Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 32

Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism
Someone was keeping on removing this and the original removal said it wasn't justified by the sources. Looking at the citations at the end of the sentence they don't seem to be good cites for it though they might be okay for other things. It is social scientists like Dunlap who is cited earlier or Diethelm and McKee who are the basis of that. Perhaps the citations could be swapped over or something like that. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way I don't think it carries enough weight to be mentioned in the lead.--ScriptMouse (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That might be reasonable if the article was only about the industrial denial machine. After all companies do quite often act against the general good in favor of their own interests and there's noting irrational about that. However as far as the general phenomenon of climate change denial is concerned psychological denial is major part of it. That is why it is called denial rather than skepticism. The article on global warming controversy on the other hand is more about the facts and there isn't much room for skepticism nowadays except insofar as those involved in active denial obscure and cloud over the issues. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting why it's a separate sentence -- it's already been stated that the article subject is this and that, what does it add to say 'and several social science studies use the term that way' ??? Also, if the social science mention is refering to the Dunlop cite about science-denial, isn't it misplaced to not be there instead of a line later and so behind the line on action-avoidance ?  Markbassett (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. It sounds like there is some mutual incomprehension here. The argument over 'unwarranted doubt' might cast some light. Some people think that unwarranted should be taken out and denial is simply an action. As I said that is correct when applied to industry denial but it is not correct when applied to people. For people the term refers to a form of denialism and does not cover for instance reasonable doubt - that is skepticism. The article on scientists opposing the consensus does not use the word denial as we cannot say in general whether they are climate change deniers or skeptics. We can be pretty sure though that most of the people who call themselves climate change skeptics  are in denial rather than being skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq - Main question was about why have the line.  The lead para has three lines that neatly summarize what the article "climate change denial" refers to, with cites there, so I am asking why there is a separate sentence to say 'some' studies within 'social sciences' ???   I'm not seeing any value as added to close with the wording "Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism."  So ... Why say that ???    Is it vital to highlight 'social' and 'some' as if use of the term is a social science topic with only partial indications ???  Markbassett (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought I had explained that. It is because denying climate change is real is not enough for climate change denial, that could be skepticism. What before there explains that except perhaps the 'unwarranted'? Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq - it's badly written then -- the odd phrasing about 'several' and highlighting 'social science' are distractors, and having it as a separate sentence at the end indicate a separate thought about the prior line or the whole para but is unlikely for folks to associate it to Dunlop two lines before.   It would work better to merge it into the second line perhaps to "Deniers often prefer the term climate change skepticism.[2]  Though the two terms form an overlapping range of views and reject to a greater or lesser extent scientific opinion on climate change, studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism." Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see a couple of problems with that. The last paragraph about implicit denial is still about denial, and your phrasing implies to some extent that actual skepticism is denial. What do you mean by 'odd phrasing'? I don't see what you're seeing. The point about social science is that only people like that or psychologists or psychiatrists or suchlike would really be entitled to make such a judgement with any weight. Saying 'studies have analyzed' is going the same way and so could be a reasonable substitute I guess but I don't see why you think saying the provenance is distracting. The citations can simply be duplicated if required. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq - OK, so the first para is four lines, which seem to be toward separate points. The first three are clear enough ....
 * Climate change denial involves denial over the scientific consensus
 * Many such people describe their position as climate change skepticism
 * Climate change denial can also be implicit, accepting the consensus but not coming to terms with it

But the intent with the fourth is unclear.
 * Several social science studies analyzed these positions...

A natural association of "these positions" is to the closest, the line about lack-of-action. But if the association is about the Dunlop cite then that would be more clear to put it next to that line, and even better to make it a comma continuation instead of a period separate thought. Markbassett (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Could you be a bit clearer please. Thanks. I think you must have something like the same problem with what I have said as you have not addressed anything I said. Dmcq (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What's *that* even mean ???
Can somebody untangle and better phrase the English of this header paragraph 3 close or convey something on the para topic (of denial impacts politics) that makes more sense ? The line reads "Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles."
 * Mismatch: it's talking a "Public debate" so it's proper that "scientific principles" would not apply.
 * Mismatch: is it "Typically" or "may have" ?
 * Nonexistent ?: are there actually any debates on topic "climate change denial" ?
 * Nonexistent ?: are there actually "scientific principles" covering "legitimate scientific discourse" ?
 * Why is this here?: The para started about denial hinders politics and this just seems an unrelated remark.

Though I would prefer to delete it, I'll offer this as example of possible replacement: "Public debate on climate change commonly includes climate change denial positions." Any other suggestions or explanation of what the existing line was trying to say ? Markbassett (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks as though it has got mangled. Looking at the sources, I've changed it to "Typically, those promoting denialism in public debate on climate change present rhetorical arguments to create a false appearance of scientific debate when there is no legitimate dispute in science." The second cited source says "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." The first source, from one of the brothers, says "Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." Any suggestions for refinements to our wording? . . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The construction, “denialism is…” might lead a reader to think this is a definition as opposed to one example of a tactic. I realize this is short of a suggestion for refinement. Maybe “denialism includes…” or “aspects of denialism include…”?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * dave souza - OK, proceeding from that phrasing then
 * I'll delete "Typically" as a unsupported and pointless tackon -- there is no evidence on relative frequency of use, and it's basically unnecessary to involve frequency as well as the rest of the mess. The "typically" implies dominant usage, a higher bar than "commonly" and both seem avoidable.
 * Also changing "arguments" to "tactics" to match the quote above.
 * And redoing the ending to "to reject the scientific consensus" to match the quote above. (And the article content, which is describing climate change denialism as doubt of the scientific consensus, not as doubt that there is one -- that might refer to Intelligent Design in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.)
 * It's still seeming silly, complaining that non-scientists in a non-science context did not follow scientific process, part of which would require they were scientists and the rest that it not be by rhetoric ??? Or that rhetoric is used to try to convince folks ???  The "to" imputing knowledge of motives, plus the "false" and "legitimate" imputing rightness make it all seem just a bit of ranting.   Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the quotes above and their context in these sources, it's clear that in this topic (and other areas) denial involves employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. Have accepted a couple of your changes, and tried tightening it up a little. . dave souza, talk 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * dave souza rewording -- again, the line is disagreeing with the article topic and content. The article and cite is describing Climate change denialism as causing doubt that global warming exists, as part of an organized PR effort.  This line is confusing denial of climate change to mean denial of consensus, just not the theme here.  See Terminology section  "the most accurate term when someone claims there is no such thing as global warming, or agrees that it exists but denies that it has any cause we could understand or any impact that could be measured."  Also see Taxonomy section list.   I did see one Education cite having "scientific controversy" which is not "scientifically controversial", but it's just clearer English to say that as 'causing doubt on the scientific consensus'.   Markbassett (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How you said it may be true enough but it doesn't seem to be to be close enough to what the source said. I've tried to rephrase it back again to something that paraphrases the source more closely. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq - I'm not seeing such content and think it doesn't fit anyway.  Trying again with inserted quote from the first cite shown "Hello Scienceblogs".  If you're reading something else then quote back, but I'm pretty sure the article topic is basically denial of the consensus content, not denial that a consensus exists and that's the way the article is written.   The cite is a blog describing Denialism as rhetorical tactics to cause doubt.  Not using the words "scientific controversy" nor is it specifically for this topic "Climate change denialism".  Please take another look. Markbassett (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark, for some reason you seem to be unable to grasp the point made by both sources, that denialists create a misleading image of controversy where there isn't any in science: that's relevant to this specific paragraph: "Although scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the primary driver of climate change,[14][15] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[16][17][18] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[19][20]" Three points: 1. uncontentious science, 2. efforts hindered by denial, 3. denialists pretend science is contentious by faking controversy. All ties together. . dave souza, talk 23:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * dave souza - be clear that I'm saying I am not seeing such content and think it doesn't fit anyway.  It is an inappropriate statement, WP:OFFTOPIC and not from the cite.  More basically, WP:FALSE to this article -- this is where the article is doing WP:SYNTHESIS and creative writing rather than conveying the cite and wound up making what looks like a factually false portrayal.  I suggest look again and consider that the theme of false controversy seems simply not significant in Climate change to the frequency or extent of Teach the controversy in Intelligent design.  This article is not denialists but specifically Climate change denial.  The 'Hello Scienceblog' is a general discussion of how in multiple topics denialism uses rhetoric tactics to oppose science, and does not use the ambiguous wording 'scientific controversy'.  Specifics to the topic Climate change denialism not so much, a general Denialism writeup, sure.  Just being careful with conveying from the general area of denialism what is not appropriate to Climate change, and whether false controversy is really major part of Climate change denial.  Markbassett (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Both sources specifically refer to climate change denial. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Daaaave - Blog does not say that climate change denial involves faking scientific controversy.  Though I appreciate the irony of your "oh no it's not" post *being* an example where denialism does not 'give the appearance of a scientific controversy', but it's clear the cite does not say what the article attributes to it.  The 'Hello Scienceblogs' post cited says it’s about how you engage in a debate when you have no data, tactics that are used to frustrate legitimate discussion.  It names 8 common topics as where denialism happens, and gives 5 general tactics to sow confusion.  Again, that blog cite just does not say that denial at climate change involves faking scientists arguing or even use the ambiguous phrase 'scientific controversy'.  Teach the controversy is elsewhere.  Markbassett (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism ..." Diethelm & McKee 2009 discuss this, and cite Mark Hoofnagle as a topic expert. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Reports/environment_science_report_23oct96.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.staff.fcps.net/dgmartin/Global%20Warming%20-%20How%20Skepticism%20Became%20Denial.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Need for "Denial networks" as its own standalone sect ?
Climate_change_denial

Is there a need for this to be its own standalone sect ?

Can we keep the material, but merge it into another sect, for better organizational structure for our readers ?

Also, at present that sect seems to have a problem with WP:WORLDVIEW.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed tag
There is one "clarification needed tag" in sect Climate_change_denial.

Can someone explain why this is tagged, and how to go about fixing this ?

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016
Jess phd (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The page needs to address the actual debate behind global warming, not just insult those who disagree. Anthropomorphic climate change is not yet proven, and debate must continue until we have a true result one way or the other. just saying it is settled does not make it so. Temperature lags, Antarctic ice gains, solar activity, documented exaggerations and fraudulent studies to garner attention, failure of all weather models to predict temperature, the pause, and documented hiding of evidence by key study panels should be discussed. Otherwise climate change is a religion and not a science.
 * Please get consensus for an unambiguous proposed change before using the edit request template. Your concern appears to be addressed largely by question #4 in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about the the fairly widespread denial of climate change and the machinery fueling it. FAQ #4 answers whether there is a scientific consensus. The article about the public debate which covers scientific queries about it is global warming controversy. I've added a hatnote for that but I don't suppose you'll like it much either. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For info, proof is for whisky and maths, not science, and the only mention of "settled" in the article is a reference to Global warming conspiracy theories: "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity". If you want changes made, please be specific and provide good sources to support your proposals. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Top hat note with totally different article name
This edit adding a top hat note pointing to article "Global warming controversy" -- while certainly with good intentions to give our readers more information -- is not needed, for several reasons.


 * 1) The exact same article, "Global warming controversy" is already linked in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lede intro sect.
 * 2) Scientific opinion on climate change = linked in the first sentence of the article.
 * 3) "Climate change denial" is name of this article. No reader will land here typing in something else and be confused because the letters for the search term "Global warming controversy" are different and thus no need for WP:DISAMBIG.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Climate change skeptic is redirected to this article. That other article is where a genuine skeptic should be redirected to. I agree there aren't all that many if any nowadays amongst activists.But in the general public who read Wikipedia just because somebody has been misinformed by the denial machinery does not mean they are not genuine skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points, all, but that would be best for WP:Redirects for discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No we had a discussion about climate change skeptic and agreed the main use was for climate change deniers. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a hat link to controversy is helpful to casual readers. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: Perhaps someone could tell me where on Disambiguation it says it's alright to link to an article that doesn't sound like the same name? I wasn't seeing it there? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ambiguous" as discussed in WP:DLINKS doesn't just mean "sounds like the same topic." It can mean that the scope of the related articles is potentially unintuitive. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation is a guideline, not policy.If the hat note makes Wikipedia better, then one could  ignore Disambiguation. That being said, I agree with Cirt: the hat note is not needed. A reader who came to the wrong article could easily get the the right one without it. TelosCricket (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with . No need to add a link when the exact same link "Global warming controversy" is already linked in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lede intro sect. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a reader typed 'climate change skeptic' and wanted to see scientific arguments for and against climate change why on earth would they read on till the second paragraph of this article? They don't want to be told that they suffer from a psychological problem for wanting to know about the subject. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, moved link to "global warming controversy" to 1st paragraph, at DIFF. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's early enough to do the job okay. And it fits in well there. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm most pleased we were all able to come to an amiable and satisfactory compromise after polite and constructive talk page discussion ! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Pentagon report
For this article, I would like to add to the "denial networks" section where it is signified that clarification is needed. The specific sentence that I would like toe expand on reads, "A Pentagon report has pointed out how climate denial threatens national security.[89][clarification needed]". My plan is to further expand on that statement and providing readers with a clearer explanation of the concept. After researching and looking for reputable sources to reference, many articles and organizations agree that climate change is a threat to national security as it will directly affect the ability for our military to defend this country.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/23/3715200/bipartisan-security-experts-climate-change-threat/

Kmmnks (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Kmmnks April 19, 2016
 * Thanks, that will be a good improvement. Some care is needed with sources, think progress looks somewhat like a WP:SPS] but it links to other sources which may be more usable. The first is a dead link, but Wayback has the full page advertisement available. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: ThinkProgress has been discussed at WP:RSN, the issue is that it's partisan, can be used with care but better sources desirable, see the extended discussion, skip to the bottom for "TLDR the entire discussion, but people seem to be missing the point; no matter how many staff they have, or how professional they seem, at the end of the day they are a "political blog that "provide[s] a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies"". That is they have a point of view, they may be reliable for specific things, but no they should not be deemed generally reliable.". . . Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 07:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"

"Counter-science"
Hi,

I just want to pose a question, really, about the (77?) millions and millions. If one deducts all the campaign funding, is there anything left? I ask this because even if you are the Exxon-like entity E and have a strong motive for not wanting AGW to be true, the best outcome for E would be research that actually showed this. And so it would be rational for them to fund such research, and even to the benefit of all Mankind, if the science held up. This goes to researchers who (try to) do real science, collecting real data and constructing hypotheses and all that - for instance the guys of yore who looked into solar phenomena: they were wrong, and possibly supported by E, but were none of them "sincere"? I might be trying for a misguided attempt at real world AGF towards such people when I say that engaging in dead end research doesn't make them denialists.

Anyways, perhaps this is covered elsewhere and possibly all the millions went to campaigning, if so, then no problem.

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Exxon did do some research in the 1980s and came to the conclusion it was happening but didn't publish its research. That was before climate change became generally known about. That didn't stop them funding climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you; and sorry for the trouble, actually. I see this concern should have been adressed over at "List of scientists who oppose ...(etc.)". However, on reading that page, nobody says that for an individual scientist to have a differing opinion makes yon a denialist. So there is no concern - Yay WP. Thx again, and I'll be gone.


 * T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi As a Biologist myself, I too was surprised at the expectation of particular findings by the entity/entities funding a research project. It would be naïve to assume that funder A would be any different than funder B. I was one of the original "hippie" "tree huggers" but I have seen too many instances of data manipulation to fully accept either side of this religious war.207.191.12.134 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Denial vs. skepticism
"Climate change denial" is an epithet used only by political activists to demean anyone who is skeptical of their views. Why have we allowed Wikipedia to buy in to this trope?

If I am wrong, then why is there no article on "Climate change skepticism"? Why does "Climate change skepticism" redirect to "Climate change denial"?

Indeed, the entire "climate change" topic is fraught with ill-defined memes which have the effect of steering discussion into a binary, either-or, debate. (Such memes include "climate change", "global warming", and their denialist counterparts.) While Wikipedia cannot ignore the existence of popular memes, they should be identified as memes (i.e. simple ideas popularly accepted as truisms), not as serious subjects.

Behind these memes, lie some serious subjects that do deserve study and understanding:


 * In what ways is human activity causing climate change?


 * How rapidly or significantly is such change occurring?


 * What are the adverse effects of such change? How catastrophic will currently ongoing climate change be?


 * What can be done to prevent or mitigate climate change or its adverse effects?

For each of these, there is considerable discussion and disagreement. In each area, those who disagree with the majority can be characterized as skeptics. That does not make them denialists.
 * How can any such efforts be effected politically?

Skepticism can be fueled by several factors:


 * A disagreement on facts or on the relative importance of different sets of facts.


 * A questioning of how thorough our knowledge is of the broader subject.


 * Qualms about unknown and unintended consequences of intentional human action to affect the situation

The possibility of catastrophic climate change is a very serious subject. It deserves serious study and discussion. Wikipedia can aid this process by assembling relevant facts and analysis from authoritative sources.

The Wikipedia I believe in should be encouraging discussion on such a serious subject. This article attempts to shut it off. Frappyjohn (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is specifically about unwarranted doubts about climate change (denial). Description of the details that are subject to genuine debate can be found at Global warming controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While what you say is true the problem is that in the literature 'climate change skeptic' practically universally means a climate change denier. Unfortunately the literal meaning is conflicting with actual usage and the general pubic may think hat it is meant literally. This is because the term is used by climate change deniers to confuse the issue. I'm not sure how to fix the problem adequately - Wikipedia has to go with the citations. We had a related discussion just above at . If you have some idea of how to fix the problem I'd be glad to hear it. Dmcq (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think I may've been too hasty in my assessment of the hat note above. Global_warming_controversy has a hat note redirecting back to this article. Maybe two hat notes, one to Global_warming_controversy and one to Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change would be beneficial. TelosCricket (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both links to Global_warming_controversy and one to Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change = already provided in very first paragraph of this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Just as we don't allow "Genocide skepticism". See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Links to climate change skepticism
Hi all. I don't generally wade into climate change issues, but I noticed that over the last couple of days has been converting links in other articles from climate change skepticism and global warming skeptics (which redirect here) to global warming skepticism (separate links). This is arguably circumventing community consensus (per this RfC). The relevant edits are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Frappyjohn's explanation is here. I'm cross-posting this at WP:Climate change; otherwise I'm staying out of this and leaving it to editors more familiar with the subject matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult one. Whereas we can say there is a lot of climate change denial around pointing to a particular scientist and saying they are a denier requires very clear sources rather than our own interpretation. That is why there is the article List of scientists opposing global warming consensus rather than List of climate change deniers. I think a better link in such cases would be to Global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see List of climate change deniers has been redirected to the other list. I think it should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for the link to skepticism. A while ago a skeptic organization, which defends science from attacks by pseudoscientists, have distanced themselves from the people calling themselves climate change skeptics and said they should be called deniers. Now those links point to two articles not really connected to, e.g. Benny Peiser, instead of to one article describing what he is. This is like replacing a ladybird redirect link by lady bird - a definite change for the worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've undone them all. I thought we were past this. It dramatically changes the pov, if not outright reversing it. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I really think global warming controversy would be the best default for people unless there is good evidence they are really deniers. WP:BLP is hot on not calling people by some term they may dislike unless there is very good evidence. Dmcq (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to consider BLP carefully. However, I don't think that a redirect is the same as calling them anything other than what the original article states.
 * We should link to whatever article best covers the context expressed in the BLP's article. I've not looked yet, but I was hoping that a subsections within global warming controversy or Climate change denial would be more suitable, depending on the context within the original article. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A redirect which goes to something other than what the original says is an WP:EGG and it still defames. There is no get out of WP:BLP by using tricks with one wording one place and another at the destination. I see someone has removed my PROD on list of climate change deniers, do you really think that because it is okay because the target doesn't say denier? Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never seen EGG discussed in this manner, but as I said, the link should best express the context in the originating article. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The simple truth is that they are engaging in denialism. This is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Comedy?
This is a funny article. Nominate for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The process for nominating is described at Articles for deletion --Distelfinck (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some droll goings on in Oz, starring Malcolm Roberts quoting fake Steve Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller, not to be confused with Waiting for Goddard), to the astounded amusement of Brian Cox. Some informed tweets on the topic by Gavin Schmidt, director of the institute accused of "corrupting data". You couldn't make it up.... dave souza, talk 20:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence indicates that you absolutely could make it up, in fact there's a substantial cottage industry in doing just that, funded by the Kochs and their mates. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Forecasting
I am Michael Gary Wallace, the first scientist in modern times to demonstrate accurate forecasting of drought and pluvials, years in advance. My forecasting methods are uniquely successful in part because they exclude greenhouse gases as a causative factor. My method is thousands of times cheaper, faster, and better than emissions-based forecasting. My web site includes reproducible demonstrations such as at http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-continues-to-outperform-federal-and-un-ipcc-climate-projections/ which links to examples such as this: http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-demonstrates-proven-drought-forecasting-a-possible-first-in-the-climate-industry/

Either climate change deniers are misguided crackpots or climate change proponents are. Of the two, my forecasts are the only ones which are accurate. Typically when a scientist makes a projection that actually comes true, the scientist is not disregarded, ridiculed, or investigated for fraud by government agencies. In a sane world, those actions are reserved for the ones whose alarming projections fail to materialize. Somehow in the Wikipedia bubble and the societies, institutions, and businesses that it influences, the reverse holds sway.

But we both cannot be right. In that light, Wikipedia's efforts to pin true climate change innovations to this derogative term are impacting my business and professional environment in a most negative way.

Accordingly, unless you can somehow disprove my successes, Wikipedia (through this ad hominem page and other misrepresentations) appears to be actively interfering with interstate commerce clauses, my own constitutional right of free speech without the threat of criminal investigations, and other laws.

I recommend that Wikipedia cease this and related misrepresentations of climate change science as soon as possible. I issued this notification to Wikipedia via their lowly Talk page for the "Climate Change Denial" term on 24 August, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.69.110 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry we do not seem to have an article about you. We need people to be noted in newspapers or suchlike before we can set one up. We also would need some peer reviewed work showing how good your system is compared to IPCC to start talking about it as the alternative. We have an article about another scientist Piers Corbyn who also has set up a better forecasting method who you might be interested in collaborating with as you seem to have similar views and interests. He happens to be a brother to a very distinguished British politician but I think he is in Wikipedia solely on the basis of his own work. Dmcq (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * MichaelGaryWallace (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)(this is Mike Wallace again, now logged in) Are you a scientist? If not, how do you justify your standards in evaluating my innovations? In any case, I didn't request an article about myself.  I recommended that the denier term be corrected so as not to interfere with my rights in interstate commerce and others.  Thank you though, for informing me of Dr. Corbyn. Regardless of whether you place me in your wiki-bubble or not, I also hope you will try to be consistent in the application of your formula for inclusion and exclusion.  Does the "Skeptical Science" blog have a record of peer review publications in climate change science as I do?  My understanding is that those bloggers are not practicing scientists in the climate change science field, yet Wikipedia embraces them as an authority on the topic.  In any case, most innovations are not borne from peer review journals or hyperbolic media articles.  They are however often found in the patent literature, and accordingly I have filed a provisional patent for my innovation. MichaelGaryWallace (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. Clairvoyants and astrologers also subjectively see their own forecasts as reliable. The methodological and psychological effects involved are well-known: Selection bias, availability heuristic, cognitive dissonance etc. Some of them say they are right 100% of the time because when they are wrong, they invent reasons why this case does not count as a miss, or even why it counts as a hit.


 * Also, you don't seem to be very good at logic and scientific methodology:
 * "Either climate change deniers are misguided crackpots or climate change proponents are" is a false dilemma. Scientific controversies don't need a crackpot on one side; usually both sides have good reasons for their positions until the controversy is resolved. After that, only crackpots and stubborn old men remain on the losing side.
 * "unless you can somehow disprove my successes" - this is reversion the burden of proof. Science does not hold that claims are true until proven false, especially extraordinary claims like yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * MichaelGaryWallace (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)I wonder if you are a scientist or engineer, because unlike any others in the field, I produce a complete record of the quantitative skill of every forecast I produce for customers. How about you?  Have you ever produced a single accurate forecast of climate change?  If you had not leaped to ad hominems, you would have been able to confirm that I include quantitative performance metrics of ALL of the poor forecasts as well the excellent ones.  A majority of my forecasts from last year were more than 90% accurate (see for example: http://www.abeqas.com/q3-2015-forecasts-published-highest-skill-set-to-date/).  This degree of performance disclosure is not practiced by the UN IPCC nor by the astrologers that you favor, nor apparently by other forecasters such as the Farmer's Almanac publications. MichaelGaryWallace (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * MichaelGaryWallace (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Are you a scientist? I suggest you apply your logic to the UN IPCC spurious climate forecast claims.  Somehow you appear to believe that their forecasts are true without any proof other than spurious calibration exercises and appeals to authority.   You appear to not be able to digest what I have done.  I have produced a significant body of forecasts which are far less expensive, much faster, and exponentially more accurate and transparent than the UN IPCC's.  That is the proof.  I only suggested Wikipedia try to disprove my proof if they are to disregard it.  Since I've published the forecast exercises and since the observation data are available for any reasonably skilled scientist or engineer to confirm, I welcome any challenges. But you have chosen to engage in non scientific rhetoric instead.  Enjoy your climate change denier Wiki-bubble while it is still intactMichaelGaryWallace (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOURCES and WP:WEIGHT: your WP:SELFPUBLISHED promotions do nothing to show any notability or credibility for your claims: reliable third party published sources are needed, wikipedia isn't the place for "original research". . . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest closing this discussion as a COI, SOAP, and TALK violation. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Have you ever produced a single accurate forecast of climate change?" - Astrologers ask the same question (replace "forecast of climate change" by "horoscope"). This is a red herring and an argumentum ad hominem.
 * "If you had not leaped to ad hominems" - I didn't. You obviously don't know what ad hominem means.
 * "I suggest you apply your logic to the UN IPCC spurious climate forecast claims." But they did not use fallacies, as you did. I can only point out fallacies in somebody's work if the work contains any.
 * "I only suggested Wikipedia try to disprove my proof if they are to disregard it." That is not what Wikipedia is for. Publish your results in a reliable source, and we can quote you. Unless you do, we can't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep he needs a peer reviewed article saying how good his system is before we can consider what he says any further. It is not up to us to judge things, we just report what others have written. I should also point out No legal threats. If they wish to go down that route discussion here is ended, they should write to Wikipedia at [mailto:info-en-q@wikipedia.org info-en-q@wikipedia.org] Dmcq (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note, a publication or peer reviewed article isn't enough to establish significance or notability of these extraordinary claims, reliable independent published sources are needed for that. . . dave souza, talk 12:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it would be a very good start from where they are at the moment! Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The flawed assumptions are astounding, not to mention the inability to coherently make a point. I am intrigued by the strong statement "...we both cannot be right". It isn't even obvious how to identify the antecedents of that claim. My guess is that OP has a model that ignores greenhouse gases and some forecasters include greenhouse gases. Presumably,"...we both cannot be right" means it is either "right" to include greenhouse gases as a variable or it is not right. Such a statement evinces lack of knowledge of modelling concepts. I think OP wants us to conclude that if one can accurately forecast drought without including greenhouse gases, then greenhouse gases must have no causative impact on drought. But that doesn't follow. (I do get that this is a drive by troll, and maybe it would be better to ignore, but sometimes one is fascinated by the ineptitude of people who purport to be knowledgeable.) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting article about helping people who want to develop their ideas. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy of climate change denial

 * the misleading impression that climate change was still disputed within the scientific community

The phrase above is from the current lede sentence of the taxonomy section. It implies that climate change is no longer disputed within the scientific community. Is this a view of Stefan Rahmstorf himself, or are we all agreed that this is a fact?

If climate change is disputed within the scientific community - e.g., by researchers who publish peer reviewed scientific papers - then perhaps we could clarify the sentence I cited.

But if there is no dispute whatsoever in the scientific community, that might need to be highlighted a bit earlier in the article. Unless I'm a few years behind in my reading, I daresay there are still a few scientists who oppose (what they call) the AGW. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * False premise.  As we all know, there are endless factors that comprise the broad topic "climate change".  They're still looking into climate sensitivity and the exact role of clouds, for but two examples.  But it's taken as fact that earth has warmed and its mostly due to us, and us longtime regulars have (if we were paying attention) long been aware of the footnote at Global warming on point which we quoted thus:
 * Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. We must use language carefully to distinguish between dispute of the existence or reality of climate change versus dispute of the magnitude or flavor or specific dynamics of it. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Did I make my question clear enough? I was referring to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
 * "The term [climate change] sometimes is used to refer specifically to climate change caused by human activity, as opposed to changes in climate that may have resulted as part of Earth's natural processes - Climate_change

So my question is whether there is any dispute within the scientific community about what is causing climate change or global warming (if I'm not using the terms correctly, please advise). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as one can ever have agreement amongst thousands of scientists there is essentially no disagreement humans are now the main cause of global warming since the 1950s. That does not mean that other factors aren't important and may have caused maybe half of the warming but the best guess is that humans have caused all of it and natural causes are as likely to have stopped the warming being so great as to have added to it and it is thought the human factor will becoming overwhelmingly dominant in the next fifty years. I'm not sure exactly how relevant any of that is to this article though, denial doesn't depend on something being true or false. As the lead sentence says "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." It is the mainstream view but reasoned doubt would still not be denial, going around making stupid argumnents against it for political or financial or ideological reasons most certainly is denial though. Galileo for instance was not a helocentic view denier, he was arguing a scientific case despite most natural philosophers thinking otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick answers, but maybe I don't understand the terminology. I'm looking for the place in Wikipedia where I can read about the reasons that various scientists (in the minority of course!) have given for their opposition to the theory that most modern global warming is human-caused. I don't care about ideology, money, or politics; I only want to read about their scientific arguments against the AGW theory.

Or, I want to see a clear statement in Wikipedia that no one in the scientific community - not even a few dozen die-hard holdouts, still disputes the idea that most modern warming is human-caused. Am I asking a clear enough question, and am I in the right place to ask it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Have a look at global warming controversy for various other reasons considered like variations in the suns output. See also scientific consensus, it includes the idea of a strong mainstream position. The List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is as close as you'll get to references but it just indicates how poor the case is as there is practically no peer reviewed works putting such a position. Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ed, who wants to see the naysayers scientific arguments or "a clear statement... no one in the scientific community...still disputes the idea that most modern warming is human-caused"  Ed, if you can't find what you're looking for, then its up to you to locate RSs and propose those changes.  As you know, we don't do our own research, and its hard to prove a negative.  In a nutshell, (A) lack of coverage in Wikipedia can not be interpreted to mean anything and (B) anything you do needs to avoid smacking of false balance.  But then, you know this already. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ed, see scientific consensus and appreciate that we report on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community without giving undue weight to the few [if any] individuals who "still [dispute] the idea that most modern warming is human-caused", for whatever reason. This article notes that reasons given tend to vary and be inconsistent. . . dave souza, talk 17:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. You've given me food for thought. I would never want to exaggerate the number (or proportion) of scientists who think global warming is mainly naturally caused. I was just wondering how WP articles should refer to them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ed, you can go through List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, put their names into Google Scholar, and try to find recent, properly published, at least moderately quality-controlled papers that cast serious doubt on the human impact. I've done this occasionally, and came up empty. James L. Powell has been more patient doing something similar and came up with (out of 2,258 papers published in 2013 that he surveyed) with this one paper. So far, Google Scholar, which is typically over-complete, has collected 9 citations of it, 5 of which are self-citations (!), one of which is Powell's paper reporting on it as a fringe outlier, and one being this paper by Tol in which I can't even find the citation. The last two are agricultural papers. So it seems to have no impact on climate science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ed, the article section you linked to appears to be based on old articles from such sources as the Hindustan Times or the Heartland Institute, not recent scientific papers. A large proportion of those listed have gorn emeritus, in one instance Murry Salby has been twice dismissed for financial misconduct, and no longer seems to be active in climate science. If you go through the list looking for someone who "still disputes the idea", please provide evidence of recent published scientific papers, not six year old newspaper interviews. . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See scientific opinion on climate change. If you can find any significant number of active professional climate scientists who dispute the fact of climate change, then the Heartland Institute would love to hear from you. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland
I think this will probably have to wait a bit for time for a response but it sounds like a good addition eventually.

and it is quite funny too. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2016
ORIGINAL Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TEXT Anthropogenic Climate change denial, or Anthropogenic global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, doubt or contrarian views which question or depart from scientific opinion on climate change. ( Anthropogenic meaning caused by humans)

Reason for Change request:-

To use proper descriptive unemotional language and avoid any language tending to push or give weight to a particular view or opinion.

For fully current referall, all the words "global warming" and links for "global warming controversy" might also be changed to insert "Anthropogenic" and replace "global warming " with "climate change". Higgo888 (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Higgo888 (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I would reject. It is simply called 'climate change denial' not 'Anthropogenic Climate change denial' in the source. The word 'unwarranted' is needed as warranted dismissal or doubt is not denial. Dmcq (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dmcq. Edit request rejected.  If you want to debate it, provide citations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

New reference
For your information: Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles, The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy, Columbia University Press, 2016 (ISBN 9780231177863). 128.178.189.94 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC).

The "Galileo Gambit" link in the FAQ redirects to an unrelated article
Clicking it redirects here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclideon but I don't think its supposed to. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect had been inappropriately changed. I fixed it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change title
Hello all,

I found this article to be very one-sided. The article is protected, which is resulting in bias. I feel this article goes against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of view. Regardless of your personal views, I urge whoever protected this article to unprotect it, in the name of accuracy and reliability on such a controversial topic.

Thank you. (Did I do this right? First time.) Thanks Jim1138 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This issues aka wp:NPOV has been raised and discussed numerous times. May I suggest you peruse the archives (in the orange box at the head of this page) for discussions. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Scientific opinion on climate change. Reality is one sided, we simply follow that. During 2016 the world learned an important lesson about false equivalency, Wikipedia has always tried not to succumb tot hat particular fallacy. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument is different because I am not asking for a particular edit, I am arguing that the article should be unprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But if you don't want any particular edits, you don't really have anything to say William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked for the article to be unlocked. I shouldn't have to ask for edits. 67.61.143.249 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to edit, there is no need for unlocking. And it you do want to edit, you should be able to say what it is you want to change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe unlocking the article will allow the necessary changes to make this article unbiased. The fact that it is locked in the first place is dangerous to this article's accuracy. 67.61.143.249 (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? You could say the same about any article, which if true would be a fatal objection to semi-protection. Since wiki policy permits semi-protection, your argument fails and will inevitably fail. So, don't pursue doomed-to-fail arguments: either produce some cogent objection to the present article, or find something useful to do elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is locked precisely because people kept coming along to make the "necessary" changes to make it "unbiased". Oddly, that always equated to whitewashing. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will request that the title be changed to climate change skepticism/denial instead of just climate change denial, or just climate change skepticism. This was argued before, but even the article says the preferred term for climate change skeptics is divided between skeptic and denier. Why not appease both parties? This should be neutral, after all. Also, I propose we change the picture, because there are many prominent figures who also are skeptical/deny climate change. This picture seems very one sided. 67.61.143.249 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There may be many public figures who deny the scientific evidence — that doesn't make them sceptics, it just makes them profiteers who exploit the gullibility and low science-literacy in the general public. This will not be changed, stop wasting your and (more importantly) our time and go away. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 18:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" - "This is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." Please follow the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done for proving that you're not actually a new user. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a new user. I just read the rules beforehand. And I presented adequate reasons to change the title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have presented what you consider to be adequate reasons to change the title. They are not adequate reasons according to Wikipedia policy. The articles treat scholarly sources with much higher weight than newspapers and places very little weight on blogs and suchlike. The appropriate term is denial rather than skepticism and that is what is mainly used in such sources. This is all explained in the section on terminology in the article. Please indicate a specific problem with that section or a new scholarly source on the topic if you wish to go any further. In straightforward terms - we would need a source better than for example which says the opposite. Dmcq (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That request will fail. Please search the archives of this talk page using the search box above, it has been discussed numerous times before. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted
Why was the "unwarranted" deleted from the intro? It is the most important difference between denial and skepticism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the change as per above. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is important and often mentioned in debates. search archives for it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of image
I deleted image from the article, but the image was reverted by another editor.

First, Image dos and don'ts states "don't use images for tables or charts". The image is just data. In this instance, an image isn't necessary.

Second, Image use policy states: "Generally speaking, you should not contribute images consisting solely of formatted or unformatted text... In most cases these can instead be typed directly into an article."

It also states: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." In this instance, an editor took data and loaded it into an image meant explicitly to shock readers and bring attention to the article. An analogy would be to add this image to the article Stop Handgun Violence. A read of WP:IMPARTIAL and other nearby policies on that page shows that consensus has already been reached about this sort of editing. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "it's been here for a long time", though I was unable to find any policy or guideline which used longevity as a reason for keeping anything on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's directly relevant and a vivid illustration of the consensus view. I don't have a problem with it. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please respond to the policy points I mentioned above? Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking does not mean always. The image increases the reader's understanding by drawing attention to the current strength of the consensus. It's factually accurate and scientifically neutral. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Magnolia677 on this. The image is not there to convey data but to create an impression. As you say it is a 'vivid illustration'. If it came from a reliable source it might be okay - but as a Wikipedia editors own contribution no. We are not here to push our own POV. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep image Magnolia's reasoning is certainly in good faith and reasonably cohesive, but not persuasive.
 * First, in response to the Do's don'ts argument that the image just represents data, Image dos and don'ts was built out of fewer than 25 edits over four years and almost all of them are from a single editor.  I simply don't agree that charts or tables are always best suited for informing the reader about data, plus that info page hasn't been sufficiently debated to have a great deal of weight, and the page itself says it is a general rule of thumb, not a one size fits all mandate.
 * Second, Magnolia quotes an utterly inapplicable policy about images not being just text.  To borrow court speak, the argument assumes facts not in evidence.  Since this image is not "just text", Magnolia's second argument is moot.
 * Finally, Magnolia claims the only purpose is to "shock" and "attract attention" but that's just plain wrong.  The purpose is to convey to a statistic, specifically a ratio, to the reader.   Magnolia tries to build a POV-based argument with an inapplicable analogy involving the this image and the article Stop Handgun Violence, which is an article about an advocacy group.  In contrast, the article under discussion is about a cognitive phenomena.  So the analogy isn't at all applicable.

Since the purpose of images is to convey concepts to the reader and this particular image is conveying a proportion that is directly relevant to the topic, it should remain. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, there is another argument specifically in favor of the image.  An article about climate change denial has to comply with WP:FRINGE, which requires clear statements about the mainstream viewpoints to avoid giving undue weight to minority fringe views.  The image also helps convey to the reader the mainstream viewpoint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I understood the tiny red dot standing for the tiny minority, but only now I got the idea that the black area may represent the number of scientists named in the text. Does it? If yes, it's not really clear from the image. Maybe that is the problem: an unusual spatial structuring of the data. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I have always assumed, though I am skeptical that the ratio of black to red is accurate, just eyeballing it my guess is the background would have to be enlarged. I don't like this particular approach to graphically depicting the ratio; there may be others that work better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The ratio of red-to-black is correct. If you open the SVG code, the black area is set to 277.624×250, which is 69406; while the red area is set to 2×2, which is 4. The previous image was a pie chart, which needed updating to reflect the more recent publication of a paper by Powell. While updating it, I switched it from a pie to a point to avoid the need for scaling. The old pie chart had a 5× scaled sliver because a sliver is too elongated to be properly visible at 1×; I thought this scaling defeated the point. If anyone has a better design of graphic, feel free to replace it. Madshurtie (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting. The image is challenged by - surprise! - SkepticalScience (home of John Cook, who did the earlier lit review and came up with a slightly lower number). Here is their critique. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to read that critique after it's been peer reviewed and published in the literature ;-) Guy (Help!) 12:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although Powell defends himself against Cook, Cook is probably right that the proportion of relevant scientists rejecting AGW is higher than <0.01% (for one thing, Cook et al's method produces a similar percentage to surveys of climate scientists). However, Powell's research gives us a good idea of how many current climate scientists are actually publishing peer-reviewed rejections of AGW. Cook doesn't challenge this. The fact is that almost all of the vocal minority of climate scientists who reject AGW don't actually publish scientific research doing so. They publish non-AGW research or non-denial AGW research, and their denial is generally expressed in op-ed and other public environments. Madshurtie (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If you need an image at the start the unabomber one at would be much better. It illusttrates the topic, it is not made by a Wikipedia editor to push a POV, and it has no complaints against it by a scientist saying it presents the facts wrong. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny, but probably has a copyvio problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Magnolia677 and Dmcq that this data would be better typed directly into the article itself rather than as an image. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Better graph


Maybe use this graph instead. It is based on the same data, but looks better. Scmresearcher (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is cherry picked based on one survey. So no. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to remove the image in the previous discussion, and this image is probably better if we're keeping the image (although it should be SVG). It's important not to say the survey indicates unanimity: it just indicates the almost non-existence of climate denial research (although admittedly the headline and abstract of the paper do erroneously give the former impression). If we say it indicates unanimity, then is partially correct. Whether the lede should have an image about the endangered nature of denial research or an image about some other measure of consensus is a valid discussion that unfortunately died previously. Madshurtie (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the graphs at Scientific opinion on climate change would be much more representative as they show the results of a number of surveys rather than just picking one that is an outlier compared to them. Picking an outlier is cherry picking. Dmcq (talk)

"industrial"
Regarding the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"Campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming."

I am wondering if it could be inserted somewhere in the article who or what these "industrial, political and idealogical interests" are? I feel as though it is missing and it would be an effective contribution to fully flesh out the roots of "denialism" overall.

Ryanaldrich3 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The main ones are detailed at the end of the fourth paragraph, I might be an idea to split that and stick the second haf with the second paragraph. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Public Opinion
Most of what is put forward in the section called "Public Opinion" seems to assess why people are held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change; however, but the viewpoints that are underrepresented are those that are not held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change, or, more specifically, what is underrepresented is what keeps these people from being held back: Is it just due to better education? Does it also have to do with idealogical and belief systems? Etc.

Example:

"A study assessed the public perception and actions to climate change, on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship. The author found the following barriers: cognition, ideological world views, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes."

But no paragraph about how these barriers have been overcome, how they are not met at all, or if they even have to be met by everyone.

Ryanaldrich3 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article can only describe things which have been already described in reliable sources which have direct relevance to climate change denial. Most stuff about thinking straight or coping with bias would be more general, but even so it is possible that there are some papers describing how they think matters could be improved in this area, so yes if someone can find something relevant it might be suitable for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understand your original post, Ryan, you noticed we don't have text that explains how people who "get it" got it.  If that's the crux of your observation, I would answer by pointing out this article is generally about not getting it.   But we do have articles where different aspects of getting it might be appropriate.  E.g., public opinion on climate change and Science communication, probably others too.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Definition
"There is a debate among those involved in social controversies surrounding climate change about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to people who doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change. Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics and describe their position as climate change skepticism. Their opponents, however, often prefer to call such people climate change deniers and to describe their position as climate change denial." From reference #3 Carlos Danger (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, we don't care what they prefer. Wikipedia is not censored to protect the cherished delusions of cranks and charlatans. Climate change is real, there is by now pretty much zero informed dissent from this, or fromt he fact that humans are causing it, and the people who continue to be "skeptical" are in fact deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading again, you seem to be objecting to it saying "some deniers do endorse the term" because whilst that source says "Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics" it doesn't explicitly say that any endorse the term and you would like what is there to more closely copy the source. Would that be right? Have a look further on to further reading '“Denial” is the term preferred even by many deniers. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic,” says MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most prominent deniers.' Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

dmcq - Frankly your tone already violates what is supposed to NPOV in my view. Using the term 'denier' to equate people skeptical of claims of catastrophic man-made global warming to equate with Holocaust deniers is the height of bias.SmoledMan 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Complain at the sources for the article, not me. If sociological studies and psychological sources in the main call it that then that's what it is as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Find a reliable source that says otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove headline picture (right). There's much more information now about numbers of scientists maintaining healthy scepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming. One link which refers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/13/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-the-97-climate-consensus-is-a-fantasy/ Commonly cited figure now is 0.3% of all climate scientists are Alarmists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All genuine scientists show healthy skepticism about all science topics, including AGW. Unfortunately Alarmist deniers like Willard Tony Wotts and his cobloggerz are completely credulous about any old rubbish, and so not a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at the list, checked the very first paper, was a bit astonished by the claims made, dug out the page of the journal on the paper, and, surprise, "This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Earth System Dynamics (ESD). The manuscript was not accepted for further review after discussion." (emphasis mine). Well, strictly, this is a "peer-reviewed paper". But it's one that was rejected by peer review. Not an auspicious start, and not one that motivates me to look deeper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, just because I had the second paper already open. This seems to be a bona fide paper. But it does not contradict the IPCC position at all. It deals with the influence of the 11 year solar cycle on some aspects of sea surface temperature, not with the cause for the secular increase in global temperature. As Dave said: If you believe this list, you are not sceptical, you are credulous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

History section
The first paragraphs of the History section aren't actually about denial at all but about the history of climate change science. Since the article about that is linked, I propose taking those paragraphs out. We don't actually have any denial occurring before 1979 - was there any? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be very happy for that to go. I'll post a note to the history article with a link to the current version saying the start is going to be chopped down if they think there's anything from it they want for that article. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs can usefully be condensed, but it's important to show the context: as Conway & Orestes put it, "The doubts and confusion of the American people are particularly peculiar when put into historical perspective". Meant to post this first, but focussed on a condensed opening paragraph, so have implemented that. Will be interested in feedback from the history article. . dave souza, talk 22:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll get the feedback, and I'll look to see what perspective Conway and Orestes give the denial. This article needs to stay on-topic and not go into the whole of the science. Something that's bedevilled climate change articles is proliferation, and everything being told in slightly different words over and over again. Since this article is about denial, it should only be necessary to say once that climate change is accepted within mainstream science. Our articles about genocide denial do not need to prove that the genocides actually happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why summary style, it's normal to show the context and not rely on readers turning away to read another article first. A genocide denial article should briefly make the point that the genocide happened, particularly if researchers into the denial find that 50% of the population are unaware of it. See also Conway p. 36: "Most people likely heard the term global warming for the first time in the 1990s and may be unaware that it is one of the most venerable ideas in science." Good point that other articles should also show the same words, expanded as appropriate. . dave souza, talk 00:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Skimmed Weart, in Changing the Climate... of Public Opinion; "Some people suspect such panels are just an old-boy-and-girl network looking out for its own research funds. History helps counter that suspicion, for the origins of the present consensus are revealing." . . dave souza, talk 00:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Background " would be a more appropriate heading for the events before the Reagan presidency. What was there before was close paraphrase of Orestes and out of order. Let's not repeat text from one article to another- that would be self-plagiarism. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that "Background" could work as a subheading, it's clearly part of the history so that would mean adding subheadings to other parts of the history. . . dave souza, talk 07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Contrarian errors
A todo: this paper analyses aspects of errors in contrarian papers, and provides links to other useful sources: cite. . dave souza, talk 07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * formatted reference. . . dave souza, talk 07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article does not come across to me, reading it for the first time, as appropriately objective. Some examples of loaded language in the article include:

"Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none."

"the climate change denial industry"

"all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process" (do they? citation needed)

The various circumlocutions attempting to explain why people who would prefer to call themselves "skeptics " shouldn't be allowed to do so strike me as argumentative rather than informative.

"Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified" (When did Spencer Weart become the definitive authority on this point? Spencer Weart is a "noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics".  How does this make him an authority in this area, who has the ability to claim that skepticism was "no longer justified"?)

The commentary on smoking / lung cancer is irrelevant and reads like a smear-by-association.

"These efforts succeeded in influencing public perception of climate science." Weart again. This man has a rather major influence on this article, out of proportion I think.

"Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small fringe group of climate deniers were no longer taken seriously at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in an agreement that 'we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis.'"   The Guardian is a left-wing source, and not a few people would say that this "no longer taking seriously" was politically rather than scientifically motivated.

"Despite leaked emails during climategate, " -- surely this major scandal deserves more than a passing mention starting with "despite". Those people admitted to conspiracy to keep opposing views out of the scientific media. That is not a small thing. As the "climategate" article mentions, "The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data." Is that really such a small thing, worthy to be fobbed off with a slight mention starting with "despite"? Again from the "climategate" article -- "John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: 'these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.'" How does this not merit more coverage in this article? Surely a "denier" could look at the climategate fiasco and draw quite a bit of support for his own side from it, yet this article barely mentions it.

"The popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community as a whole." It does not take a genius to see that if the scientific community on this point trends left, and for years now has been unwilling to provide grants to those with views on the opposite side of the controversy, then of course they are not paying attention to skeptics. This is an argument without meaning or substance.

". . . seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship." Essentially this is namecalling, not argumentation. It says that if you have a differing opinion you have a psychological problem.

"manufacture doubt" and "Manufactured uncertainty over climate change" -- more loaded language.

"A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely"." See http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/climate-scientists-manipulated-temperatu. Possibly these beliefs are not without an appropriate foundation.

As someone who is, yes, skeptical, but who is trying to read on these topics, I find this article to be well below the standard of objectivity I normally see on Wikipedia. 71.121.193.107 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that many members of the public may still be considered as skeptical rather than as deniers. However this article is about the people and organisations who aim to deceive the public like you. The only reason it is okay to consider some members of the general public as skeptical rather than as deniers is because these organizations have run such a concerted campaign to obscure the facts and convince the public that climate change is some sort of conspiracy and does not exist that it is reasonable for them to have doubts. You would not do this skeptical thing thinking doctors were in a conspiracy against you if they told you that you had cancer. These climate change deniers have done the equivalent of making you think doctors are in a conspiracy and should not be believed when they make a diagnosis. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I get your point of view, for which I thank you. I'm not sure you really address my concerns about this article, and what I see as its loaded and biased viewpoint. The phrase "climate change deniers" is not, at least as I read it, in any definitional sense about people who "aim to deceive", or at least I would have assumed not; rather, I would have expected it to be about those who "deny" climate change, in whichever sense (deny it exists, deny humans caused it or are the major cause, deny that we need to take steps to stop it.)  Instead the article is a very biased slam against those who take these positions.  My impression is that "climate change denier" is a pejorative term for someone who does not agree with the mainstream viewpoint on the topic, and this article is essentially an attack on those people. I don't really see how it can be viewed any other way. This does not seem objective to me.


 * As to the matter of suspecting a conspiracy among climate scientists, it would be very difficult for me to come away from reading about climategate with any other position. For me, that was probably the most telling event relating to the whole topic. Reading Phil Jones' remark "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!", it's very difficult to see this enterprise as an entirely apolitical one run by saintly people who have no agenda. I mention this detail because, as I say, it is the major one which makes me question almost anything any of these folks says.


 * All in all I think this article is a polemic, not a Wikipedia article. How, for example, could one defend the attempt contained therein at psychoanalysis of people who may simply question the entire process and the agenda of those behind it?  One needn't be milky in the filbert to have doubts about the enterprise after reading about climategate. In my view the reverse is true, if anything.  Anyway thanks for your response; I appreciate it.71.121.193.107 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is based on WP:Reliable sources. That you think thousands of climate scientists are all part of some giant conspiracy is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is WP:Not a forum, discussion here has to be about improving or fixing the article and that needs to be based on such sources. Dmcq (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ("needs to be based on such sources") Well, no, actually, as I understand it Wikipedia is not supposed to be presenting a point of view. I believe you call it NPOV.  I don't have to base anything on "sources" to make my lengthy complaint that this article violates that tenet.  That's what I meant by "polemic".  (And the ad hominem is, to say the least, unimpressive . . . I find remarkable certain statements here that I "think thousands of climate scientists are all part of some giant conspiracy" (something I did not say), or that I or others who are skeptical don't have a "scientific point of view" and/or cannot "think rationally", but that's as may be.  What you think about those things is irrelevant to whether or not this is a fair article. One person claims I engage in "redefining everybody who disagrees with you as 'left-wing'".  Actually I used that phrase once, regarding The Guardian, and I doubt there is anyone knowledgeable who could factually dispute that description.  To take a single mention and create a universal out of it -- and impute that poor construction to me -- is very bad argumentation indeed.)


 * As to what I actually said . . . No response to my complaint about loaded language. No response as to what makes Spencer Weart an authority to be cited. No response to my namecalling complaint. Apparently someone doesn't think Reason is a credible source.  I am confident that with little effort I could find Reason cited elsewhere on Wikipedia; try it yourself by Googling reason.com site:wikipedia.org.  See the hits and accepted citations, then tell me why Reason is not credible, rather than simply asserting it.


 * I closed by saying that this article is below the standard of objectivity that I normally find on Wikipedia. I stand by that claim.  It is not responsive to attack the thought processes of skeptics, tell me "the truth is out there", that I need "sources" to make what was a claim of non-objectivity, and generally ignore 75% of what I said.  My complaint is that this article is not objective ABOUT SKEPTICS.  I make no claims as to the state of the science, save that I don't think it's the pristine, wonderful, and objective process some people seem to want it to be.  There are clearly agendas on both sides.71.121.193.107 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Scientists ARE skeptics, and I'm very skeptical about your assertions. See WP:NOTAFORUM . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, views which strongly depart from the scientific opinion on climate change could do with a slight rework, to point out that only departure in the direction of unbelief is considered denialism. People that wildly over-estimate impacts or the degree of warming, despite being way out of line with the sci opinion, aren't so considered William M. Connolley (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your problem is that the article does not conform with your opinion, and you want to remedy that by adapting the article - but shouldn't you instead try to find out whether the article is right and it is your opinion that should be changed? The sources are out there. All you have to do is refraining from redefining everybody who disagrees with you as "left-wing" and therefore unreliable.
 * "people who would prefer to call themselves "skeptics " shouldn't be allowed to do so" - Nobody said they are not allowed to call themselves that, only that it is not true. Lying is legal in most cases.
 * "The commentary on smoking / lung cancer is irrelevant" - No, the people who did that are the same people as the climate change deniers: Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer, for instance. Their driving force is to prevent regulation, and if they have to deny facts to do that, they will.
 * You believe that climate scientists conspired: "Those people admitted to conspiracy to keep opposing views out of the scientific media." That is the belief the denial industry wants you to have, and it succeeded. If you want to find out what is true, you will have to inform yourself better. The sources are out there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Add in: the only source the IP cites is a blog, a self-published source which are generally not good enough to meet source policies, and worse still, it opens with "The Daily Mail reports that climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated temperature data to make it look like the rate of global warming is speeding up after 2000." The Daily Mail is notoriously unreliable, unsuitable as a source, and the story is a blatant lie. Reliable sources needed. . dave souza, talk 13:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at the Scott Adams blog - the creator of Dilbert - and it is fairly clear that just reading about the facts will not help much. The big problem is that most people do not have a scientific mentality. One can see in the blog for instance how he can get on well with people but he has no real conception of what thinking rationally is. If scientists did what what he asks for they would not be scientists they would be priests or politicians or copy writers. Scientists who can engage the public and help explain things in a way that will resonate with them are essential in forming a link and to try and cope with the corporations with their special interests and lack of all compunction. But if things need to be twisted in the way the blog was talking about it would be a descent to a Trump like untruth as far as scientists are concerned and the anathema of everything they stand for. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not wise to give any credence to that blog: if you mean "How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem", he starts with "I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science." He accepts the science, but thinks better messaging is needed. A genuine atmospheric scientist responded with a series of tweets, recorded here (with some repetition in the twitter stream). . . dave souza, talk 13:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was responding to a reply which said 'If you want to find out what is true, you will have to inform yourself better.' I was citing Scott Adam's blog to show how information is not enough to come to a rational result if one does not have a scientific way of thinking. His rationality is how to get on with people not how the physical world works and his 'advice' if one can call it that would be inimical to science. BTW thanks for that link. It is another example of Dean Swift's "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired" but it got it off his chest and I think it is good that some scientists do stand up against this wave of unreason. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that good Swift response, which for some reason reminds me of "If you put the question in wrong, will the answer come out right?" But we're drifting offtopic, notaforum so will withdraw now from further discussion. . . dave souza, talk 17:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I recommend Merchants of Doubt. Read that, confirm the sources for yourself (they are all footnoted), and then come back. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy theory redirected here
Global warming conspiracy theory has just been blanked and redirected here. I thought there would be more content there but looking at it again the article was pretty scanty and duplicated bits that are here, so I've no objections. I thought though people here might like to know. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, I decided to revert it. The article was boldly redirect-ified but there were several discussions in its history and it had plenty of traffic. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, agree with reinstating the Global warming conspiracy theory article which is more specific than this broader topic. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Implicit Denial
I think the page should be edited by deleting the following paragraph in the Terminology section:

"In addition to explicit denial, social groups have shown implicit denial by accepting the scientific consensus, but failing to come to terms with its implications or take action to reduce the problem.[8] This was exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, where residents diverted their attention to other issues.[46]"

My rational is as follows: just because something is bad, doesn't mean that there is a rational basis for taking action. Every significant regulatory action taken by the US Federal Government for example requires a cost benefit analysis. I would like to cite the Wikipedia article on the economics of climate change as an example of why there can be a rational basis for not doing anything (or more likely not doing very much at all even though the science is settled that climate change is occurring). The sources cited there have discount rates varying from 0% to 25%. A 0% discount rate implies that humans should do everything we can to prevent climate change while a rate above about 5-7% implies we should do nothing and a rate at the high end of 12-25% implies that climate change is likely beneficial from an economic perspective. Please note that the economic perspective is not the same as the environmental perspective. Someone could rationally choose to live in a far more polluted environment because of the economic advantages (just look at the rise of cities during the industrial revolution; obviously the tremendous problems with disease, pollution and so forth were outweighed by the economic opportunities that the cities offered at least for the people who moved to them and worked in the factories there.) Everything involves trade offs that vary from one person to another and action on climate change certainly falls in that category as well. People who have a rational basis for not doing anything about climate change (for example developing countries) shouldn't be classified as "climate deniers" any more than someone being called a "bad parent" for buying a junker car instead of a new 5 star crash rated vehicle with all the latest collision avoidance technology for a new teen driver. Mike7835 (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The goal of climate change denial is to make everybody do nothing - to prevent interference with the market. Whether this is achieved by denying the temperature increase, by denying the connection with burning fossil fuel, by denying the bad consequences, or by denying that action would help, is a secondary question to the deniers, but they have always tried to deny as much as they can get away with. This way, when you show them that their current type of denial is untenable, in a way that would make them look bad even to those who haven't noticed yet, they can switch to the next weaker type.
 * So, yes, this is a type of denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)You misunderstand the concept of discount rates. They never make climate change economically beneficial. They may make investment into polluting industries beneficial, since the expected gain is greater than then the expected environmental degradation, but the climate change itself will be the same, and if it's effect is a net negative (as we have strong evidence to expect), it will remain negative. This is further complicated by the fact that individuals are differently affected by climate change and economic gain - capital returns go to those with capital, while environmental problems affect those without the means to mitigate them most. Anyways, long story short: I'm not wedded to the sentence - let's hear some more voices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be deleted though maybe it should be re-worded to make it clear what implicit denial is. Maybe:
 * "In addition to explicit denial, there is implicit denial: acceptance of the scientific consensus but refusal to come to terms with its implications or take action to reduce the problem.[8] This was exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, where residents diverted their attention to other issues.[46]"
 * TelosCricket (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mike, I agree with other commenters and in addition, FYI, we are not allowed to cite our own work to pass muster with the WP:Verification policy, so your proposed cite to the wikipedia article is dead on arrival. If you reformulate another idea, you might want to look at related wikipedia articles to find rootin tootin WP:Reliable sources to use. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The paragraph seems to be relevant and well cited. I oppose removal. Dmcq (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Title of aticle
Supposedly there are people who hold the absurd position that Earth's climate does not change. If there are any such people then they should be identified. Otherwise the existence of these people should not be implied by this article.Terry Oldberg (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you will find it makes it clear that climate change denier is the generally accepted term for someone who denies the current science concerning global warming. It doesn't mean merely someone who thinks the climate doesn't change. The article is about an ideological position held by certain people, including some blinkered and profit-oriented businessman and some fundamentalist followers of Abrahamic religions. It seems the condition is particularly virulent in the United States. That is a general identification of those people for you. Or are you saying you think they should all be named individually? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Cornwall Alliance for an example of climate change denial where they say God agrees with them and specifically say 'We deny' about the science. For all I know some of them may believe the earth is only a few thousand years old so there hasn't even ever been an ice age. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the article that implies the existence of such people. I don't even think there are such people. The term was deliberately chosen to be misleading and pejorative, but Wikipedia is not in the business of writing great wrongs, so we report what reliable sources say even when it's nonsense.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. "Climate change denier" was deliberately chosen to not be impractical. Any term for "climate change denier" that describes exactly what it is would be far too long.
 * To take another example from the same crazy fringe population, a birther is not someone who births, but actually a spreader-of-the-conspiracy-theory-that-Obama-was-not-born-in-the-USA - but "birther" is still a good term for it, even if the birthers complained that the term misrepresents their position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it differently. Hardly anyone doubts that the term "denier" was deliberately chosen to be evocative of Holocaust denial. (Some deny this, but they are, of course, denialists.) This article even points out the existence of the term climate change skeptic. Neither term is perfect, but the existing article points out (after some long rang link which resulted in a decent exposition) that neither term identifies a narrow point in a spectrum; both terms reflect an overlapping range of views. People interested in honest description rather than deception could opt for climate change skeptic, and recognize that there is a wide range of skeptics, with some largely accepting most of the the science while challenging some aspects, and others much more skeptical to the point of denying the existence of some basic facts.
 * That wasn't what happened. People more interested in pushing a narrative than in honest exposition of positions lean on the denialist term. Let me be clear, unless there be any confusion — I'm not talking about Wikipedia editors, who properly attempt to report what reliable sources say talking about those outside Wikipedia in the community discussing climate issues. That said, all idly wonder if anyone has done a survey of terminology in the sources to see which term is used more often.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The word denier is the right one and has been around for ages long before the holocaust. There is no evidence I know of to show it was chosen because of the holocaust denial, in fact citation needed if you really want to go on about that. Personally I associate the word more with a denier of God, or with Freud's neuroses and would be quite happy with another word that didn't imply belief so much but it was the one that was used and there there doesn't seem to be other short straightforward words to describe the same thing. Dmcq (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a WP:FORUM discussion based on personal opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It is a discussion about whether the article title is the best. In my opinion, it is not, and I know the biases here, so I'm not going to formally propose a change, but it is a legitmate editorial question whether the article should be titled Climate change denial, with discussion of climate change skepticism (as it is currently) or should be titled "Climate change skepticism" with discussion of denialism. The latter is, IMO a more honest portrayal of usage, but I don't anticipate that it will prevail.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I guess it is progress that you now say 'In my opinion' rather than 'Hardly anyone doubts'. Without some evidence showing something else then yes you are correct in not going on to propose a change. Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Sphilbrick, The text at WP:FORUM states "Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge."  Per the nutshell bubble at WP:TPG. "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor."  Classic Forum thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't a classic Forum thread. Please drop this.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If only we had an RS for every two personal opinions here.... quack quack said the waddling sparrow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been known for a while, the real skeptics bristle at having deniers pose as skeptics: Denier are not skeptics. And they are the people who know best how to recognize bad science and bad reasoning. There is nothing nonsensical about what the reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

verification of paywalled sources
the two sources, 96 and 97 are behind a paywall, how can any one confirm the claim on the fact purported under the denial networks headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C201:4C18:8D0A:F06F:2F25:3B6A (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You could buy a subscription or go to a library. See WP:PAYWALL for more information. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unwarranted doubt
Quote: "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change..." What is the definition of unwarranted doubt? Roberttherambler (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 2 – Recognizing that no terminological choice is entirely unproblematic, NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial” (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection). The terms are intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature. ....... Weart argues that skepticism of climate change was warranted by the evidence until the 1980s. The critics of climate change science changed in that period, their arguments shifting from scientific critiques published in normal scientific venues to legal, political, and personal attacks in popular media. 'At some point they were no longer skeptics — people who would try to see every side of a case — but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true.' " . . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that all doubt about anthropogenic climate change is now unwarranted? Roberttherambler (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the basic fact that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it is having observable impacts, yes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Doubt because an authority like Trump tells you it is a conspiracy by the Chinese is counted as unwarranted on scientific grounds. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I have removed "unwarranted" because it is now redundant. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake I reverted. You cannot change the definition because your definition would turn the pre-1980s scientists who doubted climate change into deniers, which they were not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarifying context added to citation. . . dave souza, talk 11:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The more important point is that "unwarranted" is used in the cited source. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Global warming hiatus
The article states, "Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming stopped recently, a global warming hiatus, or that global temperatures are actually decreasing, leading to global cooling" but doesn't mention the mainstream viewpoint. There should be another sentence explaining the mainstream view. I know that readers are directed to Global warming hiatus but I think a short summarization in this article would be helpful. I will leave it to regular editors of this article to make any appropriate changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, the source already cited covers that point so I've summarised it, and copy-editsd the next paragraph to avoid misunderstanding the length of the observed warming trend. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106081048/http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf to http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspect sentence
Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.

The problem here is that "climate change" has become a grab bag of loosely related propositions.

One should not be accused of being a climate change denier if one is nihilistic about human potential to remediate the wheels of fate already set in motion.

One could add "... to translate their acceptance into action, whether that be by attempting to forestall worsening of the situation, or laying in survival gear to ride out the inevitable calamity."

Only that isn't very encyclopedic sounding—mostly because the sentence I just modified wasn't exactly a winner in the first place, having overstated its case.

Much of the calamitization of climate change derives from "tipping point" rhetoric. Even if one believes in climate change, there can be skepticism about tipping point mechanics. And even if the tipping point is accepted, there's a choice to be made about whether to board the "precautionary" bus—attempting to ameliorate what "might" happen—or to hew to a more conservative "what seems reasonably incontrovertible" stance. And finally, there's scope for a divergence of opinion on the magnitude and urgency of the intervention demanded—supposing one believes an intervention could accomplish anything at all. Many scientists with outstanding credentials in environmental science seem to feel qualified to pontificate on intervention cost/benefit analysis. I have to admit that annoys me sometimes: it's the flip side of coin of buying into the buffet model, where it's just one giant theory joined at the hip, accepted or rejected wholesale; likewise, if you're qualified at one end, you're qualified for the whole deal. But it's actually not joined at the hip in that manner. There's an entire set of related propositions, each of which can reasonably be argued independently, on different expertise. &mdash; MaxEnt 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be your original research, please show reliable published sources for any changes you want to make. The sentence summarises an issue discussed in this source. . . dave souza, talk 04:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Center for American Progress#Center for American Progress Action Fund
I've removed some additions citing that fund as a source. I don't think we can count think tanks as reliable sources or just quote what they say - we need a reliable secondry source like a newspaper to say something about what they said I believe. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard which is good for resolving this type of problem is at WP:RSN. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress defined a climate change denying legislator as any who:


 * 1) has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change;
 * 2) answered climate questions with the “I'm not a scientist” dodge;
 * 3) claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming);
 * 4) failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or
 * 5) questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change.

Also

A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were members of the Republican Party.


 * This update to the article summarizes a recent source which contributes an explicit, recent, operational definition of "climate change denial." The definition serves as a useful characterization of diverse dimensions of climate change denial. The source is an example of a study which offers an explicit definition. The source is reliable for its own definition of climate change denial. The sourcing is documented via citations and in-text attribution for possible bias in full conformance with policies and guidelines including WP:YESPOV. The article talk page is the appropriate venue for article content issues. ECarlisle (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Think tanks aren't a reliable source of anything except their own opinions. What's so much better about this than anything the Heartland Institute says? We need some decent third-party source like a newspaper which has taken some notice of it and reports on it or some academic source. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We agree, of course the two sources reporting on the study are reliable for the contents of the study itself, and so are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia with in-text attribution as per WP:YESPOV, please see. ECarlisle (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you wrote above - I fail to see where we agree. ThinkProgress is a mouthpiece for the Center for American Progress rather than being a third party reporter or a reliable source. I removed the bit about Obama because it was WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", they didn't mention climate change denial or skepticism or anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In the "Public sector" subsection:

"In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that 'you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue' and 'challenge the science' by 'recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.' In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes 'back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain', but he now agrees with the scientific consensus. The nonpartisan policy institute and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in a 2017 study of climate change denial in the United States Congress based on Senators' and Representatives' public statements, found 180 Senators and Representatives who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans."

Addition in bold. Here ThinkProgress is in the role of publisher of the report, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund is in the role of author of the report, "agency". The content is attributed in-text to the authors. The content is not in Wikipedia voice; Wikipedia is not saying that all the climate deniers in Congress are Republicans, we are saying that a recent report says so. The article covers organized climate change denial as an American phenomenon; it seems appropriate that the public sector section of Wikipedia's article on climate change denial might be able to point out the significant correlation of the subject with major US political party. Sources need not be neutral; many sources in this article are not neutral on the subject. (The other addition to the "Public sector" subsection is discussed separately below.) ECarlisle (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This would all be fine if you were a reporter for a newspaper and if passed editorial controls in a newspaper we could then use it here. But that is not what has happened. In Wikipedia terms this is your own original research. See the section of that policy WP:OR. ThinkProgress does not satisfy those criteria. It is not a WP:Reliable source. It is the mouthpiece for a think tank. Dmcq (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above proposed addition is not an OR issue. The proposed sentence is a reasonable summary of the source. ThinkProgress is the publisher; the author is the Center for American Progress Action Fund - this relationship is clearly explained in the two sources, a ThinkProgress article and a Center for American Progress Action Fund press release. The proposed sentence includes in-text attribution. The study is a perfectly acceptable reliable source for the conclusions of the study with in-text attribution. ECarlisle (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarify Obama on climate change
In the "Public sector" subsection:

"President Obama often identified climate change as the greatest long-term threat facing the world. In 2015, environmentalist Bill McKibben accused Obama of 'Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial', for his approval of oil-drilling permits in offshore Alaska. According to McKibben, the President has also 'opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining.' McKibben calls this 'climate denial of the status quo sort', where the President denies 'the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground.'"

Proposed humble addition in bold. McKibben's views are relevant and serves the article as an excellent example which illustrate the issues with the wide range of interpretations of what "climate change denial" means. Here, we present McKibben's view that all that do not oppose all carbon extraction are deniers. Yes, some including McKibben were disappointed with Obama's response to climate change. However, including McKibben's accusation in the "public sector" subsection of this article without clarification may mislead our readers. Obama was in fact outspoken in acknowledging the threat of climate change, the most outspoken President in history on this issue, and was not generally considered a climate change denier, so to that extent McKibben's view is minority, and the summarization of the McKibben accusation source requires a little balance. ECarlisle (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This fails WP:OR because the citations do not mention anything about the article topic. Again this would have been fine if a newspaper had made the connection - but it was made by you instead as a Wikipedia editor so it is original research. Wikipedia summarizes on what others have said on a topic in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've asked at No_original_research/Noticeboard for someone from the OR noticeboard to have a look as I don't think we're communicating. Dmcq (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed addition is not an OR violation. Juxtaposition is not OR, please see WP:NOTSYNTH. The 2nd sentence above is an accusation directed at Obama. The 1st sentence above is a well-referenced fact of the Obama presidency; it suggests that in at least some of the many senses of "climate change denier" Obama is not one. The proposed content does not say that either Obama or McKibben is right or wrong. From McKibben's POV, Obama was a climate change denier; from the POV of the history of the US Presidency, Obama was the most outspoken US President on the threat of climate change ever. McKibben is passionate and his characterization of Obama as a climate change denier is a minority fringe view. Given the current article, a reader unfamiliar with Obama's position may be left with an inaccurate impression WP:RF. The McKibben accusation is noteworthy and is not at issue but needs a little balance. Contextualizing a direct quote is not OR, please see WP:NOTOR. The subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article; we are expected to provide context. What do you think? ECarlisle (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In general on Wikipedia any policy that forbids something cannot be overridden by another policy that allows something unless it specifically mentions the policy that might otherwise exclude . Content has to follow all the policies not just one of them. If you think some contextualization is needed then find something that is in context. Find something from a reliable source that mentions Obama and also mentions climate change denial in close connection and shows him being against it. Using Google that shouldn't be too difficult I would have thought. If you can' find something straightforward then you should ask if what you are trying to do is wrong rather than indulging in OR. Here there probably is something okay but you have not supplied it. Dmcq (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume the proposed addition is felt to be needed because "someone is attacking Obama for denial, and yet Obama was very pro-action-on-GW". So, meh, you can call that SYN / OR, it isn't something I greatly care about. However.. Here, we present McKibben's view that all that do not oppose all carbon extraction are deniers is an interesting point. Probably, the article ought to have a section on this - there is a rather extreme wing of the GW folk who do believe that. And in that section ref to Obama's pro-GW policies would belong. However, the McK quote is in the "lobbying" section and none of this is anything to do with lobbying. So I've removed it. Feel free to re-add it into a better section... actually, you know what, I will, along the lines I proposed William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have anything saying Bill McKibben view is extreme so I don't think we can stick it under such a heading. Also his article says nothing of the sort. I'm happy with the bit saying Obama is widely regarded as strongly in favor of action together with the citation needed as I believe it should be possible to find one easily enough, it just would have to mention something about denial or skeptics. In factt I've just done a quick google on 'Obama climate change denial' and I got Denial of climate change, AI puts American economy on 'path to ruin,' Obama says. I don't know what the AI in the title is in aid of. Most of the articles seemed to be mostly about Trump, which I suppose isn't surprising, and only mention Obama in passing though they do talk about Trump as reversing Obama's policies. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree for that subsection title "Extreme" we need a source that says McKibben is extreme. ECarlisle (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "...it just would have to mention something about denial or skeptics" Focus is important in an article, but this is a little too strong. Every source in an article need not be "about" the subject of the article or even mention the subject of the article. For example, we are encouraged to provide context to aide our readers in understanding a topic. WP:RF.
 * The new subsection says "Some activists..." without source but only cites one. ECarlisle (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The WP:OR is pretty clear about the requirement that every source in an article be reasonably directly related to the topic and that not following that means one is putting the editors own research, i.e. original research into an article. I know this can be annoying but allowing people to stick in things they think are relevant rather than what reporters talked about would just opening the floodgates to people wanting to stick in their own point of view rather than what has actually been said about a topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the bit saying the person criticizing Obama was extremist, we can't say things like that without a citation. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support in balancing the McKibben POV. ECarlisle (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "none of this is anything to do with lobbying" The heading of the "Lobbying" section and the first sentence of the section do not seem to accurately summarize the scope of the section. ECarlisle (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I moved the section on Obama back to where it was but yes it looks wrong under lobbying. I've moved it to under taxonomy a sit talks about status quo based denial. Dmcq (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy group wrongly named
In the last paragraph of the Terminology section there is a link to 'Face the Facts', which is a British radio show, not an advocacy group. Citation note 54 is a New York Times article which refers to 'Forecast the Facts' as the group in question. (They have since renamed themselves ClimateTruth.org). More messily, Citation 57 links to the old forecastthefacts.org website securely when no secure connection is available, yet is labelled Face the Facts petition.

213.249.254.59 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Err yes you're right that's wrong. I've deleted the petition as NN. One of the refs didn't ref it, and the other, to its own website, appeared broken. Oh, I've now read the rest of what you wrote... hmm, well, I'm still not at all sure it is notable, and wouldn't belong in the terminology section anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on whether Ross McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial"
Apropos for editors here, a discussion on whether Ross McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial" is taking place at Talk:Ross_McKitrick. It appears that some editors may use peripheral topics such as that one in line with an ongoing campaign to dilute terminology and institute their own preferred euphemistic language. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing citations properly
Some citations have been added where it seems difficult to check the source. The sources seem okay but we should have some way of finding them.

Could you please put in a url parameter saying where you found these please rather than having people searching trying to find them using Google thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide a means to access the documents without having to do searches, either a doi or url for instance. Having other people needing to do work to find something you saw does not help readers and does not demonstrate WP:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not required to be available online. ECarlisle (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having people checking verifiability have to search around instead of saying straightforwardly how to find the source is not good enough. All it shows is that people did not take notice of the information. I am removing the insertion on the basis that it has not shown noteworthiness per WP:ONUS. The information does not show a basis in scholarship or a level of public interest comparable with other stuff in the article. You need better to put in biased statements of opinion per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, just because they attribute it to some think tank. It just doesn't have WP:WEIGHT for the article.. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish you may propose at WT:RS that all rs be available online. You removed content from this article supported by NBC News, considered by most editors prima facie noteworthy, with an edit summary of . ECarlisle (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers, according to NBC News."

How would you summarize these sources? ECarlisle (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They have too little WP:WEIGHT for the article. You had to search around in a database, and you won't say what you did to get them, which verges on original research on your part rather than them being straightforward references to a book or newspaper or some academic work or magazine or suchlike which a person would have found without searching to push their views. Dmcq (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If setting out to review references in a topic is WP:Original research then 99% of our articles have to be deleted, leaving only text that is based on sources we just happen to stumble across by accident. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked the url you stuck in pointing to archive.org for the Chris Matthews stuff and am satisfied it is verifiable. One has to play the video to be sure it really is him rather than a guest. I still think it has too little WP:WEIGHT. Why are you so keen to stick this stuff in when most of it is already said in much better citations in the previous sentences? Putting in those just degrades the level of the article as they aren't up to what's used elsewhere. I'm sure it is possible for people to find all sorts of stuff related to climate change denial if they do the sort of thing you've done but including it all would just make a mess. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The transcript at archive.org appears to be machine generated by archive.org from the audio; the ProQuest transcript is more clear but behind a paywall. Your local library or Wikipedia WP:The Wikipedia Library/Databases may be able to help you get access to online databases. Before the recent updates, this article covered Frank Lutz's personal journey on climate change denial, and conspicuously had little to say about the Republican Party itself. The recent updates improve the article by summarizing recent reliable sources regarding the noteworthy role of the Republican Party in climate change denial. ECarlisle (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So far I have no opinion on the content at issue (haven't looked at it yet). Just FYI-ing that policy already says offline WP:Reliable sources are just as good as online ones. See Verifiability. Whether text they support improves an articles is an entirely separate issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already agreed that if the two sources are verifiable they are probably reliable sources, and I have already said I have checked the first source and it is verifiable. You can try yourself to put in a url or some other information sufficient for finding the second source easily even if behind a paywall as they don't seem able to. My main problem with it now as I have said above is WP:WEIGHT in that everything of interest is already said in the previous sentences and if this sort of effort is needed to ferret this stuff out and the sources are so weak why the heck do they want it in? I am quickly losing good faith and suspect they may be working for the Center for American Progress' Action Fund to push their name as I can see no other good reason for the inclusion. So what if some think tank in Washington with $45 million funding that supports the Democrats produces a report saying their opponents are climate change deniers? That wasn't a Mori poll or some academic study. The newspapers in general didn't note it even though they have said quite a bit about climate change denial and don't normally miss an opportunity to knock some politicians. Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think that then please follow the procedure required and described at WP:ARBCC, not here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I accept the sources you gave below but thinking about it I agree I should do that anyway. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done my own checks and I'm pretty confident there is most probably no conflict of interest. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Weight of surveys by CFAP
As I understand it, the only current objections to the disputed text are based on weight. The think tank in question probably does congressional surveys on a regular basis, so one thing to bear in mind is chronology. As we look at sources, which specific survey is being discussed? That said, I was curious if survey results from this outfit are really as underreported as alleged? A quickie google search unrestricted to date popped up a couple more mainstream WP:Secondary sources right away, so with that I stopped looking. In my opinion the objections so far amount to handwaving based on personal editorial opinion. It would be more effective to find something that describes the survey's methodology.
 * Dec 2014, Scientific America
 * April 2016 USA Today (via Desert Sun)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The CAP Action methodology is described in this cite, see the "Methods" section:




 * CAP Action relies on public statements (it is a "survey" in the sense that it is comprehensive, but it is not a survey in the sense of sending out questionnaires and compiling answers). Additions to this article of CAP Action's explicit definition of "climate change denier" and a summary of CAP Action's methodology were reverted.


 * More information on reporting on the CAP Action Congressional climate change denier studies WP:USEBYOTHERS may be found at Center for American Progress. ECarlisle (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The two citations provided by NewsAndEventsGuy look okay to me and in addition can be used to justify a reference to CAP as a primary source - in fact I think they should be explicitly named as the origin. That can be done irrespective to how good CAP's methods are but I must admit looking at what CAP say above I think their classification is very biased and I wish the reporters had enquired more deeply. These sort of citations and preferably better are what is needed in Wikipedia, not continuous edit warring. I am sorry I was unable to find those when I searched but it is the onus of the person sticking in stuff to find good sources and you didn't - you just edit warred. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weary sigh I know I've been away but I doubt you've forgotten WP:FOC.  All this "you this" and "you that" is toxic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right in that I should not get annoyed just because someone on the web is wrong. I feel the principles in WP:5P are just being treated as an obstacle. If I had been able to get someone to help out with the dispute earlier at WP:ORN where I went first that would have been good.  WP:BRD is what should really be followed to deal with something like this but I was unable to get anything at all resembling that. An admin at ANI would have just dismissed it as a content dispute, and I know what a pain and a useless waste of time Wikipedia's formal content resolution processes tend to be. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

public sector section
Lately an awful lot of political material has been added to the economics section we have labeled public sector. That phrase seems to mean something other than the ideological perspectives of various political parties. I haven't studied the material itself, or its sources. Just saying this political material seems to have been added at a not-so-appropriate subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)  PS and for all I know, there was already political material in that section. Someone may want to take a fresh look at overall organization. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Until recently 4 September 2017, the lead paragraph of the "Public sector" subsection was dedicated exclusively to Frank Lutz's personal journey on climate change, conspicuously ignoring the highly noteworthy relationship of the wider Republican Party in the US to climate change denial. The paragraph has been update on more recent noteworthy developments. Support the content as noteworthy, relevant, and well-referenced; agree the section headings and organization are less than ideal. ECarlisle (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a separate section on the political impact on politicians is called for okay. I feel the current stuff is highly repetitive and a bit slanted - things like PollitiFact's saying in its conclusion "A reason for caution, however, is comments from someone like Yarnold — who suggest GOP members of Congress acknowledge climate change science behind closed doors but avoid the talk in public for political reasons" is ignored - that is also reflected in for instance this history . A section going into all this and showing a bit of the history might make for a better article on how denial works rather than just filling that section with more of the polemic sort of stuff that's there. So I think there may be room for expansion in another section but covering the area better rather than more in the same vein as is there currently. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Another approach might be to overhaul Politics of global warming and after accomplishing that herculean feat return here, even better prepared to write a pithy summary with pointer to that article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that other article is a better place and that this article should reference it and have some summary of the denial aspect. It isn't an article on my watchlist but I could put a note on the talk page pointing here. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put an invite to here at Talk:Politics of global warming. Dmcq (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017
Please change the title of the article from "climate change denial" to "climate change skepticism". The current title is a pejorative, and is usually the label given to climate change skeptics by those who are in favor of climate change policy. It is not the title which the climate change skeptics themselves accept. Actuarialninja (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please propose this per the instructions at requested moves. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the terminology section of the article. The word denial is preferably used in scholarly sources. Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also read this talk's FAQ: Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Climate Change is not only about politics and policies (although these are inevitable to face the issue), it actually occurs and there is overwhelming evidence that human activities are a factor. This being the scientific consensus, we can state this in Wikipedia's voice and also call denial of that evidence denial (as many reliable sources do).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then what should we call the many who agree that human activities have some contribution to changes in the climate, but state uncertainty to how much can be attributed to man, or that climate policy is not a high priority issue among other priorities, or that climate legislation will not cause a significant change in the climate, or those who point to the discrepancy between climate models and temperature datasets etc. Unfortunately, many such people are also labeled "climate deniers" (indeed, the "Terminology" section of the article states that those who disagree on the extent or significance of anthropogenic warming are labeled as "deniers") despite having their findings published in esteemed scientific journals. Using the term "climate change skepticism" would provide a title that uses a term that the skeptics accept, and provides more neutral point of view, as the current title is pejorative. Actuarialninja (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the world is not only about extremes. Those who have the credentials and really question specific aspects of the science are scientists that are usually not questioning anthropogenic climate change (and do not call themselves climate change skeptics).  There is a lot to learn on the relationship between specific climate events and climate change, when various tipping points become critical, for instance, and the climate models are being constantly revised.  Those who understand that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, but work on policies and criticize them are not necessarily denialists (the economic and political aspects are complex and debates are normal).  Someone who knows that it is happening but who decides to ignore it or not do anything about it (and perhaps fight every effort) could possibly be called a denialist (living in denial, there could be involved factors like apocalyptic beliefs, cynicism, egoism, etc)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * While personal opinions can be briefly noted, WP:NOTAFORUM – published reliable sources are needed for discussion. See Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE which states "terms are intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature", and provides links to useful sources. In particular, Global warming: How skepticism became denial, a 2011 paper by historian Spencer Weart. See also the open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.. dave souza, talk 05:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The request to change the title was denied and rightly so. Adding forum type nitpicking and straw man type arguments with no solid evidence or citations to show why the title should be changed is not helpful. Agree WP:NOTAFORUM applies. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017
Mansnothotabc (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC) “we are basically throwing away money by not addressing the issue”(Rachel becke and angela chen 2017)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
housekeeping, per WP:TPG no one owns section headings and all headings must be neutrally stated NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

generally
None - NOT ONE - of the arguments presented by skeptics, many of whom are in fact scientists and specifically climate scientists has been presented in this article, which I would unabashedly describe as a complete disgrace to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. As it stands, I am ashamed of the donation I made this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.240 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what change to the article are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you so incensed that Wikipedia follows what the climate scientists say rather than a bunch of internet bloggers? You might believe Wikipedia is wrong in this instance but Wikipedia's policy of following reliable published sources is why it is considered generally reliable and probably why you donated to it. Following internet bloggers would turn it into a waste of time like those sponsored ads at the bottom of webpages saying "You won't believe what she look like now" or "This woman in your area makes $10,000 every day with one hours work" . Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating that Wikipedia doesn't do alternative facts, but that's just the way things go sometimes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sceptical about the claim that "None - NOT ONE - of the arguments presented by skeptics... has been presented in this article", not least because it quotes the argument presented by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry that "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics". Perhaps you meant that the arguments presented by fake skeptics aren't give enough recognition for your taste? . dave souza, talk 19:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad we finally beat out Intelligent Design! It's been an uphill battle gaining disrespect from the most trolls.  Today, most biased on Wikipedia, tomorrow the world!  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article Global warming controversy may be what you are looking for. It discusses the various possibilities people have thought of and tests for the causes of global warming. If some scientist was somehow able to show we didn't have a problem they would get very famous and it would solve a lot of worry. However unfortunately the clear evidence is that global warming is a big problem. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "If some scientist was somehow able to show we didn't have a problem they would get very famous and it would solve a lot of worry."
 * Last time I checked, IPCC stated that we DON'T have a problem, actually we benefit from global warming until we reach at least +2°. Then problems start... but this won't happen till mid century, a generation away, and since it is very hard to have evidence about a yet to happen event, your claim is simply wrong: no scientist would get famous just for proving what is already in IPCC reports, and he won't save you any worry (you would worry just as much, just it would be about so other issue --there is no lack of them, actual and right now-- ; that' the way human brain works).
 * Gem fr (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that is your mistake: you seem to think that it is a problem of the next generation and not our problem, because you will be dead when it happens. Well, other people are younger than you, and still others care about their offspring, or humanity in general, or both. And now is the time when we can still stop it. You see, not everybody is a sociopath. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As in it's not the falling that kills you, it's the sudden stop. ;-) Amazing that a person would bother spending their time saying in effect forget about the sudden stop at the bottom. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Gem_fr, who said "IPCC stated that we DON'T have a problem, actually we benefit from global warming until we reach at least +2°" Obviously, you haven't checked very recently. See IPCC AR5 WG2 Summary for Policymakers.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess is the originator of this discussion is concerned about the word 'denial'.. If this wasn't an encyclopaedia where we had to follow the best sources I would probably say 'skeptics' just so as to get to base zero. But Wikipedia in WP:NOT is quit explicit that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion no matter haw laudable the aim, we are not here to push the message about global warming. We're here simply to put the facts as in the best sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is the originator is just simply right. This article is not about climate change denial (CCD), the real thing, it is about what's wrong about CCD. It DEFINES climate change denial as being wrong, first line: "It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted [my emphasis] doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans." so then, what about WARRANTED doubt? what about eminent scientist who do not agree with the scientific consensus? What about the numerous plain wrong error that climate scientist did, and had to retract? Well, let's not speak about that, let' put all the light on the nutty deniers and ignore the reasonable one and their reason to be so... Pretty much as if you described evolutionism talking only about people believing men are descendant from apes, and explaining this is wrong, so evolutionism is wrong. Such is the POV of this article. A big, massive, straw-man argument. A shame. Gem fr (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Errm, this article is about denial. If denial didn't actually happen, it could still be about the concept, but would be empty. But, it isn't empty, because denial does happen. For warranted doubt, see the global warming article, and for somewhat less warranted "doubt" see global warming controversy. As to the numerous wrong stuff: I think you're trolling, but feel free to cite examples if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * QED. You want this article to exclude warranted doubts. So, just as I said, it's not an article about denial, it is a article about wrong denial, with the purpose to make equal denial and wrong. Thanks for the public admission.
 * Obviously, in a proper CCD article you would find warranted doubts since they are the more solid part of denial (while unwarranted doubt and plain wrong beliefs would be the brittle part of the support).
 * Now may we proceed to recycling, that is, include all the legit reasons to be in "denial"? Rethorical question.
 * You write "feel free to cite examples" and strangely (or not...) I read "I will not permit you", and for a reason: climate change science is not so special as to allow for no mistakes, and you very well know the one fueling denial, but you deny and suppress any mention here, don't you? Gem fr (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not able to work out what you mean exactly but you seem to be surprised about what denial means in 'climate change denial'. See denial for a description of the phenomenon. It refers here to that type of denial, not to the sort of thing where for instance an innocent man denies he committed a crime. Such a person would not be in denial, he simply denies doing something. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true."
 * this definition doesn't imply that the denied statement is indeed true so denial is wrong. It apply just as well to those denying the official truth or those denying a conspiracy theory.
 * So thanks for backing my point. Gem fr (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you do not have any examples. You want us to write about a hypothetical climate change skepticism that could theoretically exist and that would, if it existed, have real reasons instead of the lies and distortions the deniers have. Should we put it in Category:Fantasy? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * global warming controversy is full of example. I am absolutly not "want us to write about a hypothetical climate change skepticism that could theoretically exist". Just the real thing, not your fantasy world where deniers only have "lies and distortions" to back their view
 * If "global warming controversy" were indeed "full of example", meaning examples of warranted doubt, you would be able to name one. You are not, because you are bluffing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gem_Fr, we follow the reliable sources, in which "wrong denial" is not a concept. Where doubts are warranted, that is part of the scientific endeavor. Where doubts on already-established principles are un-warranted, that's denial.  Which kind we are dealing with is determined by appropriate WP:WEIGHT given to WP:Reliable sources.  To illustrate, the person who solves a maxed out credit card by applying for another and then another is in denial.  The person who asks if their maxed out credit card suggests they should see a financial counselor (or shrink) is dealing with reality.  That's the difference between this article and the others such as Attribution of climate change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are basically saying that, in "climate change denial", denial doesn't mean just "this is not true", but means abnegation (according our denial article), that is some psychological defense mechanism meant to escape a reality you refuse to cope with.
 * This is for sure a believer point of view, which is exactly my point. You wrote a believer POV article.
 * Obviously no denier calling himself a denier means denial in such meaning, and instead think he has solid reason to deny, so your interpretation would require a very heavy rewriting to distinguish these different meaning depending on who use the word. Very complicated and totally useless, since all we have to do is to stick to ordinary meaning of "denial", namely : this is not true.
 * the difference between this article and an other such as Attribution of climate change is that the latter is about the reality, while the former is about people's idea, and even people's idea about other people's ideas. Much harder, and requiring much more care. The difference is not that Attribution of climate change is about solid ideas and denial is only about crackpotry, as you claim. There is both crackpottery and solid point backing denial, and both belong in this article.
 * Which remind me of another point(see below)
 * Gem fr (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Article defines "climate change denial" as "involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change",
 * Obviously, such definition would applies just as well to people making over-stretched assertions not backed by science. But there is just ZERO mention of them in the article, and for a reason: nobody I know of (correct me if wrong) speaks of them as "climate change deniers". Only people saying "this is not as bad as IPCC say" are called climate change deniers, while people making "it is worse than IPCC told" get a free pass; whether people back their claims with science or not is actually irrelevant to be called a denier.
 * So the definition is obviously wrong. The fact that, indeed, there are sources for this doesn't make it a better definition. It just prove that those sources claim to have science on their side and not the opposite side. That is, it proves those source are politically biased, unless of course they try as harder to fight doomsayers as they do against deniers, but I don't know of any.
 * The more I read the article, the more I find the only way to salvage it would be to put the biggest POV warning ever on wikipedia. Unfortunately, my experience of wikipedia tells me the article wouldn't be such mess if activists writers would allow it. I didn't check the history, but I bet some reasonable contributor already tried, and got bullied out for trying.
 * I don't know how to deal with the issue.
 * Gem fr (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are missing what Wikipedia is about and what neutrality in Wikipedia means. Wikipedia is about forming an encyclopaedia by summarizing what is written about notable topics in reliable sources. Neutrality is about using due weight in accordance with the sources. Neutrality in Wikipedia is not about ignoring reliable sources and giving everyone an equal share of the time like in some TV debate show. An NPOV tag would be inappropriate for this article because it follows Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It is not up to Wikipedia's editors to put their own views forward instead of following the sources. If you want to change the article the minimum requirement for countering what the sources here say is that you provide sources that back up what you say. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the meaning of denial. You say ''You want this article to exclude warranted doubts. So, just as I said, it's not an article about denial, it is a article about wrong denial, with the purpose to make equal denial and wrong''. To which the reply is: Having said that, I'm now doubtful that "contrarian" belongs within the definition. One can be contrarian without being a denialist. Shall we just take it out? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) exclude warranted doubts: yes: this article does exclude warranted doubt. Because warranted doubt is not denial.
 * 2) a[n] article about wrong denial: yes, in that by definition denial is wrong. As the article says, It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change.
 * 3) with the purpose to make equal denial and wrong: not the purpose, the definition.
 * If you look at contrarian then they certainly fit here, but I don't suppose the article would lose anyything by omitting the wrd if people have problems with it. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed it. There are three RSs for that sentence. The word does not appear in two of them.  It does appear in the third, which is a full book.  Near as I could tell at quick pass the word is used as a casual adjective rather than a punchy definite definition.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to hat this forum discussion
Gem_fr has said "I don't know how to deal with the issue". First, and last, you read WP:Reliable sources and discuss possible article improvements based on those things. Instead, you're talking about POV behaviors based not on RSs but your own opinions. In addition, you have demonstrated a determination to not talk about RSs, for example in this comment (claiming you checked RSs for what IPCC said), and your silence regarding my reply (providing a link to IPCC AR5 WG2 SPM which says the opposite of what you claim they say). Since we're not engaged in talking about article improvements based on appropriate WP:WEIGHT given to WP:Reliable sources, I view this conversation as a WP:DISRUPT issue, and I propose we hat it as RS-free WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. I think everyone involved is on notice that DS under WP:ARBCC applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need a confetti of WP: links thrown at us thanks. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, but what do you think of the substance of my proposal? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean your proposal to hat this discussion as a RS free forum discussion? I've no objection. In my reply above I said the minimum requirement was to provide a reliable source supporting what they said and it has gone on for a while without any. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes (hatting is the only proposal I have made in this thread).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Treatment of geoengineering

 * Comment I have looked over this discussion, as I also wanted to start one on the neutrality if this article, as it is relatively questionable in several locations. In particular, it would probably be best if it was worked on in such a way that it wasn't as built around the idea that not supporting a specific ideological view was equal to climate change denial. I'm not trying to establish a level field of debate here; the climate is changing, and it's caused by humans, that's a fact. However, what I take issue with here is how the topic is approached; people of whom understand that it exists, but perhaps may support geoengineering, or an alternative policy to combat climate change are lumped in with those of whom simply deny that climate change exists. In this way, serious alternative methods of combating climate change, along with legitimate concern that perhaps methods suggested aren't the most efficient way to help humanity cope with this change are silenced or grouped with supporters of pseudoscience. Perhaps a rewording of a few sections of the article would be best, to create a less combative tone towards that group.SuperChris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you some source that does something like what you'd like? Geoengineering is mentioned in a couple of notes even though it is not mentioned in the main article. When someone investigates geoengineering that is fine, many greens don't like the idea and it is a fragile and dangerous way of doing things but it looks like it may have to be done anyway. We don't know of a cheap enough and safe and long lasting way yet. However when a denier invokes geoengineering what happens is they talk about science will cure all our problems like in some cargo cult and they use it as a way to say people should not worry about what they are doing now. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * not supporting a specific ideological view was equal to climate change denial - that's clearly not true. People that ignore GW entirely are not regarded as denialists. As we've said, people are regarded as denying GW if they, errm, deny it: "unwarranted doubt" is one of the ways. With the key there being "unwarranted"; doubt alone is not enough. support geoengineering, or an alternative policy - is that true? Anyone who supports GW, to deal with the problem of GW, is by (my) definition not a denier: because they recognise the problem. Could you quote the article text that supports your assertion? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since geoengineering is the only specific nuance mentioned by SuperChris, I have given this section a geoengineering sub heading. SuperChris, please do not make vague waves about possible issues.  We need specifics and WP:Reliable sources supporting suggested changes, or you're just adding to the general WP:FORUM discussion above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018
Factual error - lack of source Under Section: Arguments and positions on global warming

Proposition: please change X to Y. Current Statement (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures.” [no citation]

Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 9 days) compared that of CO2 (five to hundreds of years) suggesting that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures .”

Additional reasoning: Aside from discrepancies with data, the original statement may give readers the impression that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is at least greater than 100 years, which could cause confusion with scientific data regarding carbon deposition and ocean acidification. The original statement could suggest that current CO2 deposition and ocean acidification arises from pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 alone, which evidence suggests otherwise.

2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a long PRIMARY source, does it mention water vapor someplace? I didn't notice it on a quick read through. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The specific cite above () doesn't even mention water (bar a reference to seawater). Not the cite you are looking for? I'd be surprised if the IPCC don't have something about that somewhere. --P LUMBAGO 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * CO2 lifetimes are complex; but the effective lifetime certainly is greater than 100 years, as the text says, and our anon objects to. See e.g. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Something giving the current effective lifetime would certainly be better. I am a bit concerned by the posters idea that gases stay in the atmosphere for the duration of the lifetime and only then start being absorbed int the sea for instance. Is this a common type of misconception? Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018
In reference to previous edit (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing .”

Source added in updated page is sufficient. My apologies, as the water vapor value in the last edit request was not found in the source page I linked - valid points raised by editors - this edit is to address the CO2 residence time listed.

Suggested Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (decades to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing .”

NOTE: The updated source provided suggests CO2 residence times of decades to centuries.

Updated Source 111 - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

The linked Wikipedia Page: Greenhouses Gases - suggests decades to thousands of years - “Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[32] The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[33] This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[34] Although more than half of the CO2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[35] [36] [37] “

The IPCC report (listed in the previous edit) provides a range of 5 to 200 years for anthropogenically sourced CO2

NOTE: I declare no ideological motivations to these edits. I am a scientist/communicator and a woman listed this discrepancy on Wikipedia as evidence of Wikipedia being unreliable. I merely hope to contribute to continued improvement of a very useful site. 2601:18A:C681:69F1:B8A4:9745:11F0:DDCC (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that what you want to put in is both too detailed and not accurate enough for an article about climate change denial. We should I think be putting figures for the half life of the increase in CO2 rather than some figure which talks about it disappearing into the sea and other CO2 coming out and anyway the sea might get overloaded etc etc. We are not concerned about the fate of individual molecules - that is the concern of modelers. We are interested in the overall effect in this article. Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking again it is a bit difficult as half life implies an exponential decay and that is not at all what happens with CO2. Perhaps we need a Wikipedia page on this particular business, or is there one already? Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. There is a page relating to this matter, entitled “Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Atmosphere.” I merely wish to change the information in the parentheses from (hundreds to thousands of years) to (decades to thousands of years). An appropriate page is already linked to the page and together with the current source just listed yesterday, I believe these are sufficient for those who seek further clarification on both water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. The suggested edit simply corrects a discrepancy with other Wikipedia pages (e.g. Greenhouse Gases) and linked sources. 130.132.173.41 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a page for going into the science, so perhaps it would be best to simply delete the years and state the actual consensus which is that CO2 has a much longer term effect. At the rate this is going you'll have people sticking in more irrelevant things like the effects of other gases. Well they are relevant but do we really need all that here? Dmcq (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The real problem as I see it is that yes you have a person complaining about one set of figures and pointing to a place that says another, but really the figures only have a meaning in the context of quite a bit of explanation, they refer to different things and don't really mean anything easily understandable without a good feeling for how change works as in a differential equation. It is a problem but just sticking in different figures is not a real solution. So I think a general result is better with a link to Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for more. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact I see that article even does not go into it in any detail, so it definitely doesn't belong here. Dmcq (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd agree - the topic of CO2 residence time isn't a simple one, and a single figure (or even a range) isn't especially helpful. While it is a primary research source, so perhaps not wholly useful here, this article (which I believe is freely available) might help: Archer, D. (2005), Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time, J. Geophys. Res., 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.
 * A few pertinent quotes from it are:
 * "For the best guess cases, ..., we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr."
 * "In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon."
 * "A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’"
 * Hope this is helpful, --P LUMBAGO 08:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The lack of a good lifetime for CO2 is a problem. Ideally, we'd just delete the number. But then we'd be left with "much longer for CO2" which is somewhat unsatisfactory, or so it seemed to me. On reflection, no-one is going to use this page as a source for the CO2 lifetime, and "hundreds" is both vague and fairly true, so I tried just deleting "thousands" to see if that looked OK William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Copied from tabacco lobbyists?
This page states "This approach to downplay the significance of climate change were copied from tobacco lobbyists" and it does this without citing a source. Is there a basis for this claim? I know what the tobacco lobbyists did, and I know that some people have said they are similar (in that they are both trying to lie to the public), but this claim that they copied their approach from the tobacco lobbyists claims quite a bit more than that. I am wondering if there is a source for this claim or it should be removed. -Obsidi (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Same people, same organisations: Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, The Heartland Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs...
 * Merchants of Doubt is the usual source for that connection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As above, this is all documented in painstaking detail by Oreskes. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Denial Networks
The denial networks section is more about public responses to climate change, and not on the various networks supporting climate change denial; there is discussion of these in the History section. I suggest most of the Denial Networks section can go to the section on Public Opinion Xcia0069 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The extent that Heartland Institute is a main part of the climate denial network is not acknowledged. There is one section currently on a free climate denial pamphlet they sent educators but for decades Heartland has provided most elected officials in the United States with free climate denial newsletters, pamphlets, books, and videos. Most of the annual campaigns to influence lawmakers have been larger than the 200,000 booklets sent for that science educator campaign. In addition, there are annual conferences and occasional media blitzes. Elemming (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018
please change "The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million."

to "While reports have suggested that the income of climate change counter-movement-organizations approaches roughly $900 million, this was debunked yielding an actual aggregate figure around roughly $90 million over the past decade." Strakajagr (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No. That is not a reliable source, Forbes contributor articles are blogs not subject to editorial control. The writer is the president of an organization he set up the Spark of Freedom Foundation which kind of implies to me he has an axe to grind. He is not a researcher or a reporter. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Did you read the article? The person with the "axe to grind" is disreputable original source. If you actually READ the Forbes article, you will note that this has NOTHING to do with science. The original article aggregates the money spent by conservative think tanks on global warming by allocating 100% of their annual funding to global warming. This is preposterous. Use your brain. The Forbes article simply decomposes think tank spending. The fact that you won't publish this is really solidifies the argument that the left absolutely suppresses intelligent arguments that do not align with their thinking. It's pretty absurd, but great proof. How exactly you have been granted this kind of authority on a site composed by and meant for the general public is beyond me.

You can tell your bosses you cost them a donation by me this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strakajagr (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am unable to figure out what your point is. The proposed change has been rejected primarily because the source article is not a WP:reliable source. What do you think is going wrong that you are annoyed about? You surely don't believe we should base articles on random blogs? Dmcq (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think can tell their own bosses that their comedy turn didn't work, then try to learn how to sign their posts. . . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of the denial
The article describes the climate change denial, but does not explain the root causes of this denial. I think that such an explanation is relevant and due. I added a short paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation. I suggest that other contributors will add further explanations, based on psychology or social sciences. Lenmoly (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . The paragraph you have added does not contain any source. Remember that on Wikipedia, any addition needs to be verifiable (see V.) So I will remove the text for now. To re-add it, please make sure that you cite a reliable source that specifically ties Marxism to climate change denial. --McSly (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a reliable source that underpins the entire short paragraph, when combined with the well-known basic theses of Marxism.Lenmoly (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia is a reliable source? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! Never. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that the contents of Conservapedia are reliable. However, Conservapedia is a reliable source in the present context in the sense that it is a mouthpiece of the capitalist class.Lenmoly (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I replaced Conservapedia with Forbes, a much more solid source. The role of the source is only to establish the fact that the capitalist class views the issue of global warming as a socialist conspiracy. When combined with the well-known theses of Marxism the version of the short paragraph I added now is well established and complies with Wikipedia's rules. The paragraph is of relevance and interest because it addresses the question of what causes the denial. Other explanations, apart of the Marxist one, are of interest too.Lenmoly (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , you don't seem to understand how sourcing works. Conservapedia is never a reliable source, and no, your paragraph does not comply with Wikipedia's rules. It doesn't like the Forbes source supports any of the text in the paragraph. In the future, I suggest that you propose any text change to the article on this talk page first and only make the change AFTER you have reached consensus. Thank you. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, this is not an explanation of denial: it is a crazy right-wing exposition of a crazy left-wing attempt at explanation.
 * Climate change is a market failure, and market fundamentalists do not believe in market failures. Further explanation not needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes, a ghastly website littered with pop-ups and attempts to use the disk space of visitors, merely regurgitates James Delingpole, who's famously said that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but to be "an interpreter of interpretations." . . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a good article on Wikipedia about the phenomenon. Michael Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things basically covers this sort of stuff though he doesn't explicitly deal with climate change denial. However one would also really need some more properly done studies with surveys to base such an article on. Elesvier have a tome on the subject of 'Psychology and Climate Change'. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience has something along these lines. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

you tell me that "you don't seem to understand how sourcing works." So may I ask - is there any sourcing scheme that may open the door to adding a brief paragraph about the Marxist explanation of the phenomenon of climate change denial? If such a scheme exists, please guide me. However, I have a feeling that the door is being shut in front of my face when try to add a small piece of writing that does bring some added value to this article. I also think that citing other explanations of the denial phenomenon, e. g. according to the suggestion by Dmcq above, which mentions an Elesvier tome on the subject of Psychology and Climate Change, would bring added value to the article as well. Lenmoly (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is better to start from the outside and go into topics rather than present one thing without knowing its weight. Do we know whether this Marxist idea has got weight compared to any other explanation? After all there are lots of other ideas that are around like for instance God has created the best possible world and would not let it be ruined so easily, SUV's are wonderful are you asking me to give up driving one?, I don't like being controlled they should let me do as I like, look at the wide open spaces, this is bullshit - tons and tons of reasons. Wikipedia articles should present things with due weight so we should rally find out what the weight is first from some summary article rather than jump on some article that takes our fancy. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at the Forbes article. As well as being based on James Delingpole the Forbes contributor is a founder of something he calls the 'Community of Liberty'. Basically someone with an axe to grind. I definitely would prefer a proper reporter to give context if we can't get something based on an actual study. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, that's not Forbes per se, but basically a blog platform hosted by Forbes. Nothing should be attributed to Forbes, they don't have any editorial oversight.  Material from forbes.com/sites/* is basically self-published.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But the 'Community of Liberty' (as in taking a liberty?) – that sounds as though it's got nearly as much scientific credence as the Global Warming Policy Foundation – oh, weight a minute .... dave souza, talk 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You raised the following question: "Do we know whether this Marxist idea has got weight compared to any other explanation?" I have suggested to include the Marxist explanation (properly supported by sources that show that this explanation indeed follows directly from the theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, under the prevailing circumstances) alongside other explanations. I propose to include all available interesting explanations that address the question of why the phenomenon of global warming denial persists so fervently. Lenmoly (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we even know it actually is a Marxist idea? As far as we know, some denialist crackpots derived it from their own understanding of Marxism. Is there any really reliable source on this? You know, a source where the writing does not leak hate of mainstream science and knowledge in every sentence? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The common premise here is that mainstream science is valid. We are speaking about the need for explaining the root and cause of the denial of mainstream science. Lenmoly (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The "root and cause"? There are two basic ones: Ignorance and Greed. The greed part is tied to economy, which of course can be explained by Capitalism. Now find multiple RS which make that point. It will be easier to find those which explain it as corporate greed by big polluters, than find those mentioning Marxism. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like some reliable source that talks about causes, not peoples own WP:Original research. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried to add a brief paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation for the phenomenon of widespread and fervent denial of global warming. My paragraph was removed, and no guidance was offered as to how to improve the paragraph so it would fit within the framework of of Wikipedia's rules. I claimed that the Marxist explanation, as well as any other non-simplistic explanation for the said phenomenon, would bring added value to the article. This claim of mine remained unanswered. Lenmoly (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you could summarize what you think people said to you the problem in communication could be found. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I ask your permission to add the following sentence to the article: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle." Lenmoly (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source such as an academic review article and you properly attribute the statement by prefacing it with "According to (whomever)...", then go ahead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that would be okay. It would also encourage others to get a survey or other opinions or a proper study. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle" consists of two parts. The first part says as follows: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle". This statement is founded upon the article itself: The article says that "the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate." The article also says that "Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions". The article also says that "the scientific community had reached a broad consensus that the climate was warming, human activity was very likely the primary cause, and there would be significant consequences if the warming trend was not curbed". Hence, the first part of the proposed sentence is supported by the article itself. Consider now the second part, whose wording is "reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle". To establish this second part I have to cite reliable sources that substantiate the assertion that the Marxist notion of class struggle pertains to a major and crucial social struggle. Such sources are found within Wikipedia itself. The cited article about class conflict says that "The view that the class struggle provides the lever for radical social change for the majority is central to the work of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin." Thus, the proposed sentence is well founded upon reliable sources. Lenmoly (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you got a reliable source and have you prefaced what you want to put in with "According to (whomever)..."? Dmcq (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As to 'class struggle' have a look at Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. According to that your average citizen has near zero power. There ain't no class struggle. The main power is with rich people and organized interest groups. That paper is a good illustration that one needs to be very careful about assigning reasons to things in politics - careful study is needed. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Dmcq, thank you for the interesting article by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. I removed the Marxist part from my proposed sentence. I retained only the first part and propped it up on the preceding text. The sentence now reads as follows: "It follows from the description above that the struggle between those who claim that anthropogenic global warming is taking place (with a high probability) and those who dismiss this claim is one of the major and crucial social struggles of the present era." I inserted this version into the article. Lenmoly (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia we can't say "it follows from the description above" for two reasons, namely the prohibition on synthesizing concepts to make an argument and the prohibition on drawing our own conclusions. As has been mentioned several times before you need a reliable, published source for your statement. For what it's worth I largely agree with the statement as you wrote it. But that doesn't matter. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically what Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to say what they think. It is not a forum. It in an encyclopaedia and we need to write from a neutral point of view summarizing with due weight what reliable sources say. Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you say. Therefore I propose that instead of propping up my sentence (shortened version) on the preceding text I will cite the following source: "Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies", by Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, in Routlege Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Abingdon UK, Routledge 2010, edited by Constance Lever-Tracy, pages 240-259. Please let me have your response. Lenmoly (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfair portrayal of opposition.
This article, first and foremost, makes a fallacious appeal to authority. Eugenics was once scientific consensus, after all.

Secondly, it's not fair to address the controversy over climate change without mentioning the failed predictions of climate change proponents, such as James Hansen saying that famines would increase worldwide when the exact opposite occurred. Another example, of course, would be the fact that storms have not increased in severity or frequency, as per the geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Qrowbranwen4205 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The point of this page is to propose changes to the article based on WP:reliable sources. If you can try and get some reliable sources then perhaps somebody will take some notice but not otherwise. Proper scientist don't start looking for sources that support their point of view and ignoring anything else but I'm happy enough for people to do that here if they would just take the bother to read proper studies. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. And by the way genetics is a science, eugenics was a policy in applying it to humans. Dmcq (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I suggest it was high-handed of FlightTime to summarily delete the IP editor Ted Paulus' post here. Talk is just where that kind of stuff belongs. On the other hand, it wasn't likely to go anywhere. Despite the editor's assertion that he had "a formal higher level education in chemistry and engineering," there were some errors I would not expect from an engineer. I'm not sure what anthropomorphic  is, carbon dioxide that looks like a person?  I think he was searching for anthropogenic.
 * Nevertheless, Ted is right. The article does need an overhaul. The article is too long by fifty percent. The lede is too long -- by how much I'm not prepared to say. Denial networks needs to be placed closer to Lobbying.  The article has a few very biased assertions, one being that there is a climate change denial industry.  And aside from the lede, the whole article should be written to support its parent article  Global warming controversy.  Rhadow (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see you're trying to phrase things fairly but that is not enough. Content needs to be based on reliable sources. The reliable sources clearly indicate there is in effect a climate change denial industry. There are no reliable sources I know of saying otherwise. This may of course be some problem with missing sources which should exists, but nonetheless reliable sources are necessary if the tenor is to be changed. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the ip's comment and it did seem like a genuine suggestion about improvements rather than a forum rant. What they were talking about is covered under the science article Global warming. If you look at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming that is also organised along the lines they talk about. The arguments of those scientists have of course been investigated and the science article covers most of that. This article however is not about the science, it is about the denial, and that is basically denial and nothing to do with the science. Perhaps they want yet another article on arguments used by climate change deniers rather than looking at the science article? Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well then, Dmcq, we are in agreement. You and I don't disagree on the reliability of this article or its sourcing. We do disagree on the existence in effect of a climate change denial industry. It is already more accurately described as a "machine," but that is a small question. We don't disagree that the article could use substantial cleanup. You made the point yourself when you pointed to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. That could go into the lede. A good exposition should be short, describe what the subject is, what it isn't, and give a summary of the rest of the article. It should give a reader a thirty-second overview and tell him or her whether it is worth the time to read the rest of the article. The rest of the article suffers from the same problems as the IPCC reports, so long that the unconverted won't read them. Rhadow (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can go around labelling every scientist who disagrees as a denier! Also I do not see it as Wikipedia's job to preach to anyone. We're supposed to just document what's out there in this encyclopaedia in a reasonably easy to read manner. Dmcq (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In support of my argument that the lede needs to be rewritten, here is an example of begging the question (assuming the conclusion): "The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming (emphasis added)." Before you discuss the campaign, you have to establish that it exists. That's not a matter of NPOV, it's a matter of good expository writing. There are plenty of references to support it.
 * Dmcq, I don't get your assertion about labeling scientists. How does it relate to this article? Doesn't that discussion belong in another talk? Rhadow (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to be taking information out of context to identify "problems", which doesn't get us anywhere.
 * The lede introduces and summarizes. If the information in the lede isn't properly supported in the article as a whole, then there may be problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about proving things. It is about summarizing what is in reliable sources about notable topics with due weight. Many of them have been described as deniers but have we any sources saying they are any sort of major driver of climate change denial? They are just sought out by people intent on denial to bolster up their views, it really doesn't mater much what they say provided they can be seen as supporting denial in some way.. The basic fact is that a huge majority of scientists agree it is happening and there is a load of people who want to cover their ears and stop anyone acting on what the scientists say. The particular excuses have little bearing on the matter. The science article is to one to look at for the actual science not this one and it discusses most of the ideas in list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In short, what is the relevance of some scientists saying the sun is to blame and some others saying the cirrus clouds haven't been modeled properly and therefore the IPCC report should eb torn up to the bbasic topic of this article? That's just a macguffin like a device to turn water into fuel in a scifi film. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The lede should summarize the article in brief. Here is my suggestion by paragraph:
 * Pretty good
 * Light copy editing
 * Pretty good
 * Brutal editing. Remove examples. Mention taxonomy, pseudoscience, nationalism, and lobbying
 * Delete, roll into lobbying assertion above.
 * Our duty to the reader is to cover the breadth of the entire article, which itself needs editing and division. Given its length, the history section is a good candidate. Rhadow (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Race and climate denial - academic
new peer-reviewed research shows that there is a correlation between race and climate denial, "high levels of racial resentment are strongly correlated with reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2018.1457287?journalCode=fenp20. Might be good to work it in.


 * Salil D. Benegal (2018) The spillover of race and racial attitudes into public opinion about climate change, Environmental Politics, 27:4, 733-756, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1457287
 * Dunlap, R.E. and Jacques, P.J., 2013. Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 699–731. doi:10.1177/0002764213477096

Also someone above made the comment that "The article has a few very biased assertions, one being that there is a climate change denial industry", this claim has solid citations, for example:


 * Brulle, R.J., 2014. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122 (4), 681–694. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
 * Oreskes, N. and Conway, E.M., 2011. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing.
 * Skocpol, T. and Hertel-Fernandez, A., 2016. The Koch network and republican party extremism. Perspectives on Politics, 14 (3), 681–699. doi:10.1017/S1537592716001122

Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As to a relation between race and climate change denial, I don't doubt that there a statistically significant correlation, but the implication that one causes the other is unwarranted. I would need to read the whole text(s), but I posit there is a confounder.  There is a group of the population that is Christian, conservative, gun-toting, and not well educated.  These would all show a similar correlation with unconcern about the planet, I bet.  The fact that this group happens to be white is a confounder. It's an interesting observation, but not cause of climate change denial.
 * As to industry, the OED provides a secondary definition of the term as "a particular form or branch of economic or commercial activity." Sure people are making money off CCD, but to call "a handful of scientists" an industry strike me as hyperbole.  Jut my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's lors of well educated people who deny climate change, in fact I don't think there is a strong correlation that way. There is a correlation with being right-wing or religious though - and that may be more of an American thing rather than anything inherent in it. Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Solar cycles
The website at www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html presents much data and numerous charts including one of the temperature cycles for the previous 10,0000 years. It demonstrates that the Earth is completing a hot period and is about to dive into another cooling period. The ancient Romans and those in the Medieval period had a hotter climate than ours.

How will the world claw back the money spent to prevent global warming when the worlds cools again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.111.209 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for discussing opinions, it is a talk page about improving the article. To improve the article one first of all needs WP:Reliable sources. The topic is climate change denial so the source should have something about that. The article global warming discusses the topic of global warming. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not that it really matters, but the site www.lunarplanner.com promotes pseudoscience and for that is worthy of notice. It's not even really good pseudoscience. It  misspelled solar flare as flair. Ha. Rhadow (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Typical leftypedia biased article with an agenda
Tell us o supreme climate scientists, where is the 40 degrees by age 40 (40 by 40) you predicted twenty six years ago. I am over 40 now, and last I looked Sydney was not 40 degrees every day. What a massive fail climage change is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.34.201.158 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have been possible to make that accurate a prediction and I very much doubt anyone would say that it would be that even during Winter. But perhaps you should read the weather report for 2017 in Sydney where you'll see that there were temperatures of 40°C or more for up to 15 days in parts of Sydney, and higher in the surrounding area with a record of 47°C in Richmond. I don't believe there are political activists altering those records! Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * p.s. talk page is for discussing possible changes to articles, you didn't give a change you wanted . And sources for any information like for instance the weather report I cited are also very desirable. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Forum type argument unrelated to improving the article remove, see WP:NOTFORUM. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is biased. Nantucketnoon (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Science is neither liberal or conservative. You might as well say math is biased. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that the science is biased, the problem is how it's presented. For goodness' sake; at the top of the FAQ it says that the reason the article is titled 'Climate Change Denial' is because the skeptics are skeptical against mainstream science. Throughout the entire article it feels as if it's designed explicitly for insulting and demeaning anyone who doubts the totally totally undoubtably totally objective truth. There is no justification for this. 180.190.182.168 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * this article is biased? keen observation. the phrase itself, "climate change denier", is actually used as an attack on anyone who won't accept wholesale that catastrophe is upon us. the tactic is, show a few facts, such as temperatures going up, sea levels rising, droughts, and then paint a catastrophe story around it. so that if you disagree with the catastrophe story, they will say, "youre denying science". it's almost like a religious cult where you gotta believe it, otherwise you get excommunicated. its almost like some sort of strange "science worship", which should in and of itself be a wikipedia article. march for science is an example of it, it's cult behavior. PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli
There is a discussion at Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation about whether Ken Cuccinelli should be described as a climate science denier. You're invited to participate. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Cross-Reference
Right at the top of the article Global warming controversy, they have the following cross-reference:

''This article is about the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change. For denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus, see '' Climate change denial.

I think that this makes perfect sense. However, as nearly as I can tell, this article currently lacks any links at all to Global warming controversy, which is, technically a parent article. I propose that the following Cross-reference be added at the very top of this article:

''This article is about the denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on climate change. For the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change, see'' Global warming controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.110.193 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not certain what this was about. The very first sentence of this article is "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy." That was there before this discussion was started. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
I propose improving the article by moving toward a more nearly neutral point of view by replacing the current third paragraph in the article with the following paragraph. The current third paragraph in the article speaks of scientific opinion as if there is no controversy on the issue of climate change when in fact there most certainly is. Professor Richard Linzen for one does not agree with the radical views of the Greens.

Some scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change, Other scientific opinion such as that of Richard Lindzen on climate change is that it is based on computer models which are over simplified models of the real world and have not been verified as being correct. This skepticism is not a rhetorical device. It is based on what a good scientist should do. Be skeptical. Make sure that none of the variables being ignored in the mathematical model have a significant effect on the results Avoid the use of fudge factors. Has the model been simplified just because excessive simplification is the only way that results can be obtained? The politics of global warming have been helped by climate change scientists who have shown skepticism of over simplified mathematical models, thereby retaining some degree of capitalism and private property rights. Those who dare to criticize the climate change hysteria do not rely on rhetorical tactics but instead base their skepticism on an understanding of the limitations of models in predicting long term world climate. There is certainly a scientific controversy since internationally renowned speaker, scientist, and author, Dr. Jay Lehr, has spoken eloquently on the errors of the computer models and MIT Professor Richard Lindzen has debunked the climate change hyseria. James Delingpole, author of "Watermelons, The Green Movement's True Colors," has discussed Climategate — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs)


 * Gawd no. What a mess of WP:UNDUE violations and editorializing. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * VQuakr, What is it that qualifies you to disagree with MIT Professor Richard Lindzen. And what specifically do you disagree with.  RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You pinged me and threaded as if you were replying to me, but your questions have nothing to do with my objections which were: 1. WP:UNDUE violations, and 2. editorializing. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * VQuakr, the fact that you say, "1. WP:UNDUE violations, and 2. editorializing", without saying specifically what you are talking about is information that is of no value. RHB100 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Fortunately for Wikipedia, the job of satisfying you is neither mine nor any other editor's. I am, however, specifically talking about 100% of your proposed edit. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPOV or perhaps WP:NPOV tutorial about what Wikipedia means by neutral point of view. It is most certainly not that one drag up an equal number of people on either side irrespective of the science like some television program. Does Bigfoot exist? We have here an expert who has spend his life pursuing Bigfoot and a scientist who says he doesn't exist. That is not neutral point of view. Neutral point of view represents things proportionately to their support in reliable sources. And the best reliable sources are peer reviewed science sources. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Dmcq, I suggest that you see WP:NPOV or perhaps WP:NPOV tutorial to learn what Wikipedia means by neutral point of view. You people attempt to suppress the many good scientist who disagree with the radical environmentalist by pretending there is no scientific controversy. The opinion of Professor Richard Lindzen, James Delingpole, and Jay Lehr shows that there is. You have a biased point of view. I have an objective unbiased, neutral point of view RHB100 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry but Delingpole is to scientist what kumquat is to pogo-stick.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, as a licensed professional engineer, I would never use the unprofessional language you use above. The fact that you resort to such language tells me that Delingpole is a true professional who can't be criticized without resorting to unprofessional language.RHB100 (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @ RHB100, as a licensed professional engineer, you seem to think you're too important to RTFM. Wikipedia has core policies, you've already been directed to them. Your proposal fails to meet these policies, and also fails the guideline WP:TALK – we're not interested in your misguided personal opinion of Delingpole. . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Checkout the stuff RHB deletes from his talk page. This is all going nowhere... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

WELL IF ALL YOU AlL YOU Al Gore lovers who think man is a cancer upon the earth are so sure about climate alarmism, why do you want to suppress the evidence? If you think that the work of Richard Lindzen, Jay Lehr, and Delingpole is wrong, why are you afraid of letting people see it. You spew your propaganda that all scientists think the same thing and that there is no scientific controversy. Yet when I show that outstanding scientists disagree with your proaganda, you jump in and try to suppress that opinion. RHB100 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You display exactly what is wrong with climate change denialism: instead of engaging with your opponents' actual reasoning, you invent your own bad reasoning and weird ideas and attribute them to your opponents. Nobody here said anything about Mr. Gore or about cancer. Nobody said that "all scientists think the same thing". Probably by chance, one true statement slipped into your rant: there is indeed no scientific controversy. Otherwise, congratulations on getting everything else wrong. Your methods are familiar to everybody who is used to discussions with crackpots.
 * Lindzen is a climate scientist, his position is in an extreme minority within climate science, and his reasoning is not very compelling to people who know something about climate (which is the reason why he is still in an extreme minority within climate science). People who select him as a source, from all the possible climate scientists they could have selected as a source, always do so because they want to come to one specific conclusion and they have almost no other option except Lindzen if they want that conclusion.
 * From all possible sources on climate science, Delingpole is possibly the single most unreliable one. He is worse than Trump. In trying to find one adjective that characterizes him, I pondered on the word "deranged", but it seems to be a bit too weak. There is no way Wikipedia will quote him as a reliable source on anything but his own views.
 * This is not about suppressing opinions, this is about something an engineer should know: quality management. I will use an analogy an engineer should be able to understand: Using Delingpole as a source for climate science would be like using Sellotape instead of screws for attaching wheels to a car. Please accept that you are not the only person who has spent years on learning how to do one thing. The thing this is about, science, is not the thing you have learned how to do. We have. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, talks about the hysteria of global warming at Science defies politics. But of couse he represents a tiny minority viewpoint.  Therefore quality control requires that his views must be suppressed and kept off the Climate change denial article.  The Oregon Petition against climate alarmism has been signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts in the natural sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD holders, and all signatures have been verified.  But of course they probably do not meet quality control requirements. RHB100 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RHB100 you write "But of couse he represents a tiny minority viewpoint." Just where, in the whole history of science, has the majority lead the way? If you say that Giaever is in a minority then you say being in a minority is reason to ignore him.

In science it is always the dissenter who makes progress. Think of the resistence to Plate Tectonics; Heliocentic orbits and many many more!

Of course not all dissenters show a fruitful path, but very many do. ..

But are you secure enough in your knowledge to dismiss an idea because it is from a minority?--Damorbel (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "In science it is always the dissenter..." - even if that would be true, it would be useless. Most "dissenters" are simply wrong - see essentially every student who does not ace all of his or her exams. Per Carl Sagan: They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Truth in science is not determined by such simple and naive rules of thumb as "the minority is right" or "the majority is right", but by conscientious and careful consideration of the evidence. If you did that, you'd find that Giaever just repeated false rumors and empty phrases from the denial industry. He never did any research in climatology, and his opinion is as irrelevant as yours. Please leave science to those who know how to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is most of the media pro-climate change when the "climate denial industry" is so massive?
The article mentions that powerful lobby groups, big oil, industry etc. are investing heavy sums into lobbying for "climate denial". Yet, somehow, most of the mainstream media is firmly in the opposite camp. Can anyone explain this?

Media conglomerates are usually NEVER in the camp that opposes big corporate interests (see military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, big pharma...) You won't find much opposition to military intenvervention in American mainstream media for example (conservative and liberal alike, in fact, currently, the "liberal" media beats the war drums the most). Or pleas for shorter prison sentences.

So, why is there this disconnect regarding climate change between big business and the media? Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.78.216 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point to some source that says what you are saying? What papers or television broadcasters give you this impression? Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, most of the media are pro-climate change because the "climate denial industry" has succeeded in politicising thinking and undermining efforts to limit climate change based on the clear scientific evidence of global warming and its impacts. However, this is a WP:TALK page about properly sourced proposals for article improvement, WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

this article is complete garbage
The article should not be called "climate change denial", it should be called "climate change skepticism". you can point out that climate change skeptics are often called "deniers", but that's due to politically charged language. i'm a firm believer of evolution, and i think there is way more evidence for evolution than climate change - because climate change tries to predict the future, but evolution already happened - but even so, i would not want to call religious people who question it "evolution deniers". that would be a political, opinionated view of mine. they are evolution skeptics. it would not be "neutral" to call them that. so this page clearly needs to be renamed and rewritten. also, i dont care one slightest bit about what "reliable sources" AKA political news outlets call them. i dont get my standards from OPED pieces and neither should wikipedia. just because something appears on biased media is constantly reinforced does not legitimize it due to that reason alone. PumpkinGoo (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't care about reliable sources, this thread will just be a waste of time so we can just close it.--McSly (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, PumpkinGoo, your first objection is addressed in the third sentence of the article. If you care to propose to MOVE the article, that is a valid topic of discussion. As to the second point: climate change, by some measures, has already happened.  It's not just a  matter of prediction, it is a matter of past observation, like evolution.  Oh, and evolution is predicted to continue, too. Humans will become smarter, and as a species will have less sensitive hearing and sense of smell. As to your third point about a biased media, I fear for you.  The trend is not to believe in facts at all: government statistics first, then textbooks, then the dictionary. The press does its very best to record facts, retracting stories when required. This article is not based on OpEds.
 * Based on your contributions to date, solely on talk pages and centered on Climate change denial and Holocaust denial, I would judge that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but only to have a WP:SOAPBOX that would better suited to other Internet sites. Rhadow (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "climate change denial" is not a scientific theory, and no amount of your "sources" change the fact that it is political jargon intended to smear anyone who questions a scientific theory. so you found an article off biased news sites that call people "climate change denier" and therefore, it validates the phrase into something other than political jargon? give me a break. @Rhadow, im only on climate change denial because i raise the same issues with the language of "denial" in the first place. "denial" is political jargon. it's not science, and it should not be wikipedia material. it's your OPINION that they're "denying science" just like it's my opinion that half of religious people "deny evolution". it is my opinion, but it should not be a wikipedia article. PumpkinGoo (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that article should not exist, your next step is to go to WP:AFD to get it deleted. You can argue your case there and see how it goes.--McSly (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice attack on a very serious topic Mr: McSly. I thought that was clearly prohibited in the terms of use. The term Denier should be removed and only reference as a slight or derogatory term used by uninformed, indoctrinated or simply stupid people who cannot articulate their position on the failed hypothesis of 'global warming' your response is disgusting and condescending. I fear that wikipedia is indeed under represented by educated people and over represented by sad leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemaccutcheon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, good to know. --McSly (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)