Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climate change denial: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:12, 6 August 2007 editChildhoodsend (talk | contribs)2,686 edits →My opinion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:36, 3 December 2024 edit undoTachyon the Comic Creator (talk | contribs)52 edits →Tone, style, and overuse of quotations: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
Until someone comments on the Talk page, I do not see how the <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> template could possibly be appropriate! ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Talkheader}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{FAQ}}
{{Article history
|action1=AFD
|action1date=8 August 2007
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial
|action1result=Keep
|action1oldid=150033430


|action2=AFD
== POV Fork ==
|action2date=28 March 2008
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (2nd nomination)
|action2result=Keep
|action2oldid=201461107


|action3=AFD
Isnt this a clear POV Fork instance? --] 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action3date=4 September 2008
:Have just stumbled on to this article, I don't understand what you mean. Was it forked from Climate change skepticism? Is that what you mean by "POV Fork instance"? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (3rd nomination)
I'm having trouble finding the ] page. ] 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action3result=Keep
:I suppose you could create one, although I suppose you were trying to make some sort of statement with this comment since you posted it here. There are definitely people who exaggerate climate change problems, so as long as you find sourced, notable references, I don't know that the article would be deleted. Depending on how it was written, it could very likely garner a "npov" template of its own. However, AFAIK, such a template requires that editors, in good faith, first strive towards making an article NPOV by specifically mentioning what they think is POV and how it could be improved. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action3oldid=236334023


|action4=AFD
:Yes this article is hopelessly POV, it needs to be submitted for deletion. ] 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action4date=10 March 2010
::At the risk of being redundant, what is POV about it? Which facts are you challenging and/or what wording would you like to see improved? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)
:::Well the title is POV for a start. We could get around this by saying "CCD is a pejorative term used by supporters of AGW theory in order to equate sceptics with holocaust deniers." However the rest of the article is merely a rehash of the "big oil" conspiracy theory which is already discussed at ]. ] 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action4result=Keep
::::Wow, that's an interesting take. Interestingly enough, the only people who I've known who have compared AGW "skeptics" with holocaust deniers are AGW "skeptics" (in the same context that you are now using it). As this article states, there is a distinction between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is someone who has an open mind and is trying to reach the truth the best way they know how. A denier is someone who is trying to spread misinformation because it helps support their checkbook and/or ideology. Granted, there is a certain amount of POV involved in distinguishing between the two, but to suggest that the terminology is intended to conjure up images of the holocaust is to "play the victim" in an effort to halt the conversation (Godwin the "thread", as it were). As for the "rehash" argument, how is that different from one main article pointing to other subarticles before providing a brief summary of that article? This article is new, help to improve it - I noticed that ] already has (and I agree with his change about removing the "alleged fact"). ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action4oldid=349038604
:Thank you, ], for your positive contributions in trying to make the article more NPOV. They are appreciated. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


|action5=AFD
::you're welcome, though i don't really believe the article warrants its own page. i'm generally anti-AGM, having formerly been merely skeptical of AGM, mostly due to http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_to_measure_temperature.html . UHI contaminated stations are poisoning the global temperature record, to the point that i'm now not even convinced that we *are* experiencing warming. but i digress. i think the article paints with a broad brush based upon allegations and conspiracy modes of thinking. i think the 'denial industry' is far less potent than it's made out to be by the article. ] 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action5date=13 March 2010
:::As for the ], you should read the Misplaced Pages article on it, and how it relates to global warming. Perhaps that will at least alleviate your doubts that global warming is happening (if not the anthropogenic nature of it). I assume you do not doubt that the rapid increase in ] is primarily anthropogenic? Keep in mind that the blog you're linking to is just one person's opinion, and that person does not appear to have a solid scientific background with respect to climate science. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_26#Merge_with_Global_warming_controversy_article
|action5result=Keep
|action5oldid=349627128


|action6=AFD
:Two points:
|action6date=9 January 2012
*I don't see this as a POV fork. ] is about the controversy; ] is about an organized and reasonably well-documented effort to foster public perception of the issue as controversial.
|action6link=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_29#Merge_from_global_warming_conspiracy_theory
*I agree with the NPOV tag. The article would be improved by citations defending or denying practices here imputed to ExxonMobil and others. Help?
|action6result=Keep
] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action6oldid=469168730


|action7=WPR
::I agree with Benhocking. If Iceage77 wants to challenge specific facts with credible sources, of course he/she should do so. The article is clear and encyclopedic about the use of the term "denial" and the citations offered legitimate the usage. The real POV issue is that we continue to describe climate change as "controversial" in the face of unprecedented scientific unanimity. But regardless of a paritcular editor's opinion (mine included), we should focus on the facts. I would be interested to see substantial sources refuting the assertions about climate change denial.] 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action7result=approved
|action7link=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_30#RfC:_Must_the_word_.27denial.3B_occur_in_every_citation_for_climate_change_denial.3F
|action7date=29 November 2014
|action7oldid=633273729


|action8=WPR
:::well, for starters, can someone provide a citation for the first use of the term "climate change denial"? it's referenced as a formal term in the article and in the listed citations. *somebody* coined the term. therefore, a first use should be able to be cited, along with a citation for the description as provided in the opening paragraphs. otherwise, it's original research. ] 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action8result=approved
::::I'm not sure if <em>first</em> use would be easy to find (or to show that it was indeed first), but I agree that notable use should be referenced. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
|action8link=Talk:Climate_change_denial#RfC:_Is_this_article_encyclopedic_and_does_it_comply_with_NPOV.3F
|action8date=16 March 2016
|action8oldid=710397584


|topic=natsci
:::::I agree usage needs to be cited, but isn't ?] 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
}}
::::::I suppose it is! (And that's actually even evident from just looking at the references section, which I was obviously too lazy to do.) ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 22:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
Half of the sources used in this article are from ''The Guardian'', which essentially comes to copy/paste Greenpeace flyers. So that's a bad start for referencing. There's also quite a number of weasel words (like the last phrase of the lede - '"often" groups with ties...') and material unsupported POVed allegations (such as 'the so-called "denial industry" is motivated to promote controversy and doubt' and that Exxon funds think tanks to contest climate change rather than to fund their inquiries of the science). That's only a really short review. --] 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}}
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{American English}}
{{section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Climate change denial/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Doubt as pseudoscientific? ==


I express doubt at the concept that expression of doubt is pseudoscientific. On the contrary science is all about doubt. NOT expressing doubt - unexamined dogmatic belief - is what is unsceintific. Science necessarily entails continuing attempts to falsify its own claims because of the dubious nature of inductive reasoning. Unexamined justifications "because science says so" are no better than "because God says so", if you are not prepared (or allowed) to question the scientific claims. ] (]) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
cyrusc has added a reference for "denial industry", stating in summary "supply references per discussion". but that's not what a citation was requested for. "climate change denial" is not the same as "denial industry". ] 01:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, ]'s comment right above yours mentions "unsupported POVed allegations (such as 'the so-called 'denial industry'...", which is what I presume he was referring to. I agree it would be better if we could find more diversity of sources. If time permits tomorrow, I will attempt to follow some of the sources of The Guardian or find some other way of locating the supporting information. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::I added two citations, one for the Guardian article "The Denial Industry" and one for "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'"--these were both already cited in the article. "Oil firms funds climate change 'denial'" opens with the line, "Lobby groups funded by the US oil industry are targeting Britain in a bid to play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists have warned." This, as I see it, is the "denial" in question. Anastrophe, can you be more specific about what kind of references you're looking for? ] 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


: Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. ] (]) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The phrase is clearly in and and the article is extensively sourced. One might dislike the phrase, but that doesn't erase it from the discourse. Cyrusc has gone out of his way to respond to the requests on this page. The point that "controversy" is ''at least'' as POV as denial, given the overwhelming scientific consensus remains unaddressed. I find it rather humorous that editors that deny climate change are attempting to deny an article about climate change denial! Have any of the facts in this entry been disputed? I would obviously not object to the inclusion of substantial sources contesting particular points. But in the absence of serious dispute, let's move on.] 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.
::@IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.
::@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.
:::The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. ] (]) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::::There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --] (]) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::What straw man did I employ? ] (]) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed}}
::::::*Climate science is not "special". Pretty much every science has loons attacking it. Biologists have creationism, astronomy has Velikovskians, medicine has quacks, math has circle squarers, physics has perpetual motion tinkerers, and so on.
::::::*There are no "alternative rational explanations" that are consistent with the facts.
::::::*Denialists should not be "suppressed", they should be exposed. --] (]) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You're making the world a better place "Hob" - one day, perhaps, the people you don't like will all be gone. Good luck in your task. ] (]) 04:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The references you use in the summary only fit one worldview while two worldviews are prevalent: the incoming administration of the United States government includes high ranking officials whom cite scientists that disagree with the popular worldview; more egregiously, in this talk, you are openly stating you personally believe the opposite view is “incorrect”, and therefore it shouldn’t be included, rather than gatekeeping a completely unbiased or equally balanced article. You are politicizing Misplaced Pages. It should have both popular viewpoints expressed in the summary to remain unbiased. You are wittingly or unwittingly making a once completely fact-based website, a once important website, fit a narrative that doesn’t remain purely objective. That is unacceptable. ] (]) 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The {{tq|incoming administration of the United States government}} is a bunch of clowns. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on ] (real science), not on a ] and his minions. --] (]) 09:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What a load of rubbish by the anonymous user with the IP address. Thanks Hob Gadling for even responding to this rubbish. As per ] we should probably kill off this conversation here and now. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. ] (]) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


:As ] rightly stated, "'''Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.'''" IP, instead of trying to deny climate change, it would be great if every government on the planet worked together to solve the problem, without excuses. ] (]) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::the article is actually about the 'denial industry'. much less so about climate change denial - it's only secondarily about that topic. you could substitute virtually any controversial topic for 'climate change', and drop in a near identical article. ] 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


:::::::hi anastrophe. The article includes myriad sources about the industrial funding of denial. So I'm not clear what you're objecting to at this point. ] 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Where is the third option, skepticism without denial or affirmation?
::::::::i'm not clear how that counters my point. ] 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
* ] believe, ] deny, ] are skeptical
:::::::::I believe that what ] is trying to say is that global warming denial primarily <em>is</em> about industry funding of denial. (Well, he's literally saying that he doesn't understand your point, so that would make it hard to counter.) If there are additional sources of denial, they would definitely be welcome here. Are you suggesting a name change to "The Global Warming Denial Industry"? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
* engaging in ] requires deliberate effort, those who don't have an opinion are not claiming to be scientists or researchers.
* there is unsubtle polarization, implying that only two positions exist, with no middle ground, or not having an opinion, ]
] (])
:They went extinct a few decades ago. Nowadays, the honest and knowledgeable people all accept climate change as real. Maybe you should inform yourself on the subject instead of spouting platitudes.
:But the real problem with your contribution is that you do not have ]; it is just your opinion, and those do not count on Misplaced Pages. See ]. --] (]) 08:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Politics==
(reindent)what i'm suggesting is that wikipedia already has articles on
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Michigan-Dearborn/Environmental_Politics_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-09-03 | end_date = 2024-12-20 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 22:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>


== Tone, style, and overuse of quotations ==
etc.. Shall we create articles for every instance of businesses attempting to influence public opinion? i look forward to the article on ].


This article reads like it was written by one angry person who screams "lies, damn lies! These people are lunatics and shills!" at literally every possible opportunity. In case you skipped every other part, we'd like to remind you that the denials are fake, dishonest, and discredited!
the problem i have with the article is that it does not reveal any information that '''is not already covered in other wikipedia articles, and in a more encyclopedic manner'''. ] 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Consider the articles on ] and ]: there is total scientific consensus that both are impossible, yet we don't call their proponents lunatics and trolls multiple times per paragraph or even per sencence throughout.
:::Some of this material is mentioned in the entries you list, but it is not elaborated substantially, as it is here. There is plenty of precedent in Misplaced Pages for creating an entry to expand on an important issue that is referenced in entries of a higher level of generality. Why aren't you contesting, say, ]? Their opposition is of course noted in a variety of articles. Elaboration is not redundancy! ] 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The only thing that is more elaborated substantially is the old POV rhetoric that AGW skeptics are doing it for the money or because they're heretics. Rest is covered elsewhere. --] 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Moreover, this issue is much more complex than "they're doing it for the money". ] covers most of the real meat of this article. ] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::So, it's a good thing we have an article where we can document the complexity then, right? (Also, ] is currently a mess and could no doubt be improved by having more of its material separated into subarticles.) ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


The amount of ] throughout. ] and ] throughout.
:::::::except that this article ''does not'' go into any greater complexity than "they're doing it for the money"! that's a large part of the argument for me. it is a litany, from asses to teakettles, of instances where ExxonMobil spent money to try to influence opinion on the topic at hand. this is no different from a thousand instances of businesses in some way attempting to modify public opinion about their industry, whether for "good" or "bad" (to wit, the sugar industry funds sites that exaggerate the possible risks and dangers of sugar substitutes; the sugar substitute industry funds sites that exaggerate the possible risks and dangers of sugar). ] 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Here are some examples (highlighted in bold and italics):
::::::::::I see the elaboration--the "litany"--as consisting of information far past the threshold of notability. (As do the major news sources and politicians who have weighed in on the controversy). I respect your opinion that this is business as usual, but I don't see why that means the article is either a POV violation or a candidate for deletion. What's wrong with Misplaced Pages documenting such dishonest PR efforts, no matter the industry? If there is strong evidence and extensive coverage of sugar industry manipulation, by all means that would justify new entries! Misplaced Pages has hundreds of entries on cartoon characters and minor American poets and urban legends. Why not advance those for deletion before articles treating massive corporate misinformation campaigns? And why focus on an article encyclopedic both in the quality of its prose and the extensiveness of its references?] 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Lead (10 instances):
*Those '''promoting denial''' commonly '''use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance'''<br>
*...includes '''unreasonable doubts''' about...<br>
*...accept the science but '''fail to reconcile it''' with their belief or action...<br>
*...remain the subject of '''politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay'''...<br>
*...reported government and oil-industry '''pressure to censor or suppress''' their work...<br>
*...fossil fuels lobby has been identified as '''overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine''' or discredit the scientific consensus...<br>
*...Industrial, political and '''ideological interests organize activity to undermine''' public trust in climate science...<br>
*...originate from '''right-wing''' think tanks...<br>
*...Climate change denial is '''undermining efforts to act on or adapt''' to climate change...<br>
*...for several decades, oil companies '''have been organizing a widespread and systematic''' climate change '''denial campaign to seed public disinformation''', a strategy that has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking.<br>
*...Some of the campaigns are '''even carried out by the same people''' who previously '''spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda'''.


Terminology section (at least 6 instances, ''not including direct quotations''):<br>
==Article is hopelessly POV and out of date==
*The terms climate skeptics or contrarians are '''nowadays''' used with the same meaning as climate change deniers '''even though''' deniers usually prefer not to, '''in order to sow confusion''' as to their intentions.
The article is out of date in that it pretends "big oil" and "big coal" are still funding climate research. All of the large firms, stopped funding research a year or two ago. The article is hopelessly POV in that the climate changes all the time. No one seriously denies that, not even "big oil" or "big coal." What is currently being denied by some scientists is that the current alarmism is justified or that the recent warming is predominantly the fault of anthropogenic CO2. These scientists include Pielke, McIntyre, Christy, Shaviv, Svensmark, Akasofu, Kukla, Giegengack and on and on. These guys have never taken money from "big oil" or "big coal." This article is attempting to ridicule a valid scientific position held by some of the most respected and prolific climate researchers on the planet, including professors of climate science at Ivy League schools. Cyrusc has evidently bought into the idea that "the science is settled." Nothing could be further from the truth. The more science that comes out the more we realize that this whole idea has been overblown. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, even according to Phil Jones. The PDO has switched to a cooler mode and South America is currently suffering through the coldest winter it has had in 90 years. And it turns out that a good many of the weather stations in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) are poorly sited due to land use/land ocver changes resulting in an artificial warming bias in the temperature record. See www.surfacestations.org to see some of the pictures for yourself. The weather stations are located right on top of parking lots and next to buildings with a/c exhaust blowing on them. See ] for more information. The article should be speedy deleted. ] 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*Both options are '''problematic''', but climate change denial...
:I can't say that I recognize any of the other names from your list (and without first names, they might be hard to otherwise identify), but are you seriously suggesting that ], "the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited which merged with CGX Energy Inc., an oil and gas exploration company", has never taken money from "big oil"? Provide me with references for the other names on the list, and we'll see if that's equally true for them. I do not dispute that there are laypeople who exaggerate (i.e., misrepresent) the science, and that there is uncertainty in the extent of climate change, but without citations, you're not really helping. If you have more recent material, by all means, present it. As for the surface stations argument, check out the Misplaced Pages article on ]. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*...said in 1995 that industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" '''to confuse public opinion''' in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial"
*...with "the climate skeptics" '''confusing the public and influencing''' decision makers.
*...and the '''behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine''' climate science. It said...
*...by accepting the scientific consensus '''but failing to''' "translate their acceptance into action".
Rest of the paragraph almost entirely made of quotations (]) that need to be summarized.


Categories and tactics section (at least 6 instances):<br>
::The claim that some scientists oppose the consensus on climate change without being funded by major corporations in no way justifies the deletion of this article, which accurately tracks the history of corporate involvement in the claims of certain scientists. Also, if the links between corporations and scientists have been severed (a claim I would dispute, but that's neither here nor there), that doesn't mean the encyclopedia shouldn't record what transpired. By that standard, every historical entry would be "out of date!" Of course credible sources citing the end of corporate/political-funded denial should be included in the article and any innacuracy should be corrected. Finally, Ron's opinion about climate change (like mine) is irrelevant to an entry documenting "a public relations campaign promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining this scientific effort, such as groups with ties to the energy lobby."] 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*...how the media '''give the misleading impression''' that climate change is '''still''' disputed ... to climate change skeptics' '''PR efforts'''.
*...who '''think''' climate change is harmless or even beneficial...
*...a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, '''some of them the same people'''.
*...'''But scientists''' have known for over a century...
*'''Playing up flawed studies'''
(not including multiple quotations per paragraph)
*Some climate change deniers '''promote conspiracy theories alleging''' that the scientific consensus is illusory, or that climatologists...
*(not a quote not inside citation) It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial '''to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy''' disputing this consensus.
*'''These people typically allege''' that, through worldwide acts of...
*(not inside a quote) They '''promote harmful conspiracy theories alleging that''' scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.
...too many instances of ], etc to list<br>
...more quotations than prose
*He defined '''luke-warmists''' as "those who appear to...
*...has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, '''in contrast to legitimate science'''.
*...whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change deniers... (links to this article itself)
*another paragraph consisting almost entirely of quotations
*Climate change deniers '''tend to argue''' that... '''Conversely''', the general consensus is that...
*'''As such denials became untenable''', content shifted to ...
*Another paragraph or quotations.
*A 2016 article in Science '''made the case''' that... (contrasted to "deniers have alleged that" sort of thing)
*more quotations exceeding prose
*People '''with certain cognitive tendencies''' are also more drawn than others to conspiracy theories... (we all know what that means!)
* more predominantly found in '''narcissistic people''' and those who... (either name-calling, the ] can only be diagnosed in individual people)
*..."disbelief is also '''linked to lower levels of education and analytic thinking'''."
* ''']''' which factors associated with conspiracy belief can be influenced and changed. They have identified
*Examples of science-related conspiracy theories that '''some people believe include that aliens exist''',
*This effect was found '''even among''' climate science endorsers.
*...studied two forms of national identity—defensive or '''"national narcissism"''' and
*"Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate '''susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs''', was also found to be negatively correlated with support for '''genuine climate mitigation policies'''."
*Political worldview plays '''an important role''' in environmental policy and action. '''Liberals tend to''' focus on environmental risks, '''while conservatives focus on''' the benefits of economic development. (polarization, and ] exclusively)
*...shows that '''conservative white men in the U.S.''' are significantly more... (ok, great)
*...if the discourse is instead framed using moral '''concerns related to purity''' that are more deeply held by conservatives, the discrepancy is resolved. (purity? of essence? what?)
*"More '''highly educated people are less likely''' to rely on their own interpretation and political ideology rather than on scientists' opinions."
History section:
*A 2000 article '''explored the connection''' between conservative think tanks and climate change denial.
*...were significant participants '''in lobbying attempts''' seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations.
*"During the same period, '''billionaires secretively donated''' nearly $120 million... to more than 100 organizations '''seeking to undermine''' the public perception of the science on climate change."
*..."people with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations that '''were responsible for most efforts to downplay the threat''' of climate change in the U.S."
*But some books '''clouded the human causes''' of...
*"a reliable tool to manipulate public perception of climate change and stall political action" (framing the rest of quotes in the paragraph)
*"a group of mainly U.S. businesses, '''used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose action''' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight the Kyoto Protocol. '''Large corporations''' and trade groups from the oil, coal and auto industries financed the coalition. The New York Times reported,"
*"Their work played a key role in '''undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives''' in the US over a span of decades. This study illustrates how..."
*...found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who '''cast doubt''' on climate change... in the past 50 years on '''spreading doubts''' about climate change.
*"(now X), key figures at the company who '''ensured trusted content''' was prioritized were removed,"
*"CNN reported that meteorologists and climate communicators worldwide were receiving increased '''harassment and false accusations'''" (this one not in quotes for some reason)
*"provide significant funding for '''attempts to mislead the public''' about climate science"
*"...especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism." (no true contrarian does it for money)
*Climate change '''conspiracy theories and denial have resulted in poor action or no action at all to effectively mitigate the damage''' done by global warming.
*"...believed '''(ca. 2017)''' that climate change is a hoax '''''even though'' 100% of climate scientists (as of 2019)''' believe it is real
*"American media '''has propagated''' this approach, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics."
*"In 2006 Newsweek reported that '''most Europeans and Japanese''' accepted the consensus on scientific climate change, '''but only one third of Americans''' thought human activity plays a major role"...
*"'''Deliberate attempts''' by the Western Fuels Association '''"to confuse the public"''' have succeeded."
*"According to a 2012 Pew poll, 57% of Americans '''are unaware''' of, or outright reject, the scientific consensus..."
*"''']''', global oil companies have begun to acknowledge the existence of climate change and its risks. '''Still''', top oil firms are spending millions lobbying to delay, weaken, or block policies to tackle climate change."
*"Popular media in the U.S. ] greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community" (cites from 2004, 2005, 2012, 2015, presented ])
*..."promoted by several '''far-right''' European parties, including Spain's Vox, Finland's '''far-right''' Finns Party, Austria's '''far-right''' Freedom Party, and Germany's '''anti-immigration''' Alternative for Deutschland (AfD)" (what does immigration have to do with it?)
*more quotations...


I have tagged this article for multiple issues. The lengthy and redundant quotations ought to be summarized and not inserted in the middle of every sentence. The tone throughout needs be more ], ], and ]; weasel words should be replaced with more appropriate synonyms. ] (]) 03:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. This article clearly presents a non-neutral point of view and should be deleted. ] 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


: On a quick read-through of your list, I don't see anything objectionable. Maybe part of the reason for the statements that you find objectionable is the fact that deniers and fossil fuel industries and a certain political party are knowingly spewing disinformation and purposely sowing doubt. Flat Earthers don't seem to have the same motivation or deceptiveness (maybe self-deception), or influence on the planet as climate change deniers; unlike climate change denial, Flat-Earthiness is a ~harmless belief. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 04:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::What is non-neutral about the documented fact of Exxon et al's involvement in denying climate change science? Could you respond to any of the sourced assertions within the entry? Could you please respond to the link provided by Stephan? My hope is that we can move beyond polarization and start addressing the entry itself! ] 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::I second this. ] (]) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


::The fact that it's a ''pretty big deal'' and denying it isn't ''helping to save the world'' etc doesn't change the fact that policy still applies. It has been clarified ]:
:::a) The sources (UK Guardian, NY Times, Climate Science Watch) are biased in support of the AGW orthodoxy.
::{{Quote frame|2) Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Misplaced Pages, give to this topic area. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of significant public and scientific interest does not excuse editors from complying with all of Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms.|]}}
:::b) The title "deniers" is biased itself, suggesting that Exxon et al's support of AGW critics is not legitimate. Why don't we judge the merits of the arguments and research they support, instead of who is funding it? Exxon's campaign against AGW does not necessarily imply anything underhanded or anti-science, whereas this article implies such nefarious motives. Exxon could simply be bringing to light scientific opinions and research that otherwise would have gone unnoticed were it not for their (admitted) self-interest. ] 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::If the world was ending "pretty soon" we'd still have to write about it in an impartial manner and adhere to policies and norms. ] (]) 10:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::a) The original sources for some of the evidence is Exxon itself. Surely that's a reliable source in this case?
::::b) Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf? After a few dozen demonstrations as to why the science behind denying AGW is faulty, it gets old. Furthermore, once the science is discredited, it is natural to ask, "what were the motives behind publishing faulty data/conclusions?" ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


:::There is no connection between this and the response above, since nobody suggested that {{tq|Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms}} be violated. Also, nobody mentioned {{tq|''pretty big deal''}} or {{tq|''helping to save the world''}}. Maybe you are on the wrong Talk page? --] (]) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
BenHocking, Steve McIntyre never took money for research. He was a hard mineral exploration guy and had very limited contacts with an oil company when he sold out. They never funded his research into climate. Are you saying you have never heard of ], ], ], ], ], ], Bob Giegengack. Perhaps you need to spend some time reading ]. BenHocking, I do not think of you as intentionally misleading, just as ill-informed. You might also benefit by spending some time reading ] and try to spend some time actually understanding some of the issues. You also might spend some time reading this. Earlier studies indicate more than 12% of weather stations are poorly sited and subject to an artificial warming bias of more than 3 degrees. If this is accurate and averaged over the globe, more than half of the perceived warming is an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. SurfaceStations.org is auditing the U.S. network now and then will audit globally. Again, this article is ridiculing some of the leading climate scientists for a valid scientific position. It should be speedy deleted. ] 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
::::It was said that in contrast to flat-Earth, there is different ''motivation and deceptiveness'' and ''influence on the planet'' and that it's ''not as harmless'' as flat-Earth. ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:It´s ironic and funny that the talk page to "Climate change denial" has become such a hotbed of, well, climate change denial. It's safe to say that the contributing authors of the article are familiar with the many sources of disinformation about climate change - hence the article. ] 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Still, there is no connection to {{tq|Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms}}. They are not violated. --] (]) 15:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


* While I will admit that this list was too long for me to read every item, I don't see anything NPOV violation here. The article is reflecting the tone and bias of reliable sources, all of which consider climate change denial to be pseudoscientific. ] (]) 17:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'll admit that I'm "ill-informed" when it comes to certain areas of denial. However, I'm informed enough to know that the criticisms of land surface temperature record are not well-founded, since those records are weighted, and, more importantly are supported by ]. The Pielke name is somewhat familiar (presumably due to his stance on Global Warming), but the other names mean nothing to me. I suspect that you might benefit from reading more about ] and not just about the scientists who think it's not real/not anthropogenic/a good thing/will be fixed by peak oil and/or technological progress. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


:Point by point with respect to the scientists you mention:
:* McIntyre: I find it hard to believe that the president/founder of an oil and gas exploration company had limited contacts with them.
:* Pielke: "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Not exactly a climate change denier, then.
:* Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
:* Shaviv: I have read about his work before, after all, but the name did not stick in my head. This scientist is clearly a skeptic/denier and almost definitely not in the pocket of big oil, etc. Although his theory is unconventional, it should be falsifiable, and in fact, appears to have been falsified. It should be pointed out that contrary to what many in the AGW denial industry claim, Shaviv has received more publicity than he deserves exactly because he is going against the mainstream.
:* Svensmark: See Shaviv.
:* Akasofu: I'm skeptical that he's a skeptic (although I'm not denying it) since I see no evidence of it.
:* Kukla: Similar to Shaviv and Svensmark, he seems to be a bonafide skeptic/denier of global warming.
:* Giegengack: More of a skeptic than a denier, if you read what he says in the article you linked. He says Al Gore got the science wrong. Tell me something I don't know. To say that people are exaggerating global warming is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. You have to read the entire article before you can finally find out that he's skeptical about CO2's influence on global warming, and that it doesn't really matter because eventually it would be self-correcting and the world will survive without humans (presumably part of the self-correction is to get rid of humans).
:Finally, note that skepticism and denial are two different things, as mentioned in this article. I see four deniers in that list (only one of which has ties to the oil industry), one skeptic, and one unknown. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


:The tone should ''not'' reflect the tone of biased sources. Relevant policies:<br>
== Source ==


{{Quote frame|Misplaced Pages describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized.
I don't have the time becoming involved in yet another climate page, espially if Ron is here (who take a lot of convincing ;-). However, I missed this source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html, a report by the ] on the issue. --] 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.|], from WP:NPOV}}


{{Quote frame|Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category.
::Thank's for the useful link. I think the point is that this entry isn't about our personal views on climate change, but rather about the factual documentation of an effort to fund the denial of the scientific concensus. That effort took place, as the link you supply demonstrates, no matter if one agrees or disagrees with the science itself.] 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
...the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.|]}}


{{Quote frame|As a matter of policy, Misplaced Pages is not written in news style (in any sense other than some use of the inverted pyramid, above), including tone. The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different. Especially avoid bombastic wording|]}}
:::Shall there be a similar article which factually documents the determined effort to fund studies which support the AGW conclusion? I think someone above suggested the title ]. The fact that I'm even suggesting this should make you consider whether the current article should exist in the first place (it should not). ] 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


{{Quote frame|Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...<br>
::::Sure, if there is evidence that science has been manipulated by interested institutions in order to support the AGW conclusion, that could be included here or in another article, so long as it meets encylopedic standards.] 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...<br>
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.<br>
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.
In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose.|]}}


:The examples listed are of loaded language added on top of and in addition to selected quotations. ] (]) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
== Technical question ==


: I also don't see any NPOV violation here. Perhaps you (User:Skullers) could take another look at your long list and only single out let's say the 5 most prominent examples where you think we have a problem. I've scanned your list and don't see anything particularly objectionable there but maybe I have missed some. There is always room for improvement but your list doesn't convince me. Please zoom in on any instances (let's say 5 to start with) that you think are the most problematic. Also maybe specify which of the quoted text exactly ought to be converted into non-quotes? I think it would be difficult to do so as we are trying to explain what wording and language the climate change deniers use... ] (]) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
What's the difference between <nowiki>]</nowiki> and <nowiki>]</nowiki>? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::Skullers probably suffers from the common misconception that ] means that Misplaced Pages is supposed to always sit on the fence when there is a conflict, even when the conflict is between science on one side and a bunch of ideologically motivated anti-science wackos on the other. Or they are unaware that that is the case here. So, they see problems where there are none. --] (]) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:It was listed at the top of the category (rather than alphabetically) to give it undue prominence. ] 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Not at all. One doesn't um ''suffer'' from it. Aware of ] and all that. The ''tone'', ''style'', and ''sentiment'' of text are not encyclopedic or impartial, that is outside of quotations. Of which there are 190 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY, had to feed it into a machine) and the text goes the extra mile above and beyond with weasel words, loaded language, peacock terms, editorializing, etc. It stands out even among other politicized topics. ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::OK. Just for the record, I copied that category from another article, and it was definitely not my intention to give it undue prominence. ] definitely applies here. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::{{tq|impartial}} is not among the requirements. I cannot see any "weasel words", and neither is it Misplaced Pages's fault that reliable sources reject the bad reasoning of the denialists, nor that the denialists' reasoning is bad. You see that as "loaded language" or "editorializing", but it isn't. Your problem is not with Wikiepdia, it is with reliable sources and with reality.
:::OK sorry for implying that. But it's normally done only for the main/title article in each cat. ] 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::We get the same reasoning as yours from people who think that Misplaced Pages is unfair to flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. You are just the last in a long line of people who think that Misplaced Pages is biased against one specific pseudoscience. See ]. --] (]) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Not surprised to hear any of this. We are aware of your tactics, your sentiment, and your traits. ''venceremos'' ] (]) 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
== This wikipedia article is very valid! ==
:::::: Skullers, you must make constructive ]: ] looks rather ], please explain its relevance to the article, or redact it. . . ], ] 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:: I will highlight some examples .... ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Another fine piece on climate change denial from "America's gas price lady", via CNN web, look at the two bottom paragraphs:
:::To be constructive, please show how the examples relate to the cited sources, and what alternative wording you propose while taking care to show clearly the mainstream views of the scientific community, and not give undue weight to fringe or pseudoscientific views. . . ], ] 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/fa.lundberg.qa/index.html {{unsigned|81.0.68.145}}
:You're right. In Misplaced Pages, we try to maintain an NPOV (neutral point of view) across all articles. This may require some editing. ] (]) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Once again, that is someone's opinion whom is related to gas/petrol that thus makes them biased. It is not fact, just a POV. ]] 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Conspiracy theory category ==

I'm guessing there's an impression that "conspiracy theory" implies wackiness, and obviously this impression is not invented out of whole cloth. However, in ]'s defense, aren't we talking about a conspiracy, or at least coming close to it? I suppose a well-documented conspiracy isn't necessarily a conspiracy, but that might be splitting hairs. At the very least, I think its validity for inclusion in that category should be discussed. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:The essence of the article is that big oil is conspiring to keep the "truth" about global warming from the public. So the category is appropriate. ] 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::I think the essence is more that they're conspiring to distort the "truth" by inventing doubt, but your point remains valid. Rebuttal from those against inclusion in this category? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::But isn't there evidence that major corporations did in fact fund denial of the scientific consensus -- whether or not you agree with or depart from that consensus -- as documented by the link Stephan mentions (and other in the article provided by Cyrusc)? This is my confusion: I of course respect the right of editors to form their own opinions about climate change and the legitimacy of one theory or another, but the question here is whether or not corporations like Exxon did in fact get involved. The UCS and other reports cited in the article need to be contested, in my opinion, for this article to be reduced to a "conspiracy theory." “Conspiracy theory” of course implies a lack of concrete evidence. I'm not just contesting the category -- I'm trying to understand the entire POV issue in the first place! I appreciate your thoughts...] 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think that the term "conspiracy theory" necessarily implies a lack of concrete evidence, although it is often used in that sense pejoratively. I think "conspiracy theory" merely means a theory (in the colloquial sense, of course) that there is a conspiracy. That would seem to fit here, despite the negative connotations. Conspiracy theories aren't necessarily wrong. They usually are, but not always. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::If Exxon et al did in fact fund the denial, and that's the evidence I see in the entry, what's theoretical about the conspiracy?] 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::A valid question, but does theoretical necessarily imply uncertain? Also, have you demonstrated conspiracy or just complicity? (Of course, I'm not sure that we're necessarily arguing conspiracy here, either, so I suppose that point could just as easily be turned <em>against</em> inclusion in the category.) ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Those are all good questions. My sense is that we shouldn't describe something as a ''conspiracy theory'' when the evidence supports the actuality. Otherwise what's to prevent any fact from being redescribed as a theory by those who find it inconvenient? The specific denotation of a "conspiracy theory" is that the reality is unproven. But isn't the evidence to the contrary here? Has anybody shown that the various references in the article aren't credible? I don't have a ''theory'' that Tobacco companies funded studies to dispute the ill effects of cigarettes; we have the evidence. Isn't that the relevant analogy? Thanks for your thoughts.] 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, being a scientist, I think theories are pretty dandy things (but we are not talking about those kinds of theories). Obviously, I never felt that strongly about it in the first place (and just as clearly, I hope, I agree that the evidence has been documented), so I will let ] address your concerns. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Climate change exaggerators ==
What about the AGW proponents who manufacture consensus? Aren't they just as bad as people who unfairly sow doubt? Or are you letting your personal biases against "big energy" drive support of this clearly biased article? ] 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::I am not relying on personal biases; I am relying on the sources provided in the entry--I am relying on the only documentation that has been presented in these discussions. Of course if you have evidence from credible sources regarding how "AGW proponents" have distorted the concensus, I would like to see them! Perhaps they could be integrated into this entry. Let's assume good faith and let the facts speak! ] 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The title of the article is "Climate change denial". I think that if there is a notable body of evidence that there is a collection of AGW proponents who are manufacturing false consensus (e.g., exaggerating its effects), then that should be in its own article. A link from here to there in a "see also" kind of way would be wholly appropriate. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::::this is where the whole argument that this is adequately covered under ] arises from. we can keep subdividing general topics into infinitely finer entities, but the coherence and relevance is gradually lost. shall we have a separate article on ], then one on ], and of course ], then ], then ] and so on and on and on? ] 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Excellent point. I fully concur with your opinion. This information is much more appropriate on the ] page. ] 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::<strong><em>If</em></strong> there is sufficient information to generate such articles (major "if"), than yes. Why not? The coherence or relevance of this article does not seem to be dependent on what other articles say. In fact, by keeping it on-topic (and limiting the scope of the topic), it becomes more coherent and not less. Should we get rid of ] because it's already somewhat covered in ]? No, because limiting the scope of the topic makes it more coherent. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with Benhocking for two main reasons. 1) Elaboration does not = redundancy, as I've argued above. There are countless precedents vetted by the community where the length of a general article is kept manageable by the creation of subsidiary articles. Do Zoomwsu and Anastrophe agree we should delete articles such as ] and all related entries? Or does this standard only apply to articles that reflect a position that differs from their personal opinion? 2) No serious argument has been made against the notability of the information contained in this entry. Again, how is it that we can have such extensive discussion on this page without anybody actually challenging the encyclopedic documentation presented within the entry?] 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Let's Stick to Science ==

In almost all the other GW articles, we stick to scientific facts supported by reliable sources. Because GW is a scientific issue, it would be prudent to stick to the science. Articles like this are obviously biased. This polarizes the audience, muddles real, productive discussion and makes it difficult for readers to seperate real facts from opinions masquerading as facts. This article should be deleted! ] 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I agree. Let's stick to the facts. Do you dispute any of the citations in this article? If so, which ones? I see on the one side, extensive citations documenting Exxon et al's involvement in the denial campagin. On the other I just see people claiming that such documentation is "obviously biased." Now that we agree that we need facts and reliable sources, let's proceed! ] 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::The use of the language of "denial" itself is a major problem. But addressing the reliable source issue: I'm sorry, but the UK Guardian, New York Times and Climate Science Watch are not RS when it comes to the issue of climate change. Remove their citations and almost the entire article goes bye-bye. ] 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree. Although GW is a scientific issue, there are plenty of facts worthy of discussion that are political and not scientific. For example, the decision by the current administration to selectively excise text from scientific documents for political reasons. This is a documented, important fact, but it's not science. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::That may be true, but putting under a heading of "Denial" and not also referencing the Administration's own justifications and positions on equal footing clearly make this a biased article. ] 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Have they provided any justification for the redactions? If so, I agree we should include it. If not, how is it biased that we don't include it? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::If you include the Administration's position on the issue, it will contribute to making this article less biased. However, it does not address the fundamental point of putting such information under a heading called "Denial".
So, we´re not supposed to cite the Guardian or the New York Times? That's a new one on me. Those are both highly respected sources of thoroughly-researched information, and to pretend otherwise because you disagree is the height of arrogance. As stated over and over again by other editors, if you can source another side of this issue with strong sources (Fox News may be your only hope), feel free to contribute productively. ] 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Global Warming Hysteria ==
On a broader note, who here objects to a ] article that is similar in nature to this one? ] 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:well, nobody can really object before the article exists. the only reasonable objection is one formulated after the article exists, based upon the article's relevance, coherence, NPOV, and encyclopedic quality, among a host of other things. ] 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with ]. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:I would go with ], since ] might carry more information than you want. But if you can cite it, you can write it. Surely there exist organized, politically or financially-motivated efforts to exaggerate the threat of climate change, and covering these in an accurate and verifiable way would do the encyclopedia a service. ] 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::If such an article was created, even if it was just started with a list of some of the more extreme newpaper headlines. Then to make it more equivilent to this article you would need to track some of these to some organisation(s) (preferably politically or financially-motivated organisations). When that has been done then perhaps we should consider merging them into one article for ] so as to attempt to give appropriate length/weight to the scale of the issue on each side.

::It might not be difficult to find a financially motivated organisation giving out alarmist views, as a newspaper could be such an organisation. I might query whether an overhyped newspaper is truely equivalent to the 'denial industry' documented here and if there are other newspapers that take opposite extreme views it may be appropriate to move that to something like ]. If something more substantial than that has been documented then this article shouldn't be allowed without presenting this other side. If it hasn't been documented that doesn't mean this article should not exist until it has been documented. This article seems to me to be much more than just one sided opinion and should stay. I also agree we cannot try to judge whether ] should be deleted until we see what material it contains but I don't see any reason to object to it on principal. ] 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After careful consideration of the comments expressed here, I've been convinced the article should remain. However, I do so with certain reservation. The first is, I still believe this article is too POV. Presenting sources like the Guardian and particularly, the NY Times, without some balance is a problem. I know there are sources out there that will present this in a more fair light, I just don't have the time to research nor the knowledge of what these sources are. I think there should be language and links that refer to this in the context of corporate public relations. It shouldn't surprise anyone that companies are engaging in public relations campaigns. It's also important to find sources that judge the results of these public relations efforts (i.e. studies) on their own merits, rather than by the self-interest of the financier. Further sourcing should be done regarding the opinions and statements of those who, paraphrasing the words of someone above, "deny the deniers"--What does ExxonMobil have to say? The broader issue is this, though: this article has the general feeling of a hit piece and I think that's why many here a problem with it. ] 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

=="NPOV" rewrite of intro==
I object to Iceage77's rewrite. I do not think the term "denial" is expressly pejorative--it is simply the most accurate term to describe the issue, viz. funded, organized denial of scientific findings. Let me restate that references to Godwin's Law etc. are coming from outside the article and appear to be conclusions based on original research. ] 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:I am not aware of any scientists who deny climate change. It is generally accepted by scientists that the earth's climate is always changing, and has done throughout history. It is proponents of AGW who use this term (inaccurately and pejoratively) to describe those who are sceptical of AGW theory. ] 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::The holocaust assertion is out of line and warrants no response save deletion. "Pejorative"is POV; the article derives its title exclusively from unchallenged sources. The term is not pejorative if the evidence is correct; the term is accurate. Again, this isn't about editors' opinions of climate change science, this is about a well documented and uncontested misinformation campaign. Iceage77, ''denial'' is the term used in the citations. Are you claiming your opinion trumps all the citations provided?] 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Holocaust deniers ==

Removed the following:
:It may be intended to invite comparison with ].
as it appears quite inflammatory and the ''may be intended'' lacks a bit. The "reference" is a blog discussing a columnists comment. Seems not to belong, especially not in the lead. ] 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::OK. We can say that certain people have compared this terminology with holocaust denial. Plenty of references for this. ] 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::agreed. denying that the comparison has been made falls loosely into denial denial denial. *who* made the comparison is irrelevant, as we aren't here to impute motive. Ellen Goodman originally wrote "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers", and she was did not make that statement as a means of denial denial .] 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::The question is not whether anybody has ever said that the denial of climate change parallels holocaust denial, but whether or not that comparison is noteworthy in an encyclopedia entry relating to the misinformation campaign. It has no bearing on the denial industry, which Anastrophe has agreed is the subject of this entry. Its placement in the article serves no function except to deflect attention from the industry onto a regrettable comment made by individuals unrelated to the subject at hand.] 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::you're misrepresenting my comments. i've never "agreed" that the subject of this article is "the denial industry", i'm the one who first pointed that out, and suggested that *that* would be a more appropriate title, with an expansion to include manifold examples of same for other issues and topics. the inclusion of the comparison to holocaust deniers serves the function of reporting that the term is not without controversy. refusal to include mention of that comparison merely shows that the article is not NPOV - your - and others' - intent is to suggest that 'climate change denial' is a widely and uncritically accepted term.] 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::So true Benzocane. ] 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
::::A better link would be the Boston columnists' column itself. Right now we're talking about hearsay on a blog. If someone can find the original article, I think it's worthy of inclusion - but probably not as the lede - unless it can be worked in seamlessly. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::http://postwritersgroup.com/archives/good0208.htm ] 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::As said before, its not a question of someone having said or linked these - but rather whether this is notable. That a Boston columnist has said something doesn't make it notable - it has to be judged on its ], and as far as i can see - it would have a rather small weight (if any). Google-search can provide us a hint (even if not conclusive), and there is a rather large difference between and . I'd say we need some fairly good sources for this to be mentioned. --] 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::as has been pointed out countless times, differences in search result totals do not make a compelling argument, nor are the a substitute for actual research. the comment carries great weight, insofar as this article is entitled "climate change denial", but no citation of the origin or evolution of the term is provided. the original authors comparison of "global warming deniers" with holocaust deniers actually provides us with an citation for a variant of this article's title. ] 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::::The origin of the term is provided in the mainstream, international news outlets cited by Cyrusc in the article. The phrase is taken directly from unchallenged sources. The fact that certain individuals have likened the denial of climate change to the denial of the holocaust is not relevant because it does not relate to the article, which is focused on a specific misinformation campaign. How does the statement from a blog or columnist (or a million blogs or columnists for that matter) give "the origin or evolution" of public relations campaigns funded by the energy lobby to undermine scientific consensus? ] 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::so again, you reinforce my argument that this article is misleadingly titled. it is not about the phenomenon of 'climate change denial', it is about 'the industry of denial'. this article is focused narrowly on this one POV that 'climate change denial' is in some way distinct from other information/disinformation campaigns by industry; it is not. the introductory text is misleading, characterizing the article as (one would hope) an examination of the mechanisms and psychology behind "climate change denial", when in fact, it is merely a record of one out of thousands of similar campaigns that have taken place, and continue to take place. ] 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Anastophe, as i said in my comment - Google gives us nothing but a hint. When trying to link the origin of climate change denial - you have to do better than speculation. (see: ] and ]) - you need to find good reliable articles that directly link this. And you have to demonstrate that it carries sufficient weight to be mentioned. --] 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::''If'' Anastrophe is correct that this is "a record of one out of thousands of similar campaigns," that is still neither grounds for deletion or a POV challenge. If there are a great number of misinformation campaigns, that doesn't mean it's wrong to cover this one. Misplaced Pages covers thousands of pop stars, athletes, products, etc. One doesn't challenge the notability or POV status of an article about a war by claiming that there are thousands of such wars, that wars are commonplace occurrences, etc.] 02:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a very brief section on the origin of the term. this article opens with the statement "Climate change denial is a term used to describe the denial of all or part of the theory of global warming". who is making that claim? what is its origin? this article goes into great detail about what it terms "the denial industry", but expends no effort in explaining specifically the opening sentence. my brief section was immediately reverted, which is contrary to good wikipedia practice. the section was as accurate as the limited writing on the topic could provide (within the limited time i have available). i cited the quote i added; it was accurate. the section is very brief, so can't be claimed to be giving 'undue weight' in the context of the entire article. improve the article - find citations to back up the earliest use of the term. speculating on the origin of the term is fully appropriate so long as it doesn't attempt to mislead about the possible origins. ] 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry ''may be a refinement of the term "Global warming denial", which may have entered the vernacular ...'' It would seem to be simply a case of original research made worse by the weasel wording "may be" and "may have". Your quotes ''may be'' examples of comparison with Holocaust deniers - but not sure how relevant that is. You seem to be determined to make the association. ] 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::i've added the text back with citations, without "may be", "may have". i'm not determined to make the association. those cited made the association long before i did. ] 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::this is maddening. there is no attempt to improve the section; it is merely reverted as being 'speculation'. should the whole article be deleted then, since the opening sentence appears to be someone's speculation as to what the term means? there seems to be widespread misunderstanding of what reverting is for. my addition is not vandalism. it is well cited. ] 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
::::The trouble is that you aren't referencing any sources to your text about origins, you are only sourcing the various elements that you are yourself deducting must be the origin - thats ] in a nutshell. Try finding a source that actually talks about the origins of the term. Why is the origin btw so interesting? Its a commonly used term - as demonstrated by a lot of reliable sources. And secondarily why are you referencing Goodman - the comments by her is from 2007, very far from the origin (which you place around 2001 - and the sources on this page place at least before (or in) 2005)? Goodman tells us nothing about the origins of the term. --] 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::i have renamed the section to simply 'terminology', which should neutralize this criticism. ] 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Anastrophe - please read up on what ] and ] means. --] 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::bad faith. misrepresentation of my edits upon reversion. not a single actual edit attempt at improving the section. unbelievable. 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::The holocaust reference 1) is not notable. It is an unfortunate comparison made by isolated individuals that neither explains the origin and development of the phrase “climate change denial” (which is taken from far more credible sources – NYTimes, Guardian, etc.) nor does it relate to the misinformation campaigns that form the center of the entry. 2) The insistence on inserting the comparison is a POV attempt to associate the aforementioned credible sources with the unrepresentative and irrelevant position of the isolated individuals. Exxon et al funded the denial of climate change science. This is uncontested. Let's move on. ] 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::perhaps you missed some of the later edits. the section was moved from 'origins' to 'terminology', and the section reworked to provide two examples of the interchangeable use of "climate change denial" and "global warming denial" within the same context of use. so the argument that it was original research or failed to explain origins was moot. regarding '2', you further bolster the argument that this article is not about "climate change denial", certainly not as a phenomenon or organized construct, the article is about "the denial industry", citing merely one example of a widespread activity. yes, it is uncontested that exxonmobil funded people and organizations to promote one view on one issue. exxonmobil has done this on countless issues over the last century, as have countless other businesses and special interest groups. if you are unwilling to have the colloquial term "climate change denial" described - through sources - that are *not* party to your - or the article's - POV - then the article remains explicitly POV. 'no criticism of the term, its use, or examples of same, will be allowed in this article!!'. not how one builds an encyclopedia. ] 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:I think those of us who disagree with Anastrophe and think that most people using the term "climate change denial" or "global warming denial" are not trying to compare it to Holocaust denial, should nonetheless try to work with him on this issue. Up until he provided the Boston source, I was convinced that the whole allegation had been invented out of whole cloth. Now I see that at least one columnist who believes in AGW has used the term in connection with Holocaust denial (although this does not support the allegation that this has anything to do with the term's origins). Unfortunately, trying to trace down the actual origins of the term comes close to violating ], if not actually doing so - unless we can find where someone has actually published something about those origins. I realize that a lot of people disagree with Anastrophe (myself included), but I genuinely believe he is acting in good faith, and he should be treated as such. Anastrophe - do you have a sandbox already started where we can work on a section or paragraph discussing this topic? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
::thank you. having been slapped with my first 3RR, i bow out of further editing of the article, even for non-contentious matters (which, if anyone will care to take note, i performed at minimum a dozen contextual, grammatical, syntactical etc changes to improve the article - aside from those i attempted to perform in good faith response to the relentless reverting of the section in question). but i digress. the final revision i put up addressed all of my devoted reverter's complaints, but was slapped down clearly without having even been read from top to bottom, based upon the edit summary. so, no point in trying again. ] 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with your sentiments, but good faith alone does not prove notability. Unless notability is proven, the material should not be included. Including the material in an encylopedia entry has the effect of making it seem representative. That effect is misleading here for reasons given above.] 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:::How can you be certain there's no notability? First of all, several notable people (e.g., Limbaugh, I presume - although we'd need sources, etc.) have accused AGW believers of using the term to slur by comparison to the holocaust. Unfortunately, it's very hard to demonstrate that it's not being used this way (which is why I'm sure a lot of us are against even mentioning it) as it's hard to prove a negative, especially if no ] is allowed. Right now we have to support the Limbaugh et al. crowd the comments of a single columnist. It's entirely believable to me that this is the entire basis for this assertion and that it has since snowballed. I'll admit this will be a difficult point to cover in an NPOV way, but I do not agree that the ''allegation'' that the term is being used to compare with holocaust deniers is not notable, even if the comparison itself is. I will freely admit that I am somewhat new to Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure how the notability of Limbaugh balances against his unreliability. I imagine that in numerous other places, however, his comments have been used and documented as inaccurate where necessary. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I've made my arguments about notability above -- that the statement of a few individuals is not notably related to the Exxon et al funded denial which is the subject of the entry and its extensive sourcing. I hardly feel Limbaugh is going to be a sufficient NPOV source! Regardless, the prior question is: what's at stake in including this holocaust analogy. Limbaugh etc seize on such comments in order to claim a moral high ground relative to scientific consensus. It has nothing to do with the ''uncontested'' denial documented in this entry. The only argument put forth for its relevance is that it explains the origin of "climate change denial" -- but the sources Cyrusc used for the origin -- NYtimes, Guardian, etc -- are both more NPOV and relevant! An analogy: many people (check Google) have likened George Bush to Hitler. Should this analogy be prominent in the Bush analogy? No. Why? Because it represents a fringe opinion of an unencylopedic nature that does not contribute to the substance of the article.] 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::The Guardian<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climatechange</ref> and NY Times<ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html</ref> are not NPOV on the issue of climate change. Of particular note in those links are the NY Times' selection of a melting globe and stranded polar bears that accompany their articles on GW. Note these selected NY Times Watch articles as examples: <ref>http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070419143213.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070118115252.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070117132528.aspx</ref> Hardly unbiased! ] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::''sources'' do not have to be unbiased; on the contrary. what has to be unbiased is wikipedias treatment of topics. references from multiple POV's are routinely used within articles to provide the article with the neutrality desired. which is why i object to the whitewashing of this article as being completely without controversy. ] 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::To the contrary, I believe that Limbaugh et al.'s harping on the supposed holocaust denial comparison is a prime example of the type of tactics used by the denial industry. Trying to work that in within the constraints of NPOV would definitely prove challenging, however. I suspect that you might be underestimating the scope of these allegations. Many, many right-wing sources bring up this supposed connection, although I've only now seen one example of the connection actually being made by someone who believes in AGW. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::If you're suggesting that the holocaust analogy should be included and then criticized in the article as a right wing tactic, and have sources for that claim, I wouldn't remove it, although I still feel like even criticizing the assertion is to lend it a legitimacy it doesn't have. But you're right that the only NPOV option for including the analogy is to include the uses to which that analogy has been put by Limbaugh, et al.] 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Another source for the holocaust analogy - . ] 12:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== Definition of Deny ==

I'm posting the definition (Merriam Webster online www.m-w.com) of "to deny" for everyone to use as a basis for any further discussion of the title of this article. Uses 1,2 and 5 are particularly appropriate here.

Deny:
#to declare untrue;
#to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW;
#to give a negative answer to, to refuse to grant, to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires;
#archaic : DECLINE;
#to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

] 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks. And let's stop pretending that using the term ''denial'' is ''ipso facto'' analogous to holocaust denial. It cheapens the very real travesty of denying the holocaust and it distracts us from the issues at hand: the uncontested historical facts recorded in the entry.] 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::::i'm unaware of anyone ipso facto claiming it is analogous. i '''am''' aware of widely published examples of such a comparison, which were accurately cited. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. we aren't here to determine the truth. we're here to accurate publish information on a given topic. your ''denial'' that the comparison has been made - and, remarkably enough, not by partisans attempting to perform a 'double play' on the term, but by people who are in - for lack of a better term - "your camp" who do indeed believe that climate change denial is roughly equivalent to holocaust denial (because of the implicit worldwide catastrophe impending if we don't do something about AGW). oh, and if i might add: wikipedia is not a dictionary. this article is not about "denial". it is - at least ostensibly - about "climate change denial". defining only one word from a term does not illuminate the meaning of the term itself. ] 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::Where did I deny that the comparison has been made? I've made arguments about its notability given the focus of the entry and the sources of the analogy. And I've made several responses to your claim that this analogy somehow reveals the origin of the phrase. My "camp" consists entirely of those who believe that well documented entries should not be contested or distorted for POV purposes. The holocaust analogy is a red herring with the effect -- no matter your intention, which I'm trying not to doubt -- of deflecting attention from the ''still'' undisputed facts of the misinformation campaign onto the marginal statements of a few individuals. See the Bush/Hitler analogy above. ] 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::as i noted a few moments ago further above, the section was reworked, and no longer attempted any claim at origin. this article is currently written with the POV that the term is implicitly without any published controversy wrt its use; that's demonstrably false. two unrelated examples of the use of the term in comparison to holocaust denial were provided. those uses are notable for having made the comparison in widely published and read venues; that this discussion is taking place - with such extreme pushback against inclusion of cited examples of that use - further points to an implicit expectation that this article is to remain grounded in one POV on the matter. ] 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading a lot of comments here and the articles Anastophe posted, I believe that these comparisons to Holocaust denial are notable and need to be included in the article in some way. I didn't like <i>how</i> Anastophe included those references, though. We need to bias towards inclusion of content and suggest that Anastrophe find a better way of including the content. ] 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'm going to lay off this thread for a while and let other editors consider what's to be done. I respectfully disagree about inclusion.] 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


== My opinion ==
] asked me to have a look at this dispute, as a member of the ].

My first thought was that this article should be kept, although I agree that it has a somewhat breathless, verging unencyclopaedic tone. Then I had a look over the ] page. I can certainly see the argument to break down articles into smaller ones, but I would me minded to move the content of this article to the GWC page. It would also be a good idea to add some more on the "Climate Change Alarmism" issue to the GWC page, to answer POV issues raised above.

With regard to holocaust denial - I would like to see more than one or two very good references before it is compared to climate change denial. This is simply for reasons of taste and decency. ] 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:This article is here to stay so we need to address the POV issues. Firstly, this phrase is always used in a derogatory sense. All of the references are from the Guardian newspaper and other far-left sources. This is indicative of the bias inherent in the article. We need to state this explicitly. Comparison with ] has been made by numerous reliable sources and also needs to be stated. Both proponents and sceptics of AGW including ] have made the comparison. I suggest a separate section "Comparions with Holocaust denial". ] 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::I agree that the phrase is used in a derogatory sense (as it's being contrasted to skeptics). However, so far all we know is that <strong>a</strong> proponent and several "skeptics" have made the comparison. I am not aware of more than one proponent (yet) who has made the comparison. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::you likely missed the last iteration of the 'Terminology' section i added before it was reverted (without having even been read by the reverter, evidenced by his edit summary). that iteration listed George Monbiot's similar published comparison to holocaust denial. I can see no objection to him as a source. ] 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I can see one. ] correctly indicates that a subject is not notable if it's covered only by partisan sources. Well it happens that George Monbiot is to climate change what Karl Marx was to socialism. And for this reason, this article should really be deleted, while it is going to be maintained because of... guess what... partisan issues. --] 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::NPOV doesn't mean 'without POV'. it's perfectly legitimate to cite partisan sources, so long as you cite them in a balanced manner. this is the basis for my interest in having the comparison noted: the article is written from the POV that "climate change denial"/"global warming denial" are terms without any controversy or opposition. the quotes by monbiot and goodman, are by partisans who are in the AGW POV. some of the commentors above have suggested that citing the comparison of "global warming denial" to "holocaust denial" by people such as rush limbaugh, who are 'anti-AGW' POV, would be legitimate - but it would not, it would only be in service to reinforcing the POV that it is *not* AGW POV proponents who make the comparison, which is false. AGW POV adherents need to accept that "their own" have made this comparison. and that the comparison is pejorative. for that reason, it would be a partisan POV addition to balance the POV of this article. (the subtextual argument that is invariably thrown out is that this article is really about the corporate disinformation campaign...which then begs us to ask, 'then why is it entitled "climate change denial"?')] 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::You dont get it... Forget about the holocaust. A subject is deemed not notable if it is only covered by partisan sources. Well, that's exactly the case of "climate change denial", a concept which you will not find outside partisan sources (The Guardian, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, etc.) except perhaps for a few exceptions. The nature of the sources creating the existence of this story should tell you that it is 1- inherently POVed and 2- non-notable outside partisan circles. --] 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::The Guardian, NYtimes, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, etc.--these are consistent resources for Misplaced Pages. Although Mother Jones is a more politically partial source, the claim that the phrase is not found outside of "partisan sources" is innacurate. The bulk of the citations are from the sources you describe as "exceptions." I remain confused: are you disputing the factuality of the misinformation campaign? Then please provide credible sources in support of your position. We are a few days into these discussions and no such sources have been offered.] 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::The Guardian and the Times may be used as resources for Misplaced Pages in many other areas, but on the issue of climate change, they are clearly biased. I've referenced some criticism of the Times, in particular, above, which you may want to check out. Regardless, while I don't necessarily oppose their inclusion in this article, it is fair to balance their POV position. ] 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Look, the fact that you may think that The Guardian/George Monbiot is not a partisan source regarding climate change shows that you are partisan yourself. To answer your question, my position is that the story of a misinformation campaign is essentially built up by partisan sources and is a political matter. Outside propaganda, the reality is that yes, some funding organizations have a vested interest in slowing down climate public policies, but that does not mean that they are entertaining a misinformation campaign and cannot fund honest science. Skeptics do not enjoy public funding like the climate folks do and must look for private funding to pursue their scientific research. To label their findings as "misinformation" requires that you take for an absolute truth what the IPCC tells you, otherwise the skeptics' findings are simply alternative views to a generally accepted scientific theory. Science has always advanced like this, and only when political and partisan motivations are underlying do we label as "misinformation" alternative views. --] 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::It is news to me that science has always advanced by multinational corporations funding PR campaigns that portray generally accepted scientific theory as if it were generally disputed in order to promote their economic interests!] 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Nice strawman. But I'll care to answer and point to you that the problem is that this articles puts in the same basket both the funding of PR campaigns and the funding of credible scientists with divergent views about global warming. --] 13:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

== Origins of the "denial industry" ==

I think that this section must be revisited. If, as the intro says, 'climate change denial' is different from scientific skepticism, then why would it be 'denial' to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours" and to use "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate" ? Right now, what we have is an article that says "it's ok for scientists to pursue research that is skeptical of climate change, but promoting or communicating their findings amounts to climate change denial".

Rest of the section is essentially about some conspiracy theory involving Phillip Morris and the tobacco industry, as if the CEI, George Mason University (!) or the Heritage Foundation were driven by some of their donors and could not reach independent opinions despite the fact that they receive funding.

This stuff is George Monbiot's pet, offers no source to check if what these theories say is true or verifiable, and should not be given a Misplaced Pages encyclopedic entry. --] 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:Basically "climate change denial" is a slur used by the left-wing press against anyone who questions AGW theory. That is all that the citations prove. The idea that it differs from scepticism is ] introduced by the writers of this article. As for Monbiot, this guy is extreme even by environmentalist standards: he wants to cut airport capacity by 90% and close down every out-of-town supermarket! Hardly a reliable source. ] 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::Iceage77, "climate change denial" refers not to scientific criticisms of the theory, only to statements like . ] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:::interesting choice of citation. curious that the article insists the term is only used to describe the corporate misinformation campaign, and that any reference to other uses isn't acceptable, since it doesn't reinforce that claim (nicely self-sealing). ] 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ahem, "used to describe the corporate misinformation campaign" should be qualified with "as liberal and left-leaning pundits see it". There is no way to verify that this conspiracy theory has any merit and is more than a conspiracy theory. --] 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Uh, you mean other than the where money is transferred from an oil company into the hands of a person or organization that comes out against global warming? But of course, just because they take money from an oil company has no bearing on it, right? Give me a break. Your claims don't pass the laugh test. ] 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Hi Raul. Here is some 1st grade high school basic ] (an interesting read topic). <br />
::::::''] : said of the logical fallacy of appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact or reason''. A very basic example of this that could be teached in class could be "Scientist A received money from Oil Company B and argues against global warming, thus his opinion is that of the oil company and need not be considered"
::::::Hope you're not still laughing... --] 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::"Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that you aren't being followed" --] 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed. There's also this bit from ]:
:::::::::''On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.''
::::::::No doubt overlooking that bit was purely by accident. I think Raul can go on chuckling all he likes. ] 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for this lesson about evidence; this naive comment certainly was made in good faith. For the record, when it comes to evidence, one can come with ad hominems against a witness in the hope of reducing is credibility. But it always remains within the judge's discretion to believe or not the witness' testimony despite the allegations about his credibility, not to one of the parties before him to instruct him in this regard. --] 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::If scientists are corrupted by the small amounts received from oil cos, what effect do the much greater sums received from governments have? ] 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Excellent question. Amazingly enough, it does not seem to have bought as much loyalty as the oil company has. Perhaps this is because scientists receive more funding ''per study'' from oil companies than they do from the government. If our government wants to really silence climate change studies, perhaps it should pay its scientists more. If there's a bias in the current administration towards climate change, it's not in the direction that you seem to be implying. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Interesting that you find the amounts small. But you are absolutely right that government influence can often compromise scientific objectivity, and whenever there is evidence of an effort to manipulate science or perception of science, that should be chronicled. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/ etc.] 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== Monbiot ==

I reverted to include "''journalist and environmentalist'' ]". I think it's helpful to include this reference. ] 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think it's particularly helpful, as both the quote and the link make his perspective clear. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly harmful, either, so I'm really surprised this has changed back and forth multiple times. Also, I'd like to give kudos to ] for taking it to the talk page. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::First of all, what's the point in putting in the Monbiot quote? ~ ] 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I would also delete it. --] 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

== Bit on Dick Cheney ==

I don't see how the bit on Dick Cheney has to do with climate change denial. From the very definition within this article, "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," the idea that "'unwavering ideological positions' prioritizing economic over environmental interests" led to bad policy do not mesh.

I'm also curious how this article will differentiate between "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," and plain misunderstanding and ignorance surrounding the topic. ~ ] 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:They are related, in that the former is designed to take advantage of and exacerbate the latter. ] 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::Wait, are you referring to my second question, or Dick Cheney? I reckon "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus . . ." can be used to take advantage and exacerbate misunderstanding and ignorance. But I what I was trying to get at was whether this article will argue that one who is ignorant of the subject is therefore a denier (by this articles definition), because I reckon one needs not to be paid by the oil industry to be confused. Of course, I'm still curious about Dick Cheney. ~ ] 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I think the Cheney bit needs to be expanded to include information regarding his ] and its link to Exxon et al. That will clarify the connection, I think. ] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, what I get from that article is that the NEPDG met with several large energy companies, suggesting they might have influenced national energy policy. What I get from this article is that Cheney prioritizes economy over environment, which this article argues led to bad environment policy (or at least making the head of the EPA quit). What I don't see is the connection between that and climate change denial. It looks, to me, as if someone just put it in the article to make jabs. Still curious. ~ ] 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::I can't speak to why the information was initially included, but assume good faith. If Cheney and/or others ''knowingly'' misrepresented scientific concensus -- that is, didn't disagree with the science per se, but misrepresented the agreement of the scientific community itself -- that would fall within the purview of the article independent of a connection to Exxon; but I think you're right, the connection should be clarified, as it exists and is well documented.] 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::] is right about expanding the article and clarifying the connection re: ]. I included mention of Cheney because of this passage from the '']'' describing both his efforts to deregulate emissions and his portrayal of the science regarding anthropogenic carbon emissions and/or warming as remaining in a state of indecision: ''"The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem."'' ] 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::::And that's precisely what led to my second question. How will this article differentiate between those who deceitfully spread "disinformation campaigns . . ." and those who might be confused on the issue but nonetheless espouse their ignorance. I cannot say whether or not Dick Cheney is the former or latter, but this article fails to make the connection between his prioritizing economics over economy and "climate change denial" as it is defined here. ~ ] 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Good point. Seems to be textbook ]. --] 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


And by the way, I should note that the current revision that includes the NEPDG meeting with the energy industry makes an even weaker case towards "climate change denial," as defined in this article. ~ ] 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::I've added some information regarding the link between Cheney's environmental positions and the corporations funding disinformation. Could you explain why it makes a weaker case? Regardless, you ask an interesting question--there is a difference between dissenting from scientific consensus and misrepresenting that consensus. But what Cyrusc has made clear in the article is that Cheney's rhetoric regarding climate change science as being characterized by "conflicting viewpoints" or as existing in a state of indecision is a misrepresentation of the overwhelming consensus, no matter if he dissents from that consensus or not. That's what the article has to differentiate between -- dissent from consensus and the misrepresentation of consensus. Cyrusc does that effectively, I think, but you are right to emphasize the importance of the distinction.] 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK, thank you for your reply. I think the main argument in the NEPDG bit just recently added is that the energy industry influenced its decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol. One problem here is that the Protocol is a political treaty that, regardless of one's view on climate change, can be dismissed as undesirable. Another problem is that I don't see Cheney making a disinformation campaign. Can one quote that he made ("Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem") really be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? Can Chaney's prioritization of economics over environment, i.e. a rational personal opinion, be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? This is what I'm concerned about. ~ ] 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:Those are all smart questions. While this article is ''mainly'' about the corporate funded misinformation campaign, it covers any other misrepresentation of the consensus. You're right that one could oppose Kyoto on grounds that do not fall under the purview of the article, but what's relevant here is the link to Exxon. Re: misinformation vs. rational personal opinion: If Cheney were to say "the position of this administration is to dissent from the consensus," that would ''not'' be disinformation, but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public. The claim of the UCS etc. is that Cheney et al know dissenting from the consensus is not politically viable, and so they have denied it exists (which is not the same thing as dissenting from the science).] 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:: ''"but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public"'' Are you hereby proposing that ], ] or for that matter, all the scientists quoted in ] are misrepresenting existing information to the public? Who is the legitimate judge of what is the correct existing information regarding the existence of a consensus? --] 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:36, 3 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"? A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence. Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable." Q2: Is this article a POVFORK? A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion." Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers? A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust. Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming? A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change and Talk:Global warming/FAQ § Q1 Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along? A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:
  • 1. Because a "consensus" indicates that scientists with expertise in the relevant fields are in general agreement about some topic, such that they often refer to it as a "fact" (though technically nothing in science is ever proven with the 100% level of certainty necessary for it to be considered a fact). There is, for example, a consensus that smoking causes cancer, which is widely considered a fact.
  • 2. No; in fact, it is essential to the progress of science, since scientific discoveries are made based on what the consensus of scientists established before them.
  • 3. This argument is a form of the association fallacy often called the "Galileo Gambit." The best debunking of this argument may have been provided by Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
References
  1. Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
  2. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
  3. Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
  4. Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014.
  5. AFD Diff, 7 August 2007.
  6. Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
  7. Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
  8. On Scientific Consensus
  9. Broca's Brain, p. 64
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2007Articles for deletionKept
March 28, 2008Articles for deletionKept
September 4, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 10, 2010Articles for deletionKept
March 13, 2010Articles for deletionKept
January 9, 2012Articles for deletionKept
November 29, 2014WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
March 16, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEnvironment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Section sizes
Section size for Climate change denial (43 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 13,179 13,179
Terminology 12,737 12,737
Categories and tactics 8,188 57,224
Discussing specific aspects of climate change science 8,959 25,271
Playing up the potential non-human causes 546 546
Playing up flawed studies 2,213 2,213
Disputing IPCC reports and processes 4,935 4,935
Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes 8,618 8,618
Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical" 1,817 1,817
Pushing for adaptation only 5,895 5,895
Delaying climate change mitigation measures 9,379 9,379
Promoting conspiracy theories 6,674 6,674
Psychology 999 999
Connections to other debates 35 17,018
Links with other environmental issues 2,295 2,295
Links with nationalism and right-wing groups 6,663 6,663
Conservative views 8,025 8,025
History 12,154 31,405
Similarities with tobacco industry tactics 3,517 3,517
Republican Party in the United States 15,734 15,734
Denial networks 934 18,529
Conservative and libertarian think tanks 4,974 4,974
Publishers, websites and networks 4,473 12,621
Publications for school children 8,148 8,148
Notable people who deny climate change 46 15,345
Politicians 11,188 11,188
Scientists 4,111 4,111
Lobbying and related activities 2,494 24,074
Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors 5,911 5,993
ExxonMobil 82 82
Attacks and threats towards scientists 3,598 3,598
Funding for deniers 11,989 11,989
Effects on public opinion 11,370 22,534
United States 8,600 8,600
Europe 2,564 2,564
Responses to denialism 1,574 23,066
The role of emotions and persuasive argument 6,177 6,177
Following people who have changed their position 8,334 8,334
Effective approaches to dialogue 4,144 4,144
Approaches with farmers 1,972 1,972
Statements of well known people calling for climate action 865 865
See also 685 685
References 332 332
Total 237,127 237,127

Doubt as pseudoscientific?

I express doubt at the concept that expression of doubt is pseudoscientific. On the contrary science is all about doubt. NOT expressing doubt - unexamined dogmatic belief - is what is unsceintific. Science necessarily entails continuing attempts to falsify its own claims because of the dubious nature of inductive reasoning. Unexamined justifications "because science says so" are no better than "because God says so", if you are not prepared (or allowed) to question the scientific claims. 80.5.192.29 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.
@IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.
@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Misplaced Pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.
The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. 109.148.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
What straw man did I employ? Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed
  • Climate science is not "special". Pretty much every science has loons attacking it. Biologists have creationism, astronomy has Velikovskians, medicine has quacks, math has circle squarers, physics has perpetual motion tinkerers, and so on.
  • There are no "alternative rational explanations" that are consistent with the facts.
  • Denialists should not be "suppressed", they should be exposed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You're making the world a better place "Hob" - one day, perhaps, the people you don't like will all be gone. Good luck in your task. 2001:569:FC56:8A00:AEB0:188A:6FD:2EAE (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The references you use in the summary only fit one worldview while two worldviews are prevalent: the incoming administration of the United States government includes high ranking officials whom cite scientists that disagree with the popular worldview; more egregiously, in this talk, you are openly stating you personally believe the opposite view is “incorrect”, and therefore it shouldn’t be included, rather than gatekeeping a completely unbiased or equally balanced article. You are politicizing Misplaced Pages. It should have both popular viewpoints expressed in the summary to remain unbiased. You are wittingly or unwittingly making a once completely fact-based website, a once important website, fit a narrative that doesn’t remain purely objective. That is unacceptable. 2600:1002:B160:38E9:4094:317D:6C20:723 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The incoming administration of the United States government is a bunch of clowns. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on reliable sources (real science), not on a pathological liar and his minions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
What a load of rubbish by the anonymous user with the IP address. Thanks Hob Gadling for even responding to this rubbish. As per WP:NOTAFORUM we should probably kill off this conversation here and now. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. EMsmile (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
As Hob Gadling rightly stated, "Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented." IP, instead of trying to deny climate change, it would be great if every government on the planet worked together to solve the problem, without excuses. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


Where is the third option, skepticism without denial or affirmation?

Skullers (talk)

They went extinct a few decades ago. Nowadays, the honest and knowledgeable people all accept climate change as real. Maybe you should inform yourself on the subject instead of spouting platitudes.
But the real problem with your contribution is that you do not have reliable sources; it is just your opinion, and those do not count on Misplaced Pages. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blakepet (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Blakepet (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Tone, style, and overuse of quotations

This article reads like it was written by one angry person who screams "lies, damn lies! These people are lunatics and shills!" at literally every possible opportunity. In case you skipped every other part, we'd like to remind you that the denials are fake, dishonest, and discredited!

Consider the articles on Flat Earth and Perpetual motion: there is total scientific consensus that both are impossible, yet we don't call their proponents lunatics and trolls multiple times per paragraph or even per sencence throughout.

The amount of quotecruft exceeds the amount of prose throughout. Loaded language and weasel words throughout.

Here are some examples (highlighted in bold and italics): Lead (10 instances):

  • Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance
  • ...includes unreasonable doubts about...
  • ...accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action...
  • ...remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay...
  • ...reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work...
  • ...fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus...
  • ...Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science...
  • ...originate from right-wing think tanks...
  • ...Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change...
  • ...for several decades, oil companies have been organizing a widespread and systematic climate change denial campaign to seed public disinformation, a strategy that has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking.
  • ...Some of the campaigns are even carried out by the same people who previously spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda.

Terminology section (at least 6 instances, not including direct quotations):

  • The terms climate skeptics or contrarians are nowadays used with the same meaning as climate change deniers even though deniers usually prefer not to, in order to sow confusion as to their intentions.
  • Both options are problematic, but climate change denial...
  • ...said in 1995 that industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" to confuse public opinion in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial"
  • ...with "the climate skeptics" confusing the public and influencing decision makers.
  • ...and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. It said...
  • ...by accepting the scientific consensus but failing to "translate their acceptance into action".

Rest of the paragraph almost entirely made of quotations (quotefarm) that need to be summarized.

Categories and tactics section (at least 6 instances):

  • ...how the media give the misleading impression that climate change is still disputed ... to climate change skeptics' PR efforts.
  • ...who think climate change is harmless or even beneficial...
  • ...a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same people.
  • ...But scientists have known for over a century...
  • Playing up flawed studies

(not including multiple quotations per paragraph)

  • Some climate change deniers promote conspiracy theories alleging that the scientific consensus is illusory, or that climatologists...
  • (not a quote not inside citation) It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy disputing this consensus.
  • These people typically allege that, through worldwide acts of...
  • (not inside a quote) They promote harmful conspiracy theories alleging that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.

...too many instances of "claim", "allege", "propagated", etc to list
...more quotations than prose

  • He defined luke-warmists as "those who appear to...
  • ...has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science.
  • ...whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change deniers... (links to this article itself)
  • another paragraph consisting almost entirely of quotations
  • Climate change deniers tend to argue that... Conversely, the general consensus is that...
  • As such denials became untenable, content shifted to ...
  • Another paragraph or quotations.
  • A 2016 article in Science made the case that... (contrasted to "deniers have alleged that" sort of thing)
  • more quotations exceeding prose
  • People with certain cognitive tendencies are also more drawn than others to conspiracy theories... (we all know what that means!)
  • more predominantly found in narcissistic people and those who... (either name-calling, the personality disorder can only be diagnosed in individual people)
  • ..."disbelief is also linked to lower levels of education and analytic thinking."
  • Scientists are investigating which factors associated with conspiracy belief can be influenced and changed. They have identified
  • Examples of science-related conspiracy theories that some people believe include that aliens exist,
  • This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.
  • ...studied two forms of national identity—defensive or "national narcissism" and
  • "Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs, was also found to be negatively correlated with support for genuine climate mitigation policies."
  • Political worldview plays an important role in environmental policy and action. Liberals tend to focus on environmental risks, while conservatives focus on the benefits of economic development. (polarization, and Left/right politics exclusively)
  • ...shows that conservative white men in the U.S. are significantly more... (ok, great)
  • ...if the discourse is instead framed using moral concerns related to purity that are more deeply held by conservatives, the discrepancy is resolved. (purity? of essence? what?)
  • "More highly educated people are less likely to rely on their own interpretation and political ideology rather than on scientists' opinions."

History section:

  • A 2000 article explored the connection between conservative think tanks and climate change denial.
  • ...were significant participants in lobbying attempts seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations.
  • "During the same period, billionaires secretively donated nearly $120 million... to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change."
  • ..."people with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations that were responsible for most efforts to downplay the threat of climate change in the U.S."
  • But some books clouded the human causes of...
  • "a reliable tool to manipulate public perception of climate change and stall political action" (framing the rest of quotes in the paragraph)
  • "a group of mainly U.S. businesses, used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight the Kyoto Protocol. Large corporations and trade groups from the oil, coal and auto industries financed the coalition. The New York Times reported,"
  • "Their work played a key role in undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives in the US over a span of decades. This study illustrates how..."
  • ...found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change... in the past 50 years on spreading doubts about climate change.
  • "(now X), key figures at the company who ensured trusted content was prioritized were removed,"
  • "CNN reported that meteorologists and climate communicators worldwide were receiving increased harassment and false accusations" (this one not in quotes for some reason)
  • "provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about climate science"
  • "...especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism." (no true contrarian does it for money)
  • Climate change conspiracy theories and denial have resulted in poor action or no action at all to effectively mitigate the damage done by global warming.
  • "...believed (ca. 2017) that climate change is a hoax even though 100% of climate scientists (as of 2019) believe it is real
  • "American media has propagated this approach, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics."
  • "In 2006 Newsweek reported that most Europeans and Japanese accepted the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans thought human activity plays a major role"...
  • "Deliberate attempts by the Western Fuels Association "to confuse the public" have succeeded."
  • "According to a 2012 Pew poll, 57% of Americans are unaware of, or outright reject, the scientific consensus..."
  • "On the other hand, global oil companies have begun to acknowledge the existence of climate change and its risks. Still, top oil firms are spending millions lobbying to delay, weaken, or block policies to tackle climate change."
  • "Popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community" (cites from 2004, 2005, 2012, 2015, presented presented in present tense)
  • ..."promoted by several far-right European parties, including Spain's Vox, Finland's far-right Finns Party, Austria's far-right Freedom Party, and Germany's anti-immigration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD)" (what does immigration have to do with it?)
  • more quotations...

I have tagged this article for multiple issues. The lengthy and redundant quotations ought to be summarized and not inserted in the middle of every sentence. The tone throughout needs be more WP:IMPARTIAL, encyclopedic, and informational; weasel words should be replaced with more appropriate synonyms. Skullers (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

On a quick read-through of your list, I don't see anything objectionable. Maybe part of the reason for the statements that you find objectionable is the fact that deniers and fossil fuel industries and a certain political party are knowingly spewing disinformation and purposely sowing doubt. Flat Earthers don't seem to have the same motivation or deceptiveness (maybe self-deception), or influence on the planet as climate change deniers; unlike climate change denial, Flat-Earthiness is a ~harmless belief. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I second this. Nohorizonss (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The fact that it's a pretty big deal and denying it isn't helping to save the world etc doesn't change the fact that policy still applies. It has been clarified in the Climate change Arbitration Request:
2) Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Misplaced Pages, give to this topic area. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of significant public and scientific interest does not excuse editors from complying with all of Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms.
— WP:ARBCC/PD#Nature_and_extent_of_dispute
If the world was ending "pretty soon" we'd still have to write about it in an impartial manner and adhere to policies and norms. Skullers (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no connection between this and the response above, since nobody suggested that Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms be violated. Also, nobody mentioned pretty big deal or helping to save the world. Maybe you are on the wrong Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It was said that in contrast to flat-Earth, there is different motivation and deceptiveness and influence on the planet and that it's not as harmless as flat-Earth. Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Still, there is no connection to Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms. They are not violated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • While I will admit that this list was too long for me to read every item, I don't see anything NPOV violation here. The article is reflecting the tone and bias of reliable sources, all of which consider climate change denial to be pseudoscientific. Badbluebus (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


The tone should not reflect the tone of biased sources. Relevant policies:
Misplaced Pages describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.
— WP:IMPARTIAL, from WP:NPOV
Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. ...the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
— WP:TONE
As a matter of policy, Misplaced Pages is not written in news style (in any sense other than some use of the inverted pyramid, above), including tone. The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different. Especially avoid bombastic wording
— WP:ENCSTYLE
Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...

Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose.
— MOS:CLAIM
The examples listed are of loaded language added on top of and in addition to selected quotations. Skullers (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I also don't see any NPOV violation here. Perhaps you (User:Skullers) could take another look at your long list and only single out let's say the 5 most prominent examples where you think we have a problem. I've scanned your list and don't see anything particularly objectionable there but maybe I have missed some. There is always room for improvement but your list doesn't convince me. Please zoom in on any instances (let's say 5 to start with) that you think are the most problematic. Also maybe specify which of the quoted text exactly ought to be converted into non-quotes? I think it would be difficult to do so as we are trying to explain what wording and language the climate change deniers use... EMsmile (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Skullers probably suffers from the common misconception that WP:NPOV means that Misplaced Pages is supposed to always sit on the fence when there is a conflict, even when the conflict is between science on one side and a bunch of ideologically motivated anti-science wackos on the other. Or they are unaware that that is the case here. So, they see problems where there are none. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Not at all. One doesn't um suffer from it. Aware of WP:UNDUE and all that. The tone, style, and sentiment of text are not encyclopedic or impartial, that is outside of quotations. Of which there are 190 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY, had to feed it into a machine) and the text goes the extra mile above and beyond with weasel words, loaded language, peacock terms, editorializing, etc. It stands out even among other politicized topics. Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
impartial is not among the requirements. I cannot see any "weasel words", and neither is it Misplaced Pages's fault that reliable sources reject the bad reasoning of the denialists, nor that the denialists' reasoning is bad. You see that as "loaded language" or "editorializing", but it isn't. Your problem is not with Wikiepdia, it is with reliable sources and with reality.
We get the same reasoning as yours from people who think that Misplaced Pages is unfair to flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. You are just the last in a long line of people who think that Misplaced Pages is biased against one specific pseudoscience. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Not surprised to hear any of this. We are aware of your tactics, your sentiment, and your traits. venceremos Skullers (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Skullers, you must make constructive comment on content, not on the contributor: venceremos looks rather combative, please explain its relevance to the article, or redact it. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I will highlight some examples .... Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
To be constructive, please show how the examples relate to the cited sources, and what alternative wording you propose while taking care to show clearly the mainstream views of the scientific community, and not give undue weight to fringe or pseudoscientific views. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You're right. In Misplaced Pages, we try to maintain an NPOV (neutral point of view) across all articles. This may require some editing. Tachyon the Comic Creator (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: