Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 1

Untitled section
Until someone comments on the Talk page, I do not see how the template could possibly be appropriate! Ben Hocking (talk 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

POV Fork
Isnt this a clear POV Fork instance? --Childhood&#39;s End 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have just stumbled on to this article, I don't understand what you mean. Was it forked from Climate change skepticism? Is that what you mean by "POV Fork instance"? Ben Hocking (talk 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the Climate Change Hysteria page. Anastrophe 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could create one, although I suppose you were trying to make some sort of statement with this comment since you posted it here. There are definitely people who exaggerate climate change problems, so as long as you find sourced, notable references, I don't know that the article would be deleted. Depending on how it was written, it could very likely garner a "npov" template of its own. However, AFAIK, such a template requires that editors, in good faith, first strive towards making an article NPOV by specifically mentioning what they think is POV and how it could be improved. Ben Hocking (talk 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this article is hopelessly POV, it needs to be submitted for deletion. Iceage77 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being redundant, what is POV about it? Which facts are you challenging and/or what wording would you like to see improved? Ben Hocking (talk 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the title is POV for a start. We could get around this by saying "CCD is a pejorative term used by supporters of AGW theory in order to equate sceptics with holocaust deniers." However the rest of the article is merely a rehash of the "big oil" conspiracy theory which is already discussed at global warming controversy. Iceage77 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an interesting take. Interestingly enough, the only people who I've known who have compared AGW "skeptics" with holocaust deniers are AGW "skeptics" (in the same context that you are now using it). As this article states, there is a distinction between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is someone who has an open mind and is trying to reach the truth the best way they know how. A denier is someone who is trying to spread misinformation because it helps support their checkbook and/or ideology. Granted, there is a certain amount of POV involved in distinguishing between the two, but to suggest that the terminology is intended to conjure up images of the holocaust is to "play the victim" in an effort to halt the conversation (Godwin the "thread", as it were). As for the "rehash" argument, how is that different from one main article pointing to other subarticles before providing a brief summary of that article? This article is new, help to improve it - I noticed that Anastrophe already has (and I agree with his change about removing the "alleged fact"). Ben Hocking (talk 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Anastrophe, for your positive contributions in trying to make the article more NPOV. They are appreciated. Ben Hocking (talk 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * you're welcome, though i don't really believe the article warrants its own page. i'm generally anti-AGM, having formerly been merely skeptical of AGM, mostly due to http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_to_measure_temperature.html . UHI contaminated stations are poisoning the global temperature record, to the point that i'm now not even convinced that we *are* experiencing warming. but i digress. i think the article paints with a broad brush based upon allegations and conspiracy modes of thinking. i think the 'denial industry' is far less potent than it's made out to be by the article. Anastrophe 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the UHI, you should read the Wikipedia article on it, and how it relates to global warming. Perhaps that will at least alleviate your doubts that global warming is happening (if not the anthropogenic nature of it). I assume you do not doubt that the rapid increase in CO2 is primarily anthropogenic? Keep in mind that the blog you're linking to is just one person's opinion, and that person does not appear to have a solid scientific background with respect to climate science. Ben Hocking (talk 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points:

Cyrusc 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a POV fork. Global warming controversy is about the controversy; climate change denial is about an organized and reasonably well-documented effort to foster public perception of the issue as controversial.
 * I agree with the NPOV tag. The article would be improved by citations defending or denying practices here imputed to ExxonMobil and others. Help?


 * I agree with Benhocking. If Iceage77 wants to challenge specific facts with credible sources, of course he/she should do so. The article is clear and encyclopedic about the use of the term "denial" and the citations offered legitimate the usage. The real POV issue is that we continue to describe climate change as "controversial" in the face of unprecedented scientific unanimity. But regardless of a paritcular editor's opinion (mine included), we should focus on the facts. I would be interested to see substantial sources refuting the assertions about climate change denial.Benzocane 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * well, for starters, can someone provide a citation for the first use of the term "climate change denial"? it's referenced as a formal term in the article and in the listed citations. *somebody* coined the term. therefore, a first use should be able to be cited, along with a citation for the description as provided in the opening paragraphs. otherwise, it's original research. Anastrophe 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if first use would be easy to find (or to show that it was indeed first), but I agree that notable use should be referenced. Ben Hocking (talk 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree usage needs to be cited, but isn't it?Benzocane 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is! (And that's actually even evident from just looking at the references section, which I was obviously too lazy to do.) Ben Hocking (talk 22:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Half of the sources used in this article are from The Guardian, which essentially comes to copy/paste Greenpeace flyers. So that's a bad start for referencing. There's also quite a number of weasel words (like the last phrase of the lede - '"often" groups with ties...') and material unsupported POVed allegations (such as 'the so-called "denial industry" is motivated to promote controversy and doubt' and that Exxon funds think tanks to contest climate change rather than to fund their inquiries of the science). That's only a really short review. --Childhood&#39;s End 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

cyrusc has added a reference for "denial industry", stating in summary "supply references per discussion". but that's not what a citation was requested for. "climate change denial" is not the same as "denial industry". Anastrophe 01:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Childhood&#39;s End's comment right above yours mentions "unsupported POVed allegations (such as 'the so-called 'denial industry'...", which is what I presume he was referring to. I agree it would be better if we could find more diversity of sources. If time permits tomorrow, I will attempt to follow some of the sources of The Guardian or find some other way of locating the supporting information. Ben Hocking (talk 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I added two citations, one for the Guardian article "The Denial Industry" and one for "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'"--these were both already cited in the article. "Oil firms funds climate change 'denial'" opens with the line, "Lobby groups funded by the US oil industry are targeting Britain in a bid to play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists have warned." This, as I see it, is the "denial" in question.  Anastrophe, can you be more specific about what kind of references you're looking for? Cyrusc 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase is clearly in common and wide and the article is extensively sourced. One might dislike the phrase, but that doesn't erase it from the discourse. Cyrusc has gone out of his way to respond to the requests on this page. The point that "controversy" is at least as POV as denial, given the overwhelming scientific consensus remains unaddressed. I find it rather humorous that editors that deny climate change are attempting to deny an article about climate change denial! Have any of the facts in this entry been disputed? I would obviously not object to the inclusion of substantial sources contesting particular points. But in the absence of serious dispute, let's move on.Benzocane 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the article is actually about the 'denial industry'. much less so about climate change denial - it's only secondarily about that topic. you could substitute virtually any controversial topic for 'climate change', and drop in a near identical article. Anastrophe 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * hi anastrophe. The article includes myriad sources about the industrial funding of denial. So I'm not clear what you're objecting to at this point. Benzocane 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm not clear how that counters my point. Anastrophe 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that what Benzocane is trying to say is that global warming denial primarily is about industry funding of denial. (Well, he's literally saying that he doesn't understand your point, so that would make it hard to counter.) If there are additional sources of denial, they would definitely be welcome here. Are you suggesting a name change to "The Global Warming Denial Industry"? Ben Hocking (talk 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)what i'm suggesting is that wikipedia already has articles on

Denialism Politics of global warming Astroturfing Fear, uncertainty and doubt

etc.. Shall we create articles for every instance of businesses attempting to influence public opinion? i look forward to the article on Palm oil health effects denial.

the problem i have with the article is that it does not reveal any information that is not already covered in other wikipedia articles, and in a more encyclopedic manner. Anastrophe 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of this material is mentioned in the entries you list, but it is not elaborated substantially, as it is here. There is plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for creating an entry to expand on an important issue that is referenced in entries of a higher level of generality. Why aren't you contesting, say, Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? Their opposition is of course noted in a variety of articles. Elaboration is not redundancy! Benzocane 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is more elaborated substantially is the old POV rhetoric that AGW skeptics are doing it for the money or because they're heretics. Rest is covered elsewhere. --Childhood&#39;s End 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Moreover, this issue is much more complex than "they're doing it for the money".  Global Warming Controversy covers most of the real meat of this article.  Zoomwsu 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it's a good thing we have an article where we can document the complexity then, right? (Also, Global Warming Controversy is currently a mess and could no doubt be improved by having more of its material separated into subarticles.) Ben Hocking (talk 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * except that this article does not go into any greater complexity than "they're doing it for the money"! that's a large part of the argument for me. it is a litany, from asses to teakettles, of instances where ExxonMobil spent money to try to influence opinion on the topic at hand. this is no different from a thousand instances of businesses in some way attempting to modify public opinion about their industry, whether for "good" or "bad" (to wit, the sugar industry funds sites that exaggerate the possible risks and dangers of sugar substitutes; the sugar substitute industry funds sites that exaggerate the possible risks and dangers of sugar). Anastrophe 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the elaboration--the "litany"--as consisting of information far past the threshold of notability. (As do the major news sources and politicians who have weighed in on the controversy). I respect your opinion that this is business as usual, but I don't see why that means the article is either a POV violation or a candidate for deletion. What's wrong with Wikipedia documenting such dishonest PR efforts, no matter the industry? If there is strong evidence and extensive coverage of sugar industry manipulation, by all means that would justify new entries! Wikipedia has hundreds of entries on cartoon characters and minor American poets and urban legends. Why not advance those for deletion before articles treating massive corporate misinformation campaigns? And why focus on an article encyclopedic both in the quality of its prose and the extensiveness of its references?Benzocane 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Source
I don't have the time becoming involved in yet another climate page, espially if Ron is here (who take a lot of convincing ;-). However, I missed this source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the issue. --Stephan Schulz 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank's for the useful link. I think the point is that this entry isn't about our personal views on climate change, but rather about the factual documentation of an effort to fund the denial of the scientific concensus. That effort took place, as the link you supply demonstrates, no matter if one agrees or disagrees with the science itself.Benzocane 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Shall there be a similar article which factually documents the determined effort to fund studies which support the AGW conclusion? I think someone above suggested the title Global Warming Hysteria. The fact that I'm even suggesting this should make you consider whether the current article should exist in the first place (it should not). Zoomwsu 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, if there is evidence that science has been manipulated by interested institutions in order to support the AGW conclusion, that could be included here or in another article, so long as it meets encylopedic standards.Benzocane 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical question
What's the difference between and  ? Ben Hocking (talk 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was listed at the top of the category (rather than alphabetically) to give it undue prominence. Iceage77 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Just for the record, I copied that category from another article, and it was definitely not my intention to give it undue prominence. Hanlon's Razor definitely applies here. Ben Hocking (talk 15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK sorry for implying that. But it's normally done only for the main/title article in each cat. Iceage77 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is very valid!
Another fine piece on climate change denial from "America's gas price lady", via CNN web, look at the two bottom paragraphs: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/fa.lundberg.qa/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.68.145 (talk • contribs)


 * Once again, that is someone's opinion whom is related to gas/petrol that thus makes them biased. It is not fact, just a POV. Scar ian  Talk  15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate change exaggerators
What about the AGW proponents who manufacture consensus? Aren't they just as bad as people who unfairly sow doubt? Or are you letting your personal biases against "big energy" drive support of this clearly biased article? Zoomwsu 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not relying on personal biases; I am relying on the sources provided in the entry--I am relying on the only documentation that has been presented in these discussions. Of course if you have evidence from credible sources regarding how "AGW proponents" have distorted the concensus, I would like to see them! Perhaps they could be integrated into this entry. Let's assume good faith and let the facts speak! Benzocane 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is "Climate change denial". I think that if there is a notable body of evidence that there is a collection of AGW proponents who are manufacturing false consensus (e.g., exaggerating its effects), then that should be in its own article. A link from here to there in a "see also" kind of way would be wholly appropriate. Ben Hocking (talk 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * this is where the whole argument that this is adequately covered under Global warming controversy arises from. we can keep subdividing general topics into infinitely finer entities, but the coherence and relevance is gradually lost. shall we have a separate article on Exxon promulgation of climate change denial, then one on Mobil promulgation of climate change denial, and of course Mother Jones magazine enumerated listing of Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil instances of promulgation of climate change denial, then ExxonMobil promulgation of climate change denial via websites, then ExxonMobil promulgation of climate change denial via print media and so on and on and on? Anastrophe 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. I fully concur with your opinion.  This information is much more appropriate on the Global Warming Controversy page. Zoomwsu 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is sufficient information to generate such articles (major "if"), than yes. Why not? The coherence or relevance of this article does not seem to be dependent on what other articles say. In fact, by keeping it on-topic (and limiting the scope of the topic), it becomes more coherent and not less. Should we get rid of Geography of the United States because it's already somewhat covered in United States? No, because limiting the scope of the topic makes it more coherent. Ben Hocking (talk 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Benhocking for two main reasons. 1) Elaboration does not = redundancy, as I've argued above. There are countless precedents vetted by the community where the length of a general article is kept manageable by the creation of subsidiary articles. Do Zoomwsu and Anastrophe agree we should delete articles such as Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and all related entries? Or does this standard only apply to articles that reflect a position that differs from their personal opinion? 2) No serious argument has been made against the notability of the information contained in this entry. Again, how is it that we can have such extensive discussion on this page without anybody actually challenging the encyclopedic documentation presented within the entry?Benzocane 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's Stick to Science
In almost all the other GW articles, we stick to scientific facts supported by reliable sources. Because GW is a scientific issue, it would be prudent to stick to the science. Articles like this are obviously biased. This polarizes the audience, muddles real, productive discussion and makes it difficult for readers to seperate real facts from opinions masquerading as facts. This article should be deleted! Zoomwsu 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Let's stick to the facts. Do you dispute any of the citations in this article? If so, which ones? I see on the one side, extensive citations documenting Exxon et al's involvement in the denial campagin. On the other I just see people claiming that such documentation is "obviously biased." Now that we agree that we need facts and reliable sources, let's proceed! Benzocane 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of the language of "denial" itself is a major problem. But addressing the reliable source issue:  I'm sorry, but the UK Guardian, New York Times and Climate Science Watch are not RS when it comes to the issue of climate change. Remove their citations and almost the entire article goes bye-bye. Zoomwsu 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Although GW is a scientific issue, there are plenty of facts worthy of discussion that are political and not scientific. For example, the decision by the current administration to selectively excise text from scientific documents for political reasons. This is a documented, important fact, but it's not science. Ben Hocking (talk 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but putting under a heading of "Denial" and not also referencing the Administration's own justifications and positions on equal footing clearly make this a biased article. Zoomwsu 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have they provided any justification for the redactions? If so, I agree we should include it. If not, how is it biased that we don't include it? Ben Hocking (talk 18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you include the Administration's position on the issue, it will contribute to making this article less biased. However, it does not address the fundamental point of putting such information under a heading called "Denial".

So, we´re not supposed to cite the Guardian or the New York Times? That's a new one on me. Those are both highly respected sources of thoroughly-researched information, and to pretend otherwise because you disagree is the height of arrogance. As stated over and over again by other editors, if you can source another side of this issue with strong sources (Fox News may be your only hope), feel free to contribute productively. Envirocorrector 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV" rewrite of intro
I object to Iceage77's rewrite. I do not think the term "denial" is expressly pejorative--it is simply the most accurate term to describe the issue, viz. funded, organized denial of scientific findings. Let me restate that references to Godwin's Law etc. are coming from outside the article and appear to be conclusions based on original research. Cyrusc 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any scientists who deny climate change. It is generally accepted by scientists that the earth's climate is always changing, and has done throughout history. It is proponents of AGW who use this term (inaccurately and pejoratively) to describe those who are sceptical of AGW theory. Iceage77 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The holocaust assertion is out of line and warrants no response save deletion. "Pejorative"is POV; the article derives its title exclusively from unchallenged sources. The term is not pejorative if the evidence is correct; the term is accurate. Again, this isn't about editors' opinions of climate change science, this is about a well documented and uncontested misinformation campaign. Iceage77, denial is the term used in the citations. Are you claiming your opinion trumps all the citations provided?Benzocane 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)