Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climate change denial: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:31, 6 January 2010 editLing.Nut (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,803 edits Anything that took place before ClimateGate comes from a galaxy far, far away.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:29, 22 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,256 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 33) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{talkheader}} {{Talkheader}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long}}
{{notaforum}}
{{Controversial}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Not a forum}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{Round in circles}}
|counter = 13
{{FAQ}}
|minthreadsleft = 5
{{Article history
|algo = old(30d)
|action1=AFD
|archive = Talk:Climate change denial/Archives/%(year)d/%(month)s
|action1date=8 August 2007
}}
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial
{{controversial}}
|action1result=Keep
{{calm talk}}
|action1oldid=150033430
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{oldafdmulti|result=Keep|date=31 July 2007|page=Climate_change_denial|
|result2=Keep|date2=28 March 2008|page2=Climate change denial (2nd nomination)|
|result3=Keep|date3=29 August 2008|page3=Climate change denial (3rd nomination)}}
{{MonthlyArchive|root=Talk:Climate change denial/Archives}}


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


|action3=AFD
Since the page is protected, would an administrator please add the following quote to the article?: The December 2006 book, '']'', "discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... ]] gives a name to those such as ] 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).<ref>, ], ]</ref>
|action3date=4 September 2008
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (3rd nomination)
|action3result=Keep
|action3oldid=236334023


|action4=AFD
== Merge ==
|action4date=10 March 2010
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)
|action4result=Keep
|action4oldid=349038604


|action5=AFD
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into ].
|action5date=13 March 2010
I support this sugguestion. this page would do well to be included as a component of the ].--] (]) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_26#Merge_with_Global_warming_controversy_article
|action5result=Keep
|action5oldid=349627128


|action6=AFD
: No ] (]) 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action6date=9 January 2012
|action6link=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_29#Merge_from_global_warming_conspiracy_theory
|action6result=Keep
|action6oldid=469168730


|action7=WPR
:Zeeboid, could you please present your rationale for the merge? Thanks. ] (]) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action7result=approved
|action7link=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_30#RfC:_Must_the_word_.27denial.3B_occur_in_every_citation_for_climate_change_denial.3F
|action7date=29 November 2014
|action7oldid=633273729


|action8=WPR
:'''Disagree''' There can be no rationale, the ] page is 122 kilobytes long and this page is 41 kilobytes long. One page is about the history of some attempts to disprove the scientific basis of AGW over the years (which have now amounted to very little), this one is about political lobbying, big business and legal matters. One is about a scientific controversy that eventually reached consensus, the other about corruption and politicking. Two different subjects. The practice in WP for big and growing issues is to split off detailed articles on sub-topics, not merge them into 160 kilobyte behemoths. --] (]) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action8result=approved
::Perhaps instead there should be a page spicific to political lobbying, big business, legal matters, corruption and politicking in reguards to the AGW believers. ] for example--] (]) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action8link=Talk:Climate_change_denial#RfC:_Is_this_article_encyclopedic_and_does_it_comply_with_NPOV.3F
:::By all means, go ahead, and see what you can come up with. --] (]) 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action8date=16 March 2016
::::]? Although, it ''should'' be pointed out that the estimated global warming through 2100 hasn't changed significantly this decade, and it was clear to any rational observer that, as of 2001, the data and climate models did '''not''' support significant global warming. I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time. — ] ] 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|action8oldid=710397584
:::::Interesting. But i'm not surprised that you haven't got a science source for that. --] (]) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually, I did, but it's been retracted, apparently '''not''' for legitimate reasons. — ] ] 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't support this proposal. You are too quick to lable discenting opinion as "deniers" -likening them to holocaust denial. There are also some factual errors in thie page; beginning with the premise that the hypothesis (and that is ALL it is) has the support of every major scientific body with NO DISCENTING view ever being given. Wrong. THE IPCC report has been disavowed by numerous climate scientists. I suggest you start your research by looking up James Hogan's "kicking the sacred cow" and then moving into science. Especially given the leaked CRU data. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


|topic=natsci
*'''Oppose merge''' — This is a significant and terrifically important subject all on its own, and should never be downgraded through merging with any other topic. Dreadful idea. ] 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
*'''Oppose merge'''. Grumble. Bad faith claims of global warming ''or'' global cooling should be separated from legitimate disputes. However, not all the entities named here may fit. (I just corrected the merge templates. I didn't necessarily consider it a good idea.) — ] ] 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}}
*'''Oppose'''. No rationale given other than "]" --] (]) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
* '''Support''' Note that ] is a redirect to ]. This one is not... because... well, there is no logical reason why it is not treated the same as ]. Since there is no logical reason, there must be an illogical one, and that reason is to push a POV. This article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Misplaced Pages's voice, supported by supporters of that POV. &bull;&nbsp;] 04:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
**"This article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Misplaced Pages's voice, supported by supporters of that POV."{{cn}} - ] (]) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}}
If this is to be merged to anything, shouldn't it be upmerged to its parent article, ]? After all, this simply discusses a specific case of that larger phenomenon. The whole "global warming skeptics" seems like a bit of a red herring - ''that'' phenomenon isn't a subset of ], it's a brand name that unites denialist with contratrians and curmudgeons. One could write an article about that, but it would lack focus and coherence. ] (]) 16:10, 5 December 2009
}}
* The point of this article is to say potty words about people who are skeptical about AGW. basically the article quotes many folks who likewise say potty words about skeptics. Where's the beef? No substance, just blah blah blah you're a denialist. OTOH, the confirmation of wrongdoing on the part of CRU is pretty much all . This whole article can be blanked and replaced with "Bush Lied People Died" or somesuch, and it wouldn't really reduce the article's factual content. &bull;&nbsp;] 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{annual readership}}
**You really should (a) familiarise yourself with the topic (I take it you're unfamiliar with the phenomenon of denialism?) and (b) stop engaging in attacks against living people, in violation of our BLP policy. In addition, you seem to be imputing ill motive to your fellow editors - you seem to be skirting very close to violating our policy on personal attacks. You're usually a responsible editor, and I'm quite taken aback at this. Have you considered the possibility that you're too personally worked up about this issue? ] (]) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{American English}}
*'''YES''', POV problems, now & forever. Dodgy sources, especially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece, cited 9(!!)) times. ] (]) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
{{section sizes}}
**"specially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece". Um, {{cn}} ] (]) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
**BTW, are you sure you posted in the right section? "POV problems" ≠ merge. Not normally. ] (]) 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
*'''Oppose''' this would be a POV renaming. This name is used by world leaders, the popular press, and the scientific press. Changing the name would be pandering to a fringe group. This is an interesting subject in its own right (denial, rather than disagreement). <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
* The whole article is POV. Not kinda POV. Very POV. Forex, the quote about the Supreme Court "rebuking" the Bush administration. Sure, it's a word-for-word WaPo (liberal publication) quote. But it is ''presented as unadorned fact''. I think it's not uncommon for the SCOTUS to '''disagree with''' Administration policy; to call that a "rebuke" is editorialism. The quote should be completely removed. I would do it, but y'all would revert me. Let's not pretend you wouldn't. You would say the quote is sourced, which it is, but you would neglect the fact that the quote is not '''''literally true'''''. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone. Meanwhile, we have Monbiot and Mother Jones listed as reliable sources. Mother Jones? While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill? And the Private Sector section lists AEI funding as denialism. That whole paragraph is one more thing that should be deleted, since all it establishes is that someone disagrees with your POV, and is willing to fund research to probe the relevant issues... is that denialism? Only from your POV. You see denialism, I see someone offering to fund legitimate research. Who says it's denialism? Aside from Monbiot and Mother Jones.. well.. '''''you''''' say it is. But the fact that you and Monbiot and Mother Jones all agree with one another doesn't establish any kind of wrongdoing. Forex, you also have a cite that shows that many AEI folks were Bush administrations folks. And... so... what? Essentially, you're saying, "Look, look, they're Bushies!!! BusHitlerExxon! That Effing Proves that they are denialists!" What is this? Is this evidence of wrongdoing? is this evidence of anything at all? No. And that is a key point. As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications '''''accusing''''' folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None. That's why this article is POV. Deny that. &bull;&nbsp;] 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|counter = 33
** Hmm, let's see. "ou would neglect the fact that the quote is not '''''literally true'''''. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone". So you are arguing that ''your analysis'' should replace reporting of the Washington Post? And that's consistent with our content policies ''in what way''? Mother Jones is a reliable source. You have any evidence to the contrary? Certainly it's more reliable than the Weekly Standard, which you recently quoted as a reliable source. "While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill?" Much like the Weekly Standard, I don't think he's the sort of source we'd want in this article. Reliable sources are much better. "ou have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing". Hmmm...I seem to recall something about Misplaced Pages being about verifiability, not truth. "No proof. None." Yep, just like there's "no proof" that Obama is an American citizen.<p>We have notable, verifiable information. About a well-known, notable topic that's documented by reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with a topic, the onus is on you to educate yourself about it ''before'' expressing an opinion. ] (]) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 3
*'''Support Merge''', this article is very POV, as much as the leftist editors do not want to admit it. I opposed this article a year ago, and am shocked to see it is still here. Even the title "Climate Change Denial" implies that it is some sort of disease or something, and that it goes against scientific consensus. <font face="Times New Roman" size="4" color="black">]</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="black">]</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="black">]</font> 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
::Which it does (denial of the facts does go against overwhelming scientific consensus). Just read the lede to ]. There's nothing ']' about this. --] (]) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|algo = old(90d)
* '''Oppose merge'''. This article should not be merged into ], as too many issues would be conflated, and this would not help us improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand the point of view concerns about this article need to be addressed, even if they are overstated, and '''the POV tag should ''not'' be removed''' while concerns are ongoing. At the moment, this article wears a point of view on its sleeve, and even its title may need further thought. The best service articles like this can do for Misplaced Pages&mdash;and the climate change issue&mdash;is to be scrupulous in their impartiality, to describe and not engage in disputes, and to trust the reader to come to their own informed judgment. This article does not achieve this goal at present and I am willing to comment further on where it fails and how to improve it in due course. '']'' 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Climate change denial/Archive %(counter)d
*'''Oppose merge''' - IDONTLIKEIT is not a merge rationale. Nor are long (or short) rants against 'liberals' and 'leftists'. And verifiability, not TRUTH, is the standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
}}
:* The POV stuff is in the right section, or the merge stuff could be in the POV section as well. That is, if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged. And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial. You know as well as I do that presenting it unadorned (as it is) creates the impression that SCOTUS actually and literally scolded someone. You know as well as I do this is dishonest and POV. Does ] mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of ] &bull;&nbsp;] 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:::You do, I hope, realise that there have been other attempts to delete or merge this article in the past, and they failed. One is reminded of ]. ] 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:::*Piffle. Let's rmv all the POV. Then we can merge the remaining two paragraphs.
:::*This article takes as its starting premise the presumption that AGW is TRUTH<sup>TM</sup>, then says, "...and anyone who disagrees is engaging in ]". Its very premise is POV. From there, its structure looks like a melange of half-truths, circular reasoning, guilt by association and other examples of fatally flawed logic. We'll have to go through it sentence by sentence and rmv all the nil content. Then we can merge.
:::* I have listed a few starting concerns above. Please address them. Note that I have already stated that ] trumps the rather lame "Misplaced Pages is about verifiability" associated with the SCOTUS quote. I will delete that quote about two hours from now... &bull;&nbsp;] 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::There is a scientific consensus in the world that AGW is occurring, no matter what ''you'' may think. Therefore, people who disagree with the concept are ''ipso facto'' deniers of AGW, and fall into much the same category as deniers of evolution. See ]. ] 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::To quote a friend of mine, "Bzzt. try again." There may be a consensus that global warming is occurring.. though even that is crumbling... but there is not a consensus that it is anthropogenic. I listed a few starting concerns above. 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Mr Nut, perhaps it would help if you knew what you were talking about. A poll performed by ] and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at , ] received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 ] who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. ] 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Ratel, I really don't think Ling.Nut is seriously making a classic climate change denialist argument to argue against climate change denialism. His whole argument here has obviously been poking fun at the denialists. Good one, Ling.Nut. You had me fooled. Seriously though - this is a bit POINTy, don't you think? ] (]) 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::*"if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged." Your hyperbole aside, {{tlx|cleanup}} isn't a merge rationale. Nor is {{tlx|expand}}.<p>"And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial." You appear to be conflating these two. Not sure why. You wrote: "As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications '''''accusing''''' folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None." You're using truth claims (or rather, TRUTH claims) as the basis for your argument. But, as you well know, we work on a standard of "verifiability, not truth" ''specifically'' because of TRUTH claims like yours, which, it would appear, are predicated on the assertion that anything coming out of "liberal publications" cannot be "true". It saddens me to see you argue against ].<p>But you save the best for last, don't you? "Does ] mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of ]". And that ''after'' you have argued against the first line of ]. Though they aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I am tempted by terms such as "broken irony meter" and "lulz". Thanks for the laughs, Ling.Nut. ] (]) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:::*Let's cut to the chase. Aside from simple distortion/misrepresentation of facts (as in the quote I just rmv'd), what this article does is present an extremely excellent job of verifying that the media and other biased commentators have repeatedly accused folks of denialism. What it does not do is show that denialism has taken place, after providing a meaningful definition of denialism. Moreover, what this '''thread''' does not do is... you know.. actually look at the text of the article. Wouldn't that be like a good idea, in theory? &bull;&nbsp;] 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::::*Come on, Ling.Nut. You good as admitted your position is a parody in response to Ratel. I admitted you had me fooled. It was a good joke, but now you're taking it too far. You're not Stephen Colbert. ] (]) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Oppose merge''' Given previous (failed) efforts, this all seems rather ]. I did get a good laugh from "I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time", though. --] 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the laugh too. You looking to get another fish in the face? ] (]) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Oppose merge.''' See ] and the article length. --] (]) 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Oppose merge.''' This topic is notable separately from Global Warming Controversy. -- ] (]) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
* I'm not parodying anything. You can't keep the SCOTUS quote, because WP:V doesn't warrant taking a purely editorial assertion and framing it as an unadorned assertion of fact, using Misplaced Pages's voice. Please do not abuse WP:V to support your POV. You can't keep the AEI stuff because, basically, it uses fallacious logic. It states: AEI funds research that runs counter to the AGW POV. Former Bush administration folks work for AEI. Boxer says there's a denialist conspiracy of some sort. BEHOLD: connect the dots, all Bushies are denialists, all AEI folks are part of a denialist conspiracy, etc. Really, THERE IS NO CONNECTION between the statements you have strung together and the conclusions they leave unstated. &bull;&nbsp;] 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
<s>*'''Oppose '''merge Very bad idea. That article is for the generic discussion of issues related to global warming, this article is for the discussion of very specific incident. Not enough overlap to justify a merge.</s>Sorry, misread the proposal, will try again.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose '''merge This article purports to be about those who deny reality dishonestly, while the global warming article covers a much broader range of issues, including those who honestly question some aspects of the issue. Whether this article should be in W is a separate question, but the other article belongs, so this article should not be used to poison that one.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Support Merge''' Note that ] is a redirect to ]. There is no logical reason why it is not treated the same as ]. I agree that this article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Misplaced Pages's voice, supported by supporters of that POV. = ] (]) 10:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Oppose merge'''. This is a valid article which stands on its own merits. If anything, ] should be moved or renamed. ] (]) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Support merge'''. Climate change denial is a valid part of the conroversy between global warming is real/no, it's fake. I support the merge wholeheartedly.
<br />I made a username! Aren't I smart? 05:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support merge''' This article currently is a splendid example of a single-sided POV article in esse. ] (]) 10:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The terms in question have an established basis in literature and usage. Also see discussion about merging huge articles.] (]) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Support merge''' or create an article entitled "Climate change hoax" to balance if you seriously think being this POV is alright. --] 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose merge'''. ] is a very long article, and climate change denial is only one small part of the topic. It's a separate issue, and certainly notable enough to deserve its own article. 'Climate change denial' is a neutral term, being widely used in both the scientific literature and the general media. ] (]) 11:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
* '''Support merge''' on the basis that the "denialist" term is a derogatory term used by the climate change "believers" or "warmists". Both are not neutral POV. Alternatively, create a counterbalanced article on "warmists". Note that "skeptic" is a term happily owned by those who are skeptical and is more neutral than "denialist". Alternatively then, rename the denialist article as "skeptic" --] (]) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support merge''' Essentially for the reasons given by Blouis79 above. Climate change denial is a intentionally derogatory term used to discredit skeptics and liken them to 'holocaust deniers' or ' evolution deniers'. Unlike to two aforementioned subjects there is an ongoing debate involving many respectable climate scientists. ] (]) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support merge''' if ] is to redirect, then certainly ] should also redirect. To do otherwise would be a clear and blatant ] violation.] (]) 08:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
bold;">''π!''</span>]] 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose merge''' The article, as is, demonstrates a NPOV. The merge would alter this for the worse.
] (]) 13:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose merge''' It takes little review of the media and recent books to establish that "climate change denialism" has become a common and notable concept and term; this is true whether one believes it's a "fair and honest" characterization or a "negative smear" - those judgements are not for our editors to make, we are only reporting the documented aspects of the culture, not "correcting" or "endorsing" the fairness or accuracy of such naming. However the article could be retitled to something about "non-scientific biases to climate change science" (with redirections from both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax"), and could seek a more objective reporting of the charges of bias from both sides. To achieve a NPOV it needs to stand outside that debate, and only report the documented cultural phenomenon, not try to "win" the framing fight for either side. If this article is broadened in that way, it will justify being a separate article from the science based ones - the (alleged and often believed) non-scientific part of the climate change controversy. The terminology part is not unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - we can only report the framings that have in fact achieved cultural impact and notablity, not decide which terms *should* be used or suppressed as accurate or inaccurate. In that context, both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax" have become widespread and influential terms and concepts, both alleging non-scientific biases are distorting the truth. The perjorative adjective and the opinion that that term "intends" to analogize to holocaust denialism should also be changed to an attributable assertion of some of the contending parties, not stated as a simple fact. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Oppose merge'''. Both articles have enough content for standalone article. Both articles are notable topics. Both articles are on a specific topic, although there is some overlap (as there is with every single article on WP). ] is about denial of climate change and it is the ''process'' of the denail that is ''part of'' the ]. -- ] (]) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

== '''Move:''' Balancing Page ==

If there's going to be a page on ], what is the objection to a balancing page on '''] denial'''? Surely, ] denial is a real and well reported phenomenon. Even in the vaunted "reliable sources" of the mainstream media, the efforts to kill the ] story on the spike have been obvious. Or is '']'' now suddenly (like ''Climate Research'' among Dr. Mann's "Hockey Team") no longer held to be a reliable source? <br>A balancing page on ] denial will serve to describe this phenomenon, and will help to lucidly collate information helping the reader to ascertain the degree to which this denial has thus far operated, why it is so prevalent, and the extent to which it persists over time. <br>The term "deniers" is deliberately pejorative, and was chosen over "skeptics" for an obviously POV reason. Failing treatment of the conscientiously skeptical examination of the ] hypothesis with due regard for the moral and intellectual integrity of those in the sciences who simply despise the sloppy and dishonest pseudoscience of the CRU correspondents, we might as well sling the scornful language in the direction of those who are deliberately stepping on the ] story in order to "ignore it to death." ] (]) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
:Any article can be created if its A) Notable B) you can find the reliable sources to support it. I doubt if this can be done with your example. You may want to read the ] and find out why you shouldn't use talkpages as ] (because posts like yours would regularly be removed), and finally the argument "]" is not a good reason for arguing against an article. --] (]) 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
:: Top marks for ingenuity, though. --] 05:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:Or use the polices as exemplified in this article to just make it ], even if all your sources only marginally support the statements you make. Anything 'you don't like' will, of course, come from unreliable sources. ] (]) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::See ] (as Kim pointed out) where it states "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Scandal Mongering is also covered under ]] (]) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

== AEI paragraph ==

I removed the disputed paragraph:

<blockquote>After the ] released its February 2007 ], the ] reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is ], former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the ]'s panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the ].&lt;ref>{{cite web | title=Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange | first=Ian | last=Sample | publisher=] | date=2007-02-02 | accessdate=2007-08-16 }}</ref> Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," ] Senator ] said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."&lt;ref name="Newsweek" /></blockquote>

Reasons:
#"Reportedly" is a weasel word, which, together with naming living persons, makes it inadequately sourced.
#The relevance of the funding source for think tanks is, at best, marginal. If it were a lobbying organization, that might be different.
#The Guardian is a biased source, although generally reliable. Hence anything resembling opinions must be expunged.

— ] ] 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:The US$10000,- offer for critical papers certainly needs to go in - it caused quite a splash and is more or less unprecedented in its obviousness. We can probably lose some of the dressing (e.g. the consultants section), but I think the link to Exxon is very relevant - Exxon has been named in several reliable sources as a major driver of climate change denial. --] (]) 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:You'll find CNN is a direct source too ] 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::D'oh! I did it before seeing that CNN had the story too. Anyway, I've just added it back in crediting the Guardian with the reporting explicitly (which is not really necessary unless this was an op-ed piece, which it isn't. And we had the Guardian ref at the end anyway.) There's similar stuff all over the media now anyway. There is no doubt that Big Oil and others have been paying for this 'research' and paying PR houses too to target socio-economic groups with carefully designed 'sound-byte' quotes that they can remember and use in these arguments. The people who spout them here are as much the victims of manipulation as anything. --] (]) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:::We'll talk later. I'll accept CNN as the source for the material, but not as for relevance. AEI and CEI have a definite ideology, but it would be libel in either case to ''imply'' that their research results are determined by their sponsors. If CNN wanted to ''say'' that explicitly, we could include it, but it would be a BLP violation to make a statement whose only purpose is to ''imply'' something (about a living person) we could not include.
:::I'm off for minor surgery in a few minutes, so I don't have time to explain my arguments further at this time. — ] ] 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::::How is that pargraph relevant to "efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change by dishonest means"? Isn't offering grants to scientists standard procedure? Were any papers published based on this grant? (If so, why aren't they mentioned anywhere? If not, why is the offer relevant.)
::::This paragraph needs serious rewriting to get to the point where it is reporting facts, and not just speculative innuendo. ] (]) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::It is not "standard" to give grants for pre-determined results. In fact it is about as far from "standard" as one can get. --] (]) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::It's also not standard to offer grants to a pre-selected group of scientist - standard grants work the other way round (there is an open call for applications, scientist apply, applications are peer-reviewed and the most worthy ones are funded). --] (]) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
When I said above that discussion of this kind of corruption is all over the media, is what I had in mind. In that article we have links to four case studies (US coal companies targeting specific socio-economic groups, Patrick Michaels getting paid 'lavishly', the Heartland Institute with its list of 500, and the Bush presidency working with oil companies). There are also books about it all (''The Heat is On'', ''Boiling Point'' and ''Heat'') and websites devoted to the subject (http://DeSmogBlog.com and http://exxonsecrets.org). I hardly know where to start. --] (]) 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:In regard "It is not "standard" to give grants for pre-determined results": That means we cannot '''imply''' that that occurs unless there's evidence, even if it's ''implied'' by a ]. If a ] states that it's done, it's OK to include it. — ] ] 08:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to question the funding of skeptics the we should also question the funding of climate change proponents, this has long been an issue. ] (]) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

== progress report ==

* Progress = none, of course. This page is watched by a POV group. The only way forward is a careful line-by-line analysis of the article. That will take a very long time and I am very, very busy. The Merge and POV have little hope of standing long.
* I was just 3RR warned for the first time in three-plus years; congrats gang. Good work.
* Here's another one I will delete later: "Several think tanks funded by...". Again, this does not pass the "so what?" test. Guilt by association is hardly good encyclopedia writing. Feel free to delete it yourselves; I'll have to wait a while.
* Also, your poll data is really outdated. It could use some newer data. &bull;&nbsp;] 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:* I was thinking about this last night, and came to two conclusions: First, focusing solely on this article is not the way to go. I need to go back to square one and add academic rigor (if possible) to ] and ]. . Second, your system of defending this Misplaced Pages page (notice I didn't say "article") is completely airtight, because you hold control over all of the definitions. Join any high school debate team and they'll tell you, if you own the definitions, you own the debate. And the problem here is this: you define anyone who disagrees with AGW as a "denialist"; and you define everyone who agrees with you as an "expert." Done! The page is impregnable. Take forex the quote by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. Using her comments as supporting evidence of the page's (not "article's) thesis is a flagrant act of POV that proves this page (not "article") is an ] from start to end. Barbara Boxer is a politician. Every bit of power, money and prestige she has comes from her ability to do one thing and thing only: to characterize herself as a noble public servant, and stereotype her opponents as villains, buffoons or both. Even more &mdash; and this is important &mdash; Barabara Boxer is not a run-of-the-mill politician. It would be nearly impossible to find someone more unwaveringly partisan than she is. In short, the Boxer quote is another bit that does not come close to passing the "so what?" test. I intend to delete that one sometime soon too. I also wonder whether I should give one of those damn wikicookie templates as a thank-you to the editors who revert me, every time they do so. Or maybe a barnstar? I dunno; some token of gratitude or other. &bull;&nbsp;] 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::Awwww! ] ]. Looking at the number of edits you've done, you really should not need to be told to review the concept of ]. Stamping your little feet in frustration because you can't get your way is not going to change consensus. And your edits above make me suspect that you're reverting to ] in an attempt to out-talk the opposing editors. That will not work. As for your idea of templating other editors, remember ]. Also, please learn not to characterise other editors as a "gang" or "tag team" working to insert "POV" edits into wikipedia. You're approaching a position of disruptive editing. Bottom line: climate change denial exists, and is apparent in the press every day. The costs of any form of carbon emissions control will be enormous, so the forces trying to stop it are likewise, enormous. Given what happened with tobacco, it would be naive in the extreme to assume the opposite, and indeed, companies like Exxon have been caught red-handed, funding denialism. You also seem to want to take issue with the very existence of GW. Is that true? Because if it is, you're going to get very short shrift from us. ] 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Ratel: Try to focus. Focus on the article. Focus on my comments on the article. &bull;&nbsp;] 05:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== ExxonSecrets.org ==

I came across this website, and it provides an interesting background to this page, and possible material for inclusion:

Comments? ] 04:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:Possible background, and if it points to reliable sources, those could be used. I can't imagine this being considered a '''reliable source''' except as to Greenpeace's policies and beliefs. Greenpeace cannot possibly be considered a reliable source any more than ExxonMobil would be. — ] ] 08:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::Sure it can. <s>I</s> It cannot, however, be considered sufficiently reliable on most issues. --] (]) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I have been accused of failure of imagination, at times. — ] ] 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== Biased? Of course.... ==

I'm a rabid environmentalist who feels that strong measures should be taken to try and prevent and reverse climate change, and even I think this article is obviously one-sided, biased, and has absolutely no place in Misplaced Pages. I am passionate about my cause, but this sort of vitriolic bias should be stricken from the site. It serves no useful purpose, and only serves to widen the divide between the factions. --] (]) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:Hmm, so passionate about your cause that the only environment-related edit you've made to wp so far is this one, asking that wp not carry information on the proven campaign to obfuscate AGW. ] ] 00:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

::Try ] and ]. ] (]) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

== Pejorative ==

I see that Manscher and Arthur Rubin want to edit-war the word ] into the lead of this article without discussion and without citation. This word is highly value-laden, and its use compared to the previous studiously neutral language, "...describes efforts to state..." is unjust. It is also unjustified with no citation of any reliable source that applies that term to this subject.

I also note that, just to confuse the discussion we're are going to have to have, they are trying to remove "and ]" from a later sentence in the lede. This is despite the fact that that word is used no fewer than four times in the cited source at the end of that sentence. --] (]) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:No one has commented here, and the lede is still misleading. There is no mention of ''denialism'' under ], there is no mention of ''pejorative'' anywhere in ]. There is no reference cited for the use of the word in the lede. And there is no further mention of ''pejorative'' anywhere else in this article that the lede is summarising here. It is simply a value-laden and unwarranted distraction where it is in the first line, that confuses the issue before the article even gets started. --] (]) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

::I can see the objection, if I can suggest you are actually reading it in the opposite way in which I believe it's intended. The word made sense to me solely to clarify that nobody would use this phrase to describe ''themselves'', e.g., this is a phrase used to denigrate a particular group or argument, and not a neutral term for any position. I think it's actually rather necessary to make that point. The point is ''not'' supposed to be that anyone who "denies" the significance of anthropogenic global warming is thereby a "climate change denier." Of course this is then difficult in the article, because we say things like "Climate change deniers downplay the significance of global warming," and you say we shouldn't take an editorial position on anyone who does that, but at least if defined correctly I think we're not. (I guess next thing we'll get some denialists in here saying "Hey, I'm offended, I worry a great deal about global warming!") I did try to improve this by pointing out that the term doesn't always refer to "hidden political or financial motives," but ultimately the point is that this article can't just be on the general ], or it should be merged with the other articles; to be a distinct subject, it has to be specifically focused on the debate about "denialism." It does concern me whether there is sufficient material on that debate itself, although of course that's a slightly different issue. ] (]) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:::'The way I am actually reading it' has no bearing. My point is that labelling the term 'denial' as a 'pejorative' is not supported by any other article on the subject in Misplaced Pages, nor by any cited source. That 'you think it's actually rather necessary to make that point' first thing in the lede is also entirely irrelevant unless there is considerable support for your view in the reliable sources, which there is not. The use of the term changes the whole slant of the article. What it is about is a denial trend or movement, its possible causes and extent etc as per cited sources. Starting off by stating a personal opinion of one editor that the term itself is a kind of insult to the person so labelled changes what should be a neutral, impartial overview of this type of denial. --] (]) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

::::It seems to me you are missing the heavy connotations of the phrase, which I have seen discussed by at least two sources who say the very purpose of this phrase is to draw parallels to Holocaust denial. To say "Climate change denial" is just the rejection of current prevailing views is for that reason incorrect, in my view, and more prejudicial than the way we have it. "Pejorative" is just a word here, incidentally; we could say "critical" or "derogatory" or "accusatory," or any number of other words to note that this is intended as a negative. I think "pejorative" is good. I would certainly be persuaded by sources that describe "denial" just in the neutral sense of skepticism, or even "denying" that there is climate change altogether. This is noted in the second sentence, but I think the first sentence describes the more common use of this phrase. ] (]) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Peterlewis: Please don't in the article - please rather join the discussion here.

== Attribution ==

I am paraphrasing some of the quotes in the article, which seem quite overdone. Good and well, I just want to say that people should really be more specific in attributing material to its correct authors. To say that "The Guardian has reported" a particular point, for instance, when in reality it is a piece by George Monbiot extracted from his book, is poor form; that is George Monbiot writing in the Guardian, not a statement from the Guardian itself (it may be with a straight news story that you can attribute it to the paper, but with an extract from a book surely this is not the case). The same is true with Newsweek; I'm not an expert on journalism, but when you have a ] of this type, I think one should attribute it to the author. Much of the material I am finding is similarly quite imprecise in telling the reader where it came from. This was very much the case with the material taken from John Cushman, that I revised , which was going back and forth between quotes of the leaked memo and Cushman's representations of it without any clarity as to which was which. When people are concerned about neutrality, or whenever, it's very good to be as clear as possible. Now commence any criticism of my edits. ] (]) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== fixing refs; ongoing process ==

* I'm trying to help the refs along to a state of decreased suckiness. At this point, I am correcting only the formatting. Yes I will make mistakes & be inconsistent as I go. I intend to fix things in a process of several steps. Things will be better eventually.
* After the formatting is fixed and we see what we have, THEN we can do fact-checking etc. One thing at a time. &bull;&nbsp;] 06:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

== "disinformation" ==

* Hi again Ratel. I was kinda missing you. Hope you're doing well.
* While we're here, please do stop adding crap to the article. It would be very very nice to get it up to encyclopedic standards. It's too late to get it done by Christmas &ndash; probably won't even get done by the end of January &ndash; but can we consider this one a belated Christmas gift and knock off the editorializing? Thanks so much. &bull;&nbsp;] 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

: As defined currently in the article, climate change denial is disinformation. --] 15:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::...which is precisely why the article is POV. Gotta go teach now; will rmv the disinformation part in about four hours. &bull;&nbsp;] 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::: You could well be right. I'm not comfortable about this article and could be persuaded that it is largely based on speculation. Can we go through the sources and see if anything reliable can be retrieved? --] 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Hi Tony. Th answer is "Yes". I'm busy busy busy in real life. My plan was to do this article little bit by little bit, probably over the next month. In fact, I've been pondering starting a line-by-line review (probably in user space, only to prevent it from getting too messy). I'd be looking for things such as:
::::# implicit assumptions
::::# circular reasoning
::::# Guilt by association
::::# Statements by unqualified or patently POV people (see esp. Boxer)
::::Then I was thinking about posting the final results of my review here on TALK. If you have a plan that seems more effective etc., please do post it here... &bull;&nbsp;] 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::::, which is arguably the heart of this article -- we cite it 8(!) times. Tony, why don't you read this and see what you think? Thanks, ] (]) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that we are not really sticking to material directly on the topic of "Climate change denial." To fix this I think we need to keep in mind the preliminary question, of what it is that justifies the delineation of a sub-topic in a way that bolsters or attacks a particular point of view within a larger debate. That is generally seen as a POV fork, if, for instance, the article doesn't amount to anything more than "Bad arguments against climate science." The justification I've seen in other contexts is that there is a distinct topic relating to the specific phrase or idea, e.g., people don't just use the argument or phrase in the larger debate, but have analyzed it in depth. But, the obligation remains to avoid a POV fork. This leads to the principle that if you have a concept that bolsters or attacks one side in a debate, but the concept is distinct enough to warrant its own article, it should still be restricted narrowly to the topic of the article, and not allowed to bloat into anything that uses, mentions, or tends to support the idea covered in the article.


== Doubt as pseudoscientific? ==
To do that, I get the impression we would cover a great deal more controversy over the use of the phrase "Climate change denial," and less of other issues. We have half a dozen sources already disputing the analogy to Holocaust denial, and more than one of these that states the whole point of this phrase is to make that analogy. Our article discusses this in one sentence. We'd need to continue cutting material such as about Cooney's actions under the Bush administration, unless I've missed the reliable sources that discuss this as "Climate change denial" or even "denial." Ideally, the sources should be discussing the concept of denial, and not simply making one-off statements. Per Tony's comment, I think those are the sources, discussing the idea in depth, that should be consulted in deciding whether there is material to support an article. Personally I find it hard to tell, which is why I support continuing to clean up the article so we can get a better view. ] (]) 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


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


: Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. ] (]) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
== Reversion of multiple edits removing off-topic and adding topical material ==
::Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.
::@IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.
::@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.
:::The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. ] (]) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::::There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --] (]) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::What straw man did I employ? ] (]) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed}}
::::::*Climate science is not "special". Pretty much every science has loons attacking it. Biologists have creationism, astronomy has Velikovskians, medicine has quacks, math has circle squarers, physics has perpetual motion tinkerers, and so on.
::::::*There are no "alternative rational explanations" that are consistent with the facts.
::::::*Denialists should not be "suppressed", they should be exposed. --] (]) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You're making the world a better place "Hob" - one day, perhaps, the people you don't like will all be gone. Good luck in your task. ] (]) 04:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The references you use in the summary only fit one worldview while two worldviews are prevalent: the incoming administration of the United States government includes high ranking officials whom cite scientists that disagree with the popular worldview; more egregiously, in this talk, you are openly stating you personally believe the opposite view is “incorrect”, and therefore it shouldn’t be included, rather than gatekeeping a completely unbiased or equally balanced article. You are politicizing Misplaced Pages. It should have both popular viewpoints expressed in the summary to remain unbiased. You are wittingly or unwittingly making a once completely fact-based website, a once important website, fit a narrative that doesn’t remain purely objective. That is unacceptable. ] (]) 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The {{tq|incoming administration of the United States government}} is a bunch of clowns. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on ] (real science), not on a ] and his minions. --] (]) 09:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Erm my friend[REDACTED] is supposed to not be political. According to the policies saying this statement about the Trump Administration is not Misplaced Pages approved. ] (]) 15:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::We are supposed to check whether a source is reliable or not. This one is not. If you doubt that, go to ] and try to get a consensus on the Trump government being accepted as an RS on science while I chuckle. --] (]) 16:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::What a load of rubbish by the anonymous user with the IP address. Thanks Hob Gadling for even responding to this rubbish. As per ] we should probably kill off this conversation here and now. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. ] (]) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


:As ] rightly stated, "'''Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.'''" IP, instead of trying to deny climate change, it would be great if every government on the planet worked together to solve the problem, without excuses. ] (]) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Ratel, your reversion undoes several edits which are explained quite clearly in the edit summaries. Much of the material that I removed comes from sources that do not discuss any sort of climate change denial; this is a violation of ], as a reliable source has not "published the same argument ''in relation to the topic of the article''" (emphasis added). Some material I added which does relate to this topic, and you removed, such as . Some of the material is bizarre, as if the United States' largest conservative think tanks decided to question climate change for some money from ExxonMobil (which is not the point Monbiot is making). I have been going through the article in detail, have posted my thoughts on the talk page, and would appreciate if you explain in detail why you have undone each of these edits. ] (]) 11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:I too am waiting for cogent, point-by-point explanations of these examples of text removal. &bull;&nbsp;] 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


== This section for any rmvs done by Ling.Nut ==


Where is the third option, skepticism without denial or affirmation?
* This darn talk page is gonna become a ball of twine as we try to check its refs. From this point on I'm gonna put all rmvs that I do HERE. I'll refactor another one (above) in a couple minutes.
* ] believe, ] deny, ] are skeptical
:* Here's disinformation for you, though ] leads me to assert that it must have been unintentional (and thus, merely "misinformation"): "The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial a major topic on its agenda..." Incorrect &ndash; unless of course you're willing to delete the word '''denial'''. Then it would be correct. But then it would also be irrelevant to this article. Which is why I'm deleting it immediately. I can hear Ratel's footsteps behind me, though... &bull;&nbsp;] 11:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
* engaging in ] requires deliberate effort, those who don't have an opinion are not claiming to be scientists or researchers.
:* 'Organizations such as the ], according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."' VanityFair is getting this info from page 34 of "The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription ISBN 0738200255 (Paperback)by Ross Gelbspan. The Gelbspan cite is referring to a quote from the ] that seems to date from at or near 1991 (not the ], <s>which did not exist in 1991</s>). Needless to say, the ICE does not speak for the GCC; the sentence survives by making a tenuous link between the two seem natural and strong. More importantly, though a painstakingly slow parsing of the sentence would suggest that at least one interpretation of its content is that organizations "such as" the GCC have resolved to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," I think the default parsing of this sentence&mdash;the meaning that most readers would take away after reading&mdash;is that it was in fact the GCC whose literature included that verbiage. RMV as inaccurate; VanityFair does not dictate Misplaced Pages text (and VF took liberties with Gelbspan).&bull;&nbsp;] 12:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
* there is unsubtle polarization, implying that only two positions exist, with no middle ground, or not having an opinion, ]
:*:Haven't had time to look this through - but there is at least one error in the above. The Global climate coalition was created in 1989 so it did exist in 1991. (<small>{{cite journal |last=Rowlands | first=Ian H. | year=2000 | title=Beauty and the beast? BP’s and Exxon’s positions on global climate change | journal=] | volume=18 | issue=3 | pages=339–354 |doi=10.1068/c9752 }}</small>) --] (]) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
] (])
:*:: That comment struck through, thanks. But unfortunately it's peripheral at best. &bull;&nbsp;] 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:They went extinct a few decades ago. Nowadays, the honest and knowledgeable people all accept climate change as real. Maybe you should inform yourself on the subject instead of spouting platitudes.
:*:::I've looked through the data on this - and Gelbspan makes the same connection (several times (for instance ) by linking the GCC and the ICE campaigns. So the text is supported by both VF and G. By the way, this is bordering on ], so please be careful in drawing conclusions (such as "teneous connection"), and while i agree that the text needs to be correct, care must be taken to stick to what RS's say. --] (]) 13:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:But the real problem with your contribution is that you do not have ]; it is just your opinion, and those do not count on Misplaced Pages. See ]. --] (]) 08:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:*:::: The text I rmvd is simply sloppy writing. While I think it could be revised to present facts more accurately, the OR is gelbspan's.. and I submit that his research needs to be questioned. The link is not established by flat assertions that are little more than slapping a single label on a number of groups... Do other groups say they want to reposition the conventional wisdom etc.? I doubt it. In short &ndash; are we letting gelbspan and VF drive Misplaced Pages's text on this point? Unquestionably. &bull;&nbsp;] 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:*:::::Erh? We ''cannot'' as editors discount ] on the spurious grounds that ] them. Either they are reliable or not. We can on the other hand discount RS's because they are ] (regular part of the editing process), but i fail to see an argument for this... In fact as far as i can see the parity of sources ''do'' count the GCC and the ICE as pure astro-turf groups with the intent of disrupting regular dissemination of science. --] (]) 09:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


== "Possible effects" and ] == == Tone, style, and overuse of quotations ==


This article reads like it was written by one angry person who screams "lies, damn lies! These people are lunatics and shills!" at literally every possible opportunity. In case you skipped every other part, we'd like to remind you that the denials are fake, dishonest, and discredited!
* Quoting McCright, Aaron M. & Riley E. Dunlap. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. ''Social Problems'', Vol. 50, No. 3. , pp. 348-373.:
<blockquote>The continuing failure of the United States to participate in international efforts to ameliorate global warming therefore likely reflects a combination of the crescive nature of global warming; the public framing of global warming as a costly, future problem; the institutionalization of the dueling scientists scenario in the media and Congressional hearings; lobbying by the business community; the tepid involvement of the environmental movement and its allies; and the mobilization of the conservative movement to define global warming as "nonproblematic," and therefore policies such as the Kyoto Protocol as unnecessary.</blockquote>
* Does anyone else out there think our "possible effects" and other sections kinda elide the fact that the countermovement is not the only cause of these "possible effects"? That would place it firmly within ], at least until it is corrected. &bull;&nbsp;] 14:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:One of us is misreading WP:UNDUE. The article may be terminally POV, but I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with it. ] (]) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
::"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article really creates the impression that, you know, the entire universe will collapse because not everyone is on board with the AGW crowd.. and here's the UNDUE bit... it further presents the viewpoint that not everyone is on board with the AGW crowd solely or principally because of the evil "deniers". Now, common sense suggests that many folks are not on board with the AGW crowd for reasons other than "denialism". In fact, "denialism" is one of many, and may not even be the most important. But I don't see that here. Just saying. &bull;&nbsp;] 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
:::WP:UNDUE says that no view should be given undue editorial weight. You seem to be more interested in whether or not the view is correct. ] (]) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Consider the articles on ] and ]: there is total scientific consensus that both are impossible, yet we don't call their proponents lunatics and trolls multiple times per paragraph or even per sencence throughout.
::::I think he's genuinely trying to sort out this mess of an article -- and thanks, Ling.Nut, for taking it on! As for editors' POV -- weel, we all have one, which is why other editors (with other POV's) keep an eye on the thing. Of course, this only works when people are genuinely committed to improving the article... Best regards, ] (]) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Ever exagerated too much? Try without the POV interpretation. "evil" has no place in any discussion. "AGW crowd" is a rather stupid derogative, which apparently includes most of the Worlds scientific and political population.
:::It represents the viewpoint (which is shared in large parts of the literature) that the reason that the US is "standing outside" to a large extent is caused by industry campaigning. Nothing really strange there. There is a very recent precedent for such, which is also presented. That industry by default is inherently conservative towards change that may influence its profit margit, is normal and expected (it is even beneficial to a large extent), the "new" thing (primarily in the US) is that this is being done via disinformation campaigns (which have been documented (fx. GCC and ICE), and not by regular lobbying, and influence. --] (]) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


The amount of ] throughout. ] and ] throughout.
== Denial vs. Skepticism ==


Here are some examples (highlighted in bold and italics):
Reading through this section, it's remarkable to find that there is not actually anything on "Denial vs. Skepticism." Is there material that distinguishes between these two phrases?
Lead (10 instances):
*Those '''promoting denial''' commonly '''use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance'''<br>
*...includes '''unreasonable doubts''' about...<br>
*...accept the science but '''fail to reconcile it''' with their belief or action...<br>
*...remain the subject of '''politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay'''...<br>
*...reported government and oil-industry '''pressure to censor or suppress''' their work...<br>
*...fossil fuels lobby has been identified as '''overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine''' or discredit the scientific consensus...<br>
*...Industrial, political and '''ideological interests organize activity to undermine''' public trust in climate science...<br>
*...originate from '''right-wing''' think tanks...<br>
*...Climate change denial is '''undermining efforts to act on or adapt''' to climate change...<br>
*...for several decades, oil companies '''have been organizing a widespread and systematic''' climate change '''denial campaign to seed public disinformation''', a strategy that has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking.<br>
*...Some of the campaigns are '''even carried out by the same people''' who previously '''spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda'''.


Terminology section (at least 6 instances, ''not including direct quotations''):<br>
Or maybe it's just intended to be an overview, as in, ''"Is it denial, or is it just healthy skepticism?"'' If so perhaps we should just call it an overview. In either case there is still woefully little material here discussing what makes something "denial," in comparison to the large volume of examples. If the article has merit, it seems this is one of the major discrepancies that needs to be improved. ] (]) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
*The terms climate skeptics or contrarians are '''nowadays''' used with the same meaning as climate change deniers '''even though''' deniers usually prefer not to, '''in order to sow confusion''' as to their intentions.
*Both options are '''problematic''', but climate change denial...
*...said in 1995 that industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" '''to confuse public opinion''' in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial"
*...with "the climate skeptics" '''confusing the public and influencing''' decision makers.
*...and the '''behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine''' climate science. It said...
*...by accepting the scientific consensus '''but failing to''' "translate their acceptance into action".
Rest of the paragraph almost entirely made of quotations (]) that need to be summarized.


Categories and tactics section (at least 6 instances):<br>
== BLP and other concerns ==
*...how the media '''give the misleading impression''' that climate change is '''still''' disputed ... to climate change skeptics' '''PR efforts'''.
*...who '''think''' climate change is harmless or even beneficial...
*...a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, '''some of them the same people'''.
*...'''But scientists''' have known for over a century...
*'''Playing up flawed studies'''
(not including multiple quotations per paragraph)
*Some climate change deniers '''promote conspiracy theories alleging''' that the scientific consensus is illusory, or that climatologists...
*(not a quote not inside citation) It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial '''to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy''' disputing this consensus.
*'''These people typically allege''' that, through worldwide acts of...
*(not inside a quote) They '''promote harmful conspiracy theories alleging that''' scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.
...too many instances of ], etc to list<br>
...more quotations than prose
*He defined '''luke-warmists''' as "those who appear to...
*...has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, '''in contrast to legitimate science'''.
*...whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change deniers... (links to this article itself)
*another paragraph consisting almost entirely of quotations
*Climate change deniers '''tend to argue''' that... '''Conversely''', the general consensus is that...
*'''As such denials became untenable''', content shifted to ...
*Another paragraph or quotations.
*A 2016 article in Science '''made the case''' that... (contrasted to "deniers have alleged that" sort of thing)
*more quotations exceeding prose
*People '''with certain cognitive tendencies''' are also more drawn than others to conspiracy theories... (we all know what that means!)
* more predominantly found in '''narcissistic people''' and those who... (either name-calling, the ] can only be diagnosed in individual people)
*..."disbelief is also '''linked to lower levels of education and analytic thinking'''."
* ''']''' which factors associated with conspiracy belief can be influenced and changed. They have identified
*Examples of science-related conspiracy theories that '''some people believe include that aliens exist''',
*This effect was found '''even among''' climate science endorsers.
*...studied two forms of national identity—defensive or '''"national narcissism"''' and
*"Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate '''susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs''', was also found to be negatively correlated with support for '''genuine climate mitigation policies'''."
*Political worldview plays '''an important role''' in environmental policy and action. '''Liberals tend to''' focus on environmental risks, '''while conservatives focus on''' the benefits of economic development. (polarization, and ] exclusively)
*...shows that '''conservative white men in the U.S.''' are significantly more... (ok, great)
*...if the discourse is instead framed using moral '''concerns related to purity''' that are more deeply held by conservatives, the discrepancy is resolved. (purity? of essence? what?)
*"More '''highly educated people are less likely''' to rely on their own interpretation and political ideology rather than on scientists' opinions."
History section:
*A 2000 article '''explored the connection''' between conservative think tanks and climate change denial.
*...were significant participants '''in lobbying attempts''' seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations.
*"During the same period, '''billionaires secretively donated''' nearly $120 million... to more than 100 organizations '''seeking to undermine''' the public perception of the science on climate change."
*..."people with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations that '''were responsible for most efforts to downplay the threat''' of climate change in the U.S."
*But some books '''clouded the human causes''' of...
*"a reliable tool to manipulate public perception of climate change and stall political action" (framing the rest of quotes in the paragraph)
*"a group of mainly U.S. businesses, '''used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose action''' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight the Kyoto Protocol. '''Large corporations''' and trade groups from the oil, coal and auto industries financed the coalition. The New York Times reported,"
*"Their work played a key role in '''undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives''' in the US over a span of decades. This study illustrates how..."
*...found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who '''cast doubt''' on climate change... in the past 50 years on '''spreading doubts''' about climate change.
*"(now X), key figures at the company who '''ensured trusted content''' was prioritized were removed,"
*"CNN reported that meteorologists and climate communicators worldwide were receiving increased '''harassment and false accusations'''" (this one not in quotes for some reason)
*"provide significant funding for '''attempts to mislead the public''' about climate science"
*"...especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism." (no true contrarian does it for money)
*Climate change '''conspiracy theories and denial have resulted in poor action or no action at all to effectively mitigate the damage''' done by global warming.
*"...believed '''(ca. 2017)''' that climate change is a hoax '''''even though'' 100% of climate scientists (as of 2019)''' believe it is real
*"American media '''has propagated''' this approach, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics."
*"In 2006 Newsweek reported that '''most Europeans and Japanese''' accepted the consensus on scientific climate change, '''but only one third of Americans''' thought human activity plays a major role"...
*"'''Deliberate attempts''' by the Western Fuels Association '''"to confuse the public"''' have succeeded."
*"According to a 2012 Pew poll, 57% of Americans '''are unaware''' of, or outright reject, the scientific consensus..."
*"''']''', global oil companies have begun to acknowledge the existence of climate change and its risks. '''Still''', top oil firms are spending millions lobbying to delay, weaken, or block policies to tackle climate change."
*"Popular media in the U.S. ] greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community" (cites from 2004, 2005, 2012, 2015, presented ])
*..."promoted by several '''far-right''' European parties, including Spain's Vox, Finland's '''far-right''' Finns Party, Austria's '''far-right''' Freedom Party, and Germany's '''anti-immigration''' Alternative for Deutschland (AfD)" (what does immigration have to do with it?)
*more quotations...


I have tagged this article for multiple issues. The lengthy and redundant quotations ought to be summarized and not inserted in the middle of every sentence. The tone throughout needs be more ], ], and ]; weasel words should be replaced with more appropriate synonyms. ] (]) 03:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I noticed the construction tag and wanted to add some words of caution. This article currently defines its subject as a pejorative. It's fine to have an article discussing a pejorative and the controversy surrounding its use. Applying that pejorative term to a specific organization or person, however, is almost always a matter of opinion, not a question of fact. The only exception I can think of is a final conviction for a crime by a court of law. It may occasionally be appropriate to report use of a pejorative by an otherwise reliable source, but only in the name of that specific source. A pejorative term should not be applied in Misplaced Pages's voice. See ]. Listing organizations (much less living people) under "Instances of climate change denial" would seem to violate that guideline. I would also point out that briefs submitted in a law suit are never considered reliable sources for the facts they aver. --] (]) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
:Agreed, absolutely. I am attempting to clean up some of this, and encourage you to do the same. I think the point about how we define the topic is especially important; it's something I tried to improve by noting in the lead that the term is sometimes also used without this specifically pejorative intention, simply to mean that someone denies common or scientific views about global warming. These are, after all, three words with generally understood meanings, and by no means exclusively a term of art, which ultimately makes it incorrect for us to assign a purely technical meaning (which then results in the stream of people saying, "hey, I deny this or that about climate change, but I'm not all of that!"). The best way I have found to address that is to acknowledge up front the different ways in which the term is used, and then as you say to attribute all assessments of the term in the body of the article. ] (]) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


: On a quick read-through of your list, I don't see anything objectionable. Maybe part of the reason for the statements that you find objectionable is the fact that deniers and fossil fuel industries and a certain political party are knowingly spewing disinformation and purposely sowing doubt. Flat Earthers don't seem to have the same motivation or deceptiveness (maybe self-deception), or influence on the planet as climate change deniers; unlike climate change denial, Flat-Earthiness is a ~harmless belief. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 04:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
== Article probation ==
::I second this. ] (]) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


::The fact that it's a ''pretty big deal'' and denying it isn't ''helping to save the world'' etc doesn't change the fact that policy still applies. It has been clarified ]:
Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under ]. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see ] for full information and to review the decision. -- ] (]) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
::{{Quote frame|2) Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Misplaced Pages, give to this topic area. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of significant public and scientific interest does not excuse editors from complying with all of Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms.|]}}
::If the world was ending "pretty soon" we'd still have to write about it in an impartial manner and adhere to policies and norms. ] (]) 10:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


:::There is no connection between this and the response above, since nobody suggested that {{tq|Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms}} be violated. Also, nobody mentioned {{tq|''pretty big deal''}} or {{tq|''helping to save the world''}}. Maybe you are on the wrong Talk page? --] (]) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
== References for use as pejorative ==
::::It was said that in contrast to flat-Earth, there is different ''motivation and deceptiveness'' and ''influence on the planet'' and that it's ''not as harmless'' as flat-Earth. ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Still, there is no connection to {{tq|Misplaced Pages's governing values, policies, and norms}}. They are not violated. --] (]) 15:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


* While I will admit that this list was too long for me to read every item, I don't see anything NPOV violation here. The article is reflecting the tone and bias of reliable sources, all of which consider climate change denial to be pseudoscientific. ] (]) 17:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
People keep disputing this, when I think the point is pretty clear. Here are a few sources.
*''It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers.''
*''I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action — it illustrates the immorality and potential damage of climate change denial. / Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science.''
*''Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust.''
*''I notice in your 'The gathering pace of change’ piece (RSA Journal, February, 8) that the phrase “fear and denial of climate change” is used. It appears to me that it is becoming more and more common to see the term 'denial' and, in particular, the phrase 'climate change denial' used with reference to those who question some of the current scientific thinking in this area. The use of a phrase like 'climate change denial' is particularly worrying since it immediately suggests an analogy with 'Holocaust Denial'. In this way it assigns to any doubt expressed concerning those climatolgy models which advocate ever-increasing, damaging and man-made warming the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust Denial itself.''
I am sure the term has at some point been used in a non-pejorative sense; sometimes, as is well known, people even decide to embrace a pejorative used to describe them. Nevertheless, the phrase is a pejorative. It is often used as a pejorative. We have sources for this, so if people want to discuss other ways to write it let's do so with reference to what these and other reliable sources say. ] (]) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


:Thanks for this, and for your continued diligence in trying to bring some encyclopedic rigor to this miserably-contentious article. Best regards, ] (]) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


:The tone should ''not'' reflect the tone of biased sources. Relevant policies:<br>
:The more appropriate word is that it is ''sometimes'' perceived as a pejorative. Most of the sources given above are individual opinions. Please see the various discussions in the archives as well as the lively discussion on precisely this issue in the AfD. Your inference that it is a perjorative is based on incomplete and dubious material - and has a very high chance of being ] (add: I agree that it is often used as a pejorative, but it is also used descriptive. And i surmise (without knowledge) that the holocaust link is confirmation bias) --] (]) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


{{Quote frame|Misplaced Pages describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized.
::This article itself makes the holocaust link and cites 8 separate sources. --] (]) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.|], from WP:NPOV}}
:::Yes, it does - because there are reliable sources that surmise that this is the reason for the wording, and others still dispute it, and i do not think that we have a good RS to determine weight on the issue. --] (]) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I checked the 8 references given in this article. One, to the RSA Journal Feb 08, was a dead link. Six made the holocaust connection. One was a 2006 weblog where the connection was being debated. That's six to one--or unanimous if you remember that weblogs are not considered reliable sources.--] (]) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
::::It's interesting to note that the sources discussing this phrase ''as'' a phrase seem overwhelmingly to note the link to the term, "Holocaust denial." I don't think that's surprising, since it's hard to imagine someone discussing the phrase without mentioning the obvious analogies. These are the sources that are talking about why this term is used, what is meant by it, and what it has for connotations, e.g., secondary sources discussing the term. Whether there is confirmation bias I can't say; you suggest there are sources disputing that the term intends to make this link, but I have not seen any sources saying that. I have only seen sources disputing whether the link is legitimate. That isn't to deny, as you suggest, that people may use the word "deny" in any of its recognized meanings when talking about climate change, and I think this is a significant point. Perhaps we could say, "'''Climate change denial''' is a phrase, generally ], used to describe views...." ] (]) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


{{Quote frame|Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category.
::Pejorative means "expressing disapproval." The article says, "Climate change denial is a term... used to describe views that attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change '''due to hidden financial, political or personal interests'''." Is that definition correct? (I don't see a source for it.) If it is, can anyone offer an example of where the term is used to say someone is secretly motivated by personal bias in an ''approving'' way? Are there any sources documenting its use that way? Does the article itself include any examples of such approving use? If not, can some be added? I'm surprised that this is a point of contention. --] (]) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
...the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.|]}}
:::According to Wiktionary, and other online definitions, a pejorative must go beyond ''"expressing disapproval"'' - consequently, usage can be neutral, or near neutral in intent, for the term to not be a pejorative in all cases. There is no requirement to find an ''approving'' case. Assuming "global warming denial" is an analogue, I offer: ‒ ] 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Thanks, Jaymax. The source you cite (Sandman) says he is not using the term "denial" in the sense it is defined in this article (and by the examples included here.) "Nor am I talking about intellectual denial, the position of climate change skeptics and contrarians." He is speaking of psychological denial, which he explains as a different thing. --] (]) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::(e/c) Indeed. However the two (actively motivated deniers and passive responsive denial, or vv.) are connected, and the article should (I believe) address both. This relates directly to my addition of 'personal reasons' to the unsourced lead definition. (and now to new section below) ‒ ] 23:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


{{Quote frame|As a matter of policy, Misplaced Pages is not written in news style (in any sense other than some use of the inverted pyramid, above), including tone. The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different. Especially avoid bombastic wording|]}}
== Definition of "climate change denial" ==


{{Quote frame|Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...<br>
The definition of the term and more broadly, the first paragraph of this article, appears to be ]. Does anyone have a ] that can provide a neutral, accepted definition of the term? --] (]) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...<br>
:From the source I gave above (might be helpful)
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.<br>
::"So we can distinguish three kinds of global warming denial:
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.
::* Strategic denial: I pretend to disagree for reasons of my own – to keep my job, enrich my business, get elected by my constituents, placate my spouse, whatever.
In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose.|]}}
::* Intellectual denial: I genuinely disagree (whether based on evidence or based on intuition and mistrust).
::* Psychological denial (the focus of this column): I can’t bear to let myself agree; I have a strong cognitive or emotional need to avoid the issue or to be on the other side.
::In the real world the three can be hard to distinguish. Most people in psychological denial avoid the issue that gives them pain. But some are unable to push it away, and become scoffers instead … which makes them look like the intellectual deniers, the contrarians. And of course the strategic deniers work hard to look like contrarians. Moreover, the three are sometimes intermixed."
: ‒ ] 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


:The examples listed are of loaded language added on top of and in addition to selected quotations. ] (]) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me from this discussion that the term "climate change denial" is a rhetorical device used mainly in opinion pieces whose meaning varies greatly with the writer. It does not have a single, broadly accepted, reliably sourced definition. I can see value in an article that traces the term's various meanings, but I have great concerns about then going on to describe various organizations and individuals as engaging in climate change denial. In the ''Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial'' example cited above by Jaymax, the ] is called a form of climate change denial. Therefore the sections describing specific activities should be moved elsewhere, either to one of the other articles on climate change or a new article, perhaps ], a phrase that occurs in the current article and at least has the virtue of being clear.--] (]) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


: I also don't see any NPOV violation here. Perhaps you (User:Skullers) could take another look at your long list and only single out let's say the 5 most prominent examples where you think we have a problem. I've scanned your list and don't see anything particularly objectionable there but maybe I have missed some. There is always room for improvement but your list doesn't convince me. Please zoom in on any instances (let's say 5 to start with) that you think are the most problematic. Also maybe specify which of the quoted text exactly ought to be converted into non-quotes? I think it would be difficult to do so as we are trying to explain what wording and language the climate change deniers use... ] (]) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
== ClimateGate ==
::Skullers probably suffers from the common misconception that ] means that Misplaced Pages is supposed to always sit on the fence when there is a conflict, even when the conflict is between science on one side and a bunch of ideologically motivated anti-science wackos on the other. Or they are unaware that that is the case here. So, they see problems where there are none. --] (]) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Not at all. One doesn't um ''suffer'' from it. Aware of ] and all that. The ''tone'', ''style'', and ''sentiment'' of text are not encyclopedic or impartial, that is outside of quotations. Of which there are 190 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY, had to feed it into a machine) and the text goes the extra mile above and beyond with weasel words, loaded language, peacock terms, editorializing, etc. It stands out even among other politicized topics. ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|impartial}} is not among the requirements. I cannot see any "weasel words", and neither is it Misplaced Pages's fault that reliable sources reject the bad reasoning of the denialists, nor that the denialists' reasoning is bad. You see that as "loaded language" or "editorializing", but it isn't. Your problem is not with Wikiepdia, it is with reliable sources and with reality.
::::We get the same reasoning as yours from people who think that Misplaced Pages is unfair to flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. You are just the last in a long line of people who think that Misplaced Pages is biased against one specific pseudoscience. See ]. --] (]) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not surprised to hear any of this. We are aware of your tactics, your sentiment, and your traits. ''venceremos'' ] (]) 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Skullers, you must make constructive ]: ] looks rather ], please explain its relevance to the article, or redact it. . . ], ] 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I will highlight some examples .... ] (]) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::To be constructive, please show how the examples relate to the cited sources, and what alternative wording you propose while taking care to show clearly the mainstream views of the scientific community, and not give undue weight to fringe or pseudoscientific views. . . ], ] 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:You're right. In Misplaced Pages, we try to maintain an NPOV (neutral point of view) across all articles. This may require some editing. ] (]) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::No, they are not right. Their comments are based on misunderstanding of th policies. Read the archives. --] (]) 07:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Using Neutral Point of View ==
* There's a very legitimate reason why Climategate must be discussed. It is germane. This article (in an inexcusably POV manner) tries to make the case that public skepticism is because of those ignorant "denialists". Not so fast -- skepticism has increased tremendously recently, mainly due to Climategate:
{{hat|reason=A lot of sealioning and circular logic <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
<blockquote>Last month, a found that 40 percent of Americans distrust what scientists say about the environment, a considerable increase from April 2007. Meanwhile, public belief in the science of global warming is in decline. </blockquote>
*While I'm here, the poll info in this article is embarrassingly outdated.
* &bull;&nbsp;] 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


{{noping|Skibidiohiorizz123}} has been ] for ], alongside ] ]. See also ]. ] (]) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:There's a reasonably-current AGW poll at "World concern about climate change has fallen in the past two years, according to an opinion poll..." (OCT 2009 poll). Cheers, ] (]) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be written by some liberal dude with to much time writing about climate change denial. Here's a direct quote "The terminology is debated: most of those actively rejecting the scientific consensus use the terms ''skeptic'' and ''climate change skepticism'', and only a few have expressed preference for being described as ''deniers.'' But the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as ] is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology. In fact, all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as part of the scientific process that demands continuing questioning. Both options are problematic, but ''climate change denial'' has become more widely used than ''skepticism''." if[REDACTED] is meant to be neutral then this should be removed. There is not a shred of a natural point of view in this article and instead paints a picture of climate change deniers being heretics against science and instead you should follow the liberal narrative(which I will never do). This is the most obvious propaganda I have ever and most likely ever will see on this topic and it forces anyone writing for example an essay on climate change denial, forced to be against climate change denial when using the worlds largest encyclopedia.


For this reason I propose this article be rewritten following wikipedias official policy on neutral point of view and not a liberal publication. ] (]) 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
==Kivalina v. ExxonMobil section==
I commented the section out since it adds systemic bias and a comment in a court case it not notable for this article. A one line comment if anything may suffice. -- ] (]) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:On the contrary, the well-documented allegations that Big Oil money has funded much of the '''climate change denial''' that we have seen in recent years are fundamental to the topic. What do you mean 'systemic bias'? Are you trying to create an article that is balanced in the sense of saying 'most climate change denial is good denial'? That would be an extraordinary view of lack of systemic bias. I shall revert this blanking of sourced material. If you want to shorten the summary here, considering that the topic is notable enough to have its own entire article, I shall be happy to consider realistic proposals. 'One line' is not reasonable. --] (]) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


:Perhaps you are an American, and you think because the Republican Party of the US denies climate change that this is a left-right issue where liberals believe in climate change and conservatives do not. This is not the case. Most liberals and most conservatives world wide accept that climate change is real and manmade, as has been demonstrated by scientists working across the globe for decades. This article would not be more neutral by rewriting it to reflect the perspective of the Republican Party of the United States (which has substantial ties to the fossil fuels industry), but is instead kept neutral by reflecting the general scientific consensus on climate change being real and man-made, which is accepted by virtually every nation on Earth. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Suggest pagemove to "Climate change dissent" ==
:Instead of focusing so much on skepticism, you should find more on scientific consensus. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::So how is the scientific consensus on a theory found? Does it fall out the sky one day and everyone agrees with it? No, once a scientist proposes a theory, lots of debate and study is done before it is agreed on. Science can not exist without skepticism. ] (]) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This page is not a forum. This page is for improving the article based on reliable sources. Learn the basics of how science works by asking your questions in a chatroom or something. --] (]) 16:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I never wanted this to be a forum. I wanted to point out issues with the article, ] (]) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Science works by research and applying theories to scrutiny to see if they are correct. Not by finding something that works and keeping it until the rest of time. ] (]) 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::We all know the basics, you do not need to use this page as a forum to explain them or ask rhetorical questions about them. And you have not found any "issues" with the article, only a conflict with your own opinion. But that is your problem, not that of the article. --] (]) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:Good luck. As we have established most climate science is sciency and has truthiness but does not meet the Popper and Feynman definitions of science. When was the last time you read a climate change paper that proposed alternative explanations (Feynman). Testable predictions (Popper). ? ] (]) 23:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: should help you on your journey through real science. ] (]) 23:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I do not want to read a article on the subject, I would rather see the data the article used so I can verify it. ] (]) 02:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages editors are not your bitches. If you want to learn the basics, you need to do the work yourself. --] (]) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:And I suggest you read Cargo Cult Science (it is entertaining and relevant) and
:consider the following ''Testability in the context of Karl Popper's philosophy of science is the idea that a scientific hypothesis can be proven true or false through experimentation. Popper's concept of falsifiability is the idea that scientific theories should be testable and can be proven wrong.'' ] (]) 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is not a forum for you to repeat your opinion about climate science. It is for improving the article. --] (]) 07:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Since you linked "scientific skepticism": the scientific skeptics unilaterally reject the misinformation spread by climate change deniers. That is because they are experts on pseudoscience and cliamte change denial is pseudoscience. See and . --] (]) 07:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::So all I have learned from this statement is
::1 Climate change is really important and
::2 Climate change is so sacred any debate about it must be suppressed without further argument.
::If there is no argument science will never change on the subject of climate change, we should instead challenge current scientific thought to improve our knowledge, as scientists have done. for hundreds of years. ] (]) 15:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Replace ] with ] and you'll realize how silly your comment sounds. The reason we don't sit around questioning whether or not germs cause disease isn't because it is "so sacred any debate about it must be suppressed without further argument", but just that it is so well supported by evidence that it is obvious to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it isn't going to be overturned. There are plenty of pseudoscientists who deny germ theory, who state that diseases are actually cause by other things like pH imbalances, and that microbes are just a symptom of the disease and not a cause, and they use similar arguments as you about how science is being dogmatic about germ theory and trying to suppress any disagreement. But they don't sound like they are coming from a place of skepticism, they just sound like they are coming from a place of ignorance. ] (]) 16:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You failed at learning anything from what I said. Science is not happening here, it is happening in scientific institutions. We just report the results, and the results are clear to anybody who knows how to recognize ] and pseudoscience. Please do your trolling somewhere else. --] (]) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::1. Make your strawmen somewhere else. 2. You are not a scientist. 3. You have not provided any facts. 4. You are not an enlighted skeptic but an uneducated person, who cannot search for reliable sources to educate yourself because it would bring you out of your echochamber of misinformation. This is not a place for your misinformation. ] (]) 20:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay I used Encyclopedia Britannica and found a source they used By a man named David Henderson titled "1.6% not 97% Agree that humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming" published on March 16 2014 on econlib.com. So the scientific consensus seems to be Humans don't cause Global Warming. This is what I was arguing against. Unless it has changed like it always seems to, Global Warming and thus climate change is natural.
::::So that's the facts from a survey of scientists specialized for this subject.
::::Have a great day y'all. ] (]) 22:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is just an outdated opinion of a ] that was a chairman of a climate change denialist ]. This is cherry picking you are doing. but it does not fit your narrative so you search for some denialists data. . . . . ] (]) 23:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I mean how am I supposed to know about that one of, if not the most trusted encyclopedia was using bad sources? I was just looking to see if I could find anything against climate change considering nearly anything on the internet is not a natural opinion based off using both sides. ] (]) 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Okay found something better a peer reviewed research paper against climate change that cites it sources. It was published in 1992, so it may be a little bit outdated. It is called "Global Warming: A reduced Threat?" written by Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Stooksbury. It says in section 8 "The Northern Hemisphere, which should warm first and most, shows no statistically significant warming trend over the last half-century"
::::::If you want to read the whole paper it was on the American Meteorological Society website in the Journals section. ] (]) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Out of the 88125 peer reviewed publications on climate change published since 2012 . Peer review isn't a magic process that removes every single incorrect paper. Science is an iterative process that requires others to replicate findings, and for results to be consistently observable. The causes and effects of global warming have been consistently observed by scientists across the globe for decades. ] (]) 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::] was a contrarian. Of all the sources on climate change, you only manage to find the ones that deny it. This is ], and it is the main weapon of denialists. We will not fall for it, and you are wasting everybody's time. --] (]) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:] is literally about "climate change skeptics".
:{{tq|the bogus sceptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer". Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial and '''climate change denial''') engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics".}} When you link something, read it with comprehension, so it can't be used against your own argument. ] (]) 10:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Since when has debate against current scientific though heresy and pseudoscience? if we had this thought ever since we had science we still would have thought the earth was made of four elements water, fire, earth, and air instead of using the periodic table. ] (]) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::''Since when has debate against current scientific though heresy and pseudoscience?''
:::When that debate is fundamentally centered around rejection of experimental evidence. ] (]) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::How do we know the evidence from our experiments was correct? How do we know that the experiment was formed correctly? If you can give me a few peer reviewed papers from a highly trusted scientific publication I might consider changing my mind. ] (]) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::We ] of high quality sources on the consensus of climate change. Just look at the lead paragraph and the sources it cites. ] (]) 04:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Again, ]. --] (]) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::They made it a forum not me. Just wanted to point out the bias in this article. ] (]) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is none. ] (]) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Very great argument indeed. I have never seen anything better. Despite all evidence this one statement has made me change my mind completely.
::::::Yes there is this article seems to be specifically made for promoting the Climate change agenda. Many topics in the talk page have talked about this for years but nobody seems to do anything. ] (]) 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You have just shown your bias there by using the term "Climate change agenda" There is no such thing. There is climate science, and there is climate science denial. ] (]) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I understand now, there is the Scientists who know everything about the subject, and the heretics who can not speak a word about bias in the topic of climate change without them being removed from the subject and having everyone laugh at them for being dumb.
::::::::Science can not exist with this structure. Science can not have a agenda just facts, and a neutral website like this one should not show the most popular agenda, but the pure facts no matter what Wikimedia Foundations politics are, as they seem to never change this article for nearly a decade. ] (]) 02:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Skibidiohiorizz123}} Re: {{tq|neutral website like this one should not show the most popular agenda}} The section of the Neutrality policy found at ] states that Misplaced Pages should not give equal validity to unorthodox and unpopular viewpoints. If your beliefs are considered a "heresy" in the scientific community, then they will not be handled with any sympathy in Misplaced Pages. And to quote the Neutrality policy, {{tq|This policy is <b>non-negotiable</b>, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.}} ] (]) 03:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This is a great arguement. Instead of using my peer-reviewed source that disproves global warming(at least on a large scale) and instead talk about this being an unorthodox view ] (]) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Saying "using my peer-reviewed source that disproves" proves you don't understand how science works. A singular paper published in a singular journal doesn't "prove" anything. You need many papers building off of something in order to start proving it. There's tens of thousands of papers that collectively prove climate change is real and man-made, and every nationally recognized scientific body on Earth agrees with this. ] (]) 04:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Why should I care that a national scientific body says anything? In fact I found multiple I just used the one with the most citations. If you really want to I could find plenty of other research papers. Your using a fallacy by assuming I would use every source I found. ] (]) 04:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"Why should I care that a national scientific body says anything?"
:::::::::::::So to be clear, if every single national scientific body from every nation on Earth: India, Canada, Finland, Japan, Germany, Australia, Brazil, etc., says something, then you don't care but instead will ignore them all because you found one paper published decades ago that is skeptical of it? ] (]) 04:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Like I said I can easily find other papers. I used a website listed above to find climate change skeptics papers that were peer-reviewed. Instead of getting mad at me for not trusting government science groups(which are easily able to be bribed by solar panel companies, wind turbine companies etc). You see to not be able to see any words that challenge your worldview. ] (]) 04:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If it's so easy to bribe them then why hasn't the massive, extremely wealthy and influential fossil fuels industry been able to bribe a single one? ] (]) 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The existence of the things you claim exist both do not "prove" anything, nor do they do anything in any fashion to "disprove" anything else. That you state such demonstrates your limited understanding of how science works, and perhaps more relevantly, what[REDACTED] requires in terms of quality sources.
:::::::::::::::"Some paper somewhere" is of limited usefulness (like next to none) in terms of science, and unless relevant, notable, and high quality sources have written about that particular publication, no usefulness for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has nothing to do with the content on Misplaced Pages. If you read some article on social media telling you the WMF is biased and is making the articles on Misplaced Pages biased then consider yourself duped. ] (]) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::My source was I made it up for some reason I myself forgot ] (]) 04:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:So I found a source. using the AMS website(American Meteorological Society) I put it in parts of the thread above. If you want to you can read it. ] (]) 02:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't understand. Y'all are telling me to find a reliable peer reviewed source. And when I did you completely ignored it! It's like you never cared about the actual science and just want to maintain your worldview! It all makes sense now. ] (]) 04:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::Why should we respond to a singular paper from the last century questioning climate change, when we have over 80,000 papers published since 2012 that show that climate change is real and caused by humans? Do you know how silly you sound? ] (]) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Because, I want you to actually read the works of climate change skeptics instead of staying in your little echo chamber speaking "facts". you have not see to have read a paper by anyone challenging your worldview ] (]) 04:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Have you read any of the rebuttals of these works? Or do you just cling to your tiny less than 1% of papers that support your worldview, and ignore everything that debunks them? ] (]) 04:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* Skibidiohiorizz123, you've proposed as "the works of climate change skeptics" a paper; "Global Warming: A reduced Threat?" written by ] and David E. Stooksbury. "It says in section 8 "The Northern Hemisphere, which should warm first and most, shows no statistically significant warming trend over the last half-century" and you think it's a "peer-reviewed source that disproves global warming(at least on a large scale)". A scepnic would check how that compares with the ] instrumental temperature record – oh dear, Pat got it very wrong. But since he wrote a number of books and papers denying or minimising climate change, not surprising, and not support for your little echo chamber complaint. You have to show that any change you're proposing gives ] to mainstream views, as required by Neutral Point of View policy . . ], ] 08:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


Let's wrap this up and please someone '''close this FORUM'''. This non-educatable individual should return to their echochamber and not edit well established and sourced articles. Enough is enough. ] (]) 14:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* The very '''''title''''' of this article is POV. To wit: Some folks passionately subscribe to the belief in AGW. Some folks do not. The folks who ''are'' true believers call the dissenters "denialists". The folks who are NOT true believers... would probably call themselves "skeptics" but perhaps "denialists" would not be as offensive. And the two key points are
#The term '''''is''''' offensive, and
#Misplaced Pages titles its articles based on the terminology of one camp, but not the other. That's the flaming '''''definition''''' of POV.
*I don't know which one is better: pagemove or merge. But if we can't get a merge, then I suggest a pagemove to "Climate change dissent". It accomplishes two goals: it intimates that AGW is conventional wisdom (at this time, and most particularly, among a limited but extremely influential group) and it is non-pejorative. It is not an insult. It is not POV. It could perhaps be an interim solution, with merge as a future option. However, Misplaced Pages should not indulge in the purple pleasures of POV.
* 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) {{unsigned|Ling.Nut}} Oops! I posted this. &bull;&nbsp;] 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


:: A point that has been brought up before and discussed at length. Please read through the archives and threads above. You will need to try to build a consensus for such a change. ] (]) 06:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) :Okay thank you I'm tired of all of this ] (]) 14:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Wiki Education assignment: HIEA 140 REMOTE China since 1978==
:::The anonymous points at the start of this thread would be reasonable if climate change was a lifestyle choice, a consumer choice or a political option. They make no sense at all in the light of the fact that AGW is a scientific ''fact''. The financial interests that continue to try to make it seem like a matter of personal choice are doing great harm: if nothing much is done for several more years, millions more people worldwide will die unnecessarily in the decades to come. --] (]) 10:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UC_San_Diego/HIEA_140_REMOTE_China_since_1978_(Winter) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2025-01-06 | end_date = 2025-03-22 }}


* POV considerations aside, the article is not about dissent. Dissent should be sufficiently covered by the controversy article. ] (]) 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC) <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
* Anyone suggesting ths needs to at least bother read through the archives and show awareness of the previous debate ] (]) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
* Seems to be an "i don't like it" argument more than anything else. See the archives as others have suggested, since your point has been raised before. --] (]) 21:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
* There are reliable, academic sources on climate change denialism, which call it by that name. It's a subset of denialism. "Dissent" is a brand name, like "AIDS dissent". ] (]) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
**If you have reliable, academic sources on climate change denial, it would be helpful to add them to this article. Right now the intro paragraph is tagged "citation needed" and no one on this talk page seems to be able to provided a widely accepted, sourced definition of the term.--] (]) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
***The archives show discussions that took place before ClimateGate. Everything is completely different now, as numerous national polls show. The AGW crowd has lost their comfortable air of invulnerability, as a result of losing the appearance of scientific objectivity... Anything that took place before ClimateGate comes from a galaxy far, far away.. as for academic or reliable sources: Ahhh, wait a few weeks. I can't do much now. Busy. &bull;&nbsp;] 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:29, 22 January 2025

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

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

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

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

Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"? A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence. Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable." Q2: Is this article a POVFORK? A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion." Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers? A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust. Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming? A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this. See also: Scientific consensus on climate change and Talk:Global warming/FAQ § Q1 Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along? A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:
  • 1. Because a "consensus" indicates that scientists with expertise in the relevant fields are in general agreement about some topic, such that they often refer to it as a "fact" (though technically nothing in science is ever proven with the 100% level of certainty necessary for it to be considered a fact). There is, for example, a consensus that smoking causes cancer, which is widely considered a fact.
  • 2. No; in fact, it is essential to the progress of science, since scientific discoveries are made based on what the consensus of scientists established before them.
  • 3. This argument is a form of the association fallacy often called the "Galileo Gambit." The best debunking of this argument may have been provided by Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
References
  1. Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
  2. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
  3. Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
  4. Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014.
  5. AFD Diff, 7 August 2007.
  6. Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
  7. Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
  8. On Scientific Consensus
  9. Broca's Brain, p. 64
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2007Articles for deletionKept
March 28, 2008Articles for deletionKept
September 4, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 10, 2010Articles for deletionKept
March 13, 2010Articles for deletionKept
January 9, 2012Articles for deletionKept
November 29, 2014WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
March 16, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEnvironment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
[REDACTED] Alternative views Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Section sizes
Section size for Climate change denial (43 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 13,179 13,179
Terminology 12,737 12,737
Categories and tactics 9,123 58,159
Discussing specific aspects of climate change science 8,959 25,271
Playing up the potential non-human causes 546 546
Playing up flawed studies 2,213 2,213
Disputing IPCC reports and processes 4,935 4,935
Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes 8,618 8,618
Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical" 1,817 1,817
Pushing for adaptation only 5,895 5,895
Delaying climate change mitigation measures 9,379 9,379
Promoting conspiracy theories 6,674 6,674
Psychology 999 999
Connections to other debates 35 17,018
Links with other environmental issues 2,295 2,295
Links with nationalism and right-wing groups 6,663 6,663
Conservative views 8,025 8,025
History 12,154 31,405
Similarities with tobacco industry tactics 3,517 3,517
Republican Party in the United States 15,734 15,734
Denial networks 934 18,529
Conservative and libertarian think tanks 4,974 4,974
Publishers, websites and networks 4,473 12,621
Publications for school children 8,148 8,148
Notable people who deny climate change 46 15,341
Politicians 11,184 11,184
Scientists 4,111 4,111
Lobbying and related activities 2,494 24,074
Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors 5,911 5,993
ExxonMobil 82 82
Attacks and threats towards scientists 3,598 3,598
Funding for deniers 11,989 11,989
Effects on public opinion 11,370 22,534
United States 8,600 8,600
Europe 2,564 2,564
Responses to denialism 1,574 23,066
The role of emotions and persuasive argument 6,177 6,177
Following people who have changed their position 8,334 8,334
Effective approaches to dialogue 4,144 4,144
Approaches with farmers 1,972 1,972
Statements of well known people calling for climate action 865 865
See also 685 685
References 332 332
Total 238,058 238,058

Doubt as pseudoscientific?

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

Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.
@IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.
@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Misplaced Pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.
The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. 109.148.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
What straw man did I employ? Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed
  • Climate science is not "special". Pretty much every science has loons attacking it. Biologists have creationism, astronomy has Velikovskians, medicine has quacks, math has circle squarers, physics has perpetual motion tinkerers, and so on.
  • There are no "alternative rational explanations" that are consistent with the facts.
  • Denialists should not be "suppressed", they should be exposed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You're making the world a better place "Hob" - one day, perhaps, the people you don't like will all be gone. Good luck in your task. 2001:569:FC56:8A00:AEB0:188A:6FD:2EAE (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The references you use in the summary only fit one worldview while two worldviews are prevalent: the incoming administration of the United States government includes high ranking officials whom cite scientists that disagree with the popular worldview; more egregiously, in this talk, you are openly stating you personally believe the opposite view is “incorrect”, and therefore it shouldn’t be included, rather than gatekeeping a completely unbiased or equally balanced article. You are politicizing Misplaced Pages. It should have both popular viewpoints expressed in the summary to remain unbiased. You are wittingly or unwittingly making a once completely fact-based website, a once important website, fit a narrative that doesn’t remain purely objective. That is unacceptable. 2600:1002:B160:38E9:4094:317D:6C20:723 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The incoming administration of the United States government is a bunch of clowns. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on reliable sources (real science), not on a pathological liar and his minions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Erm my friend[REDACTED] is supposed to not be political. According to the policies saying this statement about the Trump Administration is not Misplaced Pages approved. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
We are supposed to check whether a source is reliable or not. This one is not. If you doubt that, go to Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources and try to get a consensus on the Trump government being accepted as an RS on science while I chuckle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
What a load of rubbish by the anonymous user with the IP address. Thanks Hob Gadling for even responding to this rubbish. As per WP:NOTAFORUM we should probably kill off this conversation here and now. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. EMsmile (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
As Hob Gadling rightly stated, "Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented." IP, instead of trying to deny climate change, it would be great if every government on the planet worked together to solve the problem, without excuses. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


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

Skullers (talk)

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

Tone, style, and overuse of quotations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories and tactics section (at least 6 instances):

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

(not including multiple quotations per paragraph)

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

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

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

History section:

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

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

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


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

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

In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose.
— MOS:CLAIM
The examples listed are of loaded language added on top of and in addition to selected quotations. Skullers (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I also don't see any NPOV violation here. Perhaps you (User:Skullers) could take another look at your long list and only single out let's say the 5 most prominent examples where you think we have a problem. I've scanned your list and don't see anything particularly objectionable there but maybe I have missed some. There is always room for improvement but your list doesn't convince me. Please zoom in on any instances (let's say 5 to start with) that you think are the most problematic. Also maybe specify which of the quoted text exactly ought to be converted into non-quotes? I think it would be difficult to do so as we are trying to explain what wording and language the climate change deniers use... EMsmile (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Skullers probably suffers from the common misconception that WP:NPOV means that Misplaced Pages is supposed to always sit on the fence when there is a conflict, even when the conflict is between science on one side and a bunch of ideologically motivated anti-science wackos on the other. Or they are unaware that that is the case here. So, they see problems where there are none. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Not at all. One doesn't um suffer from it. Aware of WP:UNDUE and all that. The tone, style, and sentiment of text are not encyclopedic or impartial, that is outside of quotations. Of which there are 190 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY, had to feed it into a machine) and the text goes the extra mile above and beyond with weasel words, loaded language, peacock terms, editorializing, etc. It stands out even among other politicized topics. Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
impartial is not among the requirements. I cannot see any "weasel words", and neither is it Misplaced Pages's fault that reliable sources reject the bad reasoning of the denialists, nor that the denialists' reasoning is bad. You see that as "loaded language" or "editorializing", but it isn't. Your problem is not with Wikiepdia, it is with reliable sources and with reality.
We get the same reasoning as yours from people who think that Misplaced Pages is unfair to flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. You are just the last in a long line of people who think that Misplaced Pages is biased against one specific pseudoscience. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Not surprised to hear any of this. We are aware of your tactics, your sentiment, and your traits. venceremos Skullers (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Skullers, you must make constructive comment on content, not on the contributor: venceremos looks rather combative, please explain its relevance to the article, or redact it. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I will highlight some examples .... Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
To be constructive, please show how the examples relate to the cited sources, and what alternative wording you propose while taking care to show clearly the mainstream views of the scientific community, and not give undue weight to fringe or pseudoscientific views. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You're right. In Misplaced Pages, we try to maintain an NPOV (neutral point of view) across all articles. This may require some editing. Tachyon the Comic Creator (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
No, they are not right. Their comments are based on misunderstanding of th policies. Read the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Using Neutral Point of View

A lot of sealioning and circular logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:480a:3a13:8a00:1811:8717:e019:edd7 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Skibidiohiorizz123 has been blocked indefinitely for not being here to build an encyclopedia, alongside personally attacking a user on their talk page. See also ANI thread. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article seems to be written by some liberal dude with to much time writing about climate change denial. Here's a direct quote "The terminology is debated: most of those actively rejecting the scientific consensus use the terms skeptic and climate change skepticism, and only a few have expressed preference for being described as deniers. But the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as scientific skepticism is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology. In fact, all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as part of the scientific process that demands continuing questioning. Both options are problematic, but climate change denial has become more widely used than skepticism." if[REDACTED] is meant to be neutral then this should be removed. There is not a shred of a natural point of view in this article and instead paints a picture of climate change deniers being heretics against science and instead you should follow the liberal narrative(which I will never do). This is the most obvious propaganda I have ever and most likely ever will see on this topic and it forces anyone writing for example an essay on climate change denial, forced to be against climate change denial when using the worlds largest encyclopedia.

For this reason I propose this article be rewritten following wikipedias official policy on neutral point of view and not a liberal publication. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you are an American, and you think because the Republican Party of the US denies climate change that this is a left-right issue where liberals believe in climate change and conservatives do not. This is not the case. Most liberals and most conservatives world wide accept that climate change is real and manmade, as has been demonstrated by scientists working across the globe for decades. This article would not be more neutral by rewriting it to reflect the perspective of the Republican Party of the United States (which has substantial ties to the fossil fuels industry), but is instead kept neutral by reflecting the general scientific consensus on climate change being real and man-made, which is accepted by virtually every nation on Earth. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Instead of focusing so much on skepticism, you should find more on scientific consensus. YBSOne (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So how is the scientific consensus on a theory found? Does it fall out the sky one day and everyone agrees with it? No, once a scientist proposes a theory, lots of debate and study is done before it is agreed on. Science can not exist without skepticism. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This page is not a forum. This page is for improving the article based on reliable sources. Learn the basics of how science works by asking your questions in a chatroom or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I never wanted this to be a forum. I wanted to point out issues with the article, Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Science works by research and applying theories to scrutiny to see if they are correct. Not by finding something that works and keeping it until the rest of time. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
We all know the basics, you do not need to use this page as a forum to explain them or ask rhetorical questions about them. And you have not found any "issues" with the article, only a conflict with your own opinion. But that is your problem, not that of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Good luck. As we have established most climate science is sciency and has truthiness but does not meet the Popper and Feynman definitions of science. When was the last time you read a climate change paper that proposed alternative explanations (Feynman). Testable predictions (Popper). ? Greglocock (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This should help you on your journey through real science. YBSOne (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not want to read a article on the subject, I would rather see the data the article used so I can verify it. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages editors are not your bitches. If you want to learn the basics, you need to do the work yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
And I suggest you read Cargo Cult Science (it is entertaining and relevant) and
consider the following Testability in the context of Karl Popper's philosophy of science is the idea that a scientific hypothesis can be proven true or false through experimentation. Popper's concept of falsifiability is the idea that scientific theories should be testable and can be proven wrong. Greglocock (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This is not a forum for you to repeat your opinion about climate science. It is for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Since you linked "scientific skepticism": the scientific skeptics unilaterally reject the misinformation spread by climate change deniers. That is because they are experts on pseudoscience and cliamte change denial is pseudoscience. See and . --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
So all I have learned from this statement is
1 Climate change is really important and
2 Climate change is so sacred any debate about it must be suppressed without further argument.
If there is no argument science will never change on the subject of climate change, we should instead challenge current scientific thought to improve our knowledge, as scientists have done. for hundreds of years. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Replace climate change with germ theory and you'll realize how silly your comment sounds. The reason we don't sit around questioning whether or not germs cause disease isn't because it is "so sacred any debate about it must be suppressed without further argument", but just that it is so well supported by evidence that it is obvious to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it isn't going to be overturned. There are plenty of pseudoscientists who deny germ theory, who state that diseases are actually cause by other things like pH imbalances, and that microbes are just a symptom of the disease and not a cause, and they use similar arguments as you about how science is being dogmatic about germ theory and trying to suppress any disagreement. But they don't sound like they are coming from a place of skepticism, they just sound like they are coming from a place of ignorance. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
You failed at learning anything from what I said. Science is not happening here, it is happening in scientific institutions. We just report the results, and the results are clear to anybody who knows how to recognize motivated reasoning and pseudoscience. Please do your trolling somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
1. Make your strawmen somewhere else. 2. You are not a scientist. 3. You have not provided any facts. 4. You are not an enlighted skeptic but an uneducated person, who cannot search for reliable sources to educate yourself because it would bring you out of your echochamber of misinformation. This is not a place for your misinformation. YBSOne (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay I used Encyclopedia Britannica and found a source they used By a man named David Henderson titled "1.6% not 97% Agree that humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming" published on March 16 2014 on econlib.com. So the scientific consensus seems to be Humans don't cause Global Warming. This is what I was arguing against. Unless it has changed like it always seems to, Global Warming and thus climate change is natural.
So that's the facts from a survey of scientists specialized for this subject.
Have a great day y'all. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This is just an outdated opinion of a single economist that was a chairman of a climate change denialist The Global Warming Policy Foundation. This is cherry picking you are doing. There is a majority of consensus but it does not fit your narrative so you search for some denialists data. Also here. And from NASA. And even more recent 99%. IPCC report you should read. YBSOne (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean how am I supposed to know about that one of, if not the most trusted encyclopedia was using bad sources? I was just looking to see if I could find anything against climate change considering nearly anything on the internet is not a natural opinion based off using both sides. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay found something better a peer reviewed research paper against climate change that cites it sources. It was published in 1992, so it may be a little bit outdated. It is called "Global Warming: A reduced Threat?" written by Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Stooksbury. It says in section 8 "The Northern Hemisphere, which should warm first and most, shows no statistically significant warming trend over the last half-century"
If you want to read the whole paper it was on the American Meteorological Society website in the Journals section. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Out of the 88125 peer reviewed publications on climate change published since 2012 over 99% of them accept that climate change is occuring due to humans. Peer review isn't a magic process that removes every single incorrect paper. Science is an iterative process that requires others to replicate findings, and for results to be consistently observable. The causes and effects of global warming have been consistently observed by scientists across the globe for decades. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Patrick J. Michaels was a contrarian. Of all the sources on climate change, you only manage to find the ones that deny it. This is cherry picking, and it is the main weapon of denialists. We will not fall for it, and you are wasting everybody's time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This part is literally about "climate change skeptics".
the bogus sceptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer". Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial and climate change denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics". When you link something, read it with comprehension, so it can't be used against your own argument. YBSOne (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Since when has debate against current scientific though heresy and pseudoscience? if we had this thought ever since we had science we still would have thought the earth was made of four elements water, fire, earth, and air instead of using the periodic table. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Since when has debate against current scientific though heresy and pseudoscience?
When that debate is fundamentally centered around rejection of experimental evidence. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
How do we know the evidence from our experiments was correct? How do we know that the experiment was formed correctly? If you can give me a few peer reviewed papers from a highly trusted scientific publication I might consider changing my mind. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
We have an entire article of high quality sources on the consensus of climate change. Just look at the lead paragraph and the sources it cites. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
They made it a forum not me. Just wanted to point out the bias in this article. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
There is none. YBSOne (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Very great argument indeed. I have never seen anything better. Despite all evidence this one statement has made me change my mind completely.
Yes there is this article seems to be specifically made for promoting the Climate change agenda. Many topics in the talk page have talked about this for years but nobody seems to do anything. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
You have just shown your bias there by using the term "Climate change agenda" There is no such thing. There is climate science, and there is climate science denial. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand now, there is the Scientists who know everything about the subject, and the heretics who can not speak a word about bias in the topic of climate change without them being removed from the subject and having everyone laugh at them for being dumb.
Science can not exist with this structure. Science can not have a agenda just facts, and a neutral website like this one should not show the most popular agenda, but the pure facts no matter what Wikimedia Foundations politics are, as they seem to never change this article for nearly a decade. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Skibidiohiorizz123: Re: neutral website like this one should not show the most popular agenda The section of the Neutrality policy found at WP:GEVAL states that Misplaced Pages should not give equal validity to unorthodox and unpopular viewpoints. If your beliefs are considered a "heresy" in the scientific community, then they will not be handled with any sympathy in Misplaced Pages. And to quote the Neutrality policy, This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Geogene (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a great arguement. Instead of using my peer-reviewed source that disproves global warming(at least on a large scale) and instead talk about this being an unorthodox view Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Saying "using my peer-reviewed source that disproves" proves you don't understand how science works. A singular paper published in a singular journal doesn't "prove" anything. You need many papers building off of something in order to start proving it. There's tens of thousands of papers that collectively prove climate change is real and man-made, and every nationally recognized scientific body on Earth agrees with this. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Why should I care that a national scientific body says anything? In fact I found multiple I just used the one with the most citations. If you really want to I could find plenty of other research papers. Your using a fallacy by assuming I would use every source I found. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
"Why should I care that a national scientific body says anything?"
So to be clear, if every single national scientific body from every nation on Earth: India, Canada, Finland, Japan, Germany, Australia, Brazil, etc., says something, then you don't care but instead will ignore them all because you found one paper published decades ago that is skeptical of it? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Like I said I can easily find other papers. I used a website listed above to find climate change skeptics papers that were peer-reviewed. Instead of getting mad at me for not trusting government science groups(which are easily able to be bribed by solar panel companies, wind turbine companies etc). You see to not be able to see any words that challenge your worldview. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
If it's so easy to bribe them then why hasn't the massive, extremely wealthy and influential fossil fuels industry been able to bribe a single one? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The existence of the things you claim exist both do not "prove" anything, nor do they do anything in any fashion to "disprove" anything else. That you state such demonstrates your limited understanding of how science works, and perhaps more relevantly, what[REDACTED] requires in terms of quality sources.
"Some paper somewhere" is of limited usefulness (like next to none) in terms of science, and unless relevant, notable, and high quality sources have written about that particular publication, no usefulness for Misplaced Pages. Lostsandwich (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has nothing to do with the content on Misplaced Pages. If you read some article on social media telling you the WMF is biased and is making the articles on Misplaced Pages biased then consider yourself duped. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
My source was I made it up for some reason I myself forgot Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
So I found a source. using the AMS website(American Meteorological Society) I put it in parts of the thread above. If you want to you can read it. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand. Y'all are telling me to find a reliable peer reviewed source. And when I did you completely ignored it! It's like you never cared about the actual science and just want to maintain your worldview! It all makes sense now. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Why should we respond to a singular paper from the last century questioning climate change, when we have over 80,000 papers published since 2012 that show that climate change is real and caused by humans? Do you know how silly you sound? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Because, I want you to actually read the works of climate change skeptics instead of staying in your little echo chamber speaking "facts". you have not see to have read a paper by anyone challenging your worldview Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Have you read any of the rebuttals of these works? Or do you just cling to your tiny less than 1% of papers that support your worldview, and ignore everything that debunks them? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Skibidiohiorizz123, you've proposed as "the works of climate change skeptics" a paper; "Global Warming: A reduced Threat?" written by Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Stooksbury. "It says in section 8 "The Northern Hemisphere, which should warm first and most, shows no statistically significant warming trend over the last half-century" and you think it's a "peer-reviewed source that disproves global warming(at least on a large scale)". A scepnic would check how that compares with the global surface temperature instrumental temperature record – oh dear, Pat got it very wrong. But since he wrote a number of books and papers denying or minimising climate change, not surprising, and not support for your little echo chamber complaint. You have to show that any change you're proposing gives due weight to mainstream views, as required by Neutral Point of View policy . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up and please someone close this FORUM. This non-educatable individual should return to their echochamber and not edit well established and sourced articles. Enough is enough. YBSOne (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you I'm tired of all of this Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIEA 140 REMOTE China since 1978

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2025 and 22 March 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HX2046 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HX2046 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Climate change denial: Difference between revisions Add topic