Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 13

"See also" section
I'm seeing a low-level edit war over whether or not Fred Singer should be included in the "see also" list. In general, I sort of think that reversion without talk-page discussion is pretty poor form, except in cases of obvious vandalism, which this isn't.

With that said, I don't think the question of whether or not Fred Singer is a "denialist" or a "skeptic" is necessarily relevant. He is certainly involved in the global warming controversy, and as such, is closely related to the topic. Therefore, I think he merits inclusion on the list, regardless of whether or not he is actually a denier.

J. Langton (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those listed on this page are supposed to be opposing mainstream science out of vested interests, in order to delay an appropriate response to the issue to further their own personal gain (eg, sell oil). Listing specific people as "see other" is most certainly levelling that allegation at them, doing so without sources is a combination of POV pushing and OR. Currently as this article stands there is no reference to Fred Singer apart from in "see other", thus the fact that he is there is not sourced, therefor he should not be in that list. If Raul wants to write him into the article with a reference to the newsweek peice I will drop my case.
 * Regarding the list of all scientists opposing the mainstream view, I challange you Raul, or anyone who thinks it belongs here - find reliable sources that either prove or allege that even a majority of names in that list are acting out of vested interests.
 * Quote from lead - Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests Jaimaster (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "See also" section is not directly connected to the article. Its a guideline for readers to find other relevant topics that are somewhat connected to this. While Singer may be an outlier (i really do not care if he is on or off), the removal of the list of scientists is a directly relevant topic - just as the controversy article and the general global warming article is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A See also exists to provide relevant links not already discussed in the article. It explicitly is not categorization, merely further information which may be of interest to the reader. The list certainly qualifies. Singer is mentioned in the relevant context by reliable sources; if you think that linking his section here gives undue prominence to the connection, neutrally mention and link him in the article. Then we can all be happy with a better article. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will offer a counter example. Lets say we build a Climate Change Alarmism page. We place the IPCC, Al Gore and AIT in the see also list - despite no WP:RS in the article itself projecting them as alarmists. Would you object? Jaimaster (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly would hope that you would object, since it is nothing more than a tar by association - as is the inclusion of every scientist on the wiki list as "see also" to this article. A scientist I am not - a writer I am, and to me the tar and feathering is clear as day. Jaimaster (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

POV
For the love of God, this POV is extremely skewed -- the phrase Climate change denial is already couched in cultist terms to avoid having any sort of debate. All this article does is provide legitimacy to ad hominem. Neutral POV people, neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.41.2 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OR tags in the lead
They are misplaced here, since the lead is a summary of the article. Change the lead only if it isn't representative of the articles body. If you believe that the article (or the concept) has a different meaning or should be about something else - then make changes to the article body first... and then to the lead to reflect the changed focus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Proven instances"
The example cited under proven instances is not an instance of "climate change denial" as defined within the article. The reason cited in the reference was that NASA officials "suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election ...". As such this doe snot belong here under the current definition because: Can someone please explain why this reference should even be included in this article based on the definition of "climate change denial" as defined here? --GoRight (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "downplayed" does not equate to "denied".
 * 2) "downplayed" does not even equate to "disinformation".
 * 3) NASA has no financial interest in denying climate change.
 * 4) NASA was not funding bogus research.

I deleted the referenced comment before seeing the above. With respect to several of the alleged instances I think we have a similar problem. Shouldn't each instance include both a citation alleging disinformation and a citation alleging a financial interest. (or alternatively, a citation explicitly alleging climate change denial) PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This just looks like quibbling to me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this section is weak and should be removed or revised. I'm especially leery of considering this a "proven" instance, given that the neutrality of those who wrote the report is certainly open to question. Government findings don't constitute proof; see, for example, the CIA WMD reports for Iraq.

In regards to the back and forth revisions: claiming that Bush's "vested interest" makes it denialism is, in my opinion, tantamount to original research without proper sourcing. I've re-removed that section, pending resolution of the discussion here.

J. Langton (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the Bush' administrations downplaying (or as the inspector general states ""inappropriate political interference") is a major part in the examples given by reliable sources, it most certainly needs to be included. Whether or not there is proof (or what contributes proof) is another thing. This section and the next, need updating amongst others with the results from the Senate oversight comittee on this subject though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the report is certainly germane to the global warming controversy, but I think it would be better discussed in that article. Like GR, I'm not entirely sure how the behavior it describes fits with global warming denial as explained in this article.  Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure that a report made by a Congressional investigation criticizing the behavior of an incumbent president of the opposite party counts as WP:RS, unless the overtly political nature of the source is made clear.  In any case, refering to this as a "proven instance" of "denialism" seems to me to be pretty clearly out of line -- if it stays in the article (and I don't have particularly strong opinions about that either way), it certainly should be considered an "alleged" instance.  Not to mention the linguistic infelicity of having a section entitled "Proven Instances" with only one example listed.  J. Langton (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand - this is a report by the Inspector General that Bush appointed, not by an opposing party. Sounds like a good RS to me.  The def here of denialism "usually" refers to a financial interest, not "always," so a political interest in denying the science for nonscientific reasons of political gain would qualify.  Regardless though, these political appointees who were denying the science in the runup to the 2004 elections were fighting to keep their jobs and their paychecks by means of lying and coverups.  They qualify. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So the definition is malleable? That raises a red flag for me, personally.  Do we have any sources for this new aspect of the definition of climate denial?  Do we have any sources for the old definition of climate denial?  Did we make up this definition ourselves as editors which means this entire article is WP:OR?  --GoRight (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, just using the stable definition in the article - denying the science for vested interests, usually financial.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have no objection to this remaining in the article, but for the reasons I gave above, leaving it in a "proven instances" section, especially such a section with only one "proven instance," is problematic. I am therefore going to delete both the subsection headings in the section "Instances of climate change denial," leaving all of the current content under that single heading. J. Langton (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
I've been looking through the list of sources and I'm a bit concerned with the reliability of some of them. I've not had time to do this thoroughly by any means, but here are a couple that I'm a bit concerned about:

3. ^ "Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank". Mother Jones (May 2005). Retrieved on 2007-08-02.

4. ^ Gelbspan, Ross (December 1995). "The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper’s Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.

8. ^ a b Ellen Goodman (9 February 2007). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.

9. ^ Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect Peter Christoff. The Age AU.com, July 9, 2007

10. ^ Deniers of global warming harm us Joel Connelly. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2007.

I could keep going with this, but it's getting tiresome. There are an awful lot of opinion columns, etc., being used as references, without any indication in the actual text of the article. This strikes me as pretty dangerous ground. In an article like this, I don't think that sources can be restricted to peer-reviewed scientific papers, but surely Wikipedia is not the correct forum for collating and repeating the positions espoused by various and sundry op-eds, even if competing op-eds are used in an effort to maintain NPOV.

I suspect that stripping out much of this poorly-sourced material would leave the article looking pretty thin. Which, in my opinion, calls into question the wisdom of this article's continued existence.

J. Langton (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly if there are statements supported only by Op-Ed's without being inline quoted as such - then it should be changed. But the examples you give here, aren't.
 * Put a tag on the parts that are supported singularily with Op-Ed's without stating so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I agree with this. From WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact."


 * If a statement is backed solely by an op-ed piece, then it should be removed. If a statement is backed by both op-eds and reliable sources, then the op-ed references aren't really necessary and should be removed.  The exception is when it is clearly noted within the article itself that the statement backed by said op-ed reference is the opinion of the author, rather than an independent and neutral presentation of fact.


 * Getting the article to adhere to this standard -- which is, as near as I can tell, a Wikipedia standard and not simply my personal preference -- will require a fairly extensive overhaul. J. Langton (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If your intent is to piss off other editors, and instigate edit-wars - then remove.
 * If your intent is to improve the article - then tag. (if tag not acknowledge - then remove).
 * But you still haven't given a single example of a fact only supported by op-ed's without properly inline attributing it. Perhaps that should be your first task? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent, but repling to KDP.)

I'm trying to avoid making changes to the article for the time being, specifically to avoid instigating an edit war or annoying the other editors. Herewith, some examples of what I would consider to be unreliably-sourced statements. (Apologies for the length!)


 * Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr.Frederick Seitz earned "approximately US$ 585,000" in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company while continuing "to draw a salary as 'president emeritus' at Rockefeller University". R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, "the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed."[28]

Reference is from a Vanity Fair article. I wouldn't consider Vanity Fair to be a particularly reliable source for informed commentary on scientific controversy; furthermore, the title of the article in question, "While Washington Slept," is a pretty clear indication that the author has some agenda. Ergo, it's an op-ed piece in a publication which is not appropriate for use as a source on this issue.

This article is apparently also used as the source for the memo quoted here:


 * Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."[13]

This is a pretty clear contravention of the WP standard that op-ed pieces be used only as a source for the opinion of the author.


 * Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby and to ExxonMobil in particular have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry."[40]

The source for that is an article in Rolling Stone entitled "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration to Deny Global Warming." Again, Rolling Stone is a poor source on this issue, and the title of the article indicates its nature as an op-ed piece rather than neutral commentary.


 * The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:
 * "Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991–2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?"[43]

ClimateScienceWatch is a blog which describes itself as follows: "Climate Science Watch is a nonprofit public interest education and advocacy project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for the integrity and effectiveness with which they use climate science and related research in government policymaking, toward the goal of enabling society to respond effectively to the challenges posed by global warming and climate change." As an "advocacy project," it's hard to see how this could be considered a reliable source. Nevertheless, I don't object to this as much since the quote is clearly identified as coming from CSW. I'm still including it here since a strict interpretation of WP guidelines would probably exclude it. Still, you could make a pretty good WP:IAR case for this one.

References 56 and 57 are also op-ed pieces, but are clearly identified as expressing the opinions of their authors. Furthermore, I'd suggest that The Australian and The Nation are more reliable sources than ClimateScienceWatch. As I said, though, if other people think the CSW stuff should stay in, I wouldn't object at all. The other complaints are more substantive.

I haven't really had a chance to go through everything super closely, but this should be enough to start with. (I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to return later to op-eds, etc., used as sources in conjunction with other sources.) Of the first three that I brought up, what is the justification for using these sources? J. Langton (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty large one: Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair should apparently not be reliable sources] - i would suggest that you take up this issue on WP:RS/N, and provide the two articles as examples. Since Rolling Stone has a quite fair reputation for investigative journalism. And we do not consider sources according to your personal preference for what is neutral or not. Neither of these are Op-Ed's, and both are written by established Journalists with a good reputation for investigative journalism. You should try to look through the archives for discussion on these, as well as the failed AfD.
 * Climate Science Watch is clearly attributed, and appears to be a partisan but reliable source to information such as this. I doubt if it would fail as a source using the guidelines in either WP:V or WP:SPS. But take it up on WP:RS/N again if you feel that its borderline.
 * As for the justification of using the many sources in the lead, check the archives. It was a compromise (iirc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Two quick things: first, do you happen to remember where in the archives I should check? There's rather a lot of stuff to go through!  As far as using the many sources in the lead, I think I'd be more comfortable with breaking it down a little more; maybe something like this: "Newsweek and others in the media consider..." -> "Newsweek, as well a number of opinion journalists, including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, consider..."  The English could use a little work, but I think that it makes the nature of the sources a bit clearer.  It's also clear that it's opinion rather than fact that's being conveyed, an essential requirement for op-ed sources.  The preceding sentence is a bit more problematic -- it's a statement of fact rather than of opinion.  At the very least, the reference to Mother Jones should be deleted.  The sentence is already sourced, and referring to Mother Jones weakens the point rather than strengthening it, since it's such a biased source.


 * As far as the Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair pieces: I think the main point is that, regardless of whether or not it's in a clearly demarked "op-ed" section, the pieces in question are rather obviously opinion journalism rather than neutral commentary. However, the suggestion to take the question to WP:RS/N is a good one, so I'll try to do that over the weekend.  I'd also be interested in having other people weigh in on the talk page -- so far it's pretty much just been a dialogue.


 * If there are no objections in the next few hours, I'll probably go ahead and change the "Newsweek and others" sentence as noted above.   No other changes from me though until others have had a chance to weigh in on this.


 * J. Langton (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be at the beginning of the archives (iirc). I do not see any reason to be explicit in the "Newsweek and ...". The sentence is already accurate. As for the Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair articles - i again suggest that you take it up on WP:RS/N. These are not opinion articles, but rather investigative journalism. You may disagree - which is why i repeat the suggestion.
 * As for Op-Ed's, these are used to flesh out things - not to provide the meat. And they are clearly marked as such. As for the denialism part (very last sentence in lead) - i'm not against removing that in the lead (in fact i've been on the opposition side of that particular line). But there is a consensus on that particular line, which has been through a rather intense edit-war and content dispute. (again see archives and AfD). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I posted at [|WP:RS/N]
 * I'm perfectly willing to admit that my description is pretty POV, so maybe you can give the other side.


 * I realize that you don't feel the "Newsweek and..." sentence needs any adjustment. But would you actively disagree with my suggested change.  It's equally accurate, but more precise, and, as I said, makes explicit the nature of the sources, which is where I feel the current version is lacking.  More importantly, I don't see how my proposed change introduces any new problems.  I didn't actually see in the archives where the consensus on that particular line arose, but I could easily have missed it.  Still, it's been long enough that it might be worth revisiting the issue. J. Langton (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the WP:RS/N has really turned up too much. I'm therefore going to begin trying to address some of these issues as best I can. For the time being, I will make the adjustment to the "Newsweek and..." statement mentioned above and cut out Mother Jones as a source. Since there is currently no consensus to remove the Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone articles, I won't touch those for the time being, although I'd really like to have some other people weigh in here. J. Langton (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Newsweek" :