Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:59, 25 July 2009

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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 29 August 2008, see discussion. Keep, 28 March 2008, see discussion. Keep, 31 July 2007, see discussion.

Suggestion for new text

Stefan Rahmstorf (PIK) uses an interesting approach to classify denial: "We distinguish three main types. First, the “trend sceptics” who deny that there is any climate change. Second, the “attribution sceptics”, who accept that there is global warming but deny that humans cause it. Third, the “impact sceptics” who accept there is human-caused global warming but claim it is harmless." Taken from an interview with him on Allianz Knowledge: http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/global_warming_basics/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics.html The concept is described more in detail here: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.18 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Add this somewhere? Buzz Aldrin and Jack Schmitt article: "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." MOONWALKERS DEFY AL GORE'S CLAIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithsoni0201 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator: please add the following

Since the page is protected, would an administrator please add the following quote to the article?: The December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, "discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... gives a name to those such as ExxonMobil who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. '...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort'" (Hell and High Water, p. 25).

"Climate change denial" as a cudgel-word

(I'm not native English speaker so please excuse possible errors)

The purpouse of this article is to create a cudgel-word in public discourse. It's a sociotechnic method described in literature. Here's how it works. A political lobby creates a term to describe views they don't agree with, give them a negative association (in this case holocaust denial) and repeats it as frequently as possible. Once a cudgel-word is established it's much easier to spread preconceived opinions and dismiss an adversary without the need of giving arguments. It's because more people submits to collective beliefs rather than make an effort to investigate each and every subject themselves. A cugel-word is a tool of political correctness. Even if a particular person has 'incorrect' opinion on certain topic, he/she will be afraid to defend it and thus become stigmatised (possibly ostracized too). In contrast, disputants with 'correct' views are put in comfortable sitution as they're not required to back their statements in extensive and informed way.

In conclusion, this article is just a play on words and emotions. A political attempt to 'steal the language'. That's why I think it does not fit the Misplaced Pages and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in Thought-terminating cliché. More relevantly, as long as our reliable sources use this term to describe this concept as notable, we should have an article to reflect that fact. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Political slogans and pejorative labels are only necessary because the vast majority of people don't have time, inclination, or training to study a technical issue in depth. If they did, the vast majority of people would probably end up agreeing with the vast majority of scientists, because what the vast majority of scientists believe at any given time is invariably what makes the most sense in light of the available evidence. In any case, what the climate change deniers miss (or deliberately ignore) is the risk management aspect of anthropogenic global warning. Scientists cannot predict with absolute certainty that your house will burn down, they can only calculate a probability that it might. However, the prudent homeowner takes out insurance on the house, and the probability of loss times the value of the home sets a floor on the insurance premium. With AGW, if there is even a 10% chance that burning the earth's fossil fuels will render the planet uninhabitable by humans, that is a reasonable argument for accelerating the switch to renewable energy sources which we have to do in any case because fossil fuels are 100% certain to run out eventually. Thus the response to AGW is no different than what humans have to do anyway. The only question is whether we are going to stop burning fossil fuels before nature forces us to stop. --Teratornis (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Political slogans and pejorative labels are only necessary(...)" - maybe they are, but surely not on Misplaced Pages. This place is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a collection of propagandist essays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk • contribs)

What is described in the article is the fact that several reliable sources describe this subject, and they do whether we like it or not. The references used in the article, is significantly more broad than "a collection of propagandist essays", had it only been sources like that, then you might have had a point. Misplaced Pages doesn't take a stand, we report what reliable sources are saying, in accordance with the weight of the various arguments. Thats the reason that we have an article on Flat Earth, Orgone and numerous other things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand Your point. This article could become neutral if it was SELF-DISTANCED. To achieve this editorial changes are necessary. My suggestions are :

- The first paragraph should say on what area the term is used.

- Then the article needs a section on how/when/where the term originated and how it evolved.

-Finally, I see no “Criticism” section. Most Misplaced Pages articles on controversial topics has such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Search Misplaced Pages with Google for: criticism of global warming. We have several articles that document the criticism of the mainstream scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. --Teratornis (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Political slogans and pejorative labels most certainly do belong on Misplaced Pages. For an example of the former, see Drill Here. Drill Now.. For the latter, see our article about the highly offensive "N" word. Misplaced Pages has articles about people who make truth claims that the vast majority of Wikipedians reject, for example the aforementioned Flat Earth, and I might also mention Westboro Baptist Church and Xenu. A properly-written Misplaced Pages article can state the facts about who believes what without necessarily choosing a side. By the way, I am a flat earth denier skeptic and I wouldn't be particularly troubled if someone called me that. People who are confident that the evidence is on their side generally only have to wait for reality to vindicate them. Scientists have made a number of highly testable claims about global warming, and we'll find out if they are correct in due course. If it turns out we didn't really need to build all those wind turbines, then our grandchildren will get to enjoy a few years to burn up the last of the fossil fuels that we will have left for them. If we burn up all the fossil fuels now, then our grandchildren will have to build the wind turbines. So it's either us or them. --Teratornis (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the term Denialism is the phrase used in the real world to refer to the process of dismissing scientific consensus. Until the time the language changes and a new term emerges, 'denial' it is and 'denial' it will remain. Odd nature (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed that Wiki accepts these kinds of articles

I'm sure you guys at Wiki realize the influence you have upon practically the entire internet population. With that said, and the fact that this is an encyclopedia it is your guys' jobs and duties to keep this a bias-free site and provide only the facts. This article is catagorized under a B-class or something or other, grouped with 9-11 conspiracies and such, however this article stands apart from those due to the nature of the topic, the current popular opinion of the topic, and the fact that the article is simply not necessary for a) it doesn't represent a substantial, clear, or defined group of people b)the term deniers is used in deragatory manner, straying from really and relevant, and meaningful discourse and straying into the realm of name calling, and bickering.

If this article is included, why isn't others like "Obama Bot" or "Bush Buddies". The fact that Wiki thinks its fair to group this with 9-11 conspiracy theories is offensive in my opinion.

I for one believe in the effects man have upon the climate, yet it disgusts me when global warming is treated as a fact rather than a theory. I absolutley hate when its supporters resort to name-calling to further their point. And frankly, this article perpetuates that.

Oh, and on the topic of deniers...Where is the holocaust denial article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danemmason (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial. Do you have any specific suggestions as to how the article should be improved? Dawn Bard (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While the article does make a distinction between climate change denial and skepticism, reading this comment made me suddenly realise that the present title of the article is unacceptable for POV reasons. While I believe that it is appropriate to have an article on the funded campaigns against the scientific consensus as distinct from scientific skepticism, the use of the word "denial" in the title of the article is not NPOV because it directly implies that what is being opposed is absolutely and unequivocally correct. Given that that is most certainly not the case for the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change, the title of this article is in effect a direct POV support for the assumption that anthropogenic climate change is absolute fact. The word denial is appropriate to use in an article such as holocaust denial, where the thing being denied is known to be absolutely true, but not here. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In no way. Denial is simply the act of denying something. I can deny that 2+2=5 just as well as I can deny 2+2=4. What is more (and more important), the terms "climate change denial/denier" is regularly used in the sources. We did not invent it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Several points:

• Misplaced Pages may have influence over the Internet community, but it seems that influence fell short of explaining what the word Wiki means to the original poster.
  • The rather modest page view statistics for this article suggest its influence is correspondingly modest. Something to consider before climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.
• If someone is uncomfortable with the label "Climate change denial", I wonder if that person has used the term "atheist"? Atheists themselves are divided over the term. For example, Sam Harris considers the term to be as pointless as "non-astrologer". He does not believe any term is necessary to describe a person who does not believe in something for which no evidence exists. (Note that the case for the existence of God is far weaker than the case for anthropogenic global warming, and yet it seems a label is useful for people who reject the extremely weak case for God.) Despite even better POV arguments against the term "atheism", Misplaced Pages has an article by that title, because the term appears in many reliable sources.
• One way to cope with a stigmatized label is to invent another label to describe the same thing. However, Steven Pinker noted that over time, the new label tends to take on the stigma attached to whatever it describes. See Euphemism#The "euphemism treadmill".
  • Within the LGBT social movements, some members have willingly embraced pejorative labels used against them (e.g., queer) and sought to de-stigmatize them, with some success, thus not stepping on the euphemism treadmill to begin with.
• The Holocaust denial movement consists of people who reject the claim that the mainstream historical understanding of the Holocaust "is known to be absolutely true." One should avoid getting fooled by verbs in the passive voice with missing actor ("it is known"). Known by whom? Knowledge does not exist apart from some people who believe they know something. For those of us who had no personal experience with the Holocaust, we approach the question of whether it occurred the same way as we approach any other question whose answer we cannot determine from personal experience: by evaluating the evidence for and against it. We evaluate the evidence for the Holocaust and for anthropogenic global warming with the same critical thinking toolkit. Implicit appeals to authority in the form of pronouncements about what "is known to be absolutely true" are not helpful, if only because lots of people routinely make such claims about things irrespective of the evidence. Religious people, political pundits, advertisers, etc. routinely present all sorts of things as absolute truth - and many people have fought Religious wars over such assertions.
• Let's be sure we understand what we mean by terms such as fact and theory. Kenneth R. Miller wrote Only A Theory to address the misuse of this terminology by special creationists. A scientific theory is a powerful tool for making sense of large numbers of existing facts, and for making predictions about facts yet to be discovered. For example, aerodynamics is "only a theory", but it works well enough to allow aerospace engineers to design aircraft with reliably predictable performance. A belief system which has earned the status of "theory" has repeatedly proven its worth. To reject something out of hand for being a "theory" is to ignore its record of explanatory success. The explanatory success never goes away - the theory will always explain whatever facts it has explained. At most, scientists in the future might come up with a theory that explains the same facts better, and possibly more facts. A familiar example is Newtonian physics, which continues to be part of the foundation of engineering, even though Relativistic physics supersedes it.
• One imagines that few climate scientists could possibly want anthropogenic global warming to be true. Climate scientists are like everybody else: they probably enjoy burning fossil fuels and want to continue. The extreme difficulty of mitigation gives climate scientists a strong personal incentive to approach the theory from a position of strong skepticism - which should be the normal approach scientists always take, that of seeking to falsify a theory. For something to earn the status of "theory" it must survive the strongest possible attacks. While appeal to authority is not sufficient in itself to prove a claim, scientific consensus may be the closest thing to real authority that humans have yet constructed.
• Although the article does not yet mention it, we can argue that anyone who continues to burn fossil fuels is a de facto climate change denier. Even among climate scientists themselves, very few have made the drastic personal behavior changes necessary to slash their own carbon footprints by the 90% or so that humankind as a whole must attain swiftly to have any chance of preventing severe climate change. (As evidence, compute the carbon footprint of the typical climate change conference, which involves thousands of people burning tons of jet fuel to cross oceans and continents. Why don't climate scientists videoconference instead? Or just use a wiki?) While a person might agree with the scientific consensus, there is a question of how strongly a person agrees. Since greenhouse gas emissions have not noticeably declined, it is obvious that the vast majority of people are carrying on as if they are in denial about climate change, or at least denying that it could be more important than their vacation plans.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This page merits immediate deletion. Notably, for example, none of the so-called "deniers", much less the scientists who believe climate variation is adequately explained by natural phenomena, deny that the planet is currently warming at a rate of about 1 deg. F per century, coming out of the Little Ice Age. None denies that the sea is rising at a rate of around 2mm per year, as it has been for several millennia. The only areas of "denial" are a) whether any substantial portion of climate change is due to human activity, and b) even if it is, whether anything can be done about it. Note that the draconian targets of the program currently proposed in the US Senate -- something like a 7/8 reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 -- would make a difference of only around a tenth of a degree C by 2100, according to the very General Circulation Models which are causing all the fuss.

Alternatively, if this page won't be deleted, a page "Climate change alarmism" should be created. -- Craig 206.39.12.245 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that we can find someone to tag onto each and every one of your "none denies", you can find examples at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎. Note that this comment doesn't state that those are deniers, but simply that your assertions are wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC states there is 90% chance the planet is warming up due to CO2. The vast majority of the population simply do not have the basic knowledge needed to judge how credible they are. The interesting thing is that it does not stop millions of people on the internet with no knowledge of climate science saying global warming is rubbish. It leaves one wondering why so many people have chosen to reject the mainstream scientific view. I came to this article to see if this issue had been addressed by anyone, have any studies on this aspect of denial been done ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.139.118 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

gallop poll

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated” this could be somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithsoni0201 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has no place here, since it isn't related to the topic at hand. Public scepticism != CCD - please read the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Review from Environmentalblogging.org, February 21, 2008

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles