what people they respect have told them. That they believe something that isn't generally agreed amongst scientists does not mean they're stupid or denying global warming or anything like that. They may have looked at the evidence and come to a perfectly rational decision in the circumstances. And the article describing the various arguments sceptics come across or use is global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum combined with a hasty generalization fallacy. Nice logic there, Dmcq. You may be interested in our article on critical thinking. The literature shows that climate skepticism is equivalent and synonymous with climate change denial, and I will show that to be true on this page. My redirect is not just supported by the evidence, it is the only redirect possible. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that their position is a reasonable one given their experience. That is all that required of a sceptic. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A position cannot be both fallacious and reasonable. Fallacies appear reasonable to the uncritical. Skepticism is part of critical thinking, and when it comes to climate science, it is part of the process of sifting through the evidence, critically evaluating multiple lines of evidence, and accepting the best explanation based on the best evidence. (Karoly 2010) "Climate skeptics" fail to do this, which is one reason they meet the stated criteria for climate denial. You seem to be saying that if one does this unintentionally, one might not be a denier, but clearly one is not a skeptic, and the process must be followed regardless. More to the point, each step must be followed, and what we find is that most climate skeptics fail to accept the best explanation based on the best evidence. As an example of a failure to follow this process, Karoly describes the arguments offered by "climate skeptic" Ian Plimer. You can actually go down the line with each argument made by a climate skeptic and see how the pattern plays out. I did this for a while until I got sick of it and discovered they were all reading from the same script. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that is logically absurd. Speaking as an expert in logic, a statement can be both false and reasonable. No one has ever said that climate change scepticism or denial is fallacious, just that it is not supported by current evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating the argument from authority, but that's not what was said at all. Feel free to look up the definition for "reasonable" in a dictionary of your choosing. Dmcq clearly said "Is it really reasonable to suppose that so many sources saying it is rubbish and a conspiracy are wrong" and "What it is reasonable for a person to suppose is to a large part determined by what they know and what people they respect have told them." And Arthur? Hoofnagle 2009[13] (expanded in Diethelm & McKee 2009[14]) say that climate denial can be characterized by logical fallacies. Viriditas (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First definition of reasonable looking up on the web 'agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.' Sound judgement does not mean the result is correct, it only means a good judgement given the circumstances and what's known to a person. Also arguing from authority is the best way usually for people to make sound judgements in areas they are not familiar with, there is nothing wrong with it. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but in argumentative terms, fallacies are considered less than reasonable, weak, less plausible, etc. Viriditas (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Public opinion on climate change has some potentially useful resources. 99.181.141.119 (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not. See #Clarification needed ... "skeptic" below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources supporting redirect

• Anderegg, WR. Prall, JW. Harold, J. Schneider, SH. (Jul 6, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change." Proc Natl Acad Sci. 107 (27):12107-9.

"A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims. This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy." (12107)

• Jacques, P.J., Dunlap, R.E, and Freeman, M. (2008) "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics, 17: 349-85. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576

"Environmental scepticism encompasses several themes, but denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or climate change that threaten ecological sustainability, is its defining feature." (353)

• Monbiot, George (Feb 27, 2009). "Climate change: The semantics of denial". guardian.co.uk.

"They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause. They will argue, for example, that a single weather event in one part of the world is evidence of global cooling; that the earth is warming up because of cosmic rays and that the Antarctic is melting as a result of volcanoes under the ice. No explanation is too bonkers for them, as long as it delivers the goods. The OED defines a sceptic as, "A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions." This is the opposite of what people like Booker, Bellamy and Tomlinson are. They have their definite conclusion and will defend it against all comers, however many inconvenient truths might stand in the way...Whether we're talking about people who are paid to deny that climate change is happening, or those who use the materials these flacks produce, denial is a precise and concise description of what they do. Their attempt to wriggle out of it by insisting that – by calling them what they are – we are somehow debasing the Holocaust is as contrived as all the other positions they take. We shouldn't fall for it."

• Diethelm, Pascal. McKee, Martin. (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? "European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2-4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
• Hamilton, Clive (2010). "Requiem for a species: Why we Resist the Truth about Climate Change". Earthscan. ISBN 1849710813.

"Festinger's analysis helps us understand the phenomenon of climate change skepticism, or more accurately, denial." (96)

"Climate scepticism grew directly out of the conservative counter-movement against environmentalism. Its first task was to erode confidence in the science on which environmental concerns were based...The task of the climate sceptics in the think tanks and PR companies hired by fossil fuel companies was to engage in 'consciousness lowering activities', to 'de-problematise' global warming by characterising it as a form of politically driven panic-mongering. As a result, climate denial and political conservatism have become, at last in the United States, entwined." (104-6)

• Norgaard, Kari Marie (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press. ISBN 0262515857.

"The term denial is sometimes used to describe the phenomenon of outright rejection of the notion that certain information is true—which, in this case, is the reaction of global warming skeptics mentioned earlier." (60)

"in the United States, literal and implicatory denial go hand in hand...on the face of it these two trends, skepticism and denial, appear quite different...they are related. The fact that nobody wants information about climate change to be true is a critical piece of the puzzle that also...fits perfectly with the agenda of those who generate skepticism. There is an important congruence between these troubling emotions and the psychological defense they engender...and the social structural interests in minimizing public responses to climate science.." (181)

• Washington, Haydn. Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Earthscan. ISBN 1849713359.
• Weart, S. (2011). Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 67(1), 41-50. doi:10.1177/0096340210392966

"...the self-styled skeptics were not proceeding in a normal scientific manner. Scientists continually test their beliefs, seeking out all possible contrary arguments and evidence, and finally publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, where further attempts at refutation are encouraged. But the small group of scientists who opposed the consensus on warming proceeded in the manner of lawyers, considering nothing that would not bolster their case, and publishing mostly in pamphlets, books, and newspapers supported by conservative interests. At some point they were no longer skeptics—people who would try to see every side of a case—but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true." (46-47)

Sources against redirect

• Monbiot, George (Feb 27, 2009). "Climate change: The semantics of denial". guardian.co.uk. [The article says that some people who call themselves sceptics are actually deniers. That's all it does.]

Good lord everyone, why on Earth are you all going around and around about a redirect that is used by only two articles. My suggestion, edit those two articles to link to the correct article (whichever one that is) and WP:PROD the redirect away. Reviewing the two articles, it's clear that one link should be to denialists and the other to skeptics. aprock (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects aren't normally subject to prod's and people type subjects in the search box to find them. Prods apply to topics not titles. But yes any links which obviously should be to an article should point there. Personally I'd prefer some links were kept to redirects rather than always going to a target because it might change or an article written there. Anyway I'll check those links and if they obviously should point somewhere definite elsewhere I'll do that. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple of variants of climate sceptic as well. I went through the links and changed the ones that obviously should point at denial because there was a citation saying so but left the others. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess speedy deletion is the appropriate process for cleaning up poor redirect. aprock (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the redirect? Dmcq (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that with some sort of ironic tone in your voice as you reread the wall of text above? aprock (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the wall of stuff above it is one person going on and on trying to push their idea and other people disagreeing. Normally people know when to stop rather than waste their time and other peoples' like that but it happens occasionally when someone gets a bee in their bonnet, it practically never leads to a change of minds. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please define "climate skepticism" (with good sources) and show me how it is different than "climate denial". The sources above show that the two terms are used synonymously, and that multiple classifications point to people who self-identify or who are known as "climate skeptics" as deniers. What good reason can you offer showing that climate skeptic should not redirect to climate change denial? Is there a difference between the two terms? Can you show, with sources, a so-called "climate skeptic" who is not also a denier? Furthermore, why don't we see similar terms, such as physics skeptics, biology skeptics, engineering skeptics, medical skeptics, art skeptics, and literature skeptics? Look at the origin of the term "climate skeptics" Was it created by deniers? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Enough time has been spent on this by me. The consensus is very definitely against you. No one here supports your position. Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't edit articles based on positions, we edit articles based on sources. Which sources support the definition of a "climate skeptic" and how is it different than "climate denial"? Also, the current redirect only goes to global warming controversy which is a bit of an Easter egg. We want redirects to be accurate and informative. Per the sources, a redirect to climate change denial appears appropriate. If you disagree, could you explain why using the best sources you can find? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous precedent set by User:Keinstein with List of climate skeptics, I will redirect all skeptic redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you do, you will probably be blocked (but not by me, obviously) . Not all notable climate skeptics are scientists. Certainly, not all the ones referred to in Climategate are scientists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The discussion on this page clearly shows that (a) clearly that such a move could be controversial and (b) other editors favour redirect to Global Warming Controversy. I've undone your redirect. Furthermore, the list is less informative than the page detailing what kinds of things skeptics say. The list itself is not in as good a shape as the global warming controversy article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

From global warming controversy:

The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt accuse climate change "skeptics" of trying to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. The fact that only half of the American population believe that global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these so-called skeptics.[2] One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.[14]

VsevolodKrolikov, according to your Oreskes classification, doesn't this mean that climate change skeptics are climate change deniers? At 05:29, 26 July 2011 you wrote "a denier is someone who (a) actively casts doubt on key parts of AGW and/or on the need for human beings to do something about it (b) where there is convincing evidence they do it for commercial/financial gain or ideological motivations and (c) they do all this pretty much outside of the realm of peer reviewed science (in the popular media). Motivation and funding is not enough; they also typically circumvent normal scientific debate. (They are, after all, "Merchants of Doubt", seeking to disrupt the formation of public, rather than scientific opinion)." As the article on global warming controversy makes clear, it is mostly occurring in the media, not in the journals. Per your own classification, VsevolodKrolikov, why doesn't climate skeptic redirect to climate change denial? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for an answer to my question: why don't we have chemistry skeptics, physics skeptics, biology skeptics, engineering skeptics, medical skeptics, art skeptics, and literature skeptics? Look at the sources documenting the origin of the term "climate skeptics". Was it created by deniers? Yes or no? If it was, shouldn't it redirect here? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We're all perfectly well aware that a lot of people who call themselves skeptics are deniers. This sort of silliness would have branded Richard A. Muller for instance as a denier rather than a sceptic. And the BEST project receives money from Charles Koch. People who consider the arguments are skeptics. People for whom the arguments are irrelevant are deniers. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you connect R.A.Muller and Charles G. Koch to closely, see Political activities of the Koch family, Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Add_Energy_Policy_section.3F_Resource:_Get_the_Energy_Sector_off_the_Dole, and Plausible deniability. 99.181.134.105 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have written without communicating. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm taken by Viriditas' point above. While scepticism is an essential part of all science, we don't find bodies of self-proclaimed 'skeptics' making announcements and publishing essays in other areas of science. That would imply that the whole idea is a piece of doublespeak invented for climate science alone. So the question is, invented by whom? Well, the denial movement of course. That makes sense. The trouble is that, plausible as it is, it is OR unless we have a source that says more or less exactly that. I think at this point it's no good suggesting a reading list by surname and date: we need a quote from a cited page that puts an argument just like that. If that's not available, then we may be ahead of the curve of science historianship, and need to wait for the published literature to catch us up. --Nigelj (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we are looking at a distinct difference between scientific skepticism and the noun when applied to skeptics, which are different issues and skepticism as a scientific process should not be confused with the tag applied to people who hold a certain viewpoint. Though the water has been somewhat muddied as can be seen by the examples given by Viriditas between denier and skeptic in the area of climate sciences, this does not mean that the two should be treated equally and considered the same, just because some in the media have. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that we don't have skeptics in other areas of science, your generalisation of there are is no evidence of geology skeptics (as an example) is correct, but there has been well recorded examples of plate tectonic skeptics with publications. With the exception of YECs there are no paleontology skeptics, but there are skeptics for the KT boundary event being caused by an impact, such as publications on the Deccan Traps for example. I believe this is a similar example, there is no such thing as a climate skeptic, but there are people skeptical about given causes for AGW, global warming, climate change , (place your skepticism title here), and I think there is enough reliably sourced information around to show a number of scientists agree with climate change, but may disagree with certain facets of the majority position, but not in it's entirety. This is a valid use of the word skeptic wrt science, and is certainly does not fall into the camp of denier. therefor I do not believe the re-direct should go any where near denialism, which in itself is a well documented position. Regards ^Khukri 09:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the creationists pushing Flood geology are not as successful as the climate change deniers or otherwise we will have geology skeptics as well! Michael Shermer is another example of a climate change skeptic who changed his mind. I just chose him as a prominent skeptic in general. He is not and was not a denier. Lots of juries have listened to arguments in courts and come to the wrong conclusions, we normally call that a failure of the defence or of the prosecution, not denial by the jury. And the deniers have paid for some very good advocacy so there's nothing to be too ashamed of in that many people have listened to the arguments and have for the moment rejected the scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As for V's sources, most of them support the position that many or most so-called "climate change skeptics" are really "climate change deniers", but many support a clear distinction between real "climate change skeptics" and "climate change deniers". Perhaps climate change skeptic should be a disambiguation page, or one we should never link except when referring to the term itself?

I wouldn't be against that, i.e. rather lukewarm support. (Starts whistling quietly 'there may be trouble ahead...'.) Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Resource: BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science

The BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science incorporates an independent report by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London. From p. 67 onwards this discusses deniers in the context of climate, and states:

Global warming raises questions of the reporting of science, of policy, and of scandal and deserves a closer look.

Before discussing the subject in detail it may be worth putting the mind‐set, and the tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into context.

They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism, for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided with evidence. A denialist is not.

Worth reading through for context. A news report with some general discussion of the review appeared in the Graun. . . dave souza, talk 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this be helpful, by Paul Ehrlich?

• Paul Ehrlich "Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future" ISBN 978-1559634847 99.181.135.85 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We really do not need you to toss lists of books and articles at us. People who are interested can subscribe to a blog or read a journal or whatever themselves rather than having stuff posted here with no analysis of whether it might be useful and where in the article. See right at the top 'This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article'. This is not a forum for people interested in climate change. It is the talk page for discussing improvements in the article.

A constructive suggestion would start wih something like ' I think we need something about xyz in section abc, this book says def in chapter 2 about it', or section abc looks wrong to me this book says pqr instead about it, or we need a new section covering the stuff about lmn in this book because.... Or just get yourself a username and be bold and stick something into the article. Dmcq (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 99+ 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you 99+ 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Kid is learning to ask, instead of peremptorily demanding. Good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed ... "skeptic"

Climate change skepticism (as does a person, "a climate change skeptic") redirects to Global warming controversy, while Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial. 99.19.47.119 (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So? They're different concepts, and the parenthetical redirect should probably be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There use to be a clear distinction, but it appears pov forces are attempting to paint skeptics as deniers. We may be getting into a POV fork instead of a separate and distinct topic about organized efforts to deny global warming for commercial or ideological reasons. Morphh ^(talk) 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What "pov forces" (as in "attempting to paint skeptics as deniers") are you talking about? It seems to me that "pov forces" is rather colored ("pov") in itself. It also seems to me (for all the reasons that have been discussed here and on related articles) that the whole effort to distinguish "skepticism" from denial -- and the repeated insistence that "skepticisim" is scientifically essential -- is, frankly, b.s. The denial of AGW was shown to be wholly untenable, so now it is the former deniers who are trying to paint themselves as wholly different, and to distance themselves from the odor of their previous position. It is not clarification they want, but obfuscation. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article itself, you'll see that "denialism" in this context refers to planned intent to subvert the belief in scientific consensus rather than take up a positive contrary position and argue it in the literature. While many prominent skeptics could also be classed as deniers, not all skeptics can. Being "prominent", or creating the illusion of being prominent, is part of the denialist strategy. The academic literature on denialism is very clear on the difference between skepticism and denialism. Even if the number of people who are skeptical but not deniers is very small, it's still POV to insist that the two categories are actually one. It's entirely understandable that people feel passionate about the topic, and frustrated too, but we're an encyclopedia, not a chatsite.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

<ec> Well said, VsevolodKrolikov. Perhaps the best answer is to avoid the much misused term "skeptic"? My tuppenceworth: All scientists are skeptics, and around 97% of those skeptics who have published science on the topic consider that the scientific consensus is correct, that global warming is currently caused by human activities such as fossil fuel use and agricultural practices. The 3% who differ don't seem to have published much lately, but do feature extensively on news media and in blogs. There also self-proclaimed "skeptics" who are astonishingly credulous about fringe views, and deny the validity of mainstream scientific views. Should we call them deniers? Only if very good sources use that description. Note: I'm just an interpreter of interpretations. . dave souza, talk 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys missed my point. I agree (per Arthur) that "denialism" and "skpeticism" are different concepts. Also that (as I said in the next section) they are different campaigns to impugn the scientific consensus. What I was responding to is Morphh's comment regarding deniers and skeptics that implies that "skeptics" are not "deniers", and that "painting" them the same is merely "pov". - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

It's inappropriate to use a hatnote to make a potentially controversial claim. Having 'Not to be confused with Climate change scepticism' implies that there are two distinct camps, whereas the distinction is disputed and unclear - one person's denier is another person's sceptic. Who calls themselves what is a matter for the text of the article, using RSs as always. Also, the link Climate change scepticism doesn't have an article. It redirects to 'Global warming controversy'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Denial in regard to this article should not fall into confusing with skepticism or the ongoing debate. So the statement "one person's denier is another person's skeptic" should be false here. If the article does not make this clear distinction, then it's a POV fork. Looking at the lead, it appears that it is become increasing murky since I last commented here. The media is contributing this as people are charged with denial for being skeptics. Morphh ^(talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that the redirect is a problem. I'm not so sold on the problem of a hatnote per se, as there is a distinction to be made between denialism as an activity, and argumentative challenges made to the scientific consensus - even if the activity involves invoking the challenges. (And following an edit conflict, I agree with Morphh that media usage is problematic for us. Several more academic RS are much clearer and more careful about the distinction). Perhaps if the hatnote rephrased itself something like

This article is about industrial and ideological campaigns to undermine public confidence in the general Scientific opinion on climate change; for arguments challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, see Global warming controversy.

Any good? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable to me. Morphh ^(talk) 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Says too much I think. It should be much shorter. The start of the article says what it is about. Better to say less about this article. How about just the second sentence? Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Morphh ^(talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be said that "denial" of AGW (which this article is about) and "skepticism" of the scientific consensus are separate "campaigns to undermine public confidence...", and to that extent (as separate campaigns) might warrant distinction. But the "deniers" and so-called "skeptics" come from the same camp, are part of the same effort, so what should we call them? Climate controversialists? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? Your 'skepticism' with quotes is denial. Many climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sceptical about that, which climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics? . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave the example of Michael Shermer just a little above for instance. Do we have to have this sort of thing every couple of weeks? We should use reliable sources rather than people trying to push a point of view. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong tense, dear boy, Shermer wrote in 2006 that he had been convinced by arguments for the mainstream view on global warming, and "skepticism was once tenable. No longer."[15] Please present reliable sources when you're making these assertions. I must remain sceptical about your unsourced claim. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not give a current skeptic because the hermetic reasoning that all skeptics are deniers would mean any such would seem a denier. Evidence can only be of the form of someone who has changed from being labelled a sceptic. For one a little later than Shermer how about Richard Muller and his senate testimony? People were quite happy calling him a sceptic. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave, could you clarify something - are you saying that Michael Shermer used to be a denier, or that he used to be a skeptic?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See Shermer's article cited above for his position: in 2005 he became convinced by the science about global warming. Of course Shermer remains a skeptic in that he's a prominent skeptic and atheist. Dmcq has made a specific statement, "Many climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics." But has failed to provide any citations supporting that statement. Dmcq has now suggested we consider the case of Richard Muller and his senate testimony, again without presenting any evidence. All we have is Dmcq's anecdotal hearsay that "People were quite happy calling him a sceptic." Some people say all sorts of peculiar things, which is why denier blogs aren't reliable sources. Once again, I remain sceptical. . dave souza, talk 06:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

dave, that didn't answer my question: do you consider that before he became convinced by the science, he was a climate change skeptic, or a climate change denier?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this [16] the sort of thing you want about that Muller was considered a sceptic? Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking about people who have been called skeptics, our article on Jasper Kirkby is one of the stubbiest stubs I've seen, surely someone can manage a bit better? Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Has someone called Jasper Kirkby a skeptic? It doesn't appear in our article, and isn't supported by, for instance, this article which shows him as being suitably sceptical about the dispute between Henrik Svensmark, who apparently "claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays" and thinks CO₂ has less influence than generally accepted, and Mike Lockwood "who is sceptical" and says cosmic rays may not have much influence. Who, pray, is the "climate-skeptic"? . . . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Dmcq, that seems to confirm what I said in the previous section. "Seeptic" is a vague and much misused term. So, we have a NYT opinion page, slightly iffy for BLP issues, giving Paul Krugman's views about "Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game". .... "His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as “exaggerators,” and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case." A clear but subtle distinction between climate-skeptic and denier, with the implication that Muller's statements previously supported denial but his congressional testimony didn't. So, one somewhat dubious case with a questionable source. I remain sceptical about the "many". . dave souza, talk 08:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Many doesn't matter. If people have been skeptical in the past about climate science, but accept the weight of evidence now that means that there is a difference between being a climate change skeptic and a climate change denier. It may be the contingent case that any professional scientist who still doubts the human contribution to global warming is basically abandoning science for ideology/filthy lucre, but that's not always been the case, and the distinction in good academic literature is made on these grounds. It's only relatively recently that the evidence has become this strong. "Denier" does not just mean "wrong".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq has made a specific statement, "Many climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics", it appears that "many" doesn't matter, one or two specific individuals who have been identified in the past as "climate-skeptics" now accept mainstream science to a greater or lesser extent. All scientists are sceptics and will doubt anything while accepting that good evidence and well set out theory is needed to overturn consensus, "climate-skeptics" appear from the cited source to be those who "denounce" mainstream science, not just "doubt" it, and so give support to those who deny the significance of human caused global warming. "Sceptic" does not mean "supporter of fringe views", though perhaps that's supposed to be the meaning of "climate-skeptic". . . dave souza, talk 10:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

dave, you're getting two different users confused. Dmcq says there are many skeptics who are not deniers, I (that's me) say that it's not that important how many there are. You're carefully avoiding the question of whether Michael Shermer was a denier or a skeptic before he decided that the weight of evidence obliged him to accept AGW. The thing is, your current position would oblige you to say that Shermer was a denier until 2005, given that you argue that "climate change denier" and "climate change skeptic" are synonymous. Shermer is just one person; I use him as an illustration of the problem of holding an absolute position that all AGW skepticism is in fact AGW denialism. It's ahistorical, polemical, and just plain clumsy.

I should point out that I see nothing wrong in including a paragraph, if the sourcing is there, in Global warming controversy, to the effect that a lot of analysts consider any scientist of standing who still engages in public campaigns against the consensus on AGW to, in effect, be a denier. My objection is to the insistence that any and all skepticism about the scientific consensus on AGW is and always has been denialism. ("always has been" here means since it kicked off about twenty odd years ago). Like it or not, that's what you're arguing for here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Think you're getting me mixed up with :J. Johnson, my position is that skeptic is a much abused term, there are many deniers pretending to be skeptics but there are also instances such as Mike Lockwood "who is sceptical" according to the source cited above, whose arguments support rather than oppose the current consensus. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus I have strong objections to restricting climate change skeptic or climate change denier to scientists. Anyone is entitled to make up their minds about the evidence, they don't need a degree. There is just no reason to label people who have inspected the evidence and come to reasoned conclusion as deniers. All that matters is that they have come to the conclusion on reasonable grounds and if they think climate change is a load of hooey then they are skeptics. If they do it because they are politicians wanting to get votes or because they think it will do their industry harm if some green agenda is passed or because that's what they were paid to do or even if they just think it is the popular thing to do or are uncomfortable thinking their SUV is causing problems then they are deniers. Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your labels seem to be your own unsupported opinion, sources needed. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article.Do you dispute what I said and if so why? State what you think instead of wasting time with officiousness. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I clearly dispute what you said, see my other comments. Sources are required per WP:TALK as this page is for improving the article, WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations are not needed on a talk page to discuss a topic. I want to know what your specific objections are to what I said in that particular bit first before spending time on a wild goose chase. It is unreasonable for you to just say citation needed without saying why. Do you want other people here just dismissing your concerns with citation needed without saying why they think what you are saying is wrong? A discussion is a two way street and you will just be ignored as a nuisance if you do not engage properly. Please do not waste other editors time. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I talked about scientists because the literature emphasises the boundary between skeptic and denier as being between those who argue their case within the science, and those who argue their case outside of scientific fora, and not to persuade scientists, but to persuade the general population of doubts about the science. Non-specialists are more of a problem because the academic literature doesn't deal with them that much.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If "climate skeptic" is a term of academic literature, that's good, but all I've seen cited is opinion pieces on various sides of the argument rather than reliable third party sources. Oddly enough, there seems to be academic support for denier as a description, but of course the academics concerned may be seen as supporting the mainstream position. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting perspective at How to talk to a climate sceptic | Environment | guardian.co.uk . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow -- I take day off, and it looks like there's a riot in progress!! I feel somewhat responsible for that, and offer some possible clarificaitons.

First, when I quote "denier" or "skeptic" it should not be taken as some kind of snide comment. It means I am trying to use the term carefully, or in some special context; no particular POV is intended.

Second, it seems imperative to distinguish what Dmcq calls "genuine skeptics" from all the denialists (controversialists?) in "genuine skeptic" clothing. In respect of scientific opinion the former are important generally, but on this issue so inconsequential to be WP:fringe. Whereas the position of the latter seems to be "skepticism is important to science, we are skeptics, therefore our opinions on this issue are scientifically important". (A very fractured syllogism.) These faux skeptics would like to be comingled with the genuine skeptics; we should not acquiesce in that because it would give them more weight than warranted. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Add distinguish|Climate change scepticism?

Add

Not to be confused with Climate change scepticism.

? 99.35.12.88 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)