Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32


Add Don't ignore climate skeptics – talk to them differently by Andrew Hoffman / June 24, 2011 ?

Add "Don't ignore climate skeptics – talk to them differently: More scientific data won’t convince doubters of climate change. But reframing the debate as one about values could make a difference." Opinion by Andrew Hoffman June 24, 2011 Christian Science Monitor from Ann Arbor, Michigan, example quote:

Far more than science is at play on climate change. At its root is a debate over culture, values, ideology, and worldviews. One of the strongest predictors of an American's beliefs about global warming is political party affiliation. According to a 2009 Pew survey, 75 percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of global warming compared with only 35 percent of Republicans. Climate change has been enmeshed in the culture wars where beliefs in science often align with beliefs on abortion, gun control, health care, evolution, or other issues that fall along the contemporary political divide. This was not the case in the 1990s and is not the case in Europe. This is a distinctly American phenomenon. (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about climate change denial, not sceptics. There is no mention of denial or deniers in that article. There's no article specifically about climate change sceptics but there's an article about the Global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Mark Bowen (writer) (James Hansen book)

Wikilink Mark Bowen (writer) (James Hansen book). (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article did you have in mind? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"Climate change denial" as defined in this article is pejorative and Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy demand very strong sourcing for contentious statements about living persons.--agr (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether "climate change denial" is perjorative or not is NOT the topic of this section. But feel free to start a new section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
See Further Reading within this article: Bowen, Mark (2008). Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. Plume. ISBN 0-452-28962-9 ... just wikilink his name please. (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Done.TMCk (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Since James Hansen is not notably a climate change denier, why should a book ostensibly about him be featured in this article? Indeed, what is it about this book that warrants adding it here? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the poster go and get themselves a username and do a few edits to other articles? Then they'd be able to edit the article themselves. I find it hard to rise my enthusiasm for looking up yet another book and adding it to the article especially when no justification is given. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries

Has anyone spotted a review or discussion of the Greenpeace document "Dealing in Doubt" in any good reliable source yet? I'm a bit surprised nobody seems to have taken it up except some blogs. The earlier report 'Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine' seems to have been similarly ignored. Have any good reliable source written about Koch Industries funding climate change denial or even about these Greenpeace publications? Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The latest Greenpeace missive about them is at Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial 2011 Update and links to a load of previous stuff. I'm really interested in something like if a good newspaper has done some fact checking and provided a secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not that surprised. If my redacted reasons for doubting Greenpeace's credibility weren't accurate, then I would think some reliable source would have reported it, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Tim Flannery please.

Wikilink Tim Flannery please. (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article has no context suggesting he's relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
See References ... Flannery, Tim; Schneider, Stephen Henry (2009). Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate. Washington, D.C: National Geographic. ISBN 1-4262-0540-6. (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yet again might I suggest the poster get themselves a username. Dmcq (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done, then. I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource: The Inquisition of Climate Science ISBN 978-0231157186

James Lawrence Powell's book: The Inquisition of Climate Science ISBN 978-0231157186 Columbia University Press (publish date: August 11, 2011) (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fly by spamming isn't accepted on Wikipedia. If you feel that this book may be used to improve or as a valid reference to a point within this or other articles then you may wish to suggest how you feel it is relevant. I have removed your same talk page addition to the GW controversy article to keep discussion in one place. Cheers Khukri 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I don't have to book to read yet, but it looked relevant. Just two doesn't equall spam. (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Without a comment, question, or suggestion how you feel it is relevant, it sure looks like spam. Posting in more than one place also suggests you don't understand some basic Wikipedia practices. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointing Climate sceptic to here

Viriditas redirected Climate sceptic and a variant to this article rather than global warming controversy and I reverted. I have copied below the discussion so far and believe further discussion should be here as too few people would be looking at the redirect page. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For the moment this page should point at global warming controversy and not denial. Calling a skeptic a denier is just partisan insulting so I'll be redirecting back again. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Climate change skepticism is really just climate change denial under a fake name and most so-called climate skeptics are connected to the climate change denial industry. Wikipedia should not be used to promote propaganda. See: Jacques, P.J., Dunlap, R.E, and Freeman, M. (2008) "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics, 17: 349-85. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576 Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the Meanings of the term section in climate change denial. Also environmental scepticism is yet another term again. There is no consensus to describe sceptics at climate change denial, quite the opposite. The global warming controversy article describes the arguments that sceptics might bring up. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq, I think it is you, not me, who needs to read up on the sources and our article on environmental skepticism, because you don't appear to understand that climate skepticism is a subset of environmental skepticism, both of which are a form of denial according to the sources. It doesn't matter how many ExxonMobil reps. you trot out to dispute this. The one in the climate change denial article accuses the Royal Society of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, so clearly, your understanding of weight is at fault here. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want a proper decision on this I guess the talk page of Climate change denial would be the right place to centralize discussion get sufficient eyes. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I would much rather see the sources you are using to justify your revert of my edit. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't you read meanings of the term which has a number of sources. Also it is just your idea environmental scepticism is the same. Sources do not confirm that. I will copy this to the Climate change denial so the talk can be properly done there. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not interested in your original research. Please provide sources defining the term. As Jacques et al. 2008 makes clear in its sample, 90 per cent of conservative think tanks support environmental scepticism, and all of the think tanks that have climate change as their primary interest promote environental scepticism. Most importantly, environmental scepticism is defined by "denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or climate change that threaten ecological sustainability". Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I support a redirect either to Environmental skepticism or Global warming controversy. Climate change denial has historical roots in other forms of denialism, and specifically in the US. I don't know which sources Viriditas is referring to: Oreskes on p. 24 of Merchants of Doubt specifically refers to "healthy skepticism" in science being positive; although she sometimes calls deniers skeptics, she also refers, for example, to statistics as a discipline being "set up to be skeptical" (p. 156). Generally sources analysing climate change denialism are at pains to express a distinction between denialism and ordinary skepticism. It's certainly true that many denialists label themselves as skeptics, but I think it would be unhelpful to let those people - whose motives are specifically questioned - determine wikipedia content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, climate skepticism is a subset of environmental skepticism, so a redirect there would be perfectly appropriate. However, as that article makes clear, "this process has been termed a form of denialism", and I cited Jacques et al. 2008 in support. This has nothing to do with "healthy skepticism" at all. I've analyzed the arguments made by climate skeptics, and they are identical to those made by climate deniers. And when you trace a so-called "climate skeptic" to their parent organization or sponsor, you usually find a climate denial group behind them. I've previously aksed Dmcq and others to define "climate skepticism" as opposed to "climate denial" and they can't, presumably because they are one and the same as I've been saying all along. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you any sources claiming that climate sceptics are environmental sceptics? Your personal analysis is WP:Original research. Just because environmental sceptics will be 'sceptical' about global warming does not mean that climate change sceptics are in general environmental sceptics. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq, Jacques et al. 2008 makes it clear that "climate sceptics" promote "environmental scepticism". Did you get a chance to read it? Although the entire document supports this idea, page 363 is the coup de grâce. In other words, your argument is finished, done, finis. It is in turn, supported by dozens of other sources. As this discussion shows, I have not provided any "personal analysis", but continue to offer you a source, which you refuse to read. BTW, do you have any sources supporting your position? Since you've ignored my question over and over again, I can only assume that you do not. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what on page 363 are you referring to? I have read it and see nothing supporting your position. It says some conservative think tanks say they are sceptics and they are are very interested in global warming. That as I said is saying an A says it is a B. It does not mean a B is an A in general. And I pointed you at the sources in this article in the section aboout 'Meanings of the term'. And you goy=t a quote above as well. Plus evidence of a close identity is required, not evidence of the non-existence of such identity. No one has to prove cat is not a dog. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The page does not say that. My position is that our redirect on climate sceptic should redirect to climate change denial. VsevolodKrolikov says he might support a redirect to environmental skepticism, and I agree with him, however I have pointed out that environmental skepticism is also indistinguishable from denialism, and as Jacques et al. have said, it is defined by denial. In other words, a redirect from climate skeptic to climate change denial is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What does page 363 say that supports your position? Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Explained above at 23:13, 24 July 2011. I just explained to you my position and I gave you one source. I would be happy to provide more, but I would like to see your sources. Why did you revert my redirect? Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your redirect because it was simply wrong. You have no sources saying climate sceptics are climate change deniers whereas the arguments by sceptics against global warming are very relevant to a query about climate sceptics. In the bit I pointed you at twice before see for example Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect by Peter Christoff; "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics". How much clearer can one get? Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I also would not support pointing climate sceptic at environmental scepticism. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq, I asked you why you reverted my redirect. Your answer, "because it was simply wrong", is not acceptable. I gave you the Jacques et al. 2008 showing you that environmental skepticism, and the climate skepticism that is a part of it, is deeply rooted in one thing: denial. Therefore, a redirect to climate change denial is appropriate. In response to my request for sources, you offer me a 2007 opinion piece from Peter Christoff which proves my point and shows that you don't understand what you read. Christoff says: "There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." In other words, when we use the term "climate sceptics" we are really talking about climate denial. Thank you, Mr. Christoff, I agree with you. Dmcq, you completely misunderstand what Christoff was trying to say. He said, "climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics", because he is arguing, as I have been saying all along, that good scientists are sceptics, and the kind of climate sceptics he is criticizing are deniers. Read the entire Christoff article again, Dmcq, as you don't understand it. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, I don't see how that Christoff piece supports what you are saying. It states that there is a difference between the labels of skepticism and denial. It may say that there are no credible skeptics any more, but that's not the same thing as making skepticism and denial identical. I get the impression that you are after the WP:TRUTH. You appear to be arguing that climate change skepticism is indistinguishable from climate change denial, whereas there are enough good sources that outline a difference; it's the sources rather than the wikipedia editor that we go with. It would not be NPOV to have the redirect as you wish.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You claim that "there are enough sources that outline a difference" between climate skepticism and climate denial, yet neither you nor Dmcq have been able to provide just one. The Christoff opinion piece that Dmcq brought to the table supports what I've been saying all along about scientists as skeptics and climate skeptics as deniers. Could either of you please show me the sources that shows the difference? I don't want another reply telling me what you think I believe or what you think I'm arguing. I want to see the many, many sources you say exist showing the difference. While you're busy doing that, I'll be preparing to offer additional sources that show no difference. Since you and Dmcq missed the point of what Christoff was saying, here is the same point in Haydn Washington's words:

They are actually opposites. Skepticism is about looking for the truth, denial is about hiding from it. All scientists should be skeptics, but when you get an overwhelming ‘preponderance of evidence’ from many different types of research, a true scientist will accept it – a denier won’t. Many climate change deniers call themselves ‘skeptics’ and say the word ‘denier’ is an insult, as if they are ‘holocaust deniers’. However, people can deny anything, but when people deny the fact that every Academy of Science and 97% of practicing climate scientists say human-caused climate change is happening and very serious – it is important to call these people by their true name. They are deniers.

I hope these sources are beginning to make sense to you. I'm looking forward to reviewing the ones you have to offer. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Viriditas, if you're going to interpret an article that says Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics as saying Climate change deniers should NOT be distinguished from climate sceptics, then it's not clear what evidence would change your mind. Don't you see the irony in that?
Anyway, here's an exchange in letters to the proceedings of the NAS. The first letter complains of "the lack of nuance in defining the terms “climate deniers,” “skeptics,” and “contrarians” both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate" while the reply acknowledges that "our UE category may encompass climate change skeptics, deniers, and contrarians" and explains why the paper was unable to make a distinction that the authors themselves clearly accept. The letter, in case you're not clear what "denier" refers to in the literature, states that it is someone in possession of "frequent financial support from industry or ideological motives".
You appear to be confusing the debate over whether to call particular self-styled skeptics "deniers" (such as the Monbiot article below), with a much stronger assertion that anyone who is, or in the past has been, a skeptic about AGW or any of its major aspects is a denier. This latter assertion is not supported in the sources, and indeed is specifically rejected by several sources brought to this page. The point is that deniers are not skeptics, not that skeptics are deniers. Deniers are active advocates against AGW theory for financial and/or ideological reasons. That is not true of all people skeptical about climate change.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. Christoff & Washington do not say "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics". They say scientific skepticism should be distinguished from climate skepticism because "climate skepticism" is synonymous with climate denial. This is even reflected in the current literature. More on this below.
  2. Anderegg et al. 2010 treat the terms "climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers" as synonymous, and that is reflected in the wider body of sources cited in their paper. In response to the paper, a letter by O'Neill & Boykoff 2010 finds fault with these terms. I find that O'Neill & Boykoff's letter ignores that the "language of denialism" is already in wide use on issues such as AIDS and genocide, and regardless of whether it is appropriate or moralistic, the term is part of the accepted discourse, particularly in regards to climate skepticism. I agree with Anderegg et. al and their reply to O'Neill & Boykoff: "...their semantic objection...does not adequately consider our methods or the background literature on denialism or climate change contrarians...denialism has been well established in the literature as a relevant and appropriate concept and frequently applied to the ACC discourse. Furthermore, Dielthelm and McKee recommend that denialism be responded to by public scrutiny and examination of denialist expertise as our article provides."[1]
  3. You are confusing climate skepticism with scientific skepticism. The assertion is that climate skepticism is in fact climate change denial and is equivalent and synonymous with climate denial in usage. In Australia, professor Robert Manne at La Trobe University says that "the phenomenon of denialism has come to be called...the phenomenon of skepticism. This change in language seems to me to be both dangerous and wrong. Skepticism is in general, as it should be, a positive word, denoting scientific or humanistic curiosity, and in particular, the presence of an open mind. That is not the mindset of those who are now denying the reality of climate change." (The Politics and Science of Climate Change Denialism 2009)
  4. VsevolodKrolikov, please show me a notable "climate skeptic" who cannot be considered a "climate denier" according to the published criteria (and reliable sources) of your choice. This is a very simple request. Here's an example: we can apply the Hoofnagle criteria to climate skeptics to see if they can be considered denialists.(Diethelm & McKee 2009) Do the arguments of climate skeptics use any or all of these tactics? 1) Conspiracy 2) Fake experts 3) Selectivity of sources 4) Impossible expectations, moving goalposts 5) Misrepresentation, logical fallacies. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a little surreal, Viriditas.
  1. You baldly state that Christoff & Washington do not say "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics". But it's a verbatim quote from Christoff. He is clear that denialism is different to skepticism. He argues that there are no credible climate skeptics now, not that every skeptic going back into the recent past was a denier.
  2. You also completely misread Anderegg's reply. It is not that he does not distinguish between skeptic and denier, it is that his analytical model grouped them together for lack of data to distinguish them. He explicitly accepts the distinction (going so far as to list the criteria commonly found in the literature to identify denialism). An argument logically parallel to yours would be to claim that anyone using the word "dog" to distinguish dogs from cats is thereby refusing to admit that there are different breeds of dog, and that Great Dane, golden retriever and Jack Russell are all interchangeable terms (and in so claiming, one pointedly ignores where the person admits to the existence of different breeds).
  3. Furthermore, Anderegg's defence of the word denier is not the same as a claim that all skeptics have been deniers. It's a defence of the use of the word "denier". Such a defence has been made frequently, as the word itself has caused some controversy. But it's used only to describe certain kinds of people, not anyone who has doubts about climate change. In other words, you simply repeat the error I outlined above, whereby you confuse people arguing for the validity of the label "denier" with an argument that all climate skeptics have been deniers. That, I believe, is behind Arthur Rubin's note about Monbiot's article not supporting your proposal.
  4. I won't take you up on your offer to do WP:original research and compare notes on what we think of various climate skeptics. It is irrelevant what you or I think. What is relevant is what the literature says, and to those of us who read what is actually written, it is clear that the distinction is made often enough. Seriously, denying a prominent verbatim quote from a very short piece that you complain others haven't read properly doesn't instill much confidence in how you handle material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. Christoff's 2007 opinion piece[2] says "...because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming." Note, this is exactly what Robert Manne said as well and both Christoff and Manne conflict with O'Neill & Boykoff on this point. Christoff goes on to say, "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics". But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Since you've expressed major confusion on this point, I will repeat it yet again: Christoff is not distinguishing climate change deniers from the "climate skeptics" we are discussing. He is distinguishing climate change deniers from scientific skeptics who do climate science. This point has been made clear to you now at least twice so you should clearly understand it by now.
  2. I did not misread Anderegg's reply, nor is there a need to distinguish it here because even if you assume per O’Neill and Boykoff that Anderegg's entire "unconvinced" group are climate contrarians, that group is still a member of the climate denier group per Hoofnagle, Monbiot, and others listed in this article. If one defines the climate contrarians using McCright's definition in O’Neill and Boykoff's letter as "those who vocally challenge what they see as a false consensus of mainstream climate science through critical attacks on climate science and eminent climate scientists" this meets the denier definition of Hoofnagle as one who "has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." (Diethelm & McKee 2009) Anderegg et al. even meets the Hoofnagle criteria when the terms are introduced: "A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims. This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention..." Now compare that with Hoofnagle via Diethelm & McKee: "All of these examples [of denial] have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question." You can twist and turn, VsevolodKrolikov, but you can't escape the "denier" category.
  3. Again, if all notable climate skeptics are not members of the denier class as you argue, then show me one as an example. Use whatever published criteria and reliable source of your choosing. Please note, that is not original research. If it was, we would not have a working category system on Wikipedia. Please do not ignore this opportunity to show me the error of my ways. I am patiently waiting for you prove that there is at least one climate skeptic who is not a denier. That should be incredibly easy for you to do if one exists. I predict that you will not be able to find one because all "climate skeptics" are members of the class "climate deniers" regardless of which classification you choose to use. Because this obviously needs to be said yet again, I am not talking about scientific skeptics who practice climate science. I am referring to people who self-identify as climate skeptics today or who are referred to as climate skeptics in the media. Viriditas (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, you are trying to impose your own original research on wikipedia. Your statement If one defines the climate contrarians using McCright's definition in O’Neill and Boykoff's letter as "those who vocally challenge what they see as a false consensus of mainstream climate science through critical attacks on climate science and eminent climate scientists" this meets the denier definition of Hoofnagle as one who "has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." is quite clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH, as is also what follows: Anderegg et al. even meets the Hoofnagle that with Hoofnagle via Diethelm & McKee . Have you thought of getting yourself published somewhere before bringing this here? Your opinion may very well be correct. In real life I might (or might not) agree with you entirely. But this is wikipedia, not a vanity press. You've been on here long enough to know this. You've also been on here long enough to know that there's a preview button; my watchlist is clogged up with your self-corrections.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
In a talk page discussion about competing sources, it is not an act of original research to show which sources agree and which conflict. To summarize, you have shown that in a letter to PNAS, O’Neill and Boykoff prefer to define climate contrarians and climate deniers differently. However, you have indirectly shown that they dispense with the notion of "climate skeptics" just like every other source we have discussed, and agree that skepticism "is frequently misapplied in such phrases as 'climate change skeptic'".[3] They also complain that the terms used by Anderegg et al. "does not include individuals who are thus far unconvinced by the science...or individuals who are unconvinced by proposed solutions". In terms of individuals who self-identify as climate skeptics in the media and fall into one or both of those categories, the sources show that denialism already accounts for it. It is interesting that O’Neill and Boykoff cannot give examples of this type of individual. Aside from a strongly worded letter from O’Neill and Boykoff, and their own definitions that never really caught on, a review of the climate-related literature shows that in common usage, the terms "climate skeptics", "climate contrarians" and "climate deniers" are used synonymously, and therefore, climate skeptic should redirect to climate change denial. If you disagree, all you have to do is show me one notable individual who either self-identifies or is referred to as a climate skeptic but cannot be considered a climate denier in the literature. This does not require any OR; all you have to do is pick a notable subject and find a source supporting their categorization. We do this everyday on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No one is disagreeing that climate "skeptic" is frequently misapplied. (That's the point of the term "denier", for pity's sake - that these people are not skeptics, and they abuse the term). You're getting all wound up because you think this means it is always misapplied (if you want to direct dmcq to critical thinking, could I direct you to Venn diagram?). Whatever journalists write, in the academic literature (taking the lead from Oreskes) a denier is someone who (a) actively casts doubt on key parts of AGW and/or on the need for human beings to do something about it (b) where there is convincing evidence they do it for commercial/financial gain or ideological motivations and (c) they do all this pretty much outside of the realm of peer reviewed science (in the popular media). Motivation and funding is not enough; they also typically circumvent normal scientific debate. (They are, after all, "Merchants of Doubt", seeking to disrupt the formation of public, rather than scientific opinion). There are climate skeptics who have carried out their work in the peer reviewed literature - people like Richard Lindzen, Hendrik Tennekes, in fact quite a few people in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming do not qualify as deniers. Lots of them probably do qualify (Fred Singer leaps off the page as he's often criticised as a shill for commercial interests), but that's another matter. Then there are others who were skeptical, but have changed their minds as the evidence emerged. Were they deniers before? Or just skeptics? Given that you are opposed to redirecting to Global Warming Controversy, which would leave the question of the status of climate skepticism open, but insist on redirecting here, it really looks as if you are pursuing a POV. Like Original Research, this isn't something you're supposed to do on wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The sources show there is no difference between climate skepticism and climate change denial. That's not "pursuing a POV", that's going with the sources. You also don't seem to understand the concept of our OR policy, which has little to nothing to do with this discussion about a redirect. I'm still waiting for you to support your argument with evidence, which you completely failed to do. What are the names of the climate skeptics who are not climate deniers? The redirect for climate skeptic is currently used by three articles.[4] Climate sceptic is also used by three articles.[5] We also have four articles using climate change skeptic[6] and two articles using climate change sceptic.[7] We also have three links to climate change skepticism[8] and one link to climate change scepticism. [9]. We also have 14 links to global warming skeptic[10] Would redirecting these (per the sources) impact its current usage in these articles? Note, these are legitimate questions we ask about creating and using redirects on discussion pages. This has nothing to do with OR of any kind. You should also know that we've had a previous redirect to climate change denial from Climate change skepticism (denialism) to this article since 2010.[11] It doesn't matter what the outcome of this discussion is, just that it is based on the sources. That's hardly a position "pursuing a POV". Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When evidence is provided, you flat out deny its existence - even to the point of denying the existence of verbatim text. Just now, I gave you some names to look at - which you then completely ignore by asking for them again! This is disruptive editing, pure and simple. If it genuinely doesn't matter what the outcome is, then I suggest that you recognise that three editors at least do not find your arguments convincing for the same reasons and that you give it up. You might find something better to do with your time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be working with a different notion of "evidence" than I am. I specifically requested that you provide names and sources. Instead you gave me your opinion about two people and told me to look at a list. In other words, you ignored my request for sources again. If there is anything disruptive here, it is your continuing deflection of my request for sources. "Giving me names to look at it" doesn't do that. This discussion shows that you believe there are actual "climate skeptics" in existence, even though the sources show that "climate skeptic" is a euphemism for "climate denier". More to the point, you paradoxically apply the Oreskes classification to deniers, yet at the same time you ignore this classification when it comes to Richard Lindzen and Hendrik Tennekes. According to the sources, Lindzen is connected to the coal and oil industry,[12] and Pilkey et al. 2011 classify him as a denier. And while Tennekes hasn't published a professional paper in almost two decades, he's had his papers hosted by denial groups such as the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Science and Public Policy Institute. Lindzen and Tennekes meet your own Oreskes classification for denial, yet you completely ignore it. That, my friend, is denial. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Forgetting about the industry funded bit I would also say that a lot of climate sceptics are quite correct in being sceptical. Is it really reasonable to suppose that so many sources saying it is rubbish and a conspiracy are wrong? The position is a reasonable and tenable one for someone to have given the amount of work that has been put into fogging up the issue by deniers. What it is reasonable for a person to suppose is to a large part determined by what they know and what people they respect have told them. That they believe something that isn't generally agreed amongst scientists does not mean they're stupid or denying global warming or anything like that. They may have looked at the evidence and come to a perfectly rational decision in the circumstances. And the article describing the various arguments sceptics come across or use is global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Argumentum ad populum combined with a hasty generalization fallacy. Nice logic there, Dmcq. You may be interested in our article on critical thinking. The literature shows that climate skepticism is equivalent and synonymous with climate change denial, and I will show that to be true on this page. My redirect is not just supported by the evidence, it is the only redirect possible. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that their position is a reasonable one given their experience. That is all that required of a sceptic. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
A position cannot be both fallacious and reasonable. Fallacies appear reasonable to the uncritical. Skepticism is part of critical thinking, and when it comes to climate science, it is part of the process of sifting through the evidence, critically evaluating multiple lines of evidence, and accepting the best explanation based on the best evidence. (Karoly 2010) "Climate skeptics" fail to do this, which is one reason they meet the stated criteria for climate denial. You seem to be saying that if one does this unintentionally, one might not be a denier, but clearly one is not a skeptic, and the process must be followed regardless. More to the point, each step must be followed, and what we find is that most climate skeptics fail to accept the best explanation based on the best evidence. As an example of a failure to follow this process, Karoly describes the arguments offered by "climate skeptic" Ian Plimer. You can actually go down the line with each argument made by a climate skeptic and see how the pattern plays out. I did this for a while until I got sick of it and discovered they were all reading from the same script. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that is logically absurd. Speaking as an expert in logic, a statement can be both false and reasonable. No one has ever said that climate change scepticism or denial is fallacious, just that it is not supported by current evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating the argument from authority, but that's not what was said at all. Feel free to look up the definition for "reasonable" in a dictionary of your choosing. Dmcq clearly said "Is it really reasonable to suppose that so many sources saying it is rubbish and a conspiracy are wrong" and "What it is reasonable for a person to suppose is to a large part determined by what they know and what people they respect have told them." And Arthur? Hoofnagle 2009[13] (expanded in Diethelm & McKee 2009[14]) say that climate denial can be characterized by logical fallacies. Viriditas (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
First definition of reasonable looking up on the web 'agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.' Sound judgement does not mean the result is correct, it only means a good judgement given the circumstances and what's known to a person. Also arguing from authority is the best way usually for people to make sound judgements in areas they are not familiar with, there is nothing wrong with it. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
True, but in argumentative terms, fallacies are considered less than reasonable, weak, less plausible, etc. Viriditas (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Public opinion on climate change has some potentially useful resources. (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Not. See #Clarification needed ... "skeptic" below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources supporting redirect

"A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims. This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy." (12107)
  • Jacques, P.J., Dunlap, R.E, and Freeman, M. (2008) "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics, 17: 349-85. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576
"Environmental scepticism encompasses several themes, but denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or climate change that threaten ecological sustainability, is its defining feature." (353)
"They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause. They will argue, for example, that a single weather event in one part of the world is evidence of global cooling; that the earth is warming up because of cosmic rays and that the Antarctic is melting as a result of volcanoes under the ice. No explanation is too bonkers for them, as long as it delivers the goods. The OED defines a sceptic as, "A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions." This is the opposite of what people like Booker, Bellamy and Tomlinson are. They have their definite conclusion and will defend it against all comers, however many inconvenient truths might stand in the way...Whether we're talking about people who are paid to deny that climate change is happening, or those who use the materials these flacks produce, denial is a precise and concise description of what they do. Their attempt to wriggle out of it by insisting that – by calling them what they are – we are somehow debasing the Holocaust is as contrived as all the other positions they take. We shouldn't fall for it."
"Festinger's analysis helps us understand the phenomenon of climate change skepticism, or more accurately, denial." (96)
"Climate scepticism grew directly out of the conservative counter-movement against environmentalism. Its first task was to erode confidence in the science on which environmental concerns were based...The task of the climate sceptics in the think tanks and PR companies hired by fossil fuel companies was to engage in 'consciousness lowering activities', to 'de-problematise' global warming by characterising it as a form of politically driven panic-mongering. As a result, climate denial and political conservatism have become, at last in the United States, entwined." (104-6)
  • Norgaard, Kari Marie (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press. ISBN 0262515857.
"The term denial is sometimes used to describe the phenomenon of outright rejection of the notion that certain information is true—which, in this case, is the reaction of global warming skeptics mentioned earlier." (60)
"in the United States, literal and implicatory denial go hand in hand...on the face of it these two trends, skepticism and denial, appear quite different...they are related. The fact that nobody wants information about climate change to be true is a critical piece of the puzzle that also...fits perfectly with the agenda of those who generate skepticism. There is an important congruence between these troubling emotions and the psychological defense they engender...and the social structural interests in minimizing public responses to climate science.." (181)
  • Washington, Haydn. Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Earthscan. ISBN 1849713359.
  • Weart, S. (2011). Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 67(1), 41-50. doi:10.1177/0096340210392966
"...the self-styled skeptics were not proceeding in a normal scientific manner. Scientists continually test their beliefs, seeking out all possible contrary arguments and evidence, and finally publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, where further attempts at refutation are encouraged. But the small group of scientists who opposed the consensus on warming proceeded in the manner of lawyers, considering nothing that would not bolster their case, and publishing mostly in pamphlets, books, and newspapers supported by conservative interests. At some point they were no longer skeptics—people who would try to see every side of a case—but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true." (46-47)

Sources against redirect

  • Monbiot, George (Feb 27, 2009). "Climate change: The semantics of denial". [The article says that some people who call themselves sceptics are actually deniers. That's all it does.]

Good lord everyone, why on Earth are you all going around and around about a redirect that is used by only two articles. My suggestion, edit those two articles to link to the correct article (whichever one that is) and WP:PROD the redirect away. Reviewing the two articles, it's clear that one link should be to denialists and the other to skeptics. aprock (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects aren't normally subject to prod's and people type subjects in the search box to find them. Prods apply to topics not titles. But yes any links which obviously should be to an article should point there. Personally I'd prefer some links were kept to redirects rather than always going to a target because it might change or an article written there. Anyway I'll check those links and if they obviously should point somewhere definite elsewhere I'll do that. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a couple of variants of climate sceptic as well. I went through the links and changed the ones that obviously should point at denial because there was a citation saying so but left the others. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess speedy deletion is the appropriate process for cleaning up poor redirect. aprock (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with the redirect? Dmcq (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that with some sort of ironic tone in your voice as you reread the wall of text above? aprock (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If you read the wall of stuff above it is one person going on and on trying to push their idea and other people disagreeing. Normally people know when to stop rather than waste their time and other peoples' like that but it happens occasionally when someone gets a bee in their bonnet, it practically never leads to a change of minds. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please define "climate skepticism" (with good sources) and show me how it is different than "climate denial". The sources above show that the two terms are used synonymously, and that multiple classifications point to people who self-identify or who are known as "climate skeptics" as deniers. What good reason can you offer showing that climate skeptic should not redirect to climate change denial? Is there a difference between the two terms? Can you show, with sources, a so-called "climate skeptic" who is not also a denier? Furthermore, why don't we see similar terms, such as physics skeptics, biology skeptics, engineering skeptics, medical skeptics, art skeptics, and literature skeptics? Look at the origin of the term "climate skeptics" Was it created by deniers? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Enough time has been spent on this by me. The consensus is very definitely against you. No one here supports your position. Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't edit articles based on positions, we edit articles based on sources. Which sources support the definition of a "climate skeptic" and how is it different than "climate denial"? Also, the current redirect only goes to global warming controversy which is a bit of an Easter egg. We want redirects to be accurate and informative. Per the sources, a redirect to climate change denial appears appropriate. If you disagree, could you explain why using the best sources you can find? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous precedent set by User:Keinstein with List of climate skeptics, I will redirect all skeptic redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you do, you will probably be blocked (but not by me, obviously) . Not all notable climate skeptics are scientists. Certainly, not all the ones referred to in Climategate are scientists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The discussion on this page clearly shows that (a) clearly that such a move could be controversial and (b) other editors favour redirect to Global Warming Controversy. I've undone your redirect. Furthermore, the list is less informative than the page detailing what kinds of things skeptics say. The list itself is not in as good a shape as the global warming controversy article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
From global warming controversy:

The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt accuse climate change "skeptics" of trying to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. The fact that only half of the American population believe that global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these so-called skeptics.[2] One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.[14]

VsevolodKrolikov, according to your Oreskes classification, doesn't this mean that climate change skeptics are climate change deniers? At 05:29, 26 July 2011 you wrote "a denier is someone who (a) actively casts doubt on key parts of AGW and/or on the need for human beings to do something about it (b) where there is convincing evidence they do it for commercial/financial gain or ideological motivations and (c) they do all this pretty much outside of the realm of peer reviewed science (in the popular media). Motivation and funding is not enough; they also typically circumvent normal scientific debate. (They are, after all, "Merchants of Doubt", seeking to disrupt the formation of public, rather than scientific opinion)." As the article on global warming controversy makes clear, it is mostly occurring in the media, not in the journals. Per your own classification, VsevolodKrolikov, why doesn't climate skeptic redirect to climate change denial? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for an answer to my question: why don't we have chemistry skeptics, physics skeptics, biology skeptics, engineering skeptics, medical skeptics, art skeptics, and literature skeptics? Look at the sources documenting the origin of the term "climate skeptics". Was it created by deniers? Yes or no? If it was, shouldn't it redirect here? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We're all perfectly well aware that a lot of people who call themselves skeptics are deniers. This sort of silliness would have branded Richard A. Muller for instance as a denier rather than a sceptic. And the BEST project receives money from Charles Koch. People who consider the arguments are skeptics. People for whom the arguments are irrelevant are deniers. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Before you connect R.A.Muller and Charles G. Koch to closely, see Political activities of the Koch family, Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Add_Energy_Policy_section.3F_Resource:_Get_the_Energy_Sector_off_the_Dole, and Plausible deniability. (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You have written without communicating. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm taken by Viriditas' point above. While scepticism is an essential part of all science, we don't find bodies of self-proclaimed 'skeptics' making announcements and publishing essays in other areas of science. That would imply that the whole idea is a piece of doublespeak invented for climate science alone. So the question is, invented by whom? Well, the denial movement of course. That makes sense. The trouble is that, plausible as it is, it is OR unless we have a source that says more or less exactly that. I think at this point it's no good suggesting a reading list by surname and date: we need a quote from a cited page that puts an argument just like that. If that's not available, then we may be ahead of the curve of science historianship, and need to wait for the published literature to catch us up. --Nigelj (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we are looking at a distinct difference between scientific skepticism and the noun when applied to skeptics, which are different issues and skepticism as a scientific process should not be confused with the tag applied to people who hold a certain viewpoint. Though the water has been somewhat muddied as can be seen by the examples given by Viriditas between denier and skeptic in the area of climate sciences, this does not mean that the two should be treated equally and considered the same, just because some in the media have. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that we don't have skeptics in other areas of science, your generalisation of there are is no evidence of geology skeptics (as an example) is correct, but there has been well recorded examples of plate tectonic skeptics with publications. With the exception of YECs there are no paleontology skeptics, but there are skeptics for the KT boundary event being caused by an impact, such as publications on the Deccan Traps for example. I believe this is a similar example, there is no such thing as a climate skeptic, but there are people skeptical about given causes for AGW, global warming, climate change , (place your skepticism title here), and I think there is enough reliably sourced information around to show a number of scientists agree with climate change, but may disagree with certain facets of the majority position, but not in it's entirety. This is a valid use of the word skeptic wrt science, and is certainly does not fall into the camp of denier. therefor I do not believe the re-direct should go any where near denialism, which in itself is a well documented position. Regards Khukri 09:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I sincerely hope the creationists pushing Flood geology are not as successful as the climate change deniers or otherwise we will have geology skeptics as well! Michael Shermer is another example of a climate change skeptic who changed his mind. I just chose him as a prominent skeptic in general. He is not and was not a denier. Lots of juries have listened to arguments in courts and come to the wrong conclusions, we normally call that a failure of the defence or of the prosecution, not denial by the jury. And the deniers have paid for some very good advocacy so there's nothing to be too ashamed of in that many people have listened to the arguments and have for the moment rejected the scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
As for V's sources, most of them support the position that many or most so-called "climate change skeptics" are really "climate change deniers", but many support a clear distinction between real "climate change skeptics" and "climate change deniers". Perhaps climate change skeptic should be a disambiguation page, or one we should never link except when referring to the term itself?
I wouldn't be against that, i.e. rather lukewarm support. (Starts whistling quietly 'there may be trouble ahead...'.) Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Resource: BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science

The BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science incorporates an independent report by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London. From p. 67 onwards this discusses deniers in the context of climate, and states:

Global warming raises questions of the reporting of science, of policy, and of scandal and deserves a closer look.

Before discussing the subject in detail it may be worth putting the mind‐set, and the tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into context.
They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism, for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided with evidence. A denialist is not.

Worth reading through for context. A news report with some general discussion of the review appeared in the Graun. . . dave souza, talk 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this be helpful, by Paul Ehrlich?

We really do not need you to toss lists of books and articles at us. People who are interested can subscribe to a blog or read a journal or whatever themselves rather than having stuff posted here with no analysis of whether it might be useful and where in the article. See right at the top 'This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article'. This is not a forum for people interested in climate change. It is the talk page for discussing improvements in the article.
A constructive suggestion would start wih something like ' I think we need something about xyz in section abc, this book says def in chapter 2 about it', or section abc looks wrong to me this book says pqr instead about it, or we need a new section covering the stuff about lmn in this book because.... Or just get yourself a username and be bold and stick something into the article. Dmcq (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 99+ (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you 99+ (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The Kid is learning to ask, instead of peremptorily demanding. Good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed ... "skeptic"

Climate change skepticism (as does a person, "a climate change skeptic") redirects to Global warming controversy, while Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial. (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So? They're different concepts, and the parenthetical redirect should probably be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There use to be a clear distinction, but it appears pov forces are attempting to paint skeptics as deniers. We may be getting into a POV fork instead of a separate and distinct topic about organized efforts to deny global warming for commercial or ideological reasons. Morphh (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What "pov forces" (as in "attempting to paint skeptics as deniers") are you talking about? It seems to me that "pov forces" is rather colored ("pov") in itself. It also seems to me (for all the reasons that have been discussed here and on related articles) that the whole effort to distinguish "skepticism" from denial -- and the repeated insistence that "skepticisim" is scientifically essential -- is, frankly, b.s. The denial of AGW was shown to be wholly untenable, so now it is the former deniers who are trying to paint themselves as wholly different, and to distance themselves from the odor of their previous position. It is not clarification they want, but obfuscation. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
If you read the article itself, you'll see that "denialism" in this context refers to planned intent to subvert the belief in scientific consensus rather than take up a positive contrary position and argue it in the literature. While many prominent skeptics could also be classed as deniers, not all skeptics can. Being "prominent", or creating the illusion of being prominent, is part of the denialist strategy. The academic literature on denialism is very clear on the difference between skepticism and denialism. Even if the number of people who are skeptical but not deniers is very small, it's still POV to insist that the two categories are actually one. It's entirely understandable that people feel passionate about the topic, and frustrated too, but we're an encyclopedia, not a chatsite.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
<ec> Well said, VsevolodKrolikov. Perhaps the best answer is to avoid the much misused term "skeptic"? My tuppenceworth: All scientists are skeptics, and around 97% of those skeptics who have published science on the topic consider that the scientific consensus is correct, that global warming is currently caused by human activities such as fossil fuel use and agricultural practices. The 3% who differ don't seem to have published much lately, but do feature extensively on news media and in blogs. There also self-proclaimed "skeptics" who are astonishingly credulous about fringe views, and deny the validity of mainstream scientific views. Should we call them deniers? Only if very good sources use that description. Note: I'm just an interpreter of interpretations. . dave souza, talk 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You guys missed my point. I agree (per Arthur) that "denialism" and "skpeticism" are different concepts. Also that (as I said in the next section) they are different campaigns to impugn the scientific consensus. What I was responding to is Morphh's comment regarding deniers and skeptics that implies that "skeptics" are not "deniers", and that "painting" them the same is merely "pov". - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Situation is more nuanced than that, see Talk:Public opinion on climate change # Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change, for examples. (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
See Media coverage of climate change. (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


It's inappropriate to use a hatnote to make a potentially controversial claim. Having 'Not to be confused with Climate change scepticism' implies that there are two distinct camps, whereas the distinction is disputed and unclear - one person's denier is another person's sceptic. Who calls themselves what is a matter for the text of the article, using RSs as always. Also, the link Climate change scepticism doesn't have an article. It redirects to 'Global warming controversy'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Denial in regard to this article should not fall into confusing with skepticism or the ongoing debate. So the statement "one person's denier is another person's skeptic" should be false here. If the article does not make this clear distinction, then it's a POV fork. Looking at the lead, it appears that it is become increasing murky since I last commented here. The media is contributing this as people are charged with denial for being skeptics. Morphh (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I agree that the redirect is a problem. I'm not so sold on the problem of a hatnote per se, as there is a distinction to be made between denialism as an activity, and argumentative challenges made to the scientific consensus - even if the activity involves invoking the challenges. (And following an edit conflict, I agree with Morphh that media usage is problematic for us. Several more academic RS are much clearer and more careful about the distinction). Perhaps if the hatnote rephrased itself something like
This article is about industrial and ideological campaigns to undermine public confidence in the general Scientific opinion on climate change; for arguments challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, see Global warming controversy.
Any good? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That seems very reasonable to me. Morphh (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Says too much I think. It should be much shorter. The start of the article says what it is about. Better to say less about this article. How about just the second sentence? Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Morphh (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It could be said that "denial" of AGW (which this article is about) and "skepticism" of the scientific consensus are separate "campaigns to undermine public confidence...", and to that extent (as separate campaigns) might warrant distinction. But the "deniers" and so-called "skeptics" come from the same camp, are part of the same effort, so what should we call them? Climate controversialists? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Where do you get that from? Your 'skepticism' with quotes is denial. Many climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sceptical about that, which climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics? . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I gave the example of Michael Shermer just a little above for instance. Do we have to have this sort of thing every couple of weeks? We should use reliable sources rather than people trying to push a point of view. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong tense, dear boy, Shermer wrote in 2006 that he had been convinced by arguments for the mainstream view on global warming, and "skepticism was once tenable. No longer."[15] Please present reliable sources when you're making these assertions. I must remain sceptical about your unsourced claim. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not give a current skeptic because the hermetic reasoning that all skeptics are deniers would mean any such would seem a denier. Evidence can only be of the form of someone who has changed from being labelled a sceptic. For one a little later than Shermer how about Richard Muller and his senate testimony? People were quite happy calling him a sceptic. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Dave, could you clarify something - are you saying that Michael Shermer used to be a denier, or that he used to be a skeptic?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
See Shermer's article cited above for his position: in 2005 he became convinced by the science about global warming. Of course Shermer remains a skeptic in that he's a prominent skeptic and atheist. Dmcq has made a specific statement, "Many climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics." But has failed to provide any citations supporting that statement. Dmcq has now suggested we consider the case of Richard Muller and his senate testimony, again without presenting any evidence. All we have is Dmcq's anecdotal hearsay that "People were quite happy calling him a sceptic." Some people say all sorts of peculiar things, which is why denier blogs aren't reliable sources. Once again, I remain sceptical. . dave souza, talk 06:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
dave, that didn't answer my question: do you consider that before he became convinced by the science, he was a climate change skeptic, or a climate change denier?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this [16] the sort of thing you want about that Muller was considered a sceptic? Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Talking about people who have been called skeptics, our article on Jasper Kirkby is one of the stubbiest stubs I've seen, surely someone can manage a bit better? Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Has someone called Jasper Kirkby a skeptic? It doesn't appear in our article, and isn't supported by, for instance, this article which shows him as being suitably sceptical about the dispute between Henrik Svensmark, who apparently "claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays" and thinks CO2 has less influence than generally accepted, and Mike Lockwood "who is sceptical" and says cosmic rays may not have much influence. Who, pray, is the "climate-skeptic"? . . . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Dmcq, that seems to confirm what I said in the previous section. "Seeptic" is a vague and much misused term. So, we have a NYT opinion page, slightly iffy for BLP issues, giving Paul Krugman's views about "Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game". .... "His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as “exaggerators,” and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case." A clear but subtle distinction between climate-skeptic and denier, with the implication that Muller's statements previously supported denial but his congressional testimony didn't. So, one somewhat dubious case with a questionable source. I remain sceptical about the "many". . dave souza, talk 08:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Many doesn't matter. If people have been skeptical in the past about climate science, but accept the weight of evidence now that means that there is a difference between being a climate change skeptic and a climate change denier. It may be the contingent case that any professional scientist who still doubts the human contribution to global warming is basically abandoning science for ideology/filthy lucre, but that's not always been the case, and the distinction in good academic literature is made on these grounds. It's only relatively recently that the evidence has become this strong. "Denier" does not just mean "wrong".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq has made a specific statement, "Many climate change skeptics without the quotes are quite genuine skeptics", it appears that "many" doesn't matter, one or two specific individuals who have been identified in the past as "climate-skeptics" now accept mainstream science to a greater or lesser extent. All scientists are sceptics and will doubt anything while accepting that good evidence and well set out theory is needed to overturn consensus, "climate-skeptics" appear from the cited source to be those who "denounce" mainstream science, not just "doubt" it, and so give support to those who deny the significance of human caused global warming. "Sceptic" does not mean "supporter of fringe views", though perhaps that's supposed to be the meaning of "climate-skeptic". . . dave souza, talk 10:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── dave, you're getting two different users confused. Dmcq says there are many skeptics who are not deniers, I (that's me) say that it's not that important how many there are. You're carefully avoiding the question of whether Michael Shermer was a denier or a skeptic before he decided that the weight of evidence obliged him to accept AGW. The thing is, your current position would oblige you to say that Shermer was a denier until 2005, given that you argue that "climate change denier" and "climate change skeptic" are synonymous. Shermer is just one person; I use him as an illustration of the problem of holding an absolute position that all AGW skepticism is in fact AGW denialism. It's ahistorical, polemical, and just plain clumsy.

I should point out that I see nothing wrong in including a paragraph, if the sourcing is there, in Global warming controversy, to the effect that a lot of analysts consider any scientist of standing who still engages in public campaigns against the consensus on AGW to, in effect, be a denier. My objection is to the insistence that any and all skepticism about the scientific consensus on AGW is and always has been denialism. ("always has been" here means since it kicked off about twenty odd years ago). Like it or not, that's what you're arguing for here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Think you're getting me mixed up with :J. Johnson, my position is that skeptic is a much abused term, there are many deniers pretending to be skeptics but there are also instances such as Mike Lockwood "who is sceptical" according to the source cited above, whose arguments support rather than oppose the current consensus. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Plus I have strong objections to restricting climate change skeptic or climate change denier to scientists. Anyone is entitled to make up their minds about the evidence, they don't need a degree. There is just no reason to label people who have inspected the evidence and come to reasoned conclusion as deniers. All that matters is that they have come to the conclusion on reasonable grounds and if they think climate change is a load of hooey then they are skeptics. If they do it because they are politicians wanting to get votes or because they think it will do their industry harm if some green agenda is passed or because that's what they were paid to do or even if they just think it is the popular thing to do or are uncomfortable thinking their SUV is causing problems then they are deniers. Dmcq (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Your labels seem to be your own unsupported opinion, sources needed. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the talk page, not the article.Do you dispute what I said and if so why? State what you think instead of wasting time with officiousness. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I clearly dispute what you said, see my other comments. Sources are required per WP:TALK as this page is for improving the article, WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Citations are not needed on a talk page to discuss a topic. I want to know what your specific objections are to what I said in that particular bit first before spending time on a wild goose chase. It is unreasonable for you to just say citation needed without saying why. Do you want other people here just dismissing your concerns with citation needed without saying why they think what you are saying is wrong? A discussion is a two way street and you will just be ignored as a nuisance if you do not engage properly. Please do not waste other editors time. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I talked about scientists because the literature emphasises the boundary between skeptic and denier as being between those who argue their case within the science, and those who argue their case outside of scientific fora, and not to persuade scientists, but to persuade the general population of doubts about the science. Non-specialists are more of a problem because the academic literature doesn't deal with them that much.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If "climate skeptic" is a term of academic literature, that's good, but all I've seen cited is opinion pieces on various sides of the argument rather than reliable third party sources. Oddly enough, there seems to be academic support for denier as a description, but of course the academics concerned may be seen as supporting the mainstream position. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting perspective at How to talk to a climate sceptic | Environment | . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow -- I take day off, and it looks like there's a riot in progress!! I feel somewhat responsible for that, and offer some possible clarificaitons.
First, when I quote "denier" or "skeptic" it should not be taken as some kind of snide comment. It means I am trying to use the term carefully, or in some special context; no particular POV is intended.
Second, it seems imperative to distinguish what Dmcq calls "genuine skeptics" from all the denialists (controversialists?) in "genuine skeptic" clothing. In respect of scientific opinion the former are important generally, but on this issue so inconsequential to be WP:fringe. Whereas the position of the latter seems to be "skepticism is important to science, we are skeptics, therefore our opinions on this issue are scientifically important". (A very fractured syllogism.) These faux skeptics would like to be comingled with the genuine skeptics; we should not acquiesce in that because it would give them more weight than warranted. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no good reason to start trying to redirect climate change skeptic at this article. Just because people are taken in by the arguments of the people described in this article does not make them deniers too, quite the opposite in fact very often since it means they were actually attending to the arguments. Yes lots of deniers call themselves skeptics, that does not mean that everyone who calls themselves a skeptic is a denier. That's a far more badly fractured syllogism. It is not up to Wikipedia to acquiesce or anything, we should just report the stuff without trying to bias the article. Censorship by biasing the articles so the weak minded public are not misled but are brought to the white light of our understanding is not part of what I'm here to do and I believe would lead to great harm to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
So I think we agree that there are deniers that call (paint) themselves skeptics (undoubtably because flatout denial of global warming is untenable). I also agree that this does not necessarily mean that all who call themselves "skeptics" are deniers. But I do question whether non-denier skeptics are in any way significant (i.e., more than fringe) in the scientific consensus.
I do not agree with this talk of "censorship" or "biasing". To the extent that deniers have proven themselves wrong (in regard to global warming), and shown themselves to be wholly unreliable as sources, that is relevant to their reliability as so-called skeptics. It is not a matter of "biasing the articles so the weak minded public are not misled but are brought to the white light of our understanding", but a matter of not harming Wikipedia's credibility by acquiescing in use of fringe or unreliable sources.
(BTW, I like your "white light of understanding". It seems to me the whole concept of neutral POV can be summed up as shining white light -- not red, blue, or any other "color" -- on our material.)
- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
These are good points. Every scientist is sceptical as part of the discipline, but "climate skeptic" has been mangled to mean "critic of mainstream climate science" or "unconvinced by mainstream climate science". As such, it's clearly a minority expert view on the topic, no matter how popular it is in some political circles, and in accordance with WP:WEIGHT we should describe it in the context of majority views, taking care not to give "equal validity" to the minority views: the BBC has given useful guidance on achieving impartiality with particular reference to this topic. Mislabelling fringe or ignorant views as "climate skeptic" or mislabelling denial of consensus science as "climate skeptic" clearly fails to meet policy requirements. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
We already have the scientific opinion article which shows quite conclusively that the sceptics amongst the scientists are fringe. That deniers call themselves sceptics is an interesting fact for this article but it is no reason to redirect climate change sceptic to this article. You do not have to be a scientist to be either a sceptic or a denier. While we have things like 'Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming' in reliable sources then saying they are in general deniers is wrong. Being mistaken is not a hallmark of a denier. We have an article about denialism which explains what denial is about and this article does a fairly good job of that too. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
In the context here, of AGW, the deniers are mistaken. And as this position is not one innocently reached from a general consideration of the matter, but their starting point, which they strive for even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that persistent denialism is a hallmark. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deniers are not mistaken as such, it is irrelevant. They are interested in their agenda not the scientific argument. That is their hallmark. It is the sceptics who are almost certainly mistaken. If a person crosses the road whilst texting and gets run over then they were probably not thinking about traffic, they were not mistaken about the traffic. If a person looks for traffic but is then run over because they didn't see a motorcycle then they are mistaken. Dmcq (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, that is an interesting point. Rather akin to the juridical "innocent mistake". And it appears we are using "mistaken" slightly differently. I would deem it rather synonymous with being wrong, while you seem to qualify it with a consideration of intent (innocence?). But it seems to me there are a lot of self-styled "skeptics" who are not so innocent, which is a factor we need to consider in determining reliable sources. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Dictionary for mistaken "1. (usually predicative) wrong in opinion, judgment, etc. she is mistaken 2. arising from error in judgment, opinion, etc. a mistaken viewpoint". It isn't the same as wrong. Lots of deniers style themselves as skeptics, people often put quotes around skeptic in those cases just like you did. Dmcq (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, therein lies the problem of using skeptic as a description. . dave souza, talk 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think there is a certain amount of agreement here that denier is not the same as skeptic. Our reasons are different - either "skeptic" is a term abused by deniers, or it's incorrect to tar all who have been skeptics with the brush of "denier". But we can agree that they are not the same. There is also the matter of denialism being an activity, and skepticism being a belief. However, the hatnote as it stands involves a double redirect - we don't have an article called "Climate Change Skepticism". At the top of this section I suggested an alternative hatnote. It seemed to get support, although Dcmq thought it too long. I've shortened it, although I personally do like there to be a first sentence, as I think (possibly naively) it may reduce the traffic on this page of people complaining.

This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in Scientific opinion on climate change.
For arguments challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, see Global warming controversy.

Can we all agree to a hatnote something like this (tweaked or not)?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that, looks reasonable to me. . dave souza, talk 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't start going into reasons for denial like the other one did, I like that. It is still longer than a tweet unfortunately but I guess I could live with it. Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - Works for me. Morphh (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
How about:

This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. For challenges to the scientific consensus, see global warming controversy"

Fewer words and possibly more clarity? --Nigelj (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 source

Thee 2011 Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society has a chapter on this; there are a few statements there that can probably be used to reference rather obvious facts, such as the editorial position of WSJ and so forth. [17]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be a very good source and satisfies the reliable sources criteria for an academic publication, and it has various things which are very useful in it like references to the Greenpeace investigations of the industries and people behind the denial, it is not just an extr reference but can be used to back up new stuff that previously didn't have good enough sources to go in. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Isn't this article pure demagogery and conspiracy nutterism? For sure, the long history of social exorcism, going back at least to the papacy and the inquisition, is a kept alive by political zealots of all sorts. But shouldn't wikipedia be more of a spectator than a participant to the utterly intellectually corrupt political etistics of our day?-- (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No what we do is summarize what is in reliable sources. We try not to include one lot of reliable sources or exclude others based on personal views. See WP:5P for a summary of the basic principles. Dmcq (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The article itself should not be confused with its topic. We do try hard to keep the demagogy out, hopefully with more success than has been the case in the public debate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be looking for Global warming conspiracy theory, or Climate change controversy. Special:Contributions/User:J. Johnson, where is your signature? (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It stepped out for smoke break. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource

Historian Hunts for Motives Behind Climate Change Doubt-Mongering: A Q&A with Naomi Oreskes "Historians search for those behind climate change contrarianism has documented the evolution of those raising doubts" by Rae Tyson and The Daily Climate Scientific American November 21, 2011 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Would contrarianism relate to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
They're different but overlap. There's probably a load of them that are plain deniers and there's a whole lot of deniers out there who aren't scientists. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a combination adding to Climate change controversy. (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP is looking for the best article to mention this source in and slightly misunderstood your last response. I think it's fine for here, although given that it's just an interview, and also a short one, it won't be good for much more than a single sentence. Hans Adler 12:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) See Contrarian. (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand by Haydn Washington and John Cook ISBN-13: 978-1849713368 Publisher: Routledge (April 24, 2011) (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource II

Simon Kuper Simon Squabbling while the world burns The sceptics aren’t the block to action on climate change.They just wish they were ] Simon Kuper in FT, 25. November 2011 is an interesting read. Polentario (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam 2005 source

Guardian report of which the purpose is to draw attention to a feature in their Life section by Bob May. Would be better to cite May than Adam, wouldn't it? Perhaps May wrote up the same points at greater length elsewhere, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think it is better when we have secondary commentary but no great objection. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have said repeatedly that it is OK to write up emerging events from reputable news sources but as the first scholarly sources come on line the news sources should be replaced and thenceforward regarded as primary. In this case the Guardian news item is from the same day, is only a pointer to May's piece, and not secondary commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well that's very fine for you and now I'll repeatedly say that a secondary source is better for Wikipedia than a primary source for opinion. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, so let's work together to replace the primary sources that currently predominate in this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No I do not wish to work with you. I don't see your contributions as constructive but have avoided touching them. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't see any of my contributions as constructive, or do you mean just the ones on this article or on the topic of climate change or what? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So far, i can't see your contributions as constructive... All you've done so far is: To ignore an already agreed upon citation style, and have removed information, as well as made it harder for the reader to get from ref to citation. Next i suppose you are going to change the type english already agreed upon in the article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked at your contributions to other articles, just the ones related to global warming which are on my list and related stuff that has made its way to my attention like the AN/Is, AfDs, Fringe noticeboard and your notes on my talk page. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring of references

I've no great problem with having shorter references referring elsewhere to the documents, but if that is being done surely it is possible to have a link from the footnote to the separated information? What's there now puts a burden on the reader finding stuff, I'm sure the editing help desk would help as there is a way of having refs go into different places. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To start with, we're allowed to separate the two. MoS "notes and references (section heading "Notes" or "References", or a separate section for each; see Citing sources)". I will check out whether we can link in the way you say. I think we can but am more used to straight Harvard referencing than to the templates people use here.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Help:Footnotes says all about it. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going for Example B) in that page. Is that not what you wanted?Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes but adapted for numerous sources. Not sure why you wanted to change the citation style. The Harvard method is best when you have a lot of references to a few things, to point to different pages of a few reference books for instance. With what I'm saying you can have the Harvard style and still have lots of sources without destroying the web accessibility of the original style that was there. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Help:Shortened footnotes#Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes with references except without the explanatory notes might do the job. It looks a bit offputting for new contributors though. But then Harvard is as well and that's my main objection to it even when there aren't lots of sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have another problem with it as well. Basically it removes information that is already there. Citation templates are not just conveniences for layout - but also provide meta-information. Basically it is going from a rigorous citation style with meta-information - to a lax citation style with no meta-information... Combined with the problem for the reader - it is not a good idea. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Templates are a separate question aren't they? We could still have templates in the list of references, although I personally can't use them. The method used here is explicitly allowed and is used in a number of FAs. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS trumps allowed. See the lead of WP:Citing sources "Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it." Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
We haven't got a consensus yet. I boldly went and made alterations as an improvement to the article. I take it you will revert but I would like to hear from some more people about whether it is a good idea or not. As I said, it is done in a number of FA, and that is where I have mainly come across it, in preparing articles for FA. By the way, in the other article involved in the merge proposal, the use of the cite template as cite web is yielding very incomplete references. See references 1 and 2 in that article. The one to an M. Phillips article is a deadlink. I can find the Daily Mail article on her website where it says it appeared 12 January 2004, but only on her website. Believe me, I really do not want to click on that website, would rather click on the DM for verification, but searching their archive doesn't seem to work. Could someone who uses cite templates and is watching both articles complete those refs please. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there was a consensus ... What you are doing - is apparently trying to change it. As for the rest, that seems to be a rationalization for your choice - but it doesn't really give much to convince us that it is a better choice. A better alternative (imho) would be named references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No, actually templates are a related question. You are removing information by: A) disconnecting the readers direct note->ref link. B) removing metainformation. Both are information removals. Both are bad style. And both are ignoring the previous consensus style in the article, without any discussion as to how it should be. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Put it back then, it's only a style thing. Life's too short. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I already have. If you want to change the citation style, then i suggest that you find consensus to do so. After all, consensus can change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith! I strongly protest aspects of your re-referencing. Please note that I do favor the "short citation" style that you are trying to implement, but your implementation is seriously deficient, as the others have said. If you "personally can't use" citation templates, then I would strongly suggest that you either leave them alone (and in place, in the text), or move them, intact, to the References section.

If you want to switch to "Harvard" style (author-date short citations in the text, which I strongly favor) then you really should use the {{Harv}} templates so they will link to the complete reference. Which actually is pretty simple, provided that the citation template was moved, intact, to References. I would be happy to help you on these (though time is a problem). Or just leave them, and, if there are no objections, eventually I'll do them. But please, don't just excise the templates. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't think I excised any templates. I don't have too many problems with Cite book or Cite journal. Cite web I find quite problematic as we seem to end up without knowing who the author or the website actually is, and then when the URL changes we have a deadlink and little to go on. I also have problems with book chapters - it seems that they can be done in Cite book but that is counter-intuitive for someone used to citing the chapter itself. Thanks for offer to help. I really don't feel strongly about the technicalities of the referencing but I like it when it is clear to readers what the range of references is (this comes from marking undergraduate work quickly, when you scan through the kinds of references used). Itsmejudith (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I have come to feel strongly about referencing, and citations, mainly because so much current usage is flat-out annoying. The {{cite xxx}} family of templates is part of that (have never seen the point of it), which is why I tend to push for {{citation}}. But even "cite" is better than no template. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge from global warming conspiracy theory

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.

The article on Global warming conspiracy theory actively promoteds said theory, by presenting it as undisputed, mainstream fact (largelyby implication, of course: there is no context provided, just quotes and beliefs of promoters of the theory).

It desperately needs context, and, as this article provides the overall context (and the conspiracy theory claims are clearly just a more extreme form of denialism), this seems the obvious target. 86.** IP (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Could you just read the article first or at least the first paragraph before proposing merges like this. They're not the same topic at all. There's no point shoving them together like you did alarmism into media. Dmcq (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course they're the same (or, at least, near enough to discuss together). The conspiracy theory is an extreme form and/or excuse for explaining away evidence against denialism, and so is reasonably discussed alongside it. You seem to have a very rigid view of topics that is unhelpful; the two concepts are regularly discussed together. 86.** IP (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The denial here is by people who don't care about the evidence and many may actually agree with it for all I know. That's quite different from conspiracy crackpots. You've just read denial and not got any further. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose - it really is time you found something useful to do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources connect the two from a five-minute web search:

  • - "Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se: Those aforementioned 2% of eminent scientists prove as much. I personally know several denialists whom I generally consider to be intelligent and thoughtful. But the most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind. Oxford University scholar Steve Clarke and Brian Keeley of Washington University have defined conspiracy theories as those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society. This describes, more or less, how radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of their obsession: They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too.”"
  • "Indeed, the mere presence of the words “climatological” and “World Meteorological Organization” in the first paragraph above all but guarantee a barrage of furious emails from partisans dogmatically certain that climate change is a scientific hoax conceived by freedom-hating one-worlders seeking to impose eco-tyranny. It’s remarkable how well some people can type with both eyes closed and their fingers stuck in their ears. Republican presidential candidates all but unanimously (if belatedly in a couple of cases) resist climate science. In GOP circles, it’s considered sensible to warn against the grave threat of Shariah law being imposed in Oklahoma, but weeks on end of rainless 110 degree afternoons, not so much. Democrats like President Obama appear to have concluded that global warming is like gun control, where reasoned self-interest has little chance against well-organized fanaticism. So why bother?"

86.** IP (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I think the arguments above are thus invalid. 86.** IP (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Please read the section in the article 'Meanings of the term'. It is not uncommon for people to use denial to insult people but the academic use of 'climate change denial' is as in this article. Articles are about topic not words. Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge They are not the same issue. Sunray (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Conspiracy theory is the extreme end of denial; they can be treated in the same article. Apply WP:NPOV and WP:V rigorously. By the way, I don't share the impression that these views are being promoted in the current articles, rather there is an incoherent mess that doesn't reflect the sociology and political science research into these discourses. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • But this article isn't about denial. It is about Climate change denial as used by the academic literature. Please read the section 'Meanings of the term'. Where do you get this "doesn't reflect the sociology and political science research into these discourses", if you have some better sources than are in this article then feel free to do something with them. Lets just have one of these sources that back up what you say. Dmcq (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
There are papers by McCright in the Further reading but not referenced in the article, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Many new Republican members of Congress share the extreme views of their conservative base, who see climate change and regulation of energy consumption to be a left-wing anticapitalist conspiracy. All but one of the new GOP Senators (Mark Kirk, IL) either deny climate science findings or hold that they are split and inconclusive." Antonio, Robert J. and Brulle, Robert J. "The Unbearable Lightness of Politics: Climate Change Denial and Political Polarization. Sociological Quarterly. 52 (2). 195-202. 2011. See, treating conspiracy and denial together, as the same issue. That isn't the main point of the article, however, which addresses major debates in environmental sociology such as reflexive modernisation and ecological modernisation. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Those sociology lot really love their terms. I can't tell from that excerpt whether they have used climate change denial in the sense of this article or not. It certainly edges into it as for ideological reasons as many of those candidates for presidency start by saying all that for the tea part crowd and then moderate it all to try and gain the centre ground. I think probably most of them do just profess it for ideological grounds and there is a bit of overlap in that aspect with the cranks but not an awful amount. I think the environmental skepticism and global warming conspiracy topics make a much better match though there's problems there too. I don't understand this keenness to merge things though, do you really think ecological modernisation is more notable than global warming conspiracy theories? Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You are surprised that a field of scholarship uses technical terms? Of course this is just one short excerpt showing the seamlessness of consideration of denial and conspiracy theory. You'll agree, I think, that a big chunk of our climate change articles are about science and should faithfully reflect scientific findings. Then you should agree that another chunk are about politics and should faithfully reflect the findings of scholars researching in that field. Well, that literature treats conspiracy theorising as a subset of denialism. So should we. If you can find one peer-reviewed paper or book that says they are different phenomena, then perhaps a separate article could be justified. And eco-modernisation is a much more notable phenomenon than global warming conspiracy. If you want to get into this stuff, I can recommend some texts aimed at undergraduates. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I never said I was surprised. I just think a lot of them write unfalsifiable gobbledgook. There's the sources here, if you wish to counter them produce equal weight citations that say something different, and pretty straightforwardly too. Basically citation needed for what you say about climate change denial if you wish to disagrwee with the 'meanings of the term' section. I am not interested in your original research about what sticking words together should mean. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial agree with 86 but oppose merge anyway Seems to me that on "issue X" there is substantial overlap between denialism and conspiracy theory. Above comments to "just read" so I can understand the distinction fall a bit short because I did read and I still think there is overlap. So someone would have to flesh this out in more detail for me to change my mind. Until that happens, my mind is currently agreeing with 86, in part, that there is a some interrelatedness in these articles. However, I stop short of endorsing the merge. The climate change conspiracy article is missing relevant discussion of the CRU email hacking, the fraud claims and resulting libel lawsuit (drawing near to trial as I type) in Michael Mann v Timothy Ball, and the gubenatorial aspirations of (coal mining) Virginia's current attorney general (a former fossil fuel lobbyist) who is keeping flames of conspiracy innuendo swirling with his pending FOIA litigation against the U of Virginia. No doubt someone who studied the matter could find other whodunnits (names, dates, specific allegations) to include in covering the conspiracy theory angle, which is not to say such allegations have any merit. Just that the allegations are getting attention. In other words, while I think there is overlap in these areas, it is my opinion that there are sufficient allegations of MISCONDUCT for the conspiracy theory chapter of all this hoolaboo to get its own article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There is overlap between denialism and conspiracy theory. However this is not about denialism. It is mainly about companies paying to obfusticate the issues. They are not in denial or anything like that. They si mply want other people to go in denial. What is the problem with that distinction? Have people never come across liars or cheaters? These people aren't nutters, thy're simply doing what they think is in their own best interests. If things overlap you'd expect something to disappear when they are joined. In this case nothing would disappear. They are completely disjoint in what they cover. Dmcq (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Does that argument work with holocaust denial? "They are not in denial or anything, they just want other people to go into denial." I don't think so. Generally, if someone advocates a point of view, they get classified as an adherent of that point of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
One might as well say Spielberg is a UFOlogist because he produced ET. Or do you think this really is just a conspiracy theory article and these industries really don't do what's said here? Or do you think that for instance the 9 11 aattacks and 9 11 conspiracy theories articles should be merged because there actually was a conspiracy to blow up the towers? As it says 'On September 26, 2005, the Spanish high court sentenced Abu Dahdah to 27 years in prison for conspiracy on the 9/11 attacks'. Dmcq (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, from one of the few academic journal sources currently cited (although it is a "Viewpoint" and probably not peer-reviewed).

In some cases, denialism exploits genuine concerns, such as the rejection of evidence on the nature of AIDS by African-Americans who perceive them as a manifestation of racist agendas.7 While conspiracy theories cannot simply be dismissed because conspiracies do occur,8 it beggars belief that they can encompass entire scientific communities. There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one’s own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’...

Very clearly treats conspiracy theorising as part of denialism. I'm finding this to be universal in both the scholarly literature and the grey literature, but if you can find a single source that says they must be treated separately, would be very happy to look at it and reconsider !vote on this merge. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have not disagreed with you over what denialism is. I have disagreed over what climate change denial is. I really wish you would take that onboard and yet you continue with quotes that just say denialism. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I put a simple question to you before this. Why have you just ignored it and persisted with this business about denialism? Which type of the three conspiracies I outlined there did you think this article fell under? Dmcq (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to be funny, but could you re-state your question and the three types of conspiracy? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
As above: "One might as well say Spielberg is a UFOlogist because he produced ET. Or do you think this really is just a conspiracy theory article and these industries really don't do what's said here? Or do you think that for instance the 9 11 attacks and 9 11 conspiracy theories articles should be merged because there actually was a conspiracy to blow up the towers? As it says 'On September 26, 2005, the Spanish high court sentenced Abu Dahdah to 27 years in prison for conspiracy on the 9/11 attacks'." Do you think promoting denialism is the same as denialism or conspiracy theory, do you think this is a made up conspiracy, or would you mix up actual conspiracies and nutcase theories? Dmcq (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, will try and unpack and answer each question you pose, as best as I can.

  1. Spielberg. No, because the film ET carries all the pointers that it is fiction.
  2. Do I think this is really just a conspiracy theory article? No. This one is an article about climate change denial in general, and conspiracy allegations are a subset of climate change denying allegations. If the merger goes through, the result will be an article about climate change denial that covers the conspiracy theory allegations within that denial.
  3. Do I think the industries don't do what's alleged here? No.
  4. Do I think the 911 attacks article should be merged with the 911 conspiracy article? No.
  5. Was there an actual conspiracy to blow up the towers? Yes, but that is not the conspiracy that the conspiracy theorists are interested in. Instead they allege that the towers were blown up by the US government or similar rather than collapsing as a result of the collision by aircraft. That is an incorrect but notable allegation, therefore merits its own article.
  6. Do I think that promoting denialism is the same as denialism? Yes.
  7. Do I think that promoting denialism is the same as conspiracy theory? Not always, but often, especially if particularly ill-informed op-eds are considered.
  8. Do I think this is a made-up conspiracy? Yes, depending on what you mean by "this". Climate change is actually happening and scientists are right to bring it to our attention. Climate change science is not a conspiracy. It is a falsehood to allege that it is a conspiracy.
  9. Would I mix up actual conspiracies and nutcase theories? No; I would try and distinguish them carefully, referring to the sources that address each.

And after all that, I am not sure that we have discussed any arguments about merger of two articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By 'this' I meant this article 'climate change denial' but you've answered that anyway.
That has explained a few things.
Do I think the industries don't do what's alleged here? No.
Do I think the 911 attacks article should be merged with the 911 conspiracy article? No.
Would I mix up actual conspiracies and nutcase theories? No; I would try and distinguish them carefully, referring to the sources that address each.
Do I think that promoting denialism is the same as denialism? Yes.
Do you not see a bit of a contradiction in not wanting to mix actual conspiracies with conspiracy theories and yet wanting to mix an actual conspiracy with conspiracy theories? What is served by mixing actuality with fiction? As you said of Spielberg 'Spielberg. No, because the film ET carries all the pointers that it is fiction.' Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Now I think I get one of the things you are saying. The "actual conspiracy" is a conspiracy of various forces that wish to deny the reality of global warming. You wish that in the article "Climate change denial" it is made clear that climate change denial amounts to a conspiracy, e.g. between oil companies and certain politicians. I agree that that is a very different suggestion from the suggestion that climate science is a conspiracy. We do indeed have a close parallel in the 911 case. Well then, any coverage of climate change denial as conspiratorial in nature must closely follow what the sources say. I still do not think I see a barrier to merger. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well wish to deny in that they don't want carbon taxes or suchlike. More like the energy company that sponsored a school building but as a condition had no switches to turn off the lights. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's neither climate change denial nor conspiracy theory. It's just climate change recklessness, different in degree only from me getting the bus when I can't be bothered to walk. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge.
    • There are educated, powerful people who know that climate change is real and caused by industrial activity, but they are making so much money from said industry that they actively and financially support 'scientists' who are willing to publish denialist rubbish for money.
    • There are people in the media who, whether they understand the reality of CC or not, are willing to give these denialist memes coverage if it may increase or maintain their audiences or readerships
    • There are members of the public who are taken in by all this published denialism, and so actually do not believe that climate change is real. Some of these individuals will often be happy to dominate a pub, cafe or dinner conversation with sound-bites designed to wobble shaky understandings of real climate science, and try to convert their friends and family over to denialist thinking
    • There are members of the public who are so taken in by all this that they have started to believe that there must be magnificent conspiracies going on somewhere to create all the evidence and theory behind climate science
    • Some of the educated and powerful are happy to encourage these deluded individuals and help, wherever possible within the bounds of sanity, to feed them with bits of plausible-sounding nonsense that fuel such conspiracy theories.
    I see all these activities as part of the topic climate change denial, I know there are citations for all of the above, and I see no reason why the whole topic should not be covered in one good and cited article, rather than fragmented all over the place. Fragmentation gives the false impression that different parts of this sordid process are separately notable. It also makes development and maintenance harder, so that individual sub-sub-sub-articles can come to inhabit alternate realities where 'it might be true'. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well you've summarized the situation well and gave a reasoned argument for for supporting the merge. I would also include environmental skepticism as applied to climate change in the pot too if such a merge was to be done. I think what you're probably wanting is a better overall view of this side of the business than global warming controversy can provide and that could absorb the small articles. If you want that I don't think any of the current names are really suitable for such an article, certainly climate change denial isn't really suitable given how it has been used in the books using the term as opposed to straight denialism. I hesitate to suggest yet another article but I think that might be the best way of going round the business and then redirect the articles that have been fully absorbed. I think though this article is big enough to stand on its own so I disagree about the merge but I am thankful after what has happened with AfDs and merges and suchlike before this for the thought you put into it. Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Nigel. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Process comment There is no proposed merger tag on the other article. Some advocate of the merge ought to place the tag. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (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.

Change citation style?

Are we possibly agreeable to changing the citation style of this article? Particularly, using a short citation (implemented with Harv) in the text/footnotes, moving the footnotes ("reflist") into a Notes section, and moving the full bibliographic references (in template form) into the References section? This would be along the lines of what Judith attempted, but I think without the various problems that were objected to. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose strongly. I see a change to citation style for this article as bad. The Harvard style is mostly useful when you have lots of references to different pages of the references. This one doesn't really fit that pattern as it has lots of different sources and not many references to different places in sources. The Harvard style is harder for new contributors and I don't think we should use it unless it has definite benefits to the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's discuss this. For sure, "Harvard style" (though what we are talking about here is really "short citation") is very useful, almost essential, when there are multiple citations of a source. But, just because is is very useful for multiple citations in no way makes it not useful for singleton citations. Simply moving the citation templates out of the text makes the text a lot easier to read in edit mode, and having them collected in one section makes it easier to edit them. This also permits having them alphabetized, which experts generally prefer because one can quickly scan the references and see what sources have been used, or (equally important) left out. These are definite benefits. Even if you disagree about these benefits, the fact is that about half of the sources in the article are already multiply cited.

I suspect the real problem is not that Harvard style is (supposedly) "harder for new contributors", but that experienced editors are secretly afraid of it. Look, it is not hard. Proper citation is hard, because the concepts have gotten all tangled up, so many editors just figure out some way that seems to work good enough, and then oppose anything that might challenge their house of cards. This is why citation "style" is so inconsistent across the climate change articles. (E.g., in Global warming#Notes there are about five, maybe six "styles", including naked urls.) But citation, even proper citation, need not be hard, and using Harvard is actually quite easy. Even easier than putting full citations in the text. So easy that I am willing to do the work here, and subsequently all anyone else has to do is emulate the demonstrated style. Which will be easy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I hardly think that it being something experienced editors are afraid of is a good recommendation. If you want to move current citations down you can always add reference names and use the reference names in the text. One doesn't have to use short citations. I think for this type article short citations are less usable by readers, that was my first point about it before mentioning editors. Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
See WP:LDR for sticking references at the end and just using their names in source. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. And since i started out several years ago using the Harv style references - i rather doubt if i'm "secretly afraid" of using them. As for multiple citations - they can be handled by named refs, and if you want to have doble indirects (for instance by wanting quotes on citations - linking to a common ref), then they can be done with grouping. Harv is unhandy for readers and harder for editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, we can have Harvard and named refs. I changed the style, but I don't have that strong a view, only that we need to have full refs even for web resources, not bare URLs. I only changed the style because I have seen this done as a stage in getting an article to FA. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Favor strongly (just for the record).
Strictly speaking the use of named refs is purely a matter of footnoting style, and a footnote may as well contain a Harv link as the full, templated, bibliographic reference to a source. But list-defined references – which have one benefit over regular named refs, in pulling the citation template out of the text – do not provide the benefits available if Harv is used.
My apologies if "secretly afraid of" doesn't apply to anyone here, but I have run up against this "Harv is too hard" argument before, and, frankly, I find it quite contrary to my experience; I simply fail to see the difficulty. As to reasonable alternatives – grouping is even more esoteric than Harv, and goes quite against the idea of making things easier for "new contributors", and {{rp}} is just atrocious; what else is there? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I shall put 'strongly' beside my oppose then as I have actually given reasons why I think Harvard style would be a bad choice. What are the benefits you talk about, why do you think Harvard style would help a reader of this article? And talking about it being esoteric after talking about it as something experienced editors are afraid of - I think your reasons better be pretty good. Dmcq (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
My apologies if I was unclear, but I deem grouping to be more esoteric than Harv, and thereby "harder for new contributors" than Harv.
As to benefits (perhaps I was too succinct?), how about:
  1. Easier than named refs for multiple citations, as don't have to dig through the text to find the name tag to use.
  2. Easier than named refs for even single instances, as don't have to deal with the whole citation while doing text, can defer it till "in citation mode".
  3. Simplifies the text in removing the full reference (citation template) out of the text.
  4. Encourages consistency of citation style in having the full references all in one section. (Also useful in having examples at hand when creating the references.)
  5. Ease of maintaining references in having them all in one section.
  6. Alphabetization of references (easier for editors and readers to find sources, and see what are, or are not, used).
  7. Easiest and clearest way of specifying location (page/paragraph/section/etc.), which is tantamount to necessity for verification. Which even readers may want to do.
Is any of that controvertible?
The only reasons I see that you have given for Harv being bad is alleging that it is 1) "mostly useful when you have lots of references to different pages", 2) "hard for new contributors", and 3) "less usable by readers". I have explained why I take #1 to be spurious (being very useful for multiple citations does not make it less useful for single instances), and I find #2 to be counterfactual. And you did not explain #3. Sorry, but I do not understand why you should be so strongly opposed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
More esoteric still implies esoteric. Your points are mostly to deal with writing the references and you seem to have left out easier for readers. The named references in WP:LDR deal with all your advantages of Harvard style except where there are references to different pages or extracts of a single book. Lets take an example of a similar article that has had harv style stuck on it Planetary boundaries. It doesn't have lots of references to different places in a few things which is the ideal article for Harvard style, it has lots of references to different things and not many to different places in them. Exactly what good does it do anybody there to click one to get to that list of Harvard style links and then have to click on one of them to get to the actual anything you wanted in the first place? And then click back and back to get back to your original place? This disadvantage of Harvard style is mitigated in the case of many references to within one book by the reader remembering it is the same book and seeing it is just a different place and by the contraction in the list of citations in that case. You need to have the conditions for Harvard being good before using it otherwise it is a pain. This article does not satisfy those conditions. I asked 'why do you think Harvard style would help a reader of this article?' and you have not dealt with either the reader or this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am having a lot difficulty understanding what you mean. For instance, where I said that "grouping" (one method of dealing with the inadequacies of named refs) is "more esoteric than Harv", you respond with "more esoteric still implies esoteric" – which is meaningless. Perhaps what you meant is that "even though Harv is less esoteric, it is still esoteric". Sorry, I don't agree that Harv is "esoteric" in any practical sense. E.g., what is so hard about "{{Harvnb|Smith|2004}}"? If you don't use Harv, then the fix for certain issues with named refs is grouping – do you think that is easier than Harv?
You state that I "have not dealt with ... the reader ...." Huh? Is that not addressed with my items #6 and #7? E.g., if a reader wants to see if some particular author was cited in the article, which is easier: searching through all of the footnotes, which are out of order and contain much bibliographically extraneous information? Or searching through an alphabetical list of authors, organized with the author's name first? Isn't the latter easier? That is available only with use of Harv.
Or if you want to make it much easier for readers (and editors) to locate (and verify) the material cited, shouldn't page numbers (and such) be added? How do you do that with mulitiple named refs? Use the {{rp}} template? Now that is esoteric, as many users do not understand what it is – it doesn't say "page" or even "p.", and it is in an unusual location, as if it should be the page number of the footnote. It is also confusing if you want to cite paragraph or section numbers.
Your main complaint seems to be that Harv is harder on the user because they have to – click twice? (Once to go to the footnote, and again to link to the full reference.) I find that hardly credible, but if such economy is truly necessary then there is a very simple solution: omit the footnote. Put the Harv link right in the text. ("Parenthetically" if you prefer.) But I find such a piddling little effort insignificant against the effort a reader (or editor) must go to find material cited without a page number (or such). To really make matters easier for the readers we should mandate page numbers. Which is most easily done with Harv.
Discussion of your other points needs be deferred till tomorrow. But I maintain that I have "dealt with ... the reader". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You have not dealt with the reader of THIS article where the conditions are not satisfied for Harvard to be better. I have agreed that sometime Harvard is better, in particular it is good if there are a number of references to within books. However that condition is not satisfied for THIS article and Harvard would be bad for the reader here. Your points 6 and 7 are not applicable because named references as in WP:LDR applies to 6 and 7 is the specific condition I was saying where Harvard is good but it doesn't apply to any extent to this article. Didn't you look at that article I pointed you at and check what a reader does there? Even with as many particular citations to pages as one could out there I believe that article would be better using the technique of WP:LDR, most citations are either multiple to the same place or to different articles but not different places within the same book. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyway I think we've gone on enough. There seems to be little communication never mind meeting of minds. My oppose stands. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree we seem to be mis-communicating, but understand I do wish to resolve our different views; please help me understand your argument. (I would also like to hear Kim's views, but one at a time, please!) Frankly, I find some of your statements less than articulate, but I do not wish to "win" on that basis; I wish to examine the basis of this anti-Harv sentiment. (And I am willing to help better articulate your arguments if that will clarify matters.)
You have stated (again) that I "have not dealt with the reader...", and I am quite at a loss to understand what you mean by this. (Perhaps someone else could adivse?) I claim (point #6) that having the references in alphabetical order is a benefit to the reader (surely you don't deny that?), yet you claim that is "not applicable" to this article – "because named references as in WP:LDR applies"?? Perhaps you mean that Harv is not necessary for alphabetization? If so, if it can be done with LDR, I should like to see it. Otherwise, please clarify. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No I have tried hard enough to communicate. I oppose the change. There is no consensus for change. Have a look at WP:LDR if you want to see how it can be used to put the cites in alphabetic order. Saying anti-Harvard is just not being in the same room as me, I am sorry but sometimes people don't communicate and I believe going on would be a waste of time. Dmcq (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
And just to be clear: I am also still in opposition. But am unwilling to argue up and down walls on what you perceive as the pro's of Harv. To be frank: I find the positives that you've mentioned, in many cases to be contrieved positives, and to be far from the reality of both editors and readers (most readers do not care about alphabetization, most readers want the to get to the reference from text immediately!). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I think the pros of Harv sometimes outweigh its cons. Just not here. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes.... Yes. Here .... No. Basically the only place where it is worth the bother is if you are citing the same book(s), with page references, often in the same article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
So both of you are indicating you don't want to argue this (and Kim and I haven't even started :). Fine. But it is a fair inference that you have no argument. What I have seen comes across to me as just hand-waving, a bunch of swamp gas that whenever I try to examine it closer just fades off. E.g., Dmcq says: "Have a look at WP:LDR if you want to see how it can be used to put the cites in alphabetic order." But WP:LDR itself says: "The references will appear numbered in the order that they are referred to in the text, regardless of how they are ordered within the reflist/references template." (Emphasis added.) Is that not a direct refutation? Of course, a demonstration of an alphabetized LDR list would conclusively show that Harv is not necessary for alphabetization. But I have not seen any such demonstration.
What I see is "most readers do not care about alphabetization". Which is to argue that this result (alphabetization) is not a benefit. Well, I had rather assumed it was a benefit, and even elaborated on why (easier to find a source). If this is to be controverted I would appreciate some basis of why it is not a benefit.
The main argument against using Harv (correct me if I am wrong) is that "most readers want the to get to the reference from text immediately!" Which is to say, directly in one click, instead of two clicks. Which is a rather pointless argument, because I explained before how Harv can be used to go straight to the reference in one click. (So what is the problem?)
I am sorry if all this seem tedious, but I am trying to examine your arguments closely and carefully. I have yet to find any substance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you're right about the alpha ordering of the result. I'm afraid that just isn't something that concerns me at all. In fact I prefer the citations in the order they are listed in the article. The alpha order of the authors isn't something that seems very relevant to me when I don't have to search but seeing close by ones is interesting. Yes it is tedious, this talk page is about the article not citation style. Dmcq (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sorry I've finally studied JJ's work on Global warming a little bit. And the first thing to note is that it took me this long to feel urged to use that time and brain cells this way. Just a great emotional resistance and it ain't going away. I trust my feelings so that tells me the house ain't on fire. So my conclusions.... as you all seem to agree, I too can see using harv for articles with frequent cites to the same thing, such as the IPCC reports. Beyond that this argument strikes me as the classic "good enough" versus "perfect". Wiki has to be fun. The wiki-wide adoption of {cite} is not perfect. But it works well enough, it is simple for new editors to just jump right in, and it is simple because of a past administrative decision to program wiki to favor that approach. If I can get drop down boxes to put stuff in the blanks in some harv based templates, that would be fine too. I just don't care. I don't want the citing system to get in the way. I don't want to think about or obsess about it. I would make a terrible CPA. I want to write. So in that context the cite drop down menu is good enough. I have not failed to find info I want due to the problems JJ perceives. I buck the system in my professional work and political life all the time. I would just like wiki to be easy. Bucking the {cite} preprogramming drop down templates is not easy. So to sell harv for all climate articles to me, JJ, you would need to get the wiki programmers to give me the same brainless drop down templates. Moving on... is redundancy in the references a problem? Bandwidth, servers, and page load times... yeah I get all that. But who cares? For granny in Nebraska getting her first wiki kicks is that redundancy a problem? For prof Jones who is looking for some reference she happened to see on wiki, is redundancy a problem? Its sloppy, it's ugly, and..... no one cares except folks with OCD. I suffer that problem in other walks of life so its a term of affection, no offense intended. Alphabetical listing.... is that a benefit? Not to me. If I know the paper I want to look up was by SMITH I just do a text string search for SMITH. GRAND CONCLUSION: Perfection is the enemy of good enough, and I think JJ wishes he had had the chance to argue the merits of Harv back in time when they adopted the {cite}-based system as the dominant method in wiki and programmed their drop down menus. If you find a time machine JJ I'd like to borrow it because there are some things I'd like to change too. But she probably would have poured that beer on my head anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
PS.... JJ, if you want tangible data - as opposed to opinion - as to which methods are easiest/funnest/best/whatever, there is a way to get objective data from the target audience (wiki editors and wiki readers). See usability testing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't take useability testing to objectively determine that clicking twice is twice as much work (!!) as clicking once. But still fewer key-presses than doing a search. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this the right place for this discussion? It seems to have drifted into the general benefits and disbenefits of citation styles. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the right place, because the underlying question is whether use of {{Harv}} would improve this article (or not). Which gets into the other questions.
Well, I wanted some feedback, and I got it. (Thanks.) And I think I understand where NAEG (and possibly you others) are coming from. While "secretly afraid" may not be as applicable as I thought (I still think there is an element of that), it is clear that there is great emotional resistance. And while I find some of the arguments here factually incorrect (e.g., NAEG's imputation that {{cite}} is an alternative to Harv – it is not!), I also understanding the difficulty of trying to rationally argue what are essentially emotional issues. And I think that adequately answers the question posed: "we" are not agreeable to changing the citation style of this article, at least in regard of using Harv. (Unless, of course, a bunch of other editors jump in, but I won't be holding my breath.) If anyone cites this "finding" in the future, please note it was not due to any demonstrated failing of Harv. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Two things, (A) I would encourage you to take the discussion on harv to the wiki village pump or something. Maybe you will find some collaborators interested in making harv so brainlessly simple that even I would use it! (B) Theory is great. Conviction is great. Seemingly logical conclusions about how something "ought" to work are great. Often, it all changes when the usability testing data comes back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
If there was a couple of major references and we wanted to cite a number of different pages in them I guess you could use harvard style for that and maybe use the current style for the others or just use harvard for all of them if there's not many of them. Using it in general when there's only one reference for practically everything in the article is what I'm objecting to. Dmcq (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything "brainlessly simple" could self-effect without supervision; for anything worth doing "some assembly" is typically required. But Harv is about as simple as anything involving citation can be. It is certainly as simple as (arguably even simpler), and much easier overall, than named refs. But trying to argue any of this on an objective basis seems futile. E.g., in the statement "there's only one reference for practically everything in the article" (i.e., sources cited only once), "practically everything" is numerically 32/55ths. Is the remaing 23/55ths then practically nothing? I think not, but such objective evidences hardly matter (similarly re LDR alphabetization) when the real issue is, as NAEG has so lucidly explained, emotional resistance. Which I could eventually "drill down" to, but I don't know what kind of anesthetic is needed to get you all to hold still for it.
As to taking the discussion elsewhere: Harv is simple. The editors that need to be convinced are those working on this article, which is you folks. If this article is be improved regarding its citations (and Planetary boundaries#Notes shows how), then it is us that have to do it.
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good source, could it be used more?

The Dunlap and McCright chapter in the Routledge Handbook is currently just used for the definition in the lede. I think it should be regarded as a fully scholarly source of high quality and was wondering if it could be used more throughout the article. In particular they used the term "denial machine" frequently, and readers should be aware that this term appears in the political science literature. Does anyone have any objection if I draw from this more, especially for the History section, but for some other sections too? By the way this is without prejudice to the merge proposal above. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems more like a tertiary source to me, a survey of the literature. It can help with structure and definitions and finding references. I'm not sure there all that much more that's directly usable. Dmcq (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's quite typical of the sources we should be using, indeed already are using. I will ask briefly on RSN whether we can regard it as secondary. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
We're allowed to use tertiary sources, just summarizing summaries is getting rather distant from anything. So no I don't think it is typical of the sources we should be using any more than we should summarize encyclopaedia entries. They're good for the same reason as that article is but they should not be used a a major source of actual material for Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This has all the hallmarks of being an authoritative contribution to the scholarly literature. As are the other papers in the book. I intend to draw on them substantively so if you have a real reason why not, you should state it clearly now. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that really annoys me about you. I have given reasons just above and you just don't seem able to read or acknowledge them. And could you give up this 'scholarly' silliness too, it sound like the scholastics arguing about what Aristotle said rather than doing a bit of science. And as to your thing on RSN I never said that reference was not a reliable source. Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reliable source too. Why do you think it was used in the article? I really am giving up any good faith assumptions about your contributions, I get the impression you are being deliberately disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Climate change scepticism

Is there a page dedicated for climate change scepticism? Seems biased to have a single article about the most extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking for Scientific scepticism? (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Link between sister projects, Wiktionary (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An addition from mass media to locked article?

Some rebuttals ...

within the article Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal January 27, 2012 in
and Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal from the Union of Concerned Scientists Updated January 30th
from, Panic Attack: Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies by Joe Romm on Jan 29, 2012 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinked periodical. (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a continuation of the Nordhaus exchange after the WSJ article in Jan.2012; In the Climate Casino: An Exchange by Roger W. Cohen (ex-ExxonMobil manager of Strategic Planning & Programs), William Happer, and Richard Lindzen, with a reply by William Nordhaus April 26, 2012 New York Review of Books. (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New title

This title is fundamentally POV. No one denies that climates can change; the question is whether human beings are influencing it. The current title is a straw-man label used by those who wish to belittle people who hold these views. (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth and at the risk of being spammed, I agree. The Earth's temperature is obviously rising from the of the late 1700's/early 1800's. No one is denying that. People are denying MAN MADE climate change. Ckruschke (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Agreed. The title is ridiculous. Need to distinguish Anthropogenic climate change. "Scientific Consensus" is an interesting choice of words considering publications like the Oregon Petition where 30,000+ scientists question the data. Also, 'Denial' is an obviously loaded word. Skepticism would be better. What's the point, though. Wikipedia is so hopelessly biased and controlled. (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to take stuff like that up with the academics and researchers whose work is referenced in the article. If you can persuade them to withdraw the points made in their books and published papers, then there'd be nothing left to write about in this article. Until then, it remains a well-documented contemporary phenomenon, notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. You need to follow the links in the page to see the rest of the story, from all sides. --Nigelj (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Readers may reflect on Wikipedia internal politics, whereby this (imo) terrible article chugs merrily along, while its counterpart, Climate change alarmism, was deleted, with minor remnants hidden at an inappropriate redirect. Feh. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was thoroughly discussed in the public domain (not in 'internal politics') here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change alarmism (2nd nomination). One issue discussed was the lack of notable or reliable sources that actually used that phrase as a descriptive term. There's no conspiracy. --Nigelj (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Nigelj - You seem to have missed the point of this thread. The statement was that the title is incorrect. None of the reputable Man-Made Climate Change Deniers argue that the Earth hasn't warmed since the late 1700's (and that there is much documented history of it happening several times before then - apparently w/o man's aid), so your point that "the academics and researchers" need to "withdraw the points" is baffling. The article should obviously be retitled - Skepticism of Man-Made Climate Change is better than what we have now. However, I agree with the other posters that considering Wiki political leanings, this will probably never happen. Better to paint skeptics as fringe freaks than to own up to the fact that a good portion of the US believes man-made climate change is a hoax. Ckruschke (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
They may keep changing their argument, and that is their prerogative. This article is about Climate change denial, which was and remains a well documented phenomenon. What you may be looking for is probably covered under Global warming controversy. Wikipedia has no 'political leanings', other than those of the very large number of people who take part in the various public discussions. --Nigelj (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has no 'political leanings' ... Hah. I wish. Nigel, you've been around the CC area for awhile, no? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  In the end I think it is a deeply political matter whether, in determining the true state of objective reality, one "leans" towards the science at the IPCC, or the politics at the WSJ. I suppose it can't be helped that when you define the WSJ pov as upright the rest of world seems to "lean". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have not posted this in articles due to lack of RSs, but since we are soapboxing and forum debating here, I thought I'd add it for your enjoyment.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We are foruming aren't we. Probably my fault... Pretty picture though. Ckruschke (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
They are just the fringe, even in the US. Guettarda (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Parallels With Creationism

This is a good start, it provides the fundamentals of climate change denial however it could be a whole lot larger, expanded to include a great deal of the phenomena which is observed among deniers out in the real world.

In the Usenet Newsgroup there are a number of deniers who express the same core reasons (or more accurately the same delusional beliefs) for denying global warming is a real, observed phenomena that Christanic Creationists express for refusing to accept that the evolution of life happens. Some demand that "the religions of environmentalism" is being "crammed down our children's throats" just as they proclaim the teaching of evolution is also some how a "religion" that is being forced down kids' throats -- which is a denial of their First Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution.

I mention this because whereas the article mentions Holocaust denial, the phenomena of climate change denial is more akin to Christanic Creationism. While it is true that the Jewish Holocaust was man-made and that the current trending climate change is also man-made whereas the evolution of life is not, climate change and evolution are directly-observed phenomena, testable, verifiable, measurable, not subject to belief or disbelief, only acceptance or denial.

So it would be good if someone with superior writing skills were to flesh out a section specifically dealing with the lock-step parallels between climate change denial and Christanic Creationism, touching upon the Republican-mindset-entrenched supposition that climate change research dollars are some how funding religion, that teaching children about climate change is religious indoctrination, and all of that unfortunate cult-centric anti-science beliefs and behaviors. Damotclese (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting such things instead of attempting them makes comments like this appear quite WP:SOAPish. Meanwhile, you may be interested in this List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The intensity of tone rather overwhelms any objective factuality. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your diatribe. People like you are the only thing that the Climate Change deniers need to prove their point about the biases and holier-than-though attitudes inherent in the field. Since Damotclese is "obviously" right, we really should have a parallel section on the Climate Change crowd "all" being atheists... Ckruschke (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Locate here?

Fails verisimilitude. Probably an editorial, and hence not usable anywhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks ok, it is tagged as a feature and reports interviews and research on the topic, it's not an editorial. Popular Science has been accepted at WP:RSN as a reliable source on science, which is the topic involved. Statements in the report match those published in other reliable sources. The report discusses climate change denial, and the techniques used by those promoting such denial. . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. It still fails verisimilitude, but appears to be reliable, and hence possibly usable here. I can't think of any specific text it would support (another failure of the Michigan Kid), but something supported by the actual text (not a title or subtitle) would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Arthur, your assertion about verisimilitude is unsourced: is it your original research? . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet, so who cares? Such talk page posts from this lower Michigan IP sock are soapish external link spam and are turning the climate talk pages into into a news aggregator. I never get past the source of these suggestions to consider their merit. Instead, I just ignore them, and wish for an IP range block. If anyone else finds merit in including any of this stuff, I wish that other editor would actually run with a proposed edit instead of trying to talk to this IP, because clearly the IP is mainly interested in sowing external news links instead of improving articles with meaningful effort at serious editing. These talk threads are a waste of time, bandwidth, and are an extremely annoying bit of highway litter cluttering up my watchlist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The article in question had already come to my notice, it's one of a number of issues I want to tackle when time and energy permits. As this section appears to have been started by a sock, I'll comment in a new section so this section can be archived if that's preferred. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This "lower Michigan IP sock" (the "Kalamazoo Kid") seems totally clueless about the pointlessness of his activities. As trying to engage him on the point has been futile, a range block seems to be the only option. But he does bounce around a bit (I once saw him coming in from Iowa, as if he had gone home for a week), so a range block would likely have to include all of lower Michigan. That's fine with me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Appell on denial

David Appell is a reputable journalist who has been covering climate issues for a long time: he was the first reporter to discuss the M&M paper which E&E published in September 2003. He has blogged about how some deniers use variations on the term, noting the Cornwall Alliance's Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming which lists "What We Deny" including #3 – "We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits." Interesting list of signatories, which includes Roy Spencer, David Legates, Guillermo Gonzalez and Ross McKitrick. Something we should consider, preferably with a better secondary source. . dave souza, talk 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

More recently, Appell has noted a paper by three authors at the School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Bain, P. G.; Hornsey, M. J.; Bongiorno, R.; Jeffries, C. (2012). "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers". Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/nclimate1532.  This discusses how to motivate climate change deniers to act to improve the environment. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In discussing The Battle Over Climate Science; Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get? by Tom Clynes in Popular Science, Appell highlights the quote "Me, I just stick with denier. I’m happy to be a denier." from Steve Milloy of There's a need to discuss the part played by Milloy and other aggressive deniers: I'm working on this issue from other sources, but it's going slowly. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Useful here for the United States examples?

Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act ‎ was upheld in Federal Appeals court, per Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26, 2012; excerpt ...

The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, the judges are not supposed to make their decision based on scientific arguments, but on legal arguments. If judges based their decisions on scientific arguments, there would have been no damages awarded for silicone breast implants. Hence, the judges' decision has nothing to do with "climate change denial". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The legal argument is over what scientific arguments the EPA is required to take into account: the appeals court has confirmed the legal validity of the EPA's reliance on mainstream science, and rejected arguments put forward by those commonly described as deniers. However, unless a source is provided which specifically mentions climate change denial it's not relevant to this article as inclusion would by synthesis. The Denver Post opinion piece doesn't look very suitable, Chris Mooney's opinion in a blog is a view of a published topic expert and might be used as such, in the form that "Chris Mooney said that,,," . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, better source from The American Prospect by Garrett Epps, the legal affairs editor of The American Prospect and apparently a law professor. Also, statement by Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman that "Today’s ruling is a message to Congress that it’s time to stop denying science." Enough there for a brief note on the case outcome, citing these views. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The references now provided show that I was wrong; the legal issue was "scientific uncertainty" (at least, according to Garrett Epps). Perhaps a brief note would be appropriate in some article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Add here or useful elsewhere? (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose some text to be added to the article. This serves no purpose. 08:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI against IP 191.181

FYI, I am seeking a one year IP range block against the Michigan IP. Comments invited/requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Further Reading section and external links

I notice the Further Reading section doesn't contain many external links, but almost every entry has a "Retrieved", even a "archived at Wayback Machine" notice. It looks as if they all used to be externally linked, but someone removed the links, but forgot to remove the Retrieved notices. Honestly I think the the section would be more useful with external links. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This change [18] seems to have generated the long pile of unlinked stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledge that legitimate skepticism of AGW exists and differentiate from what is presented in the article

The term "denial" is politically charged, since it invokes the idea of Holocaust and other genocide denials. "Skepticism" is a neutral and more descriptive term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A common and misleading misuse of language by climate change deniers of various sorts, and a stale argument: all scientists are skeptical in the true meaning of the term, this article specifically refers to what reliable sources describe as denial of the science. Your argument about genocide is false: the term long predates Holocaust denial, and continues to have that more general meaning. . dave souza, talk 18:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Definition of "denialist": a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidenceThePowerofX 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I deny the existence of perpetual motion machines; does that have perjorative connotations? No, because it is not the denial itself, but denial (or, in other cases, affirmation) contrary to demonstrated reality. It is because outright denial of AGW has become so embarrassingly contra-factual that denialists seek cover as mere skeptics. (Don't we have an FAQ on this?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case, the article should at least acknowledge that legitimate AGW skepticism exists, and ideally, link to an article that presents some of the criticisms of the theory. There should be some distinction made between scientific objections to AGW and right-wing chest thumping. Otherwise, the implication is that it is impossible to be rationally skeptical of AGW, which is hardly a neutral POV. - Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
It all depends on what you mean when you say "rationally skeptical of AGW"? What specific "scientific objections to AGW" are you talking about? By now, the fact of warming is pretty well beyond question, and the arguments about whether it is human-caused are pretty much just epistemological. That's not the same as disagreeing with the predictions of one model or another, or the results of one study or another. But that's not "scientific objections to AGW", that's simply the normal practice of science. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
For a list of scientists skeptical of the current AGW consensus, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The scientific picture is not nearly so clear as many think. Unfortunately climate science has become intensely politicized. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a very short list, considering the size of the worldwide scientific community. And most of them have not published anything recently under peer review to espouse their 'beliefs'. Scientific opinion on climate change#Statements by dissenting organizations is more representative, I'm afraid. --Nigelj (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The question was about scientific objections to AGW [not] right-wing chest thumping. Your comment, a nice example of the latter; in the interest of AGF I will assume that it was meant to be funny. Regardless, it wasn't helpful. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
So. Right-wing chest thumping is WP:AGF? Tsk. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that what I said? Not even kind of. OK, you've made your point - you weren't trying to be funny, just disruptive. As you well know, that page does not document scientific objections to AGW. Please recall that these pages are subject to discretionary sanctions, and continued disruption of them would be unwise. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The scientific picture of AGW is much clearer than the few think. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
As is The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism. I see we list this paper by Peter Jacques as "further reading", it looks very useful as a source. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"The Few?" Has the argument from popularity suddenly become valid? This whole article on "denialism" reads like dogma. Even phrases like "Holocaust Denier" are loaded rhetorically. Either AGW is occurring or it isn't. Just not sure what the purpose of this entry is even supposed to be except enforcement of rhetorical orthodoxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe5pack (talkcontribs) 05:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:FORUM TippyGoomba (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Vague use of the term "the phrase."

The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph says this: On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral. What does "the phrase" refer to? It's not clear. PamFromMD2 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC) PamFromMD2

The phrase "climate change denial" is being referred to. I can't say why, but it seems to remind some skeptics of holocaust denial, for example. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Follow the money Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to make any use of this, but I thought I'd leave a record of the link here. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Nigelj (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Just a theory"

Can I get a clarification around a quote that misrepresents a minor but very important point? Regarding the quote used under "Meanings of the term" that states "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact", I'd like to remind everyone that this relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is the single highest level of scientific consensus. Let's make that clear.

Please change:

"formed lobbying groups to enlist greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research."


"formed lobbying groups to enlist greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," (ironically suggesting the common mistaken equivocation of the colloquial and scientific meanings of the word "theory") and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This type of in-line editorial comment is frowned upon by Wikipedia (See Editorializing). Can you suggest alternative? Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's the exact talking point used in other cases of science denial (eg evolution denial - Creation–evolution controversy and Evolution as fact and theory), so there should be plenty of examples and discussion on how to present it so it's both relevant and neutral. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Paragraph revised. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That change didn't address the issue, and may have made it worse with the slight change in emphasis. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A better question, IMO, is whether the entire paragraph address the subject of the section titled, Meaning of the Term"? In my view, the entire paragraph should be relocated to the history section of the article because it describes some of the history and tactics of "climate change denial" but does not really address the etymology of the term. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The change described above sticking in our own commentary seems wrong to me. As to the meanings section I think the first paragraph could be moved okay but the others are much more about the meaning of the term than any history. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am closing the {{edit semi-protected}} request as this discussion has been stale for 14 days and multiple autoconfirmed editors have already responded. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. No change to the article is suggested. If you want it deleted, open a WP:AFD.

I'm not sure what use the 'climate change denial' page has, seeing as Wikipedia more than covers the science and other topics around the issue in it's scientific articles, and the article on the controversies/facts/history of climate science.

The article also smells of bias towards a particular and defunct camp within the debate which has long since moved on.

Just food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You should visit the US. You'd be surprised. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Bit vague. Just deny the page exists and you will be fine :) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Spanish Inquisition called anyone daring to disagree with their opinion 'Heretics'; In the Stalinist Soviet Union the dissidents were 'Revisionists'; Now anyone bold enough to question the Party Line is a 'Denier'. It's the same mindset. It's not science. It won't last.SmokeyTheCat

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd like to remind folks about the arbcom climate decision, and the expectation that we maintain civility. This thread contains a strong implication that anyone who would !vote "oppose" in a properly drafted AFD for this article is akin to Stalinist or Nazi sympathizers. I don't believe that's what Arbcomm had in mind when they instructed those involved in the climate subject area to maintain civility. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP would like to peruse the four previous nominations for deletion listed in the header above and the reasons why they were rejected. The OP talks about the science and other topics around the issue. This is one of those other topics which if it weren't covered Wikipedia would not be covering, it has loads of reputable citations and it is a well defined subject so really that is about that as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I really think that this article should be renamed 'Climate change skepticism' or something similar and more neutral. Take this from the article "Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."

1. 20 years is really a very short time for scientific theory to become unquestionable. Evolution was first proposed nearly 200 years ago. 2. How is it more scientific to call a minority view 'denial' rather than 'skepticism' ? 3. There are a dozen or more academics who do QUESTION the theory rather than DENY it, including several professors. 4. 'Denial' obviously brings comparison with 'holocaust denial' and to imply that your opponents in a debate are neo-nazis is really very unpleasant to say the least. 5. Personally (and I am an unemployed 51 year old Maths graduate receiving precisely nothing from any oil or coal lobby) I DENY nothing. The theory may be true, CO2 may be causing global warming, I am just not convinced. But whenever I ask Warmists to persuade me why an increase of CO2 - which is plant food, after all - from 0.030% to 0.040% is somehow so worrying they universally say "Well, if you don't believe then you must be a nutter!" Do any other editors share my view? SmokeyTheCat 11:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolution in the modern sense was proposed by Darwin and Wallace around 1860. It was generally accepted by the scientific community quite soon after (although, of course, it keeps getting refined). Similarly special relativity - Über die Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper was published in 1905, and the solar eclipse observations in 1919 just about stopped debate. Again, there are serious people trying to refine and extend the theory, but denial of the basic aspects is a sure sign of either scientific illiteracy or kookdom. The greenhouse effect was first recognised (or at least defined) by Fourier in 1824 (more than 30 years before Darwin published), and quantified to a good approximation by Arrhenius in 1896, nicely in between Darwin and Einstein. This is not some young upstart lefty flower-power thing - the basic mechanism has been understood for a long time. It only became a public concern when we started noticing the predicted effects. If you are a math graduate, I suggest you read the latest IPCC WG 1 report. It and the referenced papers will answer your questions quite exhaustively. Of course, the way you state your question seems somewhat leading and an appeal to ignorance more than anything else. Small amounts of arsenic or vitamin A can kill you, even though, in trace amounts, they are vital for survival. Indeed, for any complex system I would very much expect trouble if a critical ingredient changes by 25%. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm ' DENIAL of the basic aspects is a sure sign of either scientific illiteracy or kookdom.' So I'm stupid or bonkers? A quality I evidently share with Professors Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Ian Brown and Richard Lindzen; Doctors Antonino Zichichi, Zbigniew Jaworowski, David Bromwich et al. Pretty much what I expected as a response. Ho hum. SmokeyTheCat 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice way of taking my quote about Special Relativity out of context. Why would you think that e.g. David Bromwich significantly disagrees with the IPCC position? Or even Dyson, who has now conceded that he did not check the state of research and just was uncomfortable with what he felt were overly strong statements on principle? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Another study

"Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks, Exploring the Connection", Riley E. Dunlap, Peter J. Jacques, Published online before print February 22, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0002764213477096 Free Full Text (PDF) . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Kochs study

This secondary source may be useful: --Nigelj (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


NewsAndEventsGuy just removed the hatnote from this article. Although I understand his reasons, I liked the hatnote (specially the first sentence) because it summarized quite well the purpose of the article. How about we try to refactor it? Perhaps something like this would be more suited:

It's a bit of a mouthful so I'm open to suggestions. If more editors feel there's no need for a hatnote, we can simply forget about it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm --- could there be a bit of POV in this proposal? ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, the first sentence is the same as it was before the removal and the second sentence is pretty much the article's title and nothing else. What do you mean? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'll grant you that this hatnote is closer to the way the term actually gets used (if milder) -- see, forex, James Hansen's and Al Gore's fulminations on the topic ;-{ -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
OK by me, in fact I almost changed the hatnote in just that manner instead of deleting it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer the hatnote restored. NewsAndEventsGuy said ' hatnote's remaining sentence directs to an WP:EGG, since global warming controversy says it is about a public debate, not scientific dissent' That is not what the hatnote said. The hatnote said 'For dissent from the scientific consensus, see global warming controversy'. The point of the hatnote is to redirect people who misunderstand the title and it is obvious some people coming here do and they should be directed to something that deals with their needs. Point 1 is invlid in itself as it is standard to do that when doing what part 2 was about. Dmcq (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Dmcq, when non-science members of the public foment controversy about what the scientists said, that is not "dissent from the scientific consensus". That's JoeBlow listening the hotheaded talk radio with his brain turned off, while it passively absorbs pre-canned talking points. 'Tis a very different thing from an earth scientist of some sort "dissenting from the scientific consensus". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@Dmcq: would it be ok to you if I add the version proposed above? NewsAndEventsGuy already gave the ok and Pete apparently likes it better than the previous one. If I have your ok I'll go ahead and add it to the article. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No, 'List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming' is under see also which is where it should be as an associated subject. And to answer NewsAndEventsGuy it is because climate change scepticism is a different topic that the hatnote redirecting there should be there. Hatnotes are where the enquirer might have meant a different topic. If they do go to global warming controversy it has a section which corresponds to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming if that really is what they want somehow. Dmcq (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaba suggested that we may want a hatnote because it summarized quite well the purpose of the article. I find nothing in WP:HATNOTE to indicate that this is a valid usage of hatnotes. I find it hard to believe that someone looking at this article was actually looking for a list of random scientists, which appears to be the stated purpose of hatnotes in this context. Does anyone have another reason why there should be a hatnote or disagree with my assessment? TippyGoomba (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was saying the original hatnote removed by NewsAndEventsGuy should be restored. Dmcq (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
TippyGoomba, I should've said that it summarizes well the purpose of the article in the first line while linking to two other important articles regarding this issue.
The positions stated so far are: NewsAndEventsGuy wants no hatnote but could go for the one I proposed above. Tillman apparently prefers the new one. I could go either way. Dmcq wants the old one back and TippyGoomba apparently (please correct me if I'm wrong) proposes there's no reason for a hatnote. So what should we do now? Restore the old version? Wait for more comments? RfC? Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Revised opinion - delete hatnote First sentence is redundant with lead first sentence and serves no use. Original form of second sentence (preferred by DMCQ) is objectionable because it would perpetuate an WP:EGG; modified form I previously said I could live with is objectionable because it highlights one related article out of many possible candidates without a clearly articulated reason why that one should have preferential treatment. INSTEAD, List-of-scientists-opposing-etc-etc-etc should simply be included among its friends in the "see also" section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You talk about EGG but that is simply not true, can you provide evidence of what you say instead of simply restating it and ignoring what I said above? You're complaining that the hatnote would redirect to a diferent topic, that's the whole point, if it was the same topic there would be no need for a hatnote. We have had plenty of evidence here that people come along wanting something that talks about scepticism instead of denial as they don't understand the difference and that is exactly what a hatnote is for. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure I can point to evidence. The original hatnote said
(A) "For dissent from the scientific consensus,"
(B) "see global warming controversy"
When you go to that article the opening sentence provides the following definition:
(C) The global warming controversy concerns "the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be."
To see that this is an egg, simply substitute C in place of B... as Gandalf said, "that I have done and this I have read"
(A) "For dissent from the scientific consensus,"
(C) read about "the public debate over whether global warming is occurring.... (etc)"
Anyone following that link looking for scientific dissent ended up at an article covering the debate in pop culture instead. Classic egg. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It says 'for dissent from the scientific consensus' It does not say 'for scientific dissent from the consensus'. And anyway the article global warming controversy does describe what a person who is looking for climate change scepticism wants and it does describe dissent from the scientific consensus. Where do you get this business about pop culture anyway? Are you saying that anyone who comes here must be a denier and covered by this article? Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Look answer for yourself a couple of quick questions
Is climate change scepticism the same as climate change denial?
Does the article Global warming controversy which climate change scepticism redirects to cover the topic of climate change scepticism?
Do people come here thinking this article will cover climate change scepticism rather than industry funded denial?
which of those do you disagree with or what exactly is your problem otherwise with a summary and redirect as per WP:HATNOTE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talkcontribs)
Your questions do not really address the issue, which is whether Global warming controversy is, or is not, an WP:EGG for those wishing to read about "dissent from the scientific consensus". You appear to believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that JoeThePlumber is qualified to "dissent from the scientific opinion" on the subject. In my view, qualified scientists publish remarks dissenting from scientific consensus, and the rest of us splutter about such things over chips and beer. Said another way, NFL players chase the ball around. The rest of us scream at the refs, with varying degrees of knowledge about what's really going on. So no, I don't think public lip flapping about the scientific consensus can ever qualify as down-right "dissent" from the scientific consensus. That's what scientists do, and the prefered venue is the peer reviewed professional scientific literature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree that we should remove the hatnote. If as people seem to be saying, the first sentence of the old hatnote "summarized quite well the purpose of the article", then that is not the purpose of a hatnote. If that is the case, then the words from that first sentence should be used within the wp:lede, whose purpose is to do exactly that. Regarding the second sentence, some people do want to understand the relationship between climate change denial, the public debate and the dwindling party of researchers who still feel they have found a legitimate hole in the science. This is complex enough, and now buried within muddy enough waters, that even we can't agree on the semantics at first puff. Therefore, I propose that this explanation and distinction (based on WP:RS) be made into a short section in at least one of the three relevant articles and maybe summarised in one or more of their lede sections. Trying to squeeze an explanation of those three overlapping phenomena into one finely-crafted hatnote, is expecting far too much. Alternatively, I would be happy to leave things much as they are - we have several groups of articles on related topics all over Wikipedia and they do not have to cross-reference each other via hatnotes; we have article text links and see-also links for precisely that function. --Nigelj (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:HNS about summarizing being a legitimate form and I certainly think it helps disambiguation in this case. Dmcq (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That guideline says that it is "acceptable" to use a hatnote that includes a summary, if it makes the disambiguation clearer. It does not say that we should keep a hatnote because it summarises the article better than the lede does. If the main reason to keep it is because it's better than the lede, then it should be incorporated into the lede. (In the second sentence, explaining the differences between these three related concepts is too complex for a hatnote.) --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The argument that the hatnote summarizes the article should be dropped. That's not what it's for. Can whomever is still suggesting a hatnote please state the version they are advocating. I'm hoping we've dropped the one mentioning a list of scientists. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
My preference is delete altogether for reasons stated above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You refused to answer some simple questions saying they were not relevant and keep going on about WP:EGG. I am sorry but I simply do not follow your argument above about EGG in this case. You ask "You appear to believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that JoeThePlumber is qualified to "dissent from the scientific opinion" on the subject." No I don't think Joe the Plumber is a good source about climate change. I fail to see how that is relevant. They do dissent and that's easily verified. The article 'global warming controversy' describes that well and various other parts of the controversy like referring to this article. If a person looks up 'climate change denial' then it is obvious from a number of people who have come here that they want a description of the wider controversy instead of a description of industrial and political denial which seems to have practically nothing to do with climate change itself and a lot to do with their aims and affiliations of the people and organizations invoolved. Dmcq (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you perhaps saying readers who come here and are looking for more about the controversy are just Joe the plumber types and shouldn't be shown an article about the controversy? Or that Global warming which only describes the scientific aspects is the only reasonable article and the artice about the controversy shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia? I really really do not follow your EGG argument at all. Could you walk through a scenario in which a reader looks up 'climate change denial', why they would follow the disambiguation, and exactly what EGG result then occurs. Dmcq (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a hatnote? If so, can you state it? TippyGoomba (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Dmcq (talk · contribs) in a previous comment I already stated my overall thought about a hatnote but I'll repeat it: we already have a "See Also" section containing many related subjects. If we have a hatnote that links to 1-of-many related articles, there should be a reason why we need to call that one out for special attention while the others stay in "See Also". How about a hatnote that only that links to Energy Lobby, or manufactured controversy or pseudoscience? Do we have a reason to put them at the top hatnote instead of just in "See Also"? Or compare the hatnote discussions in the archives for global warming and climate change, which most certainly do explain the purpose of the hatnote on those articles. And so, when you answer TippyGoomba (talk · contribs)'s question (which I support), please be sure to explain why any article linked in your proposed hatnote needs to be in the hatnote instead of just in the "see Also" section with all its cousins? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, new proposal. I say the first sentence stays as per WP:HNS and add a second sentence mentioning skepticism and a third sentence borrowed from Global warming:

That way we can stress the difference between denialism and skepticism. Thoughts? Gaba (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaba_p (talk · contribs) suggest you change your link from Climate change skepticism to Global warming controversy because the former simply redirects to the latter. If you choose to do that, please clean up the thread by erasing this message also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That hatnote seems fine to me with or without that change. On NewsAndEventsGuy's ideas for other things they are things which are covered by this article, for instance this is about a manufactured controversy with the energy lobby involved. The point of a disambiguation hatnote is to point to something that is not covered by an article but where a person might reasonably end up at the article with the hatnote. I think the link to climate change in the proposal is redundant as the searcher would have used the word 'denial' to get here and global warming controversy refers to it straight away but it doesn't add to the burden at the top much if we have a hatnote anyway and an encyclopaedia should try and cater for people who want to know about what they are looking up. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In discussing that suggestion, I would ask that the final sentence linking to Climate change be changed to something like "For a general discussion of the way the climate is changing, see global warming." The reason is that the Climate change article is about climate change in general, over the ages. This is an article about climate change denial and no one I've ever heard of denies that the climate has changed in the distant past. The problem is that many present day deniers of present day climate science use the argument that the climate has always changed, so the present measured changes are entirely natural (even though they are tens or hundreds of times faster than anything that's ever been discovered happening in the distant past). Linking to the 'wrong' article plays into that argument, I think. Having said all that, I still don't think we need a hatnote, for reasons I've already stated twice here. --Nigelj (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't strongly object but a problem I see is what kind of person would type in or click 'climate change denial' and really have meant a controversy about historical climate change? Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thinking about it again I'm more against also pointing to climate change. The global warming controversy article talks about controversy over 'normal climatic variation' which as far as I can see is the precise argument you said for including a reference to the climate change article. Dmcq (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
New version with changes proposed above:
I note Nigelj still thinks no hatnote at all is better but perhaps he will not mind having this version up? Cheers. Gaba (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that in the article. But I'd be happier without the link to global warming. I don't see the justification for including "For a general discussion of the way the climate is changing, see Global warming". If someone was looking up 'climate change denial' then yes educating them on the basics might be nice, but it isn't a likely disambiguation. The hatnote should really only be used for reasonable disambiguations where the current topic doesn't cover the possible required topic. Plus of course the global warming controversy article links immediately to global warming anyway. Dmcq (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't share Dmcq's apparent worry that some people will be disoriented upon arrival here and I don't really put much stock in that since each of those articles, and more besides, are linked right in the lead, which in its current form does a respectable job giving people a road map. So I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why no hatnote at all is a problem; or what goal is accomplished with the proposed hatnote that is not already accomplished by the links in the lead? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I will of course abide by consensus, but I don't see that here yet. I agree with NAEG that we haven't yet seen an argument as to why these readers will be typing in (or clicking on links to) 'Climate change denial' when they actually wanted to read about scientific opinion on climate change, Global warming controversy, or Global warming. We can't presume simply to tell them that that is what they ought to read, and use a disambiguation hatnote to do so. I fear that whatever argument is presented, it will be possible to reply, "Well, if they want to know more about the subject in general, they can use the links in the lede, in the body of the article, and in the see-also list." But I'm willing to wait and see. --Nigelj (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I never said anything about disorientation and I don't understand in what sense the word is applicable here.
'Global warming controversy' is what 'climate change scepticism' redirects to and it is a correct redirection. It would probably be better to pipe link to it so it is obvious what the disambiguation connection is.
There is no link to 'global warming controversy' or 'climate change scepticism' in the lead of this article. And there is no need for one. This article is about a different topic. That is why a hatnote should be used for disambiguation.
And I agree yet again that it would be better off without a link to 'global warming' or 'climate change' in the hatnote. The purpose of the hatnote is to disambiguate and as has been amply shown climate change scepticism and climate change denial are often confused either deliberately or through ignorance.
And to answer NewsAndEventsGuy the purpose of a hatnote is to disambiguate between terms that a reader may come here by and which refer to completely different topics. The alternative topic is not covered by this article and does not occur in the lead and there is no reason to stick it in the lead except to provide an in lead disambiguation instead of a hatnote, which should not be done as the lead is supposed to just summarize the topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I see 'global warming controversy' is linked in the last paragraph of the lead in 'However, political and public debate continues'. How is anyone supposed to know that will lead to the specific controversy over global warming? The hatnote would be to satisfy the start of thee second paragraph 'Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science.' The global warming controversy article deals with that sort of stuff properly and well. Yes climate change scepticism does fly in the face of settled science but it is not the same as this article's denial. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI, I just tried to improve the lead - and its wikilinks. See what you wikithink. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No that makes no difference, I can't see why on earth you think it would. This is just getting silly. There is an even break of opinion here and the argument is going nowhere, in fact there seems to be mutual incomprehension, so I'll just restore the long standing hatnote under WP:BOLD. Dmcq (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


The article makes this statement:

"Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires donated nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 anti-climate groups casting doubt on the science behind climate change.[26]"

First, nobody is "anti-climate" which is frankly a very a stupid term. Second, this sum is extremely misleading because most of this money has nothing to do with climate.

The rest of the article is not much better.

Well done to the alarmists who have been able to ensure that propagandist drivel like this takes precedence over wiki's purported impartiality. (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what the source says and it is a WP:reliable source as oppose to some random ip on the web, you need to give reliable sources for what you say if you wish to counter other reliable sources.
That said their phrasing 'anti-climate groups' certainly sounds a bit wrong to me though it is obvious what they mean. Someone like to suggest a better phrase from there? Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I partially agree with the IP. The phrase "anti-climate" is not in the article but in the sub-title to the article. The actual body of that RS says as follows:
"Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned. The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives."
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I've reworded a bit. Vsmith (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please change "energy lobby" to Fossil fuels lobby

Fossil fuels lobby is who does climate change denial, not wind power, solar power, etc ... (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done; the energy lobby article was redirected to "Fossil fuel lobby" a long time ago so this was a good suggestion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if by a sock of a blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For the history section...."Global warming: How skepticism became denial"

A good source which could be used here is this one:

This source could be used in the history section. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename this article

I don't think that this article should be deleted but I do think it could do with being renamed for reasons I have given above. Not sure how to request this tho, sorry my fellow editors. SmokeyTheCat 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RM. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Is that just your opinion or is your suggested new name the common name used by the preponderance of media/scholarship? The former is irrelevant, the latter requires evidence. What new name are you suggesting and what are the sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Climate change skepticals/ism. SmokeyTheCat 11:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This article goes to some pains to distinguish between skepticism and denial and to say it deals with denial so that would definitely be wrong. The article for skeptics is global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is not about scientific skepticism or in any way related to it, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I say keep the article. It is an excellent example of how climate change skeptics routinely are demonized on Wikipedia by the usual suspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyTheCat -- you can propose a new title and provide explanation. I don't see your prior post of reasons, believe that would work better if you put reasons for the title here, and hopefully propose a title also, not just a mention of "given above" which got whacked. Do you maybe want it as Climate Change lobbying because this is by definition excluding non-lobbying Denialism, or do you want it merged into Business action on climate change or Global warming conspiracy theory or Carbon offset or what ? Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please rename this article to 'Climate change scepticism' please my fellow editors? 'Denial' is really a vile word in a scientific subject. We don't call those who don't believe in evolution 'evolution deniers', do we? We don't those who believe that the Earth is flat 'spherical deniers' etc. In no other field of science do we use the word 'denial' and we shouldn't here. This seems very uncontroversial to me. SmokeyTheCat 07:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Climate change denial and climate change scepticism are two different subjects, where the latter is based on scepticism. Climate change denial are the political motivated actions to undermine the science and related to psychological bias (See Just-world hypothesis). Prokaryotes (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the precise motivations are but oil companies and politicians pouring money into rubbishing the science and attacking scientists is very ugly indeed - and it isn't scepticism. And climate change scepticism redirects to global warming controversy like it should. Climate change denial is what the sources call the topic covered by this article, have you got some preferred name and a source that uses it? Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose renaming per the reasons given above. Also, I do call those who don't believe in evolution deniers and I also call those who oppose vaccination deniers. They are science deniers no matter the topic. Regards. Gaba (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting over-simplification (which I assume you are making to make it simple for you). There is clear backward/forward/provable evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations (don't get vaccinated = you WILL get sick) and "NO" evidence that vaccinations cause any of the diseases/conditions that it is purported to cause. Thus the non-vaccinations crowd is similar to the alien/black limo crowd - trying to prove as fact something that has been PROVEN otherwise over and over. On the flip side, the Man-Made Global Warming deniers are arguing against a simple theory (although one based on short-term temp "evidence", but still a theory) that does not have the backward/forward/provable evidence that is suitable to prove it as fact (NO ONE knows that if man-made CO2 levels are cut - say - in half = a huge drop in global temps). Thus these deniers are arguing against other people's OPINIONS. Yes there has been GLOBAL WARMING in the recent past, but it is OPINION that man is causing it and is also OPINION that the warming we are seeing is not just another natural short-term wax/wane period that we've seen over the past 2000 yrs+ such as the Little Ice Age. Clear difference.
As an aside, its continues to be somewhat laughable (to me) that we are arguing a 2000 year max (based on suppositions about temperatures in the first millenium) showing a world-wide catastrophe when we have no idea what the previous 500 millions years had for temps. That's like saying that what happened 2 seconds ago (with only minute data from the previous 24 hrs) is a 100% accurate predictor for what's currently happening and what going to happen in the future. Scientists will always tell you that short snapshots in history never accurately predict/explain the time before and after the snapshot - why is this different? We don't even know what caused the Little Ice Age (for which only one possible explanation somewhat includes man's impact), how can we difinitely determine the cause for the current warming period WHEN WE ARE IN IT? Come on... Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Nope, anthropogenic global warming is an opinion as much as the benefits of vaccination or the roundness of the Earth are, because the scientific community as a whole has concluded as much. And shouting won't make you any less wrong my friend. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Really?!?! How is it an "opinion" that the Earth is round when we can clearly observe and confirm this from outer space - which we cannot do with man-made global warming. So thank you for making my point for me! Beyond that, I'm not sure what you read, but you clearly didn't read my post - unless your facile and incorrect distallation of my long and specifc text is your version of it. Or is this what passes as dialogue with dissenters - sticking your fingers in your ears and simple parroting that I'm wrong? Oh and next time, I'll make the capped words bold (which is how I made them stand out as key words, apparently not as benignly as intended) so I don't hurt your feelings... Ckruschke (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
No feelings hurt but thanks anyway for not using caps. As per WP:NOTFORUM I bid you good day. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
which we cannot do with man-made global warming -- yes we can, and we have. We don't even know what caused the Little Ice Age (for which only one possible explanation somewhat includes man's impact), how can we difinitely determine the cause for the current warming period WHEN WE ARE IN IT? -- very very bad fallacious reasoning. If I see someone flick a cigarette into a dry patch of weeds, I can determine the cause of the ensuing forest fire, despite not having been able to determine the cause of past forest fires. Anyway, your illogic and lack of knowledge of climate science aren't germane to the issue of a name change ... the name should not be changed because it's the term in actual use, and the argument for the name change is wholly invalid. -- Jibal (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Where is the line between scientific "disagreement" and "denial?" I'm not sure whether this article makes the distinction. (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This article makes no assumption that the people funding the denial actually do disagree with the science. They are quite different topics. You are mixing up action and belief. This article does not go into the science or what people in general believe about it except as affected by the denial activities. Actually this article is more restricted in scope than is covered by denial which also covers peoples disbelief for say religious financial or other reasons like you get with Boko Haram or various other fundamentalist nutters around the world. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All discussion so far might have missed the point. Smokey's only basis for this proposal is that he thinks the current title is "vile". That is pure WP:POV dressed up as a reason. Smokey, without addressing the current RSs in the article that do use the "denial" verbiage, and without other contrary RSs to support your views, your comments here are WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems to me the time for hatting has come. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Another good reason to not rename this article is that originally most scientists were skeptical of climate change, and it took many years before the majority came to accept that it was not only happening, but that it was anthropogenic. So, calling it "climate change skepticism" would be very ambiguous: Is it referring to the old mainstream position, or the current minority/fringe position? This article is clearly about the latter. Denialism goes beyond skepticism. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.

Why is there a conversion to pounds? I mean, in this case, why not add AUS$, NZ$ and all other currencies of English-speaking countries? This is a legit (non-rhetoric) question. I think this is the only article I've seen that does that. And, if indeed there is a reason, there should be the date and the currency exchange rate. Cheers, Thouny (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a close paraphrase of the source, which also does the conversion, probably because it's a UK article talking about a US thing? Don't know that we also need to have both numbers... Sailsbystars (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A reader can assume the exchange date at when the cited news was written but in Wikipedia we're happy enough to just say what the source says. They don't explicitly give a date for the conversion. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Manual of Style has a section on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Liberal billionaires donated to the activists promoting AGW theory. And? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Slanted Effect?

No article improvement suggested.

Spotted the old 97% quote while searching for something else. This has been debunked by authors whose own papers denied they endorsed global warming. Quoting an untruth doesn't make it valid. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a source on that? Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two official definitions of "climate change", i.e IPCC (natural + anthropogenic influences) and UNFCC (anthropogenic influences only). Also, "climate change denial" has been used repeatedly to describe alarmists who refuse to acknowledge that changes in climate have large natural factors. For instance the so called oscillations in the oceans. /JPC Lindstrom — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Last section

Has anyone noticed that the reference to FBI and Martin Luther King's assassination conspiracy theory at the bottom is misworded? At least put the word "assassination" in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, although I have not formed an opinion on the paragraph in general, I did make that fix. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert J. Brulle paper, "The $1 billion/year denial industry"

This has gotten a lot of play and commentary in a lot of the usually RS journals. But it's quite a bit less than it seems from the hype & puffery.

...The money funded a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a 'wedge issue' that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg." (sourced to "Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks" at The Guardian.

It appears that Brulle counted all the money raised by 91 conservative political groups, for whatever purpose. At the Guardian, he said:

‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’ [Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change] at the Guardian

-- and here's what he wrote to Revkin at the NYT:

I have written to the [Guardian] newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities... Email, Brulle to Revkin

So he doesn't really know how much was spent by these groups on what he calls the "Climate Change Counter-Movement" (CCCM). Which rather deflates the argument to "91 conservative groups fundraise around $1 billion per year." Not quite as snappy a headline, that. The money to fund "denial" is somewhere between $0 and $1 billion.... -- Pete Tillman (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, these groups activities include
  • Climate denial
  • HIV causes AIDS denial
  • Vaccinations are beneficial denial
What other things do they do, besides spreading denial about scientific subjects, and is there any reason to infer the total "denial" budget is closer to zero dollars instead of closer to $1 billion? Are there RSs to support the answers to these questions ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of this section of discussion seems to be about the Graun's headline. We know that sub-eds who write newspaper headlines are not the best RSs, and I don't see a need to fill the discussion page here with long discourses or personal opinion pieces about that. Looking at other secondary-source coverage of the same paper, for example in Scientific American, personally I don't see much that we haven't already covered in principle in this article. Perhaps the new paper could be added as an additional ref to the existing sentence about Robert Brulle's work. There is the quote Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers." --Nigelj (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds more like Boko Haram, do those denial think tanks really go in for that business about AIDS and vaccination like them? Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are the religious believers in AGW theory trying to attack anyone who criticizes their theory? Correlation doesn't equal causation, consensus is not science. They haven't even tried falsified their theory, they've already started on the basis they are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly should who have "even tried falsified their theory"? You do know that we've understood the basic mechanism of greenhouse gases for more than 100 years, right? And that computation of the effect, while using much more simplified models, arrived at roughly the same effect back then that we still find today? If you can somehow show that CO2 does not preferably pass visible light and absorb infrared light, you're welcome to a publication in Science or Nature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I heard about this study, and I heard about how AGW deniers reacted to it based mainly on an article on Forbes. The article makes similar arguments as did Pete Tillman above, namely that the right wing think tanks don't spend their money only on AGW denial but rather spread it out among lot of other topics. [19] I have no idea whether anything in Taylor's article is true or not but I know he has a lousy track record as far as AGW scientific topics are concerned. Jinkinson talk to me 13:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is there a pending suggestion about article improvement or can we close this thread as now being a general discussion? WP:TALK) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


I have started an FAQ for this page, help would be greatly appreciated over there. Good night. Jinkinson talk to me 02:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)