Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 28

Neutrality
The title of this article is unneutral and should be revised to something like Criticism of Climate Change..-- Novus Orator 06:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to a more neutral sounding title, and I have also tagged it for neutrality...-- Novus Orator 06:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was an obviously controversial move. Such moves must be discussed before they are done. See WP:RM. Since this is a generally very contentious area I will immediately escalate this to WP:ANI so that an admin can revert your move before you start a discussion – if you still feel like it, that is. Hans Adler 06:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't realize it was so controversial to adhere to WP:NPOV! Why the need to keep this article from being improved productively? Right now it seems that editors from both sides of the topic are locked out of the picture and that the article is written from a largely one-sided view. -- Novus Orator 07:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the user above. The very mention that it is referred to as "denial" means that they are refusing to admit to it. There are plenty of better names of it that are far more neutral. Emptyviewers (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality isn't about "balancing" in the way incompetent or lazy journalists do – representing everything in the form of a dispute that cannot actually be decided on rational grounds. (Typical example: "Most people find torture morally repugnant. However, according to Professor John Doe, a former teacher at the School of the Americas, properly conducted torture does not pose a serious threat to the subject's physical constitution and is often necessary to...") One thing that Wikipedia doesn't do is misrepresent fringe claims as if they had more credibility than they do. Anyone who denies the well-established connection between smoking and cancer is a denialist. Global warming is a very similar situation in more than one respect. The article is about the manufactured global warming denialism, not the tiny number of genuine researchers who legitimately dissent from the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The latter category is hardly in danger of being underrepresented, given how much they are being pushed into the news by PR companies and their fronts. And they do have more than enough weight in Wikipedia. Hans Adler 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then maybe this page should be deleted and instead make a page about the argument about the causes and effects of global warming and how many people don't feel that it is a major issue and that it's natural. Emptyviewers (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like the article on the Global warming controversy? This particular article is about the well-documented corporate-funded attack campaign on the science behind global warming, which is a separate issue.  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does appear to me that this article is written from a particular point of view--specifically one that is critical of what Sailsbystars calls the "well-documented corporate-funded attack campaign on the science behind global warming." Are there others here who disagree, and feel that the article is not written to be critical of the "denialist" position? --DGaw (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dgaw, I think you're conflating NPOV with "giving equal weight". Wikipedia tries to represent the balance of reliable sources. The view that there is global warming and that it is being caused by human activity is overwhelmingly supported by the sources that Wikipedia uses in matters of science. The view that there is a campaign (or movement) to undermine public trust in this research for non-scientific (ideological, commercial) reasons has, in comparison to any other view (for example, that people called derogatorily "denialists" have correctly identified a conspiracy in the scientific community to defraud), overwhelming representation in what Wikipedia would consider the best sources (academic books and articles). This cannot be disputed, and Wikipedia should not pretend otherwise. While the article should have dissenting voices such as can be represented in Wikipedia, it would not be NPOV to present both sides as equal. I am keen, as my previous edits to this talkpage show, for the article not explicitly to take sides, and to leave the door open that the view you mention is challenged by some people. However, that one side has overwhelming support in the scholarly community is not something that Wikipedia editors are making up through prejudice. Like it or not, global warming denialism qualifies, because so few genuine scientists support it, as fringe science, and campaigns by well-funded political organisations to promote it constitute a genuine phenomenon that has attracted respectable academic analytical attention.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi VsevolodKrolikov; I agree that neutrality does not equal "giving equal weight", and I'm not saying the article's non-neutrality is related to that. Neutrality require, however, that all articles be written as far as possible without bias. As written, this article does not just describe the points of view of those who are party to the debate, it speaks with the voice of one side. That's its problem.
 * Your comments about the scientific perspective on global warming are fairly put, but I think somewhat beside the point, because this article is not about climate science, or whether or not global warming exists, but about the political debate surrounding it. --DGaw (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * POV in topic context. For example, is the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus written from a particular point of view?  Absolutely it is, but not inappropriately. This article is about a campaign to influence belief away from the evidentiary basis.  Within the article topic context, the article is relatively neutral I think.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jaymax, you make an interesting point. In fact, the article Resurrection_of_Jesus is not written from a particular point of view, as Wikipedia means that. Quite the contrary, in fact, which is impressive considering how controversial religion is a subject.  The article has a neutral title, describes a belief in neutral language, and describes the details of that belief.  It states clearly that its describing a religious belief.  It doesn't take a position on whether the belief is correct.  It doesn't use language that is either critical or supportive of the belief.  It doesn't take positions on the possible motivations of those who hold the belief.  And it describes alternate views, also neutrally, and links out to more in depth articles on those beleifs.  It is, in short, a model for how this article should be, but so far isn't. --DGaw (talk)
 * Global warming or Global warming controversy would be the appropriate analogues. This article is not about whether climate change is correct or not or is actually happening. A more appropriate one would be perhaps persecution of Christians where whether Christ had risen or not is really quite immaterial. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and I agree the subject matter is not analogous. It was more the tone I was pointing out as worthy of emulation.  An article on the persecution of Christians would also need to be written in a neutral tone for inclusion here, of course.  --DGaw (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current lead is not optimal, but this was not an improvement. Hans Adler 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hans. I'm sorry you don't think so.  Why not?  --DGaw (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it implies doubt where no reasonable doubt exists on balance of the best available reliable sources. Hans Adler 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way do you think it implies doubt? As I read it, it doesn't: it simply makes clear who is making the assertion about the motives of the "denialists."  --DGaw (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a look and there is an article with the exact title Persecution of Christians if you're interested in tone. I get the feeling though that some of the 'skeptics' around the place view scientists rather more like Thuggee and any means are justified in their suppression. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is very contentious and has similar problems to this one. I wouldn't use it for a comparison. Hans Adler 05:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dmcq. A few things. 1) What is infuding? 2) The second sentence doesn't say "said to be associated", it says "has been associated". 3) Even if it did say "said to be associated", that would address a different point than my edit, the point of which is this: as written, the first sentence is making an assertion about the motives of "denialists" instead of making it clear it is those who use the term are making the assertion. That runs counter to the principle of neutrality, to which we are all subject: Wikipedia doesn't make assertions, it reports the assertions of others in as neutral a tone as possible.  If you have a better way of making the clarification, of course, that would be great too.  --DGaw (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DGaw, might I suggest that these exchanges you are having in this section are being somewhat superseded by the discussion about the lede below? Some of us are keen to focus the topic of the article not simply on people who prominently are known for not accepting the consensus on climate, but on the pattern of denial that emerges from people associated with conservative think tanks (that have often received substantial funding from fossil fuel industrial interests), which crucially has been identified by scholarly sources. (As it stands, the lede certainly is unclear and potentially POV - it can be read to imply that all denial is for political or commercial gain.) So, for example, the phrase "has been associated with" becomes by definition correct, as it's that kind of opposition to climate change science that sources generally examine, not opposition everywhere at all times. In these sources, the difference between scientific scepticism and attempts to bypass or ape scientific procedures in the political goal of attacking AGW is made very clear. The lede as it stands does not make this distinction, and it's remiss that it does not. I recommend the Oreskes book (well, I'm halfway through it now, so that far at least) as being very well written and very clear about the issue - which is non-science based, politically motivated denialism, not the minority opinions of legitimate scientists. (It's available on kindle for a dollar cheaper than the hardback). By this, I don't mean that the article should presume Oreskes and the many other writers who say much the same are correct in their analyses, but at the very least it should be clear about what their case is, and what is beyond reasonable doubt (such as the strong association between prominent denialism and conservative institutes, and these conservative institutes' financial connection to fossil fuel companies.) Lumping all dissenters from the consensus as "deniers" is wrong, but it's also POV to describe all deniers as "skeptics", and POV to turn the uncontestable (such as Frederick Seitz's and S. Fred Singer's association with conservative institutes) into mere conjectures. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't the foggiest what word I was thinking of when I wrote 'infuding'. I should take more care when writing my comments. The essential point though is that 'has been associated with' already says it is asserted by some people without fudging what the topic is about in the first place. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

???
Near article header: ... doesn't fully reflect "the disputes regarding" ... "nature", maybe add Scientific opinion on climate change; "causes", maybe add Attribution of recent climate change; "consequences of global warming", maybe add Effects of global warming? 99.190.89.133 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty correct to me, this is not correct at all ( I reverted it for discussion ) 'This article covers discussion of efforts to obscure the public understanding of climate change - efforts to obscure public understanding,, yea right. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I liked Mackan79's attempt to clarify the subject matter and don't really understand the rationale for the revert. Mackan79's wording, "discussion of efforts to obscure the public understanding of climate change." is what we mean when we refer to global warming denial. It's not about skepticism and the like, but specifically about something akin to the tobacco denial of yore, and often involving the same old tobacco denialists in a new guise. --TS 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still trying to come to terms with it, the article is allegedly about some living peoples attempts to stop the public from understanding scientists consensus on the planets temperature? So these living people are deliberately attempting to stop the public understanding what those scientist support? Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the point is simply that this article does cover discussion about a disinformation campaign, so it's quite helpful to clarify that. I'm not saying it should cover that (although with this title I do happen to think the topic must be that), but simply that, as a factual matter, it is the current topic of this article.  Please see my further explanation in the section below. Mackan79 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the public as an entity as I understand, believe what they are told by mass media and involved media sources. I support the fragile fantasy intel. We are floating at 66 thousand kilometers an hour through space on a planet that has never had no such thing as a stable weather report. The planet is occasionally hit by large lumps of space rock, wiping out lots of life. We should add something to all climate change articles, like a disclaimer.. ''Please when considering this remember that you are floating through space and that a single natural issue will override all of this. Ice ages come and go as humanity will also come and go, nothing is forever, especially the weather.Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well, if we're going to do that, why don't we add an edit notice across the project that says "Please note: Someday you're going to die, and in that moment of death you'll wonder why you ever thought this stuff was important." If you want to give people perspective, let's give people perspective.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the article title be changed?
It's been suggested above that the article title could be changed so that this was explicitly about the campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. I'd simply like to clarify the reason I think this doesn't work, which is that it would be a POV fork. We have an article on Global warming controversy, and an article on Business action on climate change. Would it make sense to narrow that further to the subjects of one particular charge? This is why I think this article is correct where it is, though we should then keep in mind that it is about a concept rather than directly about any particular activity, partly because no significant activity describes or presents itself under this heading. Mackan79 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazing. I had no idea that Business action on climate change exists. It makes no sense to have that in parallel with an article about the "concept" of climate change denial. This looks like a content fork situation. We can probably merge the two articles into one comprehensive one. The main difference that I can see: This article covers the history and focuses on goals. The other article focuses on the acting businesses. Is there more duplication of this kind in this area? Hans Adler 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Scrap that. I missed that Business action on climate change is about action in both directions, including the big insurance companies (which are of course very concerned). Hans Adler 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've often wondered if this article would be better under global warming controversy. It's a reality of nearly all political controversies that they have a manufactured component, something a little underhand, or a lot. Whether it's that nasty bit of work who tried to set up a CNN journalist the other day or the President's spectacularly inept pet criminals who broke into the DNC's headquarters in Foggy Bottom one fateful night in 1972 looking for dirt on the Party's funding. Perhaps we could just roll it all up into one big ball? No, I don't think so, for the same reason we don't try to cover the Watergate scandal under Richard Nixon. It's a topic sufficiently distinct from the man, and his presidency, and of sufficient notoriety, to merit its own treatment, and the  Nixon presidency was pretty remarkable in many ways that have nothing to do with the scandal.  The same probably applies to denialism as distinct from global warming skepticism in general. Few members of the Nixon presidency were caught up in the scandal (a few completely transcended it and have been remarkable people in every way before then and since) and not all of the events of his presidency are tainted by it. A line has to be drawn in order to avoid a false taint, and for other reasons. --TS 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is of course the point that Watergate scandal describes a specific series of events, whereas an article like this covers something more akin to an attitude that may not so naturally distinguish itself from other attitudes. Mackan79 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about "Multiple viewpoints regarding climate change origins and effects"? Thus allowing all significant positions to be dealt with in an orderly non-POV way, seeking to explain what positions are held and by whom, without engaging in BLP violations, and phrased in a non-"this is 'right' or 'wrong'" manner. (and avoiding the word "controversy" which always seems to elicit itself as a result) Collect (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about viewpoints, it's about public relations campaigns intended to sway public opinion in the area of climate change. --TS 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, if it is the case as you say that the article is meant to be about "public relations campaigns intended to sway public opinion in the area of climate change" its coverage of the subject appears to be inherently non-neutral because of the way the subject has been framed to discuss only such campaigns on one side of the controversy. It is not about campaigns intended to sway public opinion toward greater action on climate change, for example, is it?  --DGaw (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Climate change alarmism for that. These are all WP:SPINOFF articles covering various aspects of the subject. In my personal opinion there are too many of them, but it is hard to come up with a plan as to how to lay out all the important aspects without POV forks, or obscuring the main threads. --Nigelj (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point: Climate change alarmism appears non-neutral in the same way this article does, simply from a different point of view. And its probably not a surprise to anyone here that consolidation would be difficult, given the contentious nature of discussion hereabouts.
 * If indeed these articles are content forks created to highlight negative or positive viewpoints, that is the very definition of a POV fork, is it not? It would leave both articles badly out of policy.  Anyone have any thoughts on what can be done to improve the situation?  --DGaw (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mention above - the solution is to represent the balance of appropriate sources. It's a mistake to presume the sources fall evenly on either side of this discussion. Climate Change Alarmism is a phrase found on blogs and in some newspapers. Climate Change Denial is found in university imprints (as well as blogs and newspapers), making it by far a more legitimate topic. It's not good for Wikipedia policy on sourcing to be abrogated in the interests of one side of a debate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which intrinsically will lead to edit conflicts. Perhaps the time has come to try defusing some of the stuff which had become the norm in this area? Collect (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The article is about what it is about. What kind of conflict do you envisage being caused by making this an article recording actions rather than opinions and viewpoints? --TS 00:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem has always been that this article defines 'denial' in a much more limited way than that with which it is normally used. If the article is only going to focus on 'paid for' denial, then that should perhaps be reflected in the title.  See for example: Defining Denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic from New Scientist  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see support for that from Max Boykoff: "For example, the statement 'humans contribute to climate change' meets with much consensus (Fig. 2b). On this topic, increased scientific understanding has contributed to greater convergence; divergence has come from those at either end of the spectrum, dubbed 'alarmists' and 'denialists' — the former believing that human contributions explain all climate changes, and the latter believing that they explain none." That's a problem we've generally been aware of here, I think, but without any great way to solve it other than to state at the top that the term can be used with different meanings (something which might help, really). Mackan79 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's almost two articles - or two super-sections. Denial, as a dissonant belief that there is no consensus, or that the science must be 'wrong', or just a faith-like refusal-to-consider (Thruthiness); and denial-promotion as a funded self-interest effort to undermine the perception of a consensus, or any acceptance of the science. For clarity and avoidance of pointless debate, I'm referring to denial, not scepticism - although that should be clear from the words.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the article is substantial enough to stand on its own. "denial" implies that the sceptics are false and that their views are unfounded. We definitely need a change, but we must be mindful of conciseness. --HXL 何献龙 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We could borrow some focus from the Denialism article. This Seth Kalichman quote "All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none" is a useful umbrella definition of denialism (similar versions are stated by different people), and has been applied to climate change denialists in various simple paraphrases (such as "teach the controversy") or more directly as in the case of Mark Hoofnagle. The word denialism, denier and denial are regularly used in the literature on climate change denier organisation, and the phenomenon has been the subject of scholarly analysis, with few dissenters (outside the group of people being called "deniers") from the use of the word denier (one example can be found here, which argues for "contrarianism", but that's far less attested in the literature). There's not a problem of OR in having an article on this topic, as it's not us putting it together; RS has already done that. NPOV is not determined by public opinion, or false he-said-she-said balance. NPOV should not be determined by how many Wikipedia editors prefer one side to the other. Post edit conflict, to HXL49: I think you're confusing disputes about the science with the topic at hand here. Just as with handling "denialism" about the connection between smoking and tobacco, there's a distinction between scientific objection to theory and research, and ideologically motivated and corporate funded campaigning. (The distinction is one that is often muddied by such campaigns themselves.)


 * Secondly, I think that to merge this article into Global warming controversy is effectively POV. That article is not in great shape - it's got a lot of UNDUE in it, in attempting to present "both sides". There isn't much scholarship if any challenging the analysis of the climate denial lobby presented by historians and political scientists (like Oreskes) and reflected in science journals. There will always be individuals disputing the charge of denialism as outrageous - but that's inevitable; it goes with the territory. We should invoke RS, DUE etc., not a nebulous fear of bias that in part has been encouraged by the denier campaign itself. If someone can come up with a better term based on RS use, that's another matter. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is, the Denialism meaning isn't what this article has been constructed around. More focus has been put on demonstrating intent (often paid-for), rather than cognitive-dissonance and the nature of an honestly held belief.   ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "....the phenomenon has been the subject of scholarly analysis." Can you clarify what you mean by this?  I don't believe anything significant has been provided here so far, beside a very general piece on Hoofnagle's general concept. Mackan79 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course - Nancy Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt covers it. So does the Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society (in press, but available on Google Books), in particular the chapter entitled "14 Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies". Then there's Clive Hamilton's Requiem for a Species, (chapters 4 and 6 seem to cover a lot of the people/orgs involved), and Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy from CUP (chapter three: "A climate of denial) and so on and so forth. That's just from a very quick google book search.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Two more examples since it's so easy and the list can serve as a list of references for improving this article:
 * Dessler and Parson (2006), The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change (Cambridge University Press) – Section 5.3
 * "The specific claims denying the emerging consensus and attacks on the scientific assessment process of the IPCC are both relatively crude tactics. The evidence for and consensus supporting each of the positive points we have summarized, and the credibility of the IPCC, are both evident to anyone who takes a moment to look. More sophisticated opponents of mitigation advance subtler arguments. Rather than disputing any specific points, they argue more generally that the science of climate change is highly uncertain, so incurring potentially large costs to protect against climate change is imprudent and wasteful."
 * Moser and Dilling (2007), Creating a Climate for Change (Cambridge University Press) – Chapter by McCright, "Dealing with climate change contrarians".
 * "The contrarians' activities pose a significant barrier to substantive communication among the scientific community, policy-makers, and the general public [...]. Indeed, a major role of the contrarians has been to distort communication efforts of the scientific community with policy-makers and the general public regarding climate change. This chapter will first summarize existing research on the claims, organizational affiliations, tactics, and effectiveness of the contrarians in the American national policy context, and then identify several interrelated strategies for dealing with contrarians to protect the integrity of the open communication necessary between the scientific community and public policy-makers."
 * Hans Adler 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the material in the Routledge Handbook on Climate Change and Society, that I'm able to find on Google books, is actually much higher quality than anything I'd found so far. I don't believe it changes my view that we need to attribute direct claims that climate change denial is occurring, but the material itself would help the article a great deal.  One point it suggests is that we could be describing this less theoretically and more historically: the way Dunlap and McCright describe it in the Routledge guide is much more as a campaign that began around the 1980s, largely among conservatives tied to the Reagan administration, in opposition to the developing environmentalist movement.  So, rather than "used to describe attempts..." we could say something like "Climate change denial is a term broadly used to describe a movement, primarily in the United States, that for political and economic reasons has sought to obscure and downplay the scientific consensus on global warming."  I don't know that this is perfect, but re-framing it to focus on the movement that many of these sources describe, rather than trying to present it as some sort of ideology, might help to create a more useful and less contentious article.  Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. But I want to tweak it, and soften the straight assertion of political and economic motives. How about this (emphasis where changed):
 * "Climate change denial is a term broadly used to describe a movement, primarily in the United States that has sought to obscure, downplay or deny the scientific consensus on global warming. Many scholars argue it has done this for a variety of ideological and commercial reasons."
 * I prefer ideological to political (it's never been about party advantage, except maybe in Australia), and commercial to economic, as it's about private financial interests. It's not as elegant, (and I don't like "Many scholars", as it's a bit weaselly, but I can't think of a better formulation right now) but it allows us to separate out what they do and why they do it. There might be some BLP issues too, so we have to cover ourselves. By the way, Mackan79, I don't understand what you mean by "we need to attribute direct claims that climate change denial is occurring". Either that's really obviously true, or I'm missing something from an earlier discussion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean attribute in the text, as in, "McCright contends that the denialist campaign had strong roots in the Reagan administration." We wouldn't just say, "Climate change denial had strong roots in the Reagan administration," and then put a reference at the end of the sentence.  We would not take it for granted that any of the statements in the sources are true since despite the fact that they are reliable sources it is nevertheless "opinion." Mackan79 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think an American aspect is important enough to go in the first sentence about it. Commercial and ideological sounds better than financial and other sectional though. The article concentrates on the organizations side because people just denying aren't all that interesting - they're covered fairly well in the effects on public opinion of the organizations. Also it is hard to know if an individual is actually in denial or is just sceptical, after all it is perfectly rational to think there is something fishy about the whole business when these denial groups put so much effort into swaying public opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On the stuff about Wikipedia being sued. Please stop that. We just have to follow the Wikipedia policies about summarizing reliable sources in a reasonable fashion. If the Wikipedia Foundation is worried about anything more they'll ask for something to be put in the policies about it. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're addressing me, but I have not said or implied anything about the foundation being sued. I have pointed out that to call something "climate change denial" is a negative statement, which means that we need to be careful about how it is presented.  Unfortunately some have hinted at the idea (or directly said) that there is nothing inherently negative in the claim of "climate change denial," but to that I have pointed out that it is absolutely negative in the sense that it could be considered damaging if said falsely about an individual.  I don't believe anyone is proposing that we do that, so it seemed like a safe point to make, which does in my view indicate that this is a negative assessment of the sort that should call our attention to careful attribution. Mackan79 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent discussion overall – I hope it can last – one of the more contentious subject areas on WP, and an article in one of the more contentious areas of the subject matter, and the discussants are bringing up excellent points and sources. I read Oreskes articles years ago, but need to reread, and haven't read the  Routledge material, so looks like I've got some reading to do.--  SPhilbrick  T  12:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The qualification " primarily in the United States" surprised me. Perhaps it is accurate, but I urge people to look at page 251 of the Routledge book, where he discusses climate change denial in the UK, Canada, Australia, and Denmark. This may not invalidate the word "primarily", but we should take care not to leave a misleading impression.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that you'll see it elsewhere, particularly in Australia although European examples also exist. I do think the scale in America is, or has been, much greater though. --TS 13:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with the recommendation of VsevolodKrolikov to read chapter 3 of Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy. The beginning largely plows ground covered by Routledge, but read on, and it covers new and relevant material.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources I've seen, particularly the Routledge guide, talk in detail about how this is primarily an American phenomenon. I don't know that it needs to be in the first sentence.  It does become difficult, though, when we try to talk in terms that will equally apply everywhere in the world (particularly since most sources don't make such sweeping claims). Mackan79 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no lack of denialism in New Zealand, if going by the definition at Denialism - however there is very very little AFACIT if going by the definition in this article. I'll probably keep plugging away at this point, because I think until it's properly addressed, the article and this page will be magnets for repeated arguments.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an anglo-saxon phenomenon (or whatever rich English-speaking countries are called). I would probably say that it's acceptable to say it's mainly in the US. It's not just that the US is bigger, but the US has a plethora of institutes, the funding has come from the US, the impact on politics has easily been greatest in the US, and it's the US organisations (these days Heartland dominates) that has been co-ordinating most denialism.
 * A quick comment on the comments by dcmq above: I disagree that we should concentrate only on organisations; the sources don't. Part of the analysis has been the continuity not only in institutions, but also in personnel (notably Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer) from tobacco lobbying to climate change. Heartland also sponsors a whole variety of individuals. As for legal threats - his comments may have been precipitated by my mention of "covering our backs" regarding BLP. WP:BLP policy does actually ask us to consider the legal implications of statements about living people, so it's not as if we wait until the foundation tells us to worry. Some of the claims and implications in the research on climate denialism are pretty damning of certain individuals. So in that sense it's right that we remember to tread a little carefully, and make sure we don't end up saying or reasonably implying more than the sources say (true for all articles, but the material here is a particular case). But much more than that - keenly following BLP would lead to a much more stable article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To push the point (and so unindent would be inappropriate) when you say "It's certainly an anglo-saxon phenomenon", do you mean climate change Denialism, or do you mean the campaign as defined in this article? They are different things.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oregon Institute incorrectly linked
In the section "Connections to the tobacco lobby," the "Oregon Institute" is incorrectly linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute. The link should point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine instead. It is that latter group that created the "Oregon Petition." The contents at the correct link mention the "Oregon Petition." --Eric Siegel (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal – remove the about sentence until we can reach a consensus
Proposal – remove the about sentence until we can reach a consensus regarding appropriate wording (I personally think the problem is deeper, and requires fine tuning of the subject matter itself, rather than just identifying wording to cover the existing subject matter, but if someone proposes new wording and it reaches a consensus, great.) I think it is fair to assume that those who do not support removal of the wording agree with the wording. If that is the consensus, I'll turn my attention to showing that none of the references support the summary wording, and we can debate whether I am correct, and search for new refs if I am correct.
 * Support As proposer-- SPhilbrick  T  22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure, take it out. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support removal for now until we agree on an acceptable form. I think an "about" line should be there but the restrictive term "corporations" is not right. Some corporations do fund such work but they find no shortage of willing proxies, whether motivated by political considerations or otherwise. --TS 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Let's work on the text of the article to describe the worldwide mainstream view that there is such a thing as CC denial going on, with examples, and to give some coverage to the fact that some people somewhere think the term should be banned and never used, and whatever there is in between too, I suppose. --Nigelj (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The weakness in your position is that the criticism of the term is, in fact, mainstream, which means that there is not one worldwide mainstream viewpoint. Mackan79 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Four supports and no dissenters might not be in the dictionary as over-whelming, but given the absence of a single dissent, and apparent moving on to new issues, I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentences. It can easily be undone if late additions change the outcome. Sentences copied below in case anyone wants to refer to them as we see if we can improve them:


 * Oppose removal. Wow, 2 hours.. not really much time to respond.  If the problem for the moment is with trying to describe this article, why not just keep the portion that describes the other article so at least that much is clear.   Morphh   (talk) 2:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, as I said, it looked like people were moving on. Interesting point about leaving in the second sentence, however, the discussion below, (which is quite thoughtful BTW) may result in substantive changes, either to the title or the content, so my feeling is to wait for that to reach a consensus, as it might make the issue moot.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That works.. It's not a strong oppose. I'm sure we'll get it figured out soon.  Morphh   (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We any closer? I stopped by to see how it was going and it doesn't look any different.  Still just as confusing.... can we put some portion of the about tag back up?  Morphh   (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think only having the second sentence is odd, even for a while. How about using the literature-focussed discussion below this and say:


 * I think that this version would help to make the key separation between people disputing through orthodox scientific channels, and the think tank PR campaigns and astroturfing that this article covers, a distinction that the literature on denial makes very clear.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. Morphh   (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Things are quiet here. How about giving it 24 hours and then adding it if there are no objections? (I'd normally be bolder, but in this topic area etc.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on. I think things being quiet means that we have a consensus now that the hatnote is not and was not necessary. Have you read WP:HAT? Also per WP:DAB I think we were trying to disambiguate an article title that was not ambiguous. If there is any more to say about the topic of the article, e.g. what is in scope and out of scope or related subjects, they should be put into the body of the article. The lede summarises the article; there is no requirement further to summarise it into a disambiguation hatnote, or to give extraneous links to other articles before it starts. If the article is confusing, then let's fix it with referenced text. If there are various significant viewpoints as to the use or meaning of the term, then (with references) they are part of the topic of the article, not another hatnote, please. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to look past the last couple talk page edits to see there is still confusion on the topic point. You didn't fix anything.  It's a reoccurring problem that needs to be addressed.  Morphh   (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, being quiet does not indicate consensus, and no one was arguing that the hatnote was unnecessary - only that it was not worded properly (the discussion was based on the presumption that the hatnote was a good idea in principle). As evidence by activity on this talkpage, what Climate change denial is, is not entirely clear to many people. The academic literature is pretty clear (which is what we need for the article) so a concise hatnote explaining that this article is not about the scientific arguments against global warming, but about the politicised campaign against public acceptance of global warming, seems entirely appropriate. The closest objection I can see in WP:HAT is that the two topics might be related, and so should be merged. However, it seems clear that both articles should exist, independently of each other. Crucially, there is separate literature on them. Is there another part of WP:HAT you're referring to? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Toward a better lead
Vsevolod proposes above, based on my initial proposal:
 * Climate change denial is a term broadly used to describe a movement, primarily in the United States, that has sought to obscure, downplay or deny the scientific consensus on global warming. Many scholars argue it has done this for a variety of ideological and commercial reasons.

Based on a couple of comments, the current lead, and my own thoughts, I propose amending the lead as follows:
 * Climate change denial is a term broadly used to describe a movement that has sought to obscure, downplay or deny the scientific consensus on climate change, for a variety of ideological and commercial reasons.


 * The scientific opinion on climate change is that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political, economic, and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, contend that climate change denial has had a significant impact on these debates.[5][6][13][14][15][16][17] Campaigns have been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[2][3][4][5][6]


 * Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[7][8][9][10][11][12] However, others have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into a scientific issue.[18][19][20]  Some disagreement exists over whether other terms such as "skepticism" or "contrarianism" should be used rather than "denial" or "denialism."


 * The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[13] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[21]

I think this might serve to clear up the lead to some extent (which currently has a fair amount of redundancy, among other issues). Mackan79 (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As above, I'm uncomfortable stating  for a variety of ideological and commercial reasons so baldly. It's an accusation - one which very respectable sources make, along with lots of evidence - but an accusation all the same that I think we should put ourselves at one remove from. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Two sentences as you suggest probably isn't bad. I just didn't like "many scholars."  Many, relative to what?  I might say something like "Scholars and journalists have traced early campaigning to the 1980s, and argue that it is done for a variety of ideological and commercial reasons."  The word "some" is also an option. Mackan79 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't like many scholars. It's weaselly, but was all I could think of. I'm not sure about your scholars and journalists suggestion. Although I would like us to take care, I don't want to water down the basic statement too much.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome other comments. Incidentally, here is a quote from the Routledge guide that is particularly on point for work on the definition. "Climate change denial has taken various forms over the past two decades -- including the denial of global warming, the denial of its anthropogenic sources and the denial of its seriousness -- as climate science and socio-political contexts have evolved. While it originated in the US, climate change denial has spread gradually to a range of nations, creating something of an international movement. Initially funded primarily by the fossil fuels industry (Gelbspan 1997), over time conservative foundations and think-tanks have become major supporters and promoters of climate change denial." Provided to help keep things grounded. Mackan79 (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent quote! From that, how about this:
 * Climate change denial is a term broadly used to describe a movement that has sought to obscure, downplay or deny the scientific consensus on climate change. The movement has been mainly promoted by conservative think-tanks in the United States and other countries, and has historically received significant funding from sections of the fossil fuels industry.
 * All factually accurate and indisputable. Better? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'movement' or 'campaign'? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Routledge quote is particularly on point. Regarding 'movement' or 'campaign', I feel that a movement has more of a grassroots, bottom up sense, while campaign is more of an orchestrated, top down concept. If that doesn't make it obvious, 'campaign' seems more apropos.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Campaign" is fine. You'll notice the source refers to a "movement."  As far as Vsevolod's proposal, I prefer something like "The movement is mainly associated with conservative think-tanks in the United States and other countries, and funding from sections of the fossil fuels industry."  That's what I mean when I talk about it being opinion.  Only if the conservative think-tanks and industry groups broadly acknowledged that they promote this campaign, which of course they don't, could we state it as uncontroversial fact. Mackan79 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that these are good suggestions. They improve the lead. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent points - while I think "campaign" is more accurate, as pointed out, it requires acknowledgment of promotion, which might be hard to nail down. I'm happy with movement.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while you have ably rewritten the paragraph, it still remains non-neutral in tone. I think we can all agree that if you say someone is attempting to "obscure or downplay" a scientific consensus, you are criticizing their doing so. How about this to begin, instead?:
 * Climate change denial is a term applied to those who reject or question the scientific consensus on climate change, or who argue against policies promoted as responding to it. --DGaw (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think one source of the neutrality concerns here stem from the voice of the article. The term "downplay" for example, is a characterization--it carries with it an opinion about the activity in question. What one group might call "downplaying climate change", another group might call, I don't know, "promoting a reasonable response to climate change." Or whatever. My point is, either way it's an opinion, and Wikipedia describes opinions, it doesn't endorse or adopt them. It just occurred to me a minor update to the sentence--adding "said to be"--would allow us to retain most of the existing wording while improving the article by making the characterization clear. Let me know what you think. --DGaw (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the first paragraph could do more to address the different meanings.

Climate change denial is a term broadly used to describe a movement that has sought to obscure, downplay or deny the scientific consensus on climate change, for a variety of ideological and commercial reasons. The term "denial" is sometimes seen as interchangeable with other terms such as "skepticism" or "contrarianism," and some authors have advocated using one term above the others. However, other writers have discussed a "denial machine" in which the term specifically denotes commentary that is industry-funded.
 * I wonder if something like that helps clarify why we are using words like "downplay." (I'm disregarding for now the issue we were just discussing about the first sentence). Mackan79 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should be very careful not to lump anyone who does not agree with the scientific consensus in the same group as "denialist". The issue described in the literature is not that people disagree with the science per se. It's that there are people (not genuine researchers), attached to conservative/freemarket thinktanks, who wage a media campaign (often dressed up as science) against the consensus. Denialism, for the RS we have, stands out not because these people dispute the consensus, but because their advocacy is not performed through normal scientific channels, and appears to pay scant regard to what research actually says (or simply misrepresents the state of the science). Some might argue that in practice all prominent skeptics are actually just denialists, but the RS separates skepticism from denialism.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One of the difficulties in writing this is that challenges to the scientific consensus are not only acceptable, but a critical part of the scientific process, if done as a legitimate challenge. Illegitimate challenges, whether by the truly clueless, or worse, by those who know better, are part of the problem, but it is exceedingly difficult for the untrained (and even some of the trained) to make a clear distinction between legitimate and illegitimate challenges. Crudely speaking, the illegitimate challenges form a part of the climate change denial movement; our challenge is how to include those challenges while not sweeping in the legitimate challenges.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this stalled... I made a quick edit to hopefully add just a little more clarity, though a clearer rewrite would be best. Morphh   (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the vandal, I noticed your edit! I've re-jigged it a bit. I didn't like the word "illegitimate" in the lede, as although it's based on the source, it seems ambiguous, as if people don't have a right to raise concerns at all. I've also taken from that source the point that climate change denial typically takes the rhetorical form of science, while not actually being science, and cited Routledge to introduce the "commerical and/or ideological" motives.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

more on Republicans?
While discussing a different topic supported by the Hudson Institute, it occurred to me that the link between (US) Republicans and the topic of this article is rather meagerly presented here. Some sources useful for expansion in that direction: Why Are Republicans Climate Skeptics? House Goes Republican; Enviros Brace for Climate Changes GOP Senate candidates among global warming's biggest skeptics One can easily find more. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the topic of this article. Morphh   (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And is it the topic of some other Wikipedia article, or is it off-limits? E.g. "Republican Marco Rubio questions whether global warming is man-made" . How would you describe his position? Is that not an "attempt to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior", which is the self-declared scope of this article? (First sentence from lead ). Tijfo098 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the difference is that from politicians we expect that kind of thing. Nobody is really surprised when politicians argue for rape, torture or large-scale devastation of the environment. So it does belong in this article, but doesn't need much weight as it really goes without saying. Hans Adler 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Global warming controversy would cover that topic area. I encourage you to express that the lead is confusing though, as it's a subject of discussion above. I think some about tag should be added to clarify this exact issue - confusion over the topic. Morphh  (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Politics of global warming (United States) is a better option. It already has some pre-election info on this. Thanks both for suggestions. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there should be a link to that in the section about public action. I'm a bit surprised there's nothing in the article about the Koch family when it has so much about Exxon Mobile. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So long as there are good sources for it. Exxon has received a lot of coverage in RS. I don't know how much there is about Koch. Google scholar turns up little for "koch industries" "climate change" "denial".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So biased.
There is no scientific consensus on the topic in the same way that there is about the earth being round. It's a phrase used by certain organisations despite there being a smaller, but significant, number of scientists against the idea. Please change "scientific consensus" to "apparent scientific consensus" or something similar to signify that it is not a 100% consensus.

The wording is also awful. Saying phrases like "...is an attempt made my certain organisations and companies to downplay the..." makes it sound very malicious, which some may feel, but not all. Phrases like that come across as very biased and only serve to degrade the content of the article.

The article should also be renamed "climate change scepticism" and be written along those lines. Denial makes it, again, sound as if it's in the same category as someone saying the earth is flat. Yes, some people have strong opinions on this and that is why it is written as such, but it is not right to write this topic in a biased way as it leads to a lack of respect from the reader and damages the reputation of the idea.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxbowser (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're mistaken on two points. First of all, there is a clear scientific consensus that climate change (global warming) is happening because of the actions of humans. If you've read somewhere that there isn't, I suspect it's been the result of poor journalism mixed with the efforts of climate change denialists. The peak scientific associations of every major industrial country - in order to counter campagins to downplay or misrepresent the consensus - have come out and made definitive statements regarding the high level of scientific consensus. The Royal Society even took the step of writing to Exxon Mobil to ask them to stop funding climate change denial - which Exxon Mobil agreed to do. There simply is no body of respectable, reviewed science that challenges this consensus. Agreement in the scientific literature on the basic science of global warming approaches the level of agreement that there is on evolution, although of course the science isn't quite as old and established as evolution. Secondly, if you check the sourcing provided in this article, you will find that the views presented on the distortion of the debate by climate change denialists are not those of wikipedia editors, but of academic analysts, amongst others. You'd be hard pushed to find any independent respectable academic analysis of the actions of the George C Marshall Institute, or people like Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, that do not find that they departed from the path of proper scientific practice once they became involved in politically motivated denialism (tobacco and cancer, acid rain and climate change). As such, the article is not biased, but reflects the balance of respectable sources. Being "unbiased" is not the same as giving all views equal coverage. I understand it might be a shock to find out what the academic analysis of the situation is, given media coverage that favours a "50:50" confrontational format, but wikipedia follows respectable sources. I hope this helps to deal with your concerns. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also this article is not about climate change skepticism which is a different business entirely. Global warming controversy has a lot more about arguments from skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up VsevolodKrolikov, there is not a single journal article that links humans to climate change. If you can find a single article please post it here. It is nowhere near on the level of agreement as there is with evolution. I know a number of scientists in the field demanded that their names were taken off of documents that said there was no question about global warming. I have a number of lecturers who are climatologists and paleoclimatoilogists and they have pointed us to watching a program called the 'great global warming swindle'. i suggest you give it a watch then see if you still believe in this theory based science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.203.81 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's great you have lots of friends. Do you also know some Greek teachers who deny that anthropos (as in, er, "anthropogenic") means "human"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As interesting as that fact was, you didn't show me one piece of evidence which makes your statements earlier about there being clear scientific consensus invalid. It is a theory at most and a dangerous one at that with all the money that is being pumped in to the subject which could be used on more important environmental issues such as acid rain or ozone depletion. I will leave you something to think about. Past climate graphs have shown an increase in temperature which is followed by an increase in carbon dioxide a few hundred years later. This seems to point out that carbon dioxide is not forcing any increase in temperature but is raised because of the increase in temperature. How would you explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.121.243 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I put "anthropogenic climate change" into google scholar I get lots of peer-reviewed articles in prestigious journals maintaining that current global warming is largely caused by human action. As would you. Claiming that such research doesn't exist serves to portray those disputing anthropogenic theories as either incompetent or downright deceitful. It doesn't help the quality of debate to parody climate change sceptics like this. It just causes tension on quite a wikistressful topic. Unless you have something sensible to contribute, would you mind holding back the comedy, or even better, helping to improve content in other pages? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure if you know this but up until at least a year ago if a scientists in the field expressed doubt about anthropogenic climate change in an article even if it was only in the conclusions part and he stil had data to present he would be told he either had to take that part out or it would not be published. I understand about it causing tension so this will be the last post I make on the subject and the only thing I ask of you is to look at both sides of the argument and next time someone has a question you should stay on the topic if you have an answer to give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.121.243 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which journal was this? It might have an impact on Wikipedia sourcing policies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the IP is talking about Climategate - See this WSJ article.  Morphh   (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Journal of ¬Geophysical Research- In 2004 Lars Kamel had researched weather stations in Siberia and found much less warming over the last 150 years than the researcher Phil Jones had. Phil Jones had the choice to reject the paper which is what he did as shown in his email to Michael Mann. Kamal never tried to publish it anywhere else because I believe he was retiring. This is one example of how skeptics papers have been buried by some of the ‘top’ climate researchers due to the results no agreeing with AGW. I was in part referring to climategate because that is where it was [proved Jones had done this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.121.243 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Before we get sidetracked - you said there was no evidence is that correct? Do you mean now that there are lots of papers saying there is a link but none of them count because they are toadying to some scientific elite and ones against have been suppressed? As far as I can see from Scientific consensus on climate change the conspiracy must be pretty powerful and wide ranging, is that your belief? Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that there has been warming over the last few decades but there has not been a link that proves man is responsible for this. It is not like ozone depletion or acid rain where there is a definitive link. I never mentioned a conspiracy I just brought up the climategate emails which show some scientists willing to discredit others just for the belief that global warming was not mans fault or the warming has not been as high. 81.132.121.243 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you stand by 'Just a quick heads up VsevolodKrolikov, there is not a single journal article that links humans to climate change'. As has been pointed out to you there are papers linking the two. How do you explain the discrepancy between these statements except by dismissing the papers that say anything like that? Are you saying that coercion is an explanation for dismissing them? Do you have the foggiest idea how hard it would be to coerce scientists around the world like that? Herding cats would have nothing on it,you just have to say even the most obvious thing to a bunch of scientists and some of them will try finding holes in what you say. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

When I say link I mean like the link with ozone and cfc's was found when a plane flew through the antartic and discovered that at high cfc levels there was little or no ozone left. This was definitive and could not be questioned. However with AGW there has still been no definitive link and if you believe otherwise i suggest you do more reading on the subject. The best piece of evidence they ever had was the hockey stick graph which has been widely discredited due to massaging of the data. I was challenging the views that VsevolodKrolikov had said in response to someone else's comment originally and he made a correct point that there was a risk that this could cause tension and with that in mind i will leave the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.121.243 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you were just dismissing them as non-existent because you didn't believe them. Could I direct you to Global warming controversy for that sort of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistency or coherence isn't the point. This is just Gish Galloping - raising a series of questions one after the other without ever pausing for discussion in order to produce the impression of controversy. Denialist, not skeptical behaviour.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Add http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827840.100-professional-climate-change-deniers-crusade-continues.html
Add Professional climate change deniers' crusade continues in the New Scientist 02.November.2010 by Michael E. Mann in particular regard to Ken Cuccinelli and the EPA  99.27.174.87 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately he just sounds like a professional pro guns - anti abortion redneck Republican to me. I think this rather naff design Breast of Virginia Seal Covered Up about says what chance one has arguing against such mentality. It will require some respected Republican to see the light on their own before any of them change. There is hope eventually as you do get the occasional thinker amongst them but I don't believe this is one of them. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This sort of thing is very much in the climategate train of things. Unless there is good RS associating climategate and Cucinelli with the denialism of thinktanks/corporations, this may not fit in with the article here. Although it's New Scientist, it's a personal account rather than a scholarly analysis.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are four mentions of deniers and denialism in the piece, excluding the title. Mann is an important figure in climate science, and New Scientist is a respected publication. I would have thought there was something in there worth using and attributing here. I'm not the best at this, but the following should be able to be improved with less direct quoting. Climatologist Michael Mann wrote in New Scientist that he saw the hacking into the CRU's email, "timed to forestall any progress towards lowering carbon emissions at the Copenhagen climate conference being held about a month later", as another "skirmish" in a "war against science". He described how "front groups for the fossil-fuel industry have been waging an orchestrated, well-funded campaign against climate science and climate scientists for more than two decades" and said that his hockey stick graphic has been a target for climate change deniers for a decade; being such a "compelling icon" has made it a "compelling target". He concluded that there is a "remarkable disconnect between the rhetoric of climate change denialism and reality" and that while these "professional climate change deniers continue their crusade against climate science, [2010] is likely to go down as either the warmest or the second warmest [year] on record."
 * --Nigelj (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so. He's a climatologist, not an ethicist, lawyer, or whatever expert would be qualified as "timed to forestall any progress towards lowering carbon emissions".  His comments in regard Cucinelli border on libel, although I would assume that, if this is a New Scientist article, and not a blog entry, then the editors would ensure that it only borders on libel.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on. British libel law is pretty strict. Considering that science journalism has recently had to fight to support Simon Singh against libel, I think it's very probably safe to assume lawyers would have blocked anything remotely libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2010
 * This kind of Libel example: Climate scientist sues newspaper for 'poisoning' global warming debate: Climate modeller Andrew Weaver launches libel action in Canada for publishing 'grossly irresponsible falsehoods' (Andrew J. Weaver) 22.April.2010 regarding the National Post ?  99.24.251.7 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Of course, once the articles get to US hosts, there's nothing that could be done, even if they were libelous.  See Barrett v. Rosenthal.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling per WP:ENGVAR
I wasn't sure where to put this, and it should remain a low priority, but the article is not consistent in its usage of the British vs. the English spellings of 'skeptic'/'sceptic' and its derivations. It should be smoothed out to reflect a single orthography, but I'm not sure which is preferable. I also run into the word within quotes, which may or may not be by British/American individuals. If these are print quotations, is it kosher to (potentially) alter the spellings from the originals in order to conform to this?Dhicks3 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe quotes should be left as close to the original as possible, otherwise the American spelling is probably most appropriate to this article as that's where most of these think tanks etc are. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Quotes should be literal, the rest consistent (whichever version). Unfortunately, I can only write Frankenstein English by now, and spell not even that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
NPOV is seemingly impossible on this topic. Unfortunately for the reader, the majority of people who are interested in editing this article mistakenly believe that there is a consensus on AGW, and thus, form a consensus that there is a consensus, even though there isn't one.

This article treats people who disbelieve the theory of AGW as though they are either Neanderthals or corrupt CEOs. Almost all of the phrasing in this article is, or could be viewed as, derogatory, and deserves a complete rewrite. Even the article on Creationism treats disbelievers in a far more established scientific theory better than this article. I would suggest unprotecting this article, so that those who are of differing opinions can get their edits in, without being shut down in the talk page by the individuals who think they own this article. Lolinder (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may correct a few misunderstandings which, if they come from reading the article, suggest that the article lacks clarity and needs improving:
 * There most clearly is a consensus on anthropogenic climate change among climate scientists and scientists in general. All of the world's major umbrella scientific institutions have explicitly stated this. It really is the case. The IPCC reports are pretty much what scientists think, including all the uncertainties. There is no decent RS (i.e. peer-reviewed meta analysis) that disputes this. Scientifically qualified climate change sceptics and deniers, considering their incredibly small numbers, have certainly got phenomenal media access - but that's part of the phenomenon that this article covers. There may not be consensus in the population on AGW, but that's also true for evolution, and actually more so. I am not saying that AGW is what I believe, I am saying that this is what consulting academic RS shows.
 * You are confusing scientific disputes about climate change (which this article does not and should not cover) with climate change denialism, which analysts explicitly state is done outside the normal realms of scientific dispute, and with financial and ideological interests seemingly the driving force rather than scientific integrity. This article is not about anybody who disagrees with AGW. It is, as suggested above, about people conducting a science-sounding public relations campaign against acceptance of AGW. One can compare it to campaigns funded by tobacco companies against the acceptance of the dangers of smoking. Indeed, a couple of the leading lights in climate change denial are exactly the same people who were involved in those former campaigns, as is made clear in the RS.
 * NPOV does not mean being nice to everyone. NPOV means presenting the balance of the best RS. Academic analysis of the debate over climate change has identified a consistent and notable socio-political phenomenon whereby some people and organisations who publicly dispute climate change are seemingly putting politics or personal gain before science. An article about this phenomenon isn't in itself unbalanced, despite your suggestion above. It may not be comfortable for those disputing climate change for genuinely scientific reasons, but I'm sure those who have genuine issues with modern evolutionary theory also wince because of the creationists.
 * Wikipedia isn't here to represent the balance of public opinion. We look to what the appropriate experts say, and in this case it is to people such as climate scientists, historians of science, and political scientists.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My main point was not to attack the consensus the people here have reached, but to question the phrasing. My first paragraph probably should not have been included.
 * Maybe NPOV was not the correct term to use. But it is quite obviously possible and advisable to use phrasing that is not derogatory towards any individual or group of individuals.
 * As for your other point, that the article is about PR campaigns, I would recommend making that more clear in the opening. The term denialist has been leveled against politicians and others separate from the "organized attempts" you describe, and thus many people will come here thinking they are reading about individuals like those, rather than companies and organizations.
 * Finally, the link the this article from the page AGW should probably be removed, as the chances that someone typing in AGW to try to find the page on Climate Change Denial are relatively slim, and it is a term used by bloggers who have been called denialists, further adding to the confusion as to whether the article is about PR campaigns or individuals.
 * Lolinder (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the AGW dismabiguation page shouldn't list this page. The problem is that many politicians and media outlets that dispute climate change are doing so for political, not scientific reasons, making certain aspects of denialism more than a controlled campaign. One of the main ones is opposition to government regulation through commitment to free market solutions. A "PR campaign" was my way of describing some of the efforts, but I think for the article that makes it sound more centrally controlled and co-ordinated than I understand it (although some of the interference in governmental agency report-writing clearly has been, and not only on this one aspect of environmental protection). I think a good way forward is to see what RS says about the impact of denialism on political debate. Of course we don't want to be "derogatory", but that shouldn't extend to self-censoring in case someone might come off looking bad. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When you write things like "The problem is that many politicians and media outlets that dispute climate change are doing so for political, not scientific reasons" when it is equally true that many politicians and media outlets that defend anthropogenic climate change are also doing so for political, not scientific reasons, there is an appearance of bias in your POV. Guy Macon  08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from the AGW disambiguation page as I agree too it wasn't a reasonable target for that term. Rest just sounds like confusion, if a person disagrees with the very first sentence they should first ask themselves if their own understanding of the term is right, if they came here from AGW they were probably thinking of something else entirely. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When applied to individuals it is more often just abuse. It is denial if they're doing it because of politics and ignoring the science but what's been written about in books is more about organized efforts to rubbish the science. There is a bit about this in the section meanings of the term. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Climate change denial" is an insult and NPOV
The very title of this article, "Climate change denial," is a misnomer, inaccurate, and in fact in common speech most often used as an insult rather than a fair label. Something more NPOV, like "Anthropogenic Global Warming skepticism" would be far more fitting and far more accurate as well since most people erroneously labeled as "deniers" of climate change do not deny climate change at all but rather AGW, and many more don't even deny that but they argue it's not nearly as big of a deal as some make it out to be. There are those who flat-out deny climate change entirely but the article's text makes it clear they are not the sole focus here, not by a long shot, so the article title and/or term is simply flat-out inaccurate. The only motiviation I can see for wanting to hold onto it is to push an agenda, labeling others and shoving them into boxes so as to avoid any questions they may bring up. Whether you find those questions valid or not is irrelevant as the mischaracterization of their arguments is intellectually dishonest.

"Denier" is used as an insult, meant to bring to mind Holocaust deniers (and sometimes the comparison is made more direct than that). In fact, much of the data from U.N. scientists (as they're commonly called) contradicts the grim extremes the alarmists say will happen, e.g. the poles melting in less than 100 years and other bunk, yet anyone who cites even those figures is often called a "denier" by the alarmists. If you care about intellectual honesty you will rename the article. Of course, my last move to put this idea forward was summarily reverted, nothing on the talk page even acknowledging it ever existed, so I won't hold my breath. -- Glynth (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Glynth wants to move this to Anthropgenic Global Warming skepticism. I say no to a move. Skepticism is not the same as denial. The literature makes a distinction. The term "denial" appears. Glynth himself appears to make no distinction (as far as I can tell) between scientific disputes regarding global warming and the kind of activities this page documents, so I believe he does not understand the article topic. Anyone else's views? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article attacks skeptics, not just "deniers." (Of course, conveniently for those who attack the skeptics, they get to decide which skeptics are really "deniers.") "Denier" is simply an inappropriate label in any case (see my comment above). It's an insult, not a fair description of anything; the article lumps politicians, businesses, and many others into one big "denier" bin. It even attacks conservative think tanks in its opening paragraphs. The whole thing smells of POV, trying to conflate denial with skepticism, which is (no coincidence) the tactic used currently by the alarmists (not saying you're an alarmist, just that this is what they do; again, see my comment above for an example of what makes an alarmist). The article must be substantially changed in any case, but without a rename it is intellectually dishonest to not excise a significant portion of what's in here. -- Glynth (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with VsevolodKrolikov. There appear to be some fundamental misunderstandings in the proposal, and the current title seems to be correct and adherent to WP:UCN. Glynth, please don't tag the article again unless it's clear there's actually a discussion taking place; Past attempts for this sort of rename were met with opposing consensus, and it seems unlikely that will change soon. Jess talk&#124;edits 06:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to use WP:UCN's provision for using common names as justification for calling it "denial" because a lot of sources call it denial. However, also in WP:UCN is this: "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common." Climate change denial may be a decent article title, but not for the text contained in this article which is a takedown of businesses, politicians, and think tanks that don't even necessarily deny climate change itself. It is therefore an inaccurate title and as I've already shown this is a common tactic used to push a particular political agenda. It is NPOV for the article text contained, so it is only fair to either 1) change the article substantially or 2) change the title (perhaps not to what I proposed, but something more fitting) and the article somewhat less substantially. -- Glynth (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The key phrase in that quote is "as determined by reliable sources", which you seem to have skipped over. I've responded to your queries below. Can we try to keep this discussion in one place, rather than jumping all over the thread? Perhaps you would care to contribute to discussion of the lead at the bottom? Jess talk&#124;edits 22:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't skip over that at all, and no source is reliable that will take a term like "climate change denier" and apply it to someone who doesn't deny climate change. That's purely intellectually dishonest political rhetoric, and despite what the alarmists want us to think, there are plenty of reliable sources that state exactly that (including some from the article ). -- Glynth (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier, you will have to address your opposition to how we handle reliable sources through another venue. I'm not going to comment on that further. Jess talk&#124;edits 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You act as if I'm questioning Wikipedia's stated reliable sources policy. Before going down that route, it should be noted that I first question the way certain people interpret and execute it. Even "reliable sources" aren't simply taken at their word all the time. -- Glynth (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any attempt by Glynth to oppose how Wikipedia handles reliable sources here. Stating that a source is unreliable when it uses the term "climate change denier" to describe someone who doesn't deny climate change follows Wikipedia policies concerning reliable sources.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/22/aclimateofcensorship correctly states that the term "denier" is powerfully pejorative, and gives several examples of the term being used in that fashion. This article should roughly mirror the way Climate change alarmism treats its subject; clearly differentiating alarmists from less extreme AGWers, putting the section "alarmism as a pejorative" first, and then soundly criticizing the alarmist position using reliable sources. This article should follow that same pattern. Guy Macon  09:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! The same standards should be followed for both alarmism and denialism.  I don't mind the existence of this article so much now that I know there's one for the other side.  And because that article exists, they should certainly follow the same pattern.  That's common sense. Lolinder (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you guys have chosen to start a new discussion in the middle of an old one, rather than in a new section below, but I'd like to point out that there has been a very clear message from the Arbitration Committee recently that working on these articles must not be seen or be treated as a battleground between two 'sides'. Please make helpful suggestions for how to improve the article, or discuss your personal views elsewhere. Regarding the articles, it is important to remember the overall facts: Global warming is an established mainstream scientific and political concept. Its denial is a well-funded and organised effort by a tiny minority of (mostly) American businesses and think-tanks. Calling 'alarmism' is one of the tools of the trade used to denigrate the scientists and commentators who have focused on the more devastating of the possible outcomes of continued unchecked pollution. These are not two sides in a dispute: (a) there is no real dispute, but mainstream and fringe views, and (b) inventing the concept of 'alarmism' was one of the tools used by some of the minority fringe fairly recently. --Nigelj (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "I don't know why you guys have chosen to start a new discussion in the middle of an old one, rather than in a new section below", please explain how this is a new discussion. It seems to me that "I don't see any attempt by Glynth to oppose how Wikipedia handles reliable sources here" belongs directly below "you will have to address your opposition to how we handle reliable sources through another venue" and "You act as if I'm questioning Wikipedia's stated reliable sources policy ... I question the way certain people interpret and execute it." Nonetheless, if you can point to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests that I answer the above assertion in a new secton rather than where the assertion was made, I will be happy to follow that guideline.


 * Re: battleground mentality, I have no desire to take sides or engage in any battles. I simply want to improve Wikipedia.  Sometimes this might involve telling someone who seems to be taking sides and fighting a battle (your comment that starts with "it is important to remember the overall facts" appears to me to show somewhat of a battlefield mentality) that a particular phrase such as "Climate change denial" is an insult and NPOV. Doing that is no more engaging in a battle than your (correct) statement that "calling 'alarmism' is one of the tools of the trade used to denigrate scientists and commentators" is. Both statements are legitimate attempts to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the use of denigrating language.  I want "alarmist" and "denialist" to both be treated as what they are; insults.  Whether one is insulting a mainstream scientific position or a fringe position does not make any difference, unless you want to claim that fringe positions are deserving of insults. I prefer to assume good faith and thus to assume that nobody here thinks that fringe positions are deserving of insults, even though some of the comments give me that impresson.  Guy Macon  23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought NPOV was supposed to be a good thing. That you consider being NPOV on par with "insult" is quite surprising. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure your aware, at least everyone else is, that is simply a misunderstanding on his part of what NPOV stands for. He quite obviously meant POV, and I believe you know it.  If you have any actual arguments to present, let us hear them, and keep your snide comments to yourself. Lolinder (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. Moreover don't presume to tell others what they really mean; that isn't very polite. He seems to have strong feelings on the issue and I thought it plausible that he considers this issue important enough to override neutrality. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I suppose it's possible my brain read the dripping sarcasm into that. Lolinder (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the assumptions above are false. I am well aware of what NPOV means. I strongly support NPOV. What happened was a form of typo; I copied the title of this section word-for-word (it was being suggested that I post somewhere else, and I was trying to convey that I am talking about what this section's title is talking about) without carefully editing it to avoid any possible misunderstanding.  My apology for being unclear.
 * The use of phrases like "that you consider being NPOV on par with 'insult' is quite surprising" (and the discussion that follows) puts the focus on the editor, when I believe it should be on the article and how to improve it. Also, my feelings are not particularly strong, and I don't consider this issue to be particularly important.

(Outdent) What I do feel strongly about is improving Wikipedia, in this case by dealing with what I believe to be a double standard concerning the use of denigrating language depending on whether the insult is "alarmist" or "denialist." I would very much like to get back to trying to improve Wikipedia by making it so that both of these pejorative terms are treated the same. I personally think the alarmist article gets it right. I would prefer to see other editors argue for or against that contention based upon logic and evidence, and without personal comments. Again I have no desire to take sides or do battle, and I am agnostic/apathetic on the topic of AGW. So please, either make the denialist qnd alarmist pages a lot more like each other, or present an argument why they should be different. Guy Macon 07:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you continue your discussion at the end of this section please. Wikipedia talk does not deal very well with threaded discussions and this simply makes it difficult to see what follows what or for anyone to add a comment. The rest of what's here is a couple of weeks old. I see someone above requested the same thing, if you really wish to ignore my advice as well then don't worry as I won't bother replying to anything in the middle of all this again so you can have fun talking to yourselves. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I sounds like you are addressing the above request to me personally. Why me? I have been placing my replies directly under what I am replying to, and I others have replied to me in like manner. Why not ask them to reply at the bottom? In fact, you yourself just replied to me by placing your comments directly below mine.  If anyone wishes to respond to me at the bottom of the section, I will be happy to respond as I always do, below what I am responding to.


 * When you wrote that "I see someone above requested the same thing", you then claimed that I ignored that request. That isn't true. Instead I wrote that if anyone can point to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests that I answer an assertion in a new secton rather than directly where the assertion was made, I will be happy to follow that guideline. Can you point to such a Wikipedia policy or guideline?


 * Finally, I once again request that we do not make the focus of this discussion the editors doing the discussing, but rather put the focus on the article and how to improve it. Please talk about improving the article.  If you want the discussion to be at the bottom of the section, talk about improving the article at the bottom of the section. Or you could start a new section with a brief summary of the arguments so far and I would be happy to coninue this there.  Or you could ask pemission to re-order the existing threds as you see fit. That would be fine with me. But please, talk about improving the article.  Guy Macon    —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I think the article doesn't make that completely clear, and that some(user Glynth) may believe that this article is attempting portray skepticism and concerns with theories concerning the causes and effects of global warming.
 * Suggestion:

changes to --> Since not all attempts to downplay scientific consensus is equivocal to denialism(see people downplaying the ineffectiveness of federal spending, lack of harm fetishes pose to people with them, and need I mention how often "diet and exercise" is downplayed?)--AerobicFox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
 * "Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss ...."
 * "Climate change denial is a term used to describe certain organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss ..."
 * I suggest that the way Climate change alarmist handles this issue shows a good balance, and that this particular corner of Wikipedia would be greatly improved if we followed the same general scheme here. Guy Macon  23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is all there. It is not wikipedians lumping these people together. The label of "denial" is not reserved for holocaust denial. It is also used for AIDS denialism and indeed denialism in general. What this page absolutely does not document is skepticism. It's about companies and ideologues avoiding regulation of corporations through presenting a facade of scientific debate. It does involved some conservative thinktanks, because one of the motivations has been defence of the free market. (But there are, of course, plenty on the right who accept AGW.) This is covered in the literature.
 * As for AerobicFox's suggestion, it's not clear what "certain" here is supposed to mean. What other "organised attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss" are we excluding?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with all organizations associated with this cause, but many people and organizations downplay certain areas of scientific consensus, but are not equivocal to "deniers". Are diet pill manufacturers "deniers"? Are people like I who think the Holocaust overshadowed just a bit too much the almost unnoticed horrors of the Holodomor, a Holocaust denier? An organization which doesn't want obscene carbon taxes placed on various industries because of damage to the economy is not the equivalent of people that deny the existence of the Holocaust. There are those who think fear and panic, and demonization of business have lead to measures that have not been completely thought out economically, and there are those that believe the Earth is cooling, and that scientists are getting paid off to say otherwise. I think a distinction should be made. The use of the word certain at the very least implies the lack of homogeneity that these organizations have compared to the AIDs deniers who are pretty much one coherent, indistinct group. -AerobicFox (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "An organization which doesn't want obscene carbon taxes placed on various industries because of damage to the economy is not the equivalent of people that deny the existence of the Holocaust." Moreover, such an organization isn't even necessarily (and in my experience most often is not at all) denying that climate change exists and happens. In most cases, the label is a misnomer at best. -- Glynth (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is some truth to what you are saying: The goal of such organisations, as was the case with the denial of the link between smoking and lung cancer, is to create uncertainty and doubt about the scientific facts in order to delay political reactions. Actual denial is only one of many strategies that can be, and are, used for this purpose, and the "deniers" switch very flexibly between actual denial of the science, overstressing any scientific doubts, admitting the facts but denying their known causes, admitting the facts and causes but denying that the causes can be controlled, admitting the facts and causes and that they can be controlled but claiming that they should not be controlled because the effects are actually beneficial, admitting everything but painting it as actually marginal in the great scheme of things and certainly less important than the economy, and whatever else seems useful for the political purpose. This makes "denial" a bit of a misnomer, but not more so than most other political labels. Hans Adler 07:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Aerobic Fox: The article is quite clear it is specifically about efforts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on global warming. Diet pill manufacturers are making false positive claims, whereas some alternative medicine is pseudoscience. If you look at the literature, climate change deniers are actually more coherent that you might think. It's not a disparate group of people who do not know each other.
 * @Glynth, could you give some concrete examples of where you think the article content confuses skepticism with denial? At the moment, and with respect, it just seems that you are putting together a whole series of issues that are covered by several different articles, and mixing into it your own views both on the state of the science and on government policy proposals. It would help if we can discuss particulars. As for the holocaust comparison - it simply doesn't wash. No one has compared these organisations to the Nazis in any way at all. Skeptic is certainly a misnomer.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans Adler illustrates perfectly the conflation of skeptic with denier and that kind of thinking has clearly guided many (but not all) of those who edited the article. Hans just said that "denier" is a misnomer because the "deniers" also have other tactics. That is utterly illogical, ignoring two basic facts. First, someone who does multiple things can still often be fairly labeled by one of those things in many circumstances (e.g. the bus driver also drives a compact car, but he's still a bus driver). Second, Hans has apparently decreed that all of the people discussed in the article are "deniers," including those who say climate change is "actually marginal in the great scheme of things and certainly less important than the economy." Of course, he adds "and whatever else seems useful for the political purpose" but it is he who decides who the "denier" is, it is he who gets to decide who's doing it for political purposes. Again, as I said before, conveniently for those who attack the skeptics, they get to decide which skeptics are really "deniers." That is NPOV, logical fallacy, and an insult more than an argument, to begin with.


 * "As for the holocaust comparison - it simply doesn't wash. No one has compared these organisations to the Nazis in any way at all. Skeptic is certainly a misnomer."
 * Seriously? The article itself cites people doing exactly that! And we've also got these (directly and indirectly): Gore likens fight against 'climate change' to battle with Nazis, Paul Krugman compares global warming skeptics to Holocaust museum shooter, Bush called an "eco-villain" for not adhering to Leftist environmentalist desires, Scientists threatened for 'climate denial', Scientific Nuremberg Trials?.


 * It is not up to you to decide who is a skeptic and who is not. We must therefore look at the labels being applied and the facts and judge from there. "Denier" indicates many things that simply do not apply to many people that people like Hans (and you?) call "denier," as I've outlined repeatedly and which you've never truly addressed. Again, per WP:UCN we can (and should) avoid inaccurate titles even if it's a commonly used label. It should also be noted that those who commonly use this label can be said to have as much of a political agenda behind their actions as those they accuse of being "deniers." Considering many alarmists make this very clear by their own words, advocating lying and exaggerations to scare the public, I'd say they are not reliable sources and so they don't get to dictate who is a "denier" no matter how often they use the term. -- Glynth (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Glynth There appears to be near-unanimous consensus that the article should not be renamed. If you have an issue with the way we determine reliable sources, you should take it to the WP:RS talk page or the village pump. However, perhaps you would care to contribute to the discussion taking place at the bottom of this thread pertaining to the wording of the lead. Jess talk&#124;edits 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I strongly disagree with the alleged "near-unanimous consensus that the article should not be renamed." Guy Macon  09:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will focus posts toward the bottom when appropriate, but I would be remiss to not address the conflation exhibited by Hans and the unfounded dismissal of pointing out comparisons to being called a Holocaust denier. Would you suggest I do that at the bottom of the talk page? No, I think you'd call that at attempt to derail the conversation or something. It's better in context here. -- Glynth (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"could you give some concrete examples of where you think the article content confuses skepticism with denial?" The first sentence states downplaying(most skeptics) and/or outright denying both make one a "Climate change denier". The metaphor I used was to point out that while I think the Holocaust was overplayed in light of many other genocides(like the Holodomor) I am not a Holocaust denier. Perhaps the lead should state that Climate change deniers are people who deny climate change, thus often trying to downplay it, instead of saying that anyone who downplays it is a Climate change denier.AerobicFox (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The real issue here is how and why. Basically, climate change denial, following Oreskes, is "skeptical" (in scare quotes) debate about climate science that circumvents normal scientific discussions, has the aim of causing doubt in established science, and is done for ulterior motives, be they commercial or ideological. The commercial and ideological aspects in the real world are tied together by the funding of ideological institutes by commercial interests (such as Koch and Exxon), and the ideological motivations of certain scientists lending their credentials to the enterprise (such as Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer) some of whom had long been lending their names to free market anti-regulatory causes, notably in the tobacco debate and the debate on acid rain). It all does sound rather POV until you look at the literature, which is pretty solid. It reminds me a little of my discovering the page on Operation Gladio, which read like it was all made up by a POV editor until I looked at the sources provided.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @AerobicFox I don't comment often on these types of pages (for rather obvious reasons), but it seems to me that the writers of this article are using "emotional" terminology on what should be an objective and neutral subject. If it really is the case that most scientists agree with the evidence for Climate Change than they should allow at least some self-criticism or risk violating the principle of Scientific skepticism.  Whether or not you "feel" that Climate Change is happening is not reason to label the opposite view "deniers"-that almost strikes me as a tad paranoid.  If there truly are seperate groups of individuals who are "deniers" and "skeptics" that difference should be clearly emphasized throughout the article..-- Novus Orator  08:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Terra Novus: The label Angry white male is used to describe white men with conservative views, but it's article isn't written to give an even handed evaluation of conservative views, but to explain the label. The label "Climate change denial" is used here to explain a label that has been in circulation to the point of notability, but is not supposed to actually discuss legitimate questioning/skepticism/inquiry into views on global warming(those can be viewed here).


 * @VsevolodKrolikov: While the "Climate change deniers" may purposely and intently downplay global warming, those who downplay global warming are not necessarily climate change deniers. I think if the lead sentence just clarified that the term is popularly used, that it isn't quite scientific at this time that there wouldn't be any problems. Currently it seems the views on those who deny climate change have not undergone serious research from any academic institutions(most likely due to the political climate), and most likely won't be looked into until a later time. In the meantime, the notability of the term currently seems to be in it's popular usage and in providing an explanation that has been gaining traction for the actions of those denying global warming. Perhaps if the lead was reworded to sound a little more like this there would be no problems:


 * Climate change denial is a term commonly used in the climate change debate to describe and explain organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.


 * Would there be any objections to this? --AerobicFox (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think tinkering with that statement will achieve much when people come along incensed about the title and wanting to change it and then incensed about the contents and wanting to change them too. Perhaps if there was a bit in the lead section pointing out the distinction better rather than just talking about denial they might occasionally read that far, we have citations later on like for the statement in the article 'Peter Christoff also emphasizes the distinction between scepticism and denial, he says "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science"'. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be well and good, but one of Wikipedia's policies is that the lede should summarize the contents. If we are saying one thing in the lede that we are not saying in the text (or vice versa) we should put it in the lede as well. I doubt that this article is going to get much farther unless the editors can find a consensus and stick to it. I am moving on because this kind of thing gives me a headache. Good luck..-- Novus Orator  09:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Dmcq:Naturally people are going to be incensed when they read something in Wikipedia- which they believe should be reporting on the climate change debate and not taking sides- that seems to be taking the side of their opposing view as if it were objective fact. I think the article just needs to clarify that the view expressed here is that of people in the climate change debate, and not of Wikipedia, and that then they would be "incensed" at those people and not the article.


 * To this extent I'm hoping that some form of tinkering will be enough to distinguish for those reading that this is not an article on people of the denying/skeptical/etc side of the climate change debate, but on how these people are viewed by the opposite side of the debate. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how this can be accomplished? AerobicFox (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Dmcq's suggestion:
 * Climate change denial is a term commonly used in the climate change debate in lieu of "climate change skepticism" to describe cases of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

Any feedback? --AerobicFox (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Too complicated sticking in a distinction along with a definition. Better to just have a separate sentence with a citation like Climate change denial is distinguished from skepticism which is essential for good science.(cite Peter Christoff). Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think AerobicFox's version works well so well. The article is about the phenomenon, not the term itself. It genuinely isn't about a derogatory label, but about a studied phenomenon which has been given a variety of labels, with denier/denial as (as far as I can see) the most common one. How about an extra sentence in the lede that says something along the lines of
 * Analysts make a clear and deliberate distinction between this kind of activity and skepticism about theories of anthropogenic climate change expressed within the scholarly debate.
 * I'm pretty sure there are a few sources that basically state this up front, so it would be a fair paraphrase of the literature.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So consensus seems to be asking for something like this:
 * Climate change denial is a term commonly used in the climate change debate to describe cases of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science.

Remarks? I do not think there should be any qualms over a lack of distinction with this, so if there aren't any problems with these changes would those still here support this?--AerobicFox (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to change the current first sentence in the article but the second sentence you have there sounds okay, refers to a bit of the article and can be cited. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with throwing 'skepticism' in like that, right at the start with no explanation of its meanings. There has been a well-organised attempt in recent years, especially in the US - which is only one English-speaking region - to redefine that word with regard to global warming. In many readers' minds (but not all) it will be associated by now with the worst excesses of fringe, conspiracy-theory, or right-wing political thinking. Whether they all realise this when seeing it used is another matter, but we should not wade into that confusion without explanation. --Nigelj (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the context and having a wikilink on it should resolve that. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with wording based on VsevolodKrolikov's suggestion, perhaps "Analysts make a clear and deliberate distinction between this kind of activity and debate about aspects of climate science expressed within the scholarly debate", but not the way AerobicFox puts it, at all. --Nigelj (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer something closer to what the sources say. They explicitly mention climate change skeptics. We're supposed to make things clear and it is obvious this isn't a special subject read only by deep thinkers. Dmcq (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look at skepticism and it and the related forms didn't have any negative connotations that I could see. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dmcq:In regards to removing the added stuff in the first line, that is completely fine with me as it does seem unnecessary, and a bit lengthy.
 * "debate about aspects of climate science expressed within the scholarly debate"
 * @Nigel: This seems to be saying that you cannot be a skeptic unless you are a scholar and doing research/writing papers in the area, but I don't believe such qualifications are needed to be a skeptic. To the contrary I think many skeptics are not scholars. Couldn't we word this sentence just to distinguish between denialism and skepticism, provide a link to skepticisim, and just believe that the reader will probably be able to discern their own view on the denialists and skeptics from the information provided throughout the articles if they are really interested? --AerobicFox (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * AerobicFox's changes are certainly an improvement over what is in the article, though it'd be more accurate if it pointed out how this is based on perception. It's not objective to simply say the term describes cases of what you say it describes when whether those cases even fit that description is debatable and, more importantly, the description itself (applied to anyone at all) is controversial. You can't just imply they are, objectively, "deniers." (Side note for Dmcq, who says " it is obvious this isn't a special subject read only by deep thinkers." Obvious, is it? What's that supposed to mean? Sure, it is obvious in the most literal sense as this is Wikipedia and all sorts come here, but I'm fairly certain you had a different meaning in mind, perhaps a particular person. Do tell - or better yet, keep it and all future comments of that kind to yourself indefinitely.) -- Glynth (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glynth, I think you may have misinterpreted Dmcq's comment. He was saying that skeptics can exist outside of scholarly papers and discussion, not that skeptics are unscholarly.
 * It would not be objective to say that Climate Change denial describes this behavior, but is is objective to say that Climate change denial is used to describe this behavior(as it currently does say), because that is objectively how it is used.(whether used correctly or incorrectly). --AerobicFox (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed he was saying that, yet that doesn't change the possible implications of "it is obvious this isn't a special subject read only by deep thinkers." Maybe he didn't intend it that way, but I see little reason to use that particular phrasing otherwise. -- Glynth (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I offended you. I was thinking more of this article in comparison to some other subjects in Wikipedia. The sentence "Analysts make a clear and deliberate distinction between this kind of activity and debate about aspects of climate science expressed within the scholarly debate" would probably count as advanced reading level in Google advanced search. On a quick read a lot of people would probably just skim over it without realizing it was trying to summarize statements like "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science". Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say "...should be distinguished from climate sceptics . Scepticism is essential to good science", you put very close together two entirely different uses of the word 'sceptic', that have entirely different meanings. I think that that is highly misleading. --Nigelj (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying essentially that you believe they are deniers rather than sceptics? With all the denial around I would consider it only sensible to be sceptical if I didn't know all that much about it. And by the way that is a quote from a cited source. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that there are at least three groups of people: deniers (whom this article is about), 'climate skeptics' (who are following a teach the controversy political agenda to try to keep the political discussion blurred and prevent any US government action from being taken) and climate scientists (who, of course, maintain a sceptical eye on whatever they and others publish in the peer reviewed literature). This seems to be a gratuitous attempt to take this article off-topic in the second sentence by having another go at blurring the distinction between the latter two groups, for no good reason other than (mainly US) political manoeuvring. --Nigelj (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just so off the mark. There may be a lot of people who just deny the science because they don't want to think of themselves badly. However there is a huge body of people who are actually interested in the debate but they see the controversy as explained in the newspapers and TV and they have very real and rational doubts about what scientists are saying. They see it presented as two sides of equal weight arguing and they see things like 'climategate' and errors pointed out and they see the possibility of error and pushing on the part of scientists. They see their favoured politicians rubbishing the science. Their conclusions are not ones born of denial, they are the proper conclusions of sceptics who have weighed the evidence presented to them. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, Dmcq. I could add quite a number of things to it, such as about how the scientists aren't one monolithic body that all agree on some narrowly-defined consenus based on an unfalsifiable theory (for which I'm sure someone wants to strangle me for daring to even mention), but suffice it to say that at this point you seem much more reasonable a person than first impressions lead me to believe. -- Glynth (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course they're not a monolithic body. They don't subscribe to a manifesto like some political party. That's what's so wrong about these conspiracy theories about climate change. However there is an overall consensus on this matter as one can see in Scientific opinion on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by unfalsifiable. It should become pretty plain whether it is true or not eventually. And all gtheir predictions so far have if anything proven slightly optimistic. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree, but my reading of mostly-alarmist news (not to be confused with intellectually honest science) on the subject over many years makes me agree with this sentiment from George Will (though not necessarily everything else Mr. Will says): "The theories are unfalsifiable, at least in the 'short run.' And the 'short run' is defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence begins to fit the hypotheses." That is neither here nor there, however, in relation to this article. -- Glynth (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you quote a couple of reporters and place them as reporting intellectually honest science as opposed to the main body of climate change scientists who are alarmists. How about reading global warming controversy about the various arguments if you're interested in the topic. Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An intellectually honest scientist couldn't and wouldn't refer to anthropogenic global warming as "climate change"...nor could an intellectually honest Wikipedia article on the subject further promote the agendized euphemism. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How's this?
 * Climate change denial is a pejorative term commonly used in the climate change debate to describe and explain organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. The term is sometimes used to tar legitimate skeptics, who find it offensive because it implies intellectual dishonesty, as in "Holocaust denial."  It is also sometimes used to apply to individual skeptics who merely dispute the viability or economic feasibility of some proposed responses to climate change.

The current version of the lede violates NPOV: there is zero discussion of the reliable sources describing the term as offensive and misleading. THF (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead already says 'On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral'. There was discussion here about putting a bit more about the distinction further up but the term itself should be described as it is first. What you have there goes far too far in the opposite direction. It is pejorative when applied to sceptics but so is calling a woman a cow - that doesn't mean that cow is first or foremost a pejorative expression. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was over whether to put 'Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science.' after the first sentence. There was concern that climate change skeptic now had changed its meaning because of so many people calling themselves sceptics who were obviously uninterested in proper science and were just pushing an agenda. Personally I think we should just go ahead with the dictionary definition of skeptic for the moment which hasn't changed yet. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding the suggested line seems to be the best proposed solution for this, so I'm moving to go ahead and add it, and move on from this discussion. If opponents of this want to include something about the denialists posing as skeptics, or the word skeptic being "hijacked" then go ahead and propose something, but try to stay away from the realm of "Amongst science experts and global warming scholars however, it is commonly known that these skeptics are merely climate change deniers posing as moderates", or anything else likely to inflame the opposing side, or claiming without references to speak on behalf of the "scholarly community". --AerobicFox (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, no-one that I can see has suggested the wording that AerobicFox quotes here; see straw man. Secondly, the wordings suggested by VsevolodKrolikov and myself above are easily referenced, see for example The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Dmcq's assertion that "the dictionary definition of skeptic [...] hasn't changed yet" is plainly false according to easily-found references. --Nigelj (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide one of these easily found references plus I couldn't see where your citation backed up your wording. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion might be over 'environmental scepticism' which is more of a name for a movement than a descriptive term meaning what the words say any more than one could say the USSR showed what a republic is. Dmcq (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation I gave said, "We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection". This is more than sufficient to support my earlier statement that, "When you say "...should be distinguished from climate sceptics . Scepticism is essential to good science", you put very close together two entirely different uses of the word 'sceptic', that have entirely different meanings." There is no confusion there: "a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement" is not "essential to good science". --Nigelj (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly that people use scepticism as a tactic is not disputed. We know many deniers call themselves sceptics. That does not imply that sceptics are deniers. Secondly the statement is made in the context of 'environmental scepticism' which as I pointed out is a term in itself rather than being a description. Thirdly it does not show that the dictionary definition has changed like you asserted could be shown by an easily found reference. Fourthly it was not me who made that statement, it was Peter Christoff in Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect which is referenced in the article and I really don't think he was supporting deniers or that your reading of what he said corresponds in any way with what he meant. Let me get this straight again then, do you believe that climate change sceptics are in general deniers rather than people who have looked rationally at the evidence presented to them? Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to repeat myself here one more time, and then I'm going to leave you people to go around in circles here without me. Here it is: "there are at least three groups of people: deniers (whom this article is about), 'climate skeptics' (who are following a teach the controversy political agenda to try to keep the political discussion blurred and prevent any US government action from being taken) and climate scientists (who, of course, maintain a sceptical eye on whatever they and others publish in the peer reviewed literature)." --Nigelj (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if climate skeptics are following a political agenda then they are deniers so you are saying there are few or no members of the general public who are genuine skeptics. Well that's not what the sources say and I believe it is completely wrong. Since you have brought up nothing that supports your point of view I'll go ahead with the phraseology for the leader. Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All this article needs is one line that states that deniers are those who deny all evidence, etc, and that others, call them skeptics, uninterested, dissenters, etc, typically don't take such an extreme stance but remain uncommitted or hesitant to jump on board with everything with global warming or propositions to deal with it. If he's leaving then perhaps just a line like this can go ahead and be added without any objections
 * Climate change denial is different from simply remaining skeptical or weary of the current evidence provided, or hesitant to commit to certain recommended policies to combat global warming.
 * Or something like this--AerobicFox (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly true but it's the ones who have read something and care that matter as far as distinguishing is concerned. I don't think the merely apathetic are going to be confused with deniers and they won't read this anyway - plus have we a citation about them? Dmcq (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to 'skepticism'
I had to make some changes to the text you added, per WP policies. As it stood it was unacceptable. As I explained briefly in the edit summary: Having said all that, the resulting treatment may now be too long to appear in the lead, but I'm willing to compromise on that if people here feel that it must be made right at the start. What Wikipedia must not do is compromise on the numbered points I have just made as they are fundamental to the way we work here. --Nigelj (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To accurately represent what is said in a cited source, we must not cherry pick a few words from the start of a paragraph, when the whole point of the paragraph is to go on to explain that those words do not, in this case, apply.
 * 2) Christoff is a non-notable author writing an opinion piece in a particular place and time. This should be made clear and his words not used in WP's own editorial voice. We must make it clear whose opinion is being quoted
 * 3) When we quote someone else's words in an article, we must make it clear that that is a direct quote, per COPYVIO, not use their words as our own
 * 4) Since a regional op-ed piece is being used in the lede, it is much better to use more academic evidence. In this case, once the sense of the original source is made clear and the author's full point is presented, the academic paper serves as supporting evidence
 * 5) It is important to use various views on a contentious issue, per NPOV, rather than focus too much on just one individual's published opinions.

I have also reorganised the order of some of the parts of the lede (without changing any more of the words), and it seems to me that what is now the middle paragraph should come out of the lede and go into a separate new section of subsection, perhaps with the same title that I have just added to this part of the discussion. I will leave it to others to make that change, if they agree with me. Perhaps a NPOV summary of that para should be left behind in the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to keep on mixing up scientific scepticism with scepticism. I have reverted your changes where you have both in. The article already says scienific opinion is that climate change is happening. It does not need repeating again and again in the lead. Anyway I thought you said you were going away, why have you done these changes without explaining yourself as I asked above? Do you think that large body of people who put themselves down as skeptics about climate change are mostly deniers? Do you think they are irrational and non-critical to listen to anybody except a scientist? Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a thread on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard --Nigelj (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Jacques, Riley & Freeman in a while, but do they really distinguish "skeptics" from "deniers"? My impression from reading Jacques' book (Environmental skepticism) is that he uses the term "skeptic" where others would use denier/denialist. (Sadly, I don't have access to either source right now). Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out before 'environmental skepticism' is the name of a movement, it isn't a straightforward description of the movement. Dmcq (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "'Environmental skepticism' is the name of a movement". Our article says it is an umbrella term. --Nigelj (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is? Dmcq (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The term Environmental skepticism is I believe got from the title of a book The Skeptical Environmentalist which argues amongst a number of other things we shouldn't do anything about the line that global warming may be happening but we shouldn't be worried about it. In this context skeptical is practically equivalent to denier, saying such a wide swathe of things shouldn't be worried about is definitely not how a skeptic would proceed. So Jacques, Riley & Freeman are are just about right equivalencing the two in the context in which they were writing, I think they were wrong to but that's life. What they weren't explictly writing about though was climate change denial. An environmental skeptic would of course normally be a climate change denier but the implication does not work in the opposite direction of saying a climate change skeptic is therefore an environmental skeptic and therefore probably a denier. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)and then realizing I had not done a copyvio


 * Well thanks Nigelj for first accusing me of copyvio for not using quotes, thanks Robofish for reverting me on those grounds without checking the source and then Nigelj for finally correcting themselves and removing the quote marks. Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Climate Change Alarmism page
01: Climate change alarmism deals with a term that is widely considered to be an insult, especially by those who are labeled with the term.

02: Climate change denial deals with a term that is widely considered to be an insult, especially by those who are labeled with the term.

03: The two pages are written according to completely different standards.

04: This double standard shows me that we (we meaning Wikipedia as a whole) are allowing a non-neutral POV to creep in. Nobody has presented anything close to a good argument for treating the two subjects so differently. Mostly the issue is ignored and the subject changed, occasionally an attempt is made to claim that alarmists are good/excusable and denialists evil/inexcusable, with no citations to reliable sources that back up those assertions.

05: It may be that Climate change denial is perfect and Climate change alarmism is completely out of line. It is the different standards that are applied to the two pages that show that one or the other (or possibly both) have a POV problem.

06: It may be that Climate change alarmism is perfect and Climate change denial is completely out of line. It is the different standards that are applied to the two pages that show that one or the other (or possibly both) have a POV problem.

07: In my personal opinion (and I may be wrong) it is Climate change denial that is out of line. I don't think I am wrong about the double standard, but I may be wrong about which page should be changed. Thus the specific changes I am proposing (make this page more like the alarmist page) are here and not there.

08: There are several editors here who who think Climate change denial is just fine the way it is. If they are right, then it is Climate change alarmism that needs to be changed so that the same standards are applied to both.

09: It would be very rude and a clear violation of Wikipedia policies to come to the conclusion in point 08 above and then just make major edits to Climate change alarmism without any discussion on that article's talk page, so I opened that discussion.

10: I have noticed a strong tendency for certain editors on this talk page to ignore the actual arguments being made and to instead comment upon the editor making the article. Certainly I am not without fault and may, through inexperience, do something that needs correcting. If so, please post your criticism on my talk page. I will no longer respond to such criticisms posted here. I want to discuss improving this this page (or possibly the alarmist page) so as to remove the obvious double standard. That's all I want to do. I certainly do not want to get into a battle or push my own POV to the detriment of Wikipedia. I am completely indifferent and agnostic on the topic of AGW, other than wanting all AGW pages - and all of Wikipedia - to be properly sourced, encyclopedic, and written from a NPOV. Guy Macon 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no central body that oversees Wikipedia articles; they are edited by whoever shows up. The "Wikipedia way" can most charitably be described as minimally-restrained chaos. Thus it is unsurprising that there is no consistency in how articles develop. That doesn't mean there are double standards, but rather that for all practical purposes there are no standards. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is simply not true. Wikipedia has standards, see Policies and guidelines.  And NPOV is one of them.  The two articles are vastly different in their portrayal of the two opposite concepts, and thus, cannot both be NPOV.  As Guy Macon points out, this is unacceptable according to Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines.  We can change it one way or the other, but the two opposing extremes should be presented in the same way.  EDIT: See also WP:ANARCHY Lolinder (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are standards, yes, but there is no uniformity in the interpretation of those standards. While my personal view is that both of the articles are lousy, I think it's simply a result of the usual Wikipedia chaos and sloppiness rather than some grand conspiracy or unfairness. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has claimed a grand conspiracy. A bias on the part of some editors, sure, but not a conspiracy.
 * As for the poor quality of both articles, isn't that a reason to improve on them? Lolinder (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Allow me to respond to what seems to be the subtext of this complaint: Per Wikipedia's established standards, fringe concepts are not given equal validity to legitimate concepts, even in those cases in which the US mass media handle things differently. E.g. our treatment of intelligent design ("Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.") is significantly different from that of neo-Darwinism (an article which explains the abuse of the term by creationists but gives only the historical definition). And that's exactly as it should be per WP:FRINGE. Hans Adler 04:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And who defines fringe? Do you say that alarmism isn't fringe?  That the majority of the world's population are global warming alarmists?  What does fringe mean, if not a minority?
 * Because both concepts are extremes, they are both fringe. Thus, they should be treated the same.  Either the article on alarmism is too gentle, or the article on denialism is too harsh.  Or they should both be somewhere in between.  But both of the articles cannot both be NPOV, because of the distinctly different POVs they are written in. Lolinder (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an odd situation. The "alarmism" article seems to be written from the perspective of someone who rejects the consensus view of climate change. I question whether that's appropriate, but whatever. The "denialism" article is a sort of hodgepodge of loosely related stuff; I can't draw a coherent story out of it. Like I said, neither article is very good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They're based on reliable sources using the terms rather than being topics based on a single simple definition. That's why there's a meanings of the term section in this article. The sources don't really treat climate change denial as denialism and climate change stuck together otherwise it would apply to a lot more people - then again they can't as it would then just be muck slinging without evidence which is more the province of blogs and suchlike unreliable sources. As to alarmism would one expect many scientific sources to use the term? We have to be reasonably faithful to the sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Climate change alarmism is fringe, but not everything that is called alarmism by climate change deniers is alarmism. Mislabelling is a key technique of organised climate change denial. For the parallel case of "sound science"/"junk science", see Junk science.
 * The situation is not symmetrical, so regardless of the current imperfect states of the articles, they should not be symmetrical. Hans Adler 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor is everything called denialism by climate change alarmists denialism. I'm still not seeing how the situation is not symmetrical.  The two terms are used inappropriately, they both describe extremes to one side or the other, and neither is mainstream (both are fringe).  Are there any other elements I'm missing, in which they aren't the same? Lolinder (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't symmetrical because they don't begin from a common center. "Alarmism" starts from the scientific consensus and exaggerates the negative effects. "Denialism" starts from the rejection of that consensus, already (by definition) a minority stance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) You are simply wrong about this. The term climate change denialism, even though it is a bit of a misnomer, is used appropriately to describe a fuzzy set of positions that is fostered by industry players that have an interest in further delaying effective measures against global warming. Playing for time is really the only common trait of the deniers, but actual denial is the most common and most prominent position and the one they stress themselves in their advertising material.
 * On the other hand, actual climate change alarmism ("We are all going to die in the imminent new ice age!"; "In twenty years from now Earth will be too hot for any life!") has always been much rarer and is extremely rare now. It's an old rhetorical trick: If a negative word fits your own position, stretch another, opposite, negative word beyond reason in order to apply it to your opponent. Basically only the deniers speak of alarmism. That's why terrorism alarmism, while undoubtedly existent and a huge problem, is a red link. There are no terrorism deniers who would be interested in pushing such a term.
 * Climate change deniers like to teach the controversy. But as a serious encyclopedia we are not playing their game.
 * There is a similar situation with antisemites, who generally claim to be merely anti-Zionist. That's just off the top of my head. If you want further examples, just ask. Hans Adler 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear: "It's an old rhetorical trick [...] Basically only the deniers speak of alarmism." Maybe Climate change alarmism should be merged, becoming a section in this article? It was only created in June 2010, and is not very long. That would give it a better context. --Nigelj (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By your own previous logic, that the term denier only applies to those with a vested interest in denying, it is not true that alarmism is a term only used by the deniers. I don't have any personal interest in fighting the global warming "consensus" besides that I can see the demagoguery the alarmists engage in.  I use the term, but previously people have specifically stated that I, and people like me, are NOT the subjects of the article.  Thus, the term global warming/climate change alarmist is used by more than the deniers.
 * You still have not stated why you believe that climate change denialists should be treated with more contempt than the alarmists. Both have personal goals in mind, both exaggerate a stance on the issue, is there really any way that someone looking on from the outside would not see them as two groups with equally extreme views?
 * @SBHB: you continually refer to skepticism as a dismissible view, but you provide no evidence for this statement. Sure, the majority of the climate scientists hold to the consensus, but it's also true that the majority of Indians are Hindu.  But that doesn't mean it's true of the majority of the world's population, which doesn't make it a minority view.  The actual numbers are within 15% in the US, no matter what poll you look to.  This makes that view not one that can simply be dismissed as fringe. Lolinder (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never (much less "continually") said denialism was "dismissable." Moreover no one has said that climate change denialists should be treated with "contempt." Please be more careful not to misrepresent what others have said; doing so risks inflaming the discussion and is not helpful toward reaching principled agreement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a collective "you". Those cause all sorts of problems...
 * And the "contempt" referenced in my post is the contempt manifested in the article, nothing that you personally said. Sorry for the confusion, on both counts. Lolinder (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have tried to keep to a neutral point of views and just describe what the sources say in the bits I've written. However the sources are pretty scathing. Where in the article have you seen it being edited in a non-neutral way as opposed to just summarizing? I quite willing to believe that contempt or other feelings have seeped out in the various edits people have done. The way to fix problems though is to be specific about the exact places you see a problem. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I went back over it. The lede put me off when I first went through, but when I look through again with the fixes to the lede, I actually did have trouble identifying any places where the wikipedia text is offensive anymore.  The quotes are the only lousy part, and we can't really help that.
 * So I take back what I said about the contempt, and I recognize that the quotes are the main source of that. However, I stand by my argument for a Denialism as a pejorative section in the article, to mirror that of the opposite article. Lolinder (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it is a pejorative? Have you got a reliable source saying that? Why do you think the articles correspond to each other? The thing that makes two things correspond with each other is not that they have a couple of points of similarity but that they don't have many major points of difference. One would expect the major difference here to be that one is pro and the other anti, but there are other major differences too. One is about people getting worked up about scientific predictions and the other is about companies who couldn't care a damn about science trying to make a buck. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen it leveled against people who fit none of the requirements listed in the article or on this talk page. I have seen it used to describe those who would better be described as skeptics.  I pay attention to politics, Dmcq, the politics of global warming is one of the top four that I pay attention to, and denier has entered into the common political vernacular, to describe people legitimately skeptical about the science behind the claims.  I don't have any sources to list off out of the top of my head, only first-hand experience.  I understand that such is not enough for Wikipedia, and as such, I will be unwatching this talk page.  I wish luck to those who are still trying to work to improve Wikipedia, and will go try to do that in another area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolinder (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly has got nasty in blogs and suchlike with people insulting each other, that is referred to here in the leader and in meanings of the term section. It is just a wild west with no rules never mind civility or fact checking there which is a good reason why wikipedia doesn't allow them as a source. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Legitimately" possibly meaning by the standards of talk radio, not the standards of science. For all that we have had differences elsehwere, here I concur with Dmcq. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the arguments that the two are not symmetrical to be less than compelling. Fringe views are fringe views, no matter what non-fringe views they are based on or how popular they are.  The Wikipedia articles on runaway greenhouse effect and runaway climate change (why two articles?  They should be merged) have examples of folks who think we are heading for a venus-style runaway warming.  That's fringe.  There are plenty of examples of folks who believe that we are at this very moment heading into an unstoppable ice age.  That's fringe. The two should be treated as Fringe, as insults, and as labels that are used against people who are not part of those particular fringes.  Guy Macon  16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the runaway greenhouse effect article? Most of the article is given over to explaining why a runaway greenhouse effect won't occur on Earth, and the article contains not a single "example(s) of folks who think we are heading for a venus-style runaway warming." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at in regards to improving this article. It sounds as if you are implying that people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming don't exist. Was that what you intended to convey? And if so, is that an argument for denialists being treated more harshly than alarmists? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand.  Guy Macon  04:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question? Where does the runaway greenhouse effect article include "example(s) of folks who think we are heading for a venus-style runaway warming"? I am trying to understand the basis for your statement, so that we can engage in constructive, principled discussion on how to proceed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't find it to be useful to dispute or correct errors other editors make unless I believe that they are making a specific argument about improving a Wikipedia page based upon the error, and I tend to ignore others who believe that they have found errors in what I wrote if the errors appear to be peripheral to my arguments for improving the Wikipedia page. It simply does not matter whether one particular example showing the existence of climate change alarmists is in error unless there are no other examples and someone is claiming that they don't exist. Do you claim that people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming don't exist? If you do claim that people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming don't exist, I will be happy to go back, review that page, and see whether I made an error when referencing it.  If you are correct, I will be glad to find other citations to reliable sources showing that they do exist.  If you don't claim that people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming don't exist, then you would be catching me in an error makes no difference to our purpose here, which is improving the article.  Guy Macon  05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Do you claim that people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming don't exist?" To give a direct answer, no, of course not. Given that I have never said this or anything similar, I am puzzled as to why you are asking the question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone who thinks it is imperative that governments round the world should now this instant start a programme to inoculate everyone against yellow fever or there will be mass deaths is fairly clearly an alarmist - but they might also be right. Someone who goes around saying it's not dangerous and all you need to do is take some paracetamol is a denier. This article covers people who'd say that so they could sell you paracetamol. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would deny that there are "people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming" (though that really is contingent on just how that is defined). But! Aren't we getting off-topic here?  Isn't this question more appropriate to Talk:Climate change alarmism?  And if it should be addressed here, perhaps all this should go into a sub-section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There absolutely are "people who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming" - this is an objective, irrefutable fact - and that's not just according to people you would label (wrongly or rightly) "deniers." Do I really have to trot out a few of the dozens of examples to prove my point? -- Glynth (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we are pretty much done here. A significant minority of commenters think the two should be treated the same, a majority thinks not, it's a style/POV issue and thus not something that can be settled with a citation, and reaching consensus is unlikely. My conclusion: no consensus to change, keep as is. All of this is fine with me even though what I was arguing for did not "win." I am seeing a lot of good faith discussions by folks who, though they hold strong opinions, treat opposing opinions with respect. I am going to monitor this page for a while in case someone comes up with a new argument, but I don't see myself changing my "no consensus to change, keep as is" conclusion anytime soon. Guy Macon 03:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority think they are incompatible topics and that it isn't a POV or style issue. Dmcq (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Either you have a citation to a reliable source that establishes that they are or are not incompatible topics, in which case there can be no disagreement, or the question of whether or not they are incompatible topics is not the sort of thing that can be settled with a citation to a reliable source, in which case this is, in my opinion, a POV / style issue that should be (and IMO has been) settled through consensus. That being said, whether or not we agree on this does nothing to improve the article, so I am inclined to move on rather than discussing it further. Guy Macon  18:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which pair of articles are we talking about - climate change denial and climate change alarmism or runaway greenhouse effect and runaway climate change Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was referring to climate change denial and climate change alarmism. I was suggesting that climate change denial would be improved if alarmists and deniers were treated equally, but it is clear that there is no consensus to do that. I have no suggested improvements for runaway greenhouse effect or runaway climate change, and wouldn't be posting the suggestions here if I did. Guy Macon  21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well by that argument since there aren't any citations saying a tree is or is not a mountain it's just your POV to believe that or not. I would normally expect a citation comparing two things or discussing them together before assuming they are comparable. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific improvement to a Wikipedia article you wish to propose? "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page... Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal... Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page [discussing changes to its associated article], rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Source: WP:TPG. Guy Macon  22:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Done" would be merciful. I don't see that this discussion got anywhere. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Fringe science category
I removed the Category:Fringe science because this article isn't about science. Have a look at the category and you'll see what it's for. Global warming controversy covers the actual science aspects. This isn't aromatherapy or transhumanism or anything like that, see fringe science. Will remove miscategorization again. Dmcq (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I neither support or oppose the removal; whatever the consensus is is fine with me. I do have a few questions, though. First, Category:Fringe science was added on 05:42, 19 March 2010 and remained without anyone removing it until you removed it yesterday. During that time you made 48 edits to the page without removing it. Did something change your mind, or had you simply not noticed it before?  Second, one of your examples (Aromatherapy) appears to fit Category:Pseudoscience better than Category:Fringe science and indeed, Aromatherapy has a Category:Pseudoscience link (Transhumanism has a Category:Fringe science link). Perhaps you could expand on your reasoning for the removal?  Guy Macon  14:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed it before it was mentioned at the alarmism article. This article isn't about some fringe science thory so it shouldn't be in the category. It isn't about any kind of theory. What more are you asking for? Pseudoscience and fringe science sound rather like a part of a spectrum to me, choosing between them must sometimes be like asking if aquamarine is blue or green. If you dispute the category of Aromatherapy feel free to go to the article and do so. Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No disputes. I just wanted a better understanding of your reasoning. Thanks!  Guy Macon  17:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The scientific opinion of climate change is"...
I'm not sure why this needs discussing, but a user asked me to. I'm trying to make it clear that the opinion stated is the majority opinion. The article insinuates that 'global warming' as an occurring phenomenon (as opposed to theories about Earth's cycles, for example) is the only scientific opinion of the issue. Rhetorical tactics of stating "well, its not actually scientific unless its approved by.." doesn't change the fact that there are alternative opinions, and some with these opinions are scientists. The sentence might need restructuring instead, I'm not sure. But it certainly doesn't sound accurate at present. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You added the word "majority" before "scientific opinion" in this edit. I don't think that's appropriate. The relevant scientific community has an opinion, and it doesn't need this kind of qualification just because there is a systematic campaign to obscure the fact. Most of the scientists who publicly contradict aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change in order to delay effective action come from unrelated field. A notable exception is the climate scientist whose name I forgot, who was one of the most vocal opponents of the connection between smoking and lung cancer when the uncertainty campaign about that was still going on, and before climate change became an issue. I don't think any modifier is needed here, but as an attempt to find a compromise I am going to replace "majority" by "consensus". Hans Adler 10:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why judging what everyone thinks is more appropriate than claiming a majority believe something. Why are you talking about smoking and lung cancer? That is not at issue; in any way, shape, or form. It sounds like you're saying we should posit a point of view because there is an active conspiracy to posit a different point of view. That's not how Wikipedia works. We are to present views in a neutral manner. A scientist is a scientist. You say that "most" scientists who do not believe that the world will become permanently warmer due to human interference, are from "unrelated fields": Then you agree that not all scientists believe this theory. Not only does it not matter that they are from unrelated fields, as the comment is about scientific consensus in general, by saying "most" you seem to agree that some from related fields don't totally agree with the theory. I don't see why we aren't meeting consensus, then, since you and I agree with each other. Logically, the statement should be changed to reflect that not all scientists accept what this article posits as their unanimous opinion. I'll change it back. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about the scientific consensus, it is about the denial. A major reason it is denial is because there is a scientific consensus, not because there is a majority though that's also true. It really wouldn't matter as far as this article is concerned whether the consensus is correct or not. The bit about smoking and lung cancer is there because that's what the sources say about climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is important to do other contributors the courtesy of actually reading an article before making significant changes to it. Doing so would make it very clear why smoking and lung cancer are relevant here. Following the link whose wording was felt inadequate would also be helpful. Scientific opinion on climate change begins, "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, [who] contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys." It goes on to say, "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; [since] 2007". Science does not work by majority vote, even among scientists, and to suggest it does by introducing this badly-chosen word shows a lack of understanding of the Scientific method. Wikipedia works by consensus too - we do not 'vote' even to elect admins or delete articles. WP:FRINGE says, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." 'The current level of acceptance among the relevant academic community' of climate change denial (i.e. the 'synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists') is absolutely zero. That is not a majority: nobody of any standing in the relevant academic community has any time for climate change denial. It is important that this fact is clearly made in this article on a fringe movement, per WP:FRINGE, as early and as clearly as possible. --Nigelj (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Scientific opinion on climate change for the best current figures for support amongst individual climate scientists for AGW. Please don't start mixing things up with talk about support for denial which is a totally different thing. And there is no need for yet more reiterations about the consensus. Just stick to trying to improve the encyclopaedia rather than shouting at the unconverted. That is what is 'important' here. Take your war elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way this article isn't about a fringe view. It isn't about a view at all. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just repeat the lead sentence in case you misssed it:
 * "Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons."
 * No movement, no views, no fringe, nothing like that. Dmcq (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting a barrage of accusations because of my comments and minor edit. Yes, I read the part in the article and the part about the lung cancer and cigarettes analogue/link to climate change denial. I misunderstood what the user was saying, and thought they were trying to prove their point by making a scarecrow about smoking. So they were referring to a scientist who lobbied against the idea that smoking causes lung cancer, I understand after rereading his statement.


 * You are totally changing the meaning of what I am trying to say. I'm not putting forth an argument for what is true and what isn't. I'm not trying to say anything other than the fact that there are more opinions than the one mentioned in the article. The article says that all scientists believe the earth is growing permanently warmer due to human intervention. This is not true, because some scientists believe that the earth will eventually become colder due to human interference. Others believe the natural cycle of the earth is causing much of the climate change we are seeing. I guess you haven't seen NOVA on PBS lately, and that they have spent the last few weeks discussing that the arctic regions were tropical several million years ago, and its relationship to modern climate change. The opinion mentioned in the article is specifically the majority view within the scientific community, but not specifically the only view. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The barrage was me complaining about what Nigelj, see the indentation. They were the ones implying there was no dissention. However it is very strong consensus. Consensus does not imply everyone totally agrees with everything, see consensus. The Global warming controversy article is about the scientific controversy and a bit besides, this article is specifically about 'climate change denial'. This article isn't about beliefs, it is about organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus. This article is not about the science. NOVA PBS or whatever has no point here. The denial is not a scientific argument. Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority scientific view is that Earth is approximately spherical rather than flat. We must edit geoid accordingly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Boris, that the earth is essentially spherical is both theorem and easily observable. The nature of climate change is very much disputed. What isn't logically disputed is that climate change is occurring; that's a given. For information on how things are considered 'fact' within the scientific community, I suggest you spend some time learning about scientific method. Within scientific thinking we try not to be motivated by feelings of what seems to be correct. If something is theorem it can be spoken of as fact, even though it really isn't proven without any doubt. However, as has been said, no specific theory concerning the nature of climate change can yet be considered theorem. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen things about how scientists work somewhere in my travels. Your remarks are tangential to the issue at hand because science never really proves anything -- the best we can do is to construct theories that are increasingly close approximations to how the world works. "Theorem" as you are using the term is a concept of pure math, not in physical science. You may want to read Theorem. Having said all this, the wording should be "scientific consensus on climate change," not "scientific opinion of climate change" which (I think) is ungrammatical. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Look up the word "theorem" in your preferred dictionary. Searching the bottom of a Wikipedia article is not the best way to find a correct definition. It certainly relates to any science; its a major part of scientific method. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would prefer to use 'consensus' and seem to have been thinking of that instead of the real name of the article. I don't think it means anything different but scientific opinion needs explanation compared to consensus and Wikipedia should strive for simplicity. I'm not sure what the bit about theorem is all about,I don't think it has been used in science for a few hundred years. Dmcq (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Theorem" is when something is considered fact within the realm of current understanding. Oh, do you have any background within the scientific community to make an accurate estimation of how often a term is used? If you find yourself unsure, its rather easy to find out what a word means if you just look it up. The last 4 paragraphs could have been averted with a quick Merriam-Webster. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I have ever seen "theorem" used in a non-mathematical context. And no, my Merriam-Webster does not back you up. What reliable secondary source do you have for the contention that the term is commonly used in the natural sciences? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I have the onus of showing you definitive proof of how a word is used. Maybe the word isn't commonly used, but I've clearly defined the meaning to you. What worth does the word even have in anything said here? Why should I waste my time looking up sources for you, when this is a forum of discussion: I'm not asking your permission to use it in the article. You've completely straw-manned my arguments by discussing the English languages. By theorem I mean the act of accepting a theory as defined truth, despite being unable to totally prove it beyond shadow of a doubt. Think evolution, gravitation, the shape of the earth, any scientific theory which is firmly established within the scientific community as fact. That's what I was discussing - one theory on the nature of global warming isn't held as "fact" within the scientific theory, as those theories are. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A theorem (of a (sometimes implicitly assumed) set of axioms) is something that deductively, in a strict mathematical sense, follows from the axioms. Science is a purely inductive endeavor. You do use mathematical theorems in science, because mathematics is "the language of science", but no statement about the physical reality is ever a "theorem". And while my "background in the scientific community" is less impressive than that of some other editors here, I happen to have a reasonable grounding in mathematical logic. To misquote one of my favorite authors, some people can be right without being condescending, and some people have to be condescending to be right. I suggest you try to be one or the other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to find one scientist who will not publicly say that evolution is a fact. Or one that will not say gravitation is a scientific fact. One. To say that theorem (a theory accepted as fact) cannot exist within the scientific theory is ideological at best. Also, I like how you're only condescending if you're arguing against commonly held beliefs. People with your shared opinion can be as indignant as they like, but if someone responds in kind their 'behavior' has to be pointed out - take note that I didn't start out comparing someone's opinion to the flat earth movement. I'm just making it clear that I wouln't be shafted by rhetoric or volume of opinion.


 * All three of you have derailed the topic. Personally, I'm not sure if the word is used at all in the scientific community; but I never once claimed that it was. Its a word used in philosophy that I've applied to easily describe the process of vetting scientific theories as fact. This process exists; its existence is clearly observable. As I've said, some theories accepted as fact include evolution and gravitation. How I choose to use words has no bearing on the discussion, even though what I have stated is the meaning of the word 'theorem'. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Fact" is a stretchable term, and I agree that in scientific terms, evolution, gravity, and climate change are "facts", i.e. they are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (to quote Gould). But "fact" is a very different and much more ambiguous term than "theorem". In particular, no definition I've ever heard equated "theorem" with "a theory accepted as fact". That's simply not a correct usage of the word. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephan, is it time to invoke Rule 5? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 29 online dictionaries searched, all but #7 are similar to my usage. #9, Encarta, states it most clearly. Perhaps the word has evolved a bit within my personal usage, but that simply means the discussion has devolved into an argument concerning linguistic puritanism. What point are you trying to make? You agreed that I'm right, there is a process of vetting scientific theories as 'fact'. Do we agree or disagree that such consensus has not been made specifically concerning the theory that, left unchecked by human intervention or reaction in the global climate, a steady rise in earth's temperature will continue? A moderator has informed me that 'majority consensus' is redundant. Alright, but something needs to be done to show that the name of the article "scientific consensus on climate change" does not specifically mean that the theory explained in this article is not vetted scientifically as 'fact' or 'theorem' as we say in my alien language. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no "process of vetting scientific theories as 'fact'." I'm having trouble understanding the rest of your argument; could you please clarify? (Simpler words and shorter sentences often help.) Then I can address your specific concerns. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about officially, Boris; no, there is no council who pick theories to be considered fact. But if you don't believe gravitation or evolution are considered scientific fact, you're more than welcome to try and update those articles. Scientific opinion holds those theories as fact. The reasons why theories are eventually considered fact are too numerous to describe here. If you start with the articles on those theories, you might understand better. I was asking if you feel that scientific opinion holds the continuous rise in global temperature due to human pollution, irreversible and worsening without human efforts to reduce pollution at the same level of fact as evolution theory or gravitation theory. If that is consensus among us, then no edit needs to be made. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with anything? No it isn't established to the same level as evolution. And evolution isn't at the same level as that the earth is round. But somebody trying to say evolution is false because they feel better if they are not descended from animals but created directly by God is simply a denier. Lowering the level of certainty means nothing if the arguments against aren't on a scientific basis. If you are a financial adviser and you know the the client has a 55% chance of a gain one way but you argue a 45% way for your own personal reasons what would that make you? Dmcq (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact the percentage of American scientists who agree that global temperatures are rising because of human activity is comparable to the percentage who agree that there is evolution by natural selection (84% and 87%, respectively). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dcmq: I have not brought up deniers of any theory, and I did not mention the shape of the earth in my last post. Gravitation is the theory that objects are attracted to other objects relative to mass. It explains gravity and orbit, etc. Gravitation and evolution theories are rather equal as to their acceptance as fact. You can't look out a window and clearly see evidence of either, so comparing them to our understanding of the shape of the earth would simply be a bad comparison. I'm simply asking if the theory that I presented above, in bold, is worthy of being considered a fact. Many Wikipedia articles on theories do not consider them as outright fact. I feel it is a matter of importance that the theories posited as fact on Wikipedia do have the same weight as other theories which are scientifically considered fact. If you look at the article about Global Warming, the term does infer its "projected continuation". It seems like it would be better to specify that the scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring, because "global warming" is more specific and carries other thoughts with it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Boris: Those are interesting statistics. However, they are statistics based on the opinions of US based scientists, and they are selective. I agree that the results are probably close to the general scientific opinions on those issue, but document you posted is not in itself conclusive of the world scientific view; although it is unlikely to be much different. However, I posit that if all scientists were interviewed, I would be willing to say that the level of scientists who don't believe in evolution would be relatively much lower, whereas the amount of scientists who believe climate change is largely caused by natural phenomenon might be slightly higher. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to listen but you will need solid third-party evidence to back up what you posit. Proof by assertion, which is all you have offered so far, isn't useful as a basis for principled agreement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't 'fact' but it is established much better than most doctors' diagnoses. It is perfectly reasonable to consult another doctor if you don't like a diagnosis. The global warming controversy shows some of the arguments. However after you have consulted the doctors and their overall opinion is you should have an operation, is it all that sensible to go around the place saying all doctors are quacks and you broke into their offices and found they sent emails to each other saying you're a nutter and therefore they are in a conspiracy to kill you? Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As was the case with tobacco/lung cancer denialism, AGW denialism is centered in the US. The same is true for evolution denialism, but for different reasons (at least superficially). Since these are basically all just domestic US debates, it is completely reasonable to do the statistics in the US. Hans Adler 09:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like conjecture, Hans. While the United States might have media and industrial basis for its denialism and "statist/right-wing" stances: denialism among the public concerning all of these subjects abounds throughout the world. Ask a young smoker from Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, etc, if they think their tobacco smoking will physically harm them. Ask most Catholics, even educated ones, if they support their central church's stance on Evolution. Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson is an outspoken British radio and television personality who denies the existence of climate change. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long absence. I think I should restate my argument, considering the many derailments this discussion has suffered. The term "global warming" defined by its article as "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation" (Italics mine) infers the projected continuation of warming on a global scale, which stands in opposition to some theories and models which do not project continual warming. The scientific consensus with few to no detractors is that climate change is occurring. In the header, "global warming" is thrown out as a synonym for climate change. It is not. Thus, saying "scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring" and yet the article is "scientific consensus on climate change" - That's misleading. Global warming with the sense of continual projection of warming is a theory concerning the effects of climate change. Solution: simply change "...that global warming is occurring..." to "...that climate change is occurring...".

Also, the figures that Boris presented do not unanimously show that, at least with his figures of American scientists, scientists believe climate change is caused by human intervention. What was it, something like 13% do not? That's quite a large statistic when considering the use of unanimous language in this article and the name of the other article. If we could see some statistics that show the global opinion of scientists or scientific publications, rather than a selective American statistics, it would make this a lot easier.

I'm just going to make some minor changes, and see if you think they're acceptable. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the change for accuracy. However, the quotes in the scientific consensus section of scientific opinion on climate change are not so definite as in this article. The NAS statement says "most climate scientists" The ACRS says "There is almost total consensus" and the other quotes show that particular guilds and institutions of scientists support findings. As I have said several times, saying "scientific consensus is" and then directing people to a discussion of consensus - that is an abuse of language. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the original and stuck in a citation. BTW they're not called guilds, that's for artisans or tradesmen. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from insults and attacks on my use of language. Please quote the wording of your citation here. My text was from a quote at [] - there was no legitimate reason to remove it. I can't just run out and buy a book because you say the citation is in it. Also, your insistence on falsifying the name of the article to scientific consensus on climate change - that is not the name of that article. There is a section on consensus, please stop: it is an obvious appeal to authority . Look, I am not in a good mood. I have a sinus infection which is irritating me very much. I expect more cooperation out of you. I am not invested in this issue. I am not an environmentalist (as you are). I do not own a car, I do not own an oil company, I do not sell cigarettes or approve of their use. I edit articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if its about science, religion, biology, history, medicine, or Looney Toons. I'd like to have the same measure of respect here as if I made neutrality edits to any other article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be wise to step back for a while until you feel better. Editing when you are "not in a good mood" and are fighting health problems doesn't sound like the best circumstances for engaging in a cooperative effort such as Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Boris. I'd just appreciate a more friendly atmosphere. Anyway, global warming has several links for the "problematic" text in this article. We should add those links to this article. However, I still find the redirect "scientific consensus on climate change" to be against the standards we should strive for on Wikipedia. You could lobby to change the name of the article to what you prefer, or you could link to the "scientific consensus" subsection of that article. "Consensus" is not an acceptable grammatical substitute for "opinion", just as "fact" is no synonym or substitute for "possibility" (edit: its a given that these are special circumstances). If we've overcome the direct "is it consensus?" argument, can I assume I'm free to make cleanup edits to the article without detailed discussion? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, DMCQ, I wrote the previous post before seeing the text of your edit. You are correct, we can't link to another Wikipedia article as a source. I have scratched out the more unfriendly parts of my post. Sorry about that - they were made due to my error. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp is now an article.
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.191.140 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Consensus" instead of "Opinion" for article name - Partial continuation of above
Be interesting to see what you say if somebody reverts something you are concerned about! Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens often. I don't usually mind, except its disappointing to see my input unappreciated. This wall-of-text discussion above could have easily been avoided with a few sources, but instead it quickly devolved into a rhetorical debate. Its obvious feelings run high when it comes to this topic; I understand now. I was frustrated by the volume of opposition my edit was receiving. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming lists categorically some convincing or at least logical arguments for neutral ground or skepticism. Considering this, it seems unfair to place a definite on what is scientific "consensus". Of course, individuals view things differently. I believe that certainty is intangible, thus I refrain from making statements of positivity where a definite is not almost absolutely certain. Most people believe that certainty is intangible, and thus they use definite statements in reference to things which aren't absolutely certain. debate about global warming.if this is sounds confusing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation I put in explains what a scientific consensus is and says why it is appropriate to say there is a consensus on this matter. The article scientific opinion on climate change describes the scientific opinion on climate change and it is clear there is a consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is to a large extent man made. The article describes the extent of the consensus and I believe it is better to reference the whole article rather than just a bit that lists organizations that specifically used the word consensus. For instance the bit that gives surveys shows how much agreement there is at the grass roots. In medicine people normally only look for another opinion if they don't like what a doctor says, but it isn't logical to be skeptical if nine out of ten doctors agree on a diagnosis. One might reasonably try and clutch at straws if the alternative is very bad - but in the climate change scenario all one can say about clutching at straws is that it would be nice if our actions weren't having an effect. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd prefer to use the word "opinion" I'd agree. But the section on "Scientific Consensus" explains how scientific consensus works. Wasn't that what you were worried about? I know you are confident in this estimation of climate change, but I don't see what the analogue has to do with the misrepresentation of an article's name. Do you believe that someone should not hear the opinion of that 1 out of 10 doctors? Why does the existence of an alternate opinion indicate that anyone listening to it just wants to avoid a painful conclusion? If someone was apprehensive about the idea of electro-shock therapy, despite 9 out 10 scientists approving of it, are those people just trying to avoid temporary pain? Its not the most buoyant analogue. Have you read any of those arguments? Most of them are concerning limited observability of the phenomenon. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A citation needed was put on the statement and I satisfied that, the citation describes how a consensus is arrived at and how that applies to climate change. The link descrribes the scientific opinion on climate change. The section was just one section that described where people used the word consensus. It didn't describe how a consensus is reached nor did it provide an overall picture of why there is a consensus. The article's name is okay, there's nothing wrong with it. If the consensus changed tomorrow to that there was global cooling or or there was a big disagreement and loss of consensus then the article's name could stay as it is and it could describe the new situation.
 * The existence of an alternative isn't the point, the point is to illustrate what denial is by contrasting it with a case where going with that one opinion out of ten might be reasonable. One has to take account of the relative costs and benefits as well as the odds. Arguments in global warming controversy are irrelevant to this article. As far as rational actions are concerned one should go by the odds and the cost benefits. Dmcq (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just find it interesting that you're talking about denialism, when its not something I was discussing. Where did it come from? I also was referring to the opinions at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, not "global warming controversy". Do you think all or most of the opinions stated there are extremist or denialist?
 * Question: Is the entire article you're trying to link to about the consensus referenced in this article, or does the article consider all scientific opinions (even minority)? If it only considers the conclusion in this article, which is scientific consensus, then its fine to change the wording to consensus. If that's the case, the other article should be renamed. There's no reason to call it opinion when global warming's links give enough evidence to show that the opinion is consensus. Again, sorry if this is jumbled. Still getting over that infection. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking over it again, it just seems like a hard thing to address within that sentence. A person could think that it is POV, as I did, that they are being linked to an article which is called "scientific opinion" and yet the word "consensus" was used in the main article. This could easily be cleared by linking to scientific consensus within parentheses, but it would be unclear why the article does this in a printout. Rather than assume the reader will know what we mean, it might be better to take a sentence or two to describe what scientific consensus is. We can think of something. Otherwise, the section I linked to not only provides evidence of the consensus, it also accurately and clearly states what consensus entails. Its not a bad compromise. Thanks, by the way, for your patience. You have no obligation to hold back from making the edit you want to. I appreciate it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant climate change denial which is the subject of the article we're supposed to be trying to improve rather than straight denialism as such. The other article is supposed to consider all opinions even minority ones - just the due weight is very one sided. I suppose this article could say 'The consensus of the scientific opinion on climate change is that...', but as you say it then doesn't point to where it explicitly says that. I think at the very least I should copy over the citation I put in here to the section explicitly mentioning consensus in the opinion article so I'll go and do that now. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way this is my opinion of the idea of working out for myself what the odds are rather than taking expert opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the edit you suggested. If someone can think of a better way to say it, they are welcome to make any beneficial edits. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of revert
"Consensus of opinion" is widely considered poor wording, and often (though not always) regarded as ungrammatical. The sentence didn't say anything that wasn't clearer and more grammatical simply by mentioning "scientific consensus." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry missed this when I reverted you. That dictionary does deprecate saying consensus of opinion, but it also shows that it is a very common expression and in this circumstance removing opinion would lead to awkwardness with the title of the other article. Removing consensus and just leaving opinion is a reasonable shortening when there is a consensus as here but there has been problems in this article about what consensus is so leaving it expanded means the reference can refer to consensus directly rather than getting mixed up about opinions and consensus. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

More problems with the Header
The problems have changed from moral to grammatical. I want to put wikilinks in the header for scientific consensus, scientific opinion on climate change, and climatology. However, I can't seem to squeeze them in without making the sentence look odd. Remember that the first occurrence of an important term should be wikilinked. I thought about making "scientific consensus regarding climatologists' opinion on climate change" into "scientific consensus regarding climatologists' research on climate change" but I'm not sure. What does everyone else think? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Incredibly awkward wording. Why not just "scientific consensus on climate change"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes far too awkward, I've reduced it. However now I have gone back to a form I believe is deprecated in some dictionaries. However as I said before I can't see ho to phrase it without some such problem. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I simplified it further. Also took out the link to "anthropization" since that term usually is applied to landscape alteration and we mean something much broader here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Athropization is used to describe pollution altering the environment, and its especially (perhaps mainly) used in the context of Global Warming. You should probably take that one up with the scientists and other authorities who use the term. Please read the anthropization article for details. See if you like the recent changes I made. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthrop-

 * Thanks all the same but I prefer to take my scientific terminology directly from the scientific literature. Where on earth did you get the idea that "anthropization" was used especially in the context of global warming? In the scientific literature the term is used primarily by ecologists, and describes alteration of natural surface cover because of human influence (quick survey here). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Try the article on anthropization and the global warming article. If you think they're wrong, change them. Its pretty easy to impose your personal views on a page that only has 3-5 active editors. Better yet, try this google scholar search of the more commonly used word.The first few pages of your google scholar search indicate that the word is used to refer to pollution's effects on soil, water, and animal life. The term seems to refer to man-made pollution in general. American Heritage Dictionary says it means "caused by humans"; Meriam-Webster says "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature ". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Anthropization" and "anthropogenic" are fundamentally different terms despite their common Greek root word anthropos. There are lots of scientific terms that have this root -- "anthropomorphize," "anthropometry," and (most tellingly) "anthropogeny," among many others -- but don't have similar connotations. If one means "anthropogenic" then one should say "anthropogenic," not a different term that sounds vaguely similar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why does the anthropization article discuss more than the pollution of soil? Why does the global warming article link to it in reference to human created pollution? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Note the global warming article only uses the term "anthropogenic" and not "anthropization"; the link comes about through an ill-advised redirect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the anthropization article discusses/is a discussion of anthropogenics. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it should be fixed. Note in passing, Wikipedia is unacceptable as a reference in Wikipedia articles -- see WP:CIRCULAR. Consequently you should base your arguments on the professional literature and other quality sources, not on what another Wikipedia article says. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This could be easily solved if you read the anthropization article and possibly helped it attain to Wikipedia's standards, if it is incorrect. So far, the evidence you've given for the word's meaning is inductive. Can you show me any source saying that anthropization can only refer to human pollution or modification of the soil? Or even any source clearly defining its meaning besides Wiktionary? I'm not sure why you're bringing up WP:Circular. It does not apply to talk page discussions, but article sources. Most Wikipedia Policy is a guideline for making articles, not a policy for behavior within Wikipedia. I'm saying there is a contradiction in thinking here, and the real answer isn't obvious at present. The other article is conflicting with your comments, not with any wikipedia page or source I've seen so far. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you were right. User:Neelix's merger created the association. I undid the merger, as there is no apparent link between the terms. Neelix gave no evidence. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we can mark that one "resolved." Cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain this article to me?
I don't want to go straight to AfD for it - does anyone want to try and explain its existence first? It seems, at least from the form it takes, that this article, by its very nature, cannot be NPOV. Certainly, it seems to consist of material covered elsewhere in more balanced fashion, where it is notable at all. Generally, it just seems like a thinly disguised harangue. It also verges on original research, since the points as made are hardly uncontroversial. I welcome your thoughts. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Dave


 * Could you be more specific please. Which particular bit in it do you think is original research? And what would be the grounds for an AfD? And could you also point out a bit which violates WP:NPOV thanks? Dmcq (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also before renominating for AfD it might be an idea to read why it has been kept the previous four times it was nominated as linked to at the top of the page. Dmcq (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because a point is controverted somewhere does not make inclusion of the point here original research. And do read the FAQ. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The title to the article is vastly misleading. The words "Climate Change Denial", mislead in two ways: First most intelligent individuals who disagree with human caused climate change do Not deny that there is climate change. Second this is not an article about any counter theory. Rather it is a personal attack against some individuals. As such the article should either be renamed or removed. If renamed I suggest "Popular Personal Attack Against Opponents of Human Caused Global Warming." Or something to the same effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.67.33 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly the article mainly is about corporations rather than individuals so it isn't a personal attack. Secondly I don't know where you got the 'Popular' bit from. Third they are not 'opponents of human caused global warming', I don't think you really do want to imply that climate scientists want human caused global warming. I would guess 'Or something to the same effect' would suffer the same problems. Titles are not articles, they are a way of finding an article which should in most instances involve using the commonest name, see WP:Article titles. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does in fact cite conservative groups, freedom think tanks etc. In fact individuals do belong to those groups so their views are indeed being impugned by this article. Impugning the motives without making an actual argument is in essence is a fallacy. Again the title is misleading. Because 1. The article is not about the arguments that dispute the view of anthropogenic global warming. 2. It implies that these groups are disputing climate change which may in some cases be true but most likely they are disputing anthropogenic climate change. This is important you cannot accuse entire groups of a view they may not even hold. Most do not dispute climate change so it is a fallacy to accuse them of that. Next the article is highly biased as it does not consider the money involved on the other side of the debate. Most scientists have vast incentives to receive grants, and many business can make large profits selling green technologies. This is not mentioned in the article nor are the views of the other side of the debate impugned. Being nothing more than a misleading article that turns into a fallacious personal attack I think it should either be renamed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.67.33 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are personal because they refer to particular people. Saying 'the government is load of idiots' is not a personal attack on anyone in the government. And I repeat again the title is determined by WP:COMMONNAME and the lead itself explains what the article is about. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "58.64.67.33" is right about one thing — "climate change denial" is not a proper theory. It's a mish-mash of of whatever might "stick to the wall" in trying to undermine the credibility of the AGW evidence.  But for the most part his comments are not addressing specific points that might be improved.  It's just WP:SOAPBOXing. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the title of the wp article or the content need to be a Scientific theory (Philosophical theory or whatever is meant by "proper")? Maybe review and potential discussion might include Global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, Public opinion on climate change (confusion related to Global warming controversy), List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, Merchants of Doubt, and Politics of global warming (including Politics of global warming (United States))?  99.181.158.235 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has said that articles are limited to theories; your question is based on an incorrect assumption. What I was referring to was the statement "this is not an article about any counter theory." Which is a true statement, because what the article is about is not a theory, scientific or otherwise.  All of the rest of the anonymous remarks above are rather fatuous.  (Lest my characterization of those remarks be taken as a personal "attack", I point out that "everyone knows" numbers are not personal.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think 'Arfle barfle gloop?' is more succinct. :) Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True. But too subtle.  Even more succinct (given the interrogative subject) would be:  no. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: "Conservative" (as in Conservatism in the United States) does not equal Conservation (ethic) (in spite of Ronald Reagan's quote). 99.181.155.158 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are "personal" because of the attempt to discredit people rather than their arguments. The same fallacy occurs whether the attack targets a particular person or an entity comprised of people. It could even conceivably apply to other entities if we start thinking of them as having positions and arguments. ("I don't care about your opinion. You're just a computer; you have no soul!") Maghnus (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling the IPCC or the Heartland Institute a load of idiots is not a personal attack. What you are talking about is called an ad hominem argument, it is classed as an irrelevant conclusion under fallacy. They are related in that one is often associated with the other but they're not the same. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are one and the same (in this case). Maghnus (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is being personally attacked and what argument is the ad hominem fallacy being used in? Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"No credible challenge to theory or projections"
The quote in the header of the article, paraphrased above, is simply not correct. Citing an opinion piece from a newspaper is not enough to substantiate a scientific claim. Please see this wiki page subsection and check the credentials of the scientists listed. I am removing the 'offending' sentence. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That section says 'Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable', not that they're wrong or that these people have some alternative. Anything is questionable, but have any of them produced a peer reviewed paper to back up anything they said? I agree though a bit of thought needs to be put into whether having that statement there is okay. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a cited and attributed quoted from a named author. You cannot deny that he wrote it - just follow the link. As for referencing List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming for scientific facts, the clue is in the title and the facts are made very clear in the article: That is a list of the very few remaining so-called scientists who still maintain that if someone funds them, or changes the rules, or something, they will publish something in a peer-reviewed paper that will call something into question. Most of them either haven't done so, or have had what they did publish roundly demolished by the mainstream scientists in the meantime. That is not the science. See global warming and scientific opinion on climate change for an introduction to that. Per WP:FRINGE, this article has a duty to be very clear what the mainstream situation is. This is an article about climate change denial, not an article of climate change denial. --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If information is wrong, it doesn't need to be quoted. Your point falls moot right there. Just because an opinion is stated in a mainstream news article, that does not mean we have to consider it. There's no reason apparent to include such a broad statement. Please talk about the individual scientists I linked to; I don't think its fair to make general statements about them, unless it is actually true of all of them. I agree that we should make clear what the mainstream position is, but we should never take sides on any issue (in my opinion).


 * Those scientists seem to be held as reputable according to their individual Wikipedia entries. Each of them has a Wikipedia article of their own; and while there is lengthy discussion in those articles about the claims of those scientists regarding the observability of Global Warming, there doesn't seem to be concrete evidence against their statements. I'm referring to the ones in the first section of the 'list' article. The quote in this article says "there are no remaining skeptics" (not deniers, that's obviously different) but the 'list of opposed scientists' article shoots that statement down. Its going to take more than essentially saying "they're all kooks" to present a broad statement like "there are no skeptics". One of you above said it, too: its science - there are always skeptics.


 * Anyway, what this boils down to is that a value judgment or outright false/uninformed statement from an opinion piece is being presented as fact. If you want to reinsert the sentence, yet making it clear that it is a quotation from that author - then I would find its inclusion perfectly fine. The statement is, after all, a direct quote from his article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the current version of my edit. I have reinserted the sentence as a quote. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What I said was they should back up their statements with something :that's peer reviewed. Otherwise what they say may be interesting and newsworthy, but it has rather a tiny weight in science terms compared to peer reviewed work. That is far more important than that they are eminent or reputable. Science is not a religion. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree; but the 'offending statement' was not made by a scientist. The presence of skeptical scientists, even if their opinions are only verbal, disproves a non-scientific claim that there are "no skeptical scientists". The repute and eminence, and even existence of these scientists was called into question. That's why I referred to reputation. Although, I'm not sure if the opinions of such skeptics are only verbal; would have to do research. I'm having doubts about the inclusion of the quotation. I don't personally think whats said in that quote is true, considering that "credible" skeptics seem to exist; if the scientists from the 'list' article can be considered "credible". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well more political and social science rather than hard physics if that's what you mean andyes it isn't a peer reviewed statement any more than those of these skeptics. And you left the credible out as in 'no credible scientific skeptics'. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Add to this: One of the most prominent climate scientists with doubts about global warming specifics actually PREFERS to be called a "denier" than a "skeptic." This is Prof. Richard Lindzen, at MIT. The citation is a BBC interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009yfwl/One_Planet_Climate_change_pot_plants_and_small_frogs/.

The quote from him occurs in the first few minutes of this tape/broadcast. This should be added to the second paragraph as follows:

"Some climate scientists who challenge the mainstream opinion, such as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, actually prefer the term "denier" to the term skeptic. In this BBC interview [add weblink] he says "I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic." 24.7.99.39 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You could make an account (takes a few seconds) and be bold (make the edit yourself). --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought Wikipedia had acknowledged they had been biased on this subject, among others, and promised to make a sincere attempt to publish a true and balanced account. Guess that was just flummery. Neil Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.65.207 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not Wikipedia nor is anyone else here Wikipedia. Please see WP:5P for a basic start on what Wikipedia is about, you don't really need anything else to contribute. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And here i thought wikipedia was non-liberal and non partisan; too bad i was proven wrong by this conversation and some of its articles.68.70.6.169 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia ... had promised ..."? Sounds like something from some blog, where anything goes as long as you make a big splash.  Wikipedia inclines more towards the scientific approach, which is to require verifiability.  If that is "liberal", so be it; that's the basis of technological civilization.  You have something against civilization?  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the sources on the eco movement related pages and your see what I'm talking about. I hate when a page is npov and legitimately for bias toward liberalism when on topics like the eco movement. 68.70.6.169 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't .understand that. I particularly don't see what supporting liberty and human rights has got to do with this. It would be much easier if you were more specific, e.g. which pages? what bits of them? What has the eco movement got to do with anything here? and have you got citations for anything you say other than unchecked web sites? Dmcq (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at what sources? Wikipedia is based on verifiability, which starts with showing examples. Your thought that "Wikipedia" has done this or that amounts to no more than a brain fart until you can show some basis for that thought.  By the way, please note that this space is (as stated at the top of the page) intended for discussion of possible improvements to this article.  That gets interpreted pretty broadly, but if you all you do is mouth off then you will be ignored. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Denied versus dismissed
Could whoever is trying to change the wording from denied to dismissed please justify that as per WP:BRD as the change has been reverted. Plus has anybody involved in that actually read the citation thanks? Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a Scibaby sock, something you just have to learn to live with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Climate change deniers who changed their mind
I reverted the addition of a section entitled as above with. However it contains some stuff that might be useful elsewhere. The article talked about skeptics not deniers and it only had a brief mention of the denial industry in its link to denial and I think it was right in its distinction. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to me a distinction without a difference. There are some genuine climate change skeptics.  Freemon Dyson is one.  But most of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are really "deniers".  Certainly, anyone who ostracises people who change their mind is in the denier camp.  There are probably too many Wikipedia articles on this subject, but I strongly think information on people who change their mind is important.  Since Dmcq and I disagree, I would appreciate hearing from others on this subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on his writings, Dyson is clearly a denier. He admits to not having studied the literature, nor to having any knowledge of actual research on climate science. Dyson is a brilliant physicist, but his writings on climate science are woefully ignorant. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we a source for him being a denier? Anyway the argument put there is that a dnier would not look at the evidence and change their mind so how can we go around changing an article cleasrly titled 'skeptic' and say it is about deniers changing their minds? Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your point about this particular article, focused on deniers, not skeptics, is a good one. I noticed that Rick Norwood added the text to Global_warming_controversy, but then self-reverted (any reason why?). I think it fits in much better there, and should stay. Rick: any reason you think it shouldn't?  As to Dyson, I don't have a reference to him being a denier, but the quote at the end of his article's Global Warming section pretty much sums it up.  Also, there have been a few recent interviews where he has said that he has not studied the models that he claims to object to, and where he showed no interested in discussing them.  - Parejkoj (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that article would be a better place, probably under its own heading rather than where it was put. I think that main heading 'Political' is wrong in that article, what is political about 'Betting' for instance, and it should be in that subsection. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hugely presumptious
Hmm this wiki article is very very one sided no? Believe it or not there are actually scientists who put forward scientific evidence to suggest anthropogenic climate change isn't as bad as being made out to be... also consider the lies, completely wrong predictions and every thing else surrounding the climate change lobby... well, wiki is biased on this issue clearly.

I believe in anthropogenic climate change, but it does annoy me when people deny the existence of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.54.2 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably looking at the wrong article, probably global warming controversy is what you want. This article has nothing to do with the actual science. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Add resource http://www.scribd.com/doc/29171872/Dealing-in-Doubt-The-Climate-Denial-Industry-and-Climate-Science
Add resource http://www.scribd.com/doc/29171872/Dealing-in-Doubt-The-Climate-Denial-Industry-and-Climate-Science 99.181.140.229 (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I really would prefer to see something actually on an organizations website rather than just dumped into scribd. I believe it is supposed to be Greenpeace who published this, but how do I get sure?, and by whom or on behalf of whom and why? And what particular relevance do you see? Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Found a copy at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2010/3/dealing-in-doubt.pdf
 * or perhaps better http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/dealing-in-doubt/
 * which links to the document and gives the executive summary and shows its provenance better. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a summary at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/03/27/dealing-in-doubt-new-greenpeace-report-reviews-20-years-of-the-climate-change-denial-machine/
 * Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Scribd. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the point of that link to the scribd article? I saw no indication that one can have confidence that the documents there are authorized by their putative publishers. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this and the other document about Koch industries can be considered as a reliable source but they have a very definite point of view. Each use would have to be explictly attributed with some wording like 'according to Greenpeace'. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding 'according to Greenpeace document "Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC"' seems reasonable.  Also beyond Greenpeace is their references ...
 * and some footnotes seem particular interesting http://exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1539 99.190.80.91 (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are any of those "reliable" for anything except the opinions of the respective authors? (In the case of some of blogs, we don't even know the identities of the authors.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The main vector for junk is blogs. There is no straightforward way of showing any of these blogs are better than the opposition, you are simply choosing what to believe. You don't know if what you have found in your haystack is really a needle. Dmcq (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need to name the document inline, just put a reference to it at the end of the statement with the according to Greenpeace. You can copy some other citation for that but don't bother if you find that difficult, just stick round it and any problems someone else will fix up if the basic info is there. Wikipedia is not interested in putting in anything from the blogs or suchlike self published sources, even the Greenpeace ones are rather borderline as WP:reliable sources, it is after all just the other side of the coin from the Heartland Institute. Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This Heartland Institute? Hardly equal to "the other side of the coin", see Scientific opinion on climate change and if so inclined see Public opinion on climate change with Media coverage of climate change and Climate change controversy.  99.19.46.246 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The addition of sections titled "Add ", without supporting text, from an anonymous IP address in specific locale, is a consistent pattern attributable to a single person I call the Kalamazoo Kid. As this person is persistently quite clueless (see Talk:Planetary boundaries), and a general waste of time, I think we would be justified to just ignore him.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)