Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 6

NPOV
please, anyone can see the blatant NPOV in this article, please get some unbiased writers to change this. 75.67.14.31 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the correct term would be lack of npov, but seriously this article is biased. The only reactions it shows are negative, and it constantly assures us that it isn't in the mainstream of science. Hello? Is a film that doesn't agree with the scientific mainstream supposed to be ostracised? The Person Who Is Strange

Wikipedia, outside of really specialized fields, merely shows the most popular opinion. E.g. we all know (or should know) that whatever the truth on this, the AGW theory predicted a constant monotonous rise in global temperatures. Any sensitive subject is lied about on wikipedia. E.g. anyone who fucks children below 16 and is above the age of say 30 is called a paedophile on wikipedia. Except the "prophet" muhammad, even though wikipedia acknowledges that he did indeed fuck a 9 year old at age 54 (and states that she was max 14). Wikipedia and political opinion is a disaster. And now temperatures are dropping. That means the AGW, and for that matter GW theory have failed the tests that are demanded of every other scientific theory : correct predictions. We all know the theory should be gutted for that, and restarted from scratch, and obviously it should be publicly acknowledged that this happened. Science and politics simply don't mix. Politics and wikipedia don't mix. Anyone reading about AGW on wikipedia and believing it is a moron.

And let's get one thing straight : "the scientific consensus". Have some of you had a course in history of philosophy ? The scientific consensus was that WWI couldn't possibly happen, that the titanic couldn't sink, that Einstein was an upstart idiot who could not be right, that communism would work, that Newton was an upstart idiot with wrong theories. The scientific consensus was that the earth was flat, that there were only 124 elements in nature, only 10 elements in nature, only 4 elements in nature, only 3 elements in nature. The scientific consensus means nothing at all without reliable predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.82.75 (talk • contribs)
 * Your knowledge of history seems to match your knowledge of science... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to know where to begin to reply to such an uninformed rant, but to take one of the simplest misconceptions, see Flat Earth. Anyone who's thought about it has thought the Earth was probably spherical since about the 4th century BC. Most of your other assertions are wrong as well. If you read the relevant Wikipedia articles, you will get a reasonable summary of the current scientific view of global warming, as backed up by current research, which is that it does exist and it is caused by humans. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic, but not surprising, that when a documentary points out the dogmatic adherence to an unproven scientific theory, those most invested in the dogma come out to attack it. This article, as written, exists for one purpose - to discredit the film by highlighting criticisms by the same dogmatic interests the documentary assails. Wikipeddling a single point of view on one side of a controversial issue is not in the long-term interests of this site. Throw it out and start over with some people who don't have an axe to grind. Madjack59 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have more time for this argument if it was actually an argument. You say "dogmatic", "unproven", etc., but you don't offer any evidence other than your opinion. In the absence of evidence from reputable sources which contradicts what the article currently says, there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss. --Merlinme (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link
This link no longer works:

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”: a critique - The Australian meteorological and oceanographic society

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
This really needs to be cleaned-up. The POV is horrendous. Typically, isn't an article like this is sectioned into one area that lists support, and an area that lists criticism? Why is this article not sectioned like that? The criticism of this film can't be taken seriously since it it weaved throughout the article with no presense of POV. Corwin8 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed little of the language, but I think that it would be useful and fair if we changed the formatting to be the same as An Inconvenient Truth. Synposis, Scientific Basis, etc. I've started doing that. Corwin8 (talk)


 * It's neither useful nor fair. These are very different movies in nearly every aspect - from production and distribution to critical reception and comments. Also, please read WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia is not "US English", and changing national spelling variants is strongly discouraged - especially for a topic like this UK movie produced by a UK company and broadcast primarily in a UK market. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. Let's keep it U.K. But why not start with a synopsis like most other films? Why not separate the article into positive and negative? This isn't five years ago, and no one is fooled by a Wiki article that is biased and uses weasel words. It stands out. I put it back to my previous formatting, and I invite you to add the UK spelling and syntax whereever you feel it is appropriate. Agreed? Corwin8 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No an article isn't "typically" sectioned that way. In fact it is usually discouraged to separate positives and negatives - since it is prone to invite undue weight. And British English is the basis here, so you will have to work from that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject British TV shows,
This is not a 'show'. This is a production that was shown once. To me, I don't see why it would apply to a project that is based on series' of episodes. The Squicks (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neo Science
Should this article have a separate section to explain the new (neo) scientific method of consensus? Scientific consensus is mentioned 17 times in this article but not once is the scientific requirement of an exact penned AGW theory referenced or sourced. Perhaps a Neo-Science wiki page can be started describing a new scientific method where only scientific consensus is required around a hypothesis, no theory required, no experiment required to prove the theory and no replication of the experiment required. In neo-science after one person has a consensus on the hypothesis the method of invoking Joseph Mccarthy like censuring of other scientists should be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.196 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your point? If you want an explanation of what the consensus is, the work of the IPCC is a good place to start. If you are complaining about global warming "McCarthyism", it would helpful if you could provide some examples where dissenting people have actually been silenced. If you are wondering why there isn't more debate, the main reason is that there's not a great deal of disagreement (among scientists who've studied the evidence). The vast majority agree that humans are causing global warming.


 * They may disagree about how much warming; or they may disagree about exactly which causes are most significant, e.g. deforestation vs. burning fossil fuels; they may disagree about the likely consequences; they may disagree about the best course of action (if any) to deal with the warming being caused by humans. But very, very few scientists disagree that humans are causing global warming. That's why there's a consensus; the science is pretty clear. Dozens of scientific academies of just about any country you care to name have endorsed the IPCC position. No scientic body, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, reject the point that human activity is causing global warming to at least some degree. See Scientific opinion on climate change if you want a more detailed discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's recent changes.
I made the following changes: click here for diffs. See the edit summaries for explanations. Please comment here if you think these inappropriate.

I do have one additional question for the group, here. It seems that a lot of the Carl Wunsch material is actually repeated, sometime almost word for word, in multiple places throughout the article. Is there some reason to give Carl's views so much space? Even if I accept that all of the points referenced are relevant, isn't repeating them sort of WP:UNDUE on its face?

I would like to consolidate the Carl bits somehow to simply remove the repetition while keeping all of the existing points as close to "as is" as possible. Would anyone object if I took a WP:BOLD stab at such a change? I'll hold off for a few days to see if there are objections or if there is a valid reason to have so much material actually repeated.

--GoRight (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right about the redundancy; your other changes were disruptive and I have partially or completed restored the previous wording. Raul654 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's us review your changes:


 * (1) I had "According to OfCom the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy".


 * You changed it to "According to OfCom, the reason the program was not deemed to have caused harm, however, was not that it was accurate but that it was so blatantly outside of what is scientifically established: the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy".


 * Your version clearly asserts "according to OfCom" that "the reason the program was not deemed to have caused harm, however, was not that it was accurate but that it was so blatantly outside of what is scientifically established". But reading the direct quote from the OfCom that immediately follows says nothing of the sort.  Similarly, a quick review of the provided reference demonstrates that it lacks all of these key words or phrases from your addition: "blatantly", "outside", "scientifically", "scientifically etablished", or "established" (in a context relevant to this discussion).


 * Given this, can you please provide an explanation for how the text that you restored is a fair and accurate representation of what the OfCom or the article actually asserted, and why it should be considered anything other than POV WP:SYN and/or WP:OR?


 * (2) I had "Durkin acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions is wrong, but he described the change as minor and said it would be corrected in the expanded DVD release."


 * You changed it to "Durkin has subsequently admitted that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions is wrong, but described the change as minor and removed the claim from later versions."


 * The relevant paragraph from the source is "Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists — including the claim about volcanic emissions — but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.".


 * I don't care about your rewording at the end of the sentence, but changing "acknowledged" to "admitted" is an unnecessary POV push since admitted clearly implies intentional wrong-doing whereas acknowledged does not. Will you accept using "acknowledged" instead of "admitted" since that was what actualy appeared in the reference?


 * (3) I had "Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com and is affiliated with a couple of organizations with some financial ties to ExxonMobil".


 * You changed it to "Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, and has close financial and organizational ties to ExxonMobil".


 * The relevant portion from the source is "Industry defenders shelled the study, and, with a dearth of science to marshal to their side, used opinion pieces and press releases instead. “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice,” blared FoxNews.com columnist Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute ($75,000 from ExxonMobil) who also publishes the website JunkScience.com. Two days later the conservative Washington Times published the same column. Neither outlet disclosed that Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil. Between 2000 and 2003, the company gave $40,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which is registered to Milloy’s home address in Potomac, Maryland, according to IRS documents. ExxonMobil gave another $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute—also registered to Milloy’s residence. Under the auspices of the intriguingly like-named Free Enterprise Education Institute, Milloy publishes CSRWatch.com, a site that attacks the corporate social responsibility movement. Milloy did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article; a Fox News spokesman stated that Milloy is “affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon.”".


 * The source only alleges that Milloy is associated with two (three if you count Cato as an "affiliation") organizations that received money from ExxonMobil. The source provides no substantiation of the claim that Milloy "runs" these organizations in any real sense, only that they are registered to his address which could easily be a formality.  The only direct quote provided as substantiation of anything explicitly uses the word "affiliated" and specifically denies that Milloy, himself, receives any funds directly from ExxonMobil.  Nowhere in the article does it claim that Milloy's personal ties to ExxonMobil are "close", just the opposite since all of his alleged ties are indirect.  Therefore the phrase "close financial and organization ties to ExxonMobil" is inherently misleading and a POV push, especially with respect to any claim about Milloy personally receiving any funding from ExxonMobil as your version clearly suggests.


 * Do others believe that Raul's version is a more accurate representation of what the article actually states than the one I have provided?


 * --GoRight (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you have this backwards. These aren't my changes - I was putting the article back to the long standing version. You were the one making the changes to the long-term version of the article. The burden of proof is on you to justify your edits to the satisfaction of those concerned here.


 * Second, we are not required to quote sources verbatim. Our summary does not have to match the source word-for-word. Perhaps if you had taken the time to actually read some of the sources you mentioned, you would have seen this in the following sentence: "The greater a programme's defiance of scientific fact, the less likely Ofcom is to rule against it.". Given that he's calling it (global warming) a scientific fact, I'd say that is more than suffecient to reference the "scientifically established" phrase even if it does not use those exact words. Likewise, given that he's calling TGGWS "[defiant] of scientific fact", that is more than sufficient to reference the "blatantly outside" statement.


 * Third, it's not biased to say he "admitted" instead of "acknowledged". "Acknowledged" implies a level-headed and fair-minded acceptance of criticism (e.g, to take criticism gracefully), whereas Durken's usual response to such debunking of his propaganda is to tell critics to go fuck themselves. Your edit is misleading, if not outright wrong. Admitted is by far the more correct categorization of his actions.


 * Fourth, your version (affiliated with, a couple of, some financial ties) has numerous qualifiers designed to mislead the reader into thinking that Milloy has a much more distant relationship with oil companies than he actually does. As the source says point blank -- he "runs" two organizations that take money from Exxon. And he's affiliated 9 other organizations linked to ExxonMobile (not 2). In short, your edit was both misleading and factually wrong. Raul654 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "First, you have this backwards. These aren't my changes - I was putting the article back to the long standing version. You were the one making the changes to the long-term version of the article." - Meh, po-tay-to / po-tah-to. Your reverts modified the content of the page, that makes them changes.


 * "The burden of proof is on you to justify your edits to the satisfaction of those concerned here." - Which is precisely why I took my changes directly to the talk page after being WP:BOLD. Still, you are the only one that has expressed any disagreement with my edits thus far.  Are you now asserting that I cannot make these sensible changes based on the reasons provided because you, and you alone, object to them?  Is that not the very definition of WP:OWN?  And regardless of how the page came to be in its curent state, if it violates Wikipedia guidelines and policies it should be fixed, correct?


 * "you would have seen this in the following sentence: "The greater a programme's defiance of scientific fact, the less likely Ofcom is to rule against it."." - First, this statement is made by the author of the piece, not OfCom, as the text that you restored clearly states. Second, this statement does NOT state that global warming is a scientific fact, or anything even close to that, because it does not even refer to Global Warming so this should be obvious.  To claim that this statement says that global warming is a scientific fact, as you have done here, is obviously either WP:SYN in conjunction with some other undisclosed point(s), or WP:OR on your part.


 * "Given that he's calling it (global warming) a scientific fact, I'd say that is more than suffecient to reference the "scientifically established" phrase even if it does not use those exact words. Likewise, given that he's calling TGGWS "[defiant] of scientific fact", that is more than sufficient to reference the "blatantly outside" statement." - This, of course, is pure WP:SYN on your part. You are combining multiple statements to draw your own conclusions.  WP:SYN is not allowed as you are well aware.


 * In any case, the text that you restored states "According to OfCom, the reason the program was not deemed to have caused harm, however, was not that it was accurate but that it was so blatantly outside of what is scientifically established ..." which clearly states that this is the direct opinion of OfCom when, in fact, it is at best the opinion of the author of the piece and much more likely given the WP:SYN involved to draw the required conclusions merely the opinion of Raul and others that support the inclusion of this text. As such the current version is not only misleading as to whose position is actually being presented but is also violating the no WP:SYN policy.


 * Since you have reverted the original material you are now, I presume, accepting full responsibility for your actions as is the normal understanding in such matters. Given this, we know from WP:BURDEN that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  In this case that would be you.  Please provide a WP:RS that substantiates the claim actually being made by the text you restored without relying upon WP:SYN or agree to whatever changes are required to bring the text of the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies.  While I still believe that my original change is the best available option to correct these deficiencies, I am certainly open to considering alternatives.  Do you have any that you care to offer up here?  If not, kindly allow me to make my change.


 * ""Acknowledged" implies a level-headed and fair-minded acceptance of criticism (e.g, to take criticism gracefully), whereas Durken's usual response to such debunking of his propaganda is to tell critics to go fuck themselves. Your edit is misleading, if not outright wrong. Admitted is by far the more correct categorization of his actions." - I agree with your characterization of the different implications made by "acknowledged" vs. "admitted". I believe that this was the essence of my objection.  I will point out that the source you are currently relying upon clearly uses the term "acknowledged" and not the term "admitted", so apparantly that source believes that "acknowledged" is the preferred term in this case.  Your claim that "Durken's usual response to such debunking of his propaganda is to tell critics to go fuck themselves" does not actually appear in the source, nor does anything substantially similar it.  Given this your analysis must either be WP:SYN or WP:OR.  Again, consistent with WP:BURDEN as quoted above please provide a source that substantiates your use of the term "admitted" within the text that you restored, or agree to accept the term actually used by the source being quoted.


 * On the Milloy changes, I still believe that the current version is biased relative to the actual statements found within the provided source, but not sufficiently so that I wish to continue pursuing it.


 * --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "You're right about the redundancy" - In an effort to efficiently arrive an a resolution to what you acknowledge is a violation of WP:UNDUE, how do you suggest that we proceed? Shall I make a proposal or do you wish to make one first?  --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The burden of proof is on you to justify your edits to the satisfaction of those concerned here." - Which is precisely why I took my changes directly to the talk page after being WP:BOLD. Still, you are the only one that has expressed any disagreement with my edits thus far.
 * ...And yet no one has has actually agreed with a single point you made. So that makes you 0-1. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, consistent with WP:BRD silence is generally considered acceptance. So unless someone like yourself speaks up, they implicitly accept the proposed change.  Thus far you are the only one to have spoken up so I can only assume that the others find my proposal acceptable.  --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you now asserting that I cannot make these sensible changes based on the reasons provided because you, and you alone, object to them?
 * No, I'm asserting that your edits damaged this article, and made it less accurate,, and that this is par-for-the-course where your editing on Wikipedia is concerned. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to your individual opinion on this point, but unless and until others voice a similar view that's all this is. Your opinion stacked against mine as individuals.  --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "you would have seen this in the following sentence: "The greater a programme's defiance of scientific fact, the less likely Ofcom is to rule against it."." - First, this statement is made by the author of the piece, not OfCom, as the text that you restored clearly states.
 * And your point is? It's perfectly allowable to use non-canonical reliable sources to explain why something happened. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the version you restored is making a patently false claim by attributing to the OfCom something that the OfCom never said. This is unacceptable on its face.  I prefer to merely remove the false claim as it is seriously flawed by being primarily WP:SYN anyway and simply let the OfCom speak for themselves rather than our putting words in their mouths.  We are not here to WP:SYN words to put into OfCom's mouth.  We are here to fairly and accurate reflect what the other WP:RS that we rely upon actually say on their own.  The text you have reverted simply fails on this count for the reasons already stated.  --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Second, this statement does NOT state that global warming is a scientific fact, or anything even close to that, because it does not even refer to Global Warming so this should be obvious. To claim that this statement says that global warming is a scientific fact, as you have done here, is obviously either WP:SYN in conjunction with some other undisclosed point(s), or WP:OR on your part.
 * What are you talking about? In fact, it is precisely because “the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast”, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy, that a programme claiming it is all a pack of lies could slip past the partiality rules. The greater a programme’s defiance of scientific fact, the less likely Ofcom is to rule against it. This paradoxical judgement allows Channel 4 to keep getting away with it. What other scientific fact is he talking about? Gravity? Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough I suppose. You have used your own WP:SYN of his statements to make a reasonable case for the fact that George Monbiot considers global warming to be settled scientific fact.  To use your own question from above, and your point would be?  As I said originally, the most you can reasonably claim about the text you restored is that it is George Monbiot's opinion, NOT that of the OfCom as the text now reads.  Again, this is unacceptable.  If you wish to have Monbiot's opinions reflected in the article you have to at least attribute them to Monbiot and NOT the OfCom.  How does this not make sense to you?  Why do you want to attribute Geroge Monbiot's opinions to OfCom? --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Given that he's calling it (global warming) a scientific fact, I'd say that is more than suffecient to reference the "scientifically established" phrase even if it does not use those exact words. Likewise, given that he's calling TGGWS "[defiant] of scientific fact", that is more than sufficient to reference the "blatantly outside" statement." - This, of course, is pure WP:SYN on your part. You are combining multiple statements to draw your own conclusions.  WP:SYN is not allowed as you are well aware.
 * Wikipedia editors are expected to possess and use reading comprehension skills. Mobiot's above statement above is crystal clear, your own claims otherwise not withstanding. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true that wikipedia editors are expected to posses and use reading comprehension skills. No disagreement on that point.  So, when you write "According to OfCom, blah ..." to whom are you attributing "blah"?


 * In any case, the text that you restored states "According to OfCom, the reason the program was not deemed to have caused harm, however, was not that it was accurate but that it was so blatantly outside of what is scientifically established ..." which clearly states that this is the direct opinion of OfCom when, in fact, it is at best the opinion of the author of the piece and much more likely given the WP:SYN involved to draw the required conclusions merely the opinion of Raul and others that support the inclusion of this text. As such the current version is not only misleading as to whose position is actually being presented but is also violating the no WP:SYN policy.
 * As usual, you are trying to bootstrap your own misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy into damaging edits to an article. We have the Ofcom statement quoted, and a reliable source explaining why Ofcom reached that decision. Both of these are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policies. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving your WP:ABF personal attack on my motives aside, your claim that "and a reliable source explaining why Ofcom reached that decision" is clearly incorrect. Monbiot is in no position to speak for or represent the official positions of the OfCom.  At best the text you restored can be attributed to being Monbiot's personal opinion or his personal interpretation of what occurred but you simply cannot attribute that to the OfCom directly as the current text clearly does.  If you insist on keeping Monbiot's views in the article you have to (a) accurately reflect what they actually state without your WP:SYN, and (b) attribute them to their actual source which is obviously Monbiot and NOT the OfCom.  --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you have reverted the original material you are now, I presume, accepting full responsibility for your actions as is the normal understanding in such matters. Given this, we know from WP:BURDEN that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  In this case that would be you.  Please provide a WP:RS that substantiates the claim actually being made by the text you restored without relying upon WP:SYN or agree to whatever changes are required to bring the text of the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies.
 * I already have provided reliable sources to back up my claims. Your claims of synthesis are wholly without merit. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My claims of WP:SYN are obviously correct on their face. Your text cannot possibly be (accurately) described as anything BUT a synthesis of what Monbiot actually said.  It is most certainly NOT his actual statements.  Simply compare the word for word text of the two to verify that.  I dispute the accuracy of that synthesis on your part, but I am willing to compromise to find a more accurate representation thereof if you want to maintain Monbiot's view within the article.  In the interests of moving past this silly back and forth arguing, I will make an explicit proposal for alternate text below in short order some time tomorrow.  Perhaps we can iterate that sufficiently to find and acceptable compromise. --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I still believe that my original change is the best available option to correct these deficiencies, I am certainly open to considering alternatives. Do you have any that you care to offer up here?  If not, kindly allow me to make my change.
 * If you have any non-damaging suggestions for what to do with this article, I'm all ears. But other than your suggestion for removing redundancy, your edits so far have been damaging to this article. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, in your individual opinion. Obviously I believe that the current text is damaging to the project or I would not have undertaken my efforts to correct it.  --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ""Acknowledged" implies a level-headed and fair-minded acceptance of criticism (e.g, to take criticism gracefully), whereas Durken's usual response to such debunking of his propaganda is to tell critics to go fuck themselves. Your edit is misleading, if not outright wrong. Admitted is by far the more correct categorization of his actions." - I agree with your characterization of the different implications made by "acknowledged" vs. "admitted". I believe that this was the essence of my objection.  I will point out that the source you are currently relying upon clearly uses the term "acknowledged" and not the term "admitted", so apparantly that source believes that "acknowledged" is the preferred term in this case.  Your claim that "Durken's usual response to such debunking of his propaganda is to tell critics to go fuck themselves" does not actually appear in the source, nor does anything substantially similar it.  Given this your analysis must either be WP:SYN or WP:OR.  Again, consistent with WP:BURDEN as quoted above please provide a source that substantiates your use of the term "admitted" within the text that you restored, or agree to accept the term actually used by the source being quoted.
 * I don't agree with "acknowledged" - I think it's inaccurate as to how Durkin actually behaves, and I don't think the source was splitting that difference. With that said, it's a minor point so I'm OK going with 'acknolwedged' instead of admitted. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, duly noted. I appreciate your flexibility on this point.  --GoRight (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That was quite a flurry of activity over the weekend! GoRight, I think you have some valid points, but I also disagree with some of your changes. Also please bear in mind that this article is on a lot of people's watch lists; if you start making changes on Friday night, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone accepts your changes if there have been no reverts by Sunday night. I for one rarely check Wikipedia over the weekend.
 * OfCom did say that the programme was so far outside the scientific mainstream that it didn't have to be accurate. Read the report. It is certainly not synthesis to quote one of the many articles which report this. If you particularly object to Monbiot, I'll see if I can find another source. I'm fairly sure the BBC had a similar article. I agree 'blatantly' is unencyclopedic though, and not in the original.
 * My other objection is the way you have put in Durkin's claim that the change re: volcanic emissions was 'minor'. That is extremely debatable; it featured heavily in one of his graphics. I think the reader should be able to make up their own mind as to whether the claim was a 'minor' part of the film.
 * If you can find a way of editing Wunsch's point down so that it is given reasonable prominence without repetition and undue weight, that's fine.
 * I'll make edits based on these points. Feel free to discuss. --Merlinme (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made my changes. Re: the OfCom ruling, I've removed the Monbiot reference in favour of the actual OfCom report. Re: Synthesis, I think it's entirely appropriate to provide a brief summary of what OfCom said, especially as the quote directly follows, with a reference, so the reader can follow and make their own mind up. If the reference doesn't support the article text, then of course the article text should be changed. However at the moment I think the article text is a reasonable summary of a long and complicated ruling. Short of quoting more of the ruling in the lead, I don't see a better way of doing it. --Merlinme (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind; to eliminate any suggestion of Synthesis, I've quoted more of the OfCom ruling. I really don't think the previous summary was inaccurate, but we now have more of OfCom's rather complicated ruling. --Merlinme (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Also please bear in mind that this article is on a lot of people's watch lists; if you start making changes on Friday night, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone accepts your changes if there have been no reverts by Sunday night. I for one rarely check Wikipedia over the weekend." - This is fine, of course. I was not claiming complete exoneration here (I believe I did use the phrase "unless and until" somewhere in there to make this clear).  I was merely denying that Raul can be considered as speaking for all of you in his comments.  Fair enough?


 * "My other objection is the way you have put in Durkin's claim that the change re: volcanic emissions was 'minor'. That is extremely debatable; it featured heavily in one of his graphics. I think the reader should be able to make up their own mind as to whether the claim was a 'minor' part of the film." - I don't disagree that the reader can make up their own mind about whether the change is minor, or not, based on the information and links provided. My change did not alter that one bit.  But I think it only fair and appropriate to articulate the director's opinion on the topic, no?  If we want to make the addition in such a way as to make it clear that this is only his opinion, I am OK with that.  But given the level of prominence that his critics have been given in this article, I don't think it unfair to let the producer / director's opinion on this tiny matter to be brought forward explicitly.  How about something like "which he considers to be a minor change"?  I don't think this is a "big" deal, I am just looking to make the text a fair representation of his actual comments, and he DID say he considered it a minor change.


 * "If you can find a way of editing Wunsch's point down so that it is given reasonable prominence without repetition and undue weight, that's fine." - When I can find the time I will make a stab at it. I will make a WP:BOLD edit to the article and then immediately self-revert it when I have it ready.  This seems the easiest way to present such a proposal.  Trying to describe things here would be a nightmare.  Would this be an acceptable approach for making such a proposal?


 * Regarding your changes I have not had a chance to review them yet, so I will get back to you if I have anything I want to discuss. --GoRight (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The point about making the changes at the weekend was just to say "hold your horses" until other people have had a chance to respond, so don't worry about it. It wasn't really intended to be a criticism. You effectively did wait and I have responded.
 * I don't have a problem with replacing "admitted" with "acknowledged" re: the volcanic emissions error, however I don't really like the way Durkin muddies the waters every time he's been shown to be wrong. And he was clearly wrong on this particular issue, wrong by a factor of something like 50 times. If we must have his quote, I think it should be in quote marks, to make it absolutely clear that it's not narrative or editorial, it's his opinion and his opinion only. --Merlinme (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed a fair chunk of Wunsch material which was repetitious. I've kept things which weren't stated in quite that way elsewhere. I'm not sure there's much more that needs to go, but you're welcome to have a try if you wish. --Merlinme (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your efforts here. I will look your changes over and propose additional changes if I see anything your haven't already caught.  I won't be able to get to this for a few days, as it turns out, but stay tuned.  There is no deadline.  --GoRight (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Class rating
I marked this as 'C' rather than 'B', because I believed that there are some notable flaws in the article.

To start with, WP:Lead states that that the lead section should serve as a concise summary of the main article. Right now, the lead seems too long- around 5-6 paragraphs worth of text- and it could be placed in more succinct language easily. As well, the lead displays information such as the reference to the Sex Pistols that is not actually mentioned in the body text. The main points of the arguements of the film- such as the "Killing the African dream of development" and "climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests"- are not actually mentioned in the lead. The lead right now focuses primarily on the criticism of the film and the Office of Communications debate. Obviously, these topics need to be discussed in the article. But the lead only needs to be a summary, it does not have to go into detail about the criticisms. The Squicks (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the heat and light which this article generates, I think to say that the lead could be rewritten "easily" is a touch optimistic, but I may have a go if I have time. --Merlinme (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having also just had a quick look at WP:LEAD, I'm also not completely sure I agree with your assessment. From the lead to LEAD :-), we have: "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead." So it should reflect controversies, and the "material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Given the vast amount of criticism of the film, a strong case could be made that the material in the lead simply reflects the large amount of criticism of the programme in the rest of the article, making it well within the WP:LEAD guidelines.
 * The main points I can see which need improving are the length, and yes the Sex Pistols reference could (and probably should) go elsewhere. --Merlinme (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Category:Denialism
I have removed this article from the Category:Denialism because it simply doesn't belong in it. The film does not deny that there is climate change, it only contradicts the current main stream theories about why climate change happens. Furthermore putting it in this category would team it up with Holocaust Denial, Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, Flat Earth Society and things like that. This would be branding a critical film about Global Warming with these thing wich are beyond comparaison. And this is an article about a part of what should be a scientific discussion, introducing tags like denialism will only radicalise the debate.

User:Allard Posted: Saturday 29 March 2008 - 16:32 CET —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this different? If I understand it correctly the film is questioning the fact that climate change is being caused by humans. And that climate change is being caused by humans is supported by a majority consensus in the scientific community. Doesn't that bring it down there among Holocaust Denial, Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, Flat Earth Society and things like that? -- Apis ( talk ) 15:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything surrounding global warming is still speculative, unlike the Holocaust and Flat Earth. The Holocaust (as with your other two examples) is well documented.  Global warming is still a theory.  It is similar to Evolution.  You could call something denouncing evolution but promoting creationism denialism but you'd have to do the same for those denouncing creationism and promoting evolution.  Until global warming (and whether we are affecting it or not) becomes virtually, absolutely verifiable (which it isn't), any criticism should hardly be classified as denialism.68.60.111.239 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that critics of climate science and of evolution have about the same credibility.JQ (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * That's a common misconception. There are theories, and then there are theories. Newtons laws of motion is also 'just' a theory, so is Einsteins theory of general relativity. They are still a lot more reliable than string theory for example. Why? Because both Newtons laws and general relativity has been verified countless of times (and perhaps even more important: it can be verified (and disproven)). That's how science works, you have a theory (or come up with a new one) and then you test it, if the experiments don't agree with the theory then you discard it, if they do agree you move on and do another experiment. The more you test it, and the theory is accurate (i.e. none of the experiments disagree with it), the more you can rely on it. This is also true for global warming and evolution (lets keep evolution out of this particular discussion though). It's not speculative, it's good science, if global warming didn't have any data to back it up, no serious scientific organization would confirm it. ''
 * Theories such as Newton's laws have been proven through empiric testing. AGW (and for that matter, evolution) has not. The evidence to support AGW is a best fit theory, computer models and a correlation-proves-causation argument that is extremely tenuous at best (multiple studies that show C02 lagging past climate change). Calling doubting the human causation theory "denialism" (no point trying to disassociate it from the Holocaust smear it is, see Apis' comment above) is perojative and unscientific.Jaimaster (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it surprising with what confidence you state complete nonsense. Of course evolution has been tested empirically (see e.g. the recent evolution of citrate metabolism in E. Coli by Richard Lenski and the dig for Tiktaalik for two very different empirical approaches both confirming evolution), and of course the basics of anthropogenic global warming were understood long before we had computers (unless you count Babbage's Difference Engine). Computer models help us understand the feedbacks and details of climate change better, but basic understanding of radiative transfer in gases is sufficient to understand what is going on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of complete nonsense, are you seriously trying to claim that because we have a basic understanding of radiative transfer in gasses that we can second guess the entire global climate system and conclude that this basic understanding proves the causation theory? Jaimaster (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "proof" in science. But yes, if our understanding of radiative processes explains things like the average temperature of Earth, and the temperature of Venus, and predicts that an increase in greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in temperature, and we then observe such an increase in greenhouse gases coinciding with an increase in temperature at roughly the predicted rate, I take that as a good piece of evidence for the theory. If 30 years of intensive research eliminate most possible other causes and result in a much more detailed picture, still in good agreement with the theory, even better. That's exactly what "empirical testing" is about - you make predictions, then perform an experiment or make an observation, and confirm or refute your theory. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You must take a very broad definition of roughly to claim that past predictions have been vindicated. To pull this back to the topic, how does one "deny" (in the sense of holocaust denial) the theory of AGW using scientific argument as has been done in this documentary? The wiki catagory contains holocaust denial and Flat Earth theory and as such is completely inappropriate to describe doubting AGW.Jaimaster (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed Indent) As no one has given a reasonable explanation of why equating science-based critism of a scientific theory should be equated to bad faith rejection of the holocaust or support of the rediculous "flat earth" belief I am going to remove this catagory again.Jaimaster (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Jaimaster. You can't deny something that hasn't happened yet, and is only a projection in contrived and limited computer models. Will revert. rossnixon 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For Raul - to date users who have commented here supporting removal:
 * Allard, 68.60.111.239, Jaimaster, Rossnixon.


 * Against removal:
 * Apis Jaimaster (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory comment on the talk page. Include me as being in favor of removal per WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

More reverts from people not willing to discuss the perojative nature of the label, how suprising. Jaimaster (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's really not much to discuss - it's about as idiotic and pointless as getting sucked into a debate on whether the Earth is round or flat. --Badger Drink (talk)
 * That might actually be the dumbest thing I have read today Jaimaster (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Im going to keep kicking this catagory off every other day until the reverters are prepared to be civil and discuss it. At the moment the lot of you are in violation of good faith editing standards. Reaching a consensus on content does not include maintaining your POV by reverting everything back to status quo. Jaimaster (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For want of wikilawyering, reverting good faith edits without discussion is, by policy, edit warring. I have asked repeatedly for the reverters to discuss this issue, both here and on the history of my edits, to no avail. Raul, you are an administrator, among other official wiki roles. Care to elaborate on why you feel the discussion portion of bold-revert-discuss does not apply to yourself? Jaimaster (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in as a previously uninvolved party: I strongly suspect that AGW is occurring (not because I have any insight into the question myself, but because I normally defer to the scientific establishment on issues like this). Moreover, to the extent that I have a record of editing science articles on Wikipedia I think it's been generally in the "pro-science" camp. But you can add me to the voices here who don't believe that the category is appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

--Weighing in late here, I believe there is more than ample precedent to decisively maintain that those who oppose the theory of human-caused global warming are not “denialists." When Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity, he faced bitter opposition from the old guard within the physics community, including Nobel laureates such as Johannes Stark, because Einstein’s theory abolished the need for the translucent ether theorized to pervade the universe and which provided an absolute frame of reference and had been heretofore accepted as “fact.”  Einstein was cast into the role of a “denialist”.  He responded:  “All it would take to disprove my theory is one observation to the contrary." Thus far, there hasn’t been a single one. That is the scientific way.

The issue of climate science is so mind-boggling complex that one has the legitimate right to inquire if today’s science of climatology is mature enough to adequately account for all the myriad factors that affect climate. The allegations that agenda-driven “science” often occurs in various fields are quite valid in my opinion. People so want to believe that they discard any evidence they might encounter that inconveniently brings into question their pet theories. It is rare for any scientist to flat out admit that his or her theory was wrong in hindsight.

By way of analogy, in the rush to demonize tobacco products, cigarettes are not just held to be the main cause (or at least catalyst) for dreaded respiratory tract diseases (an obvious link), but also for a host of other afflictions on dubious evidence of epidemiological studies which are seldom audited for bias and selective data gathering and reporting. Smoking is held to be a leading cause—if not the leading cause—of heart disease despite the fact that well-known statistics indicate that Japanese men (who traditionally have a high rate of smoking) have a very low rate of heart disease and that this is not true for Japanese-American men.

This strongly points to diet as the main cause of heart disease, yet this evidence is blatantly ignored or else rationalized away within the medical and scientific communities in order to vastly inflate the annual toll of smoking-related deaths to facilitate the anti-smoking agenda.

(If anyone doubts me on this point, write to the U.S. Office of the Surgeon General and ask them to explain why the Japanese statistics do not at least cast grave doubts about smoking being a leading cause of heart disease and witness the dodge ball of a response you receive back. I know because I did.)

If smokers have a higher rate of heart disease, then quite likely the reason is associative rather than causative. That is, those who are prone to ignore the admitted hazards of smoking are not likely to care about other health considerations (such as diet) when compared to nonsmokers. Such questions are, once again, simply ignored in the name of “settled science.”

It has gotten to he point that I have become skeptical of any science less hard than physics and chemistry, fields within which it is difficult to fudge evidence (in light of demonstrative results) in the interest of pre-conceived conclusions. To continue the analogy, I admit that smoking is the leading cause of dreaded (often fatal) lung and oral diseases. I do not consider myself a “denier” because I am most skeptical about some other allegations concerning tobacco products. Nor should those who question the maturity of the science of climatology to come to firm conclusions regarding climate change at this time in history be labeled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.75.114 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll
'''This section is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:POLL and WP:NOT.'''--Darknus823 (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the entire page or just decide that because there is a straw poll that you should give it a bolded slap? This issue had been discussed (and edit warred) back and forth ad nausium. There is nothing inappropriate in the use here of a straw poll to try and shift the focus of the "yes or no" debate away from continued edit warring on the main page. Jaimaster (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit warring is disruptive. Please record your position below.

Those in favor of including the category:
 * 1) Raul654 (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Orlady (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Badger Drink (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Verbal   chat  18:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Count Iblis (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC), note that Denialism mentions Climate change denial in the lead supported by citations.
 * 6)  G-Man  ? 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC) - The term is sufficiently wide meaning to include this, i.e people who deny something against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The opposers have asserted, without evidence, their opinion that this should only apply to Hollocaust deniers etc.
 * 7) Trefalcon Human-caused Global Warming has supporting it a scientific concensus. If a documentary film wants to deny that premise and question that concensus, it is only fair to classify it as denial. The film isn't presenting any solid alternative theories whatsoever, as one would expect were it representing a position with some standing, as opposed to one that is simply denying another position. --Trefalcon (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those opposed to including the category:
 * 1) --GoRight (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Jaimaster (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) --Paul Studier (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Denialism is for holocaust deniers and the like, not for scientists who doubt a theory or a prediction.
 * 4) --Oren0 (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) -- rossnixon 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Rameses Labelling some of the world's leading scientists with a word linked to the Holocaust is highly offensive.  I believe that the word Denialism or Deniers should have no place being used against men of science - it constitutes a malicious slur.  The people using it are Deniers as they deny these men of science the fundamental right to question and propose alternative theories. Wikipedia should stop using the term "Deniers" except in the context of serious Crimes against Humanity.   Rameses (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

onwards with constructive discussion
Badger, can you explain further regardung your latest reversion? Do you have a source that shows the majority of the general public at large feels TGGWS is a case of denialism? Jaimaster (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Counting the straw poll and comments above, seven editors have endorsed removal and four have opposed. That's enough to remove for now, therefore I'm re-removing it. Oren0 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Iblis comment in the poll - Climate Change Denial further explicitely defines itself as vested interests, and gives a clear distinction between itself and climate change skeptic. Can you give sources to demonstrate vested interests on behalf of this film? Rember this is focusing on TGGWS, not climate change vs big bad oil in general. Jaimaster (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The better question for CI is, do you have peer-reviewed sources who claim that TGGWS is a case of denialism? --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. I love the conviction with which people will demand that we stop edit warring when they've reverted as much as anyone.  I'm also amused that there has been basically no argument in favor or including the category other than arguing about global warming which isn't even the point.  The category is original research and unsourced.  I've brought up an RfC which will hopefully settle this. Oren0 (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple comment
Due to the seemingly coming and going of this "Denial-Category" I have chosen to post.. I have a very strong feeling connected to the word “Denialism”. In my view it DOES carry the weight of IDIOTS going against the TRUTH.. As such, in my view, it presents a problem to this article’s categorization as this article can not in any way shape or form claim to represent the TRUTH irrespective of direction.. CO2 is undisputedly a “greenhouse-gas” and we all know that MAN produces it in significant amounts. In this sense there can be NO argument as to if MAN has any impact on the climate or not.. The article however does not argue this, it argues the RATIO of MAN’s impact as to that of NATURE’s.. Theories have been put forth to support both sides of this argument. But until PROVEN otherwise, they remain just that.. THEORIES..! It should be left up to every MAN, WOMAN or CHILD to decide for themselves just what THEORIE they choose to accept. DENILE does not enter in at this very premature state of this so-called “science”. ANY Governmental Body can support ANY theory at ANY time without lending ANY particular theory ANY more credibility.. In my book the AGW-Theory has yet a lot to prove. And it will not do so without many more years of study, as far as I can see right now. To claim the ability to look 100 years into the CLIMATE FUTURE, whilst not being able to accurately predict local weather 24 hours in advance, is in my view the epiphany of “LYING”.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangemang (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)