Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 12

Suggested minor, non-controversial changes
- Wikify "the GOP". I am a well-read, educated, native-English-speaking non-American; I do not know what this refers to. - Fix this typo: "In autumn 2001, the admnistration contemplated changing a regulatory portion"

GOP is short for "Grand Old Party", a nickname for the Republican party. The change is a good one, it appears that this policy comes from the Whitehouse.

Stargate70 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Liam Proven (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for merger with Global Warming Controversy
Any useful information in this article can be moved there. There isn't a need to have a separate article to bash one side of the issue. Twfowler (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont agree. Brusegadi (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article covers an important political movement. Detailing how they argue against scientific consensus is only one part of the story. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is mostly ad-hominem, slamming one side of an issue (without any similar article slamming the other, not that I think there should be such an article), based mainly on political issues, and sources of funding. Its clearly non NPOV, and while I think notability standards should generally be relaxed, its also questionable (under the current standards) in terms of notability.  It doesn't cover an important political movement, or really a coherent movement at all. Twfowler (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As per Eldereft. While I would agree that it is not as coherent as other movements (political or otherwise), various organisations have promoted denialism around climate change, and I believe it is important to separate legitimate scepticism on points of science (which Global warming controversy covers more) from agenda-driven pseudoscepticism.  --Plumbago (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agenda driven pseudoscepticism is a relatively unsupported attack. And this article follows one of the definitions given for pseudoscepticism "Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument"  Twfowler (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, as this article is just a massive 'beat up'. rossnixon 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Opppose. Global warming controversy is already overly long. This article describes one aspect of it (namely how it is created) in more detail. See WP:SUMMARY. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I don't see any more reason to have an article highlighting "climate change denialism" than to have an article highlighting "climate change alarmism."  I would suggest that efforts both to minimize or to exaggerate potential adverse effects of AGW are merely aspects of the overall global warming controversy, and as such, do not warrant separate articles.  If Global warming controversy is already overlong, then perhaps tighter editing of that article might be warranted.  That is a different question than the issue under consideration.  Of course, if Climate change denial remains, then perhaps an article detailing the attempts to exaggerate the effects of AGW (i.e. "Global Warming caused Katrina!", etc.) would also be warranted.  J. Langton (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a large number of reliable sources about climate change denial. If you can find a reasonable number of reliable sources (and that excludes editorials and think tank brochures) for "Global warming alarmism", feel free to create that article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point (WP:GOOGLE notwithstanding): "Global warming alarmism": 44,000, "Climate change denial": 41,100. Oren0 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Stephan Schulz: I would certainly agree that editorials etc. are assiduously to be avoided on both sides as far as a presentation of facts is concerned. To what extent are they acceptable in terms of establishing the existence of a controversy?  I'd certainly think it'd be wiser to err on the side of a more stringent standard for reliability than the alternative!


 * I'm a bit too lazy right at the moment to actually look up the correct links, but I'm more interested in the example anyway: If, for example, Time Magazine runs a story linking Katrina to global warming (which they did) and then one finds another reliable source explaining that the science doesn't actually establish a link between AGW and any single extreme weather event (and I did find such a source, I believe, although I'd have to recheck for reliability!), does this violate WP:OR?  (Is is A+B, therefore C?)  I have a pretty short editing history, and I know that the whole climate change topic is something of a minefield, so I'd like to make sure that I'm on pretty solid ground before I start any articles that are just going to add unnecessary fuel to the fire.


 * My issue with both the continued existence of the denialism article and the creation of an alarmism article is that I'm concerned that we don't lower the S/N ratio on this topic. I don't really think either article adds anything new to the material covered; skillful and concise editing should be able to incorporate both the presence of denialism and alarmism in the controversy article.  Having both would be like having articles about the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, what Lincoln said at the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and what Douglas said at the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.  Why three articles, when one should be sufficient?


 * Re: Oren0: Oooh, that is interesting. But I'd bet you dollars to donuts that of those 80000+ hits, I can count the number of reliable sources without taking off my shoes.  Yay, internet!!


 * J. Langton (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ...in binary? Anyways, if you just list your two sources, there is no WP:OR, but also somewhat pointless. If you use this to establish that Time engages in alarmism, then yes, that is a perfect example of WP:SYN. I'd also be very careful with checking what Time has said - normally they may use suggestive imagery and words, but shy short of actually suggesting a hard link. So you will find a lot of "Katrina may be caused by global warming", "global warming is supposed to increase the probability of Hurricanes like Katrina", "many scientists think that global warming may have helped triggering Katrina", but rarely an absolute statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is an article detailing a cluster of disinformation campaigns that are only tangentially related to many other controversies surrounding global warming. This isn't about science; this is about PR and manipulation; that, in and of itself, is enough to justify its separate existence.Benzocane (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. although the article is currently very "tar and feather" and full of "alleged instances" built off newspaper reports, the basic concept is sound. It should however stick to reporting encyclopedic facts, not the opinions of the pro AGW crowd that seem to think they own all GW related pages. For example, it now has "Fred Singer" as "see other", even though he is not even mentioned in one of the "alleged instances" - this is (currently) an original research slur with no sources given to back it up. On that note, im going to remove him from "see other" as well. Jaimaster (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Disproportion
To have an entire subsection dealing with one scientist's claims of harassment neither complies with community standards regarding weight (or notability) nor strikes me as particularly germane to general purpose of the entry. Why a separate section? What does this have to do generally with a well-sourced entry about corporate funded disinformation tactics? Benzocane (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree on irrelevance to this article, however those sources would be well placed in a Climate Change Alarmism (see above) article, perhaps in a #possible effects section. Jaimaster (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are sufficient sources for an article showing a widespread disinformation campaign to misrepresent a scientific majority, then such an entry would be justified. There are not, however, such sources. And the extreme minority of scientists disputing climate change is already overrepresented under the sign of balance in this encyclopedia, whereas in fact it is the kind of disproportion that violates weight, notability, and ultimately NPOV. The fact that there is denial doesn't ipso facto justify an entry on "alarmism." Benzocane (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont be so daft. This extreme minority you claim isnt nearly as extremely minor as you seem to imagine, and misrepresenting the mainstream view towards armageddon is just as visibly common. The seas will rise 20 feet. Sorry, thats 100 meters (Williams, ABC, Australia). Wait, maybe 2 feet (IPCC - mainstream view). Climate Change Delusion has been diagnosed in a youth in Melbourne. Numberwatch - Global Warming causing everything from Acne to Yellow Fever. Im sure we can dig sufficient references just out of Brignell's list to build a credible Alarmism page. Jaimaster (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for insults. If you can produce a well-sourced article about a large scale misinformation campaign that meets community standards, go for it; but an entry on alarmism isn't justified merely by the existence of an article documenting denial. That specific predictions have been overestimates (or, as is much more extensively documented, underestimates) is neither here nor there. Benzocane (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)