Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 20

Disappointed that Wiki accepts these kinds of articles
I'm sure you guys at Wiki realize the influence you have upon practically the entire internet population. With that said, and the fact that this is an encyclopedia it is your guys' jobs and duties to keep this a bias-free site and provide only the facts. This article is catagorized under a B-class or something or other, grouped with 9-11 conspiracies and such, however this article stands apart from those due to the nature of the topic, the current popular opinion of the topic, and the fact that the article is simply not necessary for a) it doesn't represent a substantial, clear, or defined group of people b)the term deniers is used in deragatory manner, straying from really and relevant, and meaningful discourse and straying into the realm of name calling, and bickering.

If this article is included, why isn't others like "Obama Bot" or "Bush Buddies". The fact that Wiki thinks its fair to group this with 9-11 conspiracy theories is offensive in my opinion.

I for one believe in the effects man have upon the climate, yet it disgusts me when global warming is treated as a fact rather than a theory. I absolutley hate when its supporters resort to name-calling to further their point. And frankly, this article perpetuates that.

Oh, and on the topic of deniers...Where is the holocaust denial article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danemmason (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial. Do you have any specific suggestions as to how the article should be improved?  Dawn Bard (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While the article does make a distinction between climate change denial and skepticism, reading this comment made me suddenly realise that the present title of the article is unacceptable for POV reasons. While I believe that it is appropriate to have an article on the funded campaigns against the scientific consensus as distinct from scientific skepticism, the use of the word "denial" in the title of the article is not NPOV because it directly implies that what is being opposed is absolutely and unequivocally correct. Given that that is most certainly not the case for the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change, the title of this article is in effect a direct POV support for the assumption that anthropogenic climate change is absolute fact. The word denial is appropriate to use in an article such as holocaust denial, where the thing being denied is known to be absolutely true, but not here.  --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In no way. Denial is simply the act of denying something. I can deny that 2+2=5 just as well as I can deny 2+2=4. What is more (and more important), the terms "climate change denial/denier" is regularly used in the sources. We did not invent it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * Wikipedia may have influence over the Internet community, but it seems that influence fell short of explaining what the word Wiki means to the original poster.
 * The rather modest page view statistics for this article suggest its influence is correspondingly modest. Something to consider before climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.
 * If someone is uncomfortable with the label "Climate change denial", I wonder if that person has used the term "atheist"? Atheists themselves are divided over the term. For example, Sam Harris considers the term to be as pointless as "non-astrologer". He does not believe any term is necessary to describe a person who does not believe in something for which no evidence exists. (Note that the case for the existence of God is far weaker than the case for anthropogenic global warming, and yet it seems a label is useful for people who reject the extremely weak case for God.) Despite even better POV arguments against the term "atheism", Wikipedia has an article by that title, because the term appears in many reliable sources.
 * One way to cope with a stigmatized label is to invent another label to describe the same thing. However, Steven Pinker noted that over time, the new label tends to take on the stigma attached to whatever it describes. See Euphemism.
 * Within the LGBT social movements, some members have willingly embraced pejorative labels used against them (e.g., queer) and sought to de-stigmatize them, with some success, thus not stepping on the euphemism treadmill to begin with.
 * The Holocaust denial movement consists of people who reject the claim that the mainstream historical understanding of the Holocaust "is known to be absolutely true." One should avoid getting fooled by verbs in the passive voice with missing actor ("it is known"). Known by whom? Knowledge does not exist apart from some people who believe they know something. For those of us who had no personal experience with the Holocaust, we approach the question of whether it occurred the same way as we approach any other question whose answer we cannot determine from personal experience: by evaluating the evidence for and against it. We evaluate the evidence for the Holocaust and for anthropogenic global warming with the same critical thinking toolkit. Implicit appeals to authority in the form of pronouncements about what "is known to be absolutely true" are not helpful, if only because lots of people routinely make such claims about things irrespective of the evidence. Religious people, political pundits, advertisers, etc. routinely present all sorts of things as absolute truth - and many people have fought Religious wars over such assertions.
 * Let's be sure we understand what we mean by terms such as fact and theory. Kenneth R. Miller wrote Only A Theory to address the misuse of this terminology by special creationists. A scientific theory is a powerful tool for making sense of large numbers of existing facts, and for making predictions about facts yet to be discovered. For example, aerodynamics is "only a theory", but it works well enough to allow aerospace engineers to design aircraft with reliably predictable performance. A belief system which has earned the status of "theory" has repeatedly proven its worth. To reject something out of hand for being a "theory" is to ignore its record of explanatory success. The explanatory success never goes away - the theory will always explain whatever facts it has explained. At most, scientists in the future might come up with a theory that explains the same facts better, and possibly more facts. A familiar example is Newtonian physics, which continues to be part of the foundation of engineering, even though Relativistic physics supersedes it.
 * One imagines that few climate scientists could possibly want anthropogenic global warming to be true. Climate scientists are like everybody else: they probably enjoy burning fossil fuels and want to continue. The extreme difficulty of mitigation gives climate scientists a strong personal incentive to approach the theory from a position of strong skepticism - which should be the normal approach scientists always take, that of seeking to falsify a theory. For something to earn the status of "theory" it must survive the strongest possible attacks. While appeal to authority is not sufficient in itself to prove a claim, scientific consensus may be the closest thing to real authority that humans have yet constructed.
 * Although the article does not yet mention it, we can argue that anyone who continues to burn fossil fuels is a de facto climate change denier. Even among climate scientists themselves, very few have made the drastic personal behavior changes necessary to slash their own carbon footprints by the 90% or so that humankind as a whole must attain swiftly to have any chance of preventing severe climate change. (As evidence, compute the carbon footprint of the typical climate change conference, which involves thousands of people burning tons of jet fuel to cross oceans and continents. Why don't climate scientists videoconference instead? Or just use a wiki?) While a person might agree with the scientific consensus, there is a question of how strongly a person agrees. Since greenhouse gas emissions have not noticeably declined, it is obvious that the vast majority of people are carrying on as if they are in denial about climate change, or at least denying that it could be more important than their vacation plans.
 * --Teratornis (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting examples you put forth regarding the definition of theory. The aerodynamics models that built all modern aircraft and spacecraft are demonstrably incomplete (that is to say, wrong). (Specifically, according to aerodynamic models, the bumblebee cannot fly). Even relativistic physics would be internally inconsistent if it made some common assumptions about distance and time. (Notably: "an object will appear to be the same size to all observers" (That is, a meter stick is exactly one meter long to everyone), and "Two events which occur at the same place are are simultaneous at that place will be simoultaneous to all observers" (That is, if two things happen at the same time and place, neither event will appear to happen before the other to anyone.)) It's pretty clear that there is valid criticism to every scientific theory. And scientific consensus has a pretty poor track record: Every scientific consensus up until the current one has been wrong. Treedel (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Our Bumblebee section claims you misunderstand what aerodynamics says about bumblebees. I also have to ask, if you think scientific consensus has a poor track record, what would be an example of something with a better track record? Politics? Religion? Very few fields can even produce a consensus, which makes science pretty unusual. Most of us wouldn't be alive if science didn't work. Please provide an example of any prior incorrect scientific consensus as well-supported by experimental and observational evidence as anthropomorphic climate change. Individual scientists can of course overstep the available evidence and think like ordinary humans do, but a scientific theory which explains (i.e. models) a set of data will always continue to do so, even if another theory comes along later that models the same data even better (or extends the model to cover a larger dataset). You have to go pretty far back in history to find examples of scientists really collectively blowing it, like with Phlogiston or N-rays. However, even old theories continue to explain whatever they explained, as I mentioned above with Newtonian physics remaining the basis of most modern engineering despite having been extended by Relativistic physics. In the philosophy of science there is a notion that science asymptotically approaches truth. It is highly likely that today's scientific consensus is more accurate than the scientific consensus of 100 years ago. The reason being that 100 years ago, scientists had not accumulated as much data or built instruments and computers like we have today. It was easier to be wrong back then when there was less knowledge about reality on which to build theories. Note that 100 years ago, few scientists would have believed that human activities could change the Earth's climate and the chemistry of the ocean. If you argue that the scientific consensus of 100 years ago was more likely to be correct than the scientific consensus of today, you would be going against the weight of history. Not to mention the evidence from technology: today's science makes possible far more technology than people had a century ago. This suggests today's science is getting closer to the mark. --Teratornis (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When I read the Bumblebee just now, I saw a simplified description of how aerodynamics was refined by the bumblebee issue. The equations, experiments, and numbers used to build the space shuttles and Concorde jets did not take into account the dynamic stall effect. (It is a fairly recent development.) The concept of approaching truth IS key to science, but the case for anthopmorphic carbon emissions is weak. Atmospheric carbon (As measured by ice core samples) has huge spikes prior to any plausible human effects; I have read abstracts of the most widely cited works claiming to support AGW, but none of them postulate a mechanism for these carbon variances. We don't know what caused carbon levels to vary before, so how can we know now? 100-300MYA, carbon levels were higher than today. How? (There are further issues with the data that claims that global warming is occuring, notably the use of "correction" factors, rather than using the same definition of "temperature" that scientists do.) But that's a different story. Regarding relativisic physics, I prefer to keep distance and time constant, rather than the speed of light. Since I reject the primary postulate of RP, I cannot discuss it meaningfully other than to say it is also internally inconsistent in ways that are trivial to demonstrate. In response to your challenge, I would say that Philosophy has a better track record than the scientific method.
 * This page merits immediate deletion. Notably, for example, none of the so-called "deniers", much less the scientists who believe climate variation is adequately explained by natural phenomena, deny that the planet is currently warming at a rate of about 1 deg. F per century, coming out of the Little Ice Age.  None denies that the sea is rising at a rate of around 2mm per year, as it has been for several millennia.  The only areas of "denial" are a) whether any substantial portion of climate change is due to human activity, and b) even if it is, whether anything can be done about it.  Note that the draconian targets of the program currently proposed in the US Senate -- something like a 7/8 reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 -- would make a difference of only around a tenth of a degree C by 2100, according to the very General Circulation Models which are causing all the fuss.


 * Alternatively, if this page won't be deleted, a page "Climate change alarmism" should be created. -- Craig 206.39.12.245 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that we can find someone to tag onto each and every one of your "none denies", you can find examples at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎. Note that this comment doesn't state that those are deniers, but simply that your assertions are wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that the targets are not necessarily "draconian". A 7/8 emissions cut would seem draconian for many people if we tried to achieve it in one year, but doing it by 2050 might not be very difficult, given the huge scope for renewable energy development and energy efficiency increases. Wind power alone could supply several times the current primary energy requirements of all humans; solar energy has many times larger potential. Moore's law might lead to computers being so powerful by the year 2050 that hardly anybody will still need to travel. We absolutely know that humans must eventually stop using fossil fuels anyway, because humans are currently burning fossil fuels at rates that are many orders of magnitude higher than the rates at which fossil fuels form naturally in the Earth. In other words, nature will impose draconian emissions cuts sooner or later. It is arguably better to plan those cuts ourselves than to keep increasing our fossil fuel combustion until we hit an uncontrollable supply crunch. I've never heard anyone explain why quitting fossil fuels sooner would be worse than quitting them later; I suspect that people who defend business as usual believe fossil fuels are infinite. Peak oil proponents argue that we should be building post-fossil-fuel infrastructure and social organization at the fastest possible rate right now, to avoid severe economic, social, and political costs associated with the peaking and irreversible decline of world oil production, whenever it occurs. --Teratornis (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC states there is 90% chance the planet is warming up due to CO2. The vast majority of the population simply do not have the basic knowledge needed to judge how credible they are. The interesting thing is that it does not stop millions of people on the internet with no knowledge of climate science saying global warming is rubbish. It leaves one wondering why so many people have chosen to reject the mainstream scientific view. I came to this article to see if this issue had been addressed by anyone, have any studies on this aspect of denial been done ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.139.118 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several examples of popular beliefs that contradict mainstream science (or mainstream history), such as Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth movement, Creation–evolution controversy, Adam's_Bridge, and Holocaust denial. As to why people do this, see Magical thinking, Magic and religion, Psychology of religion, Evolutionary psychology of religion, Epistemological psychology, Internet meme, Cognitive bias, List of cognitive biases, and Denialism. If you converse with amateur self-styled climate change skeptics on the Internet, you quickly discover the vast majority have merely absorbed a few arguments from sources such as Fox News and they haven't bothered to read, nor do they rebut, what science says on the subject (for example Answers to Global Warming Skeptics). Also see the somewhat related notes in User:Teratornis/Energy. Since Mitigation of global warming is largely a problem of convincing the vast majority of humans to change their behavior, perhaps drastically, the psychological aspects of global warming are probably at least as important as the scientific and engineering aspects. --Teratornis (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want discredited theories of consensus, you could try the attempt by Wegener to prove continental drift for a start. The consensus in the 1920s and 30s said he was wrong. In the same period, there was a scientific consensus about eugenics and race, which led directly to the Holocaust. Try adopting a neutral stance, and accept that there are serious problems with global warming. The met office in the UK predicted (using the same models they use for climate many years ahead) that there would be a "barbecue summer". It has been a very wet July. Peterlewis (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Continental drift is an interesting example. Alfred Wegener presented his theory in 1912, it was severely attacked by geologists initially, but gradually became accepted by the 1950s. The main problem initially was that Wegener proposed no mechanism to account for continental drift. That came after Wegener's death with plate tectonics. Once scientists discovered a mechanism to account for the initially unbelievable notion that continents could move around the Earth, the observational evidence made sense. So, it took about 40 years for Wegener's theory to become mainstream. Anthropogenic global warming is different in that the mechanism is already known. The absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide (and of other greenhouse gases) is directly measurable, as is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus there is no doubt that the Earth's atmosphere is steadily getting better at trapping heat. For this not to cause an increase in average global surface temperature, there would have to be some offsetting mechanism that would reduce the amount of heat reaching the Earth's surface from the Sun by an equal amount (increased cloud cover? Aerosols? Lower solar activity?). The problem for global warming deniers/skeptics is that thousands of scientists have already tried to find such offsetting mechanisms and failed. Plus there is the fact that the world is getting warmer. As far as the summer weather in the UK goes, predicting long-term global climate is not the same as predicting short-term regional climate - do you suppose the IPCC scientists are not aware of the shortcomings of weather forecasting? In a similar way, insurance actuaries can predict the annual number of road accidents but they cannot predict when an individual driver will crash. The inability to predict individual behavior does not invalidate predictions about group behavior. As for the early history of eugenics, again there was no clear understanding of the underlying mechanism at the time; not until 1953 did Watson and Crick determine the molecular structure of DNA, and even today geneticists have yet to determine the extent to which genes influence behavior and the mechanisms by which they might. Geneticists can tell that genes code for proteins, but how the proteins interact together to produce behavior is one of the most complex unsolved problems in science (Proteomics). In any case, Hitler's ideas did not follow "directly" from science - Hitler was not a scientist and did not endear himself to the scientific community when he purged German universities of Jewish scientists and scholars, who were in many cases objectively superior performers, not the Untermenschen Hitler imagined them to be. It's hard to imagine that the scientific consensus at the time supported the extermination of the Jews. However, Hitler did manage to give eugenics a bad name, which is still retarding progress in the field of Behavioural genetics (see argumentum ad Hitlerum). Hitler also borrowed from Madison Avenue advertising methods, but somehow he didn't manage to give advertising a bad name. Neither has society recoiled in horror from Autobahnen (although to cut our carbon footprint we should scale back their use considerably). --Teratornis (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)