Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 5

Balanced Coverage, a story with two sides?
Does a corresponding opposite article exist in Wikipedia? I can't find one and believe it would be a useful and interesting comparison. Such as article would be, correct me if I'm wrong, discussing attempts, efforts, activities to spread misinformation supporting AGW theories, political and commercial agendas, financial gain etc etc - in other words, all the things the 'deniers' are said to be engaged in. Thx. BadCop666 10:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC) The conspiracy theory in 'State of Fear', is clever fiction from an author capable of first-rate drama when he isn't writing dross for the Hollywood production line. I believe also that he is due considerable respect for the massive body of material he digested in preparing that novel, and an admirable taking of sides - whatever you believe. In reality though, the absence of conspiracy makes the bias and disinformation on both sides of this debate all the more interesting. The first-hand experiences of some of the most respected researchers in climate science makes very interesting reading. And their careers and credentials carry much more weight than the offhand dismissals seen far too often in these Wikipedia talk pages (by people perhaps with more time on their hands for wikipedia editing than time spent knowing what they are talking about) - in my opinion, of course ;-). I'll certainly follow up on the page you suggest. Regards. BadCop666 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find enough reliable sources that discuss it, to create such an article, then go ahead and create it. Here is something to work with: . --Kim D. Petersen 11:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx KDP. It's a cute article, I did break a slight smile, but it's unfortunately light on substance, mostly assertion for the amusement of the converted. To put it more objectively, he carried out his experiment with little thought for scientific methods, and, I am tempted to suggest, probably disingenuously, if I'm reading the tone right. Equating the 'blog sphere' with any sort of scientific audience, is perhaps a mistake made by those who take their own blogging existence a little too seriously ("Blogging: We're going to need more monkeys" - my favourite web2.0 deflation quote). The consideration of 'the other side' by the pro-AGW camp is really dissapointing, crass even. It's a critical part of a scientific position. The potential for the AGW debate to produce huge leaps in understanding of climate mechanisms isn't served well by articles of this type. Regards. BadCop666 (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although clearly there is a camp that exaggerates the effects of global warming, it's hard to imagine any financial gain on the scale that fossil fuel companies enjoy. So, similarly, it's hard to imagine (and more importantly I have not seen any documentation of) an "alarmist" campaign as well organized as the denialist one. Of course, as Kim has said, if you can find documentation that supports such an article, feel free to create it! Ben Hocking (talk 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You could possibly start with climateaudit.org (Climate Audit} where the pseudoscience of climate alarmists is being exposed. rossnixon 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen any documentation from them of alarmist campaigns. Do you have a link? As JQ below suggests, the best documentation for these supposed campaigns is a book that even its author does not deny is fiction. Ben Hocking (talk 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One example, which is, if this report is at all accurate, very strange behaviour on the part of a high-profile political bureaucrat, reported here The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science. Would this be considered 'alarmist' - if we put any weight in Landsea's scientific opinion, as reported. Can these events be corroborated or 'denied'? [ sorry, couldn't resist that ] Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very little of this story, or even headline, is correct. Trenberth (a scientist) gave a press conference (not speaking for the IPCC) and Landsea resigned. The treatment of the climate change/hurricane link in the published AR4 has been praised even by Roger Pielke, who is not in the habit of speaking out in favour of the IPCC. See e.g. Christopher Landsea for more sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll examine your angle. Thx. Have you read [Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC]? BadCop666 (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Global warming conspiracy theory covers much of what you want, with sources such as Michael Crichton. The problem is, of course, that whereas the evidence of Exxon-funded denial is abundant, the best sources for the other side are writers of fiction. JQ (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Quiggin, thx for the pointer. I note that perhaps the above should read The problem is, in my opinion, that whereas...etc.
 * This article would be a good place to start. Iceage77 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - v. interesting material. Please keep in touch. BadCop666 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, what would such an article be called/titled? Global Warming Moral Panic? Global Warming Media Panic? Global Warming Disinformation? Distortion? Bias? Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Global warming alarmism? Iceage77 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are a few pointers for you:
 * British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims
 * Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
 * Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
 * I'll add more pointers to this list as I dig them up. Do you have a particular angle that you want to address in this space? --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)