Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs/Archives/2022

"a position on climate change isn't directly associated with any wordlview"
That's not true. Merchants of Doubt has established that climate change denial is propagated mainly by market-fundamentalist think tanks.

Also, the Guardian source does not say anything about "between 1994 and 2007", that is WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We need to concentrate on what RS say, not what publications one can find from searching the internet. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian source states "the IEA's publications throughout the 1990s and 2000s heavily suggested climate science was unreliable or exaggerated". It then states "Its first book on climate science was published in 1994", and is critical of it. The last IEA publication that it is critical of is "Announcing its 2007 paper Global Warming False Alarms...". Anything later is referred to as being "hosted", not published. It goes on to say "In recent years, however, the group’s publications have increasingly focused on free-market solutions to decarbonisation rather than disputing climate science." We could modify "It published climate change denial material between 1994 and 2007" to something like 'According to The Guardian, "the IEA’s publications throughout the 1990s and 2000s heavily suggested climate science was unreliable or exaggerated"' if we want to be strictly accurate about what the source states. On the narrower point of climate change denial and 'market-fundamentalist think tanks', there's a logical problem: the source states that the IEA has moved on from this position, so either the IEA is still a "market-fundamentalist think tank" but the association between this and climate change denial no longer exists, or the IEA is no longer a "market-fundamentalist think tank". I see that Merchants of Doubt is from 2010, so perhaps it's the former. EddieHugh (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The logic of climate change denial works like this:
 * If anthropogenic climate change were real, then the market would have done something wrong and would have to be regulated.
 * Therefore anthropogenic climate change is not real.
 * Of course, market fundamentalism is the precondition for this way of thinking. It get more difficult when the public learns more about the subject, so the position of all denialist organizations has been shifting from "there is no climate change" via "it's not anthropogenic" and "it's only partly anthropogenic" towards "it is real, but the market can solve this, no problem". Some of the organizations work through that sequence slower than others.
 * The connection between MF and CCD still exists, and that either-or is too black-and-white. Also, original research. Better to just say what the sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OR applies to the article content; what you quoted as the heading for this section was just part of an edit summary. As detailed above, what's in the article is a summary of what the source states. If we're to take a very broad interpretation of CCD, to include anything that amounts to 'the market can solve this', then we need to state that very clearly. EddieHugh (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am saying that we can neither write into the article IEA is no longer a "market-fundamentalist think tank" nor the association between this and climate change denial no longer exists. Both would be OR. (Also wrong.) That is why I ended my last contribution with Better to just say what the sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)