This is an archive of past discussions about Naomi Seibt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Consensus for option C: "climate change denier". The article had already been changed to reflect that manifest consensus.
There was no support for "denialist" over "denier", effectively eliminating that option. There was clear consensus for "denier" over "skeptic". That consensus is in line with the broader community consensus and policies that mainstream science is the Reliable Source Neutral Point of View. Editors who believe mainstream science is wrong, or influenced by some conspiracy, should direct their efforts off-wiki. Wikipedia coverage of climate science and other topics will be corrected only after the problem is broadly acknowledged and corrected in Reliable Sources in the relevant field.
I note some responses suggested alternate phrasing referring to her as an "activist" or as part of a movement, in conjunction with some version of the word "denial". Such phrasing might be a viable alternative. However it received insufficient attention for me to assess that option. Alsee (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
JzG: Heavens above, I wasn't advocating this, but just adding the option because this is what some editors believe and have been pushing for, for the record. You don't hold a trial with the request: "Defendant: how do you plead? Guilty or not innocent?" Esowteric+Talk15:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Survey
B because sources call her climate change skeptic.
Washington Post: [1]Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...
Business insider: [2]Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...
Independent: [3]A 19-year-old German climate change sceptic who has been described by her supporters as “the antidote to Greta Thunberg”
B or whatever the majority of reliable sources are saying. (A) and (C) are probably being used pejoratively; (D) "Climate realist" (unlisted) is an unreliable, self-proclaimed title, just as 9/11 skeptics term themselves "Truthers". Esowteric+Talk07:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Sharab, see my reply to you in the section above. This is not something you can start an RfC on. There is no such thing as a “climate change skeptic”, which like I said before, is why we don’t have an article on “climate change skepticism”. Go to the talk page of climate change denial and you’ll see that this has been addressed dozens upon dozens of times. And that this is firmly in the purview of WP:FRINGE. Your inability to understand this is disruptive, and intentionally or not, you’re misleading new Wikipedia users. I’ve never reported someone to a noticeboard before, but I’ll have to do so if you continue to persist. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In fact, there is at least one entry on the Fringe noticeboard right now of a subject who is a self-described “skeptic” of climate science. I’m pinging User:JzG, an administrator and frequent contributor on that board, to hopefully explain the policy to you. Note that this isn’t canvassing; there is already established community consensus on this matter. I’m pinging him due to his experience with WP:PROFRINGE. I’d prefer to avoid going to WP:ANI. As this is a behavioural issue, and not a valid content dispute, it probably isn’t kosher for the fringe theory noticeboard. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but I don't think there's any need for fisticuffs: had SharabSalam not opened this RfC, and had you not responded to it, we might still be in the dark about such fringe issues. So it has served a useful purpose. Esowteric+Talk10:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Esowteric, you’re quite right. I’m really not trying to be combative, to be clear. There’s a fine line between between being civil, yet firm, and appearing antagonistic. I genuinely want to avoid escalating this, which is why I pinged for intervention instead. I’d rather just make Shar’abSalam (and other editors) aware of the general consensus, and we all move on, than anything else. Also, Mugapodes likely should have restored the NPOV version of the article when applying page protection, but I get that it’s often difficult to parse multiple consecutive edits, and at first glance, this looks like a content dispute. Hopefully Guy can fix that if he drops by. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Quote a reliable source that calls her climate change denier or a policy where it explicitly says that we shouldn't say climate change skeptic even if all reliable sources call her climate change skeptic.
That Climate change skeptic redirect to climate change denial means nothing here. It only indicates that the words can be used interchangeably, if that's true then there is no problem with using the term skeptic.
I think am pretty sure that is canvassing. Based on some of JzG comments like here where he calls the inquiry into the Russian investigation origins as "oranges investigation". Or when that one time when he/she called editors RT fans. I can't really tell if we are going to get a neutral answer from this admin. So you are definitely canvassing in this RfC and the closure should be aware of this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, since I specialise in fringe topics, it's a legitimate ping, but in fact it would be better to post a link to this RfC to WP:FTN because otherwise you'll end up with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that will be swiftly overruled. Guy (help!) 11:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C. Wikipedia doesn't use euphemisms and does not portray pseudoskepticism as skepticism - and in this case neither do the reliable independent sources, which describe her as a climate change denier and the Heartland Institute's new face of their climate change denial program. We don't defer to the Orwellian desire to portray denialism as skepticism. Antivaxers are called antivaxers, not "vaccine skeptics", flat earthers are called flat earthers not "globe skeptics" and climate change deniers are called climate change deniers not climate skeptics. Check the link at climate change skeptic and see where it lands. Guy (help!) 11:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
RS call her both, or part of the climate denial movement. This has been said by others, thus there should be no need for me to rehash already made arguments. She herself has seen fit to deny the accusation (explicitly thus its clear its been made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, you said RS call her both, show me an RS that explicitly calls her "denier" but again show me a reliable source (nothing else but a reliable source) that calls her a climate change denier. If you are unaware of what sources are saying then maybe you shouldn't have voted until you are aware of what reliable sources are saying. Here are some helpful links for you [4][5]. I think these two links can change your opinion if it was objective.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I am quoting myself. She has been described as part of the climate denial movement, she her self has seen fit to deny she is a climate change denier. However a better option has been suggested below, we use none of the three options and just call her an activist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment first thing i looked for was her degree in geology or economics or something like that. Wouldn't "...climate change denial activist funded by the Heartland Institute..." be more accurate and in line with the sources and body of the article? Should be important to note that she has no qualifications to speak to anything climate or scientific consensus related, which the article now only does by omission and giving her birthdate. fiveby (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Interesting point, you might be right and any of the options give her mere credibility than she deserves. looking at who she is seen as a counter to (Greta Thunberg) activist seems to be the neutral term.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C -- The three sources listed by SharabSalam don’t make any case for B. Two talk about how she is a fan of a white supremacist. The third says she rejects the term denialist because she is German and it brings to mind Holocaust denial. That is, she doesn’t say she isn’t a climate change denialist. She just wisely doesn’t use a term that is particularly problematic in her country. The articles also speak to her talks at the Heartland Institute, widely known for denying the dangers of tobacco. Merchants of Doubt, coined by a different Naomi. O3000 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I liked activist at first, but think it’s confusing. “Climate change activist” would be someone campaigning to do something about climate change. “Anti-climate change activist” would seem to mean the same. Some form of denial indicates disagreeing with the vast majority of scientists. O3000 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
BullRangifer, may I ask where did you come up with "self-identifies as a "climate change skeptic""? She identifies as climate change "realist". Skeptic is what all reliable sources are identifying her. See for example what the WaPo saysNaomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist”--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, I got it from the opening at FT/N. I am not wedded to that, so keep on discussing. If she really doesn't self-describe as a "skeptic", then forget that option.
I do object to us using, in wikivoice, a description of her as a "skeptic", but do not object to attributing it to her as a self-description, if she does use that word. "Skeptic" implies something other than what she really is. If "realist" is the right word, then go with that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we don't generally call someone hired to proselytize, or even to represent, a view a skeptic. No problem with adding that she self-identifies elsewise. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"Skeptic" implies something other than what she really is.
No, that's not what reliable sources are saying. They are all calling her climate change skeptic. Climate change skepticism is a form of climate change denial. However, she is not a denier.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The term skepticism is used by many reliable scholar sources. Its not a blasphemy to say someone is skeptic and other is a denier. Is there a source that says we should not say term skeptic? Skeptic doesnt promote her views. Scientific sources do use the term skeptic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, Guy, that's about right. We're looking at denialism all the way around. The situation is similar to antivaxers who claim to be "vaccine skeptics" or concerned about "vaccine safety", when they are really just alternative medicine/pseudoscientific/anti-mainstream medicine/anti-science/fringe/fanatics/denialists who are child abusers. (Yes, deliberately exposing children to disease and suffering, denying them protection from disease and suffering, and denying them the lifelong protection from the lifelong weakening of their immune system from measles is properly called "child abuse".) -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that that's okay as the first sentence, but seeing as she's specifically known for her work with climate change denial, I think there should still be a mention in the lead. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
She has not been active that long, indeed it may be she will have no lasting impact when her she is no longer flavour of the month. Moreover I am not sure she is mostly known for that as opposed to a mouth piece for various alt-right causes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree she might not have a lasting impact. But I can't find any articles that show that she's mostly known for anything other than climate change. Have you been able to find any sources? (It's possible I'm not looking in the right places). As of now, every article I can find on her seems to either focus on that she is the "Anti-Greta" or mostly on her views on climate change. I haven't seen any source that focuses on her other alt-right causes or doesn't at least mention she's known for her climate views. Whisperjanes (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C There aresources that say she is part of the climate change denial movement or that outright call her a climate change denier. I'm personally leaning more towards denier, though, because I see that term used more often than denialist. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C climate denier or denialist appears to be the most accurate description of her views, 'politicial activist' and 'skeptic' are both words used by climate change deniers to describe themselves to make themselves more appealing and more neutral, it also implies that her opinions are independent of her employment by the Heartland Institute. I really do not think we should be using their language. John Cummings (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C. I think: applying A or C (... denialist/denier) is more appropriate for Wikipedia --in comparison to B [Namely: She is a climate change skeptic]. On the other hand, option C also seems to be more common rather than A; and researching for option C (in Wiki/net) gives us more result than A, as well. E.g.: "climate change denier" in comparison with "climate change denialist". Meanwhile, generally, the word "denial" is a more common/general word than "denialst", too. At least, I think so! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C. The "skeptic" moniker for those people is history; nowadays, it is only used by the deniers themselves, by others who don't know what they are talking about, and by false-balance advocates, who are still a force within journalism. The scientific literature uses "denier" or "denialist". We should not need to repeat this discussion in every single article about a denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
B Skeptic - Because that's what RS have said. I just listened to an interview with her where she acknowledged that the climate is warming, but she doesn't think it is catastrophic. --rogerd (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Even if it is the term being used, when it comes to fringe subjects, we go with what the experts say. This includes sources generally considered “reliable” for reporting of facts, like media outlets. We don’t look to them to establish how to describe fringe subjects, but to the scientific consensus. Reporters are not typically experts in the sciences, and virtually no scientist, academic publisher, or the like will call it “climate skeptic[ism]”. Our policies on this are ridiculously clear. We don’t equivocate or use euphemisms adopted by fringe theory promoters. It’s perfectly okay to put her preference of “climate realist”, attributed to her, in the article. But we don’t use anything but the variant terms of “denial” in Wiki-voice for people who deny the consensus of the scientific community. This is what our policies on fringe science in particular say. I believe it was even partly drafted due to the constant promotion of this euphemism across several articles, along with similar situations in pseudoscience and alternative medicine (as well as anti-vaxxing promoters). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No, climate change skeptic is a real thing, separate from deniers. Don't try to put everyone that disagrees with you in one box. --rogerd (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Rogerd, nothing to do with disagreeing with me. Climate change skeptics might legitimately be defined as that group of professional climate scientists who dispute the consensus view that the climate is changing due to global warming consequent from human activity.
Academic studies show that this group is virtually non-existent. The climate denial "science" was generated by the same consultancies that fought against tobacco regulation and health warnings, using the same playbook: "fear, uncertainty and doubt". The only way a lay person can be a skeptic of climate change is by listening to disinformation - it's a conspiracist mindset, exactly like 9/11 Truthers of flat earthers. Guy (help!) 00:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, "climate change skeptic" is a marketing label used by climate change deniers. There is a substantial body of scholarly research showing that the entire field of climate change denial is basically the result of astroturfing by the fossil fuel lobby. Yes, some sources use the marketing label. Others do not. We get to choose whether or not to use the marketing label, and the consensus for a long time is that we don't. Guy (help!) 00:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
JzG, you said: "climate change skeptic" is a marketing label used by climate change deniers. Please provide a strong reliable source for this. Where did you get this from? Reliable sources themselves use climate skeptic without attribution.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
When you disagree with 97% of scientists on a scientific subject with which they are related, with massive evidence behind their conclusions, and do not have a scientific background, that's called denial. And please don't bring up a Dark Ages example of how the Catholic Church tortured people as that is the opposite of what goes here. Sorry, but I fail to see your point. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Whats my point? What are you even talking about? I asked for a source for this: "climate change skeptic" is a marketing label used by climate change deniers.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not every sentence on a Talk page need to be sourced. JzG followed that sentence with the more precise "There is a substantial body of scholarly research showing that [..]" You can find the tip of this research iceberg by starting with reading the article Climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, right. Its like "pro-life" as used by anti-abortion activists or "pro-choice" as used by antivaxers opposed to vaccination mandates. Guy (help!) 08:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
C per Hob Gadling, PaleoNeonate and others. It's the most easily understood term, is used by RS and is apparently accurate in this case. I'm not a fan of A, denialist is a bit of an awkward construction. GirthSummit (blether)15:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
anti-climate activist or climate change denial activist. Climate sceptic is problematic because it's contradictory. Climate 'skeptics' are not sceptical in the scientific and original sense of the word. I prefer to rely on scientific literature above newspapers for the accurate description here. Climate denier is better, as this is at least accurate, but I'm a bit worried about neutrality here as well, especially given the loadedness of the term denier in Germany. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Femkemilene, denier is neutral. It's an accurate description of what they do. We don't describe flat earthers as "anti globe theory activists". She's a paid activist advancing an agenda driven by the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel shill would be more neutral than anti-climate activist, IMO, but climate change denier is bang on. Guy (help!) 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether any terminology can be completely neutral here. I think denier is the least problematic of the options (skeptic is definitely not neutral), but in a German context I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. By calling her a climate change denial activist, we'd put less emphasis on the opinion label and more on her activities. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
B Alternatively, we can insist that her views are illegitimate before the reader even reads them. Is that what this online encyclopaedia should be about? Boscaswelltalk03:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Boscaswell, it should be about accurately reflecting a subject. In this case there are two options: either she is aware that human activity is causing climate change but chooses to promote the fossil fuel industry line for personal gain; or she has drunk the kool-aid and genuinely believes it. The kool-aid in this case is manufactured by the fossil fuel industry and marketed by think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry, including the one she now works for.
If we discount the cynical view, that puts her in the same position as holocaust deniers, 9/11 "truth" advocates, antivaxers and the rest: promoting a factually incorrect narrative that is deliberately sustained in the face of overwhelming evidence of its falsehood out of quasi-religious belief, and in many causes bolstered by totally cynical and self-interested people. Anti-vaccine "science" is bought and paid for by antivaxers such as the Children's Medical Safety Research Institute. Exxon, Shell and the rest had internal scientific documents in the 70s showing that continued extraction and use of fossil fuels would cause exactly what we're seeing int he climate now, and they hired the exact same people who conducted the tobacco industry's campaign against identification of the risks of smoking, to influence exactly the same people in Congress. Guy (help!) 08:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
C - Whisperjanes showed quite a few sources that use "denier" or a variant thereof. So, independent sources don't agree at all on whether "skeptic" or "denier" is preferable. Based on Wikipedia's own standards, I think "denier" is preferable from the standpoints of consistency across Wikipedia articles and accuracy. ErinRC (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
C – Wikipedia is under no obligation to use euphemisms under the fallacious notion of being fair. Climate change denier is the simplest, most truthful way to state what the position is since "skeptic" implies that they care about empirical truth when their stated position goes against the very notions of empirical truth. Abzeronow (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
B - But. Honestly who cares, everybody knows Wikipedia has become very left biased and pages about persons being critical towards climate change are mostly filled with libel coming from the same left biased 'reliable sources'. AntonHogervorst (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes Really. Wikipedia is full of libel, bullshit, when it comes to biographic pages of let us say non main stream populist public figures. It has become a sort of antifa user action board instead of an encyclopedia. Who complains gets banned. Not taking a word back. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
AntonHogervorst, reflecting climate change denialism as what it is, is not a left/right bias. The adoption of climate change denial by the political right in the US and Australia is a function of where they get their funding, not any ideological preference as to whether the world is warming or not. In most of the world, acceptance of climate change is bipartisan. The left couldn't even conspire to get Bernie Sanders selected againsy Hillary Clinton, so a global leftist conspiracy involving every single professional climate scientist, multiple geologists, politicians of all persuasions (apart from the US and Australian right), academics, biologists and more - well, it's simply not plausible. Guy (help!) 12:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
B or none of the above. "Naomi said she does not dispute that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, but she argues that many scientists and activists have overstated their impact."[7] Thus, she is a skeptic much like several reputable scientists who say similar. She makes a good case against the "consensus" argument.[8] Wikipedia promotes propaganda by lumping sensible people like this, who question alarmism, together with wackos like anti-vaxxers or flat earthers. But of course that's part of the strategy. "None of the above" because tagging a person with one label is also too simplistic and small-minded. But of course that's also part of the strategy. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yae4, the problem is that the "reputable scientists" who say this, are pretty much all being paid by the fossil fuel industry. There was more dispute among professionals ten or fifteen years ago, but the current pace of climate forcing has been highly persuasive. Guy (help!) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Guy you can say the exact same thing about "reputable scientists" that champion the other side of the story, they are also pretty much all paid by organisations that want to have an outcome that confirms climate change. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
He could, but he won't, because it would be a lie spread by the denial industry. The "reputable scientists that champion the other side of the story" are just all the normal scientists paid by nobody special to arrive at a specific result. If you really believe that practically 100% of all the climatologists in the world conspire to hide the truth, you are caught in a really bad conspiracy mindset and should snap out of it. And now stop preaching pseudoscience on Talk pages, which they are not for, and return to article work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
AntonHogervorst, you can if you are profoundly dishonest. The best way for a scientist to make a name for themselves is to convincingly refute accepted wisdom. Take Marshall and Warren, for example. Their proof that h. pylori causes ulcers won them a Nobel Prize. Most scientists are modestly paid, and the sources of funding for climate science range from governments (of all political persuasions) to research grant bodies to charities to private individuals. Whereas virtually all climate change denialism is funded by the fossil fuel industry, usually via opaque dark money think tanks. Guy (help!) 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
"you can if you are profoundly dishonest" stopped reading there. Bias of Wikipedia confirmed again. This is getting ridiculous and you had an official warning placed in my user page too? After implying I am "profoundly dishonest". Says it all to me! Goodbye Wikipedia. AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
B this is the term the cited sources use. C is a term used for people with that mindset depending on the mindset of the author, while A is both gramatically incorrect and only serves to create an increased emotional response against her, an editorial decision not supported by any source. Considering there is no A only vote, i"d suggest removing this option and replacing it in the article with C until there is a clear vote result between B and C. TheFIST (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
We already had this discussion with a much larger group of participants. Wikipedia does not engage in false equivalency. Climate change "skepticism" is pseudoskepticism driven and funded by the fossil fuel industry in order to preserve profits. All the reliable sources agree on this. No more weasel words, it's denialism. Guy (help!) 12:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a conspiracy theory. Are you saying that the fossil fuel industry -which you have mentioned here more than 35 times in this discussion- is funding the Washington post and other major news outlets?. I don't think that there is any wrong with using the term skeptic. There is no scientific evidence that says that using the term skeptic is wrong. All I see is just you making this claim without any support from reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It may sound like that to you, but actually all the denialist reasoning can be traced back to free-market think tanks and there is solid proof that the fossil fuel industry is funding those. Why don't you just read some of the literature about denialism, starting with Merchants of Doubt? That way, people will not have to explain every simple thing to you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
C Quick google search indicates The Guardian uses denier/skeptic interchangeably as does France24, and Vice and The Times are comfortable with "denial"/"denier". There is really not an abundance of articles on this young lady but I think SharabSalam has clearly overstated his/her/their case when he/she/they say there is not a single reliable source that describes her as a denier. If "denier" (denial/denialism) and "skeptic" (skepticism) are used synonymously in reliable sources then this is purely an editorial decision, one which has already been discussed extensively at climate change denial. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
DIYeditor, they are not synonyms and the sources are not using them interchangeably, they use the term skeptic to describe Seibt but okay okay let's just go with what you are saying even though it is incorrect. If it's about editorial decision, here is a scientific paper says that using the terms "skeptic/contrarian" is more appropriate than denialism/denier.
Unlike contrarian or skeptic, the term climate denier is listed in their key terms. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial. The article then uses the terminology “skeptic/contrarian” throughout.
Objective3000, it is literally saying that the article is going to use skeptic and contrarian and not denier or denialist. This proves that denier and denialist are the inappropriate terms.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It's the opinion of these two guys. How does that "prove" anything? They say that skepticism is a part of the scientific process. But, it is being misused by those paid by the "fossil fuel industry". These folk are not using the scientific method and are not skeptics in the scientific sense. That's my reading. O3000 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe that I will be able to change your mind. It seems useless to keep this conversation with you. You can't call a peer-reviewed article "opinion". You can't call two academics "guys". Also, I think one of them is a woman so this shows that you didn't even know what you are referring to.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I most certainly can call academics guys, including women. The word has been used to refer to groups of people, even all female, for some time. And I most certainly can call contents on language in a peer-reviewed article by scientists opinion. Indeed, most peer-reviewed articles contain opinion. Part of the scientific process. And contrarian and skeptic have very different meanings. Besides, I don't think you are getting the gist of what they are saying. O3000 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
DIYeditor When the source says "the darling of climate change deniers" it is not calling Seibt a climate change denier. It is referring to other unspecific people. Most of reliable sources are only using skeptic to refer to her.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
B - Any balanced WP:BLP article needs to highlight how the Living Person defines herself as attested by WP:RS. Of course, if others define the person in other ways, these should be included, with attribution. XavierItzm (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
XavierItzm, you're mistaking Wikipedia's concept of balance for the climate change denialist's version, which is false balance. Close to 100% of published research and researchers agree that climate change is real. Climate change "skepticism" is on the same level of scientific rigour as moon landing "skepticism", and should not be asserted to be otherwise. Guy (help!) 20:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
C - B is self-labelling. A is appalling English, I do not know why this word exists when we have a perfectly fine one in 'denier'. Knucmo2 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A or C - supported by sources and non-euphemisms. I would, however, prefer "climate change denial activist" or "activist known for promoting climate change denial" (which is similar to Snooganssnoogans's suggestion earlier. Neutralitytalk00:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
I have to say, Guy, that I find your determination to suppress the consideration of there being any possibility of climate change not being down to anything other than CO2 emissions disturbing. You are an Admin and therefore have a responsibility to be fair and open, yet your user page makes it very obvious that you have very strong views about many subjects, to the exclusion of any other views. I myself am a climate change ‘skeptic’. Yet I have zero connection with the fossil fuel industry. I believe that there are many other reasons for climate change, which contribute to it in addition to and I believe to a greater extent than CO2 emissions, but which present-day scientific knowledge knows little about and - due to the steamrollering attitudes exhibited by so many - can gain neither credence nor funding to explore. There is an intolerance of dissent which is shameful. Remember that a few centuries ago, ‘scientific’ medical knowledge hadn’t gone much beyond bleeding, using leeches. Knowledge has expanded since then and will continue to do so, beyond the self-limiting and self-serving myriad calculations which stem from the projection of hatred of oil companies and coal miners onto the issue of climate change. There are many changes occurring on this planet right now. Let your mind expand to enable yourself to take part in and enjoy the ride! That might well more than using your powers to suppress alternative thought. You know as well as I do that the suppression of alternative thought is a dangerous road to go down. Boscaswelltalk09:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Attribution of recent climate change.Boscaswell, this is Wikipedia, a mainstream, reality-based encyclopaedia. We accept the scientific consensus that the climate is changing, that this is primarily due to global warming, and that this in turn is due primarily to CO2 emissions from human activity. Not necessarily only CO2, there are a number of factors, but the evidence shows, clearly and with no ambiguity whatsoever, that CO2 is the dominant one and every single scientific body of national or international standing accepts this, as do virtually all relevant experts, rising to approximately 100% when you exclude those paid by the fossil fuel industry per Upton Sinclair's famous aphorism.
As to "suppression", that is straight from the denialist playbook. The industry of climate change denialism, which was built from the ground up by the fossil fuel industry after they became aware of global warming due to CO2 emissions. They identified it as a threat to their profits and employed the tobacco industry playbook including many of the same think tanks and consultants used by the tobacco industry to suppress (to bortrow your word, this time in an accurate sense) evidence of the link between tobacco smoking and heath outcomes. Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt is a particularly good primer on this.
A core part of the denialist playbook is claiming that reality-based scientists are trying to "suppress" contrary opinion (as opposed to merely showing it to be wrong, which is what's actually happening).
Even then, this discussion is not about suppressing "alternative thought" (which, to be clear, in this context means WP:FRINGE thought). It's about whether we reflect the preferred branding of denialists, or whether we accurately reflect motivated reasoning as what it is. Guy (help!) 10:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
On denialism and "suppression" of "dissenting views": this is actually an inversion.
tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’, described as ‘a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel, combined with some public monopolies’ whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings to the widest possible public’.
— Apt CC The anti-smoking industry, Philip Morris internal report dated September 1983; Bates No. 2025042325/2332 Accessed on 29 November 2008 Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vob81f00
That's from the tobacco industry archives. Of course in reality the scientific community finding links between smoking and severe health outcomes was diverse and encompassed charities, governments of all political persuasions, academics, epidemiologists, clinicians - conservatively hundreds of thousands of people around the world with no single nexus, whereas the FUD machine was centred on and funded by the tobacco industry. Exactly the same is true of climate change denial. The tiny handful of people genuinely skeptical of global warming would have no voice and certainly no presence in the media if it were not for the vast sums poured into the FUD machine by the fossil fuel industry. First Shell, then Exxon, then the Kochs.
The same consultants wrote the fossil fuel industry's playbook for undermining climate science, as created the tobacco industry playbook. For example, Steve Milloy created junkscience.com, "the best known [example of] a right wing effort in the U.S. to discredit widely accepted science, technology and medical information." He uses "junk science" like Trump uses "fake news". He pretty much invented this tactic, and he trialed it for Philip Morris before running it for ExxonMobil. All this is in our articles. This horse bolted long ago. We know, to a point of pretty much total certainty, that climate change denial is a creature of the fossil fuel industry and would not survive, and probably would not even exist, without its funding. Guy (help!) 11:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Good points Boscaswell. The earth is a huge complex adaptive system. There are lots of strange outcomes that can't be modelled accurately.
It's very brave of you to come out as a climate skeptic. Labels are a dangerous thing. The people who get labeled as deniers span a wide range. At one extreme there are those in complete denial of basic facts (akin to flat-earthers). It makes sense to call people like this deniers. They don't believe that human activity has increased CO2 levels or they don't think it matters because they don't believe that CO2 absorbs more infrared radiation than the O2 it is replacing.
At the other end there are those who are skeptical of what they see as alarmism and don't believe that the projections put forth are accurate. There are also people skeptical that governments can do anything to cut down CO2 levels without killing a large portion of the population through central planning.
Some of the people in the skeptic category have PhDs in various sciences. They can probably explain in minute detail the quantum mechanical selection rule which controls whether a molecule absorbs IR or not. But they also know that the connection between CO2 and global warming is not straight forward and is not the only factor determining the temperature observed anomaly of the earth.
They also are aware of how much worse life was for human beings (and whales) prior to the widespread use of fossil fuels.
Err no its not, if you do a job, your job title is the job you do, be it actor, car mechanic or climate denial spokesperson (might be a better name for her).Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Other than Wikipedia only caring about reliable sources and the scientific consensus, considering all the denialist organizations and their funding, they have the opportunity to do good science that if accurate and showing that the current consensus is wrong, would be accepted, since real natural science is not politics. What we're seeing is instead inability to plausibly refute the consensus and a focus on political lobying. Fighting climate change does require political involvement, but that is also based on an actual necessity. In any case, this page is not a WP:FORUM to discuss the topic itself or the political views of editors and we should instead focus on what reliable sources say in relation to the article itself... —PaleoNeonate – 14:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, in fact they have done good science, and it showed, unambiguously, that the earth is warming due to CO2 emissions. That's why they invented the whole denialism thing in the first place. Guy (help!) 15:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Pelirojopajaro, if you follow the development of climate change denialist messaging you will see that no, these are not separate things (and if you look at the chart right above you will see how blatantly dishonest the "only one factor" argument truly is). The tobacco industry playbook established the path:
Step 1: Deny that there is a problem.
Step 2: Acknowledge that there might be a problem but dispute the seriousness of it.
Step 3: Admit the problem and the seriousness but frame it as an informed choice on the part of consumers.
That's exactly what's going on here. Outright denial of climate change is pretty much impossible to sustain now, with eight out of the last ten years being in the top ten hottest years on record. So they are going with "lukewarmist" messaging and discounting all but the lowest impact predictions as "alarmist". That, too, will fail, as we see, for example, more frequent and more destructive Atlantic hurricanes. Records for peak pressure were broken in 1924, 1932, 1935, 1955, 1969, 1980, 1988, 1998, 2005 (three times), 2007, 2017 (three times), 2018 and 2019. It's kind of hard to pretend that's not happening.
So the expectation is that the messaging will now switch to "it's too late" and promoting technical mitigation measures as a way of staving off meaningful action on reduction of fossil fuel use, which is analogous to the "informed consent" phase of the tobacco playbook.
The underlying message is always the same: don't do anything that might permanently affect our business. Guy (help!) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pelirojopajaro: "The earth is a huge complex adaptive system." I have a surprise for you: the climatologists know that. They even take account of it in their models. It's what we scientists do: We do not just say how it is, they also give error bars for it, depending on how uncertain it is. Maybe you should actually read what the climatologists write, instead of the lies filtered through the denial industry.
"Some of the people in the skeptic category have PhDs in various sciences" - You mean the denial category, but yes, that is exactly the problem. They are experts for various subjects except climatology, and therefore they are laymen and their PhDs are irrelevant. Again, we follow what science says about the subject, and the science about the subject is done by the experts on the subject and not by experts on other subjects.
Please stop preaching pseudoscience on Wikipedia Talk pages. You will not change Wikipedia's stance on this pseudoscience or on any other pseudosciences. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I merely suggested that wikipedia might want to expand its vocabulary.
Guy: “The underlying message is always the same: don't do anything that might permanently affect our business.” ...”our business” here referring to the elimination of any views contrary to Guy’s. And more: “Wikipedia is not going to "expand its vocabulary" by pretending that financially motivated bullshit is anything other than what it is.” Oh, so I’m being paid to get involved? Or is it that you’re angry, because people aren’t being shut down and are still deflecting your efforts, so you need to throw some mud around? I have no difficulty in maintaining my equilibrium, but then I’m not a highfalutin Admin. Oh by the way, the ice sheet on Greenland is currently growing much faster than expected. It might be hard to find an RS for that, as truthtellers are rapidly ridiculed. But you’d know all about that. Have a nice day, Delboy. ;-) ... Boscaswelltalk09:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Boscaswell, very droll. Wikipedia's business is reflecting reality. Not the "reality" promoted by climate change deniers and funded by the fossil fuel industry, the reality reflected by approximately 100% of current published research and experts in the field. Guy (help!) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
If you think a user is acting in bad faith take it to wp:ani. This is not the place to discuss users actions or motivations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Again I remind editors this is not about them (or you) its about her. So stop commenting on other editors and leave if you wish (at the vert least take it elsewhere).Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
'I believe that there are many other reasons for climate change, which contribute to it in addition to and I believe to a greater extent than CO2 emissions, but which present-day scientific knowledge knows little about and - due to the steamrollering attitudes exhibited by so many - can gain neither credence nor funding to explore. There is an intolerance of dissent which is shameful.' This caught my eye so I thought I'd chime in here: If we were to translate the quoted text from User:Boscaswell into writing articles for Wikipedia, it would represent WP:OR. If peer-reviewed journals and textbooks are saying that CO2 emissions are a big part of climate change, then we have to represent that here. Knucmo2 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
To my mind, I am not commenting on a user, but merely what they have written and its implications vis a vis this article. Knucmo2 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Although I have found no reason or proof that "climate change skeptic" is wrong, I am proposing another term which is "climate change contrarian". It is used more in scientific papers and much appropriate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
oppose For god knows how many reasons, it reads just damn silly. Also "contrarian" has a specific meaning which does not mean sceptic, not denialist. Ironically I do think this is closer to what she may well be, someone who just opposes to oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
And it still reads silly, made up, nonsensical. Contrarian has meaning, usually it is used to denote someone who disagrees not out of conscience or commitment, but just to disagree. That is why I say it reads silly, it may well be what she is, bit its still silly.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, The definition of contrarian would appear to more or less preclude people who are paid to hold the contrarian view. The correct term there would be shill, I suppose. Guy (help!) 19:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have made a table below feel free to edit it and update it (and please double check counting).
Option
Votes
Consensus?
A
12
C is preferred
B
10
C
19
Consensus
Analysis: there doesn't seem to be any specific vote for A. Only "A or C" votes so I think this option is dominated by C.
--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the summary. The votes are almost 2-1 with almost 30 votes and over a week of discussion so I think it's pretty solid. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
There's no denying people voted on this based on their personal beliefs and opinions. Neither of the listed terms are 100% correct, but climate change skeptic is the most neutral of the three. See my other contribution on this talk page. HendrikJan1968 (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
HendrikJan1968, by "neutral" you mean politically neutral, right? Scientifically, "denier" is the most neutral. Climate change denial is the bought-and-paid for product of the fossil fuel industry, after all. Guy (help!) 09:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Scientifically, that's not true. As this article that is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal says.
Unlike contrarian or skeptic, the term climate denier is listed in their key terms. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial. The article then uses the terminology “skeptic/contrarian” throughout.
SharabSalam, Wikipedia draws an entirely justifiable distinction between skepticism, the default position of science especially towards extraordinary claims, and denialism, which is ideologically motivated rejection of empirircally established fact. Hence we do not talk about vaccine "skeptics", holocaust "skeptics" or climate change "skeptics" in theior preferred language, but instead call it what it is: denialism. Guy (help!) 12:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Requests for closure board page is, as usual, backlogged. Didn't add it, and it will take a lot of work despite the apparent consensus. Now I wish I hadn't !voted so I could close. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC) O3000 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2020 (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.
Her "retirement"
I would like a better source for how, why and when than her yourtube posts. Also no longer "formally" not working for them does not mean she is not "informally" working for them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Realist vs denier
We have just had an extensive discussion of what label should apply to this individual. Slatersteven is correct to revert though I do not share his opinion that 'realist' is maybe more accurate. I (and hopefully others) will remain vigilant of this. Knucmo2 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Slatersteven, I’d encourage you not to indulge these people. It just invites more of the same. There’s a very clear consensus across Wikipedia. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Just an editing note: I had previously moved the self-description of Seibt as a “libertarian” in the first sentence, that was in Wiki-voice, to her image section, and noted it was her own self-identification. No reliable sources describe her as a libertarian, and she’s definitely not known for espousing libertarian ideals. If she ever has done so (I didn’t see any evidence of it when I did a good faith search), it’s certainly not something she’s notable for. But obviously her describing herself that way is still due, but not in the lead when sourced only to herself. Thus it was moved, not deleted.
Not long after, someone added the description of the Heartland Institute as a “libertarian” think tank. Since they likewise do not espouse libertarian ideals, promote libertarian policies, or are known for such an orientation, I removed this (I accidentally called them “Heritage Foundation” in the edit summary though. Oops). The only reason I could think why someone would add this in good faith is because the founder was a former director of the Cato Institute. The Cato institute is known for mixing conservative policy with libertarian thinking, but the Heartland Institute has a fairly strong neoconservative and pro-corporate orientation without any significant libertarian ideological foundations or leanings.
@Symmachus Auxiliarus:I don't think you have read what libertarian means. I added the text about Heartland. I copy and pasted it from the Heartland Institute article. Libertarianism has various genres, but it is primarily about freedom. That is what climate change denialism is often about too, freeing people from the restriction of caring about the environment. Libertarianism is not a badge of popular culture. It is a category of topics on liberty. References, [11][12][13][14][15][16], and possibly 28,000 others. ~ R.T.G11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
RTG, I am a libertarian. I assure you I’m cognizant of what it “means”, and that there are many stripes of libertarianism. I’m not confused. The truth is that many conservative groups and individuals (in the United States, specifically) adopt this label to make their views more generally palatable to the mainstream, when in fact they only agree with actual libertarians on one or two wedge issues. I.e., the majority of gun rights advocates would not support legalization and/or decriminalization of most recreational and entheogenic drugs. While we need to keep that in mind, we as editors aren’t here to administer this sort of litmus test, of course. While most of the references you posted are considered generally reliable (especially the NYT, The Guardian, and The Economist), I’ll note that one is merely noting Heartland refers to itself as such (and appears to be implying doubt it’s accurate), and the other is user-generated (the SourceWatch wiki), and is thus considered de facto unreliable. While I think these sources are probably just parroting each other based on the self-descriptor, especially since they use identical wording, I consider this acceptable and sufficient to include “libertarian”, and won’t remove it unless there’s a consensus otherwise. Thank you for providing the references. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I must apologise, given that Heartland could be widely sourced as a libertarian institute, I took it for granted the rejection may be to do with popular association. However, the weight of publication does seem to support the idea that Heartland is libertarian, the ones I posted being simply the cherry pick of the first and second search pages. Heartland does indeed seem to support a range of anti-regulatory positions, but an ideal in this case might be a more specific genre for Heartland... at which point is a grey area for me, if there are any suggestions? ~ R.T.G17:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
RTG I think it’s sufficient for now. Unless others find this to be a case of accidental cherry-picking (which can happen when one searches for a specific term), I don’t have an objection. It does seem that they’re most consistently just called “conservative”, but I’m actually not opposed to any other descriptor. While what I know of Heartland doesn’t generally support it, and I’m not sure if there’s a more apt description of the group, I can’t say for certain there’s something more accurate, or that it’s even necessarily a big deal. As you note, they support anti-regulatory positions that run the gamut of (and seemingly often without) any idealogical underpinnings. I’m content with whatever reliable sources say. Anything else is original research. If other editors establish a local (or general consensus) against its usage, or come up with something better, or feel it’s undue for this page, I’ll support that. But this is fine for now. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Now even I am reluctant, but sources do make the claim. I wonder beside if the libertarianism article gives enough weight to a generalised ideologue. For one thing, I would put the third sentence before the second one, which is not as simple as it sounds in terms of flow... ~ R.T.G18:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Or it can mean freedom to use the resources, but it is freedom for sure. Doing anything at all is dependant on the freedom to do it. We shouldn't make badges out of this stuff, whatever side we consider ourselves to be. It isn't direct to the issue. Getting picky beyond reason only provokes a response to the pickiness which wears the side-badge. It also binds popular views together rather than allowing them to naturally, freely coalesce, thereby peer pressuring the individual to follow or reject the whole of the main stream on an individual issue. It makes sense, even if I don't, be holden unto your fears, but do not let them guide you. Libertarianism is about freedom. Nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or popularity or anything like that. A lengthy response but it should be quite clear, argue about what a thing is only by arguing what it is, not by arguing who it is, or we cannot be sure what it is today, and worse, what it will be tomorrow... ~ R.T.G 13:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Stricken, irrelevant misunderstanding, apologies. ~ R.T.G17:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what this comment is trying to say. I mean no offense, but it’s nearly incomprehensible, and probably strays into forum territory. Regardless, I’ve responded to the substantive comment above. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Symmachus Auxiliarus, it would be more accurate (and easily sourced) to describe them as fossil fuel lobby funded promoters of climate change denialism. That's a bit unwieldy, though - I think Republican is a synonym? Guy (help!) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I don’t really participate in the partisanship (or bipartisanship) or American politics. I prefer my choices in life to not be binary, though obviously I have to sometimes “pick a side” on occasion. The recent shift of the Overton Window makes that easier. The Republican Party of today is obviously not the Republican Party of even a decade ago. That being said, I’m not sure it’s useful to add invective here. You’re not wrong; most of what you said is accurate. But I think we’re better served by neutral wording. WP:RS is what salvages Wikipedia and makes it worth linking to. I’m a firm believer.
Also, the Heartland Institute was earlier notable for its support of the tobacco industry. Basically, in figuring out how to lie to the American people without being legally liable. They failed miserably. But they’re not a “one trick pony”. They’re pro-corporation and basically anyone who gives them millions of dollars. That’s addressed well enough in their own article. Despite SPAs and obviously paid editors. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Symmachus Auxiliarus, I'm well aware of Heartland's history in the development of the tobacco industry playbook and subsequent application of it to climate change denialism. I think the correct description of Heartland is: a dark money-backed lobby group with a history of industry-funded science denialism including denying the harms done by tobacco and fossil fuels. But as I say, it's unwieldy, and the major providers of dark money to Heartland - the Kochs - were avowedly libertarian. Guy (help!) 22:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
This edit request to Naomi Seibt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Point of order - 'Whilst' is not archaic - it's just used in British English and not American English. You should know that not everyone speaks as you do. Also, less of the caps lock. There's no need to shout. Knucmo2 (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Point of order from the hon. Gentlemen, the member for North-East Somerset. There is nothing disorderly, but I must say that I am saddened to see the use of the word ‘while’. I have long been conscious that the hon. Member ... indeed uses, such a word. However, it does conflict very, very, very heavily with my image of the hon. Gentleman as the embodiment of tradition and as someone who thinks that the 17th century is indecently recent.
Naomi Seibt says she is not a climate change denier (with source)
On a Fox News interview ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=165&v=9zrHs3dv7LQ ), she said "I absolutely believe that climate change is real". I know about the RFC and I'm NOT in any way interested to open a new RFC to challenge the older one. This interview may be helpful if anyone wishes to challenge the RFC because it's IMO a violation of WP:BLP. -- Eatcha12:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Can you provide a more reliable source? Thanks, Darren-M talk 00:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Done ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 09:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
