User talk:Benhocking/Climate change denial criticisms

Notability

"Notable people". Now, isnt that established by the fact that they have a WP article covering them, which are required to meet WP:NOTE? Just asking. --Childhood's End 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose the main argument against inclusion of this section has not been notability but undue weight. I do feel that perhaps this measure is being used inconsistently. I'll clean up the intro part accordingly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is certainly not used with consistency and is badly understood by some editors. Also, while Global warming is a scientific issue which warrants that the minority viewpoints be covered with care and be somewhat restrained, Climate change denial is a political/ideological topic and technically, should be exposed to a lot more criticism than it currently is. This has been overlooked, imo, and Kim knows it. --Childhood's End 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My intention, once I feel this sandbox article is as good as it's going to get, is to bring this to an informal vote on the article talk page. I expect that some version of this section will be eventually included. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what i'm saying - i do not say that this is not notable or that it shouldn't be included. What i'm saying is that weight has to be determined - and this is not something that our "personal feelings" or how may convincing quotes we can find. We need a non-opinion mainstream reliable source to make this connection first - so that we know that this is more than just the opinion of a few selected people. --Kim D. Petersen 21:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The "opinion of a few selected people", when the said people are completely unrelated, usually means that the opinion is notable. And due weight, in a political article, usually involves that both sides of the debate are adequately covered. --Childhood's End 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is my first sandbox, so if you have any suggestions about style, substance, etc., I promise not to get offended. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: Notability doesn't inherit. Because something or someone is notable - doesn't make what they say or what they do notable. An article in the Wall Street Journal is not by default notable because the Journal is notable. By the same token, a comment by a notable person is not by default notable. --Kim D. Petersen 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But what makes this comparison notable is the absurdness. These are well known and notable writers who are making the comparison of the article's topic to Holocaust denial (as are we, by extension, by categorizing it likewise). ~ UBeR 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - My main objection here is that its original research. We lack a reliable secondary source to use the primary sources. Without this - we are walking in POV-land - some will feel its not notable, others will say that it is notable. We have X notable persons here with an opinion on this, out of Y total notable persons with an opinion on the subject. How large/tiny is the fraction X/Y? Is it a tiny minority view? Or is it more general? How do we assign weight? That is what secondary sources are needed for - and that is what this critique has been missing. All we have is a random collection of opinion, collected via Google to show a particular point. And that is POV and OR. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very well stated, but doesn't most of this argument apply to the entire article? Do we have any research showing how many people think that denialism is different from skepticism? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the main article has several independant secondary sources, that provide us with weight. It also has some opinion pieces (primary sources) that are includable because their argument, already has been covered in the secondary sources - these are used for color and detail, and should per guidelines always be stated as the opinion of X, or "X says ..." etc. --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what I'm hearing you say (and I'm not trying to misrepresent you) is that there what makes the one valid is that it has sources that are not op-ed pieces but are reliable news articles or something like that (I'm not really sure what you mean by "independent secondary sources", so I'm paraphrasing to what I think you mean). Once it is mentioned, supporting it with op-ed pieces from notable people is acceptable. Is that basically right? So, if several reliable news articles were among the references for the holocaust denial comparison accusation, that would improve its "weight requirement"? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think it matters how big X/Y is. I think what matters is that several notable writers have made the comparison. If many non-notable people were saying it, it wouldn't really matter, because they don't carry any weight. It doesn't take everyone to agree with a comment for it to be notable. ~ UBeR 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

By independent i mean that they are written independantly - they are not relying on each other. Other than that - yes, i believe you've captured the essence. --Kim D. Petersen 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in principle you're right. Here, however, these comments being made by notable persons in this context (per UBeR's comment above) makes them notable. Whether or not there are enough to pass WP:UNDUE is something I'm still deciding for myself. As I've said previously, my inclination is that the conservative comments are plentiful enough on the "news" and in the blogosphere that they probably pass this test. Those comments cannot really be included without providing at least a little background as to where they're coming from. If there were a reliable source that discussed how prevalent or not these comments are (on either side) that would help. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No - just because some notable people have said something - doesn't make it a notable argument. I'm sure we can find a cross-section of notable people that have said most anything. --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the comparison is notable. And the obvious question becomes, how are we able to tell whether or not a notable person's comments are themselves notable. And the best measure is to determine whether or not other sources cite, reply to, or make note of them. And in this case it's apparent such sources exist. ~ UBeR 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm? How did the comparison suddenly itself get notable? What is the argument for notability if you do not get it from being said by notable people? --Kim D. Petersen 08:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's notable because it is a significant and relevant statement about the topic on hand made by notable people. I don't understand why the statement wouldn't be notable. I can understand why it might not meet the weight requirement, but I cannot understand how it fails to meet the notability requirement. I understand that both requirements need to be met, and work is underway on the weight requirement. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

George Monbiot isn't notable? Ellen Goodman isn't notable? Then please, by all means, delete their articles! ~ UBeR 14:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You either misinterpreted my comment or misindented yours. I was arguing that it is notable partly because those people are notable. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to Mr. Pertersen. ~ UBeR 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(Then indent appropriately?) Notable people say all sorts of things - That doesn't make it notable. And a collection of notable people saying the same thing, is still a synthesis. Now i've been waiting for someone to find even one non-opinion reliable source that make this connection - but none have been found (and i've looked as well). But it seems that this connection (CCD relates to HCD) is not one that has sufficiently significance or notability to be related in a secondary source - and thus lacks weight enough to be mentioned => WP:FRINGE--Kim D. Petersen 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're in a rush to close this discussion as the longer version is currently not on the main article, and probably won't be until we explore this a little further. That said, I'm not claiming this source is reliable, but per the comments at [Prometheus a Lexis/Nexis search suggests the first time any notable blogger ever made the holocaust/climate change denial connection was September 21, 2006, almost 6 years after the phrase "climate change denial" was first used in November 10, 2000. That makes it pretty clear that the phrase was not originally coined in order to make this specious connection. So, what's left is whether or not it's notable that many conservatives (and Pielke) are making this claim. Kim is right that so far we do not know of an article that has discussed this, and although I'm certain that it's only a matter of time before we find one (perhaps one that hasn't been written yet), I think he has a point. On the other hand, quite a few notable conservatives (as well as Pielke) have made public comments on this that we have sources for. Currently, I think the version we're using (version B) is a pretty good one (it could be improved a little as it currently conflates bloggers who've made the claim with bloggers who have claimed the claim has been made) that considers both notability and weight. This could easily change with time. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Talking on the same indent as other users is annoying, confusing, and ugly. ~ UBeR 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, let's forget about the conservative point. Do we agree that comparing climate change deniers to holocaust deniers has been made notable by the articles of George Monbiot, Christoff and especially Ellen Goodman? --Childhood's End 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I'm undecided on that bit, although I should point out that I used to be decided against it, if that makes you feel any better. One thing that has swayed me somewhat towards your side is that this is not a brand new phenomenon — see my article excerpt from a couple sections down. I agree that a few notable non-critics of AGW (I don't know these people well enough to say they're all liberal, non-conservative, etc.) have made this comparison. Whether enough have made this comparison to pass the WP:WEIGHT criteria, I'm somewhat undecided on, but to be honest, leaning towards your perspective. That said, even if the majority of the editors did agree (I doubt Kim will be convinced easily on this point), I suspect we might still disagree as to whether it was "a few", "a minority", "many", etc. — not that we have to solve that problem now. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As for WP:WEIGHT, from the moment that the comparison is notable, it should be mentionned. WP:WEIGHT only requires that we do not give it an undue coverage in the article and even warrants inclusion (non-inclusion would violate WP:WEIGHT in the other direction). --Childhood's End 13:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading WP:WEIGHT, I'm not sure if that's universally true (it does use the word "significant"), but I think it's probably true the majority of the time, and is true here. The question remains, how much space is appropriate? Perhaps one sentence from those making the comparison and one decrying the comparison. That would also fix the problem with the current sentence where the refs do not all really support the sentence they're attached to. (I.e., some refs aren't decrying the comparison, they're making the comparison.) Perhaps a version "C" is in order that would incorporate this idea. I'm not going to write it right now — mainly because I really should be working on some non-Wikipedia research. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If notability is inherited, ie. notable person says something => notable, and we take CE's take on WP:WEIGHT as correct - then that would elevate Inhofe saying "global warming is a hoax" to be necessarily included on the global warming page - despite it being WP:FRINGE. If this was the case, then articles would grow indefinite. Weight always has to be considered - no matter how "notable" you think some comment or argument is. Considering that the argument in question, cannot be sourced to a secondary source - but that we have to rely on (once more) a random selection of quotes from individuals - then the argument for putting any weight in it, is extremely low. (sorry if this is mangled - i've just been having a 20 hour workday) --Kim D. Petersen 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone is claiming notability is inherited. Are they? The statement has to be notable (which usually implies the person saying it is notable), there should be a reliable source for it, and it should be relevant to the article. Alternatively, if the point is better made in a different article, it could be made there with a link from the one article to the other. Consideration does need to be taken to make sure that there's not statement overload (e.g., WP:WEIGHT) with respect to any one issue, of course. Additionally, flow does need to be considered so that it doesn't become "a random selection of quotes". I don't see those problems arising from my suggestion of two sentences, though. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim is making another red herring, as Inhofe's comment is notable, but does not belong in the global warming article because it is not relevant there. On the other hand, the holocaust denial analogy certainly is relevant to climate change denial. --Childhood's End 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you determine that the holocaust analogy "certainly" belongs? Because of gut-feeling? Btw. Inhofe's statement is not notable in itself - but notable because secondary sources quote him for it. And it doesn't go into the global warming article because its WP:FRINGE - and it also doesn't go into Global warming controversy or Politics of global warming ... because of WP:WEIGHT. Its a good example, because other notable persons have said things that are equal or quite similar. So i have trouble seing the point that it should be a red herring. (try for instance this Google search). --Kim D. Petersen 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes, Inhofe's statement is not notable in and of itself, but because it has been quoted by secondary sources. I did not explain that because I hoped to make a short comment. But the idea of a global warming hoax is not notable because of Inhofe's comment alone, but rather because the idea has been suggested by a number of commentators. Remember your position then? Looks like this idea seemed notable enough to you to warrant your support for an entire article. Here as well, the issue is not to give weight or notability to one specific statement, but to acknowledge that the idea of comparing climate change denial to holocaust denial is notable and discussed by commentators. --Childhood's End 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about answering the question? And sorry - each article must determine weight according to the subject at hand. Inhofe's statement - being quoted in a lot of secondary sources ^{(<- look Ma..., its the thing the man asked for lots of times)} - is sufficiently notable to be included in an article specifically directed at that issue, even while being a fringe view - in other articles. With a lot of other reliable secondary sources. But i digress - How do you determine that it "certainly" belongs? And how do you determine that this isn't a fringe view in this context? --Kim D. Petersen 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I said that it is certainly relevant to climate change denial. I hope you do not deny this. And the number of commentators who have discussed the comparison of climate change denial to holocaust denial, in one sense or the other, is what makes me think that the analogy is not a "fringe view". I actually wonder what you actually suggest is fringe; is it to suggest that climate change denial is like holocaust denial (Monbiot, Goodman, Christoff) or is it to suggest that using the term "climate change denial" amounts to turn into holocaust deniers the climate skeptics? Or are both these antagonist views "fringe"? --Childhood's End 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So i take that as a: "i have a gutfeeling, that its significant". Otherwise you should be able to answer me this: How many commentators are there on climate change and climate change denial - and how significant a subset (in guessed percentage/permille) is the comparison? Now before you take this as me trying to diminish this comparison - i have to say that i have no idea whether its 10% or 0.1%%. Thats the problem. We need a secondary source to cover this issue - otherwise its guesswork (also known as original research. --Kim D. Petersen 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it comes to your view that it is not significant vs mine that it is. But again, should I say, the fact that the analogy has been made by several commentators on both sides of the debate is a strong indicative of its notability. And again, there's no OR here, those commentators and their publication venues are the sources - no OR in acknowledging what they said. You're going in circles with this.

What is the most frustrating to me, I must confess, is your crusade to fight against OR regarding this single line, while you refuse to lead the same fight about the article's very subject. When an article introduces itself with words like "usually refers to" and "alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting", any neutral observer knows there's a conspiracy theory going on there, but you still hold to your double standards. --Childhood's End 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If I may suggest again, one thing that is being overlooked by Kim and his pals from the Conspiracy theory task force is that the Holocaust denial analogy is now notable by itself as it is used over and over on both sides of the debate by notable commentators. There is no need for some reliable and notable source to make some connection whatsoever. Mention of the analogy should thus be made, period. Then what could be described is for what purpose it is being used, provided there are sources to show for if needed. Also remember that sources are required for what is "likely to be challenged". The obvious does not need to be sourced. --Childhood's End 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that this controversy is notable (the accusation of comparison to holocaust denial), I do not think that it is so obvious that it does not need to be sourced. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I did not mean that. But there are so many sources that discuss this analogy, in one sense or the other, that there can be no reasonable disputing of this analogy's notability. That's what I meant. --Childhood's End 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting on main page

I posted:

Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek has argued that "Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it." Australian Prime Minister John Howard has asserted that the "real climate change deniers" are those who advocate Malthusian pessimism or anti-capitalism because they deny rational policy solutions which take into account economic costs. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, opposes a carbon tax, stated that "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that." Alexander Cockburn of The Nation has accused 'climate spokesman' such as Al Gore of being shills for nuclear energy, arguing that "the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the fearmongers and the nuclear industry" and "Hysteria rules the day, drowning useful initiatives such as environmental cleanup, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its global rewards."

American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45% think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42% think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, though 56% "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants. A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64% would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard."

on the main page. I thought about posting it in this sandox, but I think that it's a stretch to call this 'criticism' of the idea of 'climate change denial'. Revolutionaryluddite 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the article climate change denial, I think the quote from John Howard is both appropriate and notable. However, I think the rest of this does not actually apply to that topic, at least not without some other frame of reference that I'm not seeing. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just found that in context, I understand it better. The John Howard quote now seems somewhat out of place there, however. I feel that it belongs elsewhere. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this getting a bit off topic? Some of this belongs in Politics of global warming or Global warming controversy - not in Climate change denial. --Kim D. Petersen 21:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think some of it is getting off topic. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a section dicussing this on the main page. The reason I posted it here as well is because I thought that this is arguably 'criticism'. Revolutionaryluddite 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with version B

It mentions only those complaining about the comparison, but several of the references are actually to those making the comparisons and not complaining about it. Thus, those references aren't really supporting the point they purport to be supporting. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My orignial sentence said "Some Op-Ed columnists and environmental activists argue the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus and intentionally relate 'climate deniers' to 'holocaust deniers'." Revolutionaryluddite 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. Revolutionaryluddite 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some non-notable sources

These are sources that aren't meant to be in the final version anywhere, but which might help our discussion. These all came directly or indirectly (one step removed) from this Google search. There are links in here that I haven't followed yet that might also be fruitful. Please don't copy and paste anything large from here, just refer back to it if you want to echo a point from it:

• Volokh Correction #14 and a Prometheus Correction
• Meta Denial
• Exxon: We believe in global warming, so we shouldn’t be criticised for funding global warming denialists
• Another week of GW news - October 29
• I'm evil! (from William M. Connolley!)
• Global warming and the vast right-wing conspiracy

Possible article source

I don't like it, but I think I found an article that supports the claim that this comparison is older than I was previously giving it credit. From The Psychology of Denial: our failure to act against climate change

Firstly, we can expect widespread denial when the enormity and nature of the problem are so unprecedented that people have no cultural mechanisms for accepting them. In Beyond Judgment, Primo Levi, seeking to explain the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination, quotes an old German adage: ‘Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.’

In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity. Indeed, the most powerful evidence of our denial is the failure to even recognize that there is a moral dimension with identifiable perpetrators and victims. The language of ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘human impacts’, and ‘adaptation’ are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse; they are scientific euphemisms that suggest that climate change originates in immutable natural forces rather than in a direct causal relationship with moral implications for the perpetrator.

A comment (by Pielke) immediately under the Lexis/Nexis one I mentioned earlier, led me to this article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Version C

I think Version C is not so bad (of course I wrote it). I think a compromise that might satisfy everyone (but possibly please no one) is if we were to use this Version in lieu of Version B (which is currently being used, last time I checked), with the addition of something like (See Also: Comparisons between climate change denial and holocaust denial). I think there is enough information on this talk page to create such a Wikipedia article. As its own article, most of these questions of WP:WEIGHT would be settled. Issues of bias will still no doubt come up, but I think that if we try to work with each other, instead of against each other, we can address even many of those issues. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)