Category talk:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics

Untitled
This does not belongs to climate change organizations. --Nopetro (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The title of this category is misleading. Most of the groups are not "environmentalism skeptics and critics", rather they have a different perspective on how to achieve a better environment. Perhaps this category needs to be renamed and broken up? The category name itself is biased towards a point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.226.53 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think not but would like to see some support for this assertion if there is any. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Skeptic organisations
Those organizations are relevant for scientific skeptics, but they are not skeptics themselves. In all the skeptical periodicals, even Skeptic (U.S. magazine), climate change denial is getting a bad rap because it is a classical pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the sources, all the organizations and foundations that claim to be skeptical have two things in common: one, their donors directly represent the extractive and chemical industries who are known for their pollution and are subject to government regulation to insure public health; and two, their donors are involved in massive lawsuits as a result of their failure to both self-regulate and to adhere to government regulations.  There is nothing “skeptical” or “critical” about these groups.  They are fronts for their donors who refuse to accept US law and public health standards.  They deliberately use “skepticism” as an ideological attack against civil society.  They represent anarchy and a blatant disregard and disdain for the law.  There is nothing scientific or rational about their positions, but they hide behind those words as well.  In summary, they are deniers, nothing more. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)