Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 17

just a silly concept
if you dont agree with the idea that humans are changing the weather you are a denier? if that is the case then everyone is a denier in some way. not everyone believes in everything. there must then be Bigfoot deniers, UFO deniers, and karma deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.100 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You are a denier when you don't agree with theory X, even though you know little to nothing about theory X and 99% of experts in theory X agree that it is correct. You are a denier when you get on a plane, knowing little to nothing about planes, and tell the pilot he's flying it wrong. You are a denier when you stand at the shoulder of a surgeon and tell him he's cutting into the subcutaneous fat incorrectly because of something you read in a magazine somewhere. You are a denier when 150 years of genetic and fossil evidence supports evolution and you, knowing little to nothing about biology and having done little to no original research yourself, declare it all to be wrong with a wave of your hand.


 * "and 99% of experts in theory X agree that it is correct" - this is called "consensus science" - which is an oxymoron, in case you weren't aware. Show me a scientific "opinion" which is free from its socio-political context! show me a law of physics which yields to middle-class angst and paranoia! Climate science is immature and heavily distorted by its time in the global limelight, once this panic too subsides (and joins the long list) then we'll finally start seeing some science. B.T.W. Temperature's gone down folks! BadCop666 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Einstein must've been a "Luminiferous aether" denier. I wish this article were called "Anthropogenic Climate Change Skepticism", or just "Climate Change Skepticism".  It would be a lot less loaded than "denier".   Makes us skeptics sounds like "Holocaust Deniers". drewster1829 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article clearly lays down a definition of the difference between "denier" and "skeptic". If you have gathered and studied evidence that suggests that climate change is NOT anthropogenic, then you are a "skeptic".  If you are basing your opinions on a rant by some radio jock, or a polemic piece such as the completely unscientific, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - then you are a "denier".  Personally I'm all for skepticism - it's an important part of the debate.  Climate change denialists though are a threat to our future.  Their misrepresentations are contagious amongst the weak-minded, and they provide excuses for politicians to do nothing about what is a very serious problem.  Holocaust Deniers are obviously warped humans, and their opinions cause grief to survivors and their families, but AGW denialists are putting the future of all humanity at risk.  In the next century AGW if likely to cause deaths in numbers that will make the Nazi Holocaust look like a blip on the radar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.191.8 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, you are a denier when you are skeptical of a strongly prevailing theory because you clicked around on a few websites and read a few popular press articles here and there.


 * which I guarantee is exactly what you have done - it's called being a zealot! And you are a sheep when you are ignorant of the social production of knowledge - we are in the age of moral panics - and unconsciously follow what suits your outlook. Poverty and barbarism are killing people TODAY, global warming is supposed to ruin your tourist resort in 50 years time - frankly I couldn't care less. It does amaze me how much energy you can put into this issue when you are surrounded by stuff "just a little more immediate and concrete" - or did a nice scientist tell you that noone was dying of malaria any more? of starvation?  BadCop666 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think you DO care about poverty, violence, malaria and starvation, but I have to have my doubts. Each and every one of these will be seriously exacerbated by climate change. Asia's rice belt is already seeing drops in production as a result of AGW. The ocean is becoming acidified, resulting in damage to the reproductive capacity of creatures that are the basis of the food change. Overfishing is already rampant, but AGW is going to contribute to a rapid decline in available fish stocks which are currently a major protein source for much of the worlds population. Rising sea levels will displace tens of millions of people within the next few decades leading to greater pressure on resources in some of the world's poorest most populated nations. This will cause poverty, disease, violence, and potentially armed conflict. Malaria and other tropical diseases are already expanding their range. This is not about some "tourist resort" as you so flippantly put it. 124.168.191.8 (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can be a legitimate skeptic if 50% of experts in X agree with theory X, and 50% of experts in X disagree with theory X. You can be a legitimate skeptic when there is little to no evidence at all, such as Bigfoot and UFOs. You can be a legitimate skeptic against 99% of experts only by becoming an expert yourself and publishing original research that confirms the theory to be incorrect, and which slowly gains more and more acceptance by experts in that theory. Hammiesink (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no tag, and wont make an account right now to have one, but anyway, I saw this, because I enjoy reading the talk pages, and decided to comment on it. I can see your point of view that if the majority sees it one way, the minority, ie; handful, could be seen as skeptics, but I do not understand how they can be labeled as deniers if they do not agree with a THEORY. The science community seems perfectly fine with passing off theories as truth if they get enough people, specifically scientists, but also government officials and average citizens, to back their idea. That doesn't make it any less a theory, and doesn't make a person any less a skeptic if they choose not to subscribe to the theory in question. I personally take no stance on this issue, as I am just now starting to read about it and gather together as much factual information as I can before I make a decision about it. I, like many others, have heard about it of course. I'd always assumed, like so many deluded people do, that it was a fact. That it was a proven science, but it's not. It's just a theory, one with many holes in it, it seems. One that scientists haven't been able to link to every strange and quirky climate change around the globe. I'm sorry, but if a minority of people choose not to subscribe to this THEORY, that does NOT make them deniers. It makes them skeptics, and without the skeptics where would we be? It's the skeptics who propell us forward, who drive us to find the answers, isn't it? The science community as a whole wouldn't be where it was if they weren't themselves the skeptics 99% of the time. I hate how they seem to get horribly huffy when anyone takes a skeptical view of their position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.222.119 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You confuse the popular and the scientific meaning of the word "theory". In science, a theory is a well-supported, coherent and consistent set of principles that explains a set of observations and allows meaningful predictions. A theory is the best that science can offer. Science can never prove (in the strict sense) anything about the real world - it could always be that superintelligent alien space bats fake all our observations with their 3-D matter projection device, or that the invisible pink unicorn created you just 5 picoseconds ago with the pre-implanted but wrong memories of some observations. Whenever you make a prediction from previous observations, you do inductive reasoning. Such induction is not logically sound ("all odd number but 1 are prime...3, 5, 7,...see, it works"). But we still synthesize general explanations from specific observations using the scientific method, and the resulting theories are very often good descriptions of reality. The theory of gravity predicts that you will fall if you jump of a cliff. The germ theory of disease predicts that if you inject yourself with a good dose of flue virus, you will likely get ill. Scientifically, none of this is more than just a theory. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported by observations, and there is no serious competing alternative explanation for the observations. That is what makes denial any combination uninformed ("I read something on a blog..."), dishonest ("I don't care about the truth, as I don't like the consequences"), and very self-confident ("I understand this better than all those experts").  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is confused by the term "theory". Most of the predictions of global warming are untestable and unverifiable until we are many years ahead. Much of the "theory" is questionable, and does not take into account problems of water vapour absorption, cloud formation and other variables which impinge directly on earth temperatures. The correspondent is quite right to call those who question the global warming theory as sceptics, and not deniers. Good science is a result of the clash between sceptics and proponents. Peterlewis (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you deny my characterization of "scientific theory" or that AGW is such a theory? Neither has anything to do with the current testability, only with testability in principle. And while it's hard to define "most" (how many predictions are there?), many of the predictions are testable right here and now - and many such predictions have been successfully verified, from the Suess effect to stratospheric cooling. Yes, the theory is incomplete, but then so are Kepler's, Newton's, and even Einstein's theories. That does not stop them from being extremely useful. Real sceptics are welcome, i.e. people like John Christy or even Richard Lindzen. But one the other hand Lawrence Solomon, Jim Inhofe and Timothy F. Ball are not sceptics, but deniers plain and simple. They do not contribute to the science and have not published anything of value in the scientific literature on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with your differentiation. Nevertheless with my agreeing with you, I don't think so much of these rather charged classifications of opponents. I mean, I'm a he man pro military American. how about if I classify all the sorts of liberals into Harvard libs and SF libs and union lovers and fellow travellers and pacifists and the like. I mean, am I really going to properly analyze these strange tribes into their proper identifications of hottentots and Masai and such when I have so little sympathy for them? Or am I just going to slam them by putting them in boxes for my own purposes and to feel like I did something and to hang out with my crew? TCO (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The science community as a whole wouldn't be where it was if they weren't themselves the skeptics 99% of the time. I hate how they seem to get horribly huffy when anyone takes a skeptical view of their position." Actually that isn't true - scientists constantly seek new data, even if it turns out to falsify their theories. Every time a space probe reaches some previously unexplored part of the solar system, some scientists are vindicated while others have to buy the pizza. Scientists also value new theories that better explain the existing data. Science is analogous to sports betting in the sense that "you have to play the games." Before a major sporting match, partisans of each team will extol their champions and confidently predict victory. But once the final score is in, only one side can win. Of course I'm talking about real data here. Scientists also have to listen to objections from cranks who have no qualifications. The problem with crank theories is that they aren't useful. Anybody could, for example, reject the scientific consensus and invent their own periodic table of the elements, but it probably wouldn't help anyone do chemistry. Similarly, history is full of proposed perpetual motion machines, but in every case all they illustrate is the inventors' ignorance of the conservation laws. Scientists are like every other group of professionals - they have to distinguish between peers and laymen. In other fields that have objective criteria of performance (law, medicine, sports, music, etc.), the people who are good in those areas have to insulate themselves to some degree from people who aren't. If someone who has never studied law takes a skeptical approach to legal theory, he or she probably just wastes the time of anyone knowledgeable in the field who makes the mistake of paying attention. In most areas of science, scientists are more or less free to do their job without bothering much about the public. Not so with global warming - now scientists have found a problem which might render the Earth uninhabitable by humans within a century or less, and the only practical way to prevent the problem is to change human behavior on an unprecedentedly massive scale. That's a problem for scientists because they generally aren't used to dealing directly with the general public. --Teratornis (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for pov-check
I'm wary of the tone and style of this article, particularly when it attempts to list examples of denialism. Note that this is not a pov dispute, merely a request for other neutral (i.e. not heavily involved w/ this topic or article) editors to take a look. Ray (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say using the Bush Administration's own Inspector General critiquing what they've done, is a good example that avoids POV. Maybe a different example is troubling to you? Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria for denialism is not politicization or conflict of interest, but explicit bad faith. That's a lot harder to prove, and it troubles me. Of course, it's easier to claim -- but I disapprove of Wikipedia being used as a vehicle for smearing people in political debates. Ray (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Explicit bad faith is not the only possible motive; deniers may be sincere, as in the case of special creationists who deny evolution. By all indications, they really believe what they say when they deny the mainstream scientific understanding of human origins. Similarly, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement appear equally sincere. When faced with overwhelming factual evidence which contradicts what they believe, people usually have to be extremely well-paid to sound sincere if they are not in fact sincere. --Teratornis (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

denial?
if the denial is a "misinformation campaign" then maybe this article could or should be renamed "Climate Change Propaganda"? Statesboropow (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that would make it sound like the opposite of denial. For example, Communist propaganda existed to promote communism. Incidentally, the word "propaganda" originally had favorable connotations. See Euphemism. --Teratornis (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)