Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 4

Proposal 1
We could change the sentence to read: "Newsweek and others in the media describe those that engage in climate change denial as denialists." That would arguably be more accurate, as the word denialist is being used more often than denialism. Those who are arguing that the exact word denialism isn't used in those sources should be pleased since the word denialist is being used. Those who are arguing that denialist implies denialism should be pleased because we're using a word that implies the word they want to include. I realize that no optimism is warranted in trying to make peace here, but can those who agree or disagree with this compromise please state where they fall and why?
 * 1) Agree &mdash; For the reasons I gave above. Ben Hocking (talk 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC) &mdash; I've changed my mind about this. We don't need this sentence at all. Ben Hocking (talk 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Disagree Although I appreciate this attempt at compromise, I think that despite the taxing objections made by OddNature, the result of the discussion leaves no doubt. Being feisty or scrappy does not make an argument any better. And above all, there is no reference to 'denialist' in the Newsweek piece anymore than there is to 'denialism'. As I said previously, I could agree to change the sentence so that it would talk about denial/deniers instead, but that would somewhat be a pleonasm. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The term 'denialism' is clearly used in Newsweek, The Truth About Denial: "Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."" Look again. Odd nature 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, where "clearly used in Newsweek" actually means "clearly used in a quote found in Newsweek" --Childhood&#39;s End 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Disagree The 15 references above are all extremely weak. I've just gone through them one by one - trying to get a feel. There are 3 Non-WP:RS's, 3 articles that are talking about Fred Smith (CEI) and his quote (which is objection to the use), 2 other articles object to the use, 3 articles are single-person/op-ed views, 3 articles mention the word but not in a way that comments on it, and a single one is a very strange usage of a source. I suggest that people take a look at these sources/references themselves - and do a similar calculation. None of my objections to the usage of denialism have been put to rest by this. --Kim D. Petersen 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking one example. Exactly how is Newsweek, The Truth About Denial: "Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."" "extremely weak"? Odd nature 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to bold face your comments - i can read. You are using the article to quote a single persons view. Its not the Newsweek article that you are relying on - its the opinion of Manik Roy. An opinion of a single person is extremely weak as a reference. --Kim D. Petersen 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that this opinion is "extremely weak as a reference". Since Manik Roy is the Director of Congressional Affairs of the Pew Center on Climate Change, Roy's opinion is significant and notable by necessity. Amazing. This viewpoint has long met Wikipedia's standards for verifiablity. What possible objection to mentioning it in the article could you have? Odd nature 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Had he been the leader of the world bank - it would have been just as weak a reference. It is a single persons view - that the person has credentials do not make it more than one person. --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Second choice Odd nature 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choiceFilll 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Inaccurate. As pointed out above, it's not Newsweek, but Manik Roy, quoted by Newweek, that holds the view. FeloniousMonk 04:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose &mdash; for the reasons I gave in proposal 3 below (including FeloniousMonk's point) Ben Hocking (talk 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose--I think the sentence should be deleted altogether. We've discussed denialism vs. denial repeatedly.  The sources do not support "denialism", and the use of "denial" makes the sentence pointless. Zoomwsu 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. A communist is one who believes in or engages in communism. A capitalist is one who believes in or engages in capitalism. A pragmatist is one who believes in or engages in pragmatism. An " _ist" is one who believes in or engages in a particular _ism. So, to me, this proposal makes no sense whatsover. It doesn't require Newsweek to tell us this, and we don't need to cite Newsweek to the reader as if it's Newsweek's point of view. ... Kenosis 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose: differentiating between "denialist" & "denialism" is slicing semantics way too finely. Hrafn42 03:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) oppose for reasons I and others have already gone into in detail. ornis ( t ) 06:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2
We have no shortage of sources from the media, politicians, scientists and consumer advocates now that see climate change denialism as a form of denialism. So I suggest: Using these supporting sources:
 * Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day
 * Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The Media
 * Newsweek, The Truth About Denial
 * The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth
 * Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort


 * 1) First choice. Odd nature 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice. Filll 17:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that the entire lead needs to be re-written, sooner or later, but this is the better choice, and is the sentiment that needs to be expressed.  Guettarda 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) support. ornis ( t ) 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I Support this language. ... Kenosis 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) My name is OrangeMarlin and I support this proposal Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. FeloniousMonk 04:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Raul654 04:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. --Plumbago 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: this states the matter without unnecessary ambiguity or semantic gymnastics. Hrafn42 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose "Media sources and others" only shows that it cannot be attributed to any notable and verifiable source, and is weasel-wording anyway. --Childhood&#39;s End 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose &mdash; for the reasons I gave in proposal 3 below Ben Hocking (talk 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose on the grounds of the critique of the references. Only one of the references actually support the sentence - and that one is a non-WP:RS. The sentence is implying something that isn't in any of the references. It may well be that the sentence is correct - but as it currently stands its WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 17:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rather curious as to why you consider the fin review to be a unreliable source, particularly given the nature of the statement proposed. ornis ( t ) 06:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--I think the sentence should be deleted altogether. We've discussed denialism vs. denial repeatedly.  The sources do not support "denialism", and the use of "denial" makes the sentence pointless. Zoomwsu 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ever so curious how statements like...
 * ...from an article article entitled "Climate denial has had its day", published in a major national newspaper could possibly be construed as not supporting the phrase: "Media sources and others have descibed it as a form of denialism". Very, very curious indeed. ornis ( t ) 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could use that reference to say "John Quiggin has described it as denialism". Its the viewpoint of JQ - not the viewpoint of "media sources or others". Why the views of JQ should be specifically interesting is something that eludes me. (but the funny thing here is that i quite agree with JQ on the viewpoint itself, but am sufficiently interested in encyclopaedic content, that i also know that discussion is about presenting things out of proportion and according to POV - something which i do disagree about.). --Kim D. Petersen 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, John Quiggin is a fellow Wikipedian, although y'all might have already known that. Ben Hocking (talk 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to confuse matters, I decided a little after writing this piece to switch to the term "delusionism" .JQ 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My observation is that there are eleven users who expressed support for this approach (Proposal 2) and four who oppose it on various grounds. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. Time to get it out of the way move on to other issues, no? ... Kenosis 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Such votes are not binding. Decisions must be taken on merit, not on the number of votes, and support for this proposal has no ground whatsoever except ILIKEIT. --Childhood&#39;s End 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my presonal experience with WP to date, the use of the words "not a vote" by a minority seeking to overtake a majority view is only exceeded in its predictability by Godwin's law. ... Kenosis 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ... There are no violations of policy in this contentious bit of minutia, and the consensus is clear. Time to move on to something else, hopefully something more productive. ... Kenosis 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree. Although I disagree with the majority, it really isn't that important of an issue. Could we at least spell "describe" right, though? It's been bothering me ever since this page was locked. Ben Hocking (talk 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to be picky (because I'm that kind of guy), it's actually at least 6 (7, if you include William) who oppose it. I base this on the votes for proposal 3 which is in direct conflict with proposal 2. Ben Hocking (talk 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Remove the sentence altogether. Although there are a couple who will argue about whether or not climate change denial is a form of denialism, many of us see that statement as a truism that has no place in the article &mdash; proposal 1 is inaccurate (as stated by many), and proposal 2 is also slightly inaccurate (I'm not sure exactly which media sources state it instead of just reporting that others have stated it) and vague ("others"?). In all, although many have argued why it's true, no one (that I can tell) has argued why it's helpful.
 * 1) Support &mdash; for the reasons I gave above. Ben Hocking (talk 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removing the sentence, but simply because there is no notable source to support that 'climate change denial' is a form of 'denialism', and moreover, because there is no notable source to define what is exactly 'denialism' as opposed to 'denial'. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. WP:NPOV calls for articles to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The abundance of sources here show the viewpoint to be a significant one and central to the topic. Simply ignoring a significant viewpoint is no solution. That this is even being proposed demonstates what I see as the bad faith and rejection of Wikipedia's policies of some the participants in this discussion. FeloniousMonk 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel I should defend myself from the bad faith comment. I merely added this proposal to make sure that no one thought it had to be (1) or (2) but could be "none of the above". As for "ignoring a significant viewpoint", I feel (as mentioned in the summary of this proposal) that this viewpoint is already quite well described in the article. (As you say it is "central to the topic".) I would prefer that no one get angry over this. It is simply a proposal, and I assure you that no bad faith is intended. Peace? Ben Hocking (talk 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is just denial of denialism, and is ridiculous. These quacking ducks are just silly.--Filll 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I haven't explained myself well, and I apologize for any anger or confusion that might have arisen from that. I am not denying the denialism. I am saying it is obvious and already covered in the body of the article. This sentence is awkward and adds nothing to the article. Ben Hocking (talk 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm attempting to see why we are going round and round with regards to this discussion. Denial=denialist=denialism.  Isn't there a something about WP:POINT that's being violated here?  Isn't it time for someone to end this tendentious editing?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was true that denial = denialism, there would not be two different words for it. The sentence actually tries to push connotations that go beyond denial. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Denial=denialist=denialism". Indeed &mdash; that is essentially the exact point I am making, OrangeMarlin. This sentence adds nothing that isn't already being said. Ben Hocking (talk 16:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, if it is true that denial=denialism, I understand that orangemarlin would agree to delete the article about 'denialism', which is right now quite different from the one about 'denial'. --Childhood&#39;s End 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You both have intentionally misconstrued what I have written. I'm not going to engage in this silly war.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that this rather means that I have deconstructed what you have written. --Childhood&#39;s End 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you assume wrong. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize Orange Marlin . "Denial=denialist=denialism" is the only part of your argument that seems to me to address the proposal. Could you reword it? I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying. Ben Hocking (talk 16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's true Ben, then you wouldn't object to moving this article to Climate change denialism, right? Odd nature 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. However, I wouldn't recommend it, either &mdash; for obvious reasons, I presume. Ben Hocking (talk 18:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No not particularly clear, enlighten me. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It would presumably start an edit war and for no noticeable reason. Ben Hocking (talk 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support--I think the sentence should be deleted altogether. We've discussed denialism vs. denial repeatedly.  The sources do not support "denialism", and the use of "denial" makes the sentence pointless. Zoomwsu 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; remove the sentence. the term 'denialism' appears only once in the entire article. And in that single use, it's synthesizing an opinion from cited sources that don't use the term - which is therefore a misrepresentation of those citations. Anastrophe 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose If it were true that "have a seat" = "take a chair" we wouldn't need two different phrases. Oh, wait, they do. Let's try this one pain is painful as denial is to ______...give up?  Denialism.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt know that all seats were chairs. BBC might want to get on this. --Childhood&#39;s End 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think a sentence that said "stomach pain is painful" would add to an article on stomach pain? ;) Ben Hocking (talk 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per FM, Filll, and the mountain of evidence that it's a verifiable view. Odd nature 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. A communist is one who believes in or engages in communism. A capitalist is one who believes in or engages in capitalism. A pragmatist is one who believes in or engages in pragmatism. An " _ist" is one who believes in or engages in a particular _ism. Fairly straigtforward I would think. The proposed sentence in #2 is perfectly appropriate. ... Kenosis 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, either "denialism" is implied and thus redundant (belonging in the see also section) - or it means something different from denial (i've yet to see a clear cut definition of what "denialism" is, from a reliable source) and then we're in WP:OR/WP:SYN country. My very main objection to all of this is that no reference/reliable source beyond the views of individuals, has actually made the connection. Again see the critique of sources section. And just to be sure that people do not assume bad faith here, i very much support this particular article (on climate change denial), and its content as being both very relevant and strongly sourced/referenced, as well as presenting these sources in a neutral NPOV way. I'm just very much concerned that "denialism" isn't a correct description - nor a supported one). --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose yet another bizarre attempt at endless equivocation. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose; saying "let people come to their own conclusions" (while he we delete the supporting data) is pretty much the definition of non-NPOV. Guettarda 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding which "he" you're referring to, but assuming it's me (since it was my proposal), which supporting data did I delete? Just to be clear, you and I are of the same opinion that climate change denial is denialism. Ben Hocking (talk 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the sources. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "We", not "he". Oops.  Not sure how I did that...it isn't like W and H are next to each other on the keyboard.  Guettarda 16:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've done similar. However, just to clarify, what I'm saying in the proposal is that the body of the article (and the sources mentioned therein) should not be changed. As they stand, they quite clearly make this point (IMO) without needing to resort to any tortured sentence. Disregarding the "tortured sentence" bit, do you agree that the body of this article clearly makes the point that climate change denial is denialism? Ben Hocking (talk 16:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: the matter appears to be noteworthy & therefore worthy of mention. The fact that a minority argue that it isn't true, is a strong indication that it isn't an obvious truism. Hrafn42 03:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment is typical of someone who has not read the discussion and just comes by to state his POV or gut feeling. I, or others, are not saying it is not true, but that the sentence is unsupported by any source, something that is required in this encyclopedia as you might be aware. --Childhood&#39;s End 04:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Contra to Childhoodsend's personal attack, that dissent proves that it isn't an obvious truism is a matter of logic, not "gut feeling". The logic that Ben Hocking cited for omission is explicitly based on it being a truism, making my comment perfectly legitimate. Hrafn42 05:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * @CE. Pot meet kettle. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, your saying that "the matter appers to be noteworthy" was irrelevant since this is based on POV and not on reliable sources, and again, nobody argued that it isnt true, contra to what you said. Oh and also, dont accuse others of making personal attacks when this is not the case; that is a personnal attack. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think his comment is useful and is contributing to the discussion. I still think the body of the article makes this sentence unnecessary, but I feel that he is engaging the proposal and not dismissing it without consideration. Ben Hocking (talk 16:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Denial is not a synoymn for denialism, as every single dictionary definition of the word "denial" will show. If a link between those exists, then its inclusion in the article must be supported by reliable sources and not just a mere assertion that the link is "obvious" or is a "truism". So far, only one reliable source has been given-- the New Scientist article. I would support the links inlcusion if more were provided, but they have not. Revolutionaryluddite 15:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC) (I'm only posting this to express my support. Don't bother posting personal attacks in response, I will not read them.)

Denialism Redux
The NPOV sentence "It has been descibed as a form of denialism" currently has six sources. The first never mentions the term 'denialism'; nor does it compare 'denialism' with 'holocaust denial', 'AIDS reappraisal', or anything else arguably a type of 'denialism'. The same thing is true for the second source. The third article compares 'climate change denial' with efforts to counter tobacco company efforts to counter passive smoking research, again, without using the term 'denialism'. The fourth article compares, in passing, opposition to the IPCC reports to holocaust denial in the sense that both involve denying scientific and historical evidence. It does not mention intent, morality, or motivation-- nor does it mention the term 'denialism'. The fourth article directly compares 'climate change denial' to 'holocaust denial'. Although it never mentions the term 'denialism', it implies it in a strong way. The fifth article does the same thing. The problem is that these are Op-Ed columns, one of which is by a former director of Greenpeace, and represent a small minority viewpoint that should not be given undue weight.


 * It doesn't matter how many people you can reference who prefer to join you in a vile ad homienem attack on people who question your dogma. No matter how you cut it, it's still a vile and unwarrented ad hominem attack.  I'm sure that the Nazi "scientists" of the 1940's could cite many publications that supported their views on race, but they were vile and worthy of being rejected and circumscribed regardless.RFabian 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Godwin in one. That's rather impressive! --Stephan Schulz 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, who would have guessed someone would bring up Nazis in response to an article equating people who question "global warming" with holocaust deniers. No really, it's people like you who hold our society back. If anyone has something to say that you don't agree with and you can't prove that you are correct you attack their character. What happened to being objective, or atleast TRYING to be? This article should be renamed. I suggest Criticism of Global Warming, or Controversy on Climate Change. It fits with the rest of wikipedia. Unless you feel like renaming all the other anti-whatever articles to "Tom Cruise sanity denial" and "flat earth denial". 64.230.7.46 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There already are articles on the global warming controversy where the points are quite well addressed. This article is about the documented campaign to spread disinformation, as opposed to the science behind global warming. Please read the article to understand what it's about, and visit the sources to see how well it's documented. Thank you. Ben Hocking (talk 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, this fits PERFECTLY into the global warming controversy page. I see no reason why it isn't put in there. Maybe we should make a 9-11 denier page for people who spread disinformation about 9-11. Last time I checked the entire 9-11 controversy page is full of examples of that very thing and debunked as that. 64.230.7.46 19:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The eariler and since removed citation of David Roberts compares 'climate change deniers' to the actual pepetrators of the holocaust. Again, the term 'denialism' is not mention but it's implied the clearest here. It's the only non-opinion piece that has been cited for the 'denialism' comparison. At the same time, still, it's an extreme minority position. How many journalists have made the comparison? How many climate scientists? Revolutionaryluddite 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let's take a carefull look at each one then.


 * The Truth About Denial by Sharon Begley in Newsweek writes "Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered."" and "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."". These quotes show that this source directly supports the passage in our article that climate change denial is "a form of denialism". When you say " The first never mentions the term 'denialism' " you seem to be misrepresenting the source since it's called ''The Truth About Denial. Read it; it's about nothing but denialism.  And this Newsweek article not an "Op-Ed" or opinion article as you claim above, but a journalistic article in Newsweeks's 'Technology and Science' section. Op-Ed appears here in Newsweek.


 * Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers is linked from The Truth About Denial under the section title of "The Global Warming Deniers". Follow the link and you'll see that the [Newsweek]] timeline gives as examples of "global warming deniers" Sen. James Inhofe, Fred Singer and Exxon, which Newsweek says have pursued attempts to "discredit" scientific evidence and consensus. Thus this source indirectly supports the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."


 * The denial industry by George Monbiot in the Guardian Unlimited states "While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world. ... By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, ... It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies", directly supports the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."


 * No change in political climate by Ellen Goodman in the The Boston Globe writes "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." and " 'when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don't see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial.' ", directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."


 * Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect by Peter Christoff in The Age AU.com states "and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming" ,directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism."


 * Deniers of global warming harm us by Joel Connelly in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer states "As the world's scientists near consensus on human causes of climate change, even Exxon is cutting contributions and distancing itself from the global warming denial industry.", which ties climate change denial to scientific consensus, thus directly supporting the passage that climate change denial is a "a form of denialism", which is after all nothing but the rejecting of "propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence."


 * I fail to see any issues at all with these sources, but I think 1, 3, and 4 are the most relevant and notable and should be the ones used. But I have no object to all remaining. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I never stated that the Newsweek article is an Op-Ed. Secondly, the terms 'denial' and 'denialism' are not synoymns. The use of one does not automatically imply another. See and the dictionary definiton of the word 'deny' mentioned previously in the talk page. Again, none of the articles cited use the term 'denialism'. You and I might believe that the articles describe 'denialism' as the Wikipedia article currently defines it, but that's purely a matter of opinion. The two Newsweek citiations do not compare 'climate change denial' with 'holocaust denial' or anything like that. The first Newsweek article includes a quote from a politican comparing 'climate change denial' to tobacco misinformation. That section might indirectly imply that 'climate change denial' is 'denialism'; that's it. In any rate, what about weight? The four articles cited that arguably describe denialism, while they do not mention it specifically, are Op-Ed columns. Again, how many journalists have made the comparison? How many climate scientists? Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we're debating whether or not to equate living climate scientists with honest-to-goodness Nazis, the burden of proof regarding 'weight' and 'notability' should be on the side of those advocating inclusion. Revolutionaryluddite 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about "Since we're debating whether or not to equate living climate scientists with honest-to-goodness Nazis"?! The only issue being discussed here is whether these 5 sources The Truth About Denial, Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers, The denial industry, No change in political climate, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect, Deniers of global warming harm us simply support the passage in the article that says It has been described as a form of denialism. Equating scientists with Nazis has nothing to do with this. Please stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense objections. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If all of my posts on this talk page have just been "wasting your time", why bother responding? Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, because you'll invoke 'consensus' or claim silence is assent. I think FM is justified in calling this time-wasting; you seem to be conflating two separate issues here. Odd nature 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite holds a very strong position on this issue. I opened every reference that supports the term "denialism" in this article and used my search tool to find whether any of these sources use the word "denialism". I did not find one instance of the term (the "timeline" didn't work as well, being flash, so it could be used there). Because no actual, verifiable reference exists to the term "denialism", we should not make reference to it. Moreover, the sentence "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism." is clearly not factual and must be deleted. Unless one or more notable and reliable sources make the claim that climate change denial is a form of denialism, the term has no place in this article. Zoomwsu 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but no he does not. What "search tool" would you be using, Ctrl+F? Your reasoning here is as specious as it is clueless in regards to Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policy and guideline. Care to explain how an article titled "The Truth About Denial" isn't about denial? Or how it is an article called "Deniers of global warming harm us" isn't about denialism. Please become more familar with our policies governing sources, WP:RS and WP:V before wading into such nuanced topics. FeloniousMonk 02:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you fail to see the nuance in his argument--at least we know why you disagree. We should be precise with our language: "denial" is not the same as "denialism", which is a term that seems to be made up out of thin air as far as climate science is concerned.  I did find one instance of the term in the Newsweek article, used in a quotation from an obscure Senate staffer named Manik Roy, in the context of 1990s-era political tussle over the issue.  Please show me a notable, reliable source (you'll have to do better than a buried quotation from a nobody) that specifically uses the term "denialism" in the context of climate science and I will reconsider my position.  Barring such an action, there is little grounds for including the completely untrue (and misspelled) statement "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism."  Who are these others?  Wasn't it Manik Roy, not Newsweek, who "descibed" it as a form of denialism?
 * Also, please don't call me clueless or act like I'm an idiot. Assume good faith. Zoomwsu 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go with the [Ctrl]+F again. I'd like to assume good faith about that comment, but it really seems like it is meant to be uncivil. Am I misunderstanding your intent, FeloniousMonk? It seems that a certain group of people are not even trying to address legitimate concerns. Zoomwsu: when I have a chance, I'll provide you with a slightly bigger list of articles that actually use the word "denialism". You are correct that some of the cited material doesn't actually use the word, but I know I've seen the word in more than just one reliable source. Ben Hocking (talk 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the sources used to support the sentence refer to "denialism". Newsweek certainly does not (one occurence, but it's from a quote, thus it's OR to say that "Newsweek describes as denialism..."). As for FeloniousMonk, I suggest we take his aggressive comment with a grain of salt, as he does not make the difference between denial (a psychological state) and the new web buzzword 'denialism'. --Childhood&#39;s End 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only do none of those sources use the actual word "denialism", I could not find it in any of the referenced sources for the entire article. (Yes, FeloniousMonk, I used [Ctrl]+F. You're welcome to use another search technique and tell me which article I missed.) I was able to find other sources (some of them reliable) that did use this word, however. So, we need to either find which of those sources we wish to use to support this claim, or preferably, just change this sentence to the more accurate: "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial." (This also involves changing "descibe" to "describe".) Ben Hocking (talk 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This sad clutching at straw is truly a wonder to behold. "Denialism" is a perfectly legitimate noun for the act of denying in the face of evidence. Since we have WP:RS's that describe this phenomenon, or it's participants as "denial" or as being "deniers", there's really nothing more to discuss. Now the three of you can chase your tails and run in ever tightening circles till the end of time, but it won't change the fact, that any reader with even a modicum of intelligence, ( who doesn't have an axe to grind ) will understand that. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can put forward your belief that "denial" and "denialism" are the same thing, it remains at best amusing to read (clue for further thought: usually, there does not exist two words to describe the exact same thing) --Childhood&#39;s End 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually what's more amusing here is reading those who are trying to deny that the sources given are talking about denialism using fatally flawed semantics. Especially when anyone can read them and see that the authors clearly are referring to those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly; in other words, denialism. Oh the irony: Using denialism avoid evidence of denialism. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your stubbornness and irresponsibility in advancing your positions have no limits it seems. You have not shown understanding of what are semantics. You have not shown understanding of what is denial. You know what is denialism only to the extent that you read the Wikipedia article about it. You openly admit that 'the sources' dont use the word 'denialism' but you maintain that, somehow for you, it's clear that they talk about 'denialism' and still, you wont realize this is textbook OR. Duh. Further, your definition of 'denialism' is the one provided by the WP article and thus, this implies that what you keep claiming is that it is so obvious that all these authors were talking about 'denialism' as it is understood by this Wikipedia article. Sad, sad, sad. --Childhood&#39;s End 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "the waiter noticed that the guests were done" == "the waiter saw that the guests were done"
 * "the waiter denied that he padded the bill" != "the waiter denialism that he padded the bill".
 * this is fundamental english folks. one cannot suggest that these terms are synonymous with a straight face - or a decent dictionary. Anastrophe 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop wasting your time and ours with silly semantics. The sources given clearly reflect that the authors are very clearly talking about those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence seeking to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. In other words, denialism. Move along now. Odd nature 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * translation: "don't bother us with facts and accuracy." as pointed out by others, the article states 'denialism' followed by six citations, none of which use the term 'denialism'. that's unencyclopedic. i'm sorry you consider being encyclopedic to be annoying. Anastrophe 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We're getting lessons in semantics from someone whose nick means inversion (in a linguistic sense of course)? Look, semantically and syntactically the denial --> denialism sentence makes no sense, as you likely know.  Yet, it doesn't prove your point, either. Try again.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointless exercises abound
So if I understand correctly, we have a group of editors who believe one or more of the following claims: Even when multiple references are produced, somehow this seems to meet with disapproval and rejection by this group. I have to admit I am completely puzzled. Do you deny that languages change? And that this might be an instance of the English language in flux? I can generate tons of references on each of these above and discuss them at length with you (for example, here is a recent newspaper article connecting denial, denialism, denialists, and suggesting a connection with the word deny:).
 * Denialism has nothing to do with denial
 * Denialists are not involved in denialism
 * A state of denial does not involve denying anything.
 * The words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier have no connection with each other.
 * One or more of the words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier do not exist.
 * A denier is not someone who denies anything.
 * A denialist is not someone who denies anything.
 * No one uses words like denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier.
 * No notable, reliable verifiable source uses words like denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier.
 * The words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier have no meaning.
 * The words denialism, denialist, denial, deny, and denier have not and cannot be applied to one or more of the following topics: AIDS treatments and diagnosis, Climate Change, addictiveness of tobacco, effects of second hand smoke, alien abductions, Holocaust history, etc.

We can bring in linguists and other authorities. However, I get the impression that no matter what is done, you will just deny it all, for your own purposes and to satisfy some obscure agenda. Weird. This does seem to be veering towards a violation of WP:POINT and the time might be at hand to address this using other mechanisms.--Filll 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that this pointless and specious stuff be deleted. --Childhood&#39;s End 16:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it pointless and specious? I am trying to understand what the debate is about here and what the points of view are.


 * I would also ask you to mind your tone because it seems to be on the verge of violating WP:NPA. Would you like others to start a formal administrative proceeding against you for personal attacks and not WP:AGF ? Please try to remain civil in this discussion or else there might be negative consequences. Thank you so much for adopting a more reasonable approach than what I have observed above. I really appreciate it.--Filll 16:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of your 11 bullets above that you tried to attribute to "a group of editors here", I fail to see a single one that has actually been proposed by anyone on this talk page. So outside of being a total waste of time, your post is specious and pointless, yes. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing. Perhaps some are trying to be humorous, I guess. But it comes across differently.--Filll 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CE is actually correct here - most of these are completely pointless and bear no connection to what is being argued by anyone. for instace for #1 boils down to: "denialism implies denial" which is correct, but the reverse isn't true, and since its whether denial implies denialism that is being discussed, its a pointless bulletpoint. Most of the rest are based upon the same kind of fallacious implication - and have nothing to do with what is argued in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's be honest about this. This dispute about denialism is not just on this single talk page. It has continued unabated on several administrative pages, user talk pages and other talk pages of other articles, for weeks on end. Some of the same editors have been participants in some or all of these venues. These and other even more tenuous and tendentious arguments have been made over and over. And I have to admit, I am confused by them and I do not find them particularly convincing or compelling. Sorry. I have tried to understand where these editors are coming from, but I just have been unable to grasp it. It is not for lack of trying, I assure you. Perhaps it is my own linguistic shortcomings. I am not a linguist or a philologist or an expert in the English language and usage. I just do not get it. I am buffaloed here. I strongly suspect there are other hidden agendas involved, as I noted below. And this is what makes this such a difficult issue.--Filll 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You all seem to be dragging a lot of baggage from other articles - it would be really nice if you'd leave it at those articles - and argue the merits of your viewpoint within the constraints of what this talk-page contains. (some of us really don't want to walk through a lot of irrelevancy, to find out where a particular gripe stems). --Kim D. Petersen 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok sure. Sounds nice, but not realistic.-Filll 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith here, Filll, you're either not talking about me, or you're completely misunderstanding my point. My point is that (similar to Jim's point) saying that a form of denial is a form of denialism is like saying that pain is painful. Furthermore, the body of the article clearly spells out how climate change denial is denialism. The sentence is poorly worded, and difficult to match up with sources (one source says X, the other says Y, trying to mesh them together to get XY is tricky) if you think it's important to find a reference that says that climate change denial is denialism. (It would be similarly difficult to find an article that said that pain was painful. Doesn't mean it's not true, of course.) Whether or not you agree with me, do you understand how my point is different from the points you listed above? Ben Hocking (talk 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point might be different. However, it appears to me that other editors have different points and different agendas. This is an entire confused mess and it appears to me that some people hate the words denialism and denialist for some reason. Is it that they have a negative connotation? Is it that they are relatively new words in English? Is it that they have only recently been used with more frequency in English, and therefore do not have dictionary entries? --Filll 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm pretty much in agreement with user:Ben Hocking. All I am arguing for is precision in language, logic and supporting sources.  Zoomwsu 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, denialism has been used, sporadically perhaps, for at least 80 years (someone, I think it was Odd nature, found a 1927 reference). But yes, possibly a couple editors here do not like the negative connotations. However, I believe most of the editors arguing against that particular sentence share my viewpoint, or a very similar one. There may be a bad reason for getting rid of the sentence. That doesn't mean there isn't also a good one. Look at the entire body of the article, which clearly makes the point that climate change denial is a form of denialism (while differentiating it from mere skepticism). Then consider that there are a few problems with the sentence (possible redundancy, possibly not completely agreeing with the sources, or possibly using sources with low weight, awkward wording). Is the sentence necessary? If you want me to shut up on this point here, I will &mdash; but I feel that there is positive communication going on here. Ben Hocking (talk 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You may believe whatever you like Ben, but most of those supporting your Proposal 3 are doing so for reasons that are explicitly diametrically opposed to the reason you gave for proposing it. Hrafn42 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, those who have seemed to voice support (in one form or another) of my proposal 3 are: Me, Kim, William (indirectly), Revolutionaryluddite, Zoomwsu, Childhoodsend, and Anastrophe. I won't speak for the last 3, but the first four have all stated that they believe that global warming is real and anthropogenic. Assuming the last 3 are diametrically opposed (you could be right, but I don't want to put words into their mouths), that's still 4:3. A slim majority, yes, but a majority. If you discount William (since he didn't actually vote, and has been trying to avoid the debate), that's 3:3, so perhaps we're both wrong. If I've misrepresented anyone, I apologize, and would ask them to correct me. Also, if Zoomwsu, Childhoodsend, or Anastrophe want to say whether (or not) their reason is diametrically opposed to the one I gave, that's fine, too. Of course, at the risk of being repetitive, just because there's a bad reason, doesn't mean there's not a good reason. Ben Hocking (talk 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call Revolutionaryluddite's stated reason for supporting P3 to be at all similar to your own. Even Kim's is somewhat divergent -- that puts it at two including yourself (or maybe one and a bit). Hrafn42 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In re-reading their comments, you have a point about Revolutionaryluddite's comment, but Kim's comment is quite close to my own &mdash; her response is to cover both points made by those supporting the sentence. Either it's a truism and is unnecessary, or it's not and those arguing that denial=denialism for inclusion of those sources are wrong. I'm sure he agrees with me that the rest of the article supports the point, and I think he's even said so. I would point out, however, that although RL's point is arguably diametrically opposed to mine, he has stated multiple times that he believes that GW is real and anthropogenic. He does appear to be more sympathetic to the denialists, presumably because he's a Republican (that's a guess, so I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Long story, short, you're right. It's either 4:3 or 4:2 (of supporters of my proposal) against my primary point, even though the majority of them do believe that global warming is anthropogenic. Doesn't change the validity of my argument, however. :) Ben Hocking (talk 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis of my replies. (and i'm male btw. :-). --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dang, I fixed all my "she"'s to "he"'s, but forgot to look for "her". I knew that, but my mind is in some odd gear anyways. With my own first name (Ashlie), you'd think it'd be easier for me. Ben Hocking (talk 23:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Folding the discussion about the reality of "global warming" into this entire dispute is very silly. This is like watching a bunch of ants debate whether squid have a good sense of rhythm or not. Let me try to enlighten this with a few observations, from an expert perspective: Both sides in this debate exhibit classic symptoms of denialism/denial, just as they do in the AIDS reappraisal issue and the 2nd hand smoke debates and in alien abduction discussions and Holocaust denial and any number of other topics. BOTH SIDES. Do you read this ? BOTH SIDES.
 * the earth is clearly warmer now than it was 100 or 120 years ago, on average
 * humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, by their activities
 * this forcing might cause cooling or warming or other climate responses; our models are pretty lousy
 * there is no good statistical evidence that humans have influenced the climate
 * a host of climate scientists suspect strongly that anthropogenic influences are evident in the data
 * some climate scientists are skeptical
 * the jury is still out on this issue

Denialism is rampant in all quarters here. There is not less denialism than usual in this debate, but MORE, because both sides are engaging in it. The article might have to be rewritten slightly to address this concern; I am not sure I want to be bothered given the level of understanding I have seen here on the talk page. Even though I am a Subject Matter Expert, you are just so busy fighting you do not want to write an accurate article. So be it. I can't be bothered with nonsense. I have other things to edit. You are free to engage in juvenile battles if you want however.

On the linguistic front, the evidence is clear, at least to me. Why fight it?

On Hocking's claim, I am afraid I do not find it particularly compelling. I think encyclopediae have to be explanatory. I do not think that the readers want to have to interpret the tea leaves and hermeneutic penumbrations because you or others think this word is politically incorrect for some reason. I am afraid you have not convinced me with your arguments, and it looks like many others agree with me as well. Too bad.--Filll 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't claim expertise you lack: your first false statement is that increased CO2 might cause cooling; this is clearly wrong: there are no indications of this William M. Connolley 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe whatever you like. And I am free to continue to decline to edit articles on topics in which I have expertise, since I do not have to encounter these kinds of attitudes. But carry on. I can't be bothered to fight this kind of nonsense battle.

On the linguistic issue, I cannot even begin to fathom what is driving this kind of political correctness frenzy. Amazing. It must be that somehow there is a negative connotation here that is not apparent to me, and the political part of global change is being incorporated into the battle somehow by people who know almost nothing about the issue except what they have gleaned from the press and movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Global Warming Swindle". Good grief.

So this article will not ever be of much value, but that is no skin off my nose; after all, this is just an encyclopedia so it is not the end of the world. I have better things to do and there are lots of other articles to edit.--Filll 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Filll for pointing out the obvious and saying what needed to be said to all the gainsaying denialism deniers and downplayers here. It's a tough gig, I know from experience. Odd nature 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear Odd nature, you do realize that Filll has stated:
 * That sounds to me like a page out of the denialists' handbook. I've got to say, there are some very strange bedfellows on both sides of this particular debate. Ben Hocking (talk 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I might suggest you re-read my posts. You seem to misunderstand my points. Very interesting...--Filll 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible. It sounds like what you're saying with that particular statement is that global warming is uncertain. Perhaps you could clarify what you really mean, if that's not it. I do realize that it was not your primary point of the post, but it appeared to be the point of that particular statement. Please clarify if I have misunderstood you. I was not the only one to misunderstand that particular phrase if that is not what you were intending to say. Ben Hocking (talk 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're about the last person who's reading of other's work I'd accept on its face, given your history here and elsewhere of selective reading of sources. Filll on the other hand has consistently always come down on the side of neutrality and sanity. Odd nature 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Translation : "Filll on the other hand has consistently always come down on my side" --Childhood&#39;s End 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Want to explain to the community here how that is not trolling? Odd nature 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that CE's comment is trolling - but yours isn't much better. You might attempt to assume good faith (which your comment explicitly lags) --Kim D. Petersen 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment is based on my personal experience and the project-wide acceptance that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Odd nature 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you have a personal history with Ben? And are unable to assume good faith when he is presenting an argument? In that case i suggest that you take it to WP:ANI, WP:RfC or another appropriate place, instead of here. --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cute. No. Discussing problems other participants have with content that hold up earnest discussions is a community interest, not a personal interest. And experience has shown here and at Talk:Denialism that he has a problem with representing sources accurately. For example in this discussion an admin, Guettarda, points out what he calls a "dishonest" misuse of sources on his part: This seems to a recurring issue that is hampering progress here. The only question is if you're really interested in collaborating and a resolution why are you enabling him? Odd nature 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And i'll repeat once more: Take it elsewhere. On a side-note: I have no interest in the denialism article, all i see is that there was a dispute between Guettarda and Ben on content and interpretation. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the admin is correct, and the user is incorrect - that is assuming too much. (Guettarda might be correct or Ben may be. i really don't know, and frankly i don't care - it doesn't belong here). --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading OddNature's last post made me realize how odd it is to see someone blame another editor of misrepresenting sources while he himself keeps arguing endlessly to make Newsweek say that climate change denial amounts to denialism... --Childhood&#39;s End 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I indeed trolled after his trolling. Could not help it. Apologies. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the linguistic issue, I suspect I probably agree with Odd nature. In the case of the science, politics and likely future scenarios associated with Global Climate Change, then I do not know if this is true, and I suspect this statement is probably incorrect. However, the linguistic issue should be paramount here, and I remain puzzled completely about the opposition to these emerging terms in the English language.

I suspect strongly that there is a hidden agenda among some who oppose the words "denialism" and "denialist" because they do not want them to be enshrined in Wikipedia. This is probably, in my view, BECAUSE there is the potential that these words might be applied to some editor's favorite pet issue (which in several cases, is not global climate change). These editors really really really badly want these words to not exist because they are afraid of where else they might be applied. That is my personal evaluation of the situation. And this leads to a fairly irrational discussion here. --Filll 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a subsection should be added clarifying the differences between a denialist (a person who denies a fact, and is a logical extension of the act of denying something) and the new buzzword, denialist; which holds severe implications about the person. If I understand correctly the debate seems to be centered around 1)whether the new english buzzword should be used, 2)whether there are enough sources in the media at large that assert the buzzword use of denialist, 3)That: stating that people who deny something are denialists; is redundant and should be removed. -If I have misunderstood an argument you have personally made, please let me know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.209.159 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)