Talk:Climate psychosis

No
"You are calling the New York Post. the Guardian, and various Swedish sources "climate change deniers"?"

No, I am calling Bjorn Lomborg, Joe Bastardi, Fox News, Lennart Bengtsson, Maximilian Krah, Alrik Söderlind, Bianca Muratagic, Tomas Klasson, Lilja Rönnquist, Klimatupplysningen, ProjektSanning, Jan Tullberg and Gunnar Lundström climate change deniers. Which is exactly what they are, as you can see from their articles, as far as they exist as more than stubs.

All the people quoted are obviously WP:FRINGE, and the whole article gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to them. And what do they say? Essentially that everybody who disagrees with them, including all of climate science, suffers from mental problems. Great way of reasoning? Well worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia?

More inaccuracies, lies, and slant in those paragraphs:


 * "Bjorn Lomborg of the New York Post" is wrong, he does not work there.
 * "Greta Thunbergs climate alarmism" is denialist POV and should not be stated in WP's voice.
 * And practically every other sentence.

This is an article for Conservapedia, not for WP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that I supported turning this into a redirect at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page, so I am in basic agreement as to the general low quality of this article.


 * That being said, as long as this page exists, I don't think we should have a page about antivax that does not say (with attribution) what the claims of antivaxers are, nor should we have a page about creationism that does not say (with attribution) what the claims of creationists are, nor should this page not contain the claims of those who invented and use the term "Climate psychosis"
 * For those unfamiliar with my positions, I usually agree with Hob and I certainly am not among those who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, nor do I hold any other fringe views. See User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is just a list of times people have used the phrase "climate psychosis". This is garbage. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So is the answer to delete the article (which I favor) or retain it with zero indication of who has used the phrase or why (which I oppose)? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That paragraph right now has zero encyclopedic content. It's also (if I'm reading this right) mostly primary sources. In the source, person X says "climate psychosis". Then we write: "X said climate psychosis". That's not how articles are supposed to be written. If someone wants to research a write a detailed discussion of the usage and meaning of "climate psychosis", based on secondary sources that discuss the concept in detail (not primary sources that simply use the phrase), then that's fine. But the "Sweden" section that currently exists is worse than useless and should be removed. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)