Talk:Climate change denial

Use of "unwarranted" doubt in the lead
I previously reverted the use of "unwarranted" in the opening sentence, due to the fact that it seems unnecessary with the use of "pseudoscientific" as a descriptor immediately before. To avoid edit warring and per WP:BRD, I have reverted my restoration of this preferred revision, and am instead opening up discussion here to see what other editors think. Do you believe "unwarranted" belongs in the lead, or would you say it is unnecessary? I think I have stated quite clearly that I fall in the latter category, but what does everyone else think? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging and  per discussion at User talk:Hob Gadling. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I.m.o. the qualifier belongs in the lead, as it is backed by the content in the article body. I agree with Hob Gadlin's reasoning as expressed at User talk:Hob Gadling. Doubt is paramount to science. As CC denial flatly contradicts the scientific consensus, the doubt is inherently unwarranted. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is completely correct. My issue is this, though -- it seems like a somewhat unnecessary adjective, given the description of the dismissal and doubt as pseudoscientific immediately before. I'm not arguing against your point: the doubt is very much inherently unwarranted. For me this isn't a question of validity, it's a question of sufficiency -- does unwarranted really belong, when the description of it as pseudoscientific could probably get the job done on its own? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and think that "unwarranted" can go; also in the interest of readability, for non-native speakers. EMsmile (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This was resolved already, it was stable for three weeks, and now this.
 * Can somebody please explain how warranted doubt constitutes denial? When the data were still viewed as inconclusive, maybe in the 1960s, was that already denial, or was it normal science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think for the purposes of the first sentence of the lead, it is better to use a simple sentence. Whether doubts are warranted or not could be discussed later in the article. (in fact it already is). Also the first sentence actually says "doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change" which means it is per se unwarranted. This is not the doubt & discussions within the scientific community about some nuances of the processes, e.g. how much methane the thawing permafrost will release and so forth.
 * Also as is explained later in the article, the deniers purposefully use the word "doubt" and have spread doubt on purpose to sow confusion. So perhaps the term "doubt" is rather loaded. Thinking about it further, perhaps it's not even the ideal word to use in the first sentence at all.
 * Let's compare with the first sentence in the corresponding German Wikipedia article (translated here with Deepl): Climate change denial (sometimes also referred to as climate denial, climate science denial or denial of man-made global warming) is a form of science denial characterised by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing or fighting the scientific consensus of climate research on current global warming. (the term "doubt" does not appear). EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now changed the first sentence accordingly. This removes the need for further discussions on "doubts (warranted/unwarranted)". I've also taken out the emphasis on pseudoscience as I don't think this is key. Rather, I have linked to science denial which I think is better. Pseudoscience is still mentioned later but does not need to be in the first sentence. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * which means it is per se unwarranted Now I get it. Thanks. Also, I agree that the new version is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree the need version is better, but the third sentence has "Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is ...", which could be clearer as "unwarrented doubts". Taking on board readability for non-native speakers, I'll try "includes unreasonable doubts". . diff . . dave souza, talk 07:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Michael Mann wins $1 million judgement against professional deniers - LA Times
https://news.yahoo.com/column-climate-scientist-just-won-110027843.html

The case found you can have opinions and express them, but you can't attack people with known lies and misinformation represented as facts. First Alex Jones, now this.

I post this here in hopes it might be worked into this article. For example a subsection in "Responses to denialism" called "Legal consequences of denialism". -- Green  C  14:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Implemented in this edit. Other editors can move it to another section if desired. Thank you for your suggestion. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nature and Science are better sources for this, have clarified that "fraudulent" was contrary to numerous investigations that had already cleared Mann of any misconduct and supported the validity of his research.. .. 11:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. But it looks like the two bullets above that needs some cleanups; they're very credulous to the denier claims. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, Parejkoj. Unfortunately, it would be a huge effort for Wikipedia editors to research and explain why each and every denialist claim is wrong. Fortunately, the article's lead is clear that denial is contrary to reality, and as a practical matter, we can hope readers see the false claims in context. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The context of the Seitz claim is shown at IPCC Second Assessment Report, and we don't need a long quote from a denier linked to a paywalled source. . .dave souza, talk 11:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Have linked conspiracy theories to clarify earlier sections. . .dave souza, talk 12:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Doubt as pseudoscientific?
I express doubt at the concept that expression of doubt is pseudoscientific. On the contrary science is all about doubt. NOT expressing doubt - unexamined dogmatic belief - is what is unsceintific. Science necessarily entails continuing attempts to falsify its own claims because of the dubious nature of inductive reasoning. Unexamined justifications "because science says so" are no better than "because God says so", if you are not prepared (or allowed) to question the scientific claims. 80.5.192.29 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.
 * @IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.
 * @Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.
 * The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. 109.148.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What straw man did I employ? Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)