Talk:Climate change skepticism/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (1 July 2010)
Nb: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=371113274#Climate_change_skepticism if you want to change this redirect William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Climate change skepticism vs Climate change denial
The term "skeptic" is often used by those who deny the reality of global warming. The term "climate change skepticism" is primarily used by those who doubt or deny the scientific consensus to describe their own position. However, many mainstream scientists use the term "climate change denial" to describe outright rejection or doubt about global warming science. Much has been written about the subject since this was last discussed here. I provide the following sources to support this edit: [[1]], [[2]],[[3]],[[4]]. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article climate change denial clearly distinguishes between the two. The controversy article is the one a sceptic should be sent to. The denial one is about the industry and other efforts to rubbish the science, it is not about climate change as such. They can find the denial one from the controversy article if that is what they are really interested in. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the article only distinguishes between skepticism and denial. This is a compound phrase that usually is a euphemism for denialism. jps (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I would say ("climate change skepticism") is often used as a euphemism for denial, not usually. Irregardless, I agree with Dmcq. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I know the distinction between "often" and "usually". jps (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quote from the article "Peter Christoff also emphasizes the distinction between scepticism and denial, saying "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science". I believe that distinguishes between the terms in context. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Notice that Christoff is not identifying the term "climate change skepticism". He uses the term "climate sceptic" which I am not sure is synonymous and describes something different than to what most sources that use the term "climate change skepticism" generally refer. He also says, "There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." so if they aren't "credible sceptics" then what are they? They are deniers. jps (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- So what? That doesn't mean that there's no climate change scepticism. The article Global warming controversy is the appropriate target for that. The fact that it has various arguments against reasons for scepticism does not mean that any scepticism that brings a reader there is actually denial. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The very source being used to declare that there is a distinction between climate change denial and climate change skepticism is actually pointing out that there is no distinction. That's what. Find me a source that does distinguish between the two, don't rely on one that makes the opposite point. So far we have five sources arguing that there is, essentially, no such thing as a climate change skeptic who is not a denialist. We have zero sources saying otherwise. jps (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your arguments saying two things shouldn't be confused means they are the same is a bad case of WP:SYNTH. There are two here against you so I don't have to do anything, and I really don't feel like spending time on your sophistry. Dmcq (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The very source being used to declare that there is a distinction between climate change denial and climate change skepticism is actually pointing out that there is no distinction. That's what. Find me a source that does distinguish between the two, don't rely on one that makes the opposite point. So far we have five sources arguing that there is, essentially, no such thing as a climate change skeptic who is not a denialist. We have zero sources saying otherwise. jps (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- So what? That doesn't mean that there's no climate change scepticism. The article Global warming controversy is the appropriate target for that. The fact that it has various arguments against reasons for scepticism does not mean that any scepticism that brings a reader there is actually denial. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Notice that Christoff is not identifying the term "climate change skepticism". He uses the term "climate sceptic" which I am not sure is synonymous and describes something different than to what most sources that use the term "climate change skepticism" generally refer. He also says, "There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." so if they aren't "credible sceptics" then what are they? They are deniers. jps (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I would say ("climate change skepticism") is often used as a euphemism for denial, not usually. Irregardless, I agree with Dmcq. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the article only distinguishes between skepticism and denial. This is a compound phrase that usually is a euphemism for denialism. jps (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- This topic has recently attracted renewed interest, see for example [this ongoing discussion]. It is inappropriate to equate skeptics to "deniers", a pejorative political term. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Target
The article climate change denial also discusses the label "climate change skepticism", right in the lead. I don't see any reason we shouldn't link to the article which discusses this exact topic, and instead link to a parent article which does not. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer (without buying the "ZOMG denial" drivel expressed elsewhere) the long standing redirect to GWC. Note that Climate Skepticism and Climate change scepticism also exist William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Considering there are precisely 0 references to "climate change skepticism" within the GWC article, why is that a better target than climate change denial which is devoted to this very topic, and discusses it explicitly, by name, throughout? — Jess· Δ♥ 20:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- There was a full discussion of this at this AfD proposal. The consensus was to redirect Climate change skepticism to Global warming controversy. I think you would need to reopen that discussion to change the consensus. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- That discussion took place 5 years ago. Lots has changed since then. In particular, the climate change denial article now discusses this topic explicitly, where it did not many years ago. I did open discussion, right here, and have as of yet received no substantive replies. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC on this redirect, and others
I posted an RfC on this redirect at: Talk:Climate change denial#Redirects to this page. Please feel free to provide your input. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This redirect
Implying that climate change Skepticism and denial is not very fair at all. As per the following article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbrettschneider/2018/08/03/climate-change-skeptic-or-denier/#7193b64de8c2
If you ask me, using this as a redirect to a climate denial article and not as its own article about climate skepticism is WP:UNDUE and should be changed. Awaiting responses. Victor Salvini (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- See the link to an old RfC at the top of the page. It was contentious to the end, and challenged after closure, but the decision shouldn't be revoked at this point by anything short of a new formal discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)