Talk:Climate change denial

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmonteleon (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): K15brbapt, Saulcardoza (article contribs).

Definition

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.

---

"There is a debate among those involved in social controversies surrounding climate change about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to people who doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change. Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics and describe their position as climate change skepticism. Their opponents, however, often prefer to call such people climate change deniers and to describe their position as climate change denial." From reference #3 Carlos Danger (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bluntly, we don't care what they prefer. Wikipedia is not censored to protect the cherished delusions of cranks and charlatans. Climate change is real, there is by now pretty much zero informed dissent from this, or fromt he fact that humans are causing it, and the people who continue to be "skeptical" are in fact deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading again, you seem to be objecting to it saying "some deniers do endorse the term" because whilst that source says "Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics" it doesn't explicitly say that any endorse the term and you would like what is there to more closely copy the source. Would that be right? Have a look further on to further reading '“Denial” is the term preferred even by many deniers. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic,” says MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most prominent deniers.' Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

dmcq - Frankly your tone already violates what is supposed to NPOV in my view. Using the term 'denier' to equate people skeptical of claims of catastrophic man-made global warming to equate with Holocaust deniers is the height of bias.SmoledMan 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Complain at the sources for the article, not me. If sociological studies and psychological sources in the main call it that then that's what it is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Find a reliable source that says otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove headline picture (right). There's much more information now about numbers of scientists maintaining healthy scepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming. One link which refers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/13/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-the-97-climate-consensus-is-a-fantasy/ Commonly cited figure now is 0.3% of all climate scientists are Alarmists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

All genuine scientists show healthy skepticism about all science topics, including AGW. Unfortunately Alarmist deniers like Willard Tony Wotts and his cobloggerz are completely credulous about any old rubbish, and so not a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the list, checked the very first paper, was a bit astonished by the claims made, dug out the page of the journal on the paper, and, surprise, "This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Earth System Dynamics (ESD). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion." (emphasis mine). Well, strictly, this is a "peer-reviewed paper". But it's one that was rejected by peer review. Not an auspicious start, and not one that motivates me to look deeper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, ok, just because I had the second paper already open. This seems to be a bona fide paper. But it does not contradict the IPCC position at all. It deals with the influence of the 11 year solar cycle on some aspects of sea surface temperature, not with the cause for the secular increase in global temperature. As Dave said: If you believe this list, you are not sceptical, you are credulous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (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.

Better graph

Scientist almost unanimously agree that global warming is caused by humans.

Maybe use this graph instead. It is based on the same data, but looks better. Scmresearcher (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is cherry picked based on one survey. So no. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the image in the previous discussion, and this image is probably better if we're keeping the image (although it should be SVG). It's important not to say the survey indicates unanimity: it just indicates the almost non-existence of climate denial research (although admittedly the headline and abstract of the paper do erroneously give the former impression). If we say it indicates unanimity, then Dmcq is partially correct. Whether the lede should have an image about the endangered nature of denial research or an image about some other measure of consensus is a valid discussion that unfortunately died previously. Madshurtie (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the graphs at Scientific opinion on climate change#Surveys of scientists and scientific literature would be much more representative as they show the results of a number of surveys rather than just picking one that is an outlier compared to them. Picking an outlier is cherry picking. Dmcq (talk)

"industrial"

Regarding the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"Campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming."

I am wondering if it could be inserted somewhere in the article who or what these "industrial, political and idealogical interests" are? I feel as though it is missing and it would be an effective contribution to fully flesh out the roots of "denialism" overall.

Ryanaldrich3 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The main ones are detailed at the end of the fourth paragraph, I might be an idea to split that and stick the second haf with the second paragraph. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Most of what is put forward in the section called "Public Opinion" seems to assess why people are held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change; however, but the viewpoints that are underrepresented are those that are not held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change, or, more specifically, what is underrepresented is what keeps these people from being held back: Is it just due to better education? Does it also have to do with idealogical and belief systems? Etc.

Example:

"A study assessed the public perception and actions to climate change, on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship. The author found the following barriers: cognition, ideological world views, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes."

But no paragraph about how these barriers have been overcome, how they are not met at all, or if they even have to be met by everyone.

Ryanaldrich3 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The article can only describe things which have been already described in reliable sources which have direct relevance to climate change denial. Most stuff about thinking straight or coping with bias would be more general, but even so it is possible that there are some papers describing how they think matters could be improved in this area, so yes if someone can find something relevant it might be suitable for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If I understand your original post, Ryan, you noticed we don't have text that explains how people who "get it" got it. If that's the crux of your observation, I would answer by pointing out this article is generally about not getting it. But we do have articles where different aspects of getting it might be appropriate. E.g., public opinion on climate change and Science communication, probably others too.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article does not come across to me, reading it for the first time, as appropriately objective. Some examples of loaded language in the article include:

"Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none."

"the climate change denial industry"

"all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process" (do they? citation needed)

The various circumlocutions attempting to explain why people who would prefer to call themselves "skeptics " shouldn't be allowed to do so strike me as argumentative rather than informative.

"Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified" (When did Spencer Weart become the definitive authority on this point? Spencer Weart is a "noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics". How does this make him an authority in this area, who has the ability to claim that skepticism was "no longer justified"?)

The commentary on smoking / lung cancer is irrelevant and reads like a smear-by-association.

"These efforts succeeded in influencing public perception of climate science." Weart again. This man has a rather major influence on this article, out of proportion I think.

"Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small fringe group of climate deniers were no longer taken seriously at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in an agreement that 'we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis.'" The Guardian is a left-wing source, and not a few people would say that this "no longer taking seriously" was politically rather than scientifically motivated.

"Despite leaked emails during climategate, " -- surely this major scandal deserves more than a passing mention starting with "despite". Those people admitted to conspiracy to keep opposing views out of the scientific media. That is not a small thing. As the "climategate" article mentions, "The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data." Is that really such a small thing, worthy to be fobbed off with a slight mention starting with "despite"? Again from the "climategate" article -- "John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: 'these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.'" How does this not merit more coverage in this article? Surely a "denier" could look at the climategate fiasco and draw quite a bit of support for his own side from it, yet this article barely mentions it.

"The popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community as a whole." It does not take a genius to see that if the scientific community on this point trends left, and for years now has been unwilling to provide grants to those with views on the opposite side of the controversy, then of course they are not paying attention to skeptics. This is an argument without meaning or substance.

". . . seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship." Essentially this is namecalling, not argumentation. It says that if you have a differing opinion you have a psychological problem.

"manufacture doubt" and "Manufactured uncertainty over climate change" -- more loaded language.

"A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely"." See http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/climate-scientists-manipulated-temperatu . Possibly these beliefs are not without an appropriate foundation.

As someone who is, yes, skeptical, but who is trying to read on these topics, I find this article to be well below the standard of objectivity I normally see on Wikipedia. 71.121.193.107 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that many members of the public may still be considered as skeptical rather than as deniers. However this article is about the people and organisations who aim to deceive the public like you. The only reason it is okay to consider some members of the general public as skeptical rather than as deniers is because these organizations have run such a concerted campaign to obscure the facts and convince the public that climate change is some sort of conspiracy and does not exist that it is reasonable for them to have doubts. You would not do this skeptical thing thinking doctors were in a conspiracy against you if they told you that you had cancer. These climate change deniers have done the equivalent of making you think doctors are in a conspiracy and should not be believed when they make a diagnosis. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I get your point of view, for which I thank you. I'm not sure you really address my concerns about this article, and what I see as its loaded and biased viewpoint. The phrase "climate change deniers" is not, at least as I read it, in any definitional sense about people who "aim to deceive", or at least I would have assumed not; rather, I would have expected it to be about those who "deny" climate change, in whichever sense (deny it exists, deny humans caused it or are the major cause, deny that we need to take steps to stop it.) Instead the article is a very biased slam against those who take these positions. My impression is that "climate change denier" is a pejorative term for someone who does not agree with the mainstream viewpoint on the topic, and this article is essentially an attack on those people. I don't really see how it can be viewed any other way. This does not seem objective to me.

As to the matter of suspecting a conspiracy among climate scientists, it would be very difficult for me to come away from reading about climategate with any other position. For me, that was probably the most telling event relating to the whole topic. Reading Phil Jones' remark "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!", it's very difficult to see this enterprise as an entirely apolitical one run by saintly people who have no agenda. I mention this detail because, as I say, it is the major one which makes me question almost anything any of these folks says.

All in all I think this article is a polemic, not a Wikipedia article. How, for example, could one defend the attempt contained therein at psychoanalysis of people who may simply question the entire process and the agenda of those behind it? One needn't be milky in the filbert to have doubts about the enterprise after reading about climategate. In my view the reverse is true, if anything. Anyway thanks for your response; I appreciate it.71.121.193.107 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, views which strongly depart from the scientific opinion on climate change could do with a slight rework, to point out that only departure in the direction of unbelief is considered denialism. People that wildly over-estimate impacts or the degree of warming, despite being way out of line with the sci opinion, aren't so considered William M. Connolley (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)