Talk:List of climate change controversies

Merchants of Doubt

Much of the paragraph about Merchants of Doubt needs to be revamped due to synthesis and lack of neutral POV. The switch from the authors' clearly preferred use of the straightforward word "denier" to the ambiguous word "skeptic" was only part of the problem (they are not synonyms). I will make some changes and am happy to talk about them here IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word denier, but I think Peter Gulutzan has a point above. I can't say Fred Singer isn't actually a professional denier, but it conveys the wrong impression I think. It brings to mind rent a mob, whereas I think it is very possible he does it for ideological reasons. The phrase wasn't applied specifically to him though the implication is very strong. Then again he isn't just any denier, he has practically made a second career out of it. The section would apply to him even if it doesn't specifically mention him so it would be better I think if something besides 'professional' could be used. How about something like "The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt say that a group of scientists for commercial or political reasons have tried to convince the public there is controversy over the science so no action will be taken on reducing carbon emissions, and have done so on a number of other issues besides global warming. 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 deniers." Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more like the other half of the American population believe there are many factors causing Climate Change, with anthropogenic Global Warming only being a part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to convince people of science details they don't need for their daily life, you need to convince them to do something, and the something for Cliamte Change has not even been proposed yet. The biggest part of the world has other problems, like inhouse smog or lack of clean water or energy. And the average American is able to cope with much more than two degree temperature difference on a daily basis by putting on a sweater or bikini. Singer doen't need money to be convinced. Point is its much less interesting where he achieved a delay of regulation, but where he failed. The whole story about the mighty rented mob or the ignorance of the average American fails to explain why e.g. acid rain and Ozone depletion have been dealt with rather quick, rather successfull and without any substantial science consensus. Serten II (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true. The other thing is no one has proposed a remedy that isn't life-altering draconian. When people are told by scientists what would need to be done to really stop all Global Warming, and the answer is cut CO2 emissions to zero and in 200 years it will stop... it won't reverse, that's a non-starter for their ears. That's prehistoric and has zero chance of happening. When told if we can get it to 70% of todays' emmissions (which is almost a zero chance) Global Warming will continue on it's merry way, only a little slower... again no one cares because they look at it as inevitable. No one is giving up their cars, their internet, their restaurants, their tvs, their sports, or most likely their jobs, to give a hoot. Now if science says they have invented a device to neutralize all the anthropogenic CO2... but it will cost lots and lots of money, people might listen because it's a cure within reason. Otherwise they'll just deal with it as it happens and move their locations as need be as has been happening for eons. That's what us humans do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Ozone depletion have been dealt with rather quick" in what possible world has this happened? --I am One of Many (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess quick is a relative term, but 30 years seems rather quick, at least to me. "scientists have found that ozone concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by a significant amount, according to NPR. NASA researchers made the discovery and say the giant hole in Earth’s ozone layer may be shrinking as a result....steps taken in the 1980s, notably the Montreal Protocol which phased out CFC use, are finally yielding benefits today." Then again, we were told that things could rebound in 50 years in regards to CFC damage, so it's what was expected. CO2 damage we are being told will take thousands of years even if we cut back 90%. So it's not something that is a tangible to most people unless you're Methuselah. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the case of the ozone layer supports the opposite point you want to make. Years of determination to eliminate man-made CFC gases, appear to be working. It appears that the ozone hole that occurs annually over Antarctica has stopped expanding, but estimates are that it may only start shrinking in 10 years—scientists don't know for sure. Science can only give us our best options for dealing with a problem at a given time. Scientific solutions may not work, but there is no alternative to science for making such decisions. That is why professional science deniers are perhaps the most serious problem we face for out long-term welfare and survival. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL... yeah right. Goodness you must be one of those Ozone Hole repair deniers.. er a skeptics... to read it that way. "Ozone hole shrinks up by 30 miles (4%) since 2010 over mid-northern latitudes - UN Report." As Serten said, the ozone depletion has been dealt with rather quickly. It's not finished and it'll still take decades to completely fix itself. But there will always be those who are skeptical on all the causes of Climate Change and more importantly what we can "reasonably" do about it (and per today's scientists, if their numbers are right, we can really do nothing to stop it). We have to learn to live with it or go back to stone tools, or perhaps invent something to suck it all out of the atmosphere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Slowing it down and doing something to mitigate the effects would help greatly, it would give more time for adjustment and to develop better solutions. It is interesting how the American army with its ability to deal with risk is doing something about catering for it, they don't need total and absolute proof before taking action These ones who hide their heads in the sand though try stopping places even trying to plan things like flood defences. Denial can be quite amazing. As you say the cases are different, all people had to worry about with CFCs was that fridges had to be redesigned and sprays became a little less efficient and it was a problem solved sort of thing.

Anyway I think this is going off topic a bit, whether the bit about 'professional deniers' was okay or not. As I said above I don't think it is actually false but I think it could be better phrased. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that is where the science disagrees with you. If the science is correct, cutting back to something like 70% of 1990 levels would be draconian and will not help "greatly." It will help minisculey. It will slow things down but it will be like cooking a turkey at 345 instead of 350. Per the science the only answer is to figure out a way to remove the CO2. Anything else is really a myth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a false statement about the science. The AR5 SPM says "Substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades can substantially reduce risks of climate change by limiting warming in the second half of the 21st century and beyond", and from the WG3 summary the costs "an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year." Saying it's impossible is a standard stage of denial. . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting paper, – "benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO₂ emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission". . . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The IPCC also says that to do any real good annual greenhouse gas emissions would need to start dropping each year till they were 41 percent to 72 percent below 2010 levels by mid-century. Then emissions need to keep falling (to basically zero) by the end of the century to stop the tipping point from happening. That "substantial" amount would be draconian and will not happen. Simply cutting levels 10% from today and maybe 20% by the end of the century would be extremely difficult with massive lifestyle changes... and that really wouldn't do any good. We need to find another way or we'll just have to adapt if possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubya and Donald sent the action against the non existing WMD's in Iraq, with much less certainty as the IPCC has provided. Sociologists used a famous quote of DR to state that the cognitive frame for political practice is limeted by the relationship between what we know, what we do not know, what we cannot know, but Rumsfeld left out what we do not like to know. As long the IPCC and the likes of Oreskes and Cook try to deal just with "what we know and bloody lay people have to know", they are bound to fail. And as long this article ignores basic findings from science studies, it has to rely on conspiracy theories explaining nothing. Rumsfeld was more wise, he listened to Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Black swans (Fukushima, financial crisis and so on) are the actual danger policy wants and needs to adress. The IPCC approach doesnt help there. Serten II (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All this isn't relevant to the discussion. The discussion was about the phrasing of the section about Merchants of Doubt. See WP:TALK#USE, we should stay on topic and not turn it into some general discussion forum. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The article puts undue weight on the merchants of doubt, a rather doubtable social construct. Actual science is being neglected. Serten II (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two citations and one short paragraph about a notable contribution to the analysis and debate, and you think that's undue? Don't agree, you remain free to propose coverage of other social constructs, best in a new talk section.

Back on topic, why not name the book's authors in the paragraph? In other words, start the para "Historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway..." . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In regard "provide documentation"; that requires a source other than the book. "Accuse" (or perhaps a more neutral word) does not. "Assert" is probably better than "Accuse" ... "assert that professional deniers are/were trying" seems adequate. After all, the book is not the primary subject of this article. We shouldn't need to go into detail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a long list of reviews under the Amazon entry for this book. Most of them take note that the authors provided documentation/research or synonyms. If we really must have a citation for that bit of text, there's plenty to pick from. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, ignoring an actual peer reviewed paper but asking to use amazon. Serten II (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a false restatement of what I said. In the collection of RSs on the Amazon page there are multiple contenders. For just one example, the Amazon page leads to a pithy paragraph from Publisher's Weekly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is peer reviewed and of any scientific value? Plonk. Try JSTOR, one entry. I would never accept such kindergarten level for Donna Lafromboise btw. Serten II (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not what WP:RS means. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin, I think "argue" would be the better than "accuse" or "assert" since they provide reasons and evidence for their view. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer review indirectly cause denial

Usage of lack of peer review publications denying global warming as an argument against global warming denial makes it look as if the arguments for global warming had to resort to arguments from authority, as if there were no actual evidence for human-caused global warming. This causes denial. Effective spreading of global warming knowledge must instead rely on information on the empirical evidence for it.2.68.244.172 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to support anything except neutral reporting of reliable sources according to weight. Peer reviewed sources have the greatest weight. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

According to who?2.68.244.172 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable.. Vsmith (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So I see. It's polarization moronism all the way down.2.68.244.172 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No. It's due weight to competence and careful checking all the way down. If you believe for some reason that peer review does not matter, that is your problem and not the problem of WP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article Attribution of recent climate change deals with the efforts to identify cause. Right now to "Evidence of global warming" is a redir to Instrumental temperature record. Seems like we should make it a stand alone article, to elaborate on the "unequivocal" IPCC quote that cites "Multiple lines of evidence", not just the instrumental temps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The "97%"

Usually, the fallacious figure was arrived at thus: Australian researcher John Cook and colleagues perused over 11,000 peer-reviewed papers and articles published between 1991 and 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. They then sorted them into four subgroups, headed:

1] No Position on anthropogenic global warming

2] Endorsement,

3] Rejection, and

4] Uncertainty.

"No Position" -- at 66.4% -- was the largest group. *Only among the (33.6%) minority which did proffer an opinion, 97.1 per cent endorsed the anthropogenic-global-warming position.

Repetition is not necessarily Reality -- and, as committed as we should be to the environment, to say that ninety-seven -- or ninety-eight -- percent of scientists hold an anthropogenic global-warming/climate-change view is grossly misleading, and might well be filed under Mark Twain's "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." It should be removed from any article claiming scientific accuracy.

75.18.222.154 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC) MC

Your analysis is "original research" which can't be used in Wikipedia, and is based on a couple of fallacies: you've misrepresented the Cook et al. paper, and have omitted Anderegg et al. and the Doran, Zimmerman paper, both of which are cited in the article. . . dave souza, talk 08:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dave, in what way do you think he misrepresented the paper, and what do the other two papers have to do with his discussion of this paper – are you referring to some edit he made in the article itself that you've reverted?

Speaking just of this paper, I've read it. Cook et al. found that 66.7% of the 11,944 abstracts they checked either took no position on AGW or expressed uncertainty about it. Of the remaining one third of the abstracts, 97% endorsed AGW, and this 97% includes abstracts that, in the words of the authors, give "Implicit endorsement", i.e., "Implies humans are causing global warming, e.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause." In other words, if an abstract does not explicitly say that human activity causes global warming, let alone that it's the cause of most of it, and does not even conclude from its research that carbon emissions cause global warming but only uses that as an ASSUMPTION on its way to considering some other question that it's researching, that paper is still used as part of the 97% of the abstracts that state a conclusion that adopt AGW as fact. Furthermore, the paper considers only abstracts, and explicitly states that its 97% includes those that do not quantify how much of the global warming is caused by human activity. Accordingly, this paper does not say, and cannot be used to support the conclusion, stated in the article, that "Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming." (Emphasis added.) It does not poll the researchers, only abstracts, finds that only 97% of 33.3% of the abstracts (i.e., 32.3%) support AGW, and the paper does not come to a conclusion about the "most" part. In fact, while the authors do say that they counted how many of the abstracts explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming, they do not give the number of how many say that. I find it strange that the "gatekeeper" editors of this article, who are very quick and thorough in eliminating any change to this article that might indicate that it is not certain that global warming is mostly or entirely caused by human activity, have no problem leaving in mischaracterizations of the papers like citing Cook et al. as one of the papers that support the statement "Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming," when it says no such thing, it the abstract or elsewhere in the paper.

I've also noticed that while the editors will use conclusionary statements in the abstract of a source, when someone adds to the article by reporting facts that are actually in the full paper of the source, those additions are removed as "independent research" whenever they conflict with the "97% of climate researchers say humans cause most global warming" conclusion favored by the editors. This seems a pretty clear indication of editorial bias in this article. Such a position (allowing quotations from the abstract but disallowing as "original research" accurate representations of statements made in the paper itself) is not followed anywhere else in Wikipedia outside the climate research field, which is apparently heavily policed by the editors for orthodoxy. - (Above three paragraphs by Embram (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

I've been notified that even questioning the editing of others, let alone suggesting possible bias, is forbidden here. Accordingly, I apologize for doing so in the above paragraph, and will not henceforth. - Embram (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the comment to which Embram refers. If we stick to discussing article improvement based on reliable sources, and using WP:DR when needed, all is well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I also studied the entire paper I partially agree with Embram. For one of Cooks categories concurrence with the mainstream view was implied, and it was not OR for Embram or anyone else to say so. Quite the opposite... the implied nature of the concurrence is explicitly laid out in the paper's methodology section. So what to do? The best is to rely on quality secondary sources to report the results of this papre. Barring that, we should maybe insert "explicit" and "implicit" so the presentation of the stats is accurate, and we should maybe include the error-checking second step they followed, which they say supported their their conclusions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussions of pretty much same thing

• Talk:Global_warming_controversy/Archive_10#Cook_et_al:_Scientific_consensus
• Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_21#The_John_Cook_Study_Has_Major_Problems
• Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_36#Peer_review_section_seems_to_be_WP:SYNTH
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Consensus_View_of_Article_Abstracts_Discussing_Global_Climate_Change

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The only change I'd suggest now is to remove the citation to/of the Cook study from (or change the caption in) the chart that's captioned "Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming" because the Cook study does not support that statement. The Cook study counted abtracts, not researchers (as one of the other cited references points out, some researchers published many more papers on the topic than others), and did not make any statement about the percentage that agreed with the "most" part. The authors apparently counted the number of abstracts that "[e]xplicitly [state] that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming" (type 1 endorsement in Table 2) but didn't say how many they were, instead lumping them in with the implicit endorsements and the explicit endorsements without quantification to get the 97.1% figure. - Embram (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spent a whole lot of time debating here but I've come back every few months and read through talk pages on this subject for laughs. There is simply no arguing with the handful of people who have adopted wikipedia as their personal e-library, of sorts. They are experts in wiki law (which is not an infallible metric for determining whether or not something belongs here and it is laughable that this even needs to be said) and they seem to virtually never concede a point. A user named TFD actually said (archive 11) that "It is just not possible to write an article arguing against AGW that conforms to the standards required for publication, since any reasonable conclusions drawn from the facts would hold that most global warming is man made." I know that this is sort of like telling fundamentalist Christians that one of their own believes something totally backward. Their reaction is likely to be "...so?". But this statement, to anyone who has not only actually looked at the facts but, more importantly, understands how science works, is indicative of a major problem in this community.

This place is full of non-scientists who, because of their lack of expertise, place an undue degree of importance on consensus and who steadfastly and absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything that runs counter to their fully cemented notions. I hope TFD and others like him decide to go back and read about the history of science. They may find it surprising that the consensus was against many of their heroes.

In the meantime, this place should not be regarded as an unbiased source of information. It is anything but.

Above 3 paragraphs by NerdNinja9. Cue cookie cutter response, from some self-styled wiki god, dismissing everything I've just said.NerdNinja9 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Kahan study

I have just cut new text added by Vgy7ujm that said

On the other hand, a 2015 study by Dan Kahan showed that global warming skeptics are as familiar with the relevant science as their opponents. They simply arrive at different conclusions.

The study is paywalled, and I have not read this primary source yet. However, I have read secondary sources, and I don't think the study quite supports the contention in this text. The problem is that the new text seems to posit an exact parallel between degree of acceptance vs skepticism with the Scientific consensus on climate change no matter how much one knows about the science. That doesn't quite hit the nail, from what I gather. See this for example. It seems the study rather said that despite lots of knowledge about the science, polarity still exists; and yet with less knowledge of the science there is less polarity. At what point on the science-knowledge spectrum do we place "skeptics"? At what point on the strengh-of-opinion spectrum do we place "skeptics"? I've got no problem adding something about this study, but is the text I cut truly a fair presentation of the results? Maybe it is, and if so, someone should restore it. But let's talk.

@Vgy7ujm: can you please indicate the specific paragraphs in this paper that you think say what you said?

• I quickly skimmed through the study. First, the study involves a random sample of 2,000 ordinary US citizens, so it is a study about various questions concerning knowledge of climate change science and the relationships between this knowledge and political ideology. Second, the findings are interesting, but not overly surprising. In general, people on the political right are more likely not to know or believe relevant issues in climate science. So, the study doesn't support the quote above and the study as a whole has nothing to do with climate scientists' views. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that there is nothing in this article that supports the quote. It is either deliberately misleading, or the wiki editor didn't understand the paper. It is a random minor paper in Political Psychology, of no value to this page.Feyre (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

refs for this thread

References

Willie Soon

See: Willie Soon#2015: Allegations of disclosure violations
This better? Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)