Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
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."
This 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
The RfC has expired, and I don't see any benefit to continuing it longer. Consensus appears to support having these redirects point to climate change denial. It is clear enough that formal closure should not be necessary. — Jess· Δ♥18:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support directing to this article. This article is devoted to the topic, introducing it by name within the first two sentences, and includes extended detail. All our content on "climate change skepticism" is extremely well sourced to respected academic works, including Weart, Dunlap, Mann, Painter/Ashe, the NCSE, and many, many others. On the other hand, Global warming controversy does not discuss climate change skepticism by name, and is primarily devoted to the scientific consensus and controversy surrounding global warming. Readers searching for "climate change skepticism" who are redirected to global warming controversy are left to piece together what "climate change skepticism" is on their own. Our coverage in this article is well cited, neutral, and on-topic. I have difficulty understanding any objections to linking to it, besides wanting to hide the article from our readers. — Jess· Δ♥16:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Support per nominator.Global warming controversy is the wrong article . It is not about 'skepticism' as a position but is about actual scientific contoversies, mostly in the past, about details of the theory and projections. 'Skepticism' is a mostly political framing and position that some people take that whatever detail is provided, they will challenge and disbelieve it. This is fully backed by research and published RSs in the climate change denial article. --Nigelj (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment Without saying whether the redirect should be made as proposed (I tend to be against, but don't much care), the agreement that discussion should take place at Climate_change_skeptic#Centralized_discussion_plus_list_of_redirected_pages strikes me as odd. That's a talk page with no corresponding article. I didn't know such a thing was even possible and doubt many people are watchlisting the talk page of a non-existent article. Better for the discussion to take place on the talk page of a prominent related article or perhaps on a noticeboard. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a good argument, but it supports opposition rather than support of the change. A scientist who disagrees with some of the mainstream conclusions would be quite astonished to be told they are not engaging in legitimate science simply because they dared to disagree. Yet that's what the article currently says. (I understand you are unable to distinguish between denialists and skeptics, but that is not a universal position.)--S Philbrick(Talk)20:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Except you've given us no sources which distinguish between "skeptics" and "deniers". Meanwhile we have a veritable library of sources that say the two terms in this context are synonymous. Now, it could be that every author in this library is incorrect, but when pressed to provide reliable alternative sources that make the distinguishing determination, it is you who have been spectacularly unable to come up with anything remotely close to the standards put forth by those who are pointing out that the two ideas in relation to the subject of climate change are synonymous. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are on some sort of righting great wrongs kick to establish a distinction where there is no difference. You are behaving poorly in this regard, with a kind of WP:ADVOCACY for the skeptics/deniers that is untoward. jps (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
While looking at correcting some of the spelling errors I noticed that a lot of the article is plagiarized without attribution. I ran parts of the text through on-line plagiarism detection tools and got numerous hits to scientific publications as well as news outlets. However nothing in the extant article is inaccurate or wrong, everything being reported here is 100% true, well referenced and well cited. Damotclese (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you're picking up WP mirrors or attributed quotes in the refs. Could you open a new section with examples of anything you find? This doesn't have to do with the redirect discussion, but if there's a problem like that, I'm interested in seeing it fixed as soon as we can. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Support This article is devoted to the subject. If some editors find it insufficiently balanced, they should help make it better instead of trying to direct readers to an article that is on a different subject --Jules.LT (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I added a {{about}} template to Global warming controversy; it uses the same language as the one on this page. This article discusses the politics and the other one the science. So any political term should redirect here. Roches (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Basically same basis applies as before, that the article climate change controversy is the article where questions on skeptics and public controversy should be directed to, but the reverse seems not true -- the denial article is a narrower one to efforts of lobbying of undermining. The controversy article also seems less of a 'surprise' leap (WP:R#PLA) and a more neutral title, and as said in May 'it is inappropriate to equate skeptics to "deniers" as a pejorative political term. Presume they want actual skeptics as typed rather than going to the partisam term. Markbassett (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Support redirects to this article, which explicitly discusses the common use of "skeptic" to refer to climate change denial or the denial industry. In theory there could be cases of genuine skeptical doubt falling outside the wide gamut of denial, but no sources show this in sufficient detail to sustain a different article: there have been repeated requests for sources about such cases, but no sources have been proposed. Good sources indicate that the term "denial" is properly used in an academic sense, without being pejorative, but claims about it being pejorative come from those politically denying the science. The CC controversy article isn't about this topic, redirecting there is uninformative and confusing. . . 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. I quote a sentence from this article with two sources: '"Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.' If the two terms are synonymous, why shouldn't they redirect to the same page? Banedon (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support, albeit that the title of the article may eventually change to something that reflects the wilful nature of denialism without including the ever-contentious D-word. Skepticism and denialism are one here, whatever we call them, and to equate pseudoskepticism with controversy rather than denialism is simply misleading. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support This article is currently our best place to go to begin to understand the denial v. skepticism dimension, a good example of where related subjects are more easily treated in one article. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. If I typed "climate change skepticism" into the search box, I would hope to be redirected to "Climate change denial" rather than to "Global warming controversy". Maproom (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Why? If you are interested in climate change skepticism, I would think you would hope to find an article talking about climate change skepticism. This article barely covers the subject and to the extent it does so it does so poorly. The global warming controversy article does a better job of covering items of interest to those interested in climate change skepticism.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment / Tentative Oppose Per Markbassett, I tend to oppose this move. This article has primarily been about organizations trying to undermine climate science. I might be able to support a move if the title was changed to one of skepticism which also describes deniers, rather than the reverse. The title of this article has often been a debated point, but since it's focus was narrow, it was allowed to stand. If the topic of this article is changing to one that encompasses skepticism, then the current title is no longer appropriate and neutral. Morphh12:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you identify a single organization that "encompasses skepticism" but is not identified by the majority of third-party independent sources as denying climate change? Note that "climate change denial" as defined by this page and almost all reliable sources encompasses more than simply refusing to believe that climate changes. It is a rejection of the mainstream understanding of the mechanisms and likely consequences of the current global warming trends. jps (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
So this only applies to organizations? The redirect doesn't seem to indicate that. My concern is that the term, denier, is a political one. It's bad situation where we describe anyone that challenges the predominate views of science, generally referred to as skepticism, as a denier. Again, this wasn't a problem when the focus of the article was narrow, but as it broadens, it's no longer neutral or accurate. If the mainstream view is IPCC, then there is certainly plenty out there regarding the accuracy of their models. You seem to be making skepticism == denial, which common sense says is a false, or at the least confusing, correlation. Morphh14:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It surely applies to everyone. Do you have any source which indicates that anyone who challenges the predominate views of science is a "skeptic"? Scientific skepticism is an entirely different idea, in fact, nearly the opposite of that definition. Do you have a source which indicates that this is the main way that "skeptic" is defined? Or is this just your preferred definition? jps (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The basic definition of skepticism is "doubt as to the truth of something". In this case, skeptics doubt the conclusions or timeline reached by the predominate viewpoint due to various reasons, which may include certain models not reflecting some bit of empirical research. As you stated, the term is not limited to organizations. It's also not limited to scientists. In general, since it is both a political and science issue, the skepticism term could also apply to the solutions presented. Per WP:COMMONTERM, we should avoid addressing the terms as if they are the same. Clearly there is a distinction, be it skeptic, doubter, or whatever. Morphh15:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The basic definition of skepticism, I would argue, is misleading. Skepticism is a philosophical position that is much stronger than simply doubting everything. It is one that demands a standard of evidence on the one hand and criticizes claims which are opposed to the standard of evidence on the other. Thus, a "skeptic", properly, would criticize the position of global warming denialists/skeptics who do willfully ignore evidence or rely on faulty evidence or interpretations. Thus the confusion and the need to avoid the term. We cannot call someone a skeptic if they doubt that 1+1=2 if they do not doubt that 1+1=0, for example. The climate change skeptics in this case do not doubt their belief that the effects of natural variation on the climate are as large or larger than the effects of human-produced carbon dioxide emissions. jps (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - this article is devoted to the topic of climate change skepticism. Global warming controversy is a whole different topic, therefore readers should be redirected here. Also, like the nominator has previously stated, all of the claims and facts in this article are supported by very reliable and well-known sources. Cheers, ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This article is primarily about denialism. That should be obvious from the opening sentence. There may be some people who outright deny, dismiss or attempt to raise unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus, and those people are properly called denialists. There are also people raise questions about some of the scientific aspects or some of the more outlandish claims made in the name of global warming, or challenge some of the policies prescriptions based on economic grounds. There is no single best name for this group (the AP suggests "climate change doubters"), although they are commonly called climate skeptics. If the term "climate change skepticism" becomes a redirect, then the article needs a substantial overhaul to explain what aspects of the article currently referring to the nihilist do not apply to skeptics. I don't know that anyone is prepared to undertake that massive overhaul so it would be far better to simply continue to have climate change skepticism redirect to global warming controversy which is a better albeit imperfect choice.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The differences that self-described "climate skeptics" claim there are between them and denialists, beyond mere terminology, are an absolutely valid topic that should be covered here. Why don't you write a well-sourced paragraph on that? --Jules.LT (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
SupportWe have long since reached the point where being skeptical of climate change is a euphemism for denying climate change. AIRcorn(talk)05:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe it should stay as a redirect to Global warming controversy. "Skepticism" and "Denial" are two different words, and shouldn't be equated like this. I think "Climate change skepticism" should lead to an article talking about the debates and counter-theories that have been had about climate change existing. I then think "Climate change denial" should be about organizations or people that make public denials of climate change or that has publicly obstructed the progress of the climate change treatment movement. In fact, the bottom paragraph of the "Terminology" section of this article states that "skeptics" and "deniers" should not be put together. JaykeBird (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course the two words are different and they should not be conflated, but unfortunately, those opposed to actions that may limit and reverse climate change have conflated them - on purpose and by design. Now no one in their right mind would call themselves 'skeptical' about climate change unless they wanted to align themselves with the deniers who have co-opted, adopted and misused the term. We have to reflect everyday usage and reality in our articles and coverage. --Nigelj (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If the RFC results in a redirect of climate change skepticism
I do not think that "climate change skepticism" Should be redirected to this article, but if it is there are a number of changes that should occur in this article. I would hope we can agree that if we direct readers looking for an article about climate change skepticism to this article that when we talk about subjects that are denial is him rather than skepticism we ought to make that clear. We do so partially in the second sentence of the article, but there are other sections that are solely about denialism. I thought it would be useful to identify some of these things so that if the redirect is accepted we can begin the overhaul of this article to conform to the revised remit. In some cases some of these things ought to be considered anyway. --S Philbrick(Talk)19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As the sources in the article show, there's overlap to the extent that CC skepticism and CC denial are essentially the same topic. Editors have repeatedly been asked for examples where reliable sources show climate change skepticism as something distinct, without results so far. . . dave souza, talk21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You have this exactly backward. When two ranges overlap, there is a sub-range of intersection which belongs to both. If that sub-range is identical to each of the two ranges, then we are talking about the same thing but that's not the case here. There are lots of examples of things that are appropriately called denial and do not deserve to be called skepticism, while there are some things that are correctly labeled as climate science skepticism, which are not called denial, except by that small group of individuals who can't or won't accept that the terms are different.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Michael E. Mann's list of "six stages of denial"
I do not question the fact that Mann made point number one, but I think it is so absurd we ought to question whether it belongs in this article. It purports to be a fact that some people do not accept that CO2 is increasing. Mann isn't simply asserting that there are such people, he is suggesting that this is a common sequence among climate change contrarians. It is pretty clear that this is not a position held by skeptics and that's probably true even if you are one of the people that believes that denialsts ought to be lumped in with skeptics. If someone can show that this is a common position among denialists, perhaps it belongs here but I doubt that's true. More importantly, it is absolutely not true of those who call themselves climate change skeptics or climate change doubters. I did a search to see if I could find that such statements existing and I just haven't run across them. Someone at the Daily Mail misread a paper by Wolfgang Knorr, but surely one incompetent journalist making a simple blunder is not sufficient evidence for suggesting something is widespread. If it is more common than my limited search suggests and it is common among to denialists then perhaps the Mann quote deserves inclusion but unless it can be shown to be a common belief among skeptics the article should note that this applies only to denialst and not skeptics. I think it is far more likely that we will not find sufficient evidence to justify inclusion of the Mann quote.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As responsible Misplaced Pages editors, we are not obliged to include nonsense simply because it was uttered by a scientist. While we have to endeavor to remain clear of original research, when someone makes an extraordinary claim, it ought to be supported by extraordinary evidence. He is simply asserted this without any evidence and we would be remiss if we didn't at least check to see if it's a plausible statement. Note that he is implying that such people exist and it is common enough to talk about. If they do you could find an example. I can provide examples of people who do think CO2 is increasing, for example:
I doubt there are scientists refuting the claim as it is too silly to bother with. I doubt that you could find a scientific article to dispute that the man in the moon has spaghetti hair, but if some scientist happen to say that we wouldn't include it, and we wouldn't be asking for scientific citations that dispute it.
While I understand that your personal beliefs aren't relevant to a debate about inclusion in an article - I'm curious - do you think there are large numbers of serious people who dispute that CO2 is increasing?--S Philbrick(Talk)19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Mann points to it as an extreme, you're setting a new bar to support your original research. For example, are you claiming that the BNP aren't serious? . . dave souza, talk21:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No, they are idiots who cannot read. Did you notice I cited the report a couple sentences above as an example of those who do think CO2 is increasing? In fairness the original scientific report wasn't well worded, and it is understandable that someone reading it might think the first time through that when they say "the trend in the airborne fraction" is essentially flat, they might've erroneously jumped to the conclusion that it said something about the trend in CO2. But if you actually look at the article, and for those who can't read just look at the graphs, it is obvious that it says something else. I do not question the possibility that journalists, who often have a very limited understanding of science, may screw up on occasion. But misstating the conclusions of a scientific article (which happens just about every day) is not evidence that serious people believe it.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "extreme". If Mann really does present it as an extreme why doesn't our article say so? Why would we be reporting an extreme view as if it is a common view among contrarians? And where does he say it's an extreme; I'm looking at the book and do not see it?--S Philbrick(Talk)22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ S Philbrick, seems you didn't read below the list, where Mann writes "Contrarians have tended to retreat up the ladder as the scientific evidence has become more compelling. With the ever upwardly trending curve of CO2 levels plain for anyone to see, few were calling into question the rise in atmospheric CO2 by the time I had entered climate science in the warly 1990s." . . dave souza, talk09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss that, I read that statement. It supports my contention that it's a nonsense statement. He concedes it wasn't happening in the early 1990s, implying that it did happen earlier, while supplying zero examples. Our own article claims that "The terminology emerged in the 1990s" which means man is contending that the early stages of client science denial happen prior to there being any climate science denial. Either climate science denial has older roots, in which case our article needs revision along with reliable sources pointing to these earlier roots or Mann is just wrong. Which do you think is more likely? Do we have any evidence, anywhere, that it was a common practice to deny the growth in CO2? Mann provides no evidence and I haven't seen it so did anywhere by anyone who is considered a spokesperson in the field. We shouldn't be incorporating material that is blatantly and facially false.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your blatant original research, but your failure to find earlier roots is not a reliable source that they don't exist. Please read more carefully, I'll discuss this point below. . . dave souza, talk19:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Mann clearly presents this as the development of denialism over time. Go back to the early days, to the first stage of climate denial, and yes, you will very definitely find large numbers of petrochemical shills pushing the idea that CO2 is not increasing. Here's a well-known denialist website pushing precisely that: . There are differnet versions of his six stages, too. Here's another: . Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this lack of reading comprehension day? I've already cited that study. I responded to dave souza about it minutes ago. I refer the Honourable Editor to my earlier answer.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You might also check your calendar. That paper was published in 2009, which hardly qualifies as " the early days". You can look it up. The Youtube clip is interesting, as he doesn't mention the flat CO2 claim. While I have some differences of opinion with Mann, I don't think he is an idiot, so it is to his credit that he has abandoned his earlier formulation. However, if he has abandoned it, why would we promote it?
"I can cite the Reliable Source Michael Mann to refute the present wording in our article" Can you? Please do! — Jess· Δ♥23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy/JzG just provided the link to the Youtube of Mann discussing the "Six Stages of Climate Change Denial". He doesn't mention the silly assertion about flat CO2. He states "Originally, the claim made by those who deny the threat of climate change, the claim was that the earth wasn't warming." That's a more plausible initial step. He roughly walks through each in the sequence, except for the flat CO2.--S Philbrick(Talk)23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so that's an instance where Mann says something different. It doesn't "refute" the wording; it doesn't even talk about denial of rising CO2 at all. Mann doesn't have to quote himself verbatim every time he speaks to avoid "refuting" himself... and as an aside, that youtube clip is dated before the last publication of his book. If you can cite Mann indicating that denial of CO2 rise is not a part of his six stages, please do. — Jess· Δ♥13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"it doesn't even talk about denial of rising CO2" That's the main point. This isn't a casual conversation, it is a presentation with the title "The Six Stages of Climate Change Denial" and it isn't even mentioned. It wasn't an offhand comment in connection with something else, the moderator starts out by saying that he has written about the six stages of climate change denial and asked him to walk us through them. And he didn't mention it.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is off-topic, as I noted. FTR, I mentioned the Wolfgang Knorr study, and even linked to it. Then you excitedly pointed to an article - in which the Knorr study is mentioned, then JzG/Guy provides a link to yet another site mentioning the Knorr study, all without any apparent comprehension that I had raised it and discussed it earlier. Can we move on?
Do you wish to assert that climate science denial started before the 1990's? If so, we need to modify the article, and provide supporting references.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for improvement:
If we are going to include the stages of denial, perhaps we should replace the mangled version by Mann with the five stages of denial in the Guardian. That article, while imperfect, at least lists stages that are historically accurate and better yet a supported by examples. I propose we replace the six stages with the five stages.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
RTFA: "A conservative reaction built up, denying environmental concerns which could lead to government regulation. With the 1981 Presidency of Ronald Reagan, global warming became a political issue, with immediate plans to cut spending on environmental research, particularly climate related, and stop funding for CO2 monitoring. Reagan appointed as Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards, who said that there was no real global warming problem." footnote quotes the source: "Many conservatives denied nearly every environmental worry, global warming included. They lumped all such concerns together as the rants of business-hating liberals, a Trojan Horse for government regulation." Also, with specific reference to CO2, "Reagan's Secretary of Energy (a former governor of South Carolina, trained as a dentist) told people that there was no real global warming problem at all ... In particular, they would entirely terminate DOE's funding of CO2 monitoring." . . dave souza, talk19:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You're suggesting we remove a notable book published by a renowned expert and replace it with a blog post in the guardian? I don't see how that's an improvement. — Jess· Δ♥20:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting that when a claim is made in a book, which is not subject to peer review, and that claim is absurd on the face, and when that subject is specifically asked of the author and he declines to repeat the absurdity, we would be better off with a claim that makes sense. The Guardian article makes almost the exact same point as Mann except for the absurdity of the claim about CO2 growth. If there's a better source I'm all for it but the five stages makes much more sense. In addition, the inclusion makes Mann look like an idiot—is that our goal? It isn't mine.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Taxonomy of climate change denial
As noted in the terminology section " ...there are clear distinctions between skepticism and denial". It goes on to note that "phrases such as "climate scepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism..." The qualifying phrase is absolutely true it is often the case that the terms are used with the same meaning. But frequently is not the same as universally, not to mention the fact that the conflation is often the result of ignorance or deliberate deception. While opinions may differ on this, my present point is that the section heading refers only to "denial". The first paragraph talks about Rahmstorf's " taxonomy of climate change skepticism", And then the section goes on to discuss Mann's "six stages of denial".
As a positive note it is good that this section discusses both the aspects of skepticism and of denial (subject to my concerns about Mann's formulation), but the section heading suggest it is just about denial. The didn't trouble me when this was an article about denial, but if we choose to change the redirect we need to do a better job of choosing our section headings.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "pseudoskepticism" is not used anywhere in the article. If you want to take the position that the Rahmstorf piece, which mentions "sceptics" 38 times, but never uses the word "pseudoskepticism" or "denial", you've got your work cut out for you. Can you cite a reliable source claiming that Rahmstorf is really talking about pseudoskepticism? I know you equate them in your mind, but this isn't Guyopeida, it is Misplaced Pages, so we need a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk)17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop obfuscating. It is abundantly clear that climate change skepticism is pseudoskepticism, that horse has long since left the barn. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not abundantly clear and is not even correct. Can you provide some reliable sources making this claim? I've read hundreds of articles talking about climate change skepticism and frankly can't recall the claim being made once. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, there are plenty of ignorant reporters out there and I won't be surprised if you can find one or two the make the absurd statement, but that's not the basis for making a claim in Misplaced Pages. You should know this.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Every active climate scientist who is not being industry funded, accepts that climate change is real. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists accept not only that it is real, but also that we are causing it. It's in the same realm of certainty as vaccines not causing autism, and homeopathy being bullshit, but not quite as certain as evolution being the mechanism by which life as we know it developed. Skepticism of climate change, by those who self-identify as skeptics, is not legitimate scientific skepticism, it is pseudoskepticism, motivated reasoning driven by ideology, cognitive dissonance and in some cases naked greed. I do not need to reference that because it is stated as my judgment from the observed and published facts. I do not need to source the fact that climate "skeptics" are not real skeptics because that's already cited on this page, hence the change to reporting guidelines. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
The statement "Climate change skepticism, while in some cases professing to do research on climate change, has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science." has several problems. The sentence has a reference at it and a quote from a report. Keep in mind that this is a report prepared by a partisan political entity, but that's the least of the problems. The statement used in the article isn't supported by the quote. While it does support the claim that climate change skeptics spend time influencing the public legislators and the media, it doesn't say that that activity is done in contrast to legitimate science. Do we really want to hold the position that educating the public, legislators and the media is not a legitimate function of science? Both groups (those who support the "consensus" and those who challenge some aspects of it) engage in activities that are narrowly defined as science as well as the broader responsibilities of the scientific community to educate the public, legislators and the media.
However one might view attempts to educate the public, legislators and the media, those efforts are not necessarily pseudoscience. There might be some examples which qualify but to include the sentence in a section heading with the title "pseudoscience" suggest the sentence has something to do with pseudoscience.
I've seen the sentence before but was not troubled by it when it was in an article about climate change denialism. That doesn't mean I agree that it applies to climate change denialism, it means my interest in making sure that an article about climate change denialism is accurate is low on my list of priorities. However, if this is going to be a redirect from climate change skepticism, then it is more important to me that we do it correctly. Pretending that actions to influence the public are not legitimate science and can be called pseudoscience is a long way from being correct.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
You said the ref doesn't support the statement. Here's the quote from the ref: "a fundamental difference between the traditional scientific establishment and the emerging "skeptic" establishment relates to their ultimate scientific goals. The former has traditionally emphasized the generation of new knowledge as a measure of productivity... On the other hand, the emerging culture profiled in these hearings emphasizes... the ability to alter public opinion - through opinion pieces aimed not at their fellow scientists but at policymakers, the media, and the general public". How does that not verify our statement that skeptics focus on "influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science"? The paper cited is taken from the US House Committee on Science, explicitly discussing climate change. It is not the only source to verify that sentence, either; a very significant part of the article is devoted to that very topic. — Jess· Δ♥18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't necessary to repeat the quote I've read it and it's in the article. At the risk of repeating myself I said it doesn't support the statement and you simply reciting the quote doesn't explain how it supports the statement. There is nothing in that quote that says skeptics are not engaging in legitimate science. We are not allowed to engage in synthesis. You need to show me that the statement supports the claim that skeptics are not engaged in legitimate science.--S Philbrick(Talk)19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know what to tell you. The quote is so close to what we're saying, if I were to make it closer, it would be a copyvio. The part I quoted begins... "a fundamental difference between and ..." It then goes on to say the difference between them is that science pursues research while skeptics try to influence the public. That's exactly what we're saying in the article. To repeat myself, it's not the only source to discuss this phenomena, either. — Jess· Δ♥20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want you to repeat yourself, I was quite capable of reading what you said the first time. I asked you to identify the other sources to discuss this. Can you do so?--S Philbrick(Talk)20:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We can avoid a copyvio by putting it in quotes if necessary but I suspect that will not help because an actual quote won't make that point. The partisan report tries to suggest that skeptics spend relatively more time influencing the public then those who are not skeptics. That might be true. But there's a gulf between that statement and any suggestion that skeptics are not engaging in legitimate science. If someone wants to say that denalists are not engaging in legitimate science, that may be the case. But if we're going to talk about skeptics we have to talk about them accurately.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are making the same invalid assertion that the article discusses, i.e. the false claim that there is a difference between "climate skepticism" and "climate denialism". As stated in the article, and backed up by sources such as the one mentioned by Jess, the term "skepticism" in this context is being misused by denialists to give their views false credence. And to help you understand why the quote provided backs up the assertion being made, peer review is an essential part of science, so "scientists" who produce opinion pieces aimed at the general public, rather than presenting research to their peers in the scientific community for review, are not engaging in science, but rather falsely presenting themselves as doing so, and co-opting and misusing the lexicon and terminology of the actual scientific community. Climate denialism is a fringe view, and the idea that there is separate and legitimate "scientific skepticism" of the accepted climate science is also a fringe view espoused by the same people. In the context of science, people simply calling themselves skeptics is not enough for us to label them as such when there is a specific definition of what what constitutes scientific skepticism what defines a skeptic and reliable sources assert that they fail to meet that criteria. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not a false claim that there is a difference between "climate skepticism" and "climate denialism". It is true that some sources treat them as equivalent. It is also true that some reporters are ignorant, some are lazy, and some are mendacious. If all sources made this false claim, it would still be false but per Misplaced Pages rules we'd have to report it that way. However, that's not the case. Some sources equate the two while others make a distinction. (And one, if I recall correctly concedes there is a difference but decides for the sake of convenience to label all as denialists.) Misplaced Pages has a well-established process for dealing with such situations. We state something like some sources say X and others say Y.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jess and UnequivocalAmbivalence.The sources clearly demonstrate that the focus of the denial industry is providing sciencey-sounding support for a political agenda. Oreskes makes the same point at length, and so do many others. To be clear, in politics it is fine to try to advance an ideology. In science, it is not. If you are writing papers to support a predefined ideological position, as Soon has done, for example, then that is the canonical definition of pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Best source that distinguishes between climate change skepticism and climate change denial
The claim is made that there are sources which are reliable which make a strong distinction between climate change skepticism and climate change denial. I would like to have a list of these sources. I already know about the sources which say that they are essentially equivalent positions. jps (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Lack, Martin (2013). Denial of science : analysing climate change scepticism in the UK. Authorhouse. ISBN1481783971.
Despite the title, which uses the word "denial", much of the text uses the term "sceptics" or "scepticsm.
Lack states (in the introduction)
Therefore, the term "climate change denier" is avoided herein because of the pejorative way it is often used, even though they would appear to be quite a variety of things that are actually denied (or questioned) by the sceptics.
While this is short of a clear delineation of the two terms based on definitional differences, it is very clear acknowledgment that the term "denial" is pejorative, and therefore avoided.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, pretty obviously it doesn't distinguish between the two terms. Context is needed, worth looking at Martin Lack (26 February 2013). THE DENIAL OF SCIENCE: Analysing climate change scepticism in the UK. AuthorHouse. ISBN978-1-4817-8398-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). Lack's defining his usage of "climate change scepticism" as deemed to include denial... so this doesn't distinguish between the terms. He does refer to use often being pejorative at the time of his writing his thesis, but more recent sources refer to non-perforative use. The confusion of his usage is evident from p. 2 of the intro – "although scientific scepticism is healthy, widespread rejection of scientific authority is dangerous because, either way, it is likely to inhibit necessary action being taken. .....(in the US at least) this scepticism is actually being orchestrated by right-wing libertarian organisations with a vested interest in the maintenance of business as usual." So, scientific scepticism isn't the same as rejection of scientific authority scepticism. This lack of clarity is why reputable organisations are now avoiding this misuse of the word "scepticism". . . . dave souza, talk23:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.
FWIW - Thank you for the comments - all recent related edits were added, in good faith, to a few selected articles - the edits seemed relevant afaik to this present one ("Climate change denial") and related articles (1, 2, 3) - please understand that if the edit is found not to be relevant for some reason - esp after a discussion for WP:CONSENSUS - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course (after all, according to "WP:OWN", All Misplaced Pages content ... is edited collaboratively) - hope this helps in some way - iac - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
"... hundreds of thousands of years" sounds like a long time when measured against human lifespan but is a blink of an eye in the history of the earth. If we limit ourselves to the last 550 million years, We can look at the graph in this article:Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere Reproduced here:
Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years).
As is clear, the current levels are some of the lowest in history. To be sure, the higher levels corresponded to different climates, but the oft-repeated remark that current CO2 levels are unprecedented is simply not true.--S Philbrick(Talk)19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You're mixing up your language, and seem to be complaining about a straw man, unless you can point to a source relating this finding to the supposed unqualified "oft-repeated remark". Current levels are above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years, history goes back around 5,200 years in one or two places: before that, you're in prehistory. It appears that anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago, so that suggests unprecedented in relation to homo sapiens. Nice weather for some other species, perhaps. . . . dave souza, talk20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: The claimed inconsistency was simply a misreading. I see some concerns about sources, but the one I chose is sourced. Thanks for bringing those other options to my attention.--S Philbrick(Talk)21:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"As is clear, the current levels are some of the lowest in history" really means in pre-human prehistory: the phrase "Earth history" is in use in the geological time context, but in common usage history means within the last 5,200 years. Of course geological time is fine if you don't care about humans, which may be an attraction for some. . dave souza, talk22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Dave, fair point that many of the articles talking about levels of CO2 do include a qualifier for the time frame. However, that was a throw-away point (which I should have thrown away) and, as you know, doesn't change the point.--S Philbrick(Talk)21:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
See above. All the discussions I've seen are clear that current levels have been exceeded in the deep past, say more than 23 million years ago. Of course that's not the only factor affecting temperature: the point it that you're complaining about something supposedly misleading by introducing phrasing that is if anything more misleading. Of course, if one of the cited articles makes a misleading use of "unprecedented" that can be discussed. . . dave souza, talk22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not following your point. I agree with you that current levels have been exceeded in the past. I agree with you that that's not the only factor affecting temperature. The rest of that sentence I honestly couldn't parse. My point is that this is an article about climate change denial, so I am not following why it would be helpful to add a statement about recent levels or of the fraction of emitted CO2 which remains in the atmosphere. Both of those points might be relevant to an article about the science but I don't see what they add to a discussion about the politics.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The material that starts this thread appears to be merely pr spam. It has no place at this article and has been in fact spammed all across wikipedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
As before (please see above) => Thank you for your comments - all recent edits were added, in good faith, to a few selected articles - the edits seemed relevant afaik to this present one ("Climate change denial") and related articles (1, 2, 3) - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove the link spam. These are contrary to talk page guidelines. We all know that these video streaming efforts are not suitable under any policy for addition to an article. Their addition here is mere advertising or blog posting and entirely inappropriate. If added in good faith they can be removed in good faith so as to comply with WP:TPG. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
FWIW - please understand I have no investment and/or agenda whatsoever with the material - none - the material simply seemed relevant to the few articles that the material was added - and possibly seemed to be an improvement to the article(s) in some way - it would be up to others to decide afaik - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit - if agreeable with others of course - and - esp if there's WP:CONSENSUS - seems not everyone agrees the material needs to be suppressed (and/or censored?) (including, for example, at this link) - esp re an ongoing discussion that may be related to the material - iac - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Global warming denial
...would be a more accurate title for this article, per Misplaced Pages's own definitions. The global warming article "is about the current warming of the Earth's climate system." It states that "'Climate change' can also refer to climate trends at any point in Earth's history." Meanwhile, the climate change article refers to "change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years)." It instructs: "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see global warming." The deniers deny "global warming"--"the current warming of the Earth" and "current and future climatological effects of human influence"--not "climate change." In fact, as some you of probably know, many of these deniers acknowledge that the Earth's climate has always been changing, albeit as a way to diminish the current consensus.GeneralGreene (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
While that looks plausible in terms of Misplaced Pages references, this article is based on multiple high quality sources that use the wording "climate change denial". While "global warming denial" is shown as an alternative, it doesn't seem to be common usage: could you please identify sources that would support the suggested renaming? . . dave souza, talk21:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This article is a disparagement and belittling of anyone who disagrees with what the author considers mainstream climate consensus, making it a political statement.
There are many in science and engineering who, while recognizing that global average temperature data shows a small increasing trend over time, do not agree with the purported dire effects of that slow trend. These dire effects have been the subject of papers, but papers regularly disagree in both the effect and severity of the studied effect as the results are heavily driven by the assumptions made for the study. There are scattered theories about different potential effects but little that is backed up by repeatable observations.
Whether you agree or disagree with a particular bit of science or politics is the fodder of lively discussions on sites like Yahoo, but disparagement to support your point of view has no place on Misplaced Pages and this article should be deleted.
Kris0013 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Kris0013 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Jess· Δ♥20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Do changes in the consensus over time create deniers?
I'm curious. As the predicted amount of warming falls over time, what does that do to the category of "Climate change denier"? If, say, I predicted a change of a tenth of a degree per decade, was labeled a "Climate change denier", what would I be called ten years later when the climate only warmed a tenth of a degree? "Scientist who wasn't wrong"? What would the scientists who agreed with the wrong consensus be called? "Climate change deniers?" It's accurate because they were denying that the climate would change only a tenth of a degree per decade.
The entire article is premised on the idea that people who disagree with science cannot be correct. And yet every advance in science overturns previous science. Einstein was in his time a denier. Keynes overturned the idea that saving was good for an economy. More recently (during my lifetime), Alfred Wegener went from a denier to a discoverer of a new principle. (Please don't niggle with these examples -- I'm trying to be succinct, not perfectly accurate.)
I suggest that this article everywhere claims that denial of an incorrect idea is unscientific. If it were up to me, I would delete it, but it's not. Multiple attempts have been made, so I'm not going to go there. I suggest instead that this article needs a section noting that the IPCC has changed its mind repeatedly, and "denial of an incorrect idea is what the scientific process is all about." (note, of course, that I'm denying the correctness of this article, so feel free to call me a climate change denier denier.) RussNelson (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The predicted amount of warming doesn't "fall over time". The figures have always been stated within bars of uncertainty, as with all scientific data, and over time the cumulative uncertainty has reduced. And no, the article is not predicated on the idea that disagreeing with science cannot be correct. It is predicated on the extensively documented activities of motivated parties in spreading deliberate disinformation about climate change, in the attempt to provide false balance and stave off regulatory actions. The tactics are straight out of the tobacco industry playbook, and in fact several of the individuals were part of the tobacco industry's FUD campaign against regulation of smoking. If you think that genuine scientific disagreement would ever be stifled, then you don't know many scientists. Any scientist who could provide convincing evidence that the consensus view on climate change is wrong, would face intense scrutiny followed by massive kudos. Scientists all would love to make their names by overturning prior knowledge. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice also, even before the IPCC we had predictions which turned out to be accurate: "In 1938, Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, and correlated these measurements with old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. He concluded that over the previous fifty years the global land temperatures had increased, and proposed that this increase could be explained as an effect of the increase in carbon dioxide. These estimates have now been shown to be remarkably accurate, especially as they were performed without the aid of a computer. Callendar assessed the climate sensitivity value at 2 C°, which is on the low end of the IPCC range." https://en.wikipedia.org/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
There is universal consensus on what the future climate of earth will be according to the New York Times. So therefore that's Misplaced Pages's position. Being verifiable wins over truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My casual understanding of this phenomena is that non-denialists who are also scientists start by stating the current thinking and then "showing their work" that leads them in a modified/improved/refined direction, or on a rare occasion an entirely new direction. Sometimes when they show their work it boils down to, "This is interesting so far, but it needs followup work in xyz ways." That stands in contrast to the blather of denialists, who just make shit up, rarely show their work, rely on echo chambers and logical fallacies, and sometimes with a dismissive waive of their supposedly-expert hand refuse to accept others' work just because they don't like the others' work for some (usutally unstated) reason. For example, if the others' work stands in contrast to one's own beliefs many people tend to reject it no matter the evidence. See Confirmation bias ans System justification). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The core of denialism is either rejecting robust new evidence that contradicts your position, or deliberately setting out to create and promote an alternative set of "facts" that are at odds with the scientific consensus, usually for ideological or financial reasons. A holdout becomes a contrarian becomes a denialist as the evidence against their position firms up, and as they refuse to adapt their views in response. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually rather like Guy's formulation. I wish it were the operating definition used for this article. Unfortunately, the decision to redirect climate skepticism to this article means this article is not narrowly about those people who meet Guy's definition, but a much broader group of people including those often called skeptics. What that means, is that this article needs a lot of work because it doesn't have a lot of coverage of climate skepticism as distinct from climate denialism. If I recall correctly, Guy is one of those who thinks there is no distinction which is odd because the definition just provided, which is a decent summarization of the position of denialist, doesn't include many who are viewed as skeptics.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you are taking yet another bite of the oft-bitten apple. we regularly debate whether the RS's support meaningful distinction between climate denial vs climate skepticism. The redirect discussion you mentioned was the latest, and the result was that the RS's did not support a distinct article for the latter. With that now behind us, you seem to want to make such a distinction anyway, just under one article title instead of two. I hear no new reasoning to consider, so maybe you could explain why this conversation is new and different? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say you have it exactly backwards. I'm not revisiting the debate, I am urging that we follow the logical consequences of that consensus. If one accepts, as you suggest that we cannot support "a distinct article for the latter", then that means this article should discuss the concept of climate skepticism as there is no other place to put it. The current article emphasizes the denialism aspect, But has very little coverage of the positions of people like Andrew Watts and Judith Curry. If someone came to this encyclopedia with an interest in the positions held by people like that, they might well do a search for climates skeptic, and arrive at this article. If we are going to drive traffic to this article we ought to provide coverage. We don't.--S Philbrick(Talk)21:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You're still assusming that the RSs establish a meaningful disctinction between the two. That is the oft-bitten apple that you seem to nibbling again, but without pointing to any new RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2015
No. It is time to stop this. I am not religious about whether we call them deniers or contrarians, but the time for legitimate skepticism ended a decade ago. Those who describe themselves a skeptics these days, are pseudoskeptics. The spectrum of scientific opinion has a tail at either end, as normal (pun half intended) but there is no real scientific dissent form the view that the climate is changing and we're responsible. A very few genuine scientists (by genuine I mean not paid to have a view by the fossil fuel industry) think it's only warming a bit or that it's within the range of normal variation, but that number is dwindling and their views are no longer significant within the field. Anybody who, here and now, claims that the planet is not warming, or that we are not causing it, is a denier. They are as scientifically relevant as a homeopath who has gatecrashed a conference on ebola. I think I understand your beliefs here, and I like and respect you as a Wikipedian generally, but you do your cause no service at all by pretending the world is other than as it is. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who, here and now, claims that the planet is not warming, or that we are not causing it, is a denier.
Some influential contributors to the climate debate largely accept the scientific conclusions of the IPCC but disagree with some of the proposals to address the problem. One example is [[Some influential contributors to the climate debate largely accept the scientific conclusions of the IPCC but disagree with some of the proposals to address the problem. One example is Bjørn Lomborg. I understand that many contributors disagree with his positions but that's off course not the point. He is a notable contributor to the debate. How should positions such as his be included in this article?
Judith Curry is one of the preeminent scientists in the field of climate science. She largely accepts the mean temperature projections of the IPCC, but has disagreements with the confidence intervals around some of the projections. How should positions such as hers be included in this article?
Anthony Watts accepts the existence of anthropogenic global warming, but has issues with a number of the mainstream conclusions. Unlike Lombard and Curry I think it's fair to say he is not on board with the main conclusions of the IPCC. One of the specific areas of interest is siting issues. How should positions such as his be included in this article?--S Philbrick(Talk)22:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Watts is a denialist in denial about his denialism. Curry is just at the fringes of the scientific establishment in terms of her views and I have no particular opinion on her in the context of this article but I think it is false to describe her as "one of the pre-eminent scientists in the field of climate science", she is certainly a climate scientist but the prominence of her name is due IMO largely to the cynical exploitation of her research by deniers. I do not think she would be a fraction as well known if she did not hold the views she does. Obviously I am not a climate scientist, but when I have discussed climate science and climate politics with a number of friends who are (my town has a substantial community of climatologists associated with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) her name hasn't been mentioned. I think it's unnecessary to make hyperbolic value statements about people in this case anyway. Curry's published work falls within the body of knowledge which, collectively, makes up the scientific consensus. Watts is probably really just a "useful idiot", he is very obviously not influential within the field of climate science and nor does he have credentials in the field. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I missed the editing guideline that explains that Misplaced Pages should refuse to include information about notable people in a field if Guy's friends haven't mentioned them lately. Seriously, that is one of the more bizarre non-answers I have even seen in a talk page. My question wasn't "Does Guy subscribe to their views" it was, and I repeat "How should those views be included in this article"? When the article was about denialists, I would have said "Well, duh, they aren't denialists". But now that someone has declared that a consensus exists that this article is also about skeptics, we ought to provide coverage of skeptics. If you disagree, please provide a more cogent reason than "my friends don't talk about them". We would have a slimmed down encyclopedia if we followed that rule.--S Philbrick(Talk)01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I was rebutting your unsupported assertion of Judith Curry being "one of the pre-eminent scientists in the field of climate science" with my own equally unsourced anecdote. As it happens, the burden is on you to prove your rather hyperbolic claim by reference to a reliable (i.e. non-wingnut) independent source. Our article on Curry does not make any kind of case for your characterisation. I don't see her on the IPCC panels, for example - was she there? Nor do I see any prominent primary research on global temperature trends, again I could be missing something. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In fairness, we should note that Curry said, in the testimony linked above, "that the IPCC and the consensus has no explanation for the increase of ice in the Antarctic", and she has co-authored a paper on that topic which explains that "Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades .... ". . . . dave souza, talk23:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we get back on topic? Misplaced Pages has an article on the consensus view of global warming. This is not that article. This article originally covered " denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus" which has now been deemed to include those views often called, imperfectly, climate skepticism. Because of the origins of this article, which emphasized positions at the denial end of the "overlapping range of views" issues at the other end are underrepresented. If we truly believe that this article cover climate skepticism, it ought to cover climate skepticism. Is there any disagreement on that point? If not, then let's discuss views proposed by those who are often called climate skeptics, and decide how best to incorporate them into the article. I have identified three such views. I have no doubt many regular editors in this field disagree with some of the conclusions, but as editors our responsibility is to neutrally represent those views, to the extent that they are notable.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. S. Philbrick has never, as far as I can tell, consistently argued for the use of "skeptic" rather then "de nier" for climate denialists. I doubt we're going to change his mind, given that the sources and the science don't seem to have done so. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure I am correctly parsing your comment, but I do not think the term “skeptic” should be used to describe those who deny the consensus of climate science. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk)13:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikiquote neutrality
Regarding this edit I wonder if there is any requirements at Wikiquote for balance or NPOV? I know the rhetorical power of a long series of quotes, even from people the reader has never heard of, let alone from minor TV celebs, putting forward a discredited point of view. Unfortunately I don't have easy access to all the equivalent quotes from scientists and intelligent commentators, nor the energy at the moment to take on a whole new wiki project. -Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
New article, so best way would be to add quotes to bring it closer towards balance, particularly ones that point out the disconnect between deniers and the scientific consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
relation to climate adaptation
Quote from lead section: "the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate". This is a half-truth. Skeptics are not hindering efforts to adapt to the warming climate, quite the reverse. They want the money currently being wasted on anti-carbon dioxide measures to be re-directed to something more useful, such as building up flood defences. Biscuittin (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Biscuittin, why do think this thread, which lacks RSs and lacks article improvement suggestions, and appears to be based soley on your personal opinion, is not WP:SOAP and/or WP:FORUM ? Ordinarily I'd just ask for RSs and not talk about behavior but you've posted enough of this lately I'm pondering whether its time to complain about persistent soap at AE. Before going there, I thought you'd like a chance to explain? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is a reference. You may say that the farmers are wrong but the Misplaced Pages article is about Climate change denial or skepticism, not about whether that denial or skepticism is right or wrong. I see you are trying to intimidate me again. Biscuittin (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Only trying to impress on you the need for RSs. It's more effective way to make your point, it's required, and it respects everyone else's time. Else we have to ask, then followup.... if you start by offering the required RSs that would make for better discussion, and hence better articles. That's my only goal.
<break>
As for the RS you mention, it does not say anything about skeptics wanting us to redirect money from climate mitigation to climate adaptation, so it's off point.
<break>
However, there is a better criticism to be made about the lead's text you flagged and it's this -
A. WP:LEAD text needs to summarize the body of the article and it isn't clear to me which part of the body talks about climate denial hindering adaptation. Granted I only skimmed the body of the article. Can anyone point to the section of the body saying denial/skepticism is hindering climate adaptation?
B. Although WP:LEAD text does not require citations (which do have to appear in the body) lead citations are optional and sometimes desirable. In the text you flagged, we have three citations. The character string "adapt" does not appear in the three articles, at least not with respect to the assertion made in this text. Can anyone explain how the citations support the text about denial-skepticism hindering climate adaptation?
Actually, you have edited the article according to the first part of NAEGs statement (that the current sources don't support the "adapt" part), not according to the second part (that NAEG is sure that sources do exist). In these discussions I find it helpful to be as precise as possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Still fails verification With this good faith edit, Nigelj has restored lead text claiming that climate denial is hindering climate adaptation. Although I'm sure sources exist to support this, (A) we shouldn't say it in the lead if we haven't discussed it in the body, and (B) Nigel has not address the problem of citation. In your edit summary, N, you say "For more detail, see linked article, especially perhaps section 'Climate Adaptation Denial'." There are three problems. 1. I'm unsure what to make of "perhaps". Do you know that section's citations support the statement or are you guessing? If you know, which one and what paragraph? 2. A quick look finds that the citations in that section suffer the same problem as the three citations now used - none of them contain the character string "adapt". Maybe there is other verbiage in one or more of these sources. But unless that's explained here, and the topic is discussed in the article body, we still have a small problem. 3. Even if the sources in the other article provide verification for this text in this article, they are there, not here. My activity for now is voluntarily restricted to commentary. I'm hoping someone will run with this, because right now, although I personally believe the assertion is true, our text still lacks clear citation and discussion the article body. Hopefully a fully functioning wikignome will fix this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
To me, the fact that the statement is self evidently true, and allows us to link to another related article with more detailed and cited information is enough. The statement is, "Although there is a scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate." The query is over the very last clause. The phys.org article linked above seems to be mostly about how some farmers in a few American states are pretty clueless about climate change, which is neither here nor there. The fact is that politics has been impacted by denial, and so it has hindered prevention and adaptation efforts. It would be extraordinary to claim that although politics has been impacted by denial, which has hindered prevention, it has had no effect whatsoever on adaptation, which has gone ahead at full steam, worldwide, for decades now. Clearly an extraordinary source would be needed to support that assertion. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Title
Neutrality challenge based only on editor's opinion and later abandoned by the OP. Click show to read anyway
Since the reasoning here is based on the OP's characterization that the article is a "Polemic", I think this is really a naked assertion that the article is not neutral. Lacking any analysis or reasoning, much less RS-based analysis and reasoning, this user's naked assertion is really just more of their WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM in the climate pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
OP means "original poster". In this context it means you. In terms of neutrality, I'd like to see sources which demonstrate a neutrality issue. That would be helpful, since the current article is extremely well sourced, as far as I can tell. — Jess· Δ♥16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful if editors would provide links to ambiguous abbreviations. I'm criticising the Misplaced Pages article, not the sources. The article is not neutral because it expresses a strong opinion against Climate change denial and uses sources selectively to reinforce that. Biscuittin (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Then the way you're using the word "neutral" is not consistent with how[REDACTED] uses the word. Here, the word "neutral" means it reflects the sources accurately, particularly with respect to their due weight. We can't change the article because you vaguely feel it isn't the way it should be. We can change the article because it doesn't reflect significant sources... but we need to know which sources those are. — Jess· Δ♥17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Scientific opinion vs. the opinion of some scientists
I don't want to edit war over it, but I'm not sure about Jess (talk·contribs)'s recent edit. We have had this discussion before at other articles and some people never seem to agree, but to me, there is a clear 'thing' called scientific opinion when named without a definite article. I know that I'm taking it to the other extreme to illustrate the point in the title of this section, but again, to me, as soon as you introduce the definite article, you begin to dilute the actual meaning you would get if you just said 'scientific opinion' and left it at that. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... to me, I don't see a difference in substance between "scientific opinion" and "the scientific opinion". There is a difference in grammar, however. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? "Both reject scientific opinion." sounds wrong to me, and I don't really see any benefit... then again, I don't read the current formulation as just "an opinion". Let me think... would changing it to "reject the scientific consensus on climate change" work for you, Nigel? — Jess· Δ♥22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
e/c..... I'm not sure I grasp the issue but I'll offer an observation anyway. If the phrase is just "scientific opinion" we should still include the word "current". It is implied even in Jess' version in the DIFF, since that phrasing also uses the present-tense verb "reject". Instead of just implying "current", we should say "current" out loud. I have no opinion as to whether we should stick the article "the" in front of "scientific opinion", and no opinion whether adding "scientific consensus on climate change" is better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm more or less ambivalent on "current". I think the sentence is stronger (and more accurate) without it. Saying "current" sort of implies that they accepted previous scientific opinion to some degree, or that the scientific consensus is somehow new or modern. In reality, climate change denial (as a movement) has been rejecting the scientific opinion since there ever was scientific opinion, and the current consensus largely reflects the mainstream opinion from decades ago. That being said, I don't care all that much. — Jess· Δ♥00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe in the crudest terms the top points are the same (it's warming/it's us) but at any greater level of detail since IPCC first met the "current" consensus has been continually moving to the right in this graph, and the rightward tail has continually grown a whole lot fatter and longer. Recently I showed this graph to Naomi Oreskes, and she immediately drew in that longer and fatter tail. (File:Distribution of professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change - by Tobis and Ban.jpg
Yea, I agree with that. I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I only meant that while climate science has been progressing, the arguments made by denialists largely have not, spare a little drifting (to appear more reasonable) as the mainstream consensus has firmed. As scientists have been adding precision to their numbers and forming new models, denialists have all the while just been saying "nope." I didn't mean to imply scientific opinion has gone unchanged, but that denialism has (aside from a few concessions). There isn't anything about the "current" scientific opinion causing that disagreement, nor is there anything "current" about denialists remaining contrarians... that's all been happening for quite some time. That's my only real objection to using the word "current". It's true, of course; denialists reject the current scientific opinion, just as they've done historically for decades. I hope that makes more sense (or maybe I misunderstood you, and we were both agreeing all along!) Thanks for the chart! — Jess· Δ♥02:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree that "current" is grammatically unecessary and potentially misleading, think on balance "the" works reasonably well: see below for modified wording. . dave souza, talk06:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Since some links were merged, this emphasised excessive focus on the existence of global warming. To a large extent denial/skepticism is focussed on attribution, impacts and mitigation/adaptation, so have modified the lead as below" Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts. Thoughts? . . dave souza, talk06:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
On wikipedia, "neutral" means "reflective of the sources". It can't be non-neutral without considering the sources. So, what source do you think has not been adequately reflected in the article? — Jess· Δ♥06:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Aristarchos_logo_small.png){kind=link}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
