Talk:Watts Up With That?

The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer

The blog does indeed feature guest contributions - indeed, nowadays, the bulk of the posts are not by AW. But the bulk of the guest postings are by "non notable" folk. Why does the list of contributors only mention notable folk?

Currently, posts in reverse order are: by AW, Steven Capozzola, AW, Howard Lowe, Bob Tisdale, AW, Richard Betts, copy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, David Archibald, Eric Worrall, AW, Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Eric Worrall, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, AW, AW, AW, AW, Bob Tisdale, SEPP (*not* FS), Paul Driessen, Tom Quirk. And so on. On what basis have " Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer" been singled out? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Goklany is on the masthead - not an independent source, but a source. The rest of that was unsourced, so I removed it. Guettarda (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeeessss... the about page says "Contributors: John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach". Why pick just one of them out? And why add "regular"? Goklany clearly isn't regular William M. Connolley (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this helps either. Why are we picking out some contributors? Because of the quality of their contributions? Their frequency? Their not-redlinkiness? Why is BobTisdale, who contributes rather often, ignored? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WMC, I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts, for example his latest, a nice BOTE look at ocean thermal circulation. He's a fine writer and an interesting guy. I'm fine with adding Tisdale, although I find his writing style opaque & very hard to follow. But you're right, any selection of contributors will be arbitrary..... unless someone wants to do a frequency analysis of posters. Not me! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've realised that I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts Just won't fly. We're not recommending people. You might just as well add Bob Tisdale or David Archibald, on the grounds that their posts are particularly stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Have removed names as a reliable secondary source needed for associating BLPs with this blog. Not straightforward: for example, the recent post by Richard Betts was a reposting of a blog article from ATTP, with minimal attribution. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just "a blog",

@A Quest For Knowledge: made this edit, which changed the lead sentence to read "Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog created in 2006 by Anthony Watts." I'm not sure I agree that is the best description of the topic. The blog is predominantly (even exclusively?) devoted to climate change denial, and that's what it's known for. We even discuss its prominence in that respect later. Doesn't it make sense to describe the topic of the site when defining the topic? "a blog" doesn't tell the reader much at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, these edits removed the subject of the blog from the lead altogether. At best, it was described as a "climate blog" and a news site, which is definitely not representing the sources accurately. I've tried to incorporate the labels back in so we are at least covering the subject fully. I'd appreciate some discussion if there's disagreement. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're having the very first sentence be a derogatory label of WUWT. Is this Wikipedia? Or highschool? (very unprofessional) Besides, I'm not sure Mr Watts or those on his site would call themselves "deniers". Skeptic is the appropriate word. All you've done is set up a red flag that this page is biased and therefore probably inaccurate.24.9.166.120 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We're having the very first sentence represent what the sources say. It doesn't matter what Mr Watts prefers he be called in the article. It matters how our reliable sources describe him.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as far as policy goes, there are a number of other things that matter.

One is that the sources offering analysis or interpretation of a topic must be secondary sources, not primary sources like those now referenced in Notes section (see WP:PRIMARY).

Another is that regardless of what references are used, the resulting article must be impartial in tone "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (see WP:IMPARTIAL). Hopefully we can all agree that whether accurate or not, the term "denial" is meant to reject Watts' perspective. (And if we can't agree on that, it is no less true.)

Finally, statements of opinion (such as the statement that Watts up with That is a blog dedicated to climate change denial) must be attributed to the person expressing that opinion, e.g. "a blog that such-and-such-a-person says is dedicated to climate change denial" (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)

A number of recent edits appear to be out of policy on all these points. --DGaw (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The RS sources support "skeptic". Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source list from Anthony Watts:

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. pages 72, 222. page 27: Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog. Manne, Robert (August 2012). A dark victory: How vested interests defeated climate science. More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established. Dunlap, Riley E... The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. page 153: In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine...the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)...Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message. Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.

Some of those sources are extremely strong, including Mann and Dunlap.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

All primary sources, and thus inappropriate to cite for statements of analysis or interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Can you please cite your reliable secondary sources, and upon including them, also attribute statements to the source in the body of the text? --DGaw (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Rolled back to last half-reasonable version. Jess: would you please stop this? It's getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted a significant number of edits which added high quality sources authored by recognized experts in their field, with no explanation or discussion, and then accuse me of being a POV pusher? Can you respond my comments above any substantive way, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the contrary, Jess, keep up the good work, until someone who objects to your edits makes a substantive post to this talk page. Pete Tilman, as I understand it, rollback is not for use in content disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dedicated to climate change denial?

Hmm. Could there possibly be a problem with opening our article with:

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts.

Think about it for a moment. Could this possibly be considered inflammatory? Derogatory? Do you think this shows the project at its best?

This is even sillier than the great "Campaign to Quote Michael Mann" over at Watts' wikibio.... Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Do these silly remarks even need a reply? You've already been pointed to relevant policies. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Watts aligns himself as an opponent of mainstream climatology... We're not going to avoid citing experts because, by being experts, they are considered his "opponents". Put another way, we're not going to write Watts' bio using only sources from him and his friends.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course we are not going to write a bio based solely on sources form him and his friends, but this is a strawman, I don't see anyone proposing it. Have you actually read the blog? Characterizing it as a denialist blog is ludicrous. I have no doubt that some denialists post to the comments, and there may be blog entries discussing articles by denialists, but that doesn't make it a denialist blog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My assessment of the blog doesn't matter. Neither does yours. What matters is how it is characterized in high quality sources. And yes, there has definitely been a strong suggestion that only sources not critical of Watts should be used. We can't do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is absurd. What if several high quality sources referred to the site as "trash?" Would it be okay in an enyclopedic article to describe the site as trash in the opening line? Of course not. High quality sources can and ought to be cited when they make comments relying on their expertise. "Denial" is not a scientific assessment but just an ad-hominem attack, no matter how many "sources" it has. If not, if it is scientific, you ought at least be able to say what it is the site denies. Do you claim it denies climate change? Do you think one of your sources makes this claim? In light of these arguments, I am reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.50 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "dedicated to climate change denial", as long as one can point to what it is that is being denied. Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice. Regarding that word "denial". Does Watts deny that the climate has changed from time to time? I suspect not. Does he deny that it is changing now? I suspect not. Does he deny the radiative effects of CO2? I suspect not. Does he deny that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere? I suspect not. So. He asserts that climate changes, CO2 can affect it and humans increase CO2. Seems he is part of the 97% consensus. Stating that his site is dedicated to climate change denial is just plain wrong. Some of those who assert this know this. I'm curious why the word is used when it is so obviously wrong, inflammatory and possibly defamatory. John G Eggert (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the statement "Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice." may be construed as a legal threat and hence a violation of Wiki policy. This is not the case or the intent. It is a statement of fact that was meant as a favour to those making such statements as they may not be aware of what they are doing. If this is indeed a violation of policy, I will not do this in the future. I'd appreciate a representative of Wikimedia clarifying. I am not Anthony Watts, nor do I speak on his behalf, hence I have no ability to threaten anyone in these matters.John G Eggert (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not going to receive a response here from the WMF, but see WP:NLT, which is our official policy on the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

When deciding if using the term "climate change denial" blog injects opinion and bias, maybe we should look at how we categorize other blogs...is the Skeptical Science blog categorized as a "climate change alarmist" blog? If wiki is trying to be objective, I don't think you would use either term...just my two cents worth...Steve Armstrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarms58 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That first sentence should include "man-made", which would make clear what WUWT is really about. 68.40.50.81 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This page linked from WUWT, requesting his viewers sway consensus

FYI, our article was just linked on WUWT's homepage, requesting his readers try to sway consensus, because "it's a numbers game".   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page. If anyone considers me too involved to do that, I will undo it. But given the sudden arrival of all these brand new accounts, I was starting to think it needed doing. Given this, I think it's strongly warranted. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I was about to do the same and endorse the semi-protection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I had made a request at RfPP, but it hadn't been filled yet. I appreciate you getting to it quicker!

To any of Anthony's viewers who were linked here from his blog, please feel free to contribute to this talk page to discuss changes to the article. Wikipedia works through discussion, so we're trying to focus on doing that instead of "edit warring". Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Watts had posted a statement of his position on climate change, and I feel it would be appropriate to post it somewhere in the article to clear up any misconceptions as what he and his blog are about.

"For the record: I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate."
Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit this, but I will give it a whirl. This does appear to be a very biased article. Most of the references are to media articles and blogs expressing the opinion of the author and are often little more than ad-hominem attacks and name calling. In which case balancing opinions should also be quoted and cited. It is clear from many articles written by Anthony, including the one referenced here, that he is not a "denier" of climate change. He does not deny that the climate has warmed, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the climate, nor that man's production of CO2 contributes to that warming. He is, like many of us, sceptical of the positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity necessary to support the more extreme predictions of global warming. That is a fairly nuanced position and not one that deserves the tag "denier" - or at least it should not be stated as if it were a "fact" that he is a denier (as the first line does), just that some commentators think he is. If you read his blog regularly you will see that nearly all the articles from other contributors come from that "sceptical" position. Many of the comments are from people you might class as deniers, but you cannot judge a blog by its most extreme commentators. This article needs to be adjusted to make it clear that most of the references and articles cited are opinions and they should be better balanced by citations of the many other articles that take an opposing view. Oefinell (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed below, this article has to show how the opinions expressed on WUWT have been received by mainstream scientists, and how they're covered by academic publications discussing the topic area. Please put forward good quality sources supporting the points you want covered, and be as specific as you can: generalised complaints can only be discussed in principle. Note that blogs can only be used in certain circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, using the word "denier" is derogatory and inflammatory, which, I'm sure, Wikipedia does not want. Surely this would go in a "Controversy" subsection? Shame on Wikipedia for allowing Gatekeepers to drag it down :( CWernham (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what impact this will have, and I'm not sure how to sign this. But... Is this how you build consensus? You block any changes from those who disagree with your unbalanced and biased editing? I will no longer be contributing financially to Wikipedia in future. It has gone from being a light and hope for correct and unbiased information on the internet to being a political weapon for special interest groups. Shame on you.16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Gmakwiki (talk)

Jess, swaying consensus is a good thing. If done properly. Are you suggesting there is an attempt to do something inappropriate? Did you notice that the article doesn't even urge readers to make any specific edit, and states clearly If you do participate, please stick to facts, not opinions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? You might enjoy a reading of WP:VOTESTACK and the (in-)appropriateness of one-sided recruiting of a partisan audience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I am serious, although I think I catch your point. I see a fundamental difference between an established editor, who is expected to know how this works, going out to recruit contributors by visiting a biased sample of sites, and the subject of an article explaining the process for editing. Had Watts pushed for certain types of edits, or slyly suggested ways around the rules, it would be problematic, but he is the victim of a few editors pushing a lie, and his response is to provide links on the proper way to edit, and urge people to stick to facts. I would be on board with you if some editor here decided to go only to skeptic sites and encourage edits, but that isn't what happened. To put it another way, what action would you think is acceptable by the subject? Do you think we can realistically require that he contact sites who disagree with him?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Watts may have made a mistake by mentioning only this WUWT article. For a long time the action has been in the article Anthony Watts (blogger). On that page, clicking History will show that there has been conflict since about March 15 about whether to call Mr Watts and WUWT denier/denialist (including in the lead), and whether to remove the original mentions of words like skeptic. By the way, Mr Watts is not the first person to blog about Wipedia's coverage of the issue, he was preceded by William Connolley. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For new editors: good sources needed

Hi, and welcome. Wikipedia has a trio of interrelated policies: "no original research" requires that we don't use unpublished arguments, articles have to be "verifiable" from good quality published sources, and "neutral point of view" requires due weight to mainstream views. Specifically, fringe views about science have to be shown as such, in the context of mainstream views of that minority view, to meet fringe and pseudoscience policy.
Watts clearly promotes fringe or minority views in opposition to mainstream science, and so we have to reflect that, and find the best academic sources covering the issue. Good quality academic sources describe Watts' blog as promoting climate change denial, and we should therefore show that mainstream view. Other more flattering terms appear in the mass media, but good quality sources are explicit that the so-called "climate skepticism" of WUWT is similar to climate change denial, while lacking essential qualities of scientific skepticism.
Bottom line: find high quality sources discussing Watts and his blog, and discuss them on this talk page with suggestions for wording based on these sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For new editors: hi and welcome (really)! Now that you've seen Dave souza's advice, have some more from someone who has been disagreeing with him about WUWT: (1) Most of the known reliable sources describe Watts and/or his blog as skeptical not denialist, and one of our "issues" on the Anthony Watts (blogger) article is that editors have removed mention of those sources and emphasized anything that says denier/denialist. (2) Currently the editors pushing quotes re Watts/WUWT denial are in the majority, but there is dispute that they have achieved consensus, and they may not represent the mainstream attitude of Wikipedians. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales told Dave souza in 2011

Yes, as always, good sourcing is crucial. Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent.

Bottom line: discuss on this talk page and the Anthony Watts (blogger) talk page, and edit when you can and when you've read the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As on the other page, Peter's counted quantity of google hits showing up news sources, but fails to recognise that good quality academic sources point to climate change denial, in one or other of its manifestations. As for the holocaust assertion, that's a strawman reversing history of the term, and a disrespect to the famous holocaust: denial long predates that usage. Also, mainstream views can't be disregarded because Watts opposes the mainstream: weight policy requires quite the opposite. So, let's see more sources, and discuss their quality. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there's enough disagreement about the quality of the existing sources, and how they are being used, without further complicating the issue. Let's correct that first. --DGaw (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Detailed discussion welcome, we're currently in the process of improving sourcing and there's some way to go. Assistance welcome. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I'm out today for the holiday, but things seem to have blown up. Yes, new editors (and established editors who are new to this page) need to propose specific proposals to change the page, and provide reliable sources to back up their proposals. We can't really make changes unless that's done. All the requests below seem to be vague complaints without any references to sources. Unfortunately, those don't really get us anywhere. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

Use of the term "climate change denial" is both inaccurate and non-scientific. Please don't let this section of Wikipedia become another useless political blog like other sections of Wikipedia. AnotherProf (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for specific wording and sources to support that wording? Note that there currently are supporting high-quality sources, and we can't simply ignore them. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought sure when I looked at the recently protect article, the recently added term "denier" had been removed. I guess I misread. but I guess I was wrong. This is borderline libel ,and should be removed while we debate whether it should be added. Given that Watts is not a denier, it seems highly unlikely that the consensus of reliable sources will say otherwise. There might be the odd source which is misinformed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why should it be given that Watts is not a denier? At least one good quality mainstream source describes him as that. However, more sources describe him as enabling or supporting climate change denial, and that's the issue that needs good coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

He is not a denier, and claims not to be a denier. While first party claims are properly given little weight in many cases, this is one time it deserves weight (not 100%, but considerable weight). If Wikipedia is going to say that someone, who claims not to be a denier, actually is one, we need very solid sources. Not just one or two but a clear consensus among knowledgeable sources. I haven't seen close to such a consensus, only a few cherry-picked claims from some biased observers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, multiple family members just showed up, so I must exit, but I strongly suggest that the word denial be removed, then open up a debate for inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources for the first phrase that WUWT is a "denialist blog" not one of them could remotely be called a "high quality source" - they are all politically slanted and not objective in any way. For instance this one "Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate". I was aghast at the page Wikipedia linked to. It is simply a list of insulting statements - nothing objective, scientific or "quality" about it at all. Cook is a well known political blogger with a visceral hatred of anybody who disagrees with him. He tries to recruit psychology on his side to "prove" that those who disagree with him are all deranged conspiracy theorists, but does nothing of the sort and just ends up insulting the very people he should be trying to convince. High quality? I think not. As for "mainstream views", once upon a time it was "mainstream science" to believe the world was flat, that black people were inferior to white, that women were not as intelligent as men, the shape of your head indicated your personality and your future is written in the stars. Science needs to be continually challenged. Bias in favour of the mainstream is not balance.Oefinell (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is a book written by a senior and a junior academic, and published by Springer Science+Business Media, a widely respected academic publisher. That makes it an excellent source. Yes, science needs to be continually challenged, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's laughable to call John Cook an excellent source -- see, for example, our discussion of his lame 97% Consensus paper,

and The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' at the Wall Street Journal.

And it's definitely against our policies to use Wikipedia's voice to state as fact that

"Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial. " (until yesterday our opening for this article)

-- based on opinions by opponents of Watts, be they academics or whatever. This is pretty elementary stuff, guys. I'm taken aback that experienced editors don't seem to see a problem with this. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I've not called "John Cook" an excellent source, but rather a book of which he is the junior author and that was published by Springer. And I see nothing in the section you linked to except for undue weight given to the usual echo chamber (Legates, Idso, and "God will save the planet" Spencer). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just mentioning an article written by Joseph Bast on the same page as the word fact is probably undue weight. Gads. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

The frequent use of the pejorative term "denier" is inappropriate. It would be the equivalent of frequently using the term "nigger" in a post about civil rights. Please replace 'climate change denial' in the first sentence with 'climate change skepticism'. In the third paragraph, it would also be more appropriate (and better grammar) to say, "...and among the most influential climate change skeptic blogs..." KMAnomalocaris (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

From a quick search, the only use of the word "denier" is in a footnote, a quotation from a reliable source saying that WUWT provides "a rallying ground for other AGW deniers". Published by Prometheus Books, perhaps you don't appreciate a genuine skeptical view? Good quality academic sources refer to climate change denial as a specific topic, and that's what's shown in the article itself. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The blog's subject matter is covered in its about page. I'm reproducing it here for the convenience of the community:

About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts

This science news site feature original content from myself as well as several contributors:

Editor:

Anthony Watts

Contributors:

John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach

Moderation Team:

charles the moderator DB Stealey Evan Jones Mike L. Mike J. Andy C. Verity J. Lee K. Robert C. Keith B.

Moderator Emeritus:

Robert E. Phelan (REP)

TMLutas (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMLutas: as I asked above, do you have an edit suggestion, based on high quality, third-party sources, which also takes into account the existing sources? (Obviously the website itself isn't an independent source.) Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to stop exclusively using unfriendly sources to describe the blog which is why I put the NPOV tag on. TMLutas (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion is ridiculous, a proposed hagiography for fringe views when policy requires us to show how they've been received by the mainstream. If you've got good quality published "friendly" sources, they can be used too but not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ridiculous not to exclusively use sources hostile to the outlet. Right. To seek to have a balance between positive and negative sources is fringe. Right. TMLutas (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMLutas: - What sources do you want included in the article? And how do you propose to use them? Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a preconceived notion as to what sources to use. The usual habit is to give a neutral depiction followed by friendly and critical characterization. The characterization by Watt's frequent debating opponents right up front needs to be worked out to consensus. It can go back in when the criticism section is sorted. I do notice that the current first footnote is wrong. The url does not go to the cited publication. I don't feel like getting past the FT paywall to see whether there's anything else wrong with it. That's as far as I've gotten. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're referring to the Fiona Harvey article "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue"? I was able to pass the paywall once by going here, but no longer. Anyway: it doesn't say the year that the blog started, it doesn't mention denier/denialism, and says "Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science." A citation to it was recently removed from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My original complaint was just that the ref went to a different publication than the link but your analysis does make it appear to have worse problems than that. What's the reason that ref is in there? According to the FAQ page on the site, it started out as part of norcalblogs.com in 2006 and still has a link there. It then seems to have made a move to wordpress in 2007 and later on to its own domain according to the archive.org site grabs. TMLutas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It started off as a cite for the sentence "Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a science blog created in 2006 by former broadcast weather presenter Anthony Watts which concentrates on the global warming controversy from a global warming skeptic perspective.", five years ago. If your sole interest was in sourcing the date, yes the WUWT FAQ page http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/ might be better for that. But I guess originally it was intended as a cite for the skeptic-perspective bit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm loathe to edit a reference to an article I can't read because I can't personally verify that it belongs there at all. My impulse would be to kill it for being behind a paywall, and claiming to point to a publication it doesn't. If you'd like to rescue it and move the cite further down in the article for the skeptic perspective bit, I'll take your word for now, that it's on point somewhere. TMLutas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's already cited further down. There's no rule that says cites to paywalled sources should be regarded as bad, but I wasn't objecting about keeping it exactly as is in this particular spot. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question for those who favor the term "denialist"

It's clear that there are a group of editors here that feel strongly that the term "denialist" should be included on this page. And I think it's equally clear that another group of editors believe otherwise.

A number of references have been added to the article that use the term—but the fact that a source chooses to use a term does not require that it be used on Wikipedia. And in fact, if the term is critical of one side in a political dispute, Wikipedia policy pretty clearly indicates it should not be used.

So. The obvious solution would be for us to find an alternate term that is not in dispute by either side, or to avoid characterizing the web site entirely.

Thoughts? Any objections? If so, what?

If retaining the term "denialist" is important to you, why?

--DGaw (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're putting forward a false premise: the word "denialist" does not appear in the body text of the article. However, it appears in two footnotes as quotations from good quality reliable sources. So, at present we use alternative terms in the article, not sure that we should. As for "sides", WP:WEIGHT requires us to show how the mainstream "side" has received the minority views promoted on the website. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: The term "denial" appeared in an earlier revision of the page, and "denialist" appeared in one of the notes cited to support its use. We should not split hairs. --DGaw (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The word denial is what should have been used in this section title. Denial, denialism, and denialist are propaganda terms used by one side of the debate. TMLutas (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: I haven't taken a position on precisely what wording to use. But we have high-quality sources - several published by major academic publishers - that use that term. So we obviously can't ignore it. We can "give both sides", assuming there's another side to give. But we need to give due weight to sources. What do you propose? Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis. And all stating an opinion about the topic—which is fine, so long as it is called out in the text as a statement of opinion. And of course we can ignore it; there is no requirement that we incorporate any characterization at all of the site, let along any particular one. --DGaw (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: "All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis." - No, that's most definitely untrue. Dunlap and McCright is a secondary source ("The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society") while Farmer and Cook is a textbook. The Robert Manne article isn't a primary source either. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: It appears there may be some confusion about what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. Which a source is isn't a function of the type of document it is (e.g. an encyclopedia or textbook) but its relationship to the article topic.

In this case, The "Watts Up With That" site is the topic. A primary source talks about the topic. A secondary source talks about a primary source talking about the topic.

So where Dunlap and McCright talk about "Watts Up With That" in Chapter 10 of their book, they are a primary source for the topic. Another reliable source that references Dunlap and McCright talking about "Watts Up With That" would be a secondary source. It might therefore be acceptable to cite that secondary source to say, "Dunlap and McCright say that "Watts Up With That" is..." so long as the resulting article remains impartial.

The essay WP:USINGPRIMARY has a pretty good explanation of primary and secondary sources. --DGaw (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your evaluation is incorrect. Please try reading WP:PRIMARY again. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: Sorry, but you're incorrect in your understanding of primary vs. secondary sources. Nonetheless, though Dunlap & McCright have written primary source material, their chapter in the Oxford Handbook is a secondary source - it "talks about...primary source[s]" (some of which happen to be their own, some not). It doesn't present primary research findings, it discusses previous findings. Anyway, that's one of the three sources I discussed. Does that mean that you agree on Farmer & Cook and Robert Manne? Or not? Let's sort through these sources properly. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what policy says we should not use terms "critical of one side in a political dispute", particularly when it's a political dispute arguing against science? . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. ...The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." --DGaw (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGaw: That would be a violation of WP:GEVAL. The blog in question is WP:FRINGE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It'd be OK to tell what is Dr Michael Mann's opinion on wuwt and how Dr Mann is treated in wuwt, but not to claim his opinion is true. NPOV means we can tell the major views on wuwt. They can't be represented as a fact but as a claim. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Denier" is a pejorative term, implying that disputing a prevalent climate attitude is equivalent to denying the WW2 holocaust, the only other widespread use of the term. "Denier" and its derivatives do not belong in the body of the article, though its appearance in the citations may be unavoidable.Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not pejorative by its strict definition. Certainly, many denialists think there is an implication of holocaust denial, but I think that argument is a bit hollow. The problem is, there is no really good synonym that is easy to apply. "Skeptic" isn't correct. Some have suggestion "contrarian", but, alas, that designation hasn't caught on. jps (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reading a recent challenge to the AntiDefamation League is enlightening. http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

Those who argue, as Watt does, that it is a reasonable scientific position to be skeptical of many political aspects of climate science are referred to without prior definition as 'skeptics.' It is also taken at face value that the application of the word 'denier' to these scientists is not only a reference to holocaust denial, but in fact trivializes the millions of lives lost in the holocaust. In searching for the NPOV, skeptic cannot be dismissed out of hand as "not correct." It is fairly clear that the term "skeptic" accurately identifies the WUWT position on the issue, and "denier" is a pejorative term for the same opinion holder that is used only in a derogatory manner by those politically opposed to that position.KMAnomalocaris (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive, and it seems to be used with the same intent to offend. Most people who are not AGW proponents would seem to be more appropriately classified as "skeptics"... They are not convinced by the AGW arguments but are open to discussion and willing to change their opinions with rational, unbiased information. Perhaps there were significant numbers of "Deniers" in the past, but most thinking individuals not convinced by AGW would now classify themselves as "Skeptics" I believe. When I see someone use the term "Denier", it flags the discussion as likely biased. If the discussion had merit, they wouldn't need to use the term "Denier".

AClimateSkeptic (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I find I have trouble taking seriously someone who says 'I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive'. This seems like a tactic of taking offense to preempt criticism of unscientific viewpoints. I am not surprised to see it being used by a campaign that is apparently being coordinated off-wiki. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion is that the denier label was applied to attempt to create a psychological linkage to Holocaust deniers. There are documented examples of this on the climate change denial page. You're certainly free to say that people labeled deniers should just put some ice on that but it's not only their credibility at stake TMLutas (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All you arrivals from Watts' call-to-arms miss the point. There is not yet a better synonym in the literature being offered. The idea that you all are "skeptics" has been roundly criticized in the mainstream scientific press so we're left without a label that we all can agree upon. "Contrarian" hasn't yet caught on. Sorry. This is not something Wikipedia can solve. Until you all can convince those who are not in your camp not to call you all "deniers" or "denialists" or "those who engage in denial of facts", you will be stuck with contortions of that description. How we do it will be according to the best sources we can find which will be people who are acknowledged experts either in scientific communications, global warming controversies, or climate scientists themselves. The goal for all of you should be to come up with a term that you like that those whom oppose you will also accept as a decent label. For example, the creationists were successful in doing such a thing. Good luck! (Until then, we're stuck trying to do our best to describe the beliefs of Watts et al. as the beliefs of those who deny basic facts and outcomes of climate science.) jps (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some publications decry using "skeptic" does not mean the word is inaccurate, it merely illustrates the extent to which the discussion has degenerated into name-calling. Skeptic is an accurate term for one who doubts, for example, that the predictive power of climate models is as great as their advocates claim. On the other hand, the pejorative connotations of "denier" are plainly evidenced by the militancy with which it is insisted upon by overtly hostile writers. Use of the deliberate insult is a stain on Wikipedia's respectability. Peter (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources by experts in the appropriate field. A "skeptic" in science is someone who has good scientific reason to believe that certain claims may turn out to be significantly incorrect or incomplete. There are self-described skeptics who believe vaccination is evil, and self-described skeptics who believe various conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, and self-described skeptics who believe 98% of science is wrong with regard to climate change. Articles at Wikipedia do not use misleading terms to put such beliefs on an equal footing with the reliable sources—there is no equal time here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we are not entitled to dismiss some sources simply because they are "pejorative". The standard by which we accept or reject sources is this: WP:RS. In that outline, you will find no means to allow editors to determine when a particular sourced description is pejorative or whether it is not, and while it is undeniable that people who are sympathetic to Watts Up With That?'s position tend to, on the whole, dislike the term "denial", it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, the idea that these people are simply "skeptical" is not as well sourced. The way we make decisions about how to handle these types of situations is to look at what sources are best and stick to them. We are not in the position to right great wrongs when it comes to the perceived insults by those who feel slighted by the way the wider literature on a particular subject treats them. jps (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I agree with you that we cannot dismiss a term simply because it is pejorative. However, when a term is pejorative, simple human courtesy requires that we be scrupulous, and make absolutely sure it is well-supported, and there is no better term that could be employed. We have an article on the subject of Climate change denial. WUWT does not fit within the implied definition. I am surprised to see you say ...it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. Well, yes, it is easily deniable that the term as used applies to the site. We not only have Watt's own words, we can look at the articles posted. While a careful cherry pick might find a few that fall into the denial end of the spectrum that isn't the case for the vast majority. Please try it. Read the last 20 articles, and tell me which ones qualify as denial that AGW exists, as opposed to skepticism of some of the claims of AGW proponents. Surely, if it is valid to label the site as a denial site, most of the articles would fit that description. If you are willing to take up the challenge, I suggest that you start with the article posted prior to the post about Wikipedia, to avoid the possibility that subsequent articles were chosen in a biased manner. I picked the number 20 out of the air, more could be used if you want.

As editors, we do not have the latitude to interpret claims and assess their truth. All we can do is check reliable sources and see what they say. Searching academic publications and the experts in the field have led to several sources which suggest Watts advocates climate change denial, and in fact, is one of its foremost advocates. We haven't cherry picked; Mann is among the most respected experts on both climatology and the global warming controversy. Other sources are academic textbooks, books published by academic presses, and authors widely cited and respected on this very topic. It is unfortunate that Watts doesn't like the label which has been widely given to him in academia, but we haven't written this article as a service to him; we've written it as an encyclopedia entry, summarizing the best academic sources. If you have another source we haven't considered, please propose it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This issue arose because of your edit describing WUWT as a denialist site. We aren't debating the possible inclusion of an edit along the lines of Some sources describe WUWT as a denialist site. Such an edit might be supported by a modest number of cites. (Perhaps we should discuss this.) We are debating whether we can say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that WUWT is a denialist site. The hurdle for such a claim is much higher, and needs to be supported by virtually all sources which proffer an opinion. That hurdle isn't close to being met.

I see several editors making claims that there some sources supporting the claim. Apparently Mann said it somewhere, and there may be a paywalled source with a similar claim. Would someone be so kind as to cite these properly, so we can see how many there are, to determine whether there is a consensus in the literature?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are presupposing that there is a spectrum between denial and what many in Watts' camp call "skepticism". Unfortunately, there is no evidence that such a spectrum exists except that the people who are on this spectrum claims that such a continuum is what is found. We are not in the position to accept that claim at face value and I have seen no reliable source which demarcates a difference between denial and other forms of rejection of scientific consensus on climate change as such. What we are ultimately talking about is how to describe a perspective that rejects (read "denies") the scientific consensus on climate change. Whether we use the word "deny" or "reject" or "oppose" or "au contraire", etc. are editorial decisions, but the synonymity of these proposals remains. Arguing over the implications related to the holocaust is a red herring -- a switch from what we're actually trying to decide which is the following: we need to give the reader an understanding of what this website is and how it works. We cannot simply say, for example, that it is a website devoted to "discussing climate". The blog is a whole lot more than that. It definitely has an editorial bent and it definitely opposes/rejects/contradicts/denies/rejoins/disputes/argues against the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. That's where we start, I think. To move forward we have to acknowledge that this is where we start. jps (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There clearly is a spectrum of belief (although I don't understand your use of the word "between"; a spectrum implies a continuum of points, "between" suggests two camps - which do you mean?)

@jps Your post seems to be denying that there is any "spectrum" of opinion on climate change at all. Just what exactly is this "consensus"? Watts' own post sets out his position: "I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate." .

The real point at issue is how much additional "forcing" amplifies the pure CO2 effect. Those on the extreme "warmist" side of the argument (some call them "climate jihadists" ) suggest large additional forcing (and suggest anyone that disagrees with them is a "denier"); those on the opposing side of the argument think little or no additional forcing . Indeed some believe that the additional "forcings" may in fact attenuate the pure CO2 effect. Some recent research on the impact of aerosols on climate point to a lower Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - indeed below the supposed 2 deg C danger limit .

Whether one believes in CAGW or not, it is entirely legitimate to be sceptical of the idea that building endless windmills and solar farms is going to make one iota of difference to climate or temperature, especially as developing countries are increasing CO2 emissions very much faster than the West is reducing them slide 8.

Use of the pejorative terms "denier" or "denialist" is deliberately provocative and childish and does nothing to advance the debate about climate science at all. I suggest it best to drop all talk of denialists and jihadists and return to a rational debate based on science and research.

Rex Forcer (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some who do not believe CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. There are some who concede it is, but do not believe that humans can create enough gas to cause climate change. These are not the same point on the spectrum they are two different points, both of whom could be labeled denialists, but there are position not held by Watts or most of the contributors. (You are welcome, of course to provide contrary evidence).

It appears, from your words, that you think anyone who does not fully support the so-called consensus position, as well as the calls for massive changes in human endeavors, can be labeled a "denialist". This may be central to this discussion, as you have a profound misunderstanding of the term. Would you label someone who fully accepts CO₂ as a greenhouse gas, but thinks the feedback multiplier is closer to 1.0 than to 3.0 should be called a denialist? Would you call Lomborg, who thinks it is fine to accept the IPCC scientific conclusions as is, but disagrees with some of the policy recommendations which some propose as a consequence, as a denialist?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To move forward we must start with reliable sources, and jps is not one. Most known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and that includes academic sources -- the reason this is isn't clear is that the put-denialism-in folks destroy mention of skeptic sources in the articles. And despite the talk about how sources must meet a high standard or be academic, the article cites blogs (Deltoid, SkepticalScience), somewhat controversial sites (Media Matters for America), people who clearly didn't have post-bachelor degrees when they wrote or whose education I don't know (Cook, Grant), and six Guardian columns. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I can only say this so many times. It doesn't matter whether we, as editors, think the labels are appropriate. It matters what our high quality, academic sources say. If you have a source to propose, please do so. Right now it's backed up by Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook - all high quality, academic sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess, then why do you keep saying it? Has someone disagreed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a section below, which I hope editors will populate it. Simply claiming that the words are supported by e.g. Grant, is not enough. I want to look at the source and see for myself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of your comments above, which intend to debate whether the label is appropriate, based on your own assessment of Watts' positions. That can never be useful to the article, and WP:NOTFORUM indicates we must stay focused on article improvement here. The best you can do is provide sources and content proposals, not your own assessments.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which of my comments? Yes, I have pointed out that Watts himself claims not to be a denialist. As I have also pointed out, this itself is not sufficient, although it is relevant. I have asked for the external, reliable sources supporting the term. I hope someone provides a few, so we can move forward.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann for one, of course. There are others. How many do you require? jps (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Do we really need to crib from Media Matters here?

At time of writing footnote three goes to a Media Matters attack piece that seems to bear a suspicious resemblance to that section of the Wikipedia article it's serving as a reference for. Is there any problem with rewording the point to not use any of the same phrases and hunting down a less abusive citation? TMLutas (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're looking at the part of the result of this edit. I doubt that Fred Singer is really an active guest columnist. You might try using WUWT's own "about" page, which used to be the basis for (quoting from a month-ago version) "The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry and Christopher Monckton." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed above, a reliable secondary is source needed for associating BLPs with this blog to meet WP:BLPSPS policy, so not WUWT's own "about" page. MediaMatters reflects scientific mainstream views, it's wrong to describe any criticism of WUWT as "an attack piece", but it doesn't look ideal so we could simply delete the points covered until we find a good quality secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Media Matters, whatever else it is, is *not* a reliable source for science. It's a media criticism group with a very well defined POV. Fortunately, what it's being used for is not a scientific matter. However, the hostility dripping off the page is a real problem here. To delete text when there's no challenge to the text but merely the citation is a good way to destroy an article. Are you challenging the text? If not, then you should not be suggesting we delete it. TMLutas (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not require that our sources lack a POV, or be "neutral". See WP:BIASED.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

True that POV is allowed, but off point. Media Matters, as it happens, published that in 2012 and is actually inaccurate (though they might have been accurate when published). I don't think that WP:BLPSPS extends to excluding mastheads (lists of contributors). The actual contributor list from the blog would be appropriate but the whole treatment of contributors doesn't belong in the intro paragraph, perhaps as a separate section? TMLutas (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying to list every contributor, just a few significant ones. That is, contributors that have their own WP article, or contributors that are an integral part of the site. Ideally, our list should only be a few names long, at most.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. We should not attempt to list every contributor, and listing those who have their own article in WP is a decent starting point for a cutoff.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we also agree not to list people that are not on the site's masthead? Listing someone who isn't actually contributing would seem to be a WP:BLP issue. TMLutas (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

List contributors who have been described as notable contributors by reliable sources. The fact that someone is notable themselves isn't really reason enough. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that a one time or rare contribution by someone who happens to be notable, but isn't a regular contributor should not be listed. Is it as simple as the intersetion of listed contributor s and notable? In other words, those who are identified by Watts as regular contributors, and meet our notability guides?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lists of sources

In connection with some discussions above, it may be helpful to populate the following:--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't particularly useful, no. The quality of the source matters, not just the number of references. We need to assess each source independently. There are several sources in the article already (Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook) which are respected, often-cited academic sources. Could you provid a source of that quality for us to consider?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just add the caveat "not already in the article" as of the current revision? I actually think it would be very useful to see the latter section populated. People (some new, some established editors) are up in arms about the sources being used, but they don't seem to be willing to provide comparably high-quality sources in defense of their favoured wording. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would rather that all sources he added to the list. The article is a fluid concept, maybe those in the article today will be different than those tomorrow. If someone wants to review the sources, it makes the process more difficult if they have to look in two places. Why not simply copy the ones already used to this section?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the case for "denialism" has been made (and discussed at some length in the past). I'm not adverse to listing those sources, but I really think the onus is on people calling for change to list the sources they would like to see added. So far, as best I can tell, they have proposed zero. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The article didn't have denialism until Jess added it, controversially. It was removed and added again, a few times, leading to a minor edit war. Despite the fact that there is a section or two starting a discussion, no consensus has been reached. Per well-established procedures, when controversy exists, you do not include controversial items until a consensus has been reached.

I suggested compiling some sources.

Zero have been added to the list so far.

If you want to propose an alternative way to resolve this, propose away, but edit warring is not the right approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there is consensus, and has been consensus for some time. Unfortunately, since this article was linked on WUWT, editors have been repeatedly removing incredibly well sourced content. You're right, no sources have been added to your list; many sources backing up the content you removed have been provided above, but none have been provided to support the removal. This is tendentious. Please provide sources for discussion, or we have to reintroduce the sourced material.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, the quality of the sources matter. But we have to start somewhere. I proposed a way to start listing sources, we can then decide how to assess the quality if necessary. I see a lot of words added here, but no sources. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no one has added a single source yet. It appears, based upon some comments, that it is OK to used the highly charged pejorative term "denial" or "denialist" and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. That isn't how this place works, as any regular editor should know. I see that some sources are in the article. I suggest we start discussing some of those, first to see if they qualify as supporting the claim, then as Jess suggests, for quality. I'll start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources supporting the use of the term "denier" or "denialist" to characterize WUWT

1. * Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis. created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.
2. * John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1616144009. Retrieved May 2015. #:: The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism

   the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That

   Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 83 (help)

3. Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 0199566607.

Sources supporting the use of the term "skeptical" to characterize WUWT

1. "Anthony Watts". DeSmogBlog. Anthony Watts is a climate skeptic best known as the founder and editor of the blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), which primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change.
2. Morello, Lauren (December 14, 2012). "Early Drafts of Next Climate Report Leaked Online". Scientific American. ... a popular skeptic blog, "Watts Up With That?"
3. Samenow, Jason (May 12, 2011). "Say goodbye to the sunshine". Washington Post. The conservative/skeptic blog WattsUpWiththat ...
4. Schneider, Birgit; Nocke, Thomas (2014). Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. ... on Anthony Watts' skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" ...
5. Moran, Michael (February 3, 2010). "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs". Times Online. Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts: One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs ...
6. Coady, David; Corry, Richard (2013). The Climate Change Debate: An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry. ... the well-known skeptic website wattsupwiththat.com
7. Harvey, Fiona (March 9, 2010). "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue". Financial Times. Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science.
8. Kirilenko, Andrei; Stepchenkova, Svetlana (May 2014). "Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide" (PDF). Global Environmental Change. The most authoritative climate change skepticism web sites included Watts Up With That?
9. Elgesem, Dag; Steskal, Lubos; Diakopoulos, Nicholas (December 2014). "Structure and Content of the Discourse on Climate Change in the Blogosphere". Environmental Communication. Routledge. ... the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat.com
10. Lott, Maxim (March 5, 2015). "Google works to rank sites based on 'truthfulness'". Fox News. ... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims ...
11. Hayward, Steven (August 21, 2013). "Climategate II: Sequel as ugly as the original". Orange County Register. ... WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website
12. Also according to the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, journalist Fred Pearce described WUWT as "a soapbox for the largely sceptical news and views" of Watts, but I don't have access for an exact quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
13. Curry, Judith (June 28, 2014). "Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?". Climate Etc. Who do I include in the technical skeptical blogosphere? Tamino, Moyhu, Blackboard, Watts, Goddard, ClimateAudit, Jeff Id, Roman M. There are others, but the main discriminating factor is that they do data analysis, and audit the data analysis of others. Are all of these 'skeptics' in the political sense? No – Tamino and Moyhu definitely run warm, with Blackboard and a few others running lukewarm. Of these, Goddard is the most skeptical of AGW. There is most definitely no tribalism among this group. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

• Farmer/Cook (Denial support #1) It is interesting that Farmer/Cook claim that WUWT "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis". They don't cite a single example, but that's an aside. The source is being used to support the term "denial", which is not the same as misinformation, even if that claim were true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• DeSmogBlog (Skeptical support #1) I trust most here are familiar with DeSmogBlog , one of the leading blogs on climate science issues, and decidedly not in the denialist or even skeptical (in the climate science sense of the term) camps. Thir discussion of him uses terms like skeptic, skeptical, and lukewarmer (as a quote) but no where do they describe him as a denier.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think third-party blogs are acceptable because of the close relation between Watts and Watts's blog, that is, they'd be WP:BLPSPS even in this WUWT article. So I added only RS non-blog. Some are academic i.e. published by academic presses by authors with PhDs (unlike Grant and Cook, as far as I know). However, academic sources are not "better" according to any policy that I know of -- WP:SOURCES merely says they are "usually" the most reliable, but that wouldn't apply where lack of expertise is demonstrable, and we can set that against the fact that the put-denialism-in crowd are stuffing in statements with no consensus, but according to WP:NOCONSENSUS we "commonly" are supposed to stay with the version as of before the stuffing started. The above is not including additional sources saying Watts himself is a skeptic, such as PBS, New York Times, Science Magazine, and of course Watts himself -- it's acceptable for Watts to be a source about what is the opinion of Watts. On the same grounds it would be acceptable to quote WUWT about WUWT, but I didn't look for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• John Grant(Denial support #2) This is a very accomplished science-fiction author some of whose books I have enjoyed. This book is a non-fiction polemic of some skill. It is published by the non-fiction wing of the publisher that also does the Pyr science-fiction imprint. I would suggest that this is reliable for the opinion of Grant. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Grant (Denial support #1) I agree it supports the claim. I don't know the source, and eyebrows raise at the purple prose - I'll be interested to see if they back their claim up with evidence, as opposed to opinion, but there's no question is supports the wording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Dunlap (Denial support #3) At first blush, this seems to be a clear example of a supporting source. Although the exact phrasing of the reference to WUWT doesn't use the word "denial" it is clear in context that it is being added to the list of columnists, scientists, companies, newspapers, foundations, and other organizations which are claimed to be part of the organized denial machine. I started counting the entities involved, got to 30 before reading halfway through, and marveled at the sheer number of organizations involved in denial. The answer is found in the footnote at the end. Rather than make a distinction between those actually denying the concept of AGW from those who express some skepticism of any of the claims, they simply decide that "denier" is a more accurate term than "skeptic". They are, of course, entitled to define terms any way they want, just like you can call a tail a leg and declare than most dogs have five legs, but if you do so, you will find that you aren't contributing to knowledge, you are obfuscating it. I get that it makes their life easier, they don't actually have to do any work to distinguish true deniers from mere skeptics, but it means, in any broad conversation about denier versus skeptic (e.g. Wikipedia), that their comments need to be excluded, or at least caveated, to note that they are not using a definition consonant with the prevailing meaning of the word.

In other words, this fails to support.

It isn't a chapter about denial as used in Wikipedia, it is about both the entities involved in denial, and those involved in challenging one or more aspects of climate science issues in an honest way. An honest title would be "Organized climate changes skepticism or denial (sorry, we are too lazy to sort out the difference)."--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to footnote 1 on page 156? If so, that footnote doesn't say what you're claiming: "The actions of those who consistently seek to deny the seriousness of climate change make the terms 'denial' and 'denier' more accurate that 'skepticism' and 'skeptic' (Diethelm and McKee 2009), particularly since all scientists tend to be skeptics (Scneider 2010: 205)." I get that you feel the word "denial" applies only to certain people, but our high quality sources are consistently saying this is the appropriate and most accurate term for the topic. That matters more than our opinions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on analysis

Have you actually read the source, not just that single quote? As a start, I'd suggest reading through section 23.4: "Drivers of Climate Denial", where that quote is found.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've read it, except for pages 457 and 458, is there anything interesting on those pages? It does not support the claim that WUWT is denialist. The present question is whether it says WUWT is denialist. It does not. One things it does say is that the denial machine is funded by fossil fuel industries. This seems plausible. But Watts gets zero funding from fossil fuel companies, so that discussion of denialism is not about him. Is there something specific you wanted me to read?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how someone who's read the book could come to the conclusion it does not support the claim that WUWT publishes information on climate change denial. The full quote, by the way, is "This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficed climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis" and WUWT is listed in the section "Drivers of Climate Denial".   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Headlines (section headings) are not Reliable Source for anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone made such a claim? Seriously Jess, I don't know where you dig up these straw men. Does anyone challenge the notion that some deniers contributes to comments? No. Does anyone challenge the notion that there might even be some contributors who would qualify as deniers? No. That's what happens when you have a blog interested in pen open inquiry; instead of closing your mind and only allowing narrowly vetted opinions, you will get some contributors who say some things that some, myself included, consider absurd. Calling WUWT a denier blog simply beaause a few items might qualify as denial is like calling Instapundit an anti-education blog becasue he had a post today advocating the firing of education administrators. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it a strawman to say that anyone has called WUWT a "denier blog"? Those two words don't seem to appear in the article now, nor before. Or are you looking at what you consider to be a synonym? If so, can you see how someone may not see it as a synonym? jps (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Farmer and Cook's words are: "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis." They didn't say "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis in the comments". Had they meant that, they probably would have said it. As for the claim that the section entitled "Drivers of Climate Denial" isn't about drivers of climate denial, if you're going to make that (somewhat absurd) claim, you should really read the section in its entirety. The first paragraph of 34.4 Drivers of Climate Denial are pretty explicit that this section explores, you know, the driving forces behind the climate change denial movement. Or, to use their words: "We shall now explore the driving forces behind the climate denial movement and the growing polarization." As for the subsection itself, they cite Johnson et al. (2009), a journal article about blogs, not blog comments as "CyberGhettos".

Read in context it's clear that Farmer and Cook are talking about WUWT as an example of a driver of denial. Any other interpretation requires an incredibly convoluted reading of the chapter. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deniers rarely self-identify as deniers. Science deniers achieve very little coverage outside the walled garden of their own denialism. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed criticism section as a possible resolution to NPOV problem

Since Watts explicitly says that he is not a denier/denialist/believer in denialism and that WUWT does not promote that, it would be reasonable to conclude that such labels are contested. The association of climate change denial with holocaust denial makes this a sensitive issue. I'm not saying get rid of any mention of denial. That would certainly make this page inappropriately hagiographic. It does make sense to segregate the accusations using the widely used mechanism of a criticism page. Are there any objections? TMLutas (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally a feature of poorly-written articles. So yes, I strongly oppose this. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See WP:CSECTION. We can't relegate mainstream views to a separate section. If we have a secondary source indicating the label is disputed by Watts, we might be able to include that somewhere in the article, but right now I'm only aware of a primary source on WUWT, which signifies to me there may not be a significant encyclopedic controversy. Let me know if you're aware of a better source, however.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I object, largely along the same reasoning as Jess. I suggest you are getting ahead of yourself. If we list all the sources, and Case 1: the overwhelming number and quality support the term "denialist" it belongs in the main section. Case 2: If the overwhelming number and quality support the term "skeptical", then it belongs in the main section. Case 3:If a large number support one term, but a significant number support a different term, then I would support the concept of relegating the minority position to a subsection. This isn't a new idea, it is SOP for all articles. However, I do not yet know that we are have concluded that Case 3 prevails.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that would work, as long as the rest of the article went into a section called "nonsense WUWT spouts". Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problem solved

Just put everything in, this stops the war. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It fixes nothing. Calling it a denialist site is factually inaccurate, and propagandistic. But that's Wikipedia, which is completely unreliable on any controversial topic, no matter what it is. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what Andy Schlafly believes. Feel free to use his wiki instead, I understand some people manage to make dozens of edits before Schlafly bans them. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember, it's about wording the article

The mildly absurd thing in all this fighting, it seems we have lost sight of one important issue here: the terms "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism" are (well documented to be) synonyms, at least in the context of scholarly communication about the topic. In fact, when people use the term "climate change skepticism" in scholarly communication these days, they tend to add a footnote to say "denial is more accurate, but..."

So how do we capture that? How about "to climate change denial/skepticism" or "skepticism/denial"? We can (and should) argue over which word comes first, but the rest of it is just pointless. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And also, per this. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct, they are the same. Keep in mind, we have two arguments going on. One is whether we should say "climate change denial" or "climate change skepticism". That argument has been reasonably tame. The other argument is whether we should include (and link to) the topic of climate change denial at all. This second argument appears to suggest we define the topic as simply "a blog by Anthony Watts" and say little aside from him "discussing news and the climate". I find this second argument significantly more objectionable, since it fails to define the topic or encapsulate the mainstream pov. I don't prefer your wording, but it's certainly an attempt to resolve dispute #1, and without question preferable to dispute #2. Thanks, Guettarda.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If its about the wording, and cos he's a Brit, shouldn't we at least spell it "sceptic? Just sayin. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Watts isn't a Brit, is he? Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be wrong. Although some people try to equate the terms in some contexts, that doesn't show that in the specific cases of Watts and/or WUWT the meaning is the same. That is, if WUWT is described as skeptic then nobody has any business declaring themselves to be dictionaries and plunking in denier. And -- this is mostly for Jess but applies to all the put-denialism-in crowd -- you do not have a consensus for any of your recent changes in this article or in the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, there is significant opposition and it might grow. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "some people try[ing] to equate the terms in some contexts". On the contrary, the high-quality sources agree. There are two scholarly sources on the "skeptic" list. One (Elgesem et al.) explicitly discusses the skeptic/denier label, acknowledges the argument that 'denier' is probably the better term before saying "Still, in this study..." while the other (Schneider & Nocke) cites WUWT as an example of "Cherry picking obsolete graphs". Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Read further, Elgesem et al say "we classified a blog as skeptic if it explicitly rejected that global warming is happening (trend skeptic), questioned that human activity has an effect on climate (attribution skeptic), or that climate change has serious consequences (impact skeptic)." -- so if WUWT "questioned" then it was classified as skeptic, and Elgesem et al did classify it as skeptic, this is a plain verifiable fact. The other three sources (yes there are four in all, Guettarda miscounted) also say skeptic, the fact that one criticizes WUWT is irrelevant since this is not about whether the source says WUWT used bad graphs, it is about whether the source says WUWT is a skeptic blog -- which it does. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter, please read WP:CON; consensus is not a matter of numbers (despite what Watts claimed on his blog), it's about the strength of the arguments. A good starting place to establishing a strong argument would be providing sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Who decides an argument is strong? Editors. How do we know what editors decide? Count. Or appeal for moderation or arbitration of some sort. Or WP:AE. Or change the majority (Watts's hope, I suppose). Or loop till the current majority out-reverts the minority because our fingers might get numb more quickly. I suppose that last might be called consensus, but since it hasn't happened, your claims of consensus are false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment is completely at odds with WP:CON. If you want to suggest a change to policy, feel free to do it at WT:CON, not here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The policy is fine, the problem is when people say there's a consensus that isn't there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the article on AIDS denialism should be renamed HIV-AIDS skepticism. What next? Moon landing "skeptics"? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is outrageously non-neutral. It starts with a factual error (denial) and then devotes itself to a one-sided argument against some of the articles that appear there. Very much par for the course for Wikipedia, which is why this "encyclopedia" is universally distrusted when it comes to any topic on which there is disagreement. People here can tell themselves whatever they want. We know they will. But the article is garbage, and quite transparently so. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that our definitions of "factual error" differ. The blog certainly hosts content which denies certain aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Watts also disagrees with certain aspects o such. Do you dispute this? jps (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is a lukewarmer a denier?

Watts puts himself in a camp he calls the "lukewarmer". Apparently other blogosphere nattering nabobs seem to adopt that position when parsing the difference between certain people who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. That's fine with me, but I have yet to see a reliable source (read "not a self-published blog") which demarcates with authority how one might distinguish between a lukewarmer and a denier as imagined by Watts and others on this kick. Does anyone have such a source?

On the other hand, I see many sources which lump (fairly or unfairly) the whole lot of those who thumb their noses at the IPCC as those who "deny" climate change. They may not deny the sum total of climate change, but that's not really the concern of most of the sources who actually study what these groups do. I have been unable to find any reliable source (read "peer reviewed" or at least "published by an academic publisher") which makes the distinction between lukewarmers and denialists clearly. Please provide one if you can find it, preferably that references this blog.

jps (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a rather transparent attempt to distance himself from the obvious lunatic fringe. As one of the leading enablers for said fringe, he doesn't really get to choose. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they can.

Based on this description, it could be argued that lukewarmers should not be regarded as skeptics. But it should be noted that they often express very critical views of climate science, for example, by describing the behavior of some scientists as being appalling, or saying that climate models are useless. One individual refers to himself (perhaps ironically) as a “lukewarm denialist,” and others describe themselves as skeptics and lukewarmers.

Guettarda (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Guettarda. I think that seals the deal unless someone can find a source that is more reliable which disputes this evaluation. jps (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Watts called himself lukewarmer somewhere -- you don't say where -- but what matters is what he usually calls himself (which I think is probably skeptic), and what most reliable sources call him (which is definitely skeptic). As for claiming that something said about an unknown "lukewarm denialist" proves something about all people who've said they're "lukewarmer" -- er, no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Source for lukewarmer. There are no reliable sources which make a strong distinction between "skeptic" and "denialist". The best I can find is an interview with Muller where he provides his personal opinion that seems to indicate he agrees there is a spectrum and that Anthony is on the "skeptic" end, but it's a weak source: [1] I haven't seen any other reliable sources which actually make the point as forcefully as the source provided above by Guettarda. I await your listing. jps (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What sort of expert could be an authority on denialism?

I think it's worth asking just what sort of expert is qualified to associate the label "denialist" with a person or a collection of writings or a website.

I don't think citing experts in climate is enough. Experts in climate know climate. They're not experts in human psychology or behavior.

It seems to me that only psychologists or anthropologists are qualified to make such a judgement. Others are acting outside their area of expertise. Mc6809e (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Any expert in a field where there is robust consensus, including climate change, is qualified to judge whether contrarian statements amount to legitimate scientific skepticism or denialism. It's a lot like the pseudoscience demarcation issue. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mc6809e. Denialism is, according to the Wikipedia article, is more than just contrarian statements it is associated with paid flackery and ideological motivations. How is a climate expert to judge the base motivations of dissenters to judge whether someone is skeptical or a "denialist"? Capitalismojo (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Denialism does not imply paid flackery (though WUWT passes that bar, with its obscure funding and documented handouts from the Koch-funded Heartland Institute). Denialism is wilful denial of the evidence. And WUWT does just that. Science judges new facts according to how well they fit the data, denialism judges them by how well they fit the narrative. You could more accurately characterise it as pseudoscience, but denialism is more widely used in this context. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick trawl of Google finds that the idea of WUWT being a denialist blog is pretty widespread, and Scientific American don't seemt o have a problem with this characterisation:

Rather, the big problem was that the poll was skewed by visitors who clicked over from the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That? Run by Anthony Watts, the site created a web page urging users to take the poll.

— Do 80 percent of Scientific American subscribers deny global warming? Hardly

Naturally, the “stupid” — which are most likely those considered “climate deniers” — have a response. A well-known “climate denier” Anthony Watts posted on his blog Watt’s Up With That this response:

— This Is Bloomberg Businessweek’s Hurricane Sandy Cover

Michael Burgess (R-TX), cited an online public opinion poll (in and of itself an unscientific way of sampling opinion data) as reason for rejecting the science of global warming. Making matters worse, it turns out the particular poll was targeted by well-known climate science denial website Watt’s Up With That in a campaign to skew the results.

— House Energy and Commerce Committee Votes for Science Denial

The blogging heart of climate change denial, Watt’s Up With That is calling for their army of winged monkeys to descend on the local theatre company’s contact page.

— Global climate denial industry turns its sights on Joy Burch

The blog features the fringe views of climate misinformers like Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors and conservative media have previously seized on its misleading content.

— Meet The Climate Denial Machine

Before the numbers were even in, the science denialist blog Watts Up With That began downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects — and even death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan — a ferocious storm that may have claimed as many as 10,000 lives.

— Skeptical climate blog shamefully downplays Super Typhoon Haiyan

Watts and McIntyre characterize themselves as skeptical on some climate change issues, and Muller agrees that they are skeptics not deniers. Unfortunately, the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog,

— Science Denial and the Science Classroom

Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. It does not disclose its funding sources. Anthony Watts, its proprietor, has worked as a broadcast weatherman for years but has no degree.

— Denier blogs

The best of them — and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the web site Watts Up With That — have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp.

— Denying global warmign despite no actual expertise

This is not exactly a controversial view, other than among climate deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mc6809e and Capitalismojo: Excellent point. As I'm sure you know, Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright are sociologists, while John Cook is working on a PhD in psychology. That's a strong argument in favour of "denial" rather than "skepticism", since it's being made by the most relevant experts. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mc6809e: I brought up that question in relation to climatologist Michael Mann in an earlier thread but the majority decided he's not a poor source. That does leave, however, the objection that Mann represents a minority view and should not be a star featured source. I say "minority" based on reliable sources acceptable in Wikipedia on the topic, Guy doesn't seem to have made an effort to filter those. Guettarda correctly notes that Dunlap + McCright are sociologists, but re John Cook: he has a BSc in Physics from the University of Queensland, and if he someday gets a higher degree that won't show that he was an "expert" when writing for a book published in 2013. His claim to fame is the blog Skeptical_Science which trades barbs with WUWT frequently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC) +

NPOV: Skeptic vs denial

 	+ 	
 	+ 	

Please note that both terms are under discussion here. Both terms are synonyms. Saying the term denial is in dispute is true, but so is the term "skeptic". Removing one and leaving the other is just POV pushing. Guettarda (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 	+ 	
 	+ 	

It's also frustrating that the content is being continually removed under the guise of "no consensus" or "under discussion" by editors not participating in the discussion. We established consensus to link climate change denial prior to the canvassing that took place off-wiki. After the canvassing, new editors began disputing that consensus without advancing any significant argument or providing sources. Finally, we have a few low to medium quality sources that say "skeptic", but not one that disputes the list of high quality sources that back up denier. Guettarda's compromise to include both words was just removed, now leaving the intro sourced to the lowest quality sources we have available... and without participation in the relevant section. This is getting insanely disruptive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Your text

== The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer == The blog does indeed feature guest contributions - indeed, nowadays, the bulk of the posts are not by AW. But the bulk of the guest postings are by "non notable" folk. Why does the list of contributors only mention notable folk? Currently, posts in reverse order are: by AW, Steven Capozzola, AW, Howard Lowe, Bob Tisdale, AW, Richard Betts, copy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, David Archibald, Eric Worrall, AW, Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Eric Worrall, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, AW, AW, AW, AW, Bob Tisdale, SEPP (*not* FS), Paul Driessen, Tom Quirk. And so on. On what basis have " Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer" been singled out? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) :Goklany is on the masthead - not an independent source, but a source. The rest of that was unsourced, so I removed it. Guettarda (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC) :: Yeeessss... the about page says "Contributors: John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach". Why pick just one of them out? And why add "regular"? Goklany clearly isn't regular William M. Connolley (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ::: I don't think this helps either. Why are we picking out some contributors? Because of the quality of their contributions? Their frequency? Their not-redlinkiness? Why is BobTisdale, who contributes rather often, ignored? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Hi WMC, I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts, for example his latest, a nice BOTE look at ocean thermal circulation. He's a fine writer and an interesting guy. I'm fine with adding Tisdale, although I find his writing style opaque & very hard to follow. But you're right, any selection of contributors will be arbitrary..... unless someone wants to do a frequency analysis of posters. Not me! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC) ::::: I think you've realised that I added Willis E. because I almost always enjoy his posts Just won't fly. We're not recommending people. You might just as well add Bob Tisdale or David Archibald, on the grounds that their posts are particularly stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::Have removed names as a reliable secondary source needed for associating BLPs with this blog. Not straightforward: for example, the recent post by Richard Betts was a reposting of a blog article from ATTP, with minimal attribution. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC) == Just "a blog", == @A Quest For Knowledge: made this edit, which changed the lead sentence to read "Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog created in 2006 by Anthony Watts." I'm not sure I agree that is the best description of the topic. The blog is predominantly (even exclusively?) devoted to climate change denial, and that's what it's known for. We even discuss its prominence in that respect later. Doesn't it make sense to describe the topic of the site when defining the topic? "a blog" doesn't tell the reader much at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC) :On reflection, these edits removed the subject of the blog from the lead altogether. At best, it was described as a "climate blog" and a news site, which is definitely not representing the sources accurately. I've tried to incorporate the labels back in so we are at least covering the subject fully. I'd appreciate some discussion if there's disagreement. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ::So you're having the very first sentence be a derogatory label of WUWT. Is this Wikipedia? Or highschool? (very unprofessional) Besides, I'm not sure Mr Watts or those on his site would call themselves "deniers". Skeptic is the appropriate word. All you've done is set up a red flag that this page is biased and therefore probably inaccurate.24.9.166.120 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC) :::We're having the very first sentence represent what the sources say. It doesn't matter what Mr Watts prefers he be called in the article. It matters how our reliable sources describe him.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC) :::::Actually, as far as policy goes, there are a number of other things that matter. :::::One is that the sources offering analysis or interpretation of a topic must be secondary sources, not primary sources like those now referenced in Notes section (see WP:PRIMARY). :::::Another is that regardless of what references are used, the resulting article must be impartial in tone "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (see WP:IMPARTIAL). Hopefully we can all agree that whether accurate or not, the term "denial" is meant to reject Watts' perspective. (And if we can't agree on that, it is no less true.) :::::Finally, statements of opinion (such as the statement that Watts up with That is a blog dedicated to climate change denial) must be attributed to the person expressing that opinion, e.g. "a blog that such-and-such-a-person says is dedicated to climate change denial" (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) :::::A number of recent edits appear to be out of policy on all these points. --DGaw (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::The RS sources support "skeptic". Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC) :::::What sources?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source list from Anthony Watts:

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
* John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. ** The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism ** the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That ** Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. * Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. ** pages 72, 222. ** page 27: Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog. * Manne, Robert (August 2012). A dark victory: How vested interests defeated climate science. ** More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established. * Dunlap, Riley E... The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. ** page 153: In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine...the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)...Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message. * Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. ** One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis. |} Some of those sources are extremely strong, including Mann and Dunlap.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC) :All primary sources, and thus inappropriate to cite for statements of analysis or interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Can you please cite your reliable secondary sources, and upon including them, also attribute statements to the source in the body of the text? --DGaw (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ---- *Rolled back to last half-reasonable version. Jess: would you please stop this? It's getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::You reverted a significant number of edits which added high quality sources authored by recognized experts in their field, with no explanation or discussion, and then accuse me of being a POV pusher? Can you respond my comments above any substantive way, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::(edit conflict) On the contrary, Jess, keep up the good work, until someone who objects to your edits makes a substantive post to this talk page. Pete Tilman, as I understand it, rollback is not for use in content disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ===Dedicated to climate change denial?=== Hmm. Could there possibly be a problem with opening our article with: :Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts. Think about it for a moment. Could this possibly be considered inflammatory? Derogatory? Do you think this shows the project at its best? This is even sillier than the great "Campaign to Quote Michael Mann" over at Watts' wikibio.... Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :Do these silly remarks even need a reply? You've already been pointed to relevant policies. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::Watts aligns himself as an opponent of mainstream climatology... We're not going to avoid citing experts because, by being experts, they are considered his "opponents". Put another way, we're not going to write Watts' bio using only sources from him and his friends.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::: Of course we are not going to write a bio based solely on sources form him and his friends, but this is a strawman, I don't see anyone proposing it. Have you actually read the blog? Characterizing it as a denialist blog is ludicrous. I have no doubt that some denialists post to the comments, and there may be blog entries discussing articles by denialists, but that doesn't make it a denialist blog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::My assessment of the blog doesn't matter. Neither does yours. What matters is how it is characterized in high quality sources. And yes, there has definitely been a strong suggestion that only sources not critical of Watts should be used. We can't do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::This is absurd. What if several high quality sources referred to the site as "trash?" Would it be okay in an enyclopedic article to describe the site as trash in the opening line? Of course not. High quality sources can and ought to be cited when they make comments relying on their expertise. "Denial" is not a scientific assessment but just an ad-hominem attack, no matter how many "sources" it has. If not, if it is scientific, you ought at least be able to say what it is the site denies. Do you claim it denies climate change? Do you think one of your sources makes this claim? In light of these arguments, I am reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.50 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I'm fine with "dedicated to climate change denial", as long as one can point to what it is that is being denied. Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice. Regarding that word "denial". Does Watts deny that the climate has changed from time to time? I suspect not. Does he deny that it is changing now? I suspect not. Does he deny the radiative effects of CO2? I suspect not. Does he deny that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere? I suspect not. So. He asserts that climate changes, CO2 can affect it and humans increase CO2. Seems he is part of the 97% consensus. Stating that his site is dedicated to climate change denial is just plain wrong. Some of those who assert this know this. I'm curious why the word is used when it is so obviously wrong, inflammatory and possibly defamatory. John G Eggert (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC) It has been pointed out to me that the statement "Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice." may be construed as a legal threat and hence a violation of Wiki policy. This is not the case or the intent. It is a statement of fact that was meant as a favour to those making such statements as they may not be aware of what they are doing. If this is indeed a violation of policy, I will not do this in the future. I'd appreciate a representative of Wikimedia clarifying. I am not Anthony Watts, nor do I speak on his behalf, hence I have no ability to threaten anyone in these matters.John G Eggert (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :You're not going to receive a response here from the WMF, but see WP:NLT, which is our official policy on the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC) When deciding if using the term "climate change denial" blog injects opinion and bias, maybe we should look at how we categorize other blogs...is the Skeptical Science blog categorized as a "climate change alarmist" blog? If wiki is trying to be objective, I don't think you would use either term...just my two cents worth...Steve Armstrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarms58 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC) That first sentence should include "man-made", which would make clear what WUWT is really about. 68.40.50.81 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC) == This page linked from WUWT, requesting his viewers sway consensus == FYI, our article was just linked on WUWT's homepage, requesting his readers try to sway consensus, because "it's a numbers game".   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :I semi-protected the page. If anyone considers me too involved to do that, I will undo it. But given the sudden arrival of all these brand new accounts, I was starting to think it needed doing. Given this, I think it's strongly warranted. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::I was about to do the same and endorse the semi-protection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::Thank you. I had made a request at RfPP, but it hadn't been filled yet. I appreciate you getting to it quicker! :::To any of Anthony's viewers who were linked here from his blog, please feel free to contribute to this talk page to discuss changes to the article. Wikipedia works through discussion, so we're trying to focus on doing that instead of "edit warring". Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Mr Watts had posted a statement of his position on climate change, and I feel it would be appropriate to post it somewhere in the article to clear up any misconceptions as what he and his blog are about.  :"For the record: I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate." Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Not sure how to edit this, but I will give it a whirl. This does appear to be a very biased article. Most of the references are to media articles and blogs expressing the opinion of the author and are often little more than ad-hominem attacks and name calling. In which case balancing opinions should also be quoted and cited. It is clear from many articles written by Anthony, including the one referenced here, that he is not a "denier" of climate change. He does not deny that the climate has warmed, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the climate, nor that man's production of CO2 contributes to that warming. He is, like many of us, sceptical of the positive feedbacks and high climate sensitivity necessary to support the more extreme predictions of global warming. That is a fairly nuanced position and not one that deserves the tag "denier" - or at least it should not be stated as if it were a "fact" that he is a denier (as the first line does), just that some commentators think he is. If you read his blog regularly you will see that nearly all the articles from other contributors come from that "sceptical" position. Many of the comments are from people you might class as deniers, but you cannot judge a blog by its most extreme commentators. This article needs to be adjusted to make it clear that most of the references and articles cited are opinions and they should be better balanced by citations of the many other articles that take an opposing view. Oefinell (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::::As discussed below, this article has to show how the opinions expressed on WUWT have been received by mainstream scientists, and how they're covered by academic publications discussing the topic area. Please put forward good quality sources supporting the points you want covered, and be as specific as you can: generalised complaints can only be discussed in principle. Note that blogs can only be used in certain circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Well, using the word "denier" is derogatory and inflammatory, which, I'm sure, Wikipedia does not want. Surely this would go in a "Controversy" subsection? Shame on Wikipedia for allowing Gatekeepers to drag it down :( CWernham (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Not sure what impact this will have, and I'm not sure how to sign this. But... Is this how you build consensus? You block any changes from those who disagree with your unbalanced and biased editing? I will no longer be contributing financially to Wikipedia in future. It has gone from being a light and hope for correct and unbiased information on the internet to being a political weapon for special interest groups. Shame on you.16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Gmakwiki (talk) Jess, swaying consensus is a good thing. If done properly. Are you suggesting there is an attempt to do something inappropriate? Did you notice that the article doesn't even urge readers to make any specific edit, and states clearly If you do participate, please stick to facts, not opinions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :Are you serious? You might enjoy a reading of WP:VOTESTACK and the (in-)appropriateness of one-sided recruiting of a partisan audience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::I am serious, although I think I catch your point. I see a fundamental difference between an established editor, who is expected to know how this works, going out to recruit contributors by visiting a biased sample of sites, and the subject of an article explaining the process for editing. Had Watts pushed for certain types of edits, or slyly suggested ways around the rules, it would be problematic, but he is the victim of a few editors pushing a lie, and his response is to provide links on the proper way to edit, and urge people to stick to facts. I would be on board with you if some editor here decided to go only to skeptic sites and encourage edits, but that isn't what happened. To put it another way, what action would you think is acceptable by the subject? Do you think we can realistically require that he contact sites who disagree with him?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Mr Watts may have made a mistake by mentioning only this WUWT article. For a long time the action has been in the article Anthony Watts (blogger). On that page, clicking History will show that there has been conflict since about March 15 about whether to call Mr Watts and WUWT denier/denialist (including in the lead), and whether to remove the original mentions of words like skeptic. By the way, Mr Watts is not the first person to blog about Wipedia's coverage of the issue, he was preceded by William Connolley. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ===For new editors: good sources needed=== Hi, and welcome. Wikipedia has a trio of interrelated policies: "no original research" requires that we don't use unpublished arguments, articles have to be "verifiable" from good quality published sources, and "neutral point of view" requires due weight to mainstream views. Specifically, fringe views about science have to be shown as such, in the context of mainstream views of that minority view, to meet fringe and pseudoscience policy. Watts clearly promotes fringe or minority views in opposition to mainstream science, and so we have to reflect that, and find the best academic sources covering the issue. Good quality academic sources describe Watts' blog as promoting climate change denial, and we should therefore show that mainstream view. Other more flattering terms appear in the mass media, but good quality sources are explicit that the so-called "climate skepticism" of WUWT is similar to climate change denial, while lacking essential qualities of scientific skepticism. Bottom line: find high quality sources discussing Watts and his blog, and discuss them on this talk page with suggestions for wording based on these sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :For new editors: hi and welcome (really)! Now that you've seen Dave souza's advice, have some more from someone who has been disagreeing with him about WUWT: (1) Most of the known reliable sources describe Watts and/or his blog as skeptical not denialist, and one of our "issues" on the Anthony Watts (blogger) article is that editors have removed mention of those sources and emphasized anything that says denier/denialist. (2) Currently the editors pushing quotes re Watts/WUWT denial are in the majority, but there is dispute that they have achieved consensus, and they may not represent the mainstream attitude of Wikipedians. Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales told Dave souza in 2011 Yes, as always, good sourcing is crucial. Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent. Bottom line: discuss on this talk page and the Anthony Watts (blogger) talk page, and edit when you can and when you've read the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::As on the other page, Peter's counted quantity of google hits showing up news sources, but fails to recognise that good quality academic sources point to climate change denial, in one or other of its manifestations. As for the holocaust assertion, that's a strawman reversing history of the term, and a disrespect to the famous holocaust: denial long predates that usage. Also, mainstream views can't be disregarded because Watts opposes the mainstream: weight policy requires quite the opposite. So, let's see more sources, and discuss their quality. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::I think there's enough disagreement about the quality of the existing sources, and how they are being used, without further complicating the issue. Let's correct that first. --DGaw (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Detailed discussion welcome, we're currently in the process of improving sourcing and there's some way to go. Assistance welcome. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Wow. I'm out today for the holiday, but things seem to have blown up. Yes, new editors (and established editors who are new to this page) need to propose specific proposals to change the page, and provide reliable sources to back up their proposals. We can't really make changes unless that's done. All the requests below seem to be vague complaints without any references to sources. Unfortunately, those don't really get us anywhere. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) == Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015 == Use of the term "climate change denial" is both inaccurate and non-scientific. Please don't let this section of Wikipedia become another useless political blog like other sections of Wikipedia. AnotherProf (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :Do you have a suggestion for specific wording and sources to support that wording? Note that there currently are supporting high-quality sources, and we can't simply ignore them. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :I thought sure when I looked at the recently protect article, the recently added term "denier" had been removed. I guess I misread. but I guess I was wrong. This is borderline libel ,and should be removed while we debate whether it should be added. Given that Watts is not a denier, it seems highly unlikely that the consensus of reliable sources will say otherwise. There might be the odd source which is misinformed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::Why should it be given that Watts is not a denier? At least one good quality mainstream source describes him as that. However, more sources describe him as enabling or supporting climate change denial, and that's the issue that needs good coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::He is not a denier, and claims not to be a denier. While first party claims are properly given little weight in many cases, this is one time it deserves weight (not 100%, but considerable weight). If Wikipedia is going to say that someone, who claims not to be a denier, actually is one, we need very solid sources. Not just one or two but a clear consensus among knowledgeable sources. I haven't seen close to such a consensus, only a few cherry-picked claims from some biased observers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :Unfortunately, multiple family members just showed up, so I must exit, but I strongly suggest that the word denial be removed, then open up a debate for inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Having looked at the sources for the first phrase that WUWT is a "denialist blog" not one of them could remotely be called a "high quality source" - they are all politically slanted and not objective in any way. For instance this one "Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate". I was aghast at the page Wikipedia linked to. It is simply a list of insulting statements - nothing objective, scientific or "quality" about it at all. Cook is a well known political blogger with a visceral hatred of anybody who disagrees with him. He tries to recruit psychology on his side to "prove" that those who disagree with him are all deranged conspiracy theorists, but does nothing of the sort and just ends up insulting the very people he should be trying to convince. High quality? I think not. As for "mainstream views", once upon a time it was "mainstream science" to believe the world was flat, that black people were inferior to white, that women were not as intelligent as men, the shape of your head indicated your personality and your future is written in the stars. Science needs to be continually challenged. Bias in favour of the mainstream is not balance.Oefinell (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :Actually, that is a book written by a senior and a junior academic, and published by Springer Science+Business Media, a widely respected academic publisher. That makes it an excellent source. Yes, science needs to be continually challenged, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::It's laughable to call John Cook an excellent source -- see, for example, our discussion of his lame 97% Consensus paper, ::and The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' at the Wall Street Journal. ::And it's definitely against our policies to use Wikipedia's voice to state as fact that :::"Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial. " (until yesterday our opening for this article) ::-- based on opinions by opponents of Watts, be they academics or whatever. This is pretty elementary stuff, guys. I'm taken aback that experienced editors don't seem to see a problem with this. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::First, I've not called "John Cook" an excellent source, but rather a book of which he is the junior author and that was published by Springer. And I see nothing in the section you linked to except for undue weight given to the usual echo chamber (Legates, Idso, and "God will save the planet" Spencer). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::Just mentioning an article written by Joseph Bast on the same page as the word fact is probably undue weight. Gads. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC) == Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015 == The frequent use of the pejorative term "denier" is inappropriate. It would be the equivalent of frequently using the term "nigger" in a post about civil rights. Please replace 'climate change denial' in the first sentence with 'climate change skepticism'. In the third paragraph, it would also be more appropriate (and better grammar) to say, "...and among the most influential climate change skeptic blogs..." KMAnomalocaris (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :From a quick search, the only use of the word "denier" is in a footnote, a quotation from a reliable source saying that WUWT provides "a rallying ground for other AGW deniers". Published by Prometheus Books, perhaps you don't appreciate a genuine skeptical view? Good quality academic sources refer to climate change denial as a specific topic, and that's what's shown in the article itself. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC) == NPOV == The blog's subject matter is covered in its about page. I'm reproducing it here for the convenience of the community: About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts This science news site feature original content from myself as well as several contributors: Editor: Anthony Watts Contributors: John Goetz Evan Jones Frank Lansner Bill Illis Jeff Id Bob Tisdale Indur Goklany Basil Copeland Alec Rawls Verity J. Willis Eschenbach Moderation Team: charles the moderator DB Stealey Evan Jones Mike L. Mike J. Andy C. Verity J. Lee K. Robert C. Keith B. Moderator Emeritus: Robert E. Phelan (REP) TMLutas (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :@TMLutas: as I asked above, do you have an edit suggestion, based on high quality, third-party sources, which also takes into account the existing sources? (Obviously the website itself isn't an independent source.) Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::My first suggestion is to stop exclusively using unfriendly sources to describe the blog which is why I put the NPOV tag on. TMLutas (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::Your suggestion is ridiculous, a proposed hagiography for fringe views when policy requires us to show how they've been received by the mainstream. If you've got good quality published "friendly" sources, they can be used too but not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::It's ridiculous not to exclusively use sources hostile to the outlet. Right. To seek to have a balance between positive and negative sources is fringe. Right. TMLutas (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::@TMLutas: - What sources do you want included in the article? And how do you propose to use them? Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::I don't have a preconceived notion as to what sources to use. The usual habit is to give a neutral depiction followed by friendly and critical characterization. The characterization by Watt's frequent debating opponents right up front needs to be worked out to consensus. It can go back in when the criticism section is sorted. I do notice that the current first footnote is wrong. The url does not go to the cited publication. I don't feel like getting past the FT paywall to see whether there's anything else wrong with it. That's as far as I've gotten. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::::You're referring to the Fiona Harvey article "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue"? I was able to pass the paywall once by going here, but no longer. Anyway: it doesn't say the year that the blog started, it doesn't mention denier/denialism, and says "Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science." A citation to it was recently removed from the Anthony Watts (blogger) article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::My original complaint was just that the ref went to a different publication than the link but your analysis does make it appear to have worse problems than that. What's the reason that ref is in there? According to the FAQ page on the site, it started out as part of norcalblogs.com in 2006 and still has a link there. It then seems to have made a move to wordpress in 2007 and later on to its own domain according to the archive.org site grabs. TMLutas (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::It started off as a cite for the sentence "Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a science blog created in 2006 by former broadcast weather presenter Anthony Watts which concentrates on the global warming controversy from a global warming skeptic perspective.", five years ago. If your sole interest was in sourcing the date, yes the WUWT FAQ page http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/ might be better for that. But I guess originally it was intended as a cite for the skeptic-perspective bit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::::I'm loathe to edit a reference to an article I can't read because I can't personally verify that it belongs there at all. My impulse would be to kill it for being behind a paywall, and claiming to point to a publication it doesn't. If you'd like to rescue it and move the cite further down in the article for the skeptic perspective bit, I'll take your word for now, that it's on point somewhere. TMLutas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::::It's already cited further down. There's no rule that says cites to paywalled sources should be regarded as bad, but I wasn't objecting about keeping it exactly as is in this particular spot. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC) == Question for those who favor the term "denialist" == It's clear that there are a group of editors here that feel strongly that the term "denialist" should be included on this page. And I think it's equally clear that another group of editors believe otherwise. A number of references have been added to the article that use the term—but the fact that a source chooses to use a term does not require that it be used on Wikipedia. And in fact, if the term is critical of one side in a political dispute, Wikipedia policy pretty clearly indicates it should not be used. So. The obvious solution would be for us to find an alternate term that is not in dispute by either side, or to avoid characterizing the web site entirely. Thoughts? Any objections? If so, what? If retaining the term "denialist" is important to you, why? --DGaw (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :You're putting forward a false premise: the word "denialist" does not appear in the body text of the article. However, it appears in two footnotes as quotations from good quality reliable sources. So, at present we use alternative terms in the article, not sure that we should. As for "sides", WP:WEIGHT requires us to show how the mainstream "side" has received the minority views promoted on the website. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::@Dave souza: The term "denial" appeared in an earlier revision of the page, and "denialist" appeared in one of the notes cited to support its use. We should not split hairs. --DGaw (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::The word denial is what should have been used in this section title. Denial, denialism, and denialist are propaganda terms used by one side of the debate. TMLutas (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :@DGaw: I haven't taken a position on precisely what wording to use. But we have high-quality sources - several published by major academic publishers - that use that term. So we obviously can't ignore it. We can "give both sides", assuming there's another side to give. But we need to give due weight to sources. What do you propose? Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::@Guettarda: All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis. And all stating an opinion about the topic—which is fine, so long as it is called out in the text as a statement of opinion. And of course we can ignore it; there is no requirement that we incorporate any characterization at all of the site, let along any particular one. --DGaw (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::@DGaw: "All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis." - No, that's most definitely untrue. Dunlap and McCright is a secondary source ("The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society") while Farmer and Cook is a textbook. The Robert Manne article isn't a primary source either. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::@Guettarda: It appears there may be some confusion about what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. Which a source is isn't a function of the type of document it is (e.g. an encyclopedia or textbook) but its relationship to the article topic. ::::In this case, The "Watts Up With That" site is the topic. A primary source talks about the topic. A secondary source talks about a primary source talking about the topic. ::::So where Dunlap and McCright talk about "Watts Up With That" in Chapter 10 of their book, they are a primary source for the topic. Another reliable source that references Dunlap and McCright talking about "Watts Up With That" would be a secondary source. It might therefore be acceptable to cite that secondary source to say, "Dunlap and McCright say that "Watts Up With That" is..." so long as the resulting article remains impartial. ::::The essay WP:USINGPRIMARY has a pretty good explanation of primary and secondary sources. --DGaw (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::Your evaluation is incorrect. Please try reading WP:PRIMARY again. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::@DGaw: Sorry, but you're incorrect in your understanding of primary vs. secondary sources. Nonetheless, though Dunlap & McCright have written primary source material, their chapter in the Oxford Handbook is a secondary source - it "talks about...primary source[s]" (some of which happen to be their own, some not). It doesn't present primary research findings, it discusses previous findings. Anyway, that's one of the three sources I discussed. Does that mean that you agree on Farmer & Cook and Robert Manne? Or not? Let's sort through these sources properly. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :Also, what policy says we should not use terms "critical of one side in a political dispute", particularly when it's a political dispute arguing against science? . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::@Dave souza: WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. ...The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." --DGaw (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::@DGaw: That would be a violation of WP:GEVAL. The blog in question is WP:FRINGE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::: It'd be OK to tell what is Dr Michael Mann's opinion on wuwt and how Dr Mann is treated in wuwt, but not to claim his opinion is true. NPOV means we can tell the major views on wuwt. They can't be represented as a fact but as a claim. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :"Denier" is a pejorative term, implying that disputing a prevalent climate attitude is equivalent to denying the WW2 holocaust, the only other widespread use of the term. "Denier" and its derivatives do not belong in the body of the article, though its appearance in the citations may be unavoidable.Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::It's not pejorative by its strict definition. Certainly, many denialists think there is an implication of holocaust denial, but I think that argument is a bit hollow. The problem is, there is no really good synonym that is easy to apply. "Skeptic" isn't correct. Some have suggestion "contrarian", but, alas, that designation hasn't caught on. jps (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::Reading a recent challenge to the AntiDefamation League is enlightening. http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html Those who argue, as Watt does, that it is a reasonable scientific position to be skeptical of many political aspects of climate science are referred to without prior definition as 'skeptics.' It is also taken at face value that the application of the word 'denier' to these scientists is not only a reference to holocaust denial, but in fact trivializes the millions of lives lost in the holocaust. In searching for the NPOV, skeptic cannot be dismissed out of hand as "not correct." It is fairly clear that the term "skeptic" accurately identifies the WUWT position on the issue, and "denier" is a pejorative term for the same opinion holder that is used only in a derogatory manner by those politically opposed to that position.KMAnomalocaris (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC) :::I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive, and it seems to be used with the same intent to offend. Most people who are not AGW proponents would seem to be more appropriately classified as "skeptics"... They are not convinced by the AGW arguments but are open to discussion and willing to change their opinions with rational, unbiased information. Perhaps there were significant numbers of "Deniers" in the past, but most thinking individuals not convinced by AGW would now classify themselves as "Skeptics" I believe. When I see someone use the term "Denier", it flags the discussion as likely biased. If the discussion had merit, they wouldn't need to use the term "Denier". AClimateSkeptic (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ::::I find I have trouble taking seriously someone who says 'I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive'. This seems like a tactic of taking offense to preempt criticism of unscientific viewpoints. I am not surprised to see it being used by a campaign that is apparently being coordinated off-wiki. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::The assertion is that the denier label was applied to attempt to create a psychological linkage to Holocaust deniers. There are documented examples of this on the climate change denial page. You're certainly free to say that people labeled deniers should just put some ice on that but it's not only their credibility at stake TMLutas (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC) All you arrivals from Watts' call-to-arms miss the point. There is not yet a better synonym in the literature being offered. The idea that you all are "skeptics" has been roundly criticized in the mainstream scientific press so we're left without a label that we all can agree upon. "Contrarian" hasn't yet caught on. Sorry. This is not something Wikipedia can solve. Until you all can convince those who are not in your camp not to call you all "deniers" or "denialists" or "those who engage in denial of facts", you will be stuck with contortions of that description. How we do it will be according to the best sources we can find which will be people who are acknowledged experts either in scientific communications, global warming controversies, or climate scientists themselves. The goal for all of you should be to come up with a term that you like that those whom oppose you will also accept as a decent label. For example, the creationists were successful in doing such a thing. Good luck! (Until then, we're stuck trying to do our best to describe the beliefs of Watts et al. as the beliefs of those who deny basic facts and outcomes of climate science.) jps (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::The fact that some publications decry using "skeptic" does not mean the word is inaccurate, it merely illustrates the extent to which the discussion has degenerated into name-calling. Skeptic is an accurate term for one who doubts, for example, that the predictive power of climate models is as great as their advocates claim. On the other hand, the pejorative connotations of "denier" are plainly evidenced by the militancy with which it is insisted upon by overtly hostile writers. Use of the deliberate insult is a stain on Wikipedia's respectability. Peter (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::Wikipedia is based on reliable sources by experts in the appropriate field. A "skeptic" in science is someone who has good scientific reason to believe that certain claims may turn out to be significantly incorrect or incomplete. There are self-described skeptics who believe vaccination is evil, and self-described skeptics who believe various conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, and self-described skeptics who believe 98% of science is wrong with regard to climate change. Articles at Wikipedia do not use misleading terms to put such beliefs on an equal footing with the reliable sources—there is no equal time here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::At Wikipedia, we are not entitled to dismiss some sources simply because they are "pejorative". The standard by which we accept or reject sources is this: WP:RS. In that outline, you will find no means to allow editors to determine when a particular sourced description is pejorative or whether it is not, and while it is undeniable that people who are sympathetic to Watts Up With That?'s position tend to, on the whole, dislike the term "denial", it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, the idea that these people are simply "skeptical" is not as well sourced. The way we make decisions about how to handle these types of situations is to look at what sources are best and stick to them. We are not in the position to right great wrongs when it comes to the perceived insults by those who feel slighted by the way the wider literature on a particular subject treats them. jps (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::::@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I agree with you that we cannot dismiss a term simply because it is pejorative. However, when a term is pejorative, simple human courtesy requires that we be scrupulous, and make absolutely sure it is well-supported, and there is no better term that could be employed. We have an article on the subject of Climate change denial. WUWT does not fit within the implied definition. I am surprised to see you say ...it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. Well, yes, it is easily deniable that the term as used applies to the site. We not only have Watt's own words, we can look at the articles posted. While a careful cherry pick might find a few that fall into the denial end of the spectrum that isn't the case for the vast majority. Please try it. Read the last 20 articles, and tell me which ones qualify as denial that AGW exists, as opposed to skepticism of some of the claims of AGW proponents. Surely, if it is valid to label the site as a denial site, most of the articles would fit that description. If you are willing to take up the challenge, I suggest that you start with the article posted prior to the post about Wikipedia, to avoid the possibility that subsequent articles were chosen in a biased manner. I picked the number 20 out of the air, more could be used if you want. As editors, we do not have the latitude to interpret claims and assess their truth. All we can do is check reliable sources and see what they say. Searching academic publications and the experts in the field have led to several sources which suggest Watts advocates climate change denial, and in fact, is one of its foremost advocates. We haven't cherry picked; Mann is among the most respected experts on both climatology and the global warming controversy. Other sources are academic textbooks, books published by academic presses, and authors widely cited and respected on this very topic. It is unfortunate that Watts doesn't like the label which has been widely given to him in academia, but we haven't written this article as a service to him; we've written it as an encyclopedia entry, summarizing the best academic sources. If you have another source we haven't considered, please propose it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :This issue arose because of your edit describing WUWT as a denialist site. We aren't debating the possible inclusion of an edit along the lines of Some sources describe WUWT as a denialist site. Such an edit might be supported by a modest number of cites. (Perhaps we should discuss this.) We are debating whether we can say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that WUWT is a denialist site. The hurdle for such a claim is much higher, and needs to be supported by virtually all sources which proffer an opinion. That hurdle isn't close to being met. :I see several editors making claims that there some sources supporting the claim. Apparently Mann said it somewhere, and there may be a paywalled source with a similar claim. Would someone be so kind as to cite these properly, so we can see how many there are, to determine whether there is a consensus in the literature?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC) You are presupposing that there is a spectrum between denial and what many in Watts' camp call "skepticism". Unfortunately, there is no evidence that such a spectrum exists except that the people who are on this spectrum claims that such a continuum is what is found. We are not in the position to accept that claim at face value and I have seen no reliable source which demarcates a difference between denial and other forms of rejection of scientific consensus on climate change as such. What we are ultimately talking about is how to describe a perspective that rejects (read "denies") the scientific consensus on climate change. Whether we use the word "deny" or "reject" or "oppose" or "au contraire", etc. are editorial decisions, but the synonymity of these proposals remains. Arguing over the implications related to the holocaust is a red herring -- a switch from what we're actually trying to decide which is the following: we need to give the reader an understanding of what this website is and how it works. We cannot simply say, for example, that it is a website devoted to "discussing climate". The blog is a whole lot more than that. It definitely has an editorial bent and it definitely opposes/rejects/contradicts/denies/rejoins/disputes/argues against the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. That's where we start, I think. To move forward we have to acknowledge that this is where we start. jps (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :There clearly is a spectrum of belief (although I don't understand your use of the word "between"; a spectrum implies a continuum of points, "between" suggests two camps - which do you mean?) :@jps Your post seems to be denying that there is any "spectrum" of opinion on climate change at all. Just what exactly is this "consensus"? Watts' own post sets out his position: "I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate." . :The real point at issue is how much additional "forcing" amplifies the pure CO2 effect. Those on the extreme "warmist" side of the argument (some call them "climate jihadists" ) suggest large additional forcing (and suggest anyone that disagrees with them is a "denier"); those on the opposing side of the argument think little or no additional forcing . Indeed some believe that the additional "forcings" may in fact attenuate the pure CO2 effect. Some recent research on the impact of aerosols on climate point to a lower Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - indeed below the supposed 2 deg C danger limit . :Whether one believes in CAGW or not, it is entirely legitimate to be sceptical of the idea that building endless windmills and solar farms is going to make one iota of difference to climate or temperature, especially as developing countries are increasing CO2 emissions very much faster than the West is reducing them slide 8. :Use of the pejorative terms "denier" or "denialist" is deliberately provocative and childish and does nothing to advance the debate about climate science at all. I suggest it best to drop all talk of denialists and jihadists and return to a rational debate based on science and research. :Rex Forcer (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :There are some who do not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There are some who concede it is, but do not believe that humans can create enough gas to cause climate change. These are not the same point on the spectrum they are two different points, both of whom could be labeled denialists, but there are position not held by Watts or most of the contributors. (You are welcome, of course to provide contrary evidence). :It appears, from your words, that you think anyone who does not fully support the so-called consensus position, as well as the calls for massive changes in human endeavors, can be labeled a "denialist". This may be central to this discussion, as you have a profound misunderstanding of the term. Would you label someone who fully accepts CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but thinks the feedback multiplier is closer to 1.0 than to 3.0 should be called a denialist? Would you call Lomborg, who thinks it is fine to accept the IPCC scientific conclusions as is, but disagrees with some of the policy recommendations which some propose as a consequence, as a denialist?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :To move forward we must start with reliable sources, and jps is not one. Most known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and that includes academic sources -- the reason this is isn't clear is that the put-denialism-in folks destroy mention of skeptic sources in the articles. And despite the talk about how sources must meet a high standard or be academic, the article cites blogs (Deltoid, SkepticalScience), somewhat controversial sites (Media Matters for America), people who clearly didn't have post-bachelor degrees when they wrote or whose education I don't know (Cook, Grant), and six Guardian columns. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::I can only say this so many times. It doesn't matter whether we, as editors, think the labels are appropriate. It matters what our high quality, academic sources say. If you have a source to propose, please do so. Right now it's backed up by Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook - all high quality, academic sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::Jess, then why do you keep saying it? Has someone disagreed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::I added a section below, which I hope editors will populate it. Simply claiming that the words are supported by e.g. Grant, is not enough. I want to look at the source and see for myself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Because of your comments above, which intend to debate whether the label is appropriate, based on your own assessment of Watts' positions. That can never be useful to the article, and WP:NOTFORUM indicates we must stay focused on article improvement here. The best you can do is provide sources and content proposals, not your own assessments.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::: Which of my comments? Yes, I have pointed out that Watts himself claims not to be a denialist. As I have also pointed out, this itself is not sufficient, although it is relevant. I have asked for the external, reliable sources supporting the term. I hope someone provides a few, so we can move forward.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::Mann for one, of course. There are others. How many do you require? jps (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) References == Do we really need to crib from Media Matters here? == At time of writing footnote three goes to a Media Matters attack piece that seems to bear a suspicious resemblance to that section of the Wikipedia article it's serving as a reference for. Is there any problem with rewording the point to not use any of the same phrases and hunting down a less abusive citation? TMLutas (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :You're looking at the part of the result of this edit. I doubt that Fred Singer is really an active guest columnist. You might try using WUWT's own "about" page, which used to be the basis for (quoting from a month-ago version) "The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry and Christopher Monckton." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::As discussed above, a reliable secondary is source needed for associating BLPs with this blog to meet WP:BLPSPS policy, so not WUWT's own "about" page. MediaMatters reflects scientific mainstream views, it's wrong to describe any criticism of WUWT as "an attack piece", but it doesn't look ideal so we could simply delete the points covered until we find a good quality secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::Media Matters, whatever else it is, is *not* a reliable source for science. It's a media criticism group with a very well defined POV. Fortunately, what it's being used for is not a scientific matter. However, the hostility dripping off the page is a real problem here. To delete text when there's no challenge to the text but merely the citation is a good way to destroy an article. Are you challenging the text? If not, then you should not be suggesting we delete it. TMLutas (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::We do not require that our sources lack a POV, or be "neutral". See WP:BIASED.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::True that POV is allowed, but off point. Media Matters, as it happens, published that in 2012 and is actually inaccurate (though they might have been accurate when published). I don't think that WP:BLPSPS extends to excluding mastheads (lists of contributors). The actual contributor list from the blog would be appropriate but the whole treatment of contributors doesn't belong in the intro paragraph, perhaps as a separate section? TMLutas (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::I don't think we're trying to list every contributor, just a few significant ones. That is, contributors that have their own WP article, or contributors that are an integral part of the site. Ideally, our list should only be a few names long, at most.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::::I fully agree. We should not attempt to list every contributor, and listing those who have their own article in WP is a decent starting point for a cutoff.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Can we also agree not to list people that are not on the site's masthead? Listing someone who isn't actually contributing would seem to be a WP:BLP issue. TMLutas (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::::List contributors who have been described as notable contributors by reliable sources. The fact that someone is notable themselves isn't really reason enough. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::::: Good point. I agree that a one time or rare contribution by someone who happens to be notable, but isn't a regular contributor should not be listed. Is it as simple as the intersetion of listed contributor s and notable? In other words, those who are identified by Watts as regular contributors, and meet our notability guides?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) == Lists of sources == In connection with some discussions above, it may be helpful to populate the following:--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :That isn't particularly useful, no. The quality of the source matters, not just the number of references. We need to assess each source independently. There are several sources in the article already (Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook) which are respected, often-cited academic sources. Could you provid a source of that quality for us to consider?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::Just add the caveat "not already in the article" as of the current revision? I actually think it would be very useful to see the latter section populated. People (some new, some established editors) are up in arms about the sources being used, but they don't seem to be willing to provide comparably high-quality sources in defense of their favoured wording. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::: I would rather that all sources he added to the list. The article is a fluid concept, maybe those in the article today will be different than those tomorrow. If someone wants to review the sources, it makes the process more difficult if they have to look in two places. Why not simply copy the ones already used to this section?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::I think the case for "denialism" has been made (and discussed at some length in the past). I'm not adverse to listing those sources, but I really think the onus is on people calling for change to list the sources they would like to see added. So far, as best I can tell, they have proposed zero. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::The article didn't have denialism until Jess added it, controversially. It was removed and added again, a few times, leading to a minor edit war. Despite the fact that there is a section or two starting a discussion, no consensus has been reached. Per well-established procedures, when controversy exists, you do not include controversial items until a consensus has been reached. :::::I suggested compiling some sources. :::::Zero have been added to the list so far. :::::If you want to propose an alternative way to resolve this, propose away, but edit warring is not the right approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::In fact, there is consensus, and has been consensus for some time. Unfortunately, since this article was linked on WUWT, editors have been repeatedly removing incredibly well sourced content. You're right, no sources have been added to your list; many sources backing up the content you removed have been provided above, but none have been provided to support the removal. This is tendentious. Please provide sources for discussion, or we have to reintroduce the sourced material.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::Obviously, the quality of the sources matter. But we have to start somewhere. I proposed a way to start listing sources, we can then decide how to assess the quality if necessary. I see a lot of words added here, but no sources. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I see no one has added a single source yet. It appears, based upon some comments, that it is OK to used the highly charged pejorative term "denial" or "denialist" and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. That isn't how this place works, as any regular editor should know. I see that some sources are in the article. I suggest we start discussing some of those, first to see if they qualify as supporting the claim, then as Jess suggests, for quality. I'll start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ===Sources supporting the use of the term "denier" or "denialist" to characterize WUWT=== # * Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis. created in 2006 by Anthony Watts. # * John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1616144009. Retrieved May 2015. #:: The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism #::the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That #::Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) # Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 0199566607. ===Sources supporting the use of the term "skeptical" to characterize WUWT=== # "Anthony Watts". DeSmogBlog. Anthony Watts is a climate skeptic best known as the founder and editor of the blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), which primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. # Morello, Lauren (December 14, 2012). "Early Drafts of Next Climate Report Leaked Online". Scientific American. ... a popular skeptic blog, "Watts Up With That?" # Samenow, Jason (May 12, 2011). "Say goodbye to the sunshine". Washington Post. The conservative/skeptic blog WattsUpWiththat ... # Schneider, Birgit; Nocke, Thomas (2014). Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. ... on Anthony Watts' skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" ... # Moran, Michael (February 3, 2010). "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs". Times Online. Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts: One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs ... # Coady, David; Corry, Richard (2013). The Climate Change Debate: An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry. ... the well-known skeptic website wattsupwiththat.com # Harvey, Fiona (March 9, 2010). "Politicising and scare tactics cloud the issue". Financial Times. Mr Watts is at the centre of a loose network of internet sites where sceptics criticise climate change science. # Kirilenko, Andrei; Stepchenkova, Svetlana (May 2014). "Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide" (PDF). Global Environmental Change. The most authoritative climate change skepticism web sites included Watts Up With That? # Elgesem, Dag; Steskal, Lubos; Diakopoulos, Nicholas (December 2014). "Structure and Content of the Discourse on Climate Change in the Blogosphere". Environmental Communication. Routledge. ... the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat.com # Lott, Maxim (March 5, 2015). "Google works to rank sites based on 'truthfulness'". Fox News. ... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims ... # Hayward, Steven (August 21, 2013). "Climategate II: Sequel as ugly as the original". Orange County Register. ... WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website # Also according to the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, journalist Fred Pearce described WUWT as "a soapbox for the largely sceptical news and views" of Watts, but I don't have access for an exact quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC) # Curry, Judith (June 28, 2014). "Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?". Climate Etc. Who do I include in the technical skeptical blogosphere? Tamino, Moyhu, Blackboard, Watts, Goddard, ClimateAudit, Jeff Id, Roman M. There are others, but the main discriminating factor is that they do data analysis, and audit the data analysis of others. Are all of these 'skeptics' in the political sense? No – Tamino and Moyhu definitely run warm, with Blackboard and a few others running lukewarm. Of these, Goddard is the most skeptical of AGW. There is most definitely no tribalism among this group. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ===Analysis of sources=== * Farmer/Cook (Denial support #1) It is interesting that Farmer/Cook claim that WUWT "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis". They don't cite a single example, but that's an aside. The source is being used to support the term "denial", which is not the same as misinformation, even if that claim were true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) * DeSmogBlog (Skeptical support #1) I trust most here are familiar with DeSmogBlog , one of the leading blogs on climate science issues, and decidedly not in the denialist or even skeptical (in the climate science sense of the term) camps. Thir discussion of him uses terms like skeptic, skeptical, and lukewarmer (as a quote) but no where do they describe him as a denier.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I don't think third-party blogs are acceptable because of the close relation between Watts and Watts's blog, that is, they'd be WP:BLPSPS even in this WUWT article. So I added only RS non-blog. Some are academic i.e. published by academic presses by authors with PhDs (unlike Grant and Cook, as far as I know). However, academic sources are not "better" according to any policy that I know of -- WP:SOURCES merely says they are "usually" the most reliable, but that wouldn't apply where lack of expertise is demonstrable, and we can set that against the fact that the put-denialism-in crowd are stuffing in statements with no consensus, but according to WP:NOCONSENSUS we "commonly" are supposed to stay with the version as of before the stuffing started. The above is not including additional sources saying Watts himself is a skeptic, such as PBS, New York Times, Science Magazine, and of course Watts himself -- it's acceptable for Watts to be a source about what is the opinion of Watts. On the same grounds it would be acceptable to quote WUWT about WUWT, but I didn't look for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC) * John Grant(Denial support #2) This is a very accomplished science-fiction author some of whose books I have enjoyed. This book is a non-fiction polemic of some skill. It is published by the non-fiction wing of the publisher that also does the Pyr science-fiction imprint. I would suggest that this is reliable for the opinion of Grant. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC) * Grant (Denial support #1) I agree it supports the claim. I don't know the source, and eyebrows raise at the purple prose - I'll be interested to see if they back their claim up with evidence, as opposed to opinion, but there's no question is supports the wording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC) * Dunlap (Denial support #3) At first blush, this seems to be a clear example of a supporting source. Although the exact phrasing of the reference to WUWT doesn't use the word "denial" it is clear in context that it is being added to the list of columnists, scientists, companies, newspapers, foundations, and other organizations which are claimed to be part of the organized denial machine. I started counting the entities involved, got to 30 before reading halfway through, and marveled at the sheer number of organizations involved in denial. The answer is found in the footnote at the end. Rather than make a distinction between those actually denying the concept of AGW from those who express some skepticism of any of the claims, they simply decide that "denier" is a more accurate term than "skeptic". They are, of course, entitled to define terms any way they want, just like you can call a tail a leg and declare than most dogs have five legs, but if you do so, you will find that you aren't contributing to knowledge, you are obfuscating it. I get that it makes their life easier, they don't actually have to do any work to distinguish true deniers from mere skeptics, but it means, in any broad conversation about denier versus skeptic (e.g. Wikipedia), that their comments need to be excluded, or at least caveated, to note that they are not using a definition consonant with the prevailing meaning of the word. In other words, this fails to support. It isn't a chapter about denial as used in Wikipedia, it is about both the entities involved in denial, and those involved in challenging one or more aspects of climate science issues in an honest way. An honest title would be "Organized climate changes skepticism or denial (sorry, we are too lazy to sort out the difference)."--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ===Comments on analysis=== Have you actually read the source, not just that single quote? As a start, I'd suggest reading through section 23.4: "Drivers of Climate Denial", where that quote is found.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :I've read it, except for pages 457 and 458, is there anything interesting on those pages? It does not support the claim that WUWT is denialist. The present question is whether it says WUWT is denialist. It does not. One things it does say is that the denial machine is funded by fossil fuel industries. This seems plausible. But Watts gets zero funding from fossil fuel companies, so that discussion of denialism is not about him. Is there something specific you wanted me to read?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::I have no idea how someone who's read the book could come to the conclusion it does not support the claim that WUWT publishes information on climate change denial. The full quote, by the way, is "This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficed climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis" and WUWT is listed in the section "Drivers of Climate Denial".   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::Headlines (section headings) are not Reliable Source for anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::Has anyone made such a claim? Seriously Jess, I don't know where you dig up these straw men. Does anyone challenge the notion that some deniers contributes to comments? No. Does anyone challenge the notion that there might even be some contributors who would qualify as deniers? No. That's what happens when you have a blog interested in pen open inquiry; instead of closing your mind and only allowing narrowly vetted opinions, you will get some contributors who say some things that some, myself included, consider absurd. Calling WUWT a denier blog simply beaause a few items might qualify as denial is like calling Instapundit an anti-education blog becasue he had a post today advocating the firing of education administrators. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Is it a strawman to say that anyone has called WUWT a "denier blog"? Those two words don't seem to appear in the article now, nor before. Or are you looking at what you consider to be a synonym? If so, can you see how someone may not see it as a synonym? jps (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC) :Farmer and Cook's words are: "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis." They didn't say "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis in the comments". Had they meant that, they probably would have said it. As for the claim that the section entitled "Drivers of Climate Denial" isn't about drivers of climate denial, if you're going to make that (somewhat absurd) claim, you should really read the section in its entirety. The first paragraph of 34.4 Drivers of Climate Denial are pretty explicit that this section explores, you know, the driving forces behind the climate change denial movement. Or, to use their words: "We shall now explore the driving forces behind the climate denial movement and the growing polarization." As for the subsection itself, they cite Johnson et al. (2009), a journal article about blogs, not blog comments as "CyberGhettos". :Read in context it's clear that Farmer and Cook are talking about WUWT as an example of a driver of denial. Any other interpretation requires an incredibly convoluted reading of the chapter. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Deniers rarely self-identify as deniers. Science deniers achieve very little coverage outside the walled garden of their own denialism. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC) == Proposed criticism section as a possible resolution to NPOV problem == Since Watts explicitly says that he is not a denier/denialist/believer in denialism and that WUWT does not promote that, it would be reasonable to conclude that such labels are contested. The association of climate change denial with holocaust denial makes this a sensitive issue. I'm not saying get rid of any mention of denial. That would certainly make this page inappropriately hagiographic. It does make sense to segregate the accusations using the widely used mechanism of a criticism page. Are there any objections? TMLutas (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :Criticism sections are generally a feature of poorly-written articles. So yes, I strongly oppose this. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)See WP:CSECTION. We can't relegate mainstream views to a separate section. If we have a secondary source indicating the label is disputed by Watts, we might be able to include that somewhere in the article, but right now I'm only aware of a primary source on WUWT, which signifies to me there may not be a significant encyclopedic controversy. Let me know if you're aware of a better source, however.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :Yes, I object, largely along the same reasoning as Jess. I suggest you are getting ahead of yourself. If we list all the sources, and Case 1: the overwhelming number and quality support the term "denialist" it belongs in the main section. Case 2: If the overwhelming number and quality support the term "skeptical", then it belongs in the main section. Case 3:If a large number support one term, but a significant number support a different term, then I would support the concept of relegating the minority position to a subsection. This isn't a new idea, it is SOP for all articles. However, I do not yet know that we are have concluded that Case 3 prevails.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC) : I suppose that would work, as long as the rest of the article went into a section called "nonsense WUWT spouts". Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC) == NPOV problem solved == Just put everything in, this stops the war. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) : It fixes nothing. Calling it a denialist site is factually inaccurate, and propagandistic. But that's Wikipedia, which is completely unreliable on any controversial topic, no matter what it is. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC) :: That's exactly what Andy Schlafly believes. Feel free to use his wiki instead, I understand some people manage to make dozens of edits before Schlafly bans them. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC) == Remember, it's about wording the article == The mildly absurd thing in all this fighting, it seems we have lost sight of one important issue here: the terms "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism" are (well documented to be) synonyms, at least in the context of scholarly communication about the topic. In fact, when people use the term "climate change skepticism" in scholarly communication these days, they tend to add a footnote to say "denial is more accurate, but..." So how do we capture that? How about "to climate change denial/skepticism" or "skepticism/denial"? We can (and should) argue over which word comes first, but the rest of it is just pointless. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :And also, per this. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::Correct, they are the same. Keep in mind, we have two arguments going on. One is whether we should say "climate change denial" or "climate change skepticism". That argument has been reasonably tame. The other argument is whether we should include (and link to) the topic of climate change denial at all. This second argument appears to suggest we define the topic as simply "a blog by Anthony Watts" and say little aside from him "discussing news and the climate". I find this second argument significantly more objectionable, since it fails to define the topic or encapsulate the mainstream pov. I don't prefer your wording, but it's certainly an attempt to resolve dispute #1, and without question preferable to dispute #2. Thanks, Guettarda.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::If its about the wording, and cos he's a Brit, shouldn't we at least spell it "sceptic? Just sayin. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Watts isn't a Brit, is he? Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::That would be wrong. Although some people try to equate the terms in some contexts, that doesn't show that in the specific cases of Watts and/or WUWT the meaning is the same. That is, if WUWT is described as skeptic then nobody has any business declaring themselves to be dictionaries and plunking in denier. And -- this is mostly for Jess but applies to all the put-denialism-in crowd -- you do not have a consensus for any of your recent changes in this article or in the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, there is significant opposition and it might grow. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::No, it's not "some people try[ing] to equate the terms in some contexts". On the contrary, the high-quality sources agree. There are two scholarly sources on the "skeptic" list. One (Elgesem et al.) explicitly discusses the skeptic/denier label, acknowledges the argument that 'denier' is probably the better term before saying "Still, in this study..." while the other (Schneider & Nocke) cites WUWT as an example of "Cherry picking obsolete graphs". Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::Read further, Elgesem et al say "we classified a blog as skeptic if it explicitly rejected that global warming is happening (trend skeptic), questioned that human activity has an effect on climate (attribution skeptic), or that climate change has serious consequences (impact skeptic)." -- so if WUWT "questioned" then it was classified as skeptic, and Elgesem et al did classify it as skeptic, this is a plain verifiable fact. The other three sources (yes there are four in all, Guettarda miscounted) also say skeptic, the fact that one criticizes WUWT is irrelevant since this is not about whether the source says WUWT used bad graphs, it is about whether the source says WUWT is a skeptic blog -- which it does. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ::::@Peter, please read WP:CON; consensus is not a matter of numbers (despite what Watts claimed on his blog), it's about the strength of the arguments. A good starting place to establishing a strong argument would be providing sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::Who decides an argument is strong? Editors. How do we know what editors decide? Count. Or appeal for moderation or arbitration of some sort. Or WP:AE. Or change the majority (Watts's hope, I suppose). Or loop till the current majority out-reverts the minority because our fingers might get numb more quickly. I suppose that last might be called consensus, but since it hasn't happened, your claims of consensus are false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ::::::Your assessment is completely at odds with WP:CON. If you want to suggest a change to policy, feel free to do it at WT:CON, not here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC) :::::::The policy is fine, the problem is when people say there's a consensus that isn't there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ::: By that reasoning, the article on AIDS denialism should be renamed HIV-AIDS skepticism. What next? Moon landing "skeptics"? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) The article is outrageously non-neutral. It starts with a factual error (denial) and then devotes itself to a one-sided argument against some of the articles that appear there. Very much par for the course for Wikipedia, which is why this "encyclopedia" is universally distrusted when it comes to any topic on which there is disagreement. People here can tell themselves whatever they want. We know they will. But the article is garbage, and quite transparently so. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC) :It seems that our definitions of "factual error" differ. The blog certainly hosts content which denies certain aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Watts also disagrees with certain aspects o such. Do you dispute this? jps (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) == Is a lukewarmer a denier? == Watts puts himself in a camp he calls the "lukewarmer". Apparently other blogosphere nattering nabobs seem to adopt that position when parsing the difference between certain people who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. That's fine with me, but I have yet to see a reliable source (read "not a self-published blog") which demarcates with authority how one might distinguish between a lukewarmer and a denier as imagined by Watts and others on this kick. Does anyone have such a source? On the other hand, I see many sources which lump (fairly or unfairly) the whole lot of those who thumb their noses at the IPCC as those who "deny" climate change. They may not deny the sum total of climate change, but that's not really the concern of most of the sources who actually study what these groups do. I have been unable to find any reliable source (read "peer reviewed" or at least "published by an academic publisher") which makes the distinction between lukewarmers and denialists clearly. Please provide one if you can find it, preferably that references this blog. jps (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC) : It's a rather transparent attempt to distance himself from the obvious lunatic fringe. As one of the leading enablers for said fringe, he doesn't really get to choose. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Yes, they can. Based on this description, it could be argued that lukewarmers should not be regarded as skeptics. But it should be noted that they often express very critical views of climate science, for example, by describing the behavior of some scientists as being appalling, or saying that climate models are useless. One individual refers to himself (perhaps ironically) as a “lukewarm denialist,” and others describe themselves as skeptics and lukewarmers. Guettarda (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC) References  ::Thanks, Guettarda. I think that seals the deal unless someone can find a source that is more reliable which disputes this evaluation. jps (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC) :::Maybe Watts called himself lukewarmer somewhere -- you don't say where -- but what matters is what he usually calls himself (which I think is probably skeptic), and what most reliable sources call him (which is definitely skeptic). As for claiming that something said about an unknown "lukewarm denialist" proves something about all people who've said they're "lukewarmer" -- er, no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) == What sort of expert could be an authority on denialism? == I think it's worth asking just what sort of expert is qualified to associate the label "denialist" with a person or a collection of writings or a website. I don't think citing experts in climate is enough. Experts in climate know climate. They're not experts in human psychology or behavior. It seems to me that only psychologists or anthropologists are qualified to make such a judgement. Others are acting outside their area of expertise. Mc6809e (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC) : Any expert in a field where there is robust consensus, including climate change, is qualified to judge whether contrarian statements amount to legitimate scientific skepticism or denialism. It's a lot like the pseudoscience demarcation issue. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ::I agree with Mc6809e. Denialism is, according to the Wikipedia article, is more than just contrarian statements it is associated with paid flackery and ideological motivations. How is a climate expert to judge the base motivations of dissenters to judge whether someone is skeptical or a "denialist"? Capitalismojo (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ::: Denialism does not imply paid flackery (though WUWT passes that bar, with its obscure funding and documented handouts from the Koch-funded Heartland Institute). Denialism is wilful denial of the evidence. And WUWT does just that. Science judges new facts according to how well they fit the data, denialism judges them by how well they fit the narrative. You could more accurately characterise it as pseudoscience, but denialism is more widely used in this context. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) A quick trawl of Google finds that the idea of WUWT being a denialist blog is pretty widespread, and Scientific American don't seemt o have a problem with this characterisation: Rather, the big problem was that the poll was skewed by visitors who clicked over from the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That? Run by Anthony Watts, the site created a web page urging users to take the poll. — Do 80 percent of Scientific American subscribers deny global warming? Hardly Naturally, the “stupid” — which are most likely those considered “climate deniers” — have a response. A well-known “climate denier” Anthony Watts posted on his blog Watt’s Up With That this response: — This Is Bloomberg Businessweek’s Hurricane Sandy Cover Michael Burgess (R-TX), cited an online public opinion poll (in and of itself an unscientific way of sampling opinion data) as reason for rejecting the science of global warming. Making matters worse, it turns out the particular poll was targeted by well-known climate science denial website Watt’s Up With That in a campaign to skew the results. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Votes for Science Denial The blogging heart of climate change denial, Watt’s Up With That is calling for their army of winged monkeys to descend on the local theatre company’s contact page. — Global climate denial industry turns its sights on Joy Burch The blog features the fringe views of climate misinformers like Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors and conservative media have previously seized on its misleading content. — Meet The Climate Denial Machine Before the numbers were even in, the science denialist blog Watts Up With That began downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects — and even death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan — a ferocious storm that may have claimed as many as 10,000 lives. — Skeptical climate blog shamefully downplays Super Typhoon Haiyan Watts and McIntyre characterize themselves as skeptical on some climate change issues, and Muller agrees that they are skeptics not deniers. Unfortunately, the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, — Science Denial and the Science Classroom Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. It does not disclose its funding sources. Anthony Watts, its proprietor, has worked as a broadcast weatherman for years but has no degree. — Denier blogs The best of them — and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the web site Watts Up With That — have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. — Denying global warmign despite no actual expertise This is not exactly a controversial view, other than among climate deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC) @Mc6809e and Capitalismojo: Excellent point. As I'm sure you know, Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright are sociologists, while John Cook is working on a PhD in psychology. That's a strong argument in favour of "denial" rather than "skepticism", since it's being made by the most relevant experts. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) @Mc6809e: I brought up that question in relation to climatologist Michael Mann in an earlier thread but the majority decided he's not a poor source. That does leave, however, the objection that Mann represents a minority view and should not be a star featured source. I say "minority" based on reliable sources acceptable in Wikipedia on the topic, Guy doesn't seem to have made an effort to filter those. Guettarda correctly notes that Dunlap + McCright are sociologists, but re John Cook: he has a BSc in Physics from the University of Queensland, and if he someday gets a higher degree that won't show that he was an "expert" when writing for a book published in 2013. His blog Skeptical_Science appears to be a rival of WUWT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC) NPOV: Skeptic vs denial Please note that both terms are under discussion here. Both terms are synonyms. Saying the term denial is in dispute is true, but so is the term "skeptic". Removing one and leaving the other is just POV pushing. Guettarda (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC) It's also frustrating that the content is being continually removed under the guise of "no consensus" or "under discussion" by editors not participating in the discussion. We established consensus to link climate change denial prior to the canvassing that took place off-wiki. After the canvassing, new editors began disputing that consensus without advancing any significant argument or providing sources. Finally, we have a few low to medium quality sources that say "skeptic", but not one that disputes the list of high quality sources that back up denier. Guettarda's compromise to include both words was just removed, now leaving the intro sourced to the lowest quality sources we have available... and without participation in the relevant section. This is getting insanely disruptive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC) NPOV tag The article is tagged as if neutrality of the entire thing is disputed. The only actual dispute I can see (other than from the ignorable fringes) is precisely how we cover the issue of denialism, specifically, how we contextualise the fact that Watts claims to be a skeptic while the reality-based community frequently characterises this as a denialist blog, and climate change "skepticism" more generally is also generally understood to be denialism. On that basis I think the NPOV tag should go and we should simply RfC which of a small number of potential alternative forms of words we should use. Give off-wiki canvassing I think a franchise requirement would eb prudent in any RfC. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)