Talk:Climate change denial

POV tag & "unwarranted"

Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On wikipedia, "neutral" means "reflective of the sources". It can't be non-neutral without considering the sources. So, what source do you think has not been adequately reflected in the article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made this comment on the NPOV noticeboard at the current discussion, and perhaps it can be useful here as well to focus the discussion in a fruitful way to determine whether there is a neutrality issue or not on this article.

The lede sentence reads:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.

• "Denial" is hyperlinked to denial which is very important to the meaning of the sentence. This carries psychological and moral overtones that are desired, i believe, to the meaning of the sentence.
• "scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming" is hyperlinked to the article Scientific opinion on climate change. This is also important to the meaning of the lede sentence.
• The sentence cites two sources: National Center for Science Education 2010, and Powell 2012, each with extensive quotes.

My reading is that this sentence is solid and in line with the bulk of reliable sources on the subject, though in sharp opposition to a small minority of sources that show a strong POV in line with climate change denial itself. It's not that the two sources used to support the sentence do support it, but that the vast majority of reliable sources also support it. It's not enough to have just a couple sources to claim that a point of view is "denial" (which is to say that its claims are bunk) but rather that it's a widely accepted viewpoint without significant opposition except among a clearly delineated minority group who are pushing it. Ultimately, there is no "absolute truth" within Wikipedia, but rather a complex triangulation (sort of a cluster map analysis) of many reliable sources, with us as editors evaluating the positions and likely truth values of each source and doing a complex meta-analysis. In this case, it pretty much comes down to a picture of a group of sources that have been partly funded by huge vested interests (the fossil fuels industry) to create the illusion that there is significant doubt about the reality of human-caused climate change.

I would prefer the sentence to be simpler:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans.

This simpler definition removes the fuzziness about whether there is valid skepticism about the rate or extent of climate change, or about the extent or nature of impacts, and such things. I do think there is valid skepticism on those fronts, and it would not necessarily be included in the label "denial".

I hope my contribution is useful, and can be fodder for meta-level discussion about what NPOV (neutral point of view) means in regard to this article. SageRad (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As I've noted there, the trouble with the suggested simplification is that it becomes over-specific, and excludes positions covered by the taxonomy cited in the article. For example, cases where there is acceptance of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans, but denial (or unwarranted doubt) that it's worth doing anything about it. The spread of coverage is well cited in the article. Adding to that comment, while there is valid skepticism on all fronts, it gets called "scientific skepticism" as "climate change skeptificism" has become a common code for denial. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

dave souza - "scientific skepticism" is just common code of the other side. You're dealing with partisan wording, and the most common usage is expectedly just rhetoric to win, not about something real or virtuous. Consider the alternative meanings of 'scientific skepticism' are: First a common distrust of politicized scientific bodies or scientism (see also distrust of politicians and salesmen, cynicism, perceptions of dogma); and Second a common doubt of a scientist or science generally (from change over time, fallibility, GIGO, corruption). Basically there's no such thing as "scientific skepticism" for "climate change" as the article seems to mean the term, though I'd be happy enough for someone to point me to actual applications of it in this topic. Markbassett (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Unwarranted doubt" is also important to encapsulating the whole topic. Yes, I know... the title of the article is "denial". That's because it's the term our sources use, even though the subject really encapsulates a large range of professed views. Anthony Watts claims he doesn't "deny" the scientific consensus, he just doubts everything about it despite mountains of evidence, and as such he's identified by many sources as one of the most prominent climate change deniers. I love simplicity, but we have to get the subject right foremost.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd go further: I think "unwarranted doubt" is the very definition of denalist activism. You can see this in everything from the tobacco industry playbook to the work of holocaust deniers. It is amazing how well two words can encapsulate so much nuance. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a beautiful term. It does encapsulate a judgment about what's reality and what's not. I would certainly say it in my own voice, but is it suitable for Wikivoice? It takes a position on what is warranted. It's conferring an authority, as is evident from the root word "warrant". In the case of climate change, i believe there is sufficient agreement among sources that there is a consensus that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and serious, and it's been documented sufficiently that much of the doubt is manufactured by a vested interest actively attempting to sow doubt, such as ExxonMobil's climate change denial. So in this case, i think that it's ok for Wikipedia to authorize the warrant to the actual consensus and to call unwarranted doubt what it is. SageRad (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed suitable for Wikipedia's voice, because it assumes nothing about motives, it does not demand outright rejection of consensus, only doubt unwarranted by the strength of evidence, and it is unliekly to be misunderstood by the reader (always an issue if we resort to jargon). Guy (Help!) 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There's been yet another editor removing 'unwarranted'. I think it is probably another one of these ones who wants to cast denial into a good light. Could anyone try and explain to me the thinking behind their wanting to remove the word as I'm just not getting any sort of even fuzzy idea of what's in their minds when they do it. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This may be helpful in discussing the word "unwarranted" in terms of POV versus NPOV. Keeley (1999) writing about conspiracy theories, categorizes them into "warranted" versus "unwarranted":

as more people must be brought into the conspiracy to explain the complicity of more and more public institutions, the less believable the theory should become. It is this pervasive skepticism of people and public institutions entailed by some mature conspiracy theories which ultimately provides us with the grounds with which to identify them as unwarranted.

I think this touches on the discernment between "warranted" and "unwarranted" that may help us in deciding and explaining the content. My point of view is that doubting climate change is unwarranted, because Occam's razor just doesn't go there very well. The fossil fuel industry's interest is to cause doubt, and that's been seen, so it's more reasonable to conclude that the bulk of doubt is generated by the industry. And, there's also the vast number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if it were false. SageRad (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes that's a good citation explaining the business and is in line with what the article denialism says about being irrational. I agree with you that nowadays doubt about it is unwarranted so the word is superfluous, but the line is saying what climate change denial is - and one shouldn't write conclusions into one's starting point. It is the same reason I support 'opinion' in the title of scientific opinion on climate change rather than something like scientific conclusions on climate change. The article then can give a fuller account of the reasons for what it says which is far better for an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo - I think this thread was started looking for edits, so to bring it back to the thread topic and point it towards article edits, can you clarify what changes would suit for "Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone." ? I mean that sure, so I read the article and find it is a POV, nonencyclopedic manner that is not neutral -- but I also note the article title *is* a POV label. Generally 'denialism' is common rhetorical tactic, a polemic labelling something one side does to frame the others position dismissively and to imply wrongness and base motives. So not neutral from the get-go, and just follow the cites principle on that label will take you mostly to one side's view. Are you looking for article to get phrases heat toned-down, or for it to become about the label and just expand it as this POV position claims about their opponents, or to whack it into mostly a redirect to Climate change controversy or what ? Markbassett (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, I was looking for article to get phrases heat toned-down, but as you say this is a polemic article and the inmates are running the asylum, given the flamewar below. Don't waste your time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo OK, noting thread as closed then. I will open something else on one line though where the language becomes opaque. Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Climate_change_denial was started by User:Kintetsubuffalo. He and I agree that it has descended into a polemic shouting match, so I am asking for it to be closed. Biscuittin (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So two people who think the real world is biased against them and Wikipedia should fix that, agree that Wikipedia is being horrible by supporting the real world and not them. Colour me unsurprised. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't resist insulting me at every opportunity, can you? This is deplorable behaviour by an administrator and proves my point that Wikipedia needs reform. Biscuittin (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Help! I'm being repressed!" Guy (Help!) 14:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not helpful and doesn't seem civil to me, Guy. Generally, i really enjoy your thoughts and find them useful and sometimes profound, but then there are these insulting bursts that i think harm the editing environment, and tend to polarize things instead of working out our differences of viewpoint. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin appears to dislike the fact that climate change denialists are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to fix this. This sort of BS has been going on for so long that we are by now well entitled to respond robustly to such claims. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Guy, he's referring to your incivility. I realize that it's frustrating when people don't listen to you when they're obviously wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place to express that frustration. Go punch a wall or something. RussNelson (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article encyclopedic and does it comply with NPOV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For reference: [1]

I assert that the article Climate change denial is unencyclopedic and does not comply with WP:NPOV. Reasons:

• The style of writing is not neutral but is condemnatory of climate change sceptics/deniers
• There is POV-pushing, e.g. in the use of "unwarranted doubt" rather than just "doubt"
• The section "Pseudoscience" is inappropriate. It is not pseudoscience to hold an opinion on climate change which differs from the majority opinion

I suggest two possible remedies:

• The article should be re-written in a neutral style, or
• The title should be changed to Criticism of climate change denial

I also criticise the fact that Climate change skeptics redirects here. Climate change skepticism is not the same as climate change denial, although this article pushes the POV that they are the same. Biscuittin (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We just had an RfC on this two months ago, and consensus was quite clear. I don't see any benefit to holding another one so soon. RfCs should also have a neutrally worded summary and a clear question, both of which are lacking here; there's nothing obvious to "support" or "oppose". If you'd like to change the article in any of the ways you're suggesting, I think it would be best you have a simple discussion about it here, first. To jumpstart that, what sources do you feel have been excluded from the article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unactionable. You propose no specific change, all you do is state that the article is at odds with your personal beliefs without providing anything which an RfC can address. This needs to be closed. Try again with somethign specific backed by sources. Or drop it. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources are irrelevant because it is the unencyclopedic style of the article that I am complaining about. Biscuittin (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you post a specific change that you want to implement? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Specific changes are already suggested in my RfC submission above. Biscuittin (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You could use a little time iunderstanding the actual meanings of some of the words you use. Specifically, the word specific, which you use in a way that is quite unconnected to its actual meaning. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is neutral as per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not indulge in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Proposer also does not seem to be able to take onboard that global warming controversy is where the scientific objections are discussed and this is about a social and psychological phenomenon. That is where the theory that the main change is caused by solar variation is discussed. This is the article about denial and people pushing things like that despite the evidence being against them. This article is not about the science itself. Whether solar variation could or does cause the change despite the studies is not relevant to this article. If a person has a big lump growing on them and they are afraid to go to the doctor, or are told it is cancer and say that can't happen to them - yes it might be true that they don't actually have cancer. Yes it is worth checking the diagnosis. But saying it is something else is still denial and there's no particularly positive side to it. There is no need to say 'criticism of' at the beginning as if we were going to have an article about how marvelous denial is. This idea of some false balance with climate change deniers has been discussed on multiple boards and I would support a topic block if the proposer goes on to yet another venue after this. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

the previous RfC was about the redirect Climate change skeptics so I have struck out this part of my complaint. Biscuittin (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This article is writtenn from one POV. It may well be the majority POV but it is not a POV that is universally accepted, by all climate scientists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Malformed RfC There is nothing proposed here. The article is written from the point-of-view of the scientific consensus on the subject. It discusses a social/political agnotological phenomenon relating to the denial of climate change. The OP has been told this by many editors on many pages. This RfC should be closed anf the OP should WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the poor dead horse else they may be fast exhausting the community's patience. Jbh^Talk 13:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Malformed RfC I agree that the RfC is malformed, as support would result in no actionable steps. The article is very problematic, but this RfC isn't going to solve that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific, Sphilbrick. In what way is the article "very problematic"? Biscuittin (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

An article to which “Climate change skeptics” redirects ought to have substantial coverage of the skeptic end of the spectrum. It does not. I could elaborate, but not in this thread.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yet another waste of time - find yourself something useful to do William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Shouldn't have WP:FALSEBALANCE. Only one content proposal 'doubt rather than 'unwarranted doubt'. This is in the definition of what the article is about. Therefore removing 'unwarranted', places all scepticism in same category category as denial which seems opposite of what the proposer wants. If this is not understood, I don't think we should take proposal, which is very thin or even malformed, very seriously. crandles (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC is to get comments from editors who have not contributed to this discussion before. However, there have been at least three attempts to sabotage the RfC. [2] [3] [4] Biscuittin (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs do not show "sabotage". Looks like one gives a valid criticism and the other two removed a notice of the RfC from Wikiproject Cosmology - where it did not belong. I mean seriously Cosmology? Really?? Jbh^Talk 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• General disagreement -- The article is generally fairly neutral, and the proposed title "Criticism of climate change denial" would not be better then the simple current title Climate change denial, because the current title is the actual noun used by a huge number of reliable sources, which indicates that it's a "thing" that is notable enough to describe in Wikipedia, which is what this article does. Sure, there are people who would not use this term, but this article describes them and their reasons for not using this term, so it does represent the variety of viewpoints accurately using reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Malformed RfC. Per C-randles: It is not denial if not unwarranted. Jim1138 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral on remedy #1 (I'm not opposed to a re-write that makes the article more neutral, but I'd need more specifics in terms of what you see as a problem and how you propose they be remedied, and oppose the rename (#2) since that would be a daughter article of this one (and, I suspect, a poor choice for a daughter article). Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The premise of these assertions seems to be that those described here as climate change deniers might actually be right, and mainstream science wrong. If this were true, then more balance would be needed, but it is not true. All the references in this article and in all the other articles on global warming support this. There is no other valid POV to represent. --Nigelj (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it is just about conceivable that one of the myriads of theories might actually be right and most climate scientists are wrong even though it is extremely unlikely. And checking various ideas is always a good thing. But that is hardly the point. Going around and saying all those climate scientists are wrong and some other theory is right is simply denial with the current weight of evidence. One needs good evidence that passes as good science and is accepted by other people qualified to check the data before saying that to the world - which are climate change scientists unless one is a conspiracy theorist. So not as unlikely as pigs flying but more likely than winning the jackpot. It could be you - but you're a fool if you believe it will be you. Dmcq (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I personally dislike the term denial. The term's baggage means that it can be played upon by "skeptics" to create undeserved sympathy. But the term is well-sourced, so by Wikipedia policy that's what we're stuck with. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This article does take a particular POV and the claimed "consensus" should not justify this stance. To quote Michael Chrichton:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Supt. of Printing (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Crichton was a writer of fiction. That you need to quote fiction to support your view is telling William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what scientific consensus is do you? Scientific Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. Global warming is caused by the increasing levels of Greenhouse gases (Mainly CO_{2 (g)}, CH_{4 (g)}, and H₂O _(g)) which is agreed upon in scientific conferences that GHG concentrations in the atmospheres are increasing, Likewise, The correlation between GHGs and surface temperatures have also been discussed in scientific conferences, originaly to explain Venus's high surface temperature compared to its Planetary equilibrium temperature. Davidbuddy9 Talk  17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The term Scientific consensus is well understood and perfectly valid. It is, of course, not hte same thing as the consensus at a Society of Friends meeting, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a normal term in science. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree with malformed RFC. The article is written per the overarching view of the scientific community. While I'm sure some sections could be more neutrally worded in general the tone of the article, that climate change denial is non-scientific and fringe among experts is perfectly matching to reality. SPACKlick (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Partially support I think getting rid of "unwarranted" is a good idea. Otherwise, any claim that a specific person or group is a climate change denier becomes impossible to support via citation; the question of when beliefs are warranted is a difficult philosophical one and can't be sidestepped by referring to an expert consensus, which bears directly only on truth and not warrant. David9550 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to make philosophical decisions, we just have to follow reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth. What is needed is for reputable secondary sources to give their opinion. Nobody is expecting Wikipedia editors to come to some sort of conclusion about people, the extent of our judgment is to assess how good the sources used are. Thanks for the reasons - I was wondering why some people were going on about the 'unwarranted'. There's no much room for unwarranted doubt nowadays but it would mean including any scientist who actually found a problem as a denier which would just be wrong as in denialism the hallmark is denying reality. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Are you saying that there are reliable secondary sources saying that denying climate change is unwarranted? I was under the impression that the sources only said that climate change existed, not that its denial was unwarranted.

I'm not quite sure what your last sentence means but I interpret the words "denier" and "denialist" very differently -- the first is just stating the fact that the person denies climate change, whereas the second is speculating on the psychological motives, and usually a POV assertion. So I think it is fine to call individual scientists deniers as long as we don't call them denialists. David9550 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Read the sources and you'll see for individuals climate change denial refers to denialism not to just them saying that there is a problem in the theory. Yes if we as editors decided from the evidence that somebody said climate change was wrong that they were deniers that would be POV by the meaning of climate change denial. We would need reliable sources that actually labels people in some way equivalent to that. This article does not label individuals that way but does describe a general problem of that sort as described in the social sciences literature. Industry denial is something different but is also covered in this article as in the denial machinery used to foster denialism in the public. The article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming does not label the people there as climate change deniers even though many of them could be properly labelled as such by WP:V, that simply lists those who verifiability oppose the general consensus. Dmcq (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that interpretation throws the whole article in a new light, for me. At the very least it would mean that we should get rid of the section labelled "Denial networks", which claims that specific individuals and groups are deniers = denialists. The second sentence also becomes problematic, because it implies that deniers = denialists exist and that their views can be described.

I understand that the existence of denialists is asserted in sources like NCSE, but this seems like a clearly POV source. I understand that the IPCC is NPOV and says that climate change exists, but it doesn't say that critics are denialists. For all we know, the majority of scientists who voted on IPCC think that the critics are not denialists and are performing an important part of the scientific process even though they are wrong. David9550 (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That says a study has identified 4556 individuals across the US as forming a network of deniers. They do not identify any individuals, they simply give a number of the ones they consider to be supporting denialism and discuss the organization of them. You are going against the second pillar of WP:5P in the way you are applying your own ideas instead of following the sources. There are multiple sources attesting to the denialism, have you read Dunlap for instance? Climate change denial is of course of concern to many involved in the IPCC, but social scientists and psychologists and suchlike are best qualified to write about something like denialism. And they are qualified to write about it as far as Wikipedia is concerned whatever about your reservations about it being POV to judge people's internal states. Dmcq (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that Dunlap feels more like an NPOV source than NCSE does. So I'll agree that the existence of denialists can be taken as a verifiable fact. However, I'm still concerned that there may be a kind of "bait-and-switch" going on -- it's true that many sources are using the word "denier" to mean denialist, but to me that doesn't feel like a very natural usage of the word, and I wouldn't be surprised of other sources just use "denier" to mean someone who disbelieves in climate change. For example, the article currently states "In academic literature and journalism, the terms climate change denial and climate change deniers have well established usage as descriptive terms without any pejorative intent." (though there is no citation). Well, maybe I will have to look through the article to see if there are any conflicting word usages like this... David9550 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Unclear what the issues are in particular. Someone claims the article lacks a NPOV, but cannot pinpoint it, is bad communication, and therefore prevents evaluation of potential issues. Same for style of writing, in fact it seems just fine. The pseudoscience section is important, however, the content could be extended and issues be defined more exact, i.e. Willie Soon and COI due to funding. And just to make this point clear http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/28/willie-soon-s-climate-denial-wasn-t-ever-credible-climate-scientists (Follow the link if you're feeling masochistic enough to read more from scientists into the documented gap between reality and Willie Soon's research) prokaryotes (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is in harmony with the supported facts. Frank communication of the supported facts is encyclopedic, is the cleanest way to achieve NPOV. This article achieves that. --Paleorthid (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - the article does come off as comdemning and ranting a bit rather than an encyclopedic NPOV factual reporting of cites and the positions involved. It's kind of difficult with partisan labels involved, but at least have the lead point to Climate change controversy as well, be shorter and try to keep the article a bit more dispassionate. (a) For example, there a paragraph spent on putting in the vague slur 'pseudoscience' that seems not very relevant to the topic or significant part in the body of discussion, so why is it here ? (b) And in Public opinion it goes tasks the press on what 'has not been accurately communicated' before even getting into what IS the public opinion ... seems like sermonizing. Just follow the cites, and convey due weight what they're saying. Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think at the very least the article could have the hat note expanded to say for the scientific controversy see Global warming controversy. The term 'climate change skeptic' might just mean denialism nowadays but it is perfectly possible for a member of the public to be fooled and be genuinely skeptical and so look up climate change skeptic which directs to this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added Global warming controversy at "See also". Biscuittin (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Unactionable/Malformed RfC - Apparent gripe by a probable POV pusher. 66.87.80.24 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, and I oppose the suggested changes. This RfC was not worded in a neutral manner, and aside from that, the term "climate change denial" is prevalent in many a source and has uses beyond politics and agenda-pushing. I also question the notion that this in not NPOV; there is a quite significant level of agreement among qualified scientists, and as such, those in opposition (particularly those with unwarranted doubt as noted above) to said agreement are indeed "denying." Here is a definition of denial that I was able to quickly find in a matter of moments: "an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false." This seems to fit that definition. Dustin (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this malformed RfC, which uses invalid objections to the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unactionable RfC, the suggestion is entirely misguided. The article is factual, neutral, and properly cited, in other words satisfactorily encyclopaedic. In case anyone wishes to use it, I have a robust Trout which they may borrow to slap nom about the face. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support a complete rewrite or deletion. This article is undoubtedly WP:SOAP. The very fact that it uses deliberately inflammatory terms like "denier", and makes claims of "scientific consensus" serve to illustrate that point. In addition those who oppose the measure are often relying on ad hominem (Crichton was a writer of fiction. That you need to quote fiction to support your view is telling" - William M. Connolley), argumentum ad verecundiam ("climate change denial is non-scientific and fringe among experts is perfectly matching to reality" - SPACKlick) and petty threats ("I have a robust trout which they may borrow to slap nom about the face" - Chiswick), which to me indicates that most opposition to this proposal is emotional rather than practical. Now I personally believe man-made warming is occurring; but I think inflammatory rhetoric and overblown claims, as found in the media and this article, are the number one reason why the public at large is still so suspicious of Climate Change research. Philip72 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's *that* even mean ???

Can somebody untangle and better phrase the English of this header paragraph 3 close or convey something on the para topic (of denial impacts politics) that makes more sense ? The line reads "Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles."

• Mismatch: it's talking a "Public debate" so it's proper that "scientific principles" would not apply.
• Mismatch: is it "Typically" or "may have" ?
• Nonexistent ?: are there actually any debates on topic "climate change denial" ?
• Nonexistent ?: are there actually "scientific principles" covering "legitimate scientific discourse" ?
• Why is this here?: The para started about denial hinders politics and this just seems an unrelated remark.

Though I would prefer to delete it, I'll offer this as example of possible replacement: "Public debate on climate change commonly includes climate change denial positions." Any other suggestions or explanation of what the existing line was trying to say ? Markbassett (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks as though it has got mangled. Looking at the sources, I've changed it to "Typically, those promoting denialism in public debate on climate change present rhetorical arguments to create a false appearance of scientific debate when there is no legitimate dispute in science."
The second cited source says "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
The first source, from one of the brothers, says "Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." Any suggestions for refinements to our wording? . . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The construction, “denialism is…” might lead a reader to think this is a definition as opposed to one example of a tactic. I realize this is short of a suggestion for refinement. Maybe “denialism includes…” or “aspects of denialism include…”?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

dave souza - OK, proceeding from that phrasing then

• I'll delete "Typically" as a unsupported and pointless tackon -- there is no evidence on relative frequency of use, and it's basically unnecessary to involve frequency as well as the rest of the mess. The "typically" implies dominant usage, a higher bar than "commonly" and both seem avoidable.
• Also changing "arguments" to "tactics" to match the quote above.
• And redoing the ending to "to reject the scientific consensus" to match the quote above. (And the article content, which is describing climate change denialism as doubt of the scientific consensus, not as doubt that there is one -- that might refer to Intelligent Design in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.)

It's still seeming silly, complaining that non-scientists in a non-science context did not follow scientific process, part of which would require they were scientists and the rest that it not be by rhetoric ??? Or that rhetoric is used to try to convince folks ??? The "to" imputing knowledge of motives, plus the "false" and "legitimate" imputing rightness make it all seem just a bit of ranting. Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

From the quotes above and their context in these sources, it's clear that in this topic (and other areas) denial involves employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. Have accepted a couple of your changes, and tried tightening it up a little. . dave souza, talk 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

dave souza rewording -- again, the line is disagreeing with the article topic and content. The article and cite is describing Climate change denialism as causing doubt that global warming exists, as part of an organized PR effort. This line is confusing denial of climate change to mean denial of consensus, just not the theme here. See Terminology section "the most accurate term when someone claims there is no such thing as global warming, or agrees that it exists but denies that it has any cause we could understand or any impact that could be measured." Also see Taxonomy section list. I did see one Education cite having "scientific controversy" which is not "scientifically controversial", but it's just clearer English to say that as 'causing doubt on the scientific consensus'. Markbassett (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

How you said it may be true enough but it doesn't seem to be to be close enough to what the source said. I've tried to rephrase it back again to something that paraphrases the source more closely. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq - I'm not seeing such content and think it doesn't fit anyway. Trying again with inserted quote from the first cite shown "Hello Scienceblogs". If you're reading something else then quote back, but I'm pretty sure the article topic is basically denial of the consensus content, not denial that a consensus exists and that's the way the article is written. The cite is a blog describing Denialism as rhetorical tactics to cause doubt. Not using the words "scientific controversy" nor is it specifically for this topic "Climate change denialism". Please take another look. Markbassett (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark, for some reason you seem to be unable to grasp the point made by both sources, that denialists create a misleading image of controversy where there isn't any in science: that's relevant to this specific paragraph:
"Although scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the primary driver of climate change,[14][15] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[16][17][18] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[19][20]"
Three points: 1. uncontentious science, 2. efforts hindered by denial, 3. denialists pretend science is contentious by faking controversy. All ties together. . dave souza, talk 23:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

dave souza - be clear that I'm saying I am not seeing such content and think it doesn't fit anyway. It is an inappropriate statement, WP:OFFTOPIC and not from the cite. More basically, WP:FALSE to this article -- this is where the article is doing WP:SYNTHESIS and creative writing rather than conveying the cite and wound up making what looks like a factually false portrayal. I suggest look again and consider that the theme of false controversy seems simply not significant in Climate change to the frequency or extent of Teach the controversy in Intelligent design. This article is not denialists but specifically Climate change denial. The 'Hello Scienceblog' is a general discussion of how in multiple topics denialism uses rhetoric tactics to oppose science, and does not use the ambiguous wording 'scientific controversy'. Specifics to the topic Climate change denialism not so much, a general Denialism writeup, sure. Just being careful with conveying from the general area of denialism what is not appropriate to Climate change, and whether false controversy is really major part of Climate change denial. Markbassett (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Both sources specifically refer to climate change denial. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Daaaave - Blog does not say that climate change denial involves faking scientific controversy. Though I appreciate the irony of your "oh no it's not" post *being* an example where denialism does not 'give the appearance of a scientific controversy', but it's clear the cite does not say what the article attributes to it. The 'Hello Scienceblogs' post cited says it’s about how you engage in a debate when you have no data, tactics that are used to frustrate legitimate discussion. It names 8 common topics as where denialism happens, and gives 5 general tactics to sow confusion. Again, that blog cite just does not say that denial at climate change involves faking scientists arguing or even use the ambiguous phrase 'scientific controversy'. Teach the controversy is elsewhere. Markbassett (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism ..." Diethelm & McKee 2009 discuss this, and cite Mark Hoofnagle as a topic expert. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism

Someone was keeping on removing this and the original removal said it wasn't justified by the sources. Looking at the citations at the end of the sentence they don't seem to be good cites for it though they might be okay for other things. It is social scientists like Dunlap who is cited earlier or Diethelm and McKee who are the basis of that. Perhaps the citations could be swapped over or something like that. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Either way I don't think it carries enough weight to be mentioned in the lead.--ScriptMouse (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That might be reasonable if the article was only about the industrial denial machine. After all companies do quite often act against the general good in favor of their own interests and there's noting irrational about that. However as far as the general phenomenon of climate change denial is concerned psychological denial is major part of it. That is why it is called denial rather than skepticism. The article on global warming controversy on the other hand is more about the facts and there isn't much room for skepticism nowadays except insofar as those involved in active denial obscure and cloud over the issues. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting why it's a separate sentence -- it's already been stated that the article subject is this and that, what does it add to say 'and several social science studies use the term that way' ??? Also, if the social science mention is refering to the Dunlop cite about science-denial, isn't it misplaced to not be there instead of a line later and so behind the line on action-avoidance ? Markbassett (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. It sounds like there is some mutual incomprehension here. The argument over 'unwarranted doubt' might cast some light. Some people think that unwarranted should be taken out and denial is simply an action. As I said that is correct when applied to industry denial but it is not correct when applied to people. For people the term refers to a form of denialism and does not cover for instance reasonable doubt - that is skepticism. The article on scientists opposing the consensus does not use the word denial as we cannot say in general whether they are climate change deniers or skeptics. We can be pretty sure though that most of the people who call themselves climate change skeptics are in denial rather than being skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq - Main question was about why have the line. The lead para has three lines that neatly summarize what the article "climate change denial" refers to, with cites there, so I am asking why there is a separate sentence to say 'some' studies within 'social sciences' ??? I'm not seeing any value as added to close with the wording "Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism." So ... Why say that ??? Is it vital to highlight 'social' and 'some' as if use of the term is a social science topic with only partial indications ??? Markbassett (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had explained that. It is because denying climate change is real is not enough for climate change denial, that could be skepticism. What before there explains that except perhaps the 'unwarranted'? Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq - it's badly written then -- the odd phrasing about 'several' and highlighting 'social science' are distractors, and having it as a separate sentence at the end indicate a separate thought about the prior line or the whole para but is unlikely for folks to associate it to Dunlop two lines before. It would work better to merge it into the second line perhaps to "Deniers often prefer the term climate change skepticism.[2] Though the two terms form an overlapping range of views and reject to a greater or lesser extent scientific opinion on climate change, studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism." Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see a couple of problems with that. The last paragraph about implicit denial is still about denial, and your phrasing implies to some extent that actual skepticism is denial. What do you mean by 'odd phrasing'? I don't see what you're seeing. The point about social science is that only people like that or psychologists or psychiatrists or suchlike would really be entitled to make such a judgement with any weight. Saying 'studies have analyzed' is going the same way and so could be a reasonable substitute I guess but I don't see why you think saying the provenance is distracting. The citations can simply be duplicated if required. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq - OK, so the first para is four lines, which seem to be toward separate points. The first three are clear enough ....

• Climate change denial involves denial over the scientific consensus
• Many such people describe their position as climate change skepticism
• Climate change denial can also be implicit, accepting the consensus but not coming to terms with it

But the intent with the fourth is unclear.

• Several social science studies analyzed these positions...

A natural association of "these positions" is to the closest, the line about lack-of-action. But if the association is about the Dunlop cite then that would be more clear to put it next to that line, and even better to make it a comma continuation instead of a period separate thought. Markbassett (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be a bit clearer please. Thanks. I think you must have something like the same problem with what I have said as you have not addressed anything I said. Dmcq (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Reports/environment_science_report_23oct96.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.staff.fcps.net/dgmartin/Global%20Warming%20-%20How%20Skepticism%20Became%20Denial.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Need for "Denial networks" as its own standalone sect ?

Climate_change_denial#Denial_networks

Is there a need for this to be its own standalone sect ?

Can we keep the material, but merge it into another sect, for better organizational structure for our readers ?

Also, at present that sect seems to have a problem with WP:WORLDVIEW.

— Cirt (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed tag

There is one "clarification needed tag" in sect Climate_change_denial#Denial_networks.

Can someone explain why this is tagged, and how to go about fixing this ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

Jess phd (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The page needs to address the actual debate behind global warming, not just insult those who disagree. Anthropomorphic climate change is not yet proven, and debate must continue until we have a true result one way or the other. just saying it is settled does not make it so. Temperature lags, Antarctic ice gains, solar activity, documented exaggerations and fraudulent studies to garner attention, failure of all weather models to predict temperature, the pause, and documented hiding of evidence by key study panels should be discussed. Otherwise climate change is a religion and not a science.

Please get consensus for an unambiguous proposed change before using the edit request template. Your concern appears to be addressed largely by question #4 in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the the fairly widespread denial of climate change and the machinery fueling it. FAQ #4 answers whether there is a scientific consensus. The article about the public debate which covers scientific queries about it is global warming controversy. I've added a hatnote for that but I don't suppose you'll like it much either. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For info, proof is for whisky and maths, not science, and the only mention of "settled" in the article is a reference to Global warming conspiracy theories: "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity". If you want changes made, please be specific and provide good sources to support your proposals. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Top hat note with totally different article name

This edit adding a top hat note pointing to article "Global warming controversy" -- while certainly with good intentions to give our readers more information -- is not needed, for several reasons.

1. The exact same article, "Global warming controversy" is already linked in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lede intro sect.
2. Scientific opinion on climate change = linked in the first sentence of the article.
3. "Climate change denial" is name of this article. No reader will land here typing in something else and be confused because the letters for the search term "Global warming controversy" are different and thus no need for WP:DISAMBIG.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Climate change skeptic is redirected to this article. That other article is where a genuine skeptic should be redirected to. I agree there aren't all that many if any nowadays amongst activists.But in the general public who read Wikipedia just because somebody has been misinformed by the denial machinery does not mean they are not genuine skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Good points, all, but that would be best for WP:Redirects for discussion. — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No we had a discussion about climate change skeptic and agreed the main use was for climate change deniers. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a hat link to controversy is helpful to casual readers. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: Perhaps someone could tell me where on Wikipedia:Disambiguation it says it's alright to link to an article that doesn't sound like the same name? I wasn't seeing it there? — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Ambiguous" as discussed in WP:DLINKS doesn't just mean "sounds like the same topic." It can mean that the scope of the related articles is potentially unintuitive. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation is a guideline, not policy.If the hat note makes Wikipedia better, then one could ignore Wikipedia:Disambiguation. That being said, I agree with Cirt: the hat note is not needed. A reader who came to the wrong article could easily get the the right one without it. TelosCricket (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with TelosCricket. No need to add a link when the exact same link "Global warming controversy" is already linked in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lede intro sect. — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If a reader typed 'climate change skeptic' and wanted to see scientific arguments for and against climate change why on earth would they read on till the second paragraph of this article? They don't want to be told that they suffer from a psychological problem for wanting to know about the subject. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done, moved link to "global warming controversy" to 1st paragraph, at DIFF. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think that's early enough to do the job okay. And it fits in well there. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm most pleased we were all able to come to an amiable and satisfactory compromise after polite and constructive talk page discussion ! — Cirt (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Counter-science"

Hi,
I just want to pose a question, really, about the (77?) millions and millions. If one deducts all the campaign funding, is there anything left? I ask this because even if you are the Exxon-like entity E and have a strong motive for not wanting AGW to be true, the best outcome for E would be research that actually showed this. And so it would be rational for them to fund such research, and even to the benefit of all Mankind, if the science held up. This goes to researchers who (try to) do real science, collecting real data and constructing hypotheses and all that - for instance the guys of yore who looked into solar phenomena: they were wrong, and possibly supported by E, but were none of them "sincere"? I might be trying for a misguided attempt at real world AGF towards such people when I say that engaging in dead end research doesn't make them denialists.
Anyways, perhaps this is covered elsewhere and possibly all the millions went to campaigning, if so, then no problem.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)