Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.
The 1RR is being retained under the general sanctions noted above.
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Michael Chriton not a "scientist."[edit]

The article states that Inhoe incorrectly states that Michael Chriton is a scientist. Chriton had medical doctor degree from Harvard. I would think that probably makes him eligible for the "scientist" moniker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not believe all medical doctors, or all doctors from Harvard, are scientists. ldvhl (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Elsewhere we define 'scientist' as "an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences," this excludes all the people who simply have had a scientific education, have some science qualifications, or who 'self-identify' as such. --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Crichton got an article published in Metabolism and Metabolism does peer review, so he'd qualify according to that criterion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that one article about undergrad work 34 years ago qualifies him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, this looks like a pretty heavy goalpost. You might have trouble moving it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd happily take on the job. Do you seriously claim that one undergrad paper 34 years ago qualifies one as a scientist? The fact that we have been overly generous to avoid too much bickering at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming does not translate to real life, or even all of Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If Mr Inhofe happens to use the same rules as Wikipedia, then it doesn't matter that the rules are ridiculous, Wikipedia would be hypocritical to call him mistaken. It's a valid question whether I'm serious, since I admit I had a laugh when I saw Nigelj seriously posting that this was the criterion, but let's see whether others think the word "mistakenly" could/should be removed from the words: 'Inhofe mistakenly described Crichton as a "scientist"'. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I would also add that not only should they have published, but a scientist should also work in a scientific capacity. Michael Crichton did not. ldvhl (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
One publication on Host factors in “chromophobe” adenoma of the anterior pituitary: A retrospective study of 464 patients qualifies an author as an expert on climate? Whooda thunk. However, on WP we go by sources, not by an internal WP guideline for compiling a list. "Calling Crichton a "scientist" -- actually, he's an M.D. -- Inhofe credited the author with telling "the real story about global warming" to the public."[1] . . . . dave souza, talk 20:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree? ldvhl (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, if you are a medical doctor (a Biologist) you are not a scientist, but if you're a former engineer who hosted a children's television series, you ARE a scientist and can be seen as an expert in climate. Got it. Wikipedia is biased. (From the Bill Nye Wikipedia entry: "William Sanford "Bill" Nye (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, writer, SCIENTIST, and former mechanical engineer, best known as the host of the Disney/PBS children's science show Bill Nye the Science Guy (1993–98) and for his many subsequent appearances in popular media as a science educator.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There is a fatal flaw in your premise: Wikipedia does not credit (or quote) Bill Nye as a scientist, or expert on global warming. --Kim D. Petersen 13:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed Wikipedia does call Nye a scientist although he appears to deserve that term less than Crichton, but a complaint about that would belong on the Nye talk page, not this one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, medical doctor is not synonymous with biologist. ldvhl (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If we were to apply the peer-reviewed paper criterion then we would come to the conclusion that the Apollo and Soyuz vehicles were not built by... rocket scientists. There does seem to be a problem here, in that not all scientists publish papers. Some may not be allowed to if they are on classified projects.--Anteaus (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Article should focus on the topic: Global Warming Conspiracy[edit]

Like many articles on Wiki, the authors have a closed mind on the topic, as in this case the article provides little information on why people might believe in the conspiracy, instead sets out to debunk the theory and impugn anyone who questions Global Warming. By comparison, read Wiki's article on the Kennedy Assissination Conspiracy, you will come away with an understanding of why the theorists believe as they do, without having to agree with them. If you think that anyone who disagrees with global warming is an idiot, then you will have difficulty explaining their position, so you should recuse yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources you recommend we use to improve the article? ldvhl (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What are reliable sources? See, this is where some of the authors and I diverge. Most of this article seems to be disparaging the theorists and trying to prove that Global Warming is real. I think that is another article, probably called "Global Warming". I think this article ought to explain why the phenomenon of the conspiracy theory exists. It exists because people hear what they hear, read what they read, and believe what makes sense to them. Therefore, the theory could survive on totally unreliable sources. Some of the topics to explain the phenomenon include: Al Gore gets rich as he lives in a 12,000 sq ft house and flies in a private jet, steady flow of articles on data manipulation, the inability of computer models to predict past events let alone future events, the dire warnings on hurricanes that seemed to have ceased in 2005, sea rising that isn't visible to laymen, the fact that the earth has been inexplicably hotter than today, that the earth does seem to be influenced by natural cycles and the progression of warming has reversed since 1998, and so on. This is why the conspiracy theory exists. It's not Imhofe's fault, he also forms an opinion based on the vast information that's out there, and frankly, there is as much info on global warming as there is exposing a scam. I think many people take all the information on both sides with a grain of salt. Alarmist or Denier? The public seems to be in the middle, waiting for Florida to submerge or another Little Ice Age before committing to one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an article Global warming and most of those things you point out are myths and misinformation. I think the article would be better off with some social studies analysis of the phenomenon but you get it with anything. People just don't like to hear that their normal actions are damaging. Unfortunately there's just too many people around in the world now to be able to live without any constraint and still not cause damage. It just conflicts with the idea of freedom and driving in a big car and of course people don't like it and people are amazing good at rationalizing. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That was one of my points -- there IS an article called 'Global Warming', so why use this separate topic to educate people on it? My interest here is, what is the Conspiracy Theory? You are the very guy I'm talking about, you just want to hear what you believe, over and over again, even if the topic isn't exactly global warming. You can't resist saying "most of the things you point out are myths and misinformation". Wake up! Gore does live in a big house, data is substituted when it appears to be an anomaly, computer models cannot explain the Little Ice Age or the Pleistocene warming, climate does change cyclically -- I can't believe you dispute these simple truths. You reinforce my conception that there may be a conspiracy made up of an army of people who want to be right at any cost. I agree with what you say about people wanting to drive big cars without constraints however, this is likely a self-interest factor that drives the Conspiracy Theory. I think that's interesting, and relevant to the title of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ok, so what specific change to the article are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion #1: the article opens with "Background", that cites a 2014 UN report that concludes that Global Warming is real and man-made, then later the article cites the theorists (such as Imhofe) making statements a about the conspiracy a decade earlier. Obviously, the UN report is not "background" to the Theory, the report is inserted up front to suggest that the Theory is wrong before we even tell the reader where the Theory came from. I think the "Background" is, that throughout the earth's history there has been climate change resulting in periods that were hotter and colder than today, and man had nothing to do with it. Rather suddenly a new idea came up, Global Warming, where nature isn't changing the climate, man is. Since this is a radical change in the ·accepted thinking, there is a suspicion that man is not changing the climate so much as certain individuals and groups are merely changing the accepted thinking (for their own benefit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Suggestion #2: the article gives more information on why the Theory is wrong than it gives to the Theory itself. All we get on the Theory is the paragraph name "Claims" listing four statements from Theorists. There are only two points to the Theory, one being researchers protecting their funding, and two being people wishing a world government. Seems to me there must be more behind the Theory, and more could be said to explain the Theory. There are only five sections to the article: 1) is the Background that says the Theory is wrong, 2) called Claims is the Theory, 3) is Criticism which again says the Theory is wrong, 4)is Funding, which suggests that the only Conspiracy Theory is on the part of people who don't want man-made warming to be true, and 5) Fictional Representations, of which there is only one example, and it too is criticized. There is no balance to this article, and little information on the Theory. As I said, the authors seem to want argue for Global Warming and can't put a check on their own bias long enough to discuss a different topic. People who believe there is a Conspiracy Theory behind the Global Warming debate should be writing this article, not people who are annoyed by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what this article is about, perhaps you were looking for Global warming controversy which discussion ideas about global warming. This article is about conspiracy theories, and you removed part of the essence of that from the lead. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Global Warming Conspiracy Theory". Although "theorists" are the authors of the "theory", it seems odd to me that the stand-alone lead in sentence would immediately speak to the "theorists" and not the "theory" itself. It's a minor point, but I would knock off a few a points if you began an essay titled "Evolution" with the opening line that says "Evolutionists typically allege that biological populations inheritable traits change over over successive generations". It just seems tangential rather than to the point. I think I'm clear on what the article should be about. It should explain how the theory came to be, who would be behind such a conspiracy, why that conspiracy might be useful to anyone, and why it is believed by so many people. No, I don't think the article should explain or debunk Global Warming (discussion) as I've said many times in paragraphs above. I actually am complaining that the authors seem to be making a case for Global Warming, and aren't really interested the Conspiracy Theory. I think the article needs to "get in the head" of the conspiracy theorists. Tell us why the conspiracy is credible or appealing. An obvious topic is Al Gore, he is the poster child for both the "alarmists" and the "skeptics". Al Gore is not a scientists, he is newly rich based on the fear of Global Warming, so he has ample personal reasons for Global Warming to be believed. His use of jets and lavish home seems to be hypocritical to the conservation and carbon footprint that he preaches, and his solution of Carbon Credits is at best an indirect solution to Global Warming. I think the theorists are extremely suspicious of Al Gore, they doubt his motives and his science, especially his movie, and his way off prediction that the Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2013. It's harder to defemd Global Warming when Al Gore is out there, don't you agree? Other topics in the headlines that contribute to he conspiracy theory: data manipulation, and charts that are biased to a point of view, the U.N. backing of monetary re-distribution as a cure, inability of computer models to predict future events or explain past events, the dearth of strong hurricanes that were predicted, record snow in Boston. It's pretty easy to see why a typical person might assume there is a conspiracy to make money while presenting facts that seem illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If you could give a reference to a newspaper of book or other reputable source that describes what you're trying to say I could figure out what you are trying to get at. It should talk about a conspiracy or something like that. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The real conspiracy theorists!![edit]

Oh dear - here are the real conspiracy theorists:

Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence. [2]

And I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that the alarmists academics who control these climate articles will never include this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:08, 27 July 2015