Talk:Watts Up With That?

Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism

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

---

There is dispute over the significance of WUWT being described as a climate change denialist blog, particularly in the lede. There appear to be three main possibilities within the lede:

1. Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog.
2. Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution.
3. Go with denialist.

Please discuss, identifying whether you support or oppose each of the three options.

Note that due to canvassing, as per normal practice in Wikipedia debates, the closing editor or admin is likely to disregard the opinions of editors with little or no prior contribution to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I oppose the first, strongly support the second and weakly support the third. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not ripe. One might hope that an RfC on a content question would be heavily influenced by what the reliable sources say. I started an initiative to identify the relevant sources c.f. Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Lists_of_sources and although it is strongly weighted toward support of skeptical only (with a possible inclusion of a minority section), I don't think it is close to complete. I would urge us to gather some facts before pronouncing sentence, is that fair?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not a neutral question about the issue. Guy did not discuss this wording or follow the WP:RFC suggestion to "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". One alternative is not to base just on "self-identification", the alternative is to follow the prevalence of the reliable sources on the matter (which generally say skeptic). I should warn anyone wishing to engage here that Guy has referred to those who don't call it a denial blog as "idiots" here, so bring a thick skin if you're joining this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What is not neutral aboutbt he statement that "There is dispute over the significance of WUWT being described as a climate change denialist blog, particularly in the lede"? That is precisely the question at issue above. I offer three alternatives (exclude, include alongside Watts' preferred characterisation, include without Watts' preferred characterisation). You could have started an RfC yourself if you wanted the question phrased differently, but you didn't. Someone has to break the logjam. Also you appear not to have understood the meaning of the term "useful idiot". We have an article, do read it. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As I explained, it's the wording of your "alternatives" that is not neutral, and the example I gave was that you pretend the desire to allow skeptic is due to what Watts self-identifies as / prefers, when in fact it's due to what most reliable sources say. Others would probably have concentrated on other alternatives or wording, if they'd been asked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If I could add to this, this rfc as presented has major problems with all three options.

Option 1: "Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog." Aside from inserting his own opinion in this option, this option is presented as an "all or none" choice for the entire article. The question is relating to the article's lede, but this option is asking if we should remove all mention of word 'denial'. The option could simply say; "Identify WUWT as a blog committed to climate change skepticism. Omit the word 'denial' from the article's lede."

Option 2: "Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution." This option is vaguely worded and could be interpreted many different ways by the usual POV-pushers. What exact wording is being suggested? What is being presented as fact in the article's lede? Does this mean clarify 'denial' as being used be Watts' opponents? Does it mean clarify that 'skepticism' is a self-identification, or to present it as fact? I'm not sure how anyone voting for this option could possibly know what they are voting for.

Option 3: "Go with denialist" Again, not sure what this means exactly. I guess it might mean state as fact in the lead that "WUWT is a blog dedicated to climate change denial". Is so, it should be more clear.

I suggest this rfc be rejected entirely and reworded by someone who understands the concept of neutrality. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Confusing RFC -- see PG's comments above. What we should be working towards is a short NPOV article that represents RS's fairly. This may be difficult to achieve. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And one step towards that is to settle the vexed question over the issue of whether to describe it as a denialist blog in the lede. Feel free to give your opinion on that. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not a neutral question about the issue I question Guy's motives and sincerity. (and Jess's also). The efforts to use the label 'denial/denier' in the lede is an obvious attempt to smear the WUWT blog. It's quickly obvious to anyone who reads the wuwt blog that neither Anthony Watts, nor any of his contributors "deny" that the climate is changing, that 20th century warming has occurred, or that co2 has an effect on climate. The sources being cited in favor of using 'denial' are just opinions written/published by known enemies of Anthony Watts, and with a vested interest in suppressing criticism over CAGW. If "denial" is used at all, it should be demoted to the body of the article, with clarification that "denial" is a label used by Anthony Watts' opponents, and be accompanied by a quote of Mr Watt's official position on climate change. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

btw, just in case there's any question, I was not "canvassed" by WUWT to sway voting. I've been following this article and posted a comment as early as May 21, several days before this controversy was ever mentioned on the WUWT blog. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose' first, support second, don't think the third would fairly represent Watts' characterization of the blog. I'm having trouble seeing why Sphilbrick, Peter Gulutzan, Pete Tilman, and 24.9.166.120 don't want to answer the question Guy poses. If you think the question is badly worded, simply rephrase it to this: how should WWUT be described? Should any mention of denialism be excised from this article, should Watts' self-identification of skeptic or lukewarmer be used along with attributed descriptions of denialism, or should the blog simply be described as denialist? Not a hard question to answer, I'd think. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose first, support second and third. My preference is #3, since (thus far) the highest quality sources we've been able to find identify the blog that way. If it's contentious enough in reliable sources (though I haven't seen that), we can discuss the controversy over wording in the body and express Watts' views explicitly. I can also live with Guettarda's proposal, which is in the article now. Several claims above (such as "denial" being a minority position) are untrue, but unfortunately, it is necessary to read the entire talk page to see why. I have additional concerns about starting an RfC only several days after this page was canvassed by the subject, which has led to disproportionate participation from editors sympathetic to the subject's pov. Of course, we should therefore expect disproportionate !voting in that direction, which is going to make this RfC less useful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE stop talking about sources for "denial" and "denialist." This is patently absurd. These are not scientific terms. No one can believe that Watts actually denies the climate is changing. He acknowledges it over and over. So what you have is a derogatory colloquialism. No matter how many "experts" use it, it is completely unencyclopedic. If they all called the blog a "dogsh-t," would you reference them and make the argument that term should be used in the lede? Of course not. This is blatantly POV and reflects on all the worst problems with Wikipedia.Darkthlayli (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why ? "dedicated to denial" is not wrong, although quite logically leading to a full characterization of denialism at the end of the lede. Note that there are two major kinds of motivation for expecting reading denial ( of climate change. ) Interest, such as in aggressive productivism, and anguish, "maybe it's simply not so after all". --Askedonty (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Please stop talking about sources"? No. We are not saying "denialist", or even just "denial"; we are saying "climate change denial", the common name for a topic that WUWT promotes. You should read that article; it is not only about denying climate change broadly, but also dismissing and downplaying facts about climate change. WUWT is not only identified as an actor in climate change denial, but one of its primary promoters. Academic sources back that up, which is the whole reason it should be included in our coverage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So, your argument is that "climate change denial" does not, literally, mean denying climate change. Used as a term, it actually includes a much wider array of activities. And you think it is better to use this term, which, read literally, does not mean what it says, than just to use words which do mean what they say. And to establish that "climate change denial" means what you say, you point to... another very contentious wikipedia page. "Climate change denial" does not appear in Oxford English Dictionary. It does not show up in scientific texts. It appears only in various articles and books published by people on one side of the issue. If we set up a wikipedia page on "Global Warming Alarmism" we could find references of equal quality, from famous scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Happer, Pielke, Singer, Christy, Dyson, Koonin, etc. Would you be okay with that, and with subsequent references to Mann as an alarmist and Skeptical Science as an alarmist site (as though anyone would take the time to write about Skeptical Science). Do you really contend, seriously contend that your choice of this terminology is because you feel it is most descriptive, and has nothing whatsoever to do with its pejorative connotation? I can't believe any objective administrator would believe that.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If a reader doesn't know what it means, we provide a link to our article which describes the topic in detail. You seem to be under the misconception that opinions are divided on the topic of climate change within the scientific community. They are not.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Most people know exactly what climate change denial means, and will not check your link. They rightly believe that climate denial means denying that climate is changing. Wattsupwiththat is not guilty of this. I don't see what the opinion of the "scientific community" has to do with this. It is not a matter of opinion. I can link to hundreds of quotes from Watts and his contributors that acknowledge climate is changing. But, if what you are saying is that I believe many, many experts use the term "alarmist," I certainly do. Do more experts use the term "denier?" Undoubtedly. Is that an argument for employing one term and not the other in an encyclopedia? No. For the record, I doubt you know what percentage of the scientific community believes what about climate change, since there is only one reliable survey out there and I've never seen an alarmist cite it.Darkthlayli (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• If this were a political topic, it would be self-evident that the appropriate approach to neutrality is the second. Further, it would be self-evident that the sources required to substantiate the pejorative description must be held to a higher-than-usual standard. Specifically, that mere accusations from those holding the opposite opinion in the debate are insufficient. The sources themselves must demonstrate some level of neutrality in the characterization.
  For example, if Republican Politician Alice calls Democratic Politician Bob a socialist, that statement would not be enough to rewrite the lede of the biography to describe Bob as a socialist even if Alice's statement was definitively sourced and witnessed by millions. The fact that Alice said it might be encyclopedic but that mere claim does not become an assumption of truth. Nor does it become "more true" when other Republicans repeat the same claim. Actual evidence of independent evaluation is required. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  I should clarify. The approach to the article is the second option. The opening paragraph should be more neutral. Critical characterizations by opponents in the debate are included in the body of the article but almost never in the opening paragraph. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this is a bit more than Alice and Bob. Mann is a significant figure and a world-renowned expert in the field. This is more like the Speaker of the House castigating Bob for socialist propaganda from the chair. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WUWT is not a colleague of Mann, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook, engaged in a political dispute. WUWT is repeatedly identified by nearly all the sources we have available as an actor in a movement known as "climate change denial", and Mann, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook are the experts in the relevant field we are citing to demonstrate that. There are many other experts who say the same thing. This isn't "republicans vs democrats", it is "science vs pseudoscience" or "experts vs non-experts"; it would be absurd to weight the claims of republicans over democrats, but we are not only allowed, but compelled to weight science over non-science, and experts over non-experts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2: obviously the important thing about the blog is that it takes a particular position (or range of positions), and so the lead needs to reflect this fact. Obviously also there is disagreement about the terminology used to describe this position. The most natural resolution is to include both the preferred "skepticism" label of the blog-owner, and the well-sourced "denialism" label. (I would also be open to something like "opposes the scientific consensus on climate change," which was in use at Watts's page at some point, but it did not seem to garner a lot of support there.) --JBL (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3: obviously the important thing about the blog is that it takes a particular position (Denial), and so the lead needs to reflect this fact. This is of course backed up by solid mainstream scientific sources, as discussed at length on this page, and denied by some editors. I don't understand why. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The RfC is pretty heavily weighted toward using Watts' self description primarily. There are several variations of option 2, including:
  1. Guettarda's suggestion: is a blog dedicated to [[climate change denial|climate change skepticism or denial]]
  2. ...opposes the [[scientific consensus on climate change]], with Mann's quote linking to climate change denial later.
  3. The most direct reading of Guy's phrasing in the RfC: is a blog dedicated to [[climate change denial|climate change skepticism]] with Mann's quote later.

It would be helpful to rephrase the RfC so option 2 read "use both labels", and if it receives enough support, have a follow-up discussion about what precise wording is most appropriate. As it stands, I had supported option 2, but there are definitely versions of options 2 I would be opposed to. For instance, I dislike my 3rd variant above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2 or 3; leaning towards Jess' suggestion above. It seems obvious to me that using high quality sources (weighted most heavily to peer-reviewed literature and books by academic presses, less to books by other mainstream publishers, less still to more ephemeral sources like newspaper and magazine articles, and least toward SPSs) we end up with "climate change skepticism/denialism" in some form. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, I say put all the sources in, all the valid information, and make it an encyclopedic entry, with a bunch of factual sources. Trying to slant the article by removing sources, and removing information, is not NPOV, in fact it's the opposite of NPOV. If all sources and all data is included, the reader can either make up their own mind, or realize there is a fair bit of controversy and vastly different views of the blog. Which is of course, the actual situation. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, if there had been a choice for that -- something like "include in the article all the known reliable sources that say denier or skeptic (or words with the same roots)" -- I'd have "voted" for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 2 - self-description and description by high quality reliable sources seems most pertinent to include in the lede. Try to ensure both are given equal-ish weight. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: This RfC is a complete waste of time. None of the 3 possible solutions included in the RfC are even options. Per WP:WTW, the term "denialist" should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is not the case here. The outcome of the RfC is completely meaningless as local concensus cannot override community concensus. We simply cannot violate the rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That means we avoid the term unless reliably sourced. Which, in this case, it unquestionably is. So the onyl debate is around significance and weight. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose false trichotomy Per WP:LABEL, the term "denialist" should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is not the case here. Therefore, so all three aren't even realistic options. This RfC is a complete waste of time as none of the 3 'solutions' apply to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We have peer-reviewed scholarly publications and books by major academic publishers that support the usage. These are the best possible sources. As you well know. Guettarda (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the vast majority of peer-reviewed scholarly publications do not use the term 'denier'. This has already been discussed at length and the fact remains that the vast, overwhelming majority don't use this term at all. As you well know (or at least should if you've been following this discussion). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good thing we're not discussing the label "denier", then! You say "peer-reviewed scholarly publications" largely use your preferred wording, but the only sources presented on this talk page have been low quality, non-scholarly sources, like news clippings and blogs. The academic sources presented thus far (from experts like Mann and Dunlap) all say "climate change denial", and having reviewed the sources personally, I assure you there are more that haven't been listed too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That is false. Sources saying skeptic blog are listed and quoted in an earlier section of this talk page here. Ignoring the two blogs (#1, #13), there are four academic reliable sources (#4, #6, #8, #9) and seven mainstream-media reliable sources (#2, #3, #5, #7, #10, #11, #12). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, where has this discussion taken place? Please link to it. Not here, not on this page, not as far as I can see. Seriously, calm down; you're making wild claims here, you're edit-warring on Watts' bio... You have a hard time abiding by the norms of the community on this topic, hence your topic ban from the arbcomm. Given your past behaviour, the onus is on to you abide by a higher standard than the bare minimum we expect from editors. For your own good you need to step away from this topic. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, of course we're discussing the label "denier". And no, I don't have preferred wording, I check my policitics at the door. I look at the sources first and then form my conclusions based on empirical evidence. Not the other way around. I suggest that everyone do the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google):

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You've posted this list repeatedly, despite several users having pointed out that "random sampling" from google isn't a useful metric. Since it's a waste of time, I hadn't bothered investigating further, but I just did, and your summary is disingenuous and misleading at best. You've listed 21 sources, and claim that "denier" is not applied to the subject even once. Yet, 6 of your sources (roughly 30%) directly state or heavily imply that Watts Up With That or its author promote climate change denial:

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1]: "Unfortunately, the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, for example..." [2] "'Climate scepticism' and 'climate denial' are readily used concepts..." Spends several paragraphs discussing the concept and equating the two labels, and in so doing, references Watts. [3] "Watts Up with That? and Climate Audit... are anti-climate science, conservative sites that deny that climate change results from human activity" [4] "Anthony Watts, who the "Facts" group described as a "climate change denier", "Watts where he gets to espouse his political beliefs... boiler plate climate denial", "the denier Anthony Watts", "debunked denier, Anthony Watts" [5] He is listed under the heading "Derision from deniers" [6] "has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs"... Watts up With That is listed a few paragraphs later, clearly still discussing the same idea.

I'm not interested in debating which way your "random samplings" lean, but I am interested in you representing your sources fairly. To claim the word "denier" is never used in these sources is a fabrication.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mann_jess: First, "heavily imply" doesn't cut it. Second, I think you might be counting words in quotations. That's a completely different thing as the author's own words. In any case, I'm going to be busy the rest of the day, but I'll try take a closer look at your list tomorrow, and if I need to make any corrections, I will. But even if you are right about 30%, that's still a minority, not the majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be obvious what I intended; I'm doing my very best to be honest about the source's intention, but all 6 use a variant of the word "denial" while discussing Watts or his blog. To reiterate, it doesn't matter which direction your "random sampling" leans; it is a worthless metric. It is not random, and not a representative sample, but even if it were, that's not how we make content decisions on wikipedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Watts is a skeptic...he even stated in his own words this and claimed he also believes that some of the climate change is due to humans. Why is it that unless one absolutely agrees with everyone else they get misrepresented?--MONGO 01:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• I suggest option 2.a which is to use the terms he does which is that he is skeptical in regards to AGW. His arch rivals opinions are not really very important. I may feel otherwise if Watts outright denied that humans are impact climate but he does not do that.--MONGO 18:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support 1 as the other 2 are pejorative and unencyclopedic. There is nothing scientific about "denial". it's all political which makes no source authoritative about it. --DHeyward 02:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, support 2 and/or 3.

Wikipedia's guidelines related to pseudoscience apply.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Calling Watt's [sic] a "pseudoscience pundit" is a BLP violation. As is alleging funding by "industry culprits". As is claiming his goal is to "disinform the public". About the only thing you said correctly is that Wikipedia guidelines apply. Please self-revert. (I know should probably remove it myself, but there will be less drama if you do so.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but have removed the sentence as a courtesy. All of the above characterizations are sourced. Please read the Watts BLP (particularly the lead, blogging, and relationship with Heartland and quotes in footnotes) and Talk page. I've added a couple more sources below.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 - Persons/websites/blogs that hold an opinion so far outside of the mainstream, accepted point-of-view as to be considered "fringe" do not get to color themselves favorably in a neutral encyclopedia. We would never, in the Wikipedia voice, call Holocaust Deniers "holocaust skeptics". Tarc (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support skeptic Alternatives are worded in a biased fashion. Just as we have United States pro-choice movement and United States pro-life movement, which are the terms the movements use to describe themselves, Watts clearly describes himself as a "skeptic" [7], so that's the term we should use.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Except no one claims either side in the abortion debate have picked a moniker inconsistent with reality, whereas there are lots of sources talking about that inconsistency in the area of climate change denial.

• Support 2 To students of genuine scientific skepticism vs denial, Watts is obviously a denier, but that's using specialist knowledge. Since we're lowly wikipedia editors, we NPOV the sources, and since this is a BLP we report the conflict between his self-description and that of his critics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You are arguing that WUWT has asserted that they are climate change deniers?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• 3 or possibly 2, but with the same concerns as Jess as to the issues that arise with option 2. We say what the sources say, but the wording of option 2 could be improved. Stickee (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Asking readers to ......

The article now includes RS based statement that "WUWT asks its readers to vote in the Bloggies". That got me thinking about how it asks readers to other things also. For example, WUWT recruited readers to come here and impact our consensus on this article. Should we fold in that meat-puppetry somehow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As you note, the bloggies part is RS based. Unless the meat-puppetry was covered in a published RS, we have to ignore it in the same way that we ignored attempts by creationist blogs to recruit edits to intelligent design articles.
However, at #What sort of expert could be an authority on denialism? there's a link to a piece by Philip Yam, Managing Editor, of Scientific American, discussed WUWT getting readers to game their informal online poll. Amusingly, he's responding to a WSJ editorial by "techno-utopian intellectual" George Gilder, ID proponent and co-founder of the Disco Tute. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This in Science Progress also looks a possibility, as does Global climate denial industry turns its sights on Joy Burch - Canberra CityNews. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Unless the meat-puppetry was covered in a published RS, we have to ignore it".... but of course. Wasn't such a source being discussed awhile back in the scads of comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

From a quick scan, the only source seems to be WUWT and I think we need a reliable secondary source. Glad to be corrected. . dave souza, talk 11:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made an effort at Anthony Watts (and plan to do the same here) to deprecate primary sources from the subject in favor of independent secondary sources. I think we should shy away from covering any topic that's only discussed on WUWT and not independently. Yes, it makes finding content a lot harder, but it ensures we're not covering anything insignificant.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I found what I was thinking of, and its just a blog. Sorry. for some reason I thought this was an RS disucssion earlier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

[sark alert] Ha! And Al Gore is fat, so there :-) (/Poe) Anyway, the other instances look possible. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That blog is… mind-boggling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You even get a mention. Reading that blog certainly beats reading WUWT if you want to keep up with the denialosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to neutral

This article is in breach of the neutral point of view policy from the first word to the last, but what is the point of trying to change closed minds? It amazes me, as a rational atheist in the best tradition of the Enlightenment, that people who support climate alarmism cannot see that they are the ones who are behaving like religious fanatics. 86.31.123.65 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please list a specific issue you would like to be fixed, backed up by reliable sources. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

At least the frequent pejorative and sourced use of word 'denial' shows clearly what is going on. Real Science or The Hockeyschtick might be best described as denialism. WUWT merely gives voice to a wide range of dissidents with very varying background, with opinion varying from lukewarmism to hard core denial. The article could be improved by including Watts' own public position regarding the climate change, which is not denial. Won't link it here, though. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Another RfC

The RfC which JzG/Guy began on May 28, "Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism", has been closed by User:Sunrise with several remarks, of which I believe this is the most important:

"As such, there is no conclusion in favor of any specific wording. This also means that for those editors who feel that more sources should be identified or that more options should be considered, they can make proposals to remedy that in the future."

Right, so -- if User:Sphilbrick has no more sources to add -- I here make a suggestion that we can try for a wording which is either neutral or fairly representative of the two or more non-neutral sides in the dispute. My own suggestion for a question is:

"Put in the lead: 'According to some sources the blog is skeptic (about climate change and/or global warming issues), according to other sources the blog is denialist.' -- citing reliable sources given by each side in our argument, removing all other mention of either denial or skeptic in the article."

and at a guess the put-denialism-in folks can suggest

"Go with denialist -- which means the article as it stands at this moment, since it's already been changed to say WUWT is denialist."

If once again there is no consensus, then I believe policy requires us to revert the recent changes, which should be a simple matter of restoring the lead to what it was on (say) April 21 2015. Or suggest another dispute resolution mechanism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed question is ill-formed, "some sources" isn't acceptable as . You're welcome to make specific proposals, citing sources thus allowing examination of the usage of "skepic" as a synonym for climate change denial. The question arises of who's using the "skeptic" label, which is more prevalent in the media but doesn't accuragely reflect mainstream scientific opinion. Similarly, the provenance of sources for denial should be shown. Detailed consideration of actual proposals is needed rather than jumping to a RFC on vague principles. . . dave souza, talk 06:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess you didn't understand my words "citing reliable sources given by each side in our argument". To expand: the idea is that each side can present their own reliable sources for the proposed question, and the sources get cited after "skeptic" and after "denial", or at sentence end. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead already does that. What further sources do you propose, and how are your ideas consistent with giving due weight to the clear majority expert view on the science? . . dave souza, talk 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Assume one extracted from "Lists of sources" from the earlier talk thread and you reject all the skeptic ones, just as I would reject the denial ones -- that's why I suggest using both, it's one way of compromising. Of course anyone could refuse to compromise and vote against such a choice. Now, does anyone have anything to say about what should be the choices in the RfC and how they should be worded, i.e. the thread topic? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

At the time that list was started, I was clear it was not useful for this purpose, but I was ignored. It's not helpful to "source count" uses of the word "skeptical" vs uses of the word "denial", and especially not when there has been minimal effort to even flesh out the "denial" list or assess the literature fairly. Another RfC is not going to encourage new dialogue, especially if you plan to ask the same question again. The RfC was successful - we got comments from new editors, and developed the current wording (along with several variations). If you have an issue with our current coverage, you should list specific sources which back up a change.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The result of JzG's RfC was no consensus, that is, the put-denialism-in side failed despite its non-neutral presentation. You are free to try to "flesh out" the denial sources before a new RfC. If you don't like the wording of one of the questions because you think it is the same as in JzG's -- presumably the "go with denialist" bit -- suggest another way to express it. If you just don't like seeing another RfC, suggest another way to get dispute resolution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The most common input in the RfC was that it was premature, the question was ill-formed, and the options were not exhaustive. Starting another RfC without discussion, and with essentially the same formulation and options, is ignoring the close. I already suggested another method of dispute resolution: clarify the issue you have with our current wording along with a change, and back up your change with reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there was no suggestion in the close of the RfC that it should be re-run immediately, let alone that there was a need for further dispute resolution. The part of the close relating to possible future action said that "those editors who feel that more sources should be identified or that more options should be considered, they can make proposals to remedy that in the future." I see no new sources proposed here; nor any new options for possible wording based on new or particular sources. --Nigelj (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has started a new RfC "without discussion", you're looking at the attempt to discuss before starting. Again: are there other suggestions what the RfC's wording should be? I believe this RfC differs in important ways from the one that failed, so it is going to take place, barring agreement about another method of dispute resolution. (Mann jess's suggestion isn't in that category, since I believe I have already clarified the issue and pointed to some reliable sources -- subject to revision.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

All too vague: all that suggests is that you don't like due weight being given to the mainstream view that WUWT promotes denial of climate change science. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait a few more days to see whether other suggestions occur. We disagree so I'll continue to try for compromise and outsider dispute resolution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: I think "skeptic" and "denialist" are essentially synonymous. The shades of gray applied to each are largely only accepted by those who are so labeled. Adopting any wording which would tend to disambiguate between "skeptic" and "denialist" is essentially adopting the POV of those who have been so labeled. jps (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Watts Up With That" blog be called "denier"?

The basic Watts Up With That description before May 1 was "is a weather and climate commentary site (blog)". Here are two ways to change the article:

1. Put in the lead: 'According to some sources the blog is skeptic (about climate change and/or global warming issues), according to other sources the blog is denialist.' -- citing reliable sources given by each side in our argument, removing most other mention of either denial or skeptic in the article. Like this.

2. Or, Go with denialist -- which means the article as it stands at this moment, since it's already been changed to say WUWT is denialist. Like this.

? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

My comment: Choice 1 has my "vote". An earlier RfC got no consensus; this one differs by showing reliable non-blog sources for both "skeptic" and "denier" in choice #1, and making clear what "go with denialist" (the words of the earlier RfC) actually implies in choice #2. I believe the sources for saying "skeptic" alone are overwhelming but this is an attempt to compromise. If there is yet another failure to get consensus, my understanding is that we must return to the original wording, without either skeptic or denier, as of May 1 2015, before the worst disputes began. Since that date editors who have edited the article or talk page (excluding bots etc.) are: User:A Quest For Knowledge User:AClimateSkeptic User:Akhilleus User:AnotherProf User:ArtifexMayhem User:Arzel User:Askedonty User:Capitalismojo User:Cptmrmcmillan User:Cpwernham User:Darkthlayli User:Dave souza User:DGaw User:DHeyward User:Filippo83 User:Fxmastermind User:Gmakwiki User:Guettarda User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc User:Joel B. Lewis User:John G Eggert User:Johnuniq User:JzG User:KMAnomalocaris User:Mann jess User:Mc6809e User:MissPiggysBoyfriend User:MONGO User:NewsAndEventsGuy User:Nigelj User:Nomoskedasticity User:Oefinell User:PeterPearson User:PeterTheFourth User:Pigsonthewing User:Rex Forcer User:Rossami User:Roxy the dog User:Sarms58 User:Sphilbrick User:Stephan Schulz User:Stickee User:Sunrise User:ThePowerofX User:Tarc User:Tillman User:TMLutas User:Ubikwit User:William M. Connolley [User:141.162.101.50]] User:24.9.166.120 User:68.116.52.99User:68.40.50.81 User:71.227.188.49 User:84.250.122.35 User:86.31.123.65 ... User:Anythingyouwant User:Bulk Moduli User:Everymorning User:Longauria User:Ponysboy User:Sodium Fluoride User:Shoalshone User:SJ Defender User:Starstrux User:Tafortos User:Valentine Michael Smythe User:Vsmith User:108.195.137.231 User:108.51.65.63 User:2600:1003:b007:d95e:0:1c:a3e2:e301 User:68.146.174.30 User:86.152.125.244 User:88.168.219.244 Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A solution that tries to disambiguate between a skeptic and a denialist as your Option 1 does is not an acceptable solution. There seems to be a consensus of reliable sources that the two terms are synonymous. jps (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there is a consensus that the two terms are synonymous. It may be helpful to do a formal inventory but I'll react with an off the top of the head reaction. Many sources do use the terms to mean different things. At least one important source made it clear the two terms are not the same, but then made a curious decision to use denier to refer to both groups. This might be an acceptable pragmatic decision, but it would not be accurate to identify this source as claiming the terms are synonymous. There are others who recognize a difference between the two terms, but find it difficult to identify a clear demarcation line, so might opt to use one term or the other. This may be an acceptable approach, but an inability to articulate a unique way to identify each group is not the same as a conclusion that the two terms are synonymous. If we want to conclude that the two terms are synonymous, we need to find that a large portion of the reliable sources make the statement. I doubt that this claim is made in a quarter of the sources much less enough to justify calling it a consensus.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources on this topic are the papers written in the social science journals and the ones written in the environmental science journals. I have gone through an extensive search of the topic and find that generally the indistinguishability of the two groups is given as a rather plain fact in these mainstream discussions. I understand how someone who includes Alan Moran's massively unreliable book, Climate change : the facts. on their reading list may be led to believe that there is something different going on in the actual mainstream community, but we don't give credence to such WP:FRINGE views as elucidating the general form of the mainstream understanding of a subject. jps (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• For easy reference, here is what Watts has said on the subject:

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.

I fully understand that his opinion is not controlling. I don't doubt, for example that a convicted pedophile may claim he is not a pedophile. If the reliable sources support the claim we would not omit it simply because the subject disagreed. However, we should not casually use a pejorative term when the subject disagrees with it. We should ensure that we are on absolutely solid ground making a claim that contradicts a subjects own view. I don't think we are even on weak ground much less solid ground.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about Watts. We're talking about his blog. If you want to discuss Watts, go to Talk:Anthony Watts. jps (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that he is probably the single largest contributor, he is relevant. However your point is well taken but to characterize a blog, which includes the contributions of a diverse group of contributors, makes it even tougher to ascribe a single term. There are undoubtedly contributors who might be characterized as deniers, but many contributors are not. On what basis do you use a single narrow term to apply to a blog when it represents a diverse set of views? There may be some blogs whose subject matter is sufficiently narrow that a narrow description is appropriate. When the subject matter is more diverse it would be grossly misleading to characterize the entire blog according to the views of a minority of contributors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The blog's contributors are, on the whole, even more anti-scientific than Watts himself. The vast majority of commentators who are supportive of the site are way out on a limb. The site is firmly in the denialist camp, and we have plenty of reliable sources which indicate this (including all of the academic work that mentions it). It's actually difficult to find a single post that's not denialist. jps (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claims are frankly preposterous.

Here is a contribution from today:

• Another BBQ Summer Fiasco: Met Office Gets It Wrong (Again)

Another from today:

• The artificial tree: the “green” replacement for real trees?

One from yesterday:

• Study: Wind farms offer diminishing returns as they grow more widespread

Reasonable people might have issues with any one of these articles, but I don't see how any of them could be described as denialist.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Know what a dog whistle campaign is? That's what those blog posts are when it comes to any relevance to climate change. They're dog whistles for anti-science denialists and crumbs to pass on to politically conservative enviroskepticts. All three of them serve one purpose: to sell doubt about claims regarding climate change and other environmental problems. jps (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Plate o' shrimp. The very last thing I read before coming to check this page used the term dog whistle. Someone use the word "they" and a suggestion was made this was a racist dog whistle. Your comment falls in the same vein. If that's all you've got, let's move on. You claim that virtually all posts are denialist, when I give you three examples you can't find a scintilla of evidence that they deny science. A dog whistle may count as evidence in some venues but in Wikipedia we want actual evidence, not pseudo-evidence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Met Office Gets It Wrong Again" -- Okay, what exactly is the Met Office getting wrong so many times? I'll give you one guess.
• "The artificial tree: the “green” replacement for real trees?" Quote the blog itself: "Is it just me, or is there something deeply unsettling about the modern green movement, and its infatuation with technological monstrosities?" You've gotta be kidding me. This is just enviroskepticism laid bare. Let's not try to come up with new ideas, the sky's not falling, Chicken Little!
• "Wind farms offer diminishing returns as they grow more widespread" The author of the blog even admits: "While the researchers stress that no current or planned wind farm approaches the size or concentration that would cause the slowdown effect...." So why is this at all relevant? Could it be because the blog's outlook is that any alternative energy endeavor is a boondoggle because climate change isn't an issue? I think so!

So there are your scintillas. If you think my interpretations are out of the ordinary, I encourage you to read the comments on any of those blogs and see what they're saying. Care to keep on denying it?

jps (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• So, I see you've ignored every other editor and started an RfC anyway. Please don't ignore others. Our current lead is a compromise between several editors, and includes both "skepticism" and "denial"; it is not the "go with denial" option from months ago. If you'd like to make another proposal, please do so, but rerunning the same RfC that just closed is not helpful at this time. Your suggestion that we remove use of climate change denial (except for one mention of "some sources say...") is problematic for a variety of reasons, and its thrust was opposed in the last RfC which just ended. We can't do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)