Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Sourcing in lead

Nigelj reverts here, saying I have misrepresented the source. I am not sure what he means. The point of the first two sentences is that there is a consensus among scientists on human-induced global warming, and then a public discussion on the same and related issues. The third sentence is presumably to note how climate change denial is said to have been impacting the public discussion since the 1990s. I adjusted it because instead of that, it simply repeated most of the second sentence. I'm also not sure it's useful to use peacock terminology like "Numerous authors, including several scholars...," since that is promotional language, and we lack evidence of significant scholarly support for this concept. It had said that "several" criticized the term, which I also changed to "some." In any case, I am not sure how the modified language could have misrepresented any source. Mackan79 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your version, 'The effect on these debates of deliberate "denial" of the science of climate change has been discussed since the 1990s' says that deliberate "denial"'s effects on the three debates above (political, economic, and public) have been discussed since the 90s. The edit I made, and, AFAIK, Oreskes's point in the book cited first, says 'Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that there has also been deliberate "denial" of the science of climate change since the 1990s'. That means that lots of people say that deliberate "denial" has been going on since the 90s. I'm sure you can see that that is quite a different meaning. Your edit took the original, 'Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate "denial" of the science of climate change since the 1990s' and made it talk about the three debates listed above, and made it say that discussion of denial started in the 1990s, rather than that climate denial itself started then. Your edit summary said you wanted to improve 'flow and to avoid redundancy', but you changed the whole meaning of the sentence. I have tried to reinstate the original meaning but without listing 'conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups' again, just saying that it has existed, not who Oreskes et al attribute it to again, 'to avoid redundancy'. --Nigelj (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your response. My point about readability has to do with the second clause in the first sentence, that debate continues not just on what to do but also on the "reality" of global warming. The point of the second sentence is thus indeed that although there is a scientific consensus, the public has not entirely accepted the consensus. So the third sentence should presumably continue this line of thought. Besides that, to say there has "also" been denial suggests that this denial is not considered part of the political, economic, and public debates about the reality of climate change that we just mentioned. Isn't it? That's why I tried to make the third sentence follow more directly from the first two. Mackan79 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence, before editing today, was:

"Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate "denial" of the science of climate change since the 1990s."

I don't recall who originally wrote the sentence, which was originally part of the summary paragraph of a "Background" section. I edited it to replace the sentence's subject which specifically named several authors with "Numerous authors, including several scholars", I think right after moving it up to the lead when the History section was created leaving that paragraph stranded.
....... There's no need to name the authors in the lead, nor is the language a peacock phrase when used in the lead in this manner, because it's backed up by the footnotes and because those authors are specified in the rest of the body text. In my estimation this version was on the mark, supported by seven footnotes each of which is an example of an author who's asserted what was in the sentence. And, who is asserted to be doing the denying is needed in this sentence for clarity (rather than a phrase like "some among the groups mentioned just above". The numerous authors have asserted not only that there has been deliberate denial by some, but that the denial was an intentional strategy by conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups.
....... I advocate returning the sentence to its prior form. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be a good sentence, but it doesn't follow from the previous two. If we are trying to build a thought on the idea that climate change is scientifically recognized, but public debate is nevertheless diverse and active, then it seems we should continue the thought with some statement about how climate change is said to be involved in the discrepancy between scientific and public opinion. The previous sentence seemed to me instead to drop off and repeat the second sentence from the first paragraph ("Climate change denial has been associated mainly with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks."). The strength of the language ("numerous" and "several" for a few of each) just makes this more glaring, in my view. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the idea of copyediting the lead further, of course. But frankly it's starting to become a mess again. What happened to the sentence acknowledging that several commentators have criticized the use of the term?
....... Here's the second paragraph as presently written:

The scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a significant cause of present-day global warming. However, political, economic, and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that there has also been deliberate "denial" of the science of climate change since the 1990s.[12][13][4][5][14][15][16] Some commentators have also criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, or for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.[17][18][19]

Offhand, it's basically what's required of a paragraph in the lead for this particular topic. It makes no judgments but briefly gives the reader a context for what the article is about. Other than returning the sentence that a number of us cooperatively wrote to the paragraph that a number of us cooperatively wrote, I'd say leave it as is, at least absent something that's clearly better. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the sentence acknowledging the term's critics and brought the sentence discussed above back to its earlier form when a bunch of us were working on the article more-or-less simultaneously. No fundamental objection to the additional paragraph in the lead which you added today. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence acknowledging criticism was always there, but simply said "some" instead of "several." The other points that your undid are all small, but significant. Climate change denial has not been associated only with energy groups; it is also associated with politicians. This is why I said it was "mainly" associated with those groups. As far as words like "widely," "numerous," and "several," the problem is that all of these are subjective and unclear. "Climate change denial" is not widely discussed in any universal sense that I would agree to. It gets 144 hits on Google Books, compared to 336 for AIDS denial or 859 for Holocaust denial. I could equally say that it has been "narrowly" used. We look much more credible, in my view, if we avoid these types of subjective descriptors. Mackan79 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The google hit rate grows significantly if you use the phrases "global warming denial" and alternate with "denialism" and "deniers". It's very widely discussed. Note: I removed a sentence from the lead that only seemed to add woolly text without summarising the article. ► RATEL ◄ 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an opinion that it is widely used, then, and an opinion that it is not widely used, particularly given the significant opposition to its use. Do any reliable sources support your view? Mackan79 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackan79, w.r.t. your first sentence just above, I should point out that you completely removed the sentence which acknowledged critics of the phrase in this edit.
....... As to words like "widely," "numerous," and "several", they aren't subjective, but rather are reasonable editorial NPOV characterizations of how proliferate are the verbs or nouns to which they're appended, and they're understood by most everyone who understands English. I also recognize that reasonable people can disagree about which, if any, to use.
....... As to "numerous [authors, including several scholars, ...]" a specific number is inappropriate and unprovable, and a specific mention of all the authors is inappropriate--but a total of ten examples are given in the footnotes (five refs directly attached and five additional refs in the second paragraph) in support of the words "numerous" and "including several scholars", The point of the words "including several scholars" is to make clear that it's not just willy-nilly commentators making accusations.
....... The point of the word "widely" in the second sentence of the article, about CCD being widely associated with the mentioned classes of advocacy groups, was to be cautious while still making clear that many authors have made these associations, not just a few. I agree this sentence could be further improved, and I think this edit was arguably an improvement, after which the sentence read: "Climate change denial has been associated mainly with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks.[1][2][3][4][5]" When I returned the lead to the last version in which a bunch of us were involved in editing and commenting (plus the paragraph you added), I believe I slightly reduced the sentence's quality, and am willing to immediately go with you on that choice, hoping other editors will too.
....... The point of the words "the main cause" [of present-day global warming] is to make clear that the scientific consensus is that human activity is the primary cause of global warming, not just "a significant cause" (here), the word significant also being a term of art in statistical methods and scientific research which would not accurately capture what the scientific consensus is.
....... As to the sentence Nigel was talking about, I agree with him that the point of the sentence was almost completely lost in this edit. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please look again, and you should see that I did not remove the sentence at all. I moved it up a paragraph. "Widely," "numerous," and "several" strike me as epitomizing subjectivity, so I'm not sure how you dispute that. If not please do say how to determine that the term is "widely" used in any particular sense. I believe it is quite clear that the term is narrowly used in certain senses, at least in that I'm certain skeptics or conservatives with regard to environmental regulation would avoid the term. If there are authoritative sources which state this then it is sourced, but the statements are nonetheless subjective, and otherwise should be avoided in favor of factual statements.

As far as human activity being the "main cause," I think that is a more general statement than a group of scientists would sign on to. That aside, it puts the cart before the horse, in that we are talking here about "climate change denial," not "anthropogenic climate change denial." Isn't the main point that there is global warming, at least with regard to this topic, and secondly that humans are having an impact on recent trends? I would think we need something more specific, perhaps like "The scientific consensus is that human activity has been the main contributor to a trend of warming over the last 50 years." This is quickly based on Climate change consensus. The basis of my change was to focus on the consensus that there is warming, though perhaps we could include both points. Mackan79 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction about not having removed the sentence. I now see you integrated into the previous paragraph. As to quantifiers such as "widely", numerous and "several", they do not "epitomize subjectivity". Rather, they are general quantifiers suitable to include by consensus in a lead section, summary paragraph or sentence where it's impractical or unprovable to use an exact number, or impractical to specifically name all or many examples of the members of a plural or mass noun or exactly how many instances exist of a verb (e.g., how many authors have asserted proposition A). As I said, plenty of citations are given in support of these general quantifiers right in the lead. As I also said, I recognize reasonable people can disagree about which, if any, to use. As to the sentence about the current scientific consensus, I have no objection to rephrasing the sentence so long as it continues to reasonably accurately summarize the scientific consensus. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding subjectivity, my point is only that it is better to avoid such terms where there are reasons to. I think this is a well-recognized principle seen, i.e., in WP:SUBSTANTIATE. "Widely" in particular could mean anything, you must see. Normally Wikipedia articles rely on secondary sources which define a term and the way it is used; a statement like that is worth a lot (if we had any sources noting that this term is widely used in any specific way), but 10 sources chosen indiscriminately does not at all denote to me "wide" usage in any objective sense. There is also the fact that a substantial percentage (at least 25% from what I can tell) of the discussion of this term in reliable sources is to say that it is used inappropriately and should be avoided. I could easily present 10 sources to this effect. Surely, then, we can find ways to make the necessary points that are made by the reliable sources, without including assessments they do not make. Incidentally, I have seen two sources that do note the extent of the term's usage, but in both cases as evidence of a propaganda campaign to intimidate skepticism. It is a contentious statement to make, whether intended as such or not, but one that should be easy to fix. Mackan79 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

All fair enough. What's needed then, is something that's agreed by participating editors to be an improvement. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You ask "Isn't that the main point here?" Well, no, it isn't, since we're talking about denial of the whole kit and caboodle. As Clive Hamilton brilliantly describes the Denier's credo:

There is no evidence of global warming. If there is evidence of global warming, then it is not due to human activity. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, then it is not going to be damaging. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, and it is going to be damaging, then the costs of avoiding it are too high, so we should do nothing.

I think the scientific consensus on the cause of the recent warming being almost entirely fossil fuel originated CO₂ is clear. If you want to contest this, please do some research and come back with solid, sourced arguments to avoid wasting time and space here. ► RATEL ◄ 06:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, the question is simply whether we have jumped over the first point on the way to the second. The IPCC states: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human actions are very likely the cause of global warming (probability ≥ 90%)." We say "The scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the main cause of present-day global warming." Note how they address the first point first, but we don't. Presumably this should be fixed. I can propose this: "There is nearly unanimous agreement among climate scientists that global warming is occurring, and that human behavior is the main cause." Does that work? Mackan79 (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see: ""There is nearly unanimous (>95%) agreement among climate scientists that global warming is occurring, and that the human behavior, such as the burning of fossil fuels, is the main cause." ► RATEL ◄ 11:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how intent you would be on the two additions. That the agreement is over 95% is an very specific statement, which seems to me confusingly similar to the IPCC statement, but without a specific source to that point that I'm aware of. As far as giving the example of fossil fuels, well, is that necessary? I don't see what it adds of specific relevance to this topic. (Are there people who agree it is human activity but don't attribute anything to fossil fuels? Are those denialists?) Mackan79 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the point of saying fossil fuel or 50 years or 95% or anything like that. There's links for that sort of thing and the precise details aren't important in this article. The 'main' versus 'contributes to' distinction is rather important though. 01:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Potentially useful article on problem of contrived balance in reporting

This article could be useful for discussion. It doesn't seem to mention denial by name, but it is referenced as a discussion of climate change denial in this book by Simon Dalby. The authors seem to be this Jules Boykoff and this Maxwell Boykoff. This could add another element to the article. Mackan79 (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article, more suitable for Global warming controversy perhaps. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

has been described as "deeply pejorative," and

I took this out. Something so controversial needs good sources to go in. I'd have no objection to it being included, *if* you can find good sources. As to the "rarely used by" that seems fair enough to me. It too has no sources but I don't care, it is "obvious" William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article attributes that later on to

North, Richard D. (2005-06-30). "Web Review: Why do people become climate change deniers?". The Social Affairs Unit. http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000485.php. Retrieved 2010-03-19.

He also distinguishes between skeptics and deniers and has no problem applying the term to people he considers deniers Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added this in, with two refs to show it is a pejorative mark nutley (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What it is should be given first. That some people consider it pejorative is an attribute. And there's no need to start comparing it to the Theory of Evolution or whatever so as to get all the creationist crackpots against climate change on religious grounds. Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to where the deeply pejorative was but without a citation to North. The change by Marknutley had two citations

"Sceptical about climate change name calling".

"Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech".

Possibly the first is a reliable source, not sure about the second. The first quotes Noprth for the pejorative bit. The bit about deniers not wanting to be called deniers isn;'t cited but we do have things saying skeptics don't want to be identified with deniers in the first cite. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are two sources directly referring to it as a pejorative. Two others are Richard North,[1] and Christopher Horner.[2] I used "deeply pejorative" in the lead only because some insisted on attributing this outside of the first sentence, and in doing so it sounds a bit absurd just to say that "some writers consider the term to be a pejorative," as if anyone would say otherwise. Serendipitously, the description of it as "deeply pejorative" by Richard North is noted by Brendan O'Neill,[3] meaning in terms of WP:NOR that we have a secondary source noting that it has been described in this way. Yes, I'm sure someone will disagree anyway. Mackan79 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify one point, Brendan O'Neill has two pieces on this. In Spiked he notes Richard North's usage of "deeply pejorative." In The Guardian he quotes Charles Jones to argue that it is "powerfully pejorative."[4] Meanwhile, Christopher Horner cites O'Neill's usage of "powerfully pejorative."[5] I suppose this would support us in using "deeply" or "powerfully," both with secondary sources. (I would prefer to attribute all of this in the text, or put it in the first sentence, neither of which in my mind denigrates the reality of the phenomenon, but of course others have disagreed). Mackan79 (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fine as long as it's properly attributed and balanced against other views (if they exist). The main problem is that the passive voice is evil. "The term has been described" leaves us wondering "who described it thus?" (some journalists? scientists? liberals? conservatives? communists? Rastafarians?...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the passive voice at all; it's one reason I've criticized the removal of all in-text attributions from the lead. You may notice that at this point basically the whole first paragraph is written in the passive voice. Ideally, I think we should move it back to where it was in the first sentence. That had stated: "Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior." We have above four writers, in five sources, noting that it is pejorative. It seems to me that a basic misunderstanding of what it means to be pejorative is leading some to think the term suggests that something somehow isn't real. To the contrary, the meaning here is very specific, that this term has a specific connotation of duplicity which is central to its meaning. This is entirely different from Holocaust denial or other topics, primarily in that a stupid person who denies the Holocaust is still a Holocaust denier, but a stupid person who denies global warming is not what is generally referred to as a "Climate change denier." People nevertheless seem to feel that acknowledging the pejorative meaning of the term somehow suggests it is just an abusive epithet with no real meaning. The reality, I believe, is that the clearest way to define this term is to note that it is a pejorative term for people who downplay global warming. That said, I am willing to attribute it however necessary. However, Ratel has now removed it again in its entirety, along with more hyper-politicized edits like this. Mackan79 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for us to insert value judgements about whether the term "cc denial" is pejorative or not. I simply find it accurate, as in, if the cap fits, wear it. In any event, you could possibly argue that "cc denialist or denier" is a pejorative term, but not the concept of cc denial per se. ► RATEL ◄ 06:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To say that there is no value judgment in "Climate change denial" seems willfully blind. Dozens of sources note the value judgment, those who use the term as much as anyone else. This is why I have noted that even Monbiot clarifies that he uses the term only for those who act according to illicit motives. Saying the term lacks a value judgment is not viable, any more than ignoring the several sources which specifically note that the term is pejorative. This is very well sourced at this point. Your comment that O'Neill only "quotes" North is also off point. O'Neill is obviously quoting North to illustrate the point, and himself calls the term "powerfully pejorative" in another piece. Per WP:NOR, see here, this is exactly what Wikipedia looks for. The question isn't how we personally would use the phrase, as I'm sure you know, but what is said about it in reliable sources. Also, I would hope you could see that the fact that someone says they are a "right winger" (a term that means different things in different places) is not a reason for Wikipedia to quote them on this every time they are mentioned. Mackan79 (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You raise two points:

1. You have a few conservative commentators who predictably think it's a nasty term with which to label someone. But what about the neutral position, in other words if the person or organisation so labelled actually is doing those acts that comprise CCDenial, as defined, is it pejorative or merely accurate? If you tell lies and I call you a liar, am I using a pejorative or am I simply truth-telling?
2. If you want to give an extensive quote from someone, as with North, you should inform the reader of his perspective. That's what any good article would do. ► RATEL ◄ 07:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that everyone thinks this is a nasty term with which to label someone. The comparison is not to words like "liar," or "murderer," which denote bad things, but to words that aside from their denotation also connote bad things. This seems like about as classic a case as you could have, which I think is also shown by the reliable sources. Where they aren't explicit about it, as Monbiot is, and aside from those who specifically note that it is pejorative, they say it like it is obvious. See, for example, Bjorn Lomborg: "The increasing rhetoric of what Hulme calls 'fear, terror and disaster' is also polarizing the political debate on global warming to the extent that it incapacitates any sensible dialogue. This is perhaps no more clear than in the growth of the phrase 'climate change denier,' which as of this writing now has more than 21,000 hits on Google.'"[6] I know he is criticizing the term, and doesn't approve of it, but the fact remains that this is what those familiar with the term recognize it to mean. Of course some here want to be clear that it is not only because of this term that to deny climate change is a bad thing. But the writers are clear, including Monbiot when he says that he reserves it for those who are paid. He comments, "The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped." He does not hold all of them responsible, and would not call them deniers, and for that reason I cannot see him possibly disputing that the term is pejorative. Others may disagree, but that's how he uses it. It's also one of the reasons you're incorrect when you supposed I disagree with him; I think he is quite nuanced in a way that I wish others would emulate, although of course that is neither here nor there. Mackan79 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Connotative meanings are subjective, we should stick to the denotative meanings. I think you will not find anyone center or left who sees it as pejorative. Monbiot's feelings about it still only describe his particular interpretation (still not pejorative —ie meant to disparage— but rather classificatory). I think if you want to say it's seen as pejorative, you need to say by whom, in a general sense, i.e. conservatives. That way it can go uncited into the lead, with the details in the body. ► RATEL ◄ 08:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that 'pejorative' should not be put into the first sentence. What 'climate change denial' is should be up front, not that it can be applied in a pejorative way. That it is misapplied to sceptics is also important and mentioned in the article and could be mentioned in the summary after the straightforward bits. As to people who the term is correctly applied to, why don't they just go and do something else? Are we really supposed to worry about it being pejorative to call a cigarette company PR man who says cigarettes are good for you a denier for instance? Are we just supposed to applaud the good PR? Perssonally I'm quite happy to call any cigarette smoker who says there's nothing wrong with it despite being shown the blackened lungs of a smoker who's died from emphysema a denier. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Source 1: [7] from Social Affairs Unit, (Times says "The Social Affairs Unit is famous for driving its coach and horses through the liberal consensus scattering intellectual picket lines as it goes [and] for raising questions which strike most people most of the time as too dangerous or too difficult to think about.") It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". (Richard D. North) Source 2: [8] the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust. Thus specific cite for specific phrase "deeply pejorative" and a slew of cites stating that use of the term per se may well be offensive to Jews. Collect (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Couple of blog posts, even by notable people, don't justify adding it to the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There are five separate pieces above, including one in the Guardian and a book. I will have to look at this again later. Mackan79 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, it is all individual opinion. Searching for more, is only going to get you a confirmation bias. Attribution is the key here - unless we find a assessment or authoritative source for it, all it can come to is "some believe it to be pejorative" (which is kind of obvious). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Which is kind of obvious." Please read the discussion and you will see that is what was written and that is what was removed. You may also see that there are many reason to recognize that the term is pejorative, including the statements of those who use the term. Incidentally, an exceedingly small portion of the article, if any, is based on any "authoritative source." Mackan79 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious from the early links between denial and climate change like [9] that denial is just a straight description. There is no reason to stop the use of denial as a general term for this sort of behaviour. It is used in the term 'holocaust denial' but that is no reason to then stop using it for anything else it is applicable to. Holocaust denial is called that because it is a clear description of what happens. Holocaust deniers are not holocaust skeptics and being a skeptic about it is an untenable position. Being a skeptic about climate change is still tenable to some extent but it is quite a different business to being a denier. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"There is no reason to stop the use of denial as a general term for this sort of behaviour." Dmcq, please stop soap boxing about your personal views; that is not how Wikipedia content gets written. Wikipedians' views on how we should use the term are not relevant. The statements of reliable sources on how the term is used are what go in the article. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion when editors continue to ignore this very basic distinction. Mackan79 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks. I showed an early example from 1990 of the use of the term denial in climate change from the Wahington Post. Dmcq (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have unfortunately been at a loss to get some editors to focus on what the reliable sources say, rather than what they believe the term should mean. Thank you for bringing another source to the discussion, but I must note that this still looks a lot like original synthesis. That people could have used the term simply in the clinical sense of denial does not mean that is how the term has generally been used, or that it is the only way the term has been used. From what I have seen very few people if any use this term to suggest a psychological condition, no value judgment involved. The predominant use is for those who are acting not out of personal confusion but out of financial motives; that is not the traditional meaning of denial, but a specific meaning which has been laid out by numerous reliable sources. This is why I suggest that we need to look at reliable sources that actually discuss the usage of the term, including those who specifically describe it as pejorative, and those who explain what they mean by the term. We might keep in mind what the term could mean, but certainly it does not override what reliable sources clearly state about what it does mean and how it is used. Mackan79 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I advocate definitely keeping the word "pejorative" out of the lead, perhaps even out of the article completely. "Denial" describes a behavior, and therefore isn't a pejorative even if the person to whom the behavior is ascribed doesn't agree with that characterization of their stated opinions or behavior. Even when altered to "denier" or "denialist", it doesn't begin to approach, e.g., what's in Category:Pejorative_terms_for_people. The issue of one or more commentators having made implicit or explicit associations with, e.g. holocaust denial or AIDS denial, is already dealt with in the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If the term has been described in an RS as "deeply pejorative" (as it has, and not just in a blog) then it is incumbent on WP to state it. Indeed, to erase it from an article disserves readers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. One or two sources that characterized the word, say, "denier" or "denialist" as pejorative, doesn't mean that source automatically gets to have their way over the definition and contextualizing of the phrase in this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that it is a lot more than "one or two sources" and that the sources are RS by WP standards, your point fails. Try well over 20,000 hits on "'climate change denial' pejorative" to start with. We are well advised, even when we disagree with a point, to make sure it is properly presented in any article. Collect (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Once it's over 1000 hits, Google just makes up the numbers. See WP:GOOGLE and the references therein. As for "one or two sources" - you mentioned two blog posts. I was simply commenting that two blog posts don't change anything. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For the search terms ["climate change denial" pejorative] the initial result says "about 25,400". But when I flip through the pages looking for meaningful sources I get stopped at 138 results, some of which are mirror sites that remain in the Google cache reflecting when this very WP article read:"Climate change denial is a term, often used as a pejorative... ". Examples are here, here with an obsolete cache version, here, here, here, here, here, here, here is a blog quoting the WP article, here and here are ads that quote the beginning of the WP article. Here's a quote of beginning of the WP article in a link farm. Some of them, such as this have pejorative appearing only in links which point to the site. And, of course, there's the cached version of the WP article itself. AFAICT, most of the rest of the 138 are blogs and such. And when I try paging through for meaningful content with the "omitted results included", I get 221 results AFAICT, very few or none of them are meaningful for our purposes here. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am looking through various sources to try to find a way to move this forward. In the meanwhile, it occurs to me that a very apt analogy may exist with the term Conspiracy theory. The reasons why they are prominently regarded to have a pejorative meaning, without that somehow suggesting that the underlying condition does not exist, seem quite similar Mackan79 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing it's not taken as an insult. But if that's really one of the primary issues here, it needs to be discussed as such by reliable sources. Otherwise, putting it in the lead creates WP:WEIGHT issues. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My point too. It is described as pejorative in reliable sources but that has to be treated with due weight. Saying 'climate change denial is a pejorative...' is simply wrong on weight grounds. It is not mainly a pejorative term used to insult people. It is mainly a term for describing the denial of climate change same as the cigarette lobby denied the health effects of cigarettes, Dmcq (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To say it's a pejorative term doesn't mean it's just used to insult people, though. It just means the term has negative connotations. Big tobacco is a pejorative term, as we say. That doesn't make the term less reasonable, and it certainly doesn't change whether academics will document a disinformation campaign akin to any other. The problem is that we can't have it both ways. Opponents of this movement/position/whatever-one-calls-it have successfully made "climate change denial" a pejorative term, meaning something negative, meaning that our article here is entirely focused on a disinformation campaign. Good for them; for a while on this page I believe there were a number of skeptics who disagreed, but the definition stayed. But you can't then go back and deny that the term means anything negative at all. The sources aren't simply saying that the people disagree with the climate science; to suggest that is flatly wrong. The term is just as much a pejorative, if not more so, than terms like Big tobacco or Conspiracy theory. As far as reliable sources, I believe that all of these qualify, but editors might consider particularly O'Neill's piece in the Guardian.[10] I would say in any case that it is "generally pejorative" or "generally considered pejorative." Otherwise I would add a sentence to the first paragraph noting that it has been described as such, if we actually think there is disagreement on the point. The sources are certainly not fringe, there are several of them, and they are exceedingly clear in this appraisal. Personally I continue to think that by not noting the pejorative meaning of the term, we are failing to provide an accurate definition. Mackan79 (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is tantamount to saying that any term critical of another's behavior is a pejorative. This one isn't, at least not inherently--it's an accurate descriptor of what in fact some persons and groups are doing. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm saying. Pejorative terms are not "inherently" such; what makes them "pejorative" is the way in which they are used, and the implications that are intended and received. This is equally true for Big tobacco and Conspiracy theory. I have no idea what "any term critical of another's behavior" would include, but words that imply something negative are pejorative. In any case: why do you think that several sources are saying this incorrectly, and on what basis do you say that they are incorrect? I don't believe Brendan O'Neill is on record as being called a denier, yet he writes in the Guardian that the term is pejorative. How can this be disregarded? Mackan79 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(In case it matters, Brendan O'Neill is a global warming contrarian and is hostile toward environmentalism in general. See http://www.spiked-online.com, which is his online magazine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC))

Does that claim matter, Boris? I would appreciate if you offered an opinion on the kind of impartiality you expect to see from sources in this article, if you think this is a relevant point. The trouble is that editors have popped in with comments like this before, but then they don't follow up to clarify what standard they would like to see. For instance, if you or others would exclude Brendan O'Neill writing in the Guardian, then that would seem to call into question the majority of this article. Am I missing something? (Added: Reading your other comments, I may be able to surmise you are making a fairly narrow point that I might accept. Anyway, the question stands for you or others.) Mackan79 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Um. Well, you did bring up the point "I don't believe Brendan O'Neill is on record as being called a denier..." etc. so I thought (incorrectly, it appears) that you might be curious where he's coming from. I never said I'd exclude O'Neill; please don't read things into my comments that I did not say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems: 1) the placement of the sentence discussing pejorative and 2) the sources of these claims. For placement, several editors feel it is not lead-worthy, me included. For sources, we have conservative commentators. So it's a one sided claim for the pejorative aspects of being called a "denier" (which still has nothing to do with the phenomenon of climate change denial). It appears that there is a movement afoot to make people self-conscious about applying this perfectly apt and descriptive phrase to those who engage in denialism, as defined by Hoofnagle. Your insistence on prime placement for the protestations of conservative mouthpieces, who would fain defend such denialists, is may be construed by some as part of this movement. In any event, it should be resisted. ► RATEL ◄ 03:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that the term is pejorative or that the people toward whom it is applied (understandably) don't like it. It just needs to be properly sourced clearly attributed in the text (not "some have said..." or whatever). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the body of the article and cited to the partisan sources. We're talking about elevating it into the lead. ► RATEL ◄ 09:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy for it to be put in instead of 'The term and is rarely used by those to whom it is applied'. I was objecting to it being put before anything else. Something like "The term is seen as deeply pejorative when applied to climate change sceptics" plus a cite to O'Neill and someone else would be fine by me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs)

For convenience I'll repeat part of my comment above. For the search terms ["climate change denial" pejorative] the initial result says "about 25,400". But when I flip through the actual results I get stopped at 138 results, a number of which are nothing but mirror sites that remain in the Google cache reflecting when this very WP article read:"Climate change denial is a term, often used as a pejorative... ". Examples are here, here with an obsolete cache version, here, here, here, here, here, here, here is a blog quoting the WP article, here and here are ads that quote the beginning of the WP article. Here's a quote of beginning of the WP article in a link farm. Some of them, such as this have pejorative appearing only in links which point to the site. And, of course, there's the cached version of the WP article itself. AFAICT, most of the rest of the 138 are blogs and such. And when I try paging through for meaningful content with the "omitted results included", I get 221 results, the additional ones appearing to me to be nothing more than duplications. AFAICT, very few or none of them are meaningful for our purposes here.
...... Where's the previously alleged wide swath of material in support of characterizing the phrase as a pejorative? We've got one--maybe two, and that's stretching things-- commentators in media that meet a minimum WP:RS standard. So what? And one of them is [quite reasonably in my view] already included in the very first section of the body text of the article, from which position in the article it reasonably speaks for others who think similarly. To say it again in the lead, would, IMO, widely deviate from appropriate WP:WEIGHT. And for us as WP editors to presume, without a lot of evidence in support, to say something like "the term is seen as pejorative" brings us right back around full circle to the beginning of this talk thread. Because when the question "who said this?" is asked, the answer is, essentially, O'Neill (and a few others who see it similarly) said it. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe a Google search for this specific word is a good metric. We have five sources, two from O'Neill, which would generally qualify as WP:RS by my understanding, which specifically say that it is a pejorative term. Some seem to want a "neutral" source to say this, but the truth is I am not sure we have a single "neutral" source in this article. So perhaps we are looking for a sort of "statement against interest," where someone who approves of the word acknowledges that it has a pejorative meaning. It seems quite clear to me that Monbiot has done exactly that, when he says that he uses it not for the average person who has been duped, but only for those who deny climate change out of financial motives. It doesn't appear he has used the word "pejorative"; obviously as an opinion writer it is not something you would expect him to have the opportunity to say, since he is not really providing a detached analysis of the term. We are supposed to be providing such a detached analysis. So we have the one side who uses the term, and the other side who vehemently opposes it (this specific issue is also clearly not majoritarian vs. fringe, as I think any analysis of the sources will show). Is it a fair balance to acknowledge that the term is pejorative, as we explain what it means? That's the question we're dealing with, I think. Mackan79 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree a Google search isn't a good metric, but it was just put forward as a dispositive argument on the issue of whether to characterize this topic as constituting a pejorative. As to conservative commentators North and O'Neill-- as I said, "so what?". North already gets very liberal treatment in the first section, arguably more than his commentary deserves-- reason being, there's no objective evidence that, as North says, the phrase is designed to evoke images of Holocaust denial. Rather, what's documented is a relationship between CCD and tobacco lobbyists, business interests, the energy lobby and the libertarian think-tank sphere (the last of which North is well known to be an integral part). In this light, calling it a pejorative is nothing more than a smokescreen that amounts to saying "we're not denying", So again, so what? North does, though, make the point well for anybody who's inclined to cry "foul" when the phrase "climate change denial" or its close derivations are invoked, and therefore it's reasonable as I said to include this perspective in the first section of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We often say that terms are pejorative, without considering it a political smokescreen. We say it for Big tobacco, which clearly exists and is widely recognized to have done bad things irrespective of that term being a pejorative term. If you look at Conspiracy theory, you will see that we do not simply explain that conspiracy theories are often paranoid delusions, before then explaining lower in the article, "Oh right, and the term now has a generally pejorative meaning." We don't do this, because if you are presenting the negative meanings of a term, it is obviously central to a NPOV presentation to note that the meaning of the term is the basis for the negative presentation. Unfortunately it happens to be that critics of the term note that it is pejorative, so some editors now perceive it as a talking point that we should resist in any way possible. There is a kernel of truth, that we should not present something in a way that bolsters one side in an argument, but it is being taken here beyond all reason. Ultimately, what you are proposing is extraordinary: that in an article on a term all about political claims in political sources, we should severely deprecate a central perception of the term by a highly notable set of writers (compared to anything else in this article) on the ground that they are political. I think we need to find a better option. Mackan79 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone have a citation for North's "pejorative" critique so people can read it? Presently it merely links to http://richarddnorth.com/ . .... Kenosis (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I clicked on the link and it took me to the correct place [11] Dmcq (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is "Denialism" a topic of academic study?

I'm personally unclear on the background of this term, and its level of notability. We say here that Mark Hoofnagle is cited for having developed the concept of "denialism." How broadly accepted is this concept? I don't mean to express skepticism toward the concept itself, which seems interesting in some ways. On the other hand it seems to be a rather bold idea, to recast public recalcitrance or ignorance on certain issues as a kind of pernicious socio-political phenomenon. So perhaps I do wonder if this concept has a large following. Does anyone here know whether "denialism" is widely accepted among academics as a breakthrough in understanding social patterns? Mackan79 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Google Scholar, or Amazon. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I could research it myself. To be a little more specific, though, my question is about the independent concept of denialism as a concept set apart from any specific issue. Clearly Holocaust denial has a well-established history, as to a lesser extend does AIDS denialism. Hoofnagle's role seems to have been to suggest an overriding trend, which he simply refers to as "denialism." He seems in particular to be focused on issues relating to science. We present his writing as significant here, and as having developed this concept. I may look it up, but I wonder if others would have a better perspective on whether this is well supported. Mackan79 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly I looked up Google books and it gave me an 1865 pamphlet by a homeopathic doctor where he accused the medical profession of denialism about homeopathy! Denial is an established study in psychology but it looks to me like denialism has only very recently been recognized as a notable subject in itself. 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Where did you get the idea that it means "public recalcitrance or ignorance"? It most definitely is not that. Re-look at the Hoofnagle definition. ► RATEL ◄ 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that's what the term meant. But what is it really, political charlatanry? Maybe I'm surprised we needed a new word. I would be interested to know if there is some academic angle on this, although I don't exactly get that feeling. I do see we have an article on denialism, which seems to include anything where anyone uses that word as if it all refers to a single theory. Mackan79 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Denialism is the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none, per Hoofnagle. This is backed up by the 2009 academic paper Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? by Diethelm & McKee. It is a new concept, I'll give you that, made a little confusing by the recent publication of a book by Michael Specter called Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, in which he defines it somewhat differently as "willingness to replace the rigorous and open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment". Hoofnagle's definition is what we're currently using here. ► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And as my reference to 'denialism' from 1865 shows it is hardly a new word, though I think that old reference refers more to psychological denial. And this article isn't about public recalcitrance or ignorance as the very first sentence makes clear. Dmcq (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I suggested that the topic of denialism posits a "pernicious socio-political phenomenon" as the explanation for public recalcitrance and ignorance, not the other way around. I might also suggest it seems intent on co-opting the associations that people have with certain specific types of denial, for association with other unrelated topics. But honestly it seems a bit bizarre. Would anyone suggest that Holocaust denial or AIDS denialism arise from similar motives as the denial of climate change, or even use the same methods? If it is simply a comparison to the efforts of the tobacco lobby, as seems more plausible, then why is it called "denialism"? I'm trying to find a theory, but all I really see is a word, and maybe a pamphlet of things to watch out for. As far as social science goes, that seems rather backwards. Which I suppose is to ask if we should be treating this like social science in the first place. The newness of it does make it a bit difficult to deal with. Mackan79 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you changed the first sentence to correspond with what you thought the article was about. I have changed it back to 'attempts to' rather than 'views that'. The article is not about peoples' views, it is about what people have actually done. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

I think that this article should cover the fact that there is often a logical fallacy in climate change denial. Deniers frequently deny climate change because of the undesireable outcome. However the desireability of an outcome is not linked to its truth, eg in the example below:

1 I am going to the beach next Saturday 2 If it rains while I am at the beach it would spoil my day 3 Therefore it cannot rain next Saturday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like denial, and anyway it would be WP:original research without a citation. Wikipedia isn't about editors discussing things and putting in their own ideas, they need to already be in WP:reliable sources Dmcq (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know it needs citation, I don't need pedagogics about original research. What I am askiong is if anyone knows of any sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.219.239 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

New sources

This is a topical subject with good new sources always arriving. Perhaps we should list some here for possible use in the article. Here's one from today Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine ► RATEL ◄ 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if we ignore the BLP rules now in place. Polemical attacks do not qualify where BLP is involved. Collect (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Greenpeace is a RS, so this material is quite usable in this article, if atributed to them. ► RATEL ◄ 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Add? Bret Stephens: What's The Next 'Global Warming'? of the WSJ

Add? Bret Stephens: What's The Next 'Global Warming'? Bret Stephens of the WSJ ... same: http://sbk.online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165573845958914.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_journalreports 99.155.154.141 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Wall Street Journal does seem to have consistently plugged this line. I'm a bit surprised because the Financial Times takes a rather more dispassionate line, in fact I like the FT because it doesn't try to plug an angle, it is much better at a neutral point of view than most newspapers I feel. I think the WSJ does a disservice to its reader by pandering to its readers desires rather than sticking to the facts. You get the feeling most of its readers are more interested in feeling good than making money. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's quite a clever line for media denialists to try - Global warming was last year's mad cow disease; it's over now; so what's next? It's a media thing, like celebrity culture, where they think that they create the news, that they (the media) created global warming, so can now bury it and move on. Would that it were true! If it's just this one guy's shot in the dark, then it's not worldwide notable. If lots of them start peddling it, it might get a mention in some secondary source as a new form of denialism that's worth covering. --Nigelj (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wishful thinking on Mr. Stephen's part. Empirical evidence can be denied for only so long, but good luck to him! Arjuna (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Add? [12] from Fortune (magazine) "12-April-2010" hardcopy.

Add "Myth #17: Climate-change critics like to point out that the weather has gotten cooler over the past decade, so how can there be global warming? Reality: According to a new study by NASA, the past decade was the warmest on record since the 1880's." page 108 of Fortune (magazine) http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1003/gallery.green_myths.fortune/17.htm? 99.27.174.187 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Add? Also from Fortune magazine issue (see above) Myth: Snowy winters equal no global warming. by The Donald (and some in the United States Congress).

"Myth #19: Snowy winters equal no global warming. Reality: Weather is not the same thing as climate, even though Donald Trump thinks it is. The Donald ribbed Al Gore to give back his Nobel Prize, citing the East Coast's record snowfalls. But climate scientists argue that bigger snowfalls are consistent with climate change because warmer temperatures mean more moisture evaporating into the atmosphere -- and therefore more rain and snow. "What these people are saying is, 'The thing that's happening to me right now is the only thing that's happening,'" says Jonathan Koomey, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Global patterns, experts argue, show an unmistakable rise in temperatures. Indeed, from a global point of view, this January was the fourth-warmest ever recorded. -- Dody tsiantar. and Joshua Brau. Add? 99.27.174.187 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Irrelevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Influencial climate change deniers

I think a list of denieirs who are often quoted in the mainstream media would be a good section. Gernerally, other aspects of their positions give them away as being easily discredited in other areas too. Many of their (often rediculous) arguments are pointed out in wiki articles. It seems this would also help show readers that there are an inordinate number of people, like racial supremisists and other fanatics, who tend to deny science facts. I'm thinking of those who get publicity without mention of their other questionable charactoristics and ideologies. People could look up the "listed deniers" and see their other incredible ideals. Again, many deniers have wiki articles with appropriate critisisms with references.
New section:→→
Influencial climate change deniers
This is a list of politicians, pundits and other notable non-scientific persons of influence who have claimed global warming is either a hoax, conspriacy or simply unreal.

• Jim Inhofe, US Senator (republican, Oklahoma)
• Don Blankenship, Chairman and CEO of Massey Energy the sixth largest coal company in the United States

172.131.8.108 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite irrelevant to the article, and not even a valid use of talk page space. Collect (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Add "Top Ten climate deniers"? [13]

Add "Top Ten climate deniers"? [14] 1. Sammy Wilson Northern Ireland environment minister 2. Václav Klaus President of Czech Republic 3.Steve Milloy Fox News columnist 4. Prof Pat Michaels Cato Institute 5. Christopher Monckton Former adviser to Margaret Thatcher 6. Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska, 2009 ... James Inhofe, David Bellamy ...  ? [15]15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.173.114 (talk)

Doesn't look like a WP:RS to me, and it's highly subjective and unencyclopedic. Nope. PhGustaf (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The original is published by The Guardian, here. It's a blog piece by George Monbiot, who is quite a notable writer. Whether his opinions and analysis carry enough WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, we can discuss. But this is a WP:RS for those opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Precedent on WP is that "Top Ten lists" are not factual statements but opinions at best. Monbiot's list, at best, can be ascribed as Monbiot's opinions - which scarecely makes the list relevent in this article, any more than Mr, Blackwood's list of "worst-dressed" would be relevant in an article on fashions. The aim is to write utile encyclopedia articles. Collect (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If any of these people are relevant to the subject they should be mentioned in the article. Lists are uninformative and just lead to disputes. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What of this grouping from Rolling Stone magazine called "The Climate Killers, Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming" by Tim Dickinson Posted Jan 06, 2010 8:00 AM [16] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/ 99.24.248.66 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial and Holocaust denial

I've read in a couple of sources recently that the phrase "climate change denial" came about from comments by a 60 Minutes environmental advisor and George Monbiot in which both compared AGW scepticism with Holocaust denial. The article does touch on this to some extent, but doesn't go into that great of detail. Anyway, it seems to me that the origin of the phrase should be mentioned in the lead, which I did (along with the IPCC's language), but it was reverted. Thoughts? Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1) I'd be interested to see the sources. 2) IMO, this edit is not accurately described as a mention of the origin of the phrase in the lead. 3) The IPCC language was "very likely", not "most likely"; but either way, I agree with the edit summary of KDP's revert. It appears to me "very likely" to be necessary to provide inline citation(s) for the statement about what is near-universally agreed among climate scientists, ... Kenosis (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, look, the term denial and denialism was used with AIDS (in South Africa) first, then also with tobacco. CC denial is about the 4th or 5th time it's been used. It may be seen as POV pushing to constantly search for sources that (erroneously) try to link it to holocaust denial in order to make it less acceptable. As to the origin of CCD phrase, it is uncertain, so speculation should be avoided, even cited speculation. ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot has said one is as bad as the other, Hansen has said trains carrying coal are "Death Trains" and that "Deniers" should get Nuremburg style trials. So don`t say that this term is not used to conjure up images of knuckle dragging Neanderthal`s, that is exactly why it is used. mark nutley (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's where Mr. Monbiot compared AGW scepticism to Holocaust denial, on 21 September 2006. I'll try to find sources for the other statements soon. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In an interview on the CBS News, website here, Scott Pelley compares AGW scepticism to Holocaust denial, on March 23, 2006. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, Ellen Goodman makes the comparison, 9 Feb 07. Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, Peter Christoff for The Age, makes the comparison on 9 Jul 07. Cla68 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, Joel Connelly for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer makes the comparison, 10 Jul 07. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything new here? All those refs have been discussed ad nauseam already? Why are you repeating them - do you think we're unaware? (despite that they are in the article?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So, that's five mentions in reliable sources, both in the UK, the US, and Australia. Now, why shouldn't this be mentioned in the lede? Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Because all of it is personal views of individuals. There is no question that some think that there is such a link - there is also no question that it is covered in the article. And there is also no question that paragraph 2 of the lead summarizes that particular coverage. There has been extensive discussions in here about whether or not to have this in the lead - have you read those discussions? Do you have anything new to bring to the table that hasn't already been discussed there? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, before there were four refs supporting the information, now there are five. The new one is Mr. Monbiot, an extremely well-known and quoted environmentalist and journalist. Isn't Holocaust denial the source of the use of the word, "denial" to represent those who are believd to deny something which is established fact? Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is still personal views, and no - it is not a new reference. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the discussions on this talk-page and the archives first? [hint: there are more references, which previously was included in the article - those that are left in the article have been those deemed most relevant]. And i do not believe that "holocaust denial" is the origin of the word. That would be "denial", which has a plain english (and psycological) meaning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well if the use of personal views in this article is "Not On" then the following refs should be removed, all of them, they all lead to peoples opinions. mark nutley (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you may want to consider whether that is what i was saying (here is a hint: It wasn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if that is not what you meant then why write Because all of it is personal views of individuals perhaps you could explain a bit more clearly what you meant by that? mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Extrapolating individual personal views into a generalized statement == WP:OR. Have you considered reading the archives? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then i refer you to my previous statement with regards to the other sources in this article, all of which are individual views generalized in written statements within the article, you can`t say one mans personal view is ok Adams or Monbiot for instance. but the other guys is not. mark nutley (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You have written exactly 4 comments here - none of them are referring to other "individual views generalized" that are used within the article. We can (and do) state what people's view are - if it is attributed and written so that it is clear that we are talking about individual viewpoints. I do not think that we have ever said that "one mans personal view is ok..... but the other guys is not" unless that persons view is relatively irrelevant for the particular issue. (weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you put it in the lead again ♪ "it's going to be ♫ re-ver-ted" ♪ ♫. ► RATEL ◄ 11:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "Again" I have yet to put it in. mark nutley (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really very helpful. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The tobacco lobby has killed lots more people since the link with lung cancer was established than the Holocaust ever did, and they do it for money or even just standing up for their companies rather than because they hate people. Climate change denial was originally linked to the denial by the tobacco lobby. So why is some people spouting off comparing it with the Holocaust so important it should go in the lead? Dmcq (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We have six+ references that apparently indicate that the use of the term "denialists" for climate change sceptics comes from the comparison of them with Holocaust deniers. Since this article is about the term, then its origin is important enough information to be included in the lede. By the way, I'm going to attribute in the article some of the notable environmentalists and journalists who have made the comparison. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a read of those references and none of them says climate change denial comes from comparison with Holocaust deniers. Please indicate exactly where any of them say such a thing. As best I can see the earliest comparison was with the tobacco lobby and quite a long time before Monbiot said anything on the subject. Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As to denialism the earliest reference to it I've found was in the mid ninteenth century by a homeopathic quack accusing the medical profession of denialism. Denial and denialism are well established terms. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer regarding the references is "the plural of anecdotes isn't data". These are all anecdotes, primary source opinions. In order to generalise, we need secondary sources. Otherwise it's just anecdotes. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying, could you phrase it more clearly please? I read no anecdotes in the references. Some of the references look like secondary sources to me. Plus I don't see this link between secondary sources and generalizing. Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda is stating much the same as what i did: You cannot generalize from individual opinions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t. the edit at 12:54 19 April 2010, by Cla68 (Edit summary = (→Meanings of the term: attrbute and add ref) ): This was not merely "attifbute and add ref" but rather was a major reorganization of the "Meanings of the term" section which put the hot-button comparisons with Holocaust denial up front before the documented connections of organized climate-change denial to earlier efforts involving tobacco-industry and energy-industry advocates, etc.
Here's the context of the two sources Cla68 added, one of which was to George Monbiot who was already cited to exactly the same source in the same context:
--Montopoli, Brian, (blog commentary) "Scott Pelley And Catherine Herrick On Global Warming Coverage" (CBS News, March 23, 2006).

"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?" He says his team tried hard to find a respected scientist who contradicted the prevailing opinion in the scientific community, but there was no one out there who fit that description. "This isn't about politics or pseudo-science or conspiracy theory blogs," he says. "This is about sound science."

--George Monbiot (2006-09-21). "George Monbiot: The threat is from those who accept climate change, not those who deny it-- Comment is free" (London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-03-19). The relevant passage, after arguing that anthropogenic GW is a well-documented reality is:

"Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial. But I'm not celebrating yet. The danger is not that we will stop talking about climate change, or recognising that it presents an existential threat to humankind. The danger is that we will talk ourselves to kingdom come. If the biosphere is wrecked . . . "

So my first question would be: "Since comparisons by several to Holocaust denial were already mentioned, why not just add the two sources in keeping with the edit summary?" or alternately, "Why not give a reasonably accurate edit summary such as, for example, 'reorganizing section and adding two sources?' " ... Kenosis (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit here with the edit summary "(Undid revision 356977336 by Cla68. The Scott Pelley source is grossly erroneous and misleading, Monbiot's already cited for the comparison. Undoing reorganization & rewrite of section.)" I'm not opposed to reorganizing the material in the section on "Meanings of the term", but IMO such a reorganization and rewrite should be justified on the talk page and taken one or two substantive steps at a time, giving due credence to the prior work of multiple editors who put some serious effort into writing and organizing this rather difficult and controversial material. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and making that edit after Kim had explained the OR problems... There's a difference between an innocent mistake and doing something wrong after you've been made aware of the problem. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(re Dmcq) What we have here are a series of examples of people making the comparison. Four are primary source, one is a secondary source, but since it simply reports the comment without commentary, it functions pretty much the same as would a primary source.

• Monbiot: climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial
• Brian Montopoli :Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
• Goodman: Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
• Peter Christoff: I use that analogy [of Holocaust denial] 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.
• Joel Connelly:Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.

All of these are examples of use, anecdotal evidence. We can only use these as examples of what certain individuals said (and to use the Pelley quote to say that he made the comparison would be misleading - his comment is clearly hyperbole). We aren't interested in individual comments, the anecdotes. We're only interested in generalisations. "CC denial has been compared to Holocaust denial". And that is only worth saying if it's widespread.

It's impossible to make a meaningful generalisation from cherry-picked comments like these. A statement about usage cannot be made in a meaningful way from just a handful of comments. And we cannot extract that data. That would be OR. We'd need a reliable source that has made an attempt to generalise usage. If we want to generalise about usage, we need a secondary source that does makes the generalisation. It cannot be done (at least not done properly) from anecdotal evidence like this. And we can't do it ourselves. Guettarda (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I can see for definite that none of those supports '... and has been interpreted as trying to link global warming scepticism with Holocaust denial.' They just did the comparison and that was that. Only the reference to North supports that the term was designed to forge such a link 'This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial'. Personally I think North is wrong about that, I've seen no evidence he is right and believe he just made it up but it is a cite. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it is not just North. Bjorn Lomborg states, for instance: "The semantic invocation of Holocaust deniers is often explicit and certainly represents a strong symbolic undercurrent."[17] I'm not sure what language is being discussed for the lead, though generally I've thought that specific point does not need to be made there. The statement that it is not used by those to whom it is replied, while leaving off the very well supported statement that it is pejorative, continues to make the article look rather absurd, but I'll have to get back to that. Mackan79 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What the original poster was trying to put in was the '... and has been interpreted as trying to link global warming scepticism with Holocaust denial.' after the business about that it isn't used by those to whom it is applied. What you quote from Bjorn Lomborg doesn't support it either. And none of them supports that it isn't used by those to whom it is applied. A statement that some people consider it pejorative would I believe be better okay and at least is supportable. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That has been done, and you reverted it out [18] mark nutley (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Add? "Don't trust scientist data analysis, then do your own ... See current issue of Make (magazine) hardcopy page 26 "Data Mining: How to analyze scientific data"

Add? "Don't trust scientist data analysis, then do your own ... See current issue of Make (magazine)/Makezine.com harcdopy "Data Mining: How to analyze scientific data" by Forrest Mims III in Country Scientist, Page 26 [19] 99.60.126.63 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible, but is there evidence, or even data, showing that this magazine actually reviews its columns for accuracy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but it's not really about Climate Change denial, it's about how to make graphs and such from publicly available data.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One sided?

I think that this article is mostly just bashing the skeptics and not mentioning their side of the argument (which is believable too)

The article isn't supposed to be about skeptics. It is about people and corporations who go out of their way to deny it for their own reasons. Global warming controversy describes skeptics arguments against global warming. There's a number of other articles too so one of them may be more on what you're trying to look up, the 'see also' section of this article points to some. Dmcq (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources that can be used for new material

1) See this Reuters report Climate Debate Gets Ugly, printed today. It's an absolute gold mine of new material for the article. ► RATEL ◄ 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. Did you read the comments after it as well? They really show up the level of acrimony about it. Dmcq (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The comments are as expected. The article is a useful source, the comments are not. --Nigelj (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you mention a Reuters article. I found this great quote in another: "An increase of up to 4 degrees Celsius has been felt across the Arctic in the past 30 years. While some scientists put it down to fluctuating weather patterns, environmentalist groups say it is caused by global warming due to human activity." I sourced it from here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7129137/russian-pm-putin-orders-arctic-cleanup/ I figure, it could be used as an example of media bias regarding global warming, given the scientific consensus is that mankind caused global warming and this article is cleverly worded to make people think it is the other way around.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You won't find that claim backed up in published studies. ► RATEL ◄ 15:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate it when people say 'up to'. Anyway that has nothing to do with this article, please keep on topic. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2) New report in The Weekly Standard from the other end of the spectrum, called "In Denial". It's a useful look at the partisan argument by right-winger Steven F. Hayward of the ExxonMobil-funded American Enterprise Institute. The current checklist of conservative talking points is presented; the summary is that the global warming "movement" is in disarray. It also has the interesting quote:

Greenpeace, which should be regarded as the John Birch Society of the environmental movement, is filing its own Freedom of Information Act and state public record act requests to obtain private emails and documents from university-based climate skeptics such as Christy, Pat Michaels (University of Virginia), David Legates (University of Delaware), and Willie Soon (Harvard University/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), hoping to stir up a scandal commensurate with Climategate by hyping a supposed nefarious link between such researchers and energy companies. Greenpeace has sent letters to nongovernmental skeptics and organizations requesting that they submit to polygraph examinations about their role in or knowledge of the “illegally hacked” CRU emails. “We want to do our part,” Greenpeace’s letter reads, “to help international law enforcement get to the bottom of this potentially criminal act by putting some basic questions to people whose bank accounts, propaganda efforts or influence peddling interests benefitted from the theft.”

► RATEL ◄ 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a good polemical piece. I like the way in another part of it he sticks skeptics and deniers together to support both without saying why anyone would distinguish between them in the first place! It attacks a piece linking denial to the tobacco industry because it doesn't list people involved. I think it should go in as a good example of the stuff produced by the think tanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

3) Johann Hari: Deniers - apologise for Climategate is another good opinion piece, flaying deniers. All the usual suspects get a mention. ► RATEL ◄ 00:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NS

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial may be of interest William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Pseudoscience?

Add Pseudoscience? 99.39.186.29 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV FAIL

This whole page is completely liberally biased. Ridiculous. 65.27.183.19 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree: This article has a strong liberal biase. I came here from the category fringe science!?, clearly the left is trying to push there agenda of believe in anthropogenic warming by giving different theories propose a cyclical climate change, and/or one based on solar activity the name climate change denial: while in fact most of the scientist who oppose anthropogenic global warming propose a cyclical change of temperature on earth from warmer periods to ice ages. That doesn't make the name incorrect in the minds of the liberal elites, because in politics the only thing that counts is the now! I think it is shamefull how many people believe in AGW, and that a laymen like myself has to fight against people who either know nothing or should know better. Hellevoetfotoshoot (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please only write things relevant to proposed changes to the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's saying the article reeks of AGW POV, as the banter above displays the blatant POV of existing editors, it is not surprising you fail to recognize the problem. Batvette (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Five Pillars about contributing to Wikipedia. Address specific concerns in the article rather than discussing the editors. Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't remember what the wiki policy describing condescending remarks implying an experienced editor is a newbie was, perhaps those more accustomed to wikilawyering could point me to that if I chose to return with a similar reply. The point of course, while it was expressed poorly by the others, the article does reek of POV and is contemptuous in its dismissal of anyone questioning AGW. Your pretentious remark as if you cannot recognize the issue at all only leads one to take it to a personal level, as it was you who chose not to discuss the concern over the article. A precursory look at the exchanges above on this page shows the article seems to be used to forward agendas and not objectively present the subject. Precisely, this statement- he sticks skeptics and deniers together to support both without saying why anyone would distinguish between them in the first place! shows contempt and POV against the other side of the issue. You're demanding encyclopedic behaviour of other editors but published behaviour of yourself that is decidedly "other".

I will add I am not necessarily anti-AGW nor pushing an anti-liberal agenda, and this is why I bold fonted the part about poorly expressed. I don't have time or energy to get into battle over every AGW article here, let alone try and rewrite them. However the whole AGW issue at wiki seems to approach concensus to the point of fascism and before it gets out of hand someone needs to say something. News flash- Kyoto has been a disaster, only making things worse. Batvette (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

People reading this article want to understand the science behind global warming. It is interesting that science is still a political issue in the US, but it is best restricted to articles about US political issues. (BTW I loved Inherit the Wind). TFD (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the science, that is covered in Global warming and Global warming controversy, that second article is probably what you were looking for if you wanted the scientific objections to global warming rather than the corporate astroturfing covered by this article. I don't see the relevance of the statement about US political issues to this article. As to the experienced editor above they can show up my pretentious and contemptuous remarks for what they are worth by doing some useful edits and fixing what they are complaining about. Dmcq (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote?

The amount of POV complaints over time leads me to believe that the subject of this article is not sufficiently clear. A hatnote on the top of the article that concisely defines denial as distinct from legitimate skepticism/controversy is in my opinion appropriate. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be difficult, given the lack of clear-cut boundaries. "Climate change skepticism" (and "environmental skepticism" as a whole) is a brand name. Many people who call themselves "skeptics" or "contrarians" are considered classic denialists by reliable sources. To further confuse things, public skepticism is, broadly speaking, fueled by industry-funded denialism. Adding a hatnote would be difficult. Adding a nuanced discussion (based on reliable sources) would be much better. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Many people who call themselves "skeptics" or "contrarians" are considered classic denialists by reliable sources. To further confuse things, public skepticism is, broadly speaking, fueled by industry-funded denialism. As we have seen industry funding behind AGW research, by those seeking to profit from legislation and carbon trading schemes, and stock options in "green" companies, Al Gore, Carbon Billionaire? I think inferring that there is an ulterior motive here goes both ways. As I have been arguing with rational basis that Kyoto has only made the situation worse,Kyoto's result a mystery? who paid for my concern for the planet? I'm getting a little perturbed that rational people are being villainized by a cabal of people whose intents seem to be anything but saving the earth. Batvette (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguing with a rational basis rather than reliable sources is called original research on Wikipedia and is frowned on. There's plenty of other forums for that sort of thing. A reasonable thing to do would be to ask others if they have seen any reliable sources about your idea but that's about it. Touting it to unrelated articles where somebody wanted a simple definition of the topic is excessive I believe. Dmcq (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Skepticism/controversy and denial are distinctly separate subjects. That's the only clear-cut boundary that's needed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do you draw that distinction, and how do you make that decision? Guettarda (talk)

If you can write a hatnote that described the topic better than the current first paragraph then it could substitute for the first paragraph. So there is no need for a hatnote. Dmcq (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The goal here is just to make clear the distinction between denial (topic) and legitimate skepticism/controversy (not topic). The lead doesn't do a good job of making this distinction, but even if it did I think a hatnote would still be appropriate. Denial is an ambiguous word and I find the article name itself to be a source of confusion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again 'skeptical' should be highlighted by linking it to skeptic and there should probably be a link to global warming controversy somewhere in the leader, I'm not sure where that should go. That would probably make it clearer that there is a distinction. Dmcq (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact I see global warming controversy is linked by 'public debate'. Perhaps some tweaking round hat area could be done, any ideas? Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put an explicit contrast at the start of the third paragraph, do you think this does the job? Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, linking to "skeptic" is misleading, since "global warming skeptic" is not an example of skepticism, but rather branding. The best article we have on the topic is environmental skepticism. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that is a better link and in fact I'd contest the leader of that article. Some people may lump skeptics and deniers together and this article points that out but this article also has references where people very clearly distinguish between them and skeptic is normally used in this article with the regular meaning. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. Climate skeptic uses the word skeptic in a very different way to its normal meaning in English. People who apply that term to themselves are not skeptical about the climate (it's existence) but are skeptical about the existence of current, man-made global warming, despite all the scientific evidence and mainstream consensus for its clear reality. All scientists are skeptical, but only a few fringe writers (some of whom call themselves scientists) are still realistically skeptical about AGW on Earth. That is the reality that must be portrayed centre-stage per WP:FRINGE --Nigelj (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that environmental skepticism in its leader justifies its application to the topic covered by this article with a citation which has 'denial' in its title rather than skepticism and which distinguishes between the two. As far as I'm concerned people are acting rationally if they are skeptical given the current bombardment by the deniers, calling such people deniers is simply wrong. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "contrarian" has been proposed as lacking the inappropriate connotations of both "skeptic" and "denier." But "skeptic" unfortunately has become entrenched usage covering both principled skepticism and reflexive naysaying. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See Peter Jacques 2009 book Environmental Skepticism. It's a scholarly work of political science that analyses the issue is depth. Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that could be used as a citation in that other article's leader instead of what it has. It still doesn't tip the balance and I regret they used it inaccurately that way. The problem I see is the large number of rednecks in the US who just rev their engines in a gut reaction when they hear of environmentalism. They are deniers but not the major ones of this article. It would be nice to have another word like 'contrarians' for them but two seems to be the maximum number of categories that can be comfortably dealt with especially in a heated subject like this. Dmcq (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read so far, skepticism and denial are two different topics. Deniers are often linked to or funded by right-wing organizations, while skeptics run the political and social gamut and don't appear to be paid shills for any particular organization. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not all sources agree with you. Many you call themselves "skeptics" fit the definition of "deniers". "Skeptic" is a brand name, after all. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just read in a unreliable source that that there are even more categories, videlicet, alarmists, warmists, lukewarmers, skeptics, and deniers. If I come across any reliable sources on the definitions, I may start articles on each one. Cla68 (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm - what we need are fewer articles that are reliably sourced. And you're forgetting cornucopians, neo-Malthusians and contrarians. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that we necessarily need fewer articles. Nevertheless, I won't be starting any unless I have some good sources to support it. I think there is sufficient sourcing, however, to start a separate article on AGW skepticism apart from this one on denial. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming round to thinking the Environmental skepticism article has a point. It looks like it has recently been given a climate change denial leaning but it could be moved back to something more general which might be along the lines you want. The global warming controversy article deals with what a skeptic should be asking about. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Add? "Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism" Alex Steffen, 29 APR 09 ... more too

Add? "Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism" Alex Steffen, 29 APR 09 ... more too: "Geoengineering to the Rescue! Climate Change Deniers' Latest Foot-Dragging Tactic" by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 04.29.09; "Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air" by Seth Borenstein 04.8.2009 09:29 PM; "Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism" April 29, 2009 99.155.152.134 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevance here? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that my thoughts are relevant to wikipedia but I don't care for this business about geoengineering is being touted by deniers therefore it should be resisted or ignored. If something less drastic can be done that would be better, but we might be grateful for drastic and destructive measures if the climate passes a tipping point. Things should be evaluated on cost benefits and probabilities. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you for or against the insertion of these POV-pushing EL's? If you are not against, some 99-anon-supporter will add it, claiming a lack of consensus against the insertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like climate change denial to me and has some quotes from the usual crowd even if they aren't actually denying it this time - just downplaying any need for immediate action by saying technology will fix everything in the future. There's a couple of reliable sources so if somebody wants to write it up in the article what's the problem? Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed stuck ono lead sentence

There's no shortage of citations from the 'Meanings of the term' section to stick in as a citation to the lead sentence. However there are various other slightly different meanings as well. I just want to know before someone starts an edit war - is all they are asking for is that one of the citations be copied into the lead or is there something more that's wanted? The leader is supposed to give a quick definition of the topic and summarize the contents of the article and I'm worried this might be some business about trying to complain because the leader is not as precise and does not cover everything in the same detail as thearticle it supposed to be summarizing. Personally I'd ban most citations in leaders which have an article body following. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't especially like the first sentence, mainly because it's too narrow without adequately explaining the limitations of its scope. "Climate change denial" is primarily a derogatory term for what proponents call "skepticism" usually regarding the impact of humans on climate change. It is in this sense that we define the term, as a term used to describe a disinformation campaign based on illicit motives. On the other hand, the phrase "Climate change denial" is not so widely used that it is universally recognized as a term of art, or so that the individual words have lost their independent meaning. This is why, in my view, we need to clarify that it is usually but not always used as a pejorative, since otherwise we are equivocating by failing to delimit the meaning that we intend. The true scope of this article, as it is most clearly justified, is to explain the discussion that surrounds the term of art (arguments about the disinformation campaign); general views which dispute the existence of climate change are specifically not the focus of or even included in this article. The main problem may be that so few sources say anything about the meaning of the term that we simply can't define it adequately based on those sources. Mackan79 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism covers a lot of what is definitely not denial. We should use reliable sources and the reliable sources describing what the oil companies and think tanks do when dissing climate change do very clearly label them as deniers. I fail to see how calling this article climate change skepticism would help clarify in any way whatsoever. It is pretty clear that deniers would like to be stuck together with skeptics so as to muddy the waters and then say the AGW people are attacking reasonable skepticism but wikipedia should not just stick in propaganda like that. This article isn't about general views which dispute the existence of climate change because that is a different topic entirely, perhaps the environmental skepticism one could deal with general gut feeling stuff which sounds like what you want to talk about and there is also climate change consensus for the statistics and global warming controversy for the reasoned arguments against it.. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody denys the climate changes, to say people do is just throwing out ad hom`s to muddy the waters. Can you name one prominant person who has actually said the climate does not change? mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do, for instance Fred Singer says it isn't any different now that it has been in the past. He says there's no evidence carbon dioxide has any effect on temperatures and even if it did have some effect that would be a good thing. Anyway what's the point of that? The very first reference in the article shows what climate change denial is about which is trying to stop people taking positive action to cut their use of fuel or spend money on preventative action. A denier in the normal sense would simply be someone who stuck their head under the blanket saying no it isn't so but for climate change it has become associated associated with the 'denial industry'. This article is about that denial industry. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I see Dmcq reverted my removal of the first paragraph, stating that the reference is later on in the article. Could you please update the article then to show the relevant reference is against that statement otherwise I will remove it again. Thanks. ^Khukri 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the basis for the development of wikipedia. First I would like to know why you need a citation in the lead if looking at the contents list you can see the section discussing that exact point. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the article not be a separate article in itself. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I might have an idea of the guidelines of wikipedia thanks, one you could look at as well might be WP:VERIFY. No one is saying it should be a separate article, just that the statements held therein should be referenced. If there is no reference and a question has been raised as to the veracity then the statement can be removed as per WP:CITE. If you say it's further in the article just use a <ref name> and add it to the first line then bad-a-bing problem solved and no need for the citation needed. ^Khukri 06:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is cited and verifiable in the article if you looked at the contents list and went to the obvious section. WP:CITE specifies a number of means of citation what is there is enough to make WP:VERIFY irrelevant. Also please see {{cn}} about first trying to fix such things yourself rather than just going around deleting them. My point is about the need for inline citations in the leader when it is describing the rest of the article. I am not talking about setting up a separate article. I am saying thast if one puts citations onto the description of the article then instead of describing the article you start saying something about the place cited instead. For instance you complain about the lead saying 'has at times' without a citation. The relevant section lists a number of times with citations. 'Has at times' is a reasonable summary. However putting in a citation at the top here would mean sticking in a cite to a place that says it has been done a number of times or putting in a load of citations and letting the reader count them. The statement in the leader would then be about those citations and become divorced from the article. That is what I mean about the leader being turned into an article in itself. Besides all the citations just make a mess of the lerader, lust have a look at all the citations in the first paragraph and now more are requested instead of just looking at the obvious section in the article. Copy over the citations if you must but I believe it detracts from the mission of making Wikipedia into an encyclopaedia and turns it into a jumble of snippets from citations if you can't even have a decent lead into a subject. All one should check in a WP:LEAD] is that it tells you what the article is about and gives a reasonably accurate summary of what's in the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems at all, just that in any article or any published paper, whether is it the lede or not, the first time a statement is written that requires a verification is usually where the reference should be applied and not further down the article with it applying further up the article. I'll have a look through the references later on if I get the time and sort the syntax naming etc if it will help out. ^Khukri 12:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Citations_in_the_lead about my misgivings about excessive and unnecessary citations in the lead. I guess the simplest thing here for the moment is to just copy over suitable citations from the body of the article and get rid of the markers.I was quite surprised when I checked 10 featured articles at random at random and found 6 with no citations in the lead and 8 or less in the other four - and those last ones were big leads. Oh well I suppose this article is far from attaining featured article status. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merchants of doubt

There is an Economist review of MOD [20]. It is a bit weak though [21] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

I'm not sure if this is worthy enough to add to the article, but I thought I'd mention it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

POV

Two problems with recent edits.

1. To Hyblackeagle22 (talk · contribs) and Khukri (talk · contribs): I thought the POV problems with this article were considered resolved.
2. To Wikispan (talk · contribs) I also thought the article was under 1RR.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That they maybe. The tag was removed 19 minutes after the editor placed the tag and I wanted him/her to have a chance to explain the POV tag. I've asked for clarification on his talk page & if nothing comes of it in the next 24 hours then I'll remove it myself no problems. Cheers ^Khukri 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I also thought the article was under 1RR. Don't think so. Why do you think it is? Tagging: Hbe seems to be over-enthusiastic and new William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Sorry 'bout that. I was too quick to place that POV tag.(probably wrong tag anyway) It seems to me that calling it "climate change denial" implies that the opposing side is ignoring obvious facts, when the issue of man-made/caused climate change is a controversial issue today, especially with the so-called "Climategate Scandal"

Sorry about not explaining the tag, won't happen again! Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

Would anybody object to me adding the word "alleged" to the first sentence? "Climate change denial is a term used to describe [alleged] attempts to downplay the extent of global warming..." (In the interest of full disclosure I am personally skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.) I think it's unfair to label skeptics as downplaying the extent of global warming when there is limited evidence that this is a deliberate effort. -Cwenger (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the first sentence describes skeptics? If you read the first sentence fully do you think skeptics go around denying climate change for personal gain or other reasons? Have you looked at the evidence cited in the article? Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would characterize themself as a 'climate change denier' and therefore "alleged" would be a fair addition to the first sentence. Most of the evidence in this article is circumstantial evidence, e.g. financial interests, ties to the tobacco lobby, etc., and so I think it is appropriate to immediately let readers know that this is a contentious point and then let them see the evidence, rather than stating it as fact. -Cwenger (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets check what you said initially first. Do you still think this article is labelling skeptics and if so why? Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand this article is not meant to be about legitimate skeptics of climate change. The problem is that (1) a lot of legimitate skeptics are inevitably being called 'climate change deniers' by this article, and (2) it is mostly, if not all, circumstantial evidence. Hence my suggestion to add "alleged" to the first sentence to partially alleviate both of these issues. -Cwenger (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And some evidence is not circumstantial. Are you actually disputing the evidence that some comnpanies pay people to write articles trying to muddy the water about climate change? How about that they do it not for any scientific reason but because they think it would help them financially? I really don't see how sticking in 'alleged' would make any real skeptic feel better about being called a denier and anyway Wikipedia doesn't censor itself to make people feel better. Dmcq (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link about skepticism, a perfectly honorable and reasonable approach and an attitude that should be employed by all scientists. Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list a couple of these skeptics in 'a lot of legimitate skeptics are inevitably being called 'climate change deniers' by this article'. WP:BLP mandates very careful treatment and citations of named people. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the very definition of circumstantial evidence, unless companies admitted or were proven to be intentionally spreading misinformation. Financial incentives should be examined carefully but don't equate to guilt, otherwise every time a company hired an advertising agency it would be an admission that their product is inferior. Just think if you were on the other side of this issue and somebody was writing about the financial/career motives of scientists studying climate change. Wouldn't you call that "alleged"? -Cwenger (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The Royal Society was complaining about them actively spreading misinformation about climate science. The law wouldn't allow them to put this level of misinformation in their ads, so there's no need to compare with ads. If you have a complaint about particular people being labeled unreasonably then WP:BLP may apply as it requires very strong evidence. I would expect an article that talked about financial motives of scientists to back up what they say with reliable citations like anything else in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Society has their own point of view, just like ExxonMobil does. One is not necessarily more noble or legitimate than the other. There may be a scientific consensus on climate change but there is certainly not a concensus that there is a concerted effort to deny climate change, hence why I propose the addition of the word "alleged" in the first sentence. This article is good to not label specific people, so I am not concerned about that. And I don't mean to dwell on a single word but I think it is important, otherwise this article needs the POV tag. -Cwenger (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't want to get into this debate but if you look at what ExxonMobil published that lead to the Royal Society accusing them of misinformation it is pretty unremarkable: "While assessments such as those of the IPCC have expressed growing confidence that recent warming can be attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, these conclusions rely on expert judgment rather than objective, reproducible statistical methods. Taken together, gaps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions." I think this is very much in line with what legitimate skeptics of the scientific consensus on climate change have said. -Cwenger (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still concerned that you said "a lot of legimitate skeptics are inevitably being called 'climate change deniers' by this article". It looks to me like you have retracted that. Is that correct and what gave you that impression in the first place? I am a bit concerned also that you are saying that when the Royal Society taalks about misinformation you call it a point of view. There is a scientific consensus on climate change, do you consider that a point of view and balanced by the petroleum company's point of view? Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I think the article makes sure not to accuse any specific person without presenting the relevant information. But it does give the impression that anybody who works for Exxon, or a free market think tank, and opposes the scientific consensus on climate change, must automatically be a 'climate change denier'. Anyway, that is a side point, my main argument is that there is not a consensus that 'climate change denial' exists, and certainly not to the extent that this article conveys, and so "alleged" is appropriate. -Cwenger (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is based on reliable sources and notable and the things said are verifiable. I'm not sure what you mean by consensus, in the context of talk pages it normally means WP:Consensus. You are of course entitled to raise concerns about the consensus on articles in the Wikipedia sense but I'm not sure that's what you mean. I think what you are saying is that some people have written about a subject but you believe the general population think the topic has been made up. If you believe that then to counter the reliable sources here you need to provide reliable sources saying this is a made up topic. They would make a good addition to the article and would of course affect the leader. Dmcq (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is, I could write an article on the existence of unicorns, with plenty of references, but unless it is widely accepted it must be called an "alleged" existence. The burden of proof here is on those who claim there is this vast conspiracy to deny climate change, and I do not think that threshold has been anywhere close to met yet. As I said before, until there is widespread proof or admission that people are putting out misleading information deliberately, this is all circumstanstial evidence. I think it is a very fair compromise to simply add one one to the first sentence. -Cwenger (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been written about in reputable magazines books and newspapers. If they thought it was bullshit they would write something like that too. Your feelings about this are irrelevant. This is not an encyclopaedia of whatever anybody feels is right. It is an encyclopaedia of what reputable sources say. Neutral point of view is a basic principle of Wikipedia. You need to provide references. I believe the neutral point of view noticeboard is the appropriate one if you wish to complain otherwise you might like to raise an RfC. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. if you look at the Unicorn article you will see they want more references fopr some of the uncited things there. You would not be able to change that article to say it is anything but mythological because thats what the reliable sources say. They don't say it is real Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK better example--should the Roswell incident, 9/11 conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and vast right-wing conspiracy articles talk about their subjects as a matter of fact? No. They all have plenty of sources, yet they are not widely accepted by the public and so they are "alleged". This is not about my feelings. I don't think it would be possible to find conflicting references on this because they would have to deny the existence of a denial movement, which is quite an odd position that most people would not even bother taking. -Cwenger (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that there's plenty of reliable source debunking that sort of stuff. And some are cited in the articles. There's no problem with a reliable source saying something is just a conspiracy theory or hoax or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The term alleged is only used to describe theories that are in doubt. We don't say that some people doubt the alleged moon landing for example. TFD (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But like I said, nobody is going to take the time to deny the existence of a denial movement. They will just spend their time arguing against the consensus on climate change instead. Anyway I respect your opinion but it seems unlikely that we will reach an agreement here, so I will post this on the NPOV noticeboard. -Cwenger (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But you would say "The vast right-wing conspiracy is an alleged coordinated effort to...", right? As far as I can tell this is the exact same situation. -Cwenger (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Read Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt. A pair of well-respected historians document the whole movement. Guettarda (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there are lots of well-respected historians that have written books on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories too, does that make them fact? -Cwenger (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well-respected historians have shown that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy? Interesting. You have a supporting reference for that? Guettarda (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hat-tip

The intro is really solid. I'm sure it's taken a lot of work and counter-axe-grinding to get it there, but it has resulted in a remarkably evenhanded summary for such a controversial topic.Ocaasi (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deliberately slanted Citation?

As far as i can tell, i can't edit this article, so i'm posting this here. There's a badly cited reference i take issue with that gives rise to a somewhat slanted presentation right within the article. The reference is #51, cited just under "Effects of Climate Change Denial". The cited source reads:

"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

And the wiki article has:

"Recent polls regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" show that 59% of Americans believe it "at least somewhat likely" and 35% believe it is "very likely"."

From the source we can see 59 + 35 + 26 = 120%, so it's unlikely that the 35% is not included in the 59%. It's far more likely that the breakdown is 35% strongly believe, 24% somewhat believe, 26% believe unlikely or not likely at all and the remaining 15% "undecided" (though this last one is a guess, since the citation doesn't say). Yet this article is clearly written in a way to obfuscate the fact that the 59% includes the 35%. Not really something i'd expect from a Wikipedia article. If this poll is going to be kept as part of the article, a more accurate breakdown would be preferred (35% very likely, 24% somewhat likely, 26% unlikely or not likely at all, 15% undecided). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.105.131 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is usual to assume good faith on Wikipedia unless there is a strong reason otherwise. I've put in the first figures from that article which are the ones actually given in their survey. I'm not sure where the higher figures later on in the article came from, perhaps they got garbled somehow when the article was written. It is unlikely one figure is included in another otherwise it wouldn't add up to such an even number. Dmcq (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article is still protected. For a while there were a lot of unregistered editors vandalizing everything to do with global warming but the topic seems to have quietened down a bit so I think it should be safe to unprotect it again. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the actual statistics and have rephrased to try and avoid the confusion. The 59% was the sum of two figures. Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Point of View

This article is not neutral. Global warming is not positively true, yet this article makes it seems like it is. It makes the people who beilve diffrently look bad. the name alone disrupts the neturality of the article. this whole article is junk and might as well be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.87.159 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) and by the way yes i do not beilieve in global warming but that is not from any conflict of intrests. I am a democrat and everyone in my family beilives in it. i just dont think its true.24.45.87.159 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't about skeptics or environmental skeptics. It is about pressure groups working for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have something to do with science, maybe Scientific opinion on climate change should be added though? 99.54.141.75 (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is about pressure groups working for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

You mean like Siemens, who paid pro-GW researchers grant money while they negotiated contracts for carbon trading schemes?

If this article is to malign those on the issue whose motivations had profiteering behind them, maybe wiki needs an article on climate change research conspiracies that is equally balanced? Batvette (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want stuff to 'balance' this article and 'malign' scientists instead then perhaps climate change consensus or climate change alarmism would be more to your taste. The last in particular is very scrappy and could do with some reliable sources and coopyediting. This talk page is about improving this article, it is not a general discussion forum of other topics. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Pressure" comes from all directions, not just two ... skepticism is what builds good science. With a robust rigorous Scientific method, the science will stand on its own. Since the Earth is finite, thus resources are finite, and money represents the IOU of resources, "pressure" vectors sums to the ark of human history, i.e. Hubris. In other words, so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.185.99 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Had misplaced reply here, moved it up under Batvette's contrbution. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please rephrase, and help me understand about who and what you are writing. 99.39.186.1 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I should have put my comment after Batvette's contribution. I didn't see where what you wrote was going. I'll move my stuff up. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving this article, it is not a general discussion forum of other topics

Ah, and what topic do you believe is being discussed? The POV bias of this article, which is just glaring in the lede, with this statement-

Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for financial or other sectional interests.

and continues on to feign NPOV tone by hiding behind the disingenuous term of science- i.e; it's science so the people involved could never have personal agenda, either profit or ideology, involved. or it's science and anyone standing in the way of it must be an ignorant fundie with the cognizent skills of a neanderthal and shouldn't dare look at the issues and declare the emporer's clothes are awful.

It's absurd to think we can talk about improving the article without discussing what the article is about, and I've seen this repeatedly come up and every time I come back to this article the lede has been changed back to this highly POV tone.

The fact is it's not "nearly unanimous", and even if it were you have to face the fact that climate change research is not a field of career anyone is getting into unless they believe the climate is changing due to man's abuse of the environment. The few that wandered in and found out otherwise early on were drummed out of their ranks as it threatened their ideology, and witness the grandfather of Global Warming himself,Roger_Revelle when he co-authored a legitimate paper before his death stating The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time..... The scientific base for greenhouse warming (GHW) includes some facts, lots of uncertainty and just plain lack of knowledge requiring more observations, better theories and more extensive calculations.What To Do about Greenhouse Warming:Look before you leap had his opinions marginalized by those who'd spent decades promoting them. Any dissent was actively suppressed and this is not science at all.

Just as there are many on this issue in the general public hiding behind the term science to marginalize dissent, there are editors attempting to silence any opposition on AGW on this and unless other editors periodically speak up about it it's going to go on unchecked. Although this discussion is not and should not be about other editors, failure to recognize POV slant in the article as presented in the lede only forces commentary to turn that direction.Batvette (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your "sepp.org" link, this group: Science & Environmental Policy Project? Maybe you REALLY should look at Scientific opinion on climate change ... remove the blinders and expand your sources, if want to have an open discussion, that is resilient science. 99.60.125.105 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please this is not a blog of peoples personal ideas or a forum. If someone has a reliable source on aomething relevant or a particular point about this article that they have some ideas about changing then please discuss them. There is zero relevant in any of the above as far as this article is concerned. This article is not about whether climate change is true or not, there's other articles about that. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear the previous point is "sepp.org" Science & Environmental Policy Project is not a reliable source or link to suggest. 99.190.91.2 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It could well be a reliable source about something. It isn't a reliable source about denial though, it's just an example of it so one couldn't use it here directly except perhaps bits which are mentioned in a document about climate change denial or their official refutations of such documents talking about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What of Gilbert Plass as a "grandfather of global warming", what ever that means? Or further back, Joseph Fourier? 99.27.174.48 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way have they anything to do with this article? Dmcq (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See P:GW 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I looked. So what is the relevance to this article? Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/ William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. what to say about THAT. I will state as a skeptic not really of climate change but of its cause and the dubious methods for mitigating it and thus anyone involved with the mess, but NOT as a political conservative:

Does this mean if I was a "conservative" whatever that means, that my skepticism of AGW should hinge on whether or not it advanced the "conservative cause"? That once I saw the light of this jackass and his column, I should think "oh, I didn't realize I was hurting the CAUSE, I better get with the MAINSTREAM here so I don't obstruct our AGENDA." Note I'm not blasting you William, (yet) because I do realize there are idiots out there who think like that- and at least as often on the liberal side as conservative. This is why I cannot consider L or C or D or R as labels for myself. I'm just not seeing the relevance here.

How about this for an opposing view article title- "failing to get on the AGW bandwagon hurts our liberal platform of environmentalism-forget analyzing the science because doing something, ANYthing, can only be good- and the bonus is we're bringing up the billions of little brown people too!". Batvette (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Two different addition discussions

Add "The Climate War" (ISBN 978-1401323264) by Eric Pooley, deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek and former managing editor of Fortune (magazine), on Politics of global warming (United States) & Category:Climate change policy ... example: Man Up, Climate Skeptics, or Miss Out on the Money: Eric Pooley Jun 16, 2009 or Excerpt ‘The Climate War’ Chapter One: "We Haven't Done a Damned Thing" or Warming Is Real. Now What? by Michiko Kakutani of the NYT published: August 2, 2010; http://www.amazon.com/Climate-War-Believers-Power-Brokers/dp/140132326X 99.190.90.117 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Skeptical Inquirer, currently Vol. 34 Issue 4 Authors Reply (page 54-56 (in print)), such as "Critics Exhibit Conditional Skepticism vs. Scientific Skepticism" Mark Boslough (vs. Robert Sheaffer), David Morrison (disambiguation) "The Refusal to Accept Scientific Evidence", John R. Mashey "The Twenty-Year Effort to Create Doubt about Climate Change" ... regarding Vol.34 Issue 2: Mann Bites Dog: Why 'Climategate' Was Newsworthy (page 14 print ed.), "Disinformation about Global Warming: Most arguments from global warming disputers don't make scientific sense or are based on distorted or obsolete information. Here are short answers to ten of these 'red-flag' arguments.", and "American Physical Society Rejects Climate Anti-Science" (page 15); also on page 23 "Climate Denialism" by Massimo Pigliucci. 99.24.250.79 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and be bold and make whatever changes you think would be good. If someone objects, they'll revert the change and we can start discussion.

Jess

_talk
edits

05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi'd... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Then, short of creating an account, the the appropriate thing to do is post a very specific change request here (such as "In the history section, after the last paragraph, add this text..."), and add the {{editsemiprotected}} template above the request.

Jess

_talk
edits

02:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The other way would be to get this article under the new system where changes aren't visible till they've been reviewed which I think is far better. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See View History tab to see how these Discussions have been altered from their original presentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&action=history 99.37.86.181 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not cnovinced by the first block, but the Skeptical Inquirer stuff looks useable William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Having looked again at our article, I'm not really sure we need any of those new refs. What exactly is missing from this article taht those refs would provide? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Recommend merging The Gore Effect article into this article. Since that article is about the views of climate change deniars, it makes sense to merge. TFD (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The articles are not forks of each other. The other article is long enough to stand on its own. There doesn't seem to be any very strong denial component in the Gore effect, I'm not at all sure even finding it amusing is correlated with climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - This suggestion was debated at length and rejected by the AfD determination which found that it satisfied Wikipedia criteria for independent treatment in its own article. This is an attempt to end-run that finding and should be dispatched quickly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per jake. The Gore Effect has nought to do with with this article, it is a joke not a weird accusation bandied about by alarmist types mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per jake. Polentario (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dmcq. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The two articles are only tangentially related, and there is no compelling reason for a merger. StuartH (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. A reader looking for information about "The Gore Effect" is probably not looking for a broad article about climate change denial which may or may not contain a few sentences about the phrase. I hate those kinds of merges. Maghnus (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Only a very loose connection, no reason to merge.Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the blocking of edits from August 12, 2010 wikinews climate change denial?

Is lack of edits to wikinews: Plants may adapt faster to climate change than previously thought, new study shows from August 12, 2010; Wikipedia climate change denial? 99.60.126.192 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to ask. The page you linked to is archived, so it can't be edited. That's how wikinews works (explained at the bottom of the page in the 'Archived' template). That said, I'm not sure lack of edits anywhere is climate change denial from wikipedia (mind you, wikinews is not wikipedia). At best, it's a lack of interest in the topic. Jess_talk|_edits 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history (in this case Wikinews), edits were attempted and blocked. And there is obviously interest, why else would there be pages such as this? 99.24.251.20 (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&action=history for changes it the "New Section" Discussion title, as User:Mann jess has done previously. 99.35.11.106 (talk)

Please try to be a little more explicit about what you're trying to say. There is no 168 character limit and if you don't say clearly what's on your mind then it'll just get ignored or you'll have to try harder the next time. Overall it is a waste of your time writing cryptically. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. You're the guy that keeps coming into talk pages, creating a boatload of new sections for the same unclear comments with extremely long section titles, and then getting upset when I combine the sections and shorten the titles so they're actually legible. Welcome back. First of all, this is not wikinews. We are not in any way affiliated with wikinews. If you have a problem with their policies, you should take it up on their site. At best, this comment is misdirected, at worst, it's meatpuppetry. Second of all, these "blocked" contribs appear to be from you. I'd suggest reading the policy pages the acting admin directed you to when he reverted your edits. Third of all, what you're describing appears to be in-line with their policies, and for good cause. In short, I see no problem, except that this is not the place to be having this discussion. Please take it somewhere else. Jess_talk|_edits 21:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is associated with Wikinews, per Portal:Current_events and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Main Page ... and Wikinews links directly back too, i.e. interconnected, not just intraconnected. The question is it yet another example of Climate change denial à la Merchants of Doubt? 99.155.147.138 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We link to the Discovery Institute too. Are we associated with them? Wikinews is under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation, not under Wikipedia. Why exactly are you not posting to their discussion page about your reverted edits on their site? Jess_talk|_edits 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Psychology of Climate denial examples: Tim Kasser Human Identity and Daniel Gilbert ...

Add Psychology of Climate denial examples: Tim Kasser Human Identity and Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning? by Daniel Gilbert (psychologist). 99.37.84.77 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring videos, I just looked at the Kasser ref - which is almost entirely about pastoral environmentalism and mentions :denial" in one tangential sentence AFAICT. Neither appears much on point here. Collect (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why ignore Daniel Gilbert (psychologist) Video presentation at Pop!Tech conference in 2007 Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warming?"

How is Identity (social science) "pastoral"? When there is an Elephant in the room from dispassionate observation, and you don't "see" or state it ... sounds like Vested interest in the short term ("Short sighted") to not speak, or something similar to Herd mentality/Mass Psychogenic Illness ... deeply Psychosocial i.e. one's self and group identity; On Point. 99.102.183.240 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another reason is Substance abuse "junkie logic": "Addicted to oil" (per deified "W"), and "Addicted to Coal", addicted to ... 99.184.228.234 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Add article Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers by David Brin in the current issue of Skeptic (U.S. magazine) Vol.15 Number 4.

Add article Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers by David Brin in the current issue of Skeptic (U.S. magazine) Vol.15 Number 4. The article differentiates between a reasonable earnest authentic skeptic and a Denialist (Michael Specter "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives" ISBN 978-1594202308 Publisher: Penguin Press HC, The October 29, 2009). 99.155.159.131 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is one from earlier this year: "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" by John Cook in the Chicago Tribune, and [22] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ 99.155.145.29 (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Add 2010 Resource: "The Climate War" book by Eric Pooley ISBN 978-1401323264, particularly related to Politics of global warming (United States) Denialism.

Add 2010 Resource: "The Climate War" book by Eric Pooley ISBN 978-1401323264, particularly related to Politics of global warming (United States) Denialism. 99.184.229.244 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with citation in second sentence

Part of me thinks it would be smart to take on one issue at a time, but another part (the not so smart side) thinks that it is possible to discuss more than one issue, as long as the issues are kept separate. Let's see.

The second citation is used as support of the claim about association with climate change denial. However, while the word "denial" exists, it is in scare quotes. I seem to recall a long discussion about another term, where some of those opposed to using a term noted that the use of the term in scare quotes not only failed to support the usage, it actually supported the opposite, as it was evidence that the term was not accepted.

How do we justify using this source to support the claim, as the term is not used, other than in scare quotes??

Adams, David (2005-01-27). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-03.

--SPhilbrickT 03:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In contrast, the third source (ironically written by the same writer) looks fine, as it uses the term without scare quotes.

Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-02.

--SPhilbrickT 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One could speculate that, at least at The Guardian, the term climate change denial became more acceptable between 2005 and 2006.

It is richly ironic that the Royal Society anti-denial spokesman Bob Ward, then their PR man, is himself a well-known climate change alarmist. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a reference to alarmism under Bob Ward or a reference to Bob Ward under climate change alarmism so it does not seem to be so well known or notable. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the citation. Is the only objection that in another article quotes were used in an ironic sense about another subject? I think you need to deal with the here and now rather than all problems that have appeared in all titles whatsoever leading to rules against inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DMCQ, my apologies if I wasn't perfectly clear. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that editors of Climate Change articles were familiar with the Climate Change Arbitration. One of the edit wars discussed was whether the Climategate article should be titled "Climategate". One of the strong argumetns used in that war was that the use of the term in scare quotes was evidence that the term was not accepted. So my point is that the citation nowhere uses the term "denial" (except in scare quotes), so isn't a valid source. I'm not interested in reprising the arguments, but I can point you to them if you are interested.--SPhilbrickT 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not interested in what went on in that article as it seems from what you say now that it has even less relevance than I though it might have before. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken Wikilink

Someone accidentally wikilinked "rhetorical" to the wrong concept. Understandable, but the word used refers to "rhetoric", not "rhetorical question". I'll correct it, but I'm posting this on the chance that someone wants to discuss it.--SPhilbrickT 22:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly rhetorical question is closer to the meaning associated with rhetorical quite often nowadays. Rhetorical, oratorical and sophistry seem to have all degraded into meaning specious. I can't say it's something I'll worry about one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with definition in lead

I was surprised, in the discussion at the ArbCom CC PD, to see editors using "skepticism" and "denialism" as if they were identical. When I asked, I was pointed to this article. Now I understand the source of the confusion. I don't believe the definition is correct, and it isn't supported by the source. I'd like to discuss the problem, see if we can reach a consensus that there is a problem, then work toward a solution. At this time, I don't have a specific alternative definition.

The current definition:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for financial or other sectional interests.

The definition cites a single source:

Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?" (pdf). European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID 19158101.

The source was added by Blocked editor Ratel: Addition of Pascal Diethelm source

(It may or may not be relevant that Ratel was blocked in connection with editing of this article, but I'm not going to assume the definition or source is flawed simply because it was added by a blocked editor - I mention the blocking mainly because I like to notify editors who have added material, as theya re likely to have insight into the decision to add the material, but that cannot occur in this case.)

It is my position that those who are properly called "denialist" are a subset (possibly a small subset) of all those who would be considered skeptics, and the position of denialists is much stronger, and often more strident. Denialists typically either straight out deny that the globe is warming, or at least deny that mankind is contributing. In short, this is why they are denialists—they deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

The opening paragraph of the cited source states:

And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions.

I see this as a reasonable summarization of the viewpoint of a denialist. The "speaker" is denying a connection between CO₂ and CC. However, compare this statement to the definition in the article.

There is a substantial difference between "denying" and "downplaying", particularly, when one is defining a term using a form of "deny" in it.

One reasonable possibility is that the author was using the opening statement to be provocative, and the actual definition is contained in the body of the paper.

The paper defines denialism in the article(emphasis added):

The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.

While it is fair to say that denialists are denying the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming, it is not accurate to make such a blanket statement about skeptic, who fall on a continuum, some of whom fully accept the science as summarized by the IPCC.

The WP article works as a definition of skepticism (not perfectly, but as a reasonable start) but fails miserably as a definition of climate change denialism.

Given that the single source cited does not support the definition, we need to determine whether the definition is, in fact accurate, and we need better sources, or if the source is accurate, and we need a better definition. My opinions is closer to the latter, but I'd like to have some discussion before making concrete proposals.

As a start, does anyone disagree that the sources opening paragraph is a decent summarization of a denialist POV?--SPhilbrickT 16:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You said an awful lot but it has confused rather than enlightened me, I'm not sure what you're saying. As to the lead I believe it does not say denialists have a point of view about climate change, it describes the actions they take in pursuit of their own agenda. Dmcq (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, our definition is basically that "climate change denial" is a term for propaganda aimed to undermine the public response to climate change, rather than a term for any particular belief. I think that's basically accurate, but if sources suggest it refers to any specific position, that could probably be included as well. The question would be what sources show this. I added a "see also" at the top, which may clarify that there are other articles on the broader topics. For my part I think it may reflect a weakness of Wikipedia that it tends to have articles on phrases rather than articles on topics (in which phrases could be discussed). If it were up to me this term would probably be discussed within Global warming controversy, in which case you would avoid the legitimate confusion over what this article is really about. But, that's unlikely to happen. Mackan79 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@Dmcq - Sorry my long post was confusing. In short, the citation following the definition does not support the definition. It talks about denying that CO₂ is related to climate change. I agree that is denialism, but the definition in the article doesn't talk about denying anything, it talks about downplaying. Downplaying is not the same as denying.--SPhilbrickT 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The confusion here reflects the lack of clarity in the real world. There's no well-accepted distinction in the real world between "skepticism" and "denialism" (or "contrarianism", or whatever -ism you like). Mackan79 basically has it right, especially his last three sentences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan79 Correct, our definition is basically that "climate change denial" is a term for propaganda aimed to undermine the public response to climate change, rather than a term for any particular belief. If that's how it is used, then it is a perversion of the English language, However, it won't be the first such example, and our job is descriptive, not prescriptive.

In any event, the opening sentence is not supported by the source, so if we really want to claim that denial is something other than denial, we need a source or two in support. For example, the source does not contain the word "downplay". Perhaps it contains a synonym, but I don't see that the source supports the definition. Can you explain how the definition follows from the Diethelm article?--SPhilbrickT 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB - I don't doubt that there's some lack of clarity, as it appears some groups are trying to use the term "denialism" when "skepticism" would be more accurate. It ought to be our goal to add to the clarity, not continue the confusion. At the moment, it appears we have simply made up a definition. We either need to find a definition, or reconsider whether this article should exists. Because the phrase does get used, it would be better if we could shed light on the confusion and the misleading uses of the term. Instead, this article perpetuates a flawed definition without even the figleaf of a source to back it up.--SPhilbrickT 02:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My perception is this: the terms "skeptic" and "denialist" are essentially rhetorical devices. Broadly, people whom some call "deniers" prefer to call themselves "skeptics." I'd bet that applies to almost all the individuals on Monbiot's list here.[23] (Michaels doesn't even consistently regard himself as a "skeptic.") Some people go so far as to use the terms interchangeably. The bottom line is that there really shouldn't be a whole article on a topic that has no accepted meaning. As you note, the term is widely used so we should say something about it. But it would be more logically mentioned as part of the overall controversy where it could be put in context. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Both "skepticism" and "denial" have accepted meanings. And they aren't synonyms. If the terms "climate skepticism" and "climate denial" are made up terms without a relationship to the words in the term, then we owe it to readers to say so. In that case readers will come away informed that the terms are useless. If, on the other hand, the terms are largely used coherently (by that, I mean that climate denial has something to do with denial of scientific climate theories) but a few sources misuse the terms, them we owe it to readers to tell them that. At this point, I don't know which is closer to the truth. What I do know is that we have a definition, apparently made up by some Wikipedia editors, and a citation that doesn't support the definition. That cannot stand. (I did review the editing history, but I did not find a clear indication of the source of the definition.)--SPhilbrickT 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Both "skepticism" and "denial" have accepted meanings, but "climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" do not. The fact that individual words (or morphemes) have given meanings does not necessarily allow us to construct the meaning of a term. Consider for example "anti-semitism," which does not mean opposition to Semites. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "anti-semitism" is a perfect example of a term that does not mean what its constituent parts would seem to suggest. You may be right that "climate change denial" may not have an accepted meaning. If true, we owe it to our readers to tell them the truth what can be verified. At present, we are telling our readers that the term does have a meaning so we need to rectify the situation if it is cannot be verified. I don't know whether it is verifiable or not at this time, but I do know I can't get the existing definition from the cited source. I'm hoping someone can help me, otherwise we need to discuss what changes are needed.--SPhilbrickT 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

<-The entire article has a number of problems, but I thought it would make sense to start with one problem. Even with that, I may have erred on the side of excessive verbiage so I'll try one single question:

• What is the source of the definition? (It does not come from the cited source.)--SPhilbrickT 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Thanks for taking this on. This article has a long history of problems. I tagged this definition as "not in citation given".

Don't thank me too early :). I see that there are many problems with this article, and I thought I was starting with low-hanging fruit - many of the other issues are quite contentious, but I naively hoped it would be easy to get agreement that the definition in the article doesn't come from the source.--SPhilbrickT 02:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Ratel: my recollection is, he was one of the advocates for this page. He was a remarkably unpleasant editor to [try to] work with, though I haven't been active enough on this page to recall any specifics here. At any rate, this page has been rife with POV-pushing from the start, and apparently still is. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see SPhilbrick is saying:

The first statement talks about downplaying rather than denying and the title says denial.

He thinks the definition covers skeptics better than deniers.

As to the first the term is denial, the meaning does not have to correspond in wording with the term. The whole point of denial is to have it rejected as something to do anything about rather than just to oppose it. If you have a look at the reference you'll see that most of it is devoted to the rhetorical arguments typically used by a denier, these are not primarily intellectual arguments and agreement but at getting gut feel support. The objective is not to provide evidence of falsity.

On the second point skepticism is a commendable quality in a scientist. For the general public I see it as entirely reasonable that they be skeptical about climate change given the amount of denial around by industry, fundamentalist churches, people wanting to make a name for themselves, newspapers wanting to 'balance the discussion', and conspiracy theorists jumping on the bandwagon, all of which far outweighs the number of scientists with genuine misgivings about it. The lead does not by any stretch of the imagination describe climate change skeptics except when denial is used to insult them. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the definition does not come from the source. While you've commented on some other issues, you haven't identified where the definition comes form. I think we need a few more commentators for a consensus, but we are close to a consensus that the definition doesn't come from the source. Which means we either have to change the definition or find a better source. Which do you think is a more fruitful approach?--SPhilbrickT 13:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it does come from the source. Wikipedia summarizes sources, it doesn't copy out a few pages of source which is what the source has as its definition. I believe you disagree with what is written and think climate change denial means something else. If you could give some indication what you believe it means please do so. Dmcq (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please point to the section of the source which supports the definition. For comparison, Holocaust denial defines the term, and links to source. While the WP definition is not a literal quote, the definition in the source has the same meaning as the WP definition. I cited the sources opening example, which I agree is an example of denialism, but it isn't used for the definition. I quoted the Hoofnagle brothers definition of denialism, but the WP definition is not a summarization of that definition. Did I miss another formulation of the definition? (I do see the claim that deniers use rhetorical arguments, but surely no one would argue that the use of rhetorical arguments defines a climate change denier, otherwise almost all Wikipedia editors would qualify.)--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As to your thinking the lead described skepticism more than denial, perhaps environmental skepticism is what you were thinking of? That is much further along the line towards denial than straight skepticism about climate change. It is more about the gut reaction people have when they think doing anything about climate change might make it dearer to take a holiday or a religious person might feel about evolution demoting the place of man in the world. Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please give some indication what you believe climate change denial means. You said you thought the lead applied more to skepticism than denial, that is so far turned around from what it says as far as I'm concerned that I find it very difficult to understand what your points are. Your statement implies you came with some belief of your own and are interpreting what you see through that and not being able to understand what you are up to makes communication difficult. Dmcq (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal views aren't relevant here. I'm reading an article which starts by defining a term. That definition seems odd, so I look at the source of the definition, and I don't see how to get from there to here. No one, other than you, has claimed they see how the definition in WP derives from the source. I hope this doesn't come across as heavy-handed, but I'm asking questions, and I'm not seeing clear answers, so I'm trying to make my questions crisp and to the point:

• What text in the source supports the definition?--SPhilbrickT 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the citation supports the definition. What exactly is the problem as far as you can see? Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation says:

And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions.

The article says:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for financial or other sectional interests.

Those two statements are not remotely the same. I'll give it a few more days, so some people on holiday can weight in.--SPhilbrickT 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an 'and' in the first statement and it is illustrative rather than prescriptive. Anyway I'll leave it to others since you seem unable or unwilling to discuss what you see as wrong with it, perhaps they can get you to be more forthcoming. Dmcq (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence is more illustrative than prescriptive. What is wrong is that the definition in the article doesn't bear any relationship to that prescription. Do you disagree?

I disagree with you on that. I believe that "And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions" is a descriptive instance of the first part "Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior". There is and 'and' there which covers more plus the "especially for financial or other sectional interests" bit. And since the denial has little to do with the actual science the 'CO2' part is not a specific of the denial. Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is POV. It needs to be stated at the top that "denial" is a pejorative term used by advocates of the scientific consensus position on global warming. Both this article and the parallel Global warming alarmism article need to make it clear that each of these two terms is used by opponents of their point of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

An article is not POV just because some people do not like it. POV applies if the sources are not summarized in an unbiased fair and proportionate way. Fairness in presenting views by giving a 50-50 balance to everything like some newspapers and television does is not what wikipedia means by WP:neutral point of view. The lead of the article already says in two different places that people don't apply the term to themselves and that the term has been criticised as deligitimizing views. What is there is quite sufficient. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the entire article was POV, just the lead, by failing to indicate clearly that this is a pejorative term used by opponents. I have the same view of the alarmist article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the lead did carefully distinguish between skepticism and denial. It says people or companies described as deniers don't normally apply the term to themselves. It also said that the term had been criticized as trying to inject morality into a situation where companies and people are perfectly free to go and try and influence public opinion by any legal means available. Do you feel that if a person applies the term to the situation the article is talking about then that is unreasonable in some way? Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just would like to see in the first sentence a clear statement of who is using that term. What I meant was that the alarmist article has the same issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with how the climate change alarmism article treats it either. The lead should describe the topic. As it is as far as I can see both terms can be used in either an insulting or straight descriptive manner. Wikipedia isn't in the business of prescribing behaviour and people are quite adept in knowing if they are insulting people or not. It is not like saying someone is a baboon which incidentally doesn't say anythig about it being prejudical. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding the proper difference between Global warming controversy and Climate change denial, but I have to say that coming to this article as a first time reader, it struck me as bias. I agree that denial is not skepticism and the title of the article instantly places such thought in categories as Holocaust deniers. Perhaps a minor point, but while often used interchangeably, climate change is not the same thing as global warming. The lead then beings with the statement they downplay the extent of global warming, which gives the bias view that the extent of global warming (whatever that extent) is fact. Being an ancillary article, it would seem more neutral to title the article "Global warming skepticism", and start with the more common criticism of people that are skeptical of the extent of global warming caused by human activity. The lead and the first sentence poison the well before you even read anything else. It would be fine to say that critics call them Climate change deniers, but it seems bias to frame the entire article in the critics viewpoint. We don't call the Flat earth article Round earth denial, no matter how crazy they are. Morphh ^(talk) 15:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, the well-poisoning is not happening on the side of this article. As an encyclopedia we are not in the pay of any industry groups, and we have no obligation to misrepresent the state of research just because ExxonMobil managed to confuse the general public in the same way, and largely using the same techniques and organisations, as Philip Morris managed to confuse the public about the health effect of smoking. We go with the state of research, not with petrol companies' spin on it. And particularly so in an article that deals directly with their machinations. Hans Adler 16:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about misrepresenting the state of research? If anything, the title misrepresents the argument. It is non-negotiable NPOV policy that neutral wording be used in the article, particularly for the title and primary definition. As wrong as ExxonMobil may be, we have to lay out the arguments neutrally. Morphh ^(talk) 19:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about climate change denial, not about ExxonMobil, global warming or the global warming controversy. As you can see there are separate articles about each of them, and many more besides. As such, this one defines what that well-used term means, how it's used, and gives examples of where the term has been applied in the real world. If you don't want to know about climate change denial, but about some other aspect of climate change, then the other articles cover every base and every option. Suggestions for how better to cover climate change denial in this article are welcome, of course. --Nigelj (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable if the article is about that topic point and not the general skepticism. I arrived here because someone was linking skeptics to this article. So there is some confusion on its topic point. If it's alright with everyone, I'd like to put an about tag in the lead, to redirect people that are looking for skepticism on the human impact of global warming. Morphh ^(talk) 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Added about tag. Please reword as needed to accurately reflect the article. Morphh ^(talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought a reasonable path would be to remove the link to here in that other article or change it point somewhere else? That would be far prefereable to trying to change the target to correspond to what you think the link should have pointed to. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That was done as well, but it still remains that the topic could be confused with the broader topic. About tags are very common in Wikipedia to clarify such topic points. Morphh ^(talk) 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The about note

I'm not happy with the wording of the new about note. Where it says, "for skepticism of global warming theories", there is already an implicit assumption that global warming is merely a theory, or set of theories. The article linked has also been the subject of extensive review and discussion over the years and it introduces its topic more carefully, per WP:NPOV. I suggest we use the opening wording from there and change the about note, if it is necessary here, to read, "This article is about global warming denial. For the disputes regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming, see global warming controversy." --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're describing the scientific states of hypothesis, theory, and law. I don't see how it could be assumed be more than a theory at this point (suggesting it could be a law?), but your wording sounds fine to me. It appears neutral. Morphh ^(talk) 1:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mind you, if people came along and suggested removing the note and making it into a normal 'See also' item, I would support that too. --Nigelj (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Links in quotes in contravention of policy

@DMCQ: I removed the links from inside quotes and cited the policy. While that policy does have some wiggle room "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes" I do not see policy support for your claim that we "Should do major links even in quotes". Can you cite the source of your exception to policy?--SPhilbrickT 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as possible means do it unless you're removing something of great use. It is like Einstein's dictum of simplify as much as possible but no more. Rules should not be followed where to the extent they harm an article especially when they have wriggle room. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd come up with policy wording supporting your revert, or at least some comparable example with a consensus to override the general policy. I did some homework looking up other exceptions; there are some, but nothing that hints that this would qualify. However, before I revert, there's a bigger problem. The quote is there to explain why greenhouses gasses aren't regulated, but that's no longer true, so more significant trimming is required. I'm not up for it at the moment, perhaps others can start thinking about how to fix this. The logical step is to remove the full sentence including the quote. Then we might look to see if there's something relevant and more recent than 2007. --SPhilbrickT 00:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain yourself rather than just asserting things. You have not provided a single explanation for any of your assertions so far on this talk page. In this case are you saying that greenhouse gases are regulated and therefore any statements about what happened in the past must be removed? May I point out that this article is principally about a denial rather than the current state of climate change? Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I am explaining myself; if you have specific questions please ask. As to your assertion that this article is about a denial, my main point is that this article is hopelessly vague and needs to be materially improved. On the present point, the closing sentence of the article is an illustration of the effects of denial, showing that the denialists have managed to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gases. In fact, greenhouse gasses are regulated, so a reader will find it odd to read the concluding sentence. Do you disagree? If you'd like to propose a way to put the incorrect facts into a larger context, I'm happy to work with you on it. I was going to take the simple option and just remove the incorrect statement, but perhaps there's a better way.--SPhilbrickT 12:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the control of noxious gases like sulphur dioxide so they don't cause damage in the area or to the EPA's plans to bring in some regulation of greenhouse gases in 2011 so the US can be on a par with Saudi Arabia in its controls? As to facts I'm keen to have articles factual but I've found the easiest way to counter inaccuracies that have been published in reliable sources is to find a good reliable source that contradicts them and sets the record straight. Just removing them because I think they are wrong is heading towards POV editing. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the EPA plans, but it appears they are further off in the future than I had thought, so I'll drop my objection.--SPhilbrickT 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nature: Science scorned

[24]: There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts... Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What, they're just figuring this out now? :) Franamax (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that article describes more the general skepticism in some quarters about science even though it also describes the denial, still I think it could be a good reference somewhere here. <personal rant, sorry> I've been wondering if this anti-science turn is because the science is so hidden nowadays, people don't service their own car, you don't have steam engines with the pistons moving, people don't solder a computer together, chemistry lessons have been made safe, children play a video game rather than program something in basic or wind a solenoid up and make a simple electric motor, who ever nowadays melts glass to draw out a pipette or even make a decoration, something like technical Lego is the best children have nowadays to give them some idea of science. No wonder they have no feel for it.</end rant> Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'About' note should go

I don't think we need the note saying what this article is about. It's about 'Climate change denial', the title, there's no ambiguity there. That note is useful on an article like Electric boat, because there's also a company called 'Electric Boat', differing by only a capital letter. The reason it got put here was me trying to be nice to Morphh "because someone was linking skeptics to this article". The best answer was Dmcq's ("remove the link to here in that other article or change it point somewhere else"). Now we have daily changes to the note and a parallel discussion above about extending the wording of the note. Let's just delete the note and get back to improving the article. The first sentence of every article is supposed to define what it is about. There is no reason for this one to be different. --Nigelj (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me explain (a couple of edit conflicts here). So the disambiguation at the top now says:

This article is about global warming denial. For the disputes regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming, see global warming controversy.

I changed this to the following:

This article covers discussion of efforts to obscure the public understanding of climate change. For a wider discussion on the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming, see global warming controversy

The reason is that people keep being confused about what this article is about, thinking either that it is about any arguments which tend to disagree with predominant views on climate change, or even that it is about any argument which contests anything at all having to do with climate change. Those aren't the topic, but the truth is a reader has no way of knowing this. Readers don't come here knowing that we have good systems of organization, or that we know what we are doing, or understanding that because we only cover distinctly negative meanings of "denial" that we do not intend this to be a comprehensive summary of disagreement with ideas relating to climate change. That's why I'm suggesting it needs to be clarified.

The problem with the current disambiguation is that it doesn't clarify this, or really anything. It simply says that you can find additional information elsewhere. I hope that helps. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing the disambig if that helps. Was it discussed when it was first created? --TS 22:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the balance. If we don't clarify anything, the article risks making it look like we wish to define any person who disputes any aspect of the predominant view point as a "denialist." If we simply state that the term is pejorative, on the other hand, we risk making it look like we think the term has no valid meaning. I'm trying to do something in between, that clarifies the limited scope of the article without judging the discussion itself. The current disambiguation seems to have evolved somewhat from where I started it as a "see also." Mackan79 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the problem is that the history of science denialism isn't well covered in Wikipedia. Where is our coverage of tobacco denialism? There surely must be scads of material about this topic, and there were settlements requiring the release of all documentation, much of which is freely available online and will have been analyzed at some point, if only in law reports. If we had a methodical coverage it would enable us to identify the topic unambiguously without serious problems. --TS 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I discovered yesterday, there is a lot of coverage of tobacco denialism and also of the more general problem of industry using PR companies that confuse the public so as to delay political action. So far I haven't found a specific article on this, but I have watchlisted quite a few articles related to the topic – and have today seen suspicious activity on several of them. (For an example see Heartland Institute. The gap in the editing history seems to be typical.) I guess this is in part a timing accident because the CC Arbcom case has just finished and so some editors who look from their short editing histories as if they shouldn't have been concerned have resumed their activities. Hans Adler 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm pro Mackan79's latest version, there are just too many people who just can't seem to get it that this article isn't about the scientific controversy at all, having a bit in italics might just about manage to get some of them to look at the right place. I'll revert to his latest version which says a bit more about the topic rather than just repeating the title. It'll never be perfect but you can't always summarize things perfectly in less than seven words. Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The present note starts by saying it "covers discussion of efforts to obscure...". That is very long-winded: 4 steps before we start to say what it's about. Can we be more direct? --Nigelj (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. <g> Someone just denying the existence of anthropogenic global warming doesn't seem to qualify as a "denier". I suppose we could change "covers discussion of" to "covers" or "discusses", but I don't think there is a shorter accurate definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it certainly helps to assure readers that an article like this covers a discussion, rather than that we decided to write an article about what we consider a disinformation campaign. Among other things it gives us leeway to have a broader discussion where we are not alleging that every instance discussed is part of a disinformation campaign. If we did not make any effort to hedge anything, we would presumably be much more limited in what we could discuss consistently with WP:BLP. For instance, I notice we provide comments from Frank Luntz as relevant, without attribution. That would be problematic if we said this article is about efforts to obscure. Mackan79 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommended wikilink additions in References and Further Reading ...

Recommended wikilink additions in References and Further Reading ...

• David Michaels (epidemiologist)'s 2008 Doubt is Their Product
• Thomas McGarity's 2010 Bending Science: How special interests corrupt public health research
• Mark Bowen (writer)'s Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming

99.155.155.215 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FUD certainly is Hansen's forte, although it's also the strength of some of the "deniers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Hansen scientifically is fully mainstream, and extremely accomplished at that - my Firefox plugin spits out an h-index of 54 and breaks on the g-index. What distinguishes Hanse is not his science, but his way of effectively communicating to the general public. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

An editor has completely removed the external links section saying they should all be linked inline. There is no such policy in Wikipedia. They also removed the tag at the top that is being discussed and as far as I can see the balance is currently towards keeping something like that. They also stuck in a citation needed for common knowledge without a comment saying why they wanted such a citation. Could editors please put reasoned comments in before removing big chunks of other editors work. I reverted the changes but they have done it again instead of coming here according to bold, revert discuss. Dmcq (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The {{fact}} tag is appropriate. I'm not sure about the External Links, and I certainly wouldn't have removed the tag at the top. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think the dab link is a good idea, as well. We should clarify the scope on an article like this (and point to where people can get more information), and I don't think the last version was too cumbersome. Hopefully we can get consensus here. Mackan79 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So the only disagreement is about 'The term is rarely used by those to whom it is applied' where I removed the 'citation needed' as common knowledge. I must admit I don't like the statement myself, what we have got cites for is that people don't like being called climate change deniers which is slightly different. On that basis I'll restore the dab and external links but leave the citation needed. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas what should be done about the 'rarely used' statement? There seems to be some editors who think a warning like that is needed and it has been fought over in the past. How about something like 'It is not a term people like being applied to them' which we could actually cite. Dmcq (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

new explanatory header

This article covers discussion of efforts to obscure the public understanding of climate change

This statement is imo not a neutral portrayal. It suggests that people are deliberately attempting to stop the public understanding some fact - that is simply a false statement. People agree with climate change theory and some don't it is not some deliberate plot to obscure the public from making their own mind up, in fact it is just that, opposing views allowing the public to make their own mind up. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It crosses the boundary, while I accept your statement to some extent, there are clear cases of deliberate attempts to stop the public understanding some fact - for example the existence of a scientific consensus on the core issues, when the fact of it is statistically evident. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The previous explanatory header was fine , or even none at all than this. A consensus of scientist believe in climate change who is try to obscure that? People are allowed to dispute and disagree and offer other explanations and theories without them being accused of deliberately attempting to obscure the public from understanding what the consensus of scientists support. A consensus of scientist once believed the earth was flat and many other later repudiated claims and theories..the small voices in opposing such issues were not trying to obscure the publics perception of something but offering other ideas and their theories. The new explanatory header is not a neutral portrayal of the issue, it is a climate change believers opinion.Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q15. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You do agree that there have been consensus of scientists that were later proved to be wrong? Anyway, the header is not a NPOV portrayal of the article, keep it if you like it.Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "consensus" is plural and as far as I can find out, this has no commonly used plural, but yes, there have been many situations where a scientific consensus has been found to be wrong. Do you have an example where an established scientific consensus turned out to be more wrong than the corresponding popular belief? Science is a process of continual refinement. Massive revolutions are rare, and the revolutions there are very often do not go the "common sense" way (see quantum theory, relativity, undecidability, evolution). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is a interesting word, I will investigate it later, sometimes in this digital world the guidelines on language seem rather fluid. I can easily accept the basic idea that the consensus of scientists is the more likely correct position, but the header also asserts the public as an entity want to know, some do but some are not bothered at all. I don't think we are a propaganda machine to explain our articles from a believers standpoint and label and accuse opponents as having deliberate public misleading agenda. (agendas - plural?) - Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

epic ec I agree that some sort of explainer is necessary. However, I see no problem with referring to it as an effort to deliberately obscure the current state of climate change research. It has been suggested that the reason that a substantial number of people (especially in the english speaking world) disagree with climate change theory is the deliberate misinformation campaign documented here. Heck, I was skeptical of global warming myself until I witnessed foxnews's deliberate and daily misrepresentation of the CRU emails (which was patently obvious to me as a budding scientist in a mostly unrelated field) that conveniently lasted from their release until the end of the Copenhagen summit, which caused me to look deeper into the research. We can argue about the precise wording, as science doesn't deal in facts (and theory is a word terribly misunderstood by the general public), but it should definitely refer to a deliberate campaign to misinform and misrepresent. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To me that is the total rejection of some scientists good faith differing views and the labeling of them as some kind of evil plotters spreading false lies, imo it is this fear mongering and attacking of anyone that disagrees with the warmers that makes me wonder why they need to do that if they are so correct..although I don't suppose the actual scientists do that but it is the believers in the public that hold the extremist position. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not to say that there aren't (an increasingly small) number of researchers who try to offer legitimate alternative theories to global warming backed up with decent research. However, they are not the subject of this article, which is what the lead should communicate. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok. Who are these people accused of deliberate efforts to obscure the public understanding of climate change ? Please could you also provide a WP:RS that supports that they are doing that.Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this? [25] Have you actually read the article that you want to change the lead of? Sailsbystars (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You want names and a reliable source? How about the following:

In 1991, a corporate coalition composed of the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute created a PR front group called the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE) and launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations campaign to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."

To boost its credibility, ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel that featured Patrick Michaels [...]; Robert Balling [...]; and Sherwood Idso [...]. ICE's plan called for placing these three scientists, along with fellow greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer [...] in broadcast appearances, op-ed pages, and newspaper interviews. Bracy Williams & Co., a Washington-based PR firm, did the advance publicity work for the interviews. Another company was contracted to conduct opinion polls, which identified "older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information-seekers" and "younger, lower-income women" as "good targets for radio advertisements" that would "directly attack the proponents of global warming... through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom. "One print advertisement prepared for the ICE campaign showed a sailing ship about to drop off the edge of a flat world into the jaws of a waiting dragon. The headline read: "Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat." [...]
"It will be interesting to see how the science approach sells," commented an internal memo by the Edison Electric Institute's William Brier. The campaign collapsed, however, after Brier's comments and other internal memoranda were leaked to the press. An embarrassed Michaels hastily disassociated himself from ICE, citing what he called its "blatant dishonesty."

---

Hans Adler 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple - "climate change denial is...". Whether some action is an example of denial is another matter. But a simple statement of what constitutes denial shouldn't be problematic. Guettarda (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats correct, but the explanatory header as it has been changed is not what climate change denial is...and imo has nothing at all to do with any deliberate falsification and misleading of the public. Heres my first edit to replace the article NPOV header This article is about global warming denial. For the disputes regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming, see global warming controversy. - Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this on for size: "This article is about an ongoing disinformation campaign regarding the science of global warming. For information about scientific disputes on climate change, see Global warming controversy." Sailsbystars (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

bit better, leaves me asking , whose campaign is it? Is it involved businesses with self interests or is it anyone that disagrees with global warming theories and verbalizes that to the public? If there is a disinformation campaign then we can add the name of this business or organization that is being accused of running this alleged campaign. - This article is about (who? - add name or names of campaign organizers here)'s ongoing disinformation campaign regarding the science of global warming. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we explain what climate change denial is, and what this article is about, and provide links to all the other related articles in the lead, and in the rest of the article, like everyone else does? Why do we need a disambiguation note anyway? We're never going to sum up the whole article in half a sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep - the note did strike me as a tad redundant, given that the role of the lead is to summarise the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious if people would only take the time to read the first sentence or two. But you just have to look at this very discussion to see arguments about scientists being right or wrong - and that's wholly irrelevant to this article. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And BTW it isn't just a disinformation campaign about the science, in fact many wouldn't care if people believed the science provided they didn't do anything about it. It is a campaign to ensure results seen as in their interest by those doing the disinformation. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob is right that "obscure" is POV. It would be less contentious to simply use a word denoting "disagreement" as opposed to "obscure," which implies a deliberate effort to hide the truth. If that text is necessary, there needs to be a more neutral phrase or word to substitute. Perhaps it can say "in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change." How about that? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I support that. I can also support removal of the explanatory note, as a couple of editors have said, the lede should explain the exact issue to readers. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? Obscuring is what it is about. Disagreement is where two people have different views. There is no implication here that the people doing these campaigns believe what they are saying. We have no insight into their views, only into their actions. If we were talking about straightforward sceptics they they probably report their views fairly faithfully but that';s not what the article is about. Dmcq (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that. I just don't like the idea of Wikipedia in its "institutional voice" making a strong statement such as "obscure." To say "...deny that climate change exists" would be OK too as that simply repeats what's already in the article title. That's only POV if the article title is POV. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the difference? It's just a shade of difference, but it's important. "Obscure" means "I know there is climate change, but I'm lying about it." "Deny" implies simply "I deny that there's climate change." That could be in good faith or bad faith. "Obscure" implies bad faith far more strongly. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Denial here isn't about denying as in saying climate change isn't happening. It is more in the both the psychological and war senses - and in this article more in the war sense as in denying ground to the enemy. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Please keep it simple, do you see objections to your addition? Yes..? then shouldn't you be moving to some kind of compromise or shall we just comment and comment until users and objectors get bored and go away? Or is it that your addition is correct and the objectors don't understand what you think is correct? Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'undermine' you just put in covers a reasonable portion of the article. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob, you said: "A consensus of scientist once believed the earth was flat" this is just a myth, however you are quite right of course to say "there have been consensus of scientists that were later proved to be wrong". The point was that there is provably currently a consensus, and yet others actively deny that. You said "A consensus of scientist believe in climate change who is try to obscure that?" - it took me two seconds in google news to find "Quite simply, the concept that there is a consensus on the science is one of many fabrications undertaken by the alarmists that has now been debunked." dated today, by an Australian Senator. (Plenty more to be found) This is a perfect example of "people are deliberately attempting to stop the public understanding some fact" per your initial posting starting this thread. ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This article reports on the attempts of some corporations to undermine the scientific consensus regarding climate change

The emphasis on 'corporations' in the present version is moving further from the reality. The first sentence of the article after the lead mentions a "well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry", so that's a lot of non-corporations, as well as the mysterious 'funders'. I think anyone who wants to attempt this impossible task (summarise the whole article in a sentence) should at least read the article (the whole article) right through first. --Nigelj (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How about just removing the 'by some corporations'? Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What do you think of "undermine"? Sounds about right to me. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With "undermine", with or without "by some corporations" – it sounds about right. Unfortunately "undermine the scientific consensus" is not technically correct. There is no chance of changing the scientific opinion itself with PR work. It's all about the perception in the general public. But I can't think of a better way of saying it and am reasonably happy with this slightly incorrect version. Hans Adler 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. "...undermine public perceptions of the scientific consensus" is more accurate, but wordy. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we could simply say "....sway public perceptions of global warming" and not go beyond that. It's true, and for further details the reader just has to cast his eyes 1/8 inch below. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't "report," given that we are an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper. I believe we "cover" issues, and don't "report" on them. Also agree that the article is not just or primarily about corporations. Mackan79 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think Nigel underestimates the benefit of not saying in our editorial voice that we consider there to be a campaign to do whatever particular bad things. I suspect based on previous discussion that I won't convince him of this, but the problem is that this is article is about negative claims, the type that if you falsely made them about a living individual they would probably be considered defamatory. In that situation you want to avoid making outright claims that such a campaign is happening, and that the campaign is what we are covering. The fact that reliable sources take such a stance doesn't mean we should uncritically do the same, without a great deal of care. This article is entirely about political controversy, let's keep in mind. I know many won't appreciate the point, but all the same. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right about "report." What about my "sway perceptions" language above? That's neutral. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To my mind none of the suggestions have been bad (i.e. all of them are acceptable). My personal suggestions: "report"->"documents", drop the bit specifying corporations, and "undermine" -> "downplay". Sailsbystars (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"This article documents attempts to downplay the scientific consensus regarding climate change"? Yes, that may well be the best iteration so far, among many that are more than acceptable. Hans Adler 23:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Too many cooks in the kitchen, I fear, but in my view any sentence needs to say that it covers "discussion" of attempts to downplay the scientific consensus (or some other qualifier besides "discussion"), if it is to serve a useful purpose, and if it is not to violate NPOV. Unfortunately this requires some understanding of the nature of this article, and primarily the fact that this article exists to cover discussion of what might either be called a concept or a term. We know this, because if it existed only to cover efforts to obscure a position, then it would be a clear POV fork. We don't have articles on attempts to obscure a position simply because such efforts exist and are documented by reliable sources. Only if there is a notable term do we end up with such articles, which then cover discussion under the rubric created by that term. A look at the article, in turn, shows that it covers primarily 1.) claims that there is a campaign of denial, 2.) criticism of these claims. Therefore, it does not simply "report on" or "document" the dishonest behavior, as alleged, but covers all notable viewpoints on this term (or concept, if you prefer). My goal in first adding a disambiguation link to the top was only to clarify that this is an article about this concept/term, and not about any particular view on the nature of climate change. I think that's necessary since otherwise people think this article does cover such views on the nature of climate change. Saying that the article covers discussion of efforts to downplay/obscure the scientific consensus, in my view, may serve to clarify this distinction. If people think that's too soft, however -- if they insist we can't call it discussion and must say this article documents or reports on views which dispute the scientific consensus -- then in my view the sentence is entirely counterproductive by a.) failing to even create the distinction between an article on the term/concept and an article on the view itself, and b.) unnecessarily starting the article with an editorial stance that the term is validly used, and the term we prefer to use for this topic, and that criticism of the term is invalid or unimportant. Mackan79 (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if the attempts to undermine scientific consensus is fact or opinion. The way the about reads "This article reports on the attempts of some corporations to undermine the scientific consensus" appears to be making a statement of fact, not that the attempts are opinion. I don't know either way.. just thought I would bring it up. Morphh ^(talk) 4:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The current version, that you quote, is utterly inconsistent with our policies. Not only does it state as fact that corporations are doing something which self-evidently they would deny doing (in fact that's exactly the claim, that they are doing something dishonest), but it suggests that we are providing some kind of investigation into their activities. Sadly, and not to blame anyone in particular, the history of this page has very rarely shown much willingness to carefully consider both sides of the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a consensus that "reports" and "corporations" should not be used. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardons me for entering the discussion a bit late, but I'm pretty sure what we want it something along these lines" "This article reports on attempts to reframe scientific evidence regarding climate change in political decision-making processes and public debates." Also, it should probably mention that the debates are primarily in the US, but that's a separate issue. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the word "reports" may be problematic, as discussed earlier, but otherwise I think that's a fair summary. By the way, to respond belatedly to something Mackan said: I think this discussion has been good, and also that "the more the merrier" principle applies. The fact that more editors than a few weighing in is a good thing, and also I'm not seeing any battlefield behavior or edit warring. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea to generalize it a bit, but I wonder if it doesn't go too far. "Attempts to reframe scientific evidence," well, the problem is that wouldn't necessarily be covered in an article called "Climate change denial." I realize it's a bit TL;DR, but my point above is that this is really an article about the description of certain activity as "climate change denial." Is that activity denial? Is it not denial? Should it be called something else? It it a good description? If the article is simply about attempts to reframe scientific evidence, then the title would be something like "Politicization of climate science." Ultimately, we wouldn't use a loaded term for the title of an article unless the article is about the use of the loaded term (which of course includes the justifications for its use provided by reliable sources, as a basic starting point). Mackan79 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

well, between you and me (and everyone else in the known universe) I'm not entirely thrilled by 'climate change denial' as an article title. It seems POVish: 'denying' climate change is what people who believe in climate change call it; the actual 'deniers' don't claim to be 'denying', they claim to be 'correcting'. Personally I think the 'denial' rhetoric is accurate, but I do recognize it as rhetoric, and we probably shouldn't be indulging in rhetorical claims in article titles. but this seems like a separate issue... --Ludwigs2 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

...we probably shouldn't be indulging in rhetorical claims in article titles.

Shhh...that's our little Wiki-secret. What matter if it misrepresents entirely the position of the skeptical. "Climate change"="anthropogenic global warming". What you wanna do, upset the apple cart? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... we probably shouldn't be engaging in sarcasm of this sort, either.

I don't really have a stake in this debate, mind you. As best I can see, the evidence supporting the theory that climate change of some sort is occurring is overwhelming, and the evidence that it is due to the side effects of human activity is strong (though not iron-clad). There is still room for scientific debate on the issue, but the null hypothesis supporters have to make some fairly exaggerated assumptions to make their position seem feasible. The main problem with this entire debate, from my perspective, is that it's using science to mask a moral debate. On the one hand you have a reasonable and well-supported claim that human activity is gradually producing conditions that will (if true) most likely have drastic effects on the human race (up to and including the deaths of billions through displacement, warfare, and loss of drinking water and arable land). On the other hand you have large corporations trying to fend off threats to their bottom line by preventing environmental controls on their activities. I'd personally be much happier if the corporate interests were simply honest and left science out of the equation, saying "We understand the potential risk of our activities, but that is not the way market economics works. We will make our profits as we can now, and will find solutions to other problems when and if we are required to." But I don't suppose that would fly well politically.

I'll stop now before I wander off into a full-scale analysis of the conflicts of class-dependent ethical systems in a global capitalist system. Suffice it to say that I find the whole global warming debate disingenuous at best. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Recap

I get the feeling nobody is that set on having the italicized sentence at the top, probably because it isn't 100% clear what the sentence adds. In my view, one purpose of the sentence can be to clarify that this article focuses on the use and application of the concept of "denial" with regard to those who contest prevailing climate science, and correspondingly that this article does not simply address a view or agenda for which the prevailing term is "Climate change denial." Given that the concept of "climate change denial" is widely contested, I don't believe we can use it as an NPOV descriptor, though given its notability we do cover the commentary surrounding the concept. If so, I think a disambiguation link can help to clarify the limited scope of the article, without prejudicing the discussion in either way.

I suspect that some editors will not be comfortable with this, however, because (like those who use this term) they presumably think that it is an NPOV description for a certain category of behavior, and therefore that we very much should have an article simply on climate change denial as it happens. These would presumably be the editors who say the term is not pejorative at all, but simply a term for what certain corporations and individuals are known to do. I would respond that the numerous sources contesting the use of this phrase show that it is not an NPOV description of any category of behavior (though, again, it is notable).

In any case, if the latter view prevails then the truth is we don't need this sentence at all (or if we did, it should just say "This article is about climate change denial.") Thus, it seems worth simply asking whether people are open to making a clarification of the first sort. I propose: "This article covers discussion about attempts to obscure the scientific consensus on climate change." Alternatively, "This article covers discussion about climate change denial." A sentence like that helps avert the NPOV problem inherent in basing an article on a disputed phrase, while guiding people to where they can find additional information. If this can't gain consensus, though, then we should just get rid of the sentence since it won't serve any purpose. Mackan79 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify the recap even more. Are we saying that some people regard "Climate change denial" as just a term which is sometimes applied, but which actually doesn't apply to anyone or anything in the real world, whereas others say that there is such a real, funded and extant phenomenon to which the term applies? In the former case, we must ensure that readers are made aware before they start reading that this is a description of a (relatively meaningless) phrase, whereas in the latter case we can just get on with describing a phenomenon, like we do for terrorism, for example. --Nigelj (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think on balance there is no reasonable doubt in reliable sources that the latter applies. With the profit of hindsight and a court case against Philip Morris in which they were forced to release a huge amount of smoking gun information about their PR activities, the mechanisms in the denial of the connection between smoking and cancer are very well documented. Methods have evolved a bit since then, but not much, and while a lot more small front organisations with grandiose names have been created since then, many of those denying global warming now were part of that earlier scandal.

There are of course formally reliable sources that say this is simply not true. But instead of addressing the evidence they merely make unproved claims that contradict it, and in most cases at least partial funding by the fossil fuel industry could be proved. Hans Adler 11:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the about tag as a clarification. The base definition could be applied to any skeptic. Since the title is a loaded term and the definition generic, we need to make it clear that this article is about a specific sub-topic, not about general skepticism to certain global warming claims, which is covered in the global warming controversy article. I think it primarily important that the about tag describe what this article is not, more than describing what it is. Morphh ^(talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Hans, is that it isn't good enough to say there is no reasonable doubt that some underhanded campaign of some sort exists. The issue is that this concept is very much seen by numerous competent, reliable sources as a slur against a broad set of views. See, for instance, Robert Samuelson,[26] or Brendan O'Neill,[27] or Bjorn Lomborg,[28] or others.[29] The concept and/or term therefore is seen as reflecting bias by numerous reliable sources. In response to Nigel, we should not say this is just a term that is sometimes applied, but we should simply not take a position on whether it is a biased term or an accurate reflection, since there is disagreement among reliable sources on this point. This is a political debate, again, not an issue of how to present science, something which I think not all editors have fully appreciated. Incidentally, and probably against better judgment: I live in the U.S. where today the New York Times comments that the entire Republican Party has basically adopted climate change denial as a mantra.[30] An appropriate argument for an editorial, certainly. Yet, do we think that those of the "denialist" view will be impressed to see Wikipedia showing similar contempt for their views in its narrative voice? Wording choices like this do not educate anyone; the only thing they do is suggest or decline to suggest a point of view (in our case, read bias). This is one of many reasons why I believe that in political controversies Wikipedia's voice must strive to be neutral, as it presents the contentions of others. Mackan79 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

1.) True or false: A significant number of reliable sources don't agree with using the term "climate change denial" or "climate change denier" to describe any view or position in the political controversy over global warming.
2.) True or false: This article limits itself to reliable sources discussing climate change denial as such, and doesn't have a broader scope of relevance such as anything which reasonably seems to describe a campaign to downplay the scientific consensus on climate change, or anything which reasonably seems like it denies an aspect of climate change.

My answers are true and true. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I expressed earlier that the definition in the article is not supported by the reference. My concern remains, and lack of further comments by me should be interpreted as giving up (not receiving answers to questions) as opposed to acceptance of the definition. As I watch the debate concerning the about note, I see a related problem. It is hard to agree on wording identifying the subject of the article, because we do not have a consensus about the subject matter. Like the blind men and an elephant, some see this as a reprise of the smoking disinformation campaigns. Others see the term "Climate denial" and interpret it literally, looking for those who deny that climate change exists. Some see "skeptic" and "denier" as virtually interchangeable, others attempt to distinguish the two. Some view the corporate disinformation campaign as the subject of the articles, others view the corporate attempt as merely one example of a much broader phenomenon. No wonder it is difficult to write a succinct summary of the subject matter.

In other words, the problem isn't that we cannot quite agree on what words to describe what we all have in mind, the problem is that we have multiple things in mind, so the effort to find a summary is doomed. Perhaps we ought to revisit the definition, try once again to find a source to support a definition, and then, if we are in agreement about the subject matter, we might be able to find words to summarize the subject matter. Or even better, if we reach agreement on the subject matter, we might find we no longer need an about section, as Makan79 has noted. --SPhilbrickT 21:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As a technical note, we have an introductory sentence that virtually everyone agrees is deficient, yet there it is. Shouldn't it be removed, pending community consensus on the correct wording? --SPhilbrickT 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It sounds like what Makan79 should be doing is suggesting some text, with citations, to put into the article. It may go alongside or replace what we currently have from Richard D. North, Timothy Ball, Gantt Walton et al. That would be far more useful than trying to craft one italic sentence to 'dis' the whole article before it starts. Once you have a suggestion, then consensus (as always) will be reached on the bases of WP:RS, weight, notability, relevance etc. I don't think we'll be replacing or reducing the material based on Monbiot, Oreskes et al any time soon, but no one here has any objection to balanced coverage in the article body. @Sphilbrick, if the article changes, then the lede may change to reflect what is currently in the article. Starting with the lede, or worse with a hat-note, seems completely the wrong way round. --Nigelj (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's frustrating to try to discuss this with you when you only acknowledge pro or con. When I say we should not take a view one way or another, why do you read this to mean I want to "dis" the article? The funny thing is Off2riorob clearly thought I was trying to dis denial as a viewpoint. It would be nice if people didn't try to pigeon hole so much. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

remove for now. Opening sentence is more than adequate to explain in the interim. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an ambiguity in Mackan79's question 1 which I'll elucidate in the hope that it will get us somewhere. In those 'don't agree with using the term "climate change denial" or "climate change denier" to describe any view or position in the political controversy over global warming' do you mean people who deny that there are any people to whom it is fair to apply the term "denier", or do you mean people who deny that it is fair to apply the term "denier" indiscriminately to all who don't accept the position that the earth is warming and probably due to human agency?

The first sounds like a very extreme position to me. The tobacco companies paid organizations that call themselves libertarian think tanks to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the science behind tobacco regulation, and now the same "libertarian think tanks" are getting money from the oil and gas companies to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the science behind greenhouse gas regulation. Certainly they'll deny it to your face and some people even believe them, but not many.

The second is a truism. Of course not everybody who disagrees with the mainstream is a denialist. Some are scientists who know their stuff and have reached an alternative position. Some simply don't know much about the science but have chosen a position on grounds other than scientific investigation. --TS 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the title and scope of the article were reasonably settled questions. FYI, just today, the New York Times lead editorial titled, "In Climate Denial, Again." ScottyBerg (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read my comment at 20:24, which unfortunately I had to edit a couple of times, I tried to address this. My point is that many reliable sources have actually disputed the very usefulness and appropriateness of this term, even though I doubt anyone would dispute that of course there is an effort to block regulation, and even obscure the science, due to financial or political interests. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "denial" smacks of POV. But I also believe that this general subject has been discussed repeatedly in the past. I'm just suggesting that one of the negative aspects of the climate change articles in the recent past has been a tendency to return again and again to the same issues, and I hope we're not repeating that. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just hard to discuss anything when we're all on a different "page." I'm trying to say we shouldn't have a sentence at the top which says this article is about efforts to attack the science, because if that's what it's about then it seems a lot like a POV fork. In truth I don't think this is a POV fork, because rather than an article on efforts to attack science I think it's an article about the use of a concept. That's similar to some other difficult articles I've worked with, such as Israel and the apartheid analogy and New antisemitism. But ultimately nobody can agree what the article is about, or even what we're talking about, which makes it a bit hard to resolve problems. Mackan79 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be against renaming the article to a more acceptable name. But I just don't know of one that would be suitable. --TS 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Obviously nothing is set in stone, but I was about to point out that we have 27 archives, filled with more or less this same kind of discussion. I thought we had a consensus on the title. If I'm wrong, i'm wrong, but that's my understanding. I see that at the top of the page we had a discussion a month ago on the lead, at which time I suggested that "denial" needed to be clarified as a pejorative term. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest Corporate activism against global warming mitigation as a possible descriptive title. The term "corporate activism" occurs occasionally in this context, although not as often as "denial". The rest of the title is descriptive. It is needed because of the many other fields of corporate activism, such as against smoking prevention. Hans Adler 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But then we run into the question of whether "corporate activism" is correct. The use of the word "corporate" was disputed in discussion of italicized prologue. What I was expressing in my comment was a certain frustration at the tendency of the same issues to be discussed again and again in these CC articles. That doesn't mean they're not valid issues, but at a certain point I think that, if the underlying facts haven't changed, we need to determine if a consensus had previously been reached on such things. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That NY Times article mentioned above clearly describes the same sort of thing as is described by this article and it has 'Climate Denial' in its title which is pretty close to the title of the article. The article is titled appropriately according to the Wikipedia article naming policy. Please see WP:AT#Non-neutral but common names about the argument above about POV: "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

@SBerg I haven't seen major opposition to the title. But there is clearly a lack of consensus regarding the subject matter. Who are the deniers? Just the corporate spin merchants? All skeptics? Those who deny the science? What about those who accept the science but differ on the appropriate responses? We have a poor definition, not even derived from the citation purporting to support it, so it is hardly surprising that so many are struggling to summarize the subject.--SPhilbrickT 22:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The first sentence, which presents a general definition, is sourced to what appears to be a reasonably reliable and nonpartisan publication. The article begins from a very general definition and then goes into specifics. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The point of my proposal was not to make the title 'neutral' but to make it more descriptive. For some people "CC denial" refers to everybody who denies that it occurs, and nothing else. For some people it refers only to the organised campaign, but includes the part where they say it occurs but it's better not to do anything against it (and similar things that don't actually deny it happens). Hans Adler 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but what I'm suggesting is that denial is practiced by non-corporate types, such as libertarian think tanks and so forth. I was focusing on the word "corporate." It's also an ideological issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an editorial, so I guess one can argue that it reflects a "liberal" point of view. However, I think that (again) we've talked about this quite a bit in the past, and "denial" seems to have stood the test of time as a title. I don't have the stamina to wade through all those hundreds of thousands of words, not to mention the deletion discussions, but the title does seem to have been pretty well agreed upon. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My contention is simply that if we use a non-neutral title because it's common, then we should not use this as an excuse to present a non-neutral article. With regard to a sentence describing what the article is about, using the Boston massacre for an example, it wouldn't say, "This article is about the 1770 massacre of Americans by British troops in Boston," but "This article is about the 1770 catalyst for the American revolution," or what not. We shouldn't feel that by declining to adopt this concept in "Wikipedia's voice," or declining to express judgment when we describe the subject, we are somehow denigrating the term. Discussing the views at arm's length is still to be desired. Mackan79 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)