Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015
Use of the term "climate change denial" is both inaccurate and non-scientific. Please don't let this section of Wikipedia become another useless political blog like other sections of Wikipedia.

AnotherProf (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a suggestion for specific wording and sources to support that wording? Note that there currently are supporting high-quality sources, and we can't simply ignore them. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought sure when I looked at the recently protect article, the recently added term "denier" had been removed. I guess I misread. but I guess I was wrong. This is borderline libel ,and should be removed while we debate whether it should be added. Given that Watts is not a denier, it seems highly unlikely that the consensus of reliable sources will say otherwise. There might be the odd source which is misinformed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should it be given that Watts is not a denier? At least one good quality mainstream source describes him as that. However, more sources describe him as enabling or supporting climate change denial, and that's the issue that needs good coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He is not a denier, and claims not to be a denier. While first party claims are properly given little weight in many cases, this is one time it deserves weight (not 100%, but considerable weight). If Wikipedia is going to say that someone, who claims not to be a denier, actually is one, we need very solid sources. Not just one or two but a clear consensus among knowledgeable sources. I haven't seen close to such a consensus, only a few cherry-picked claims from some biased observers.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, multiple family members just showed up, so I must exit, but I strongly suggest that the word denial be removed, then open up a debate for inclusion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources for the first phrase that WUWT is a "denialist blog" not one of them could remotely be called a "high quality source" - they are all politically slanted and not objective in any way. For instance this one "Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate". I was aghast at the page Wikipedia linked to. It is simply a list of insulting statements - nothing objective, scientific or "quality" about it at all. Cook is a well known political blogger with a visceral hatred of anybody who disagrees with him. He tries to recruit psychology on his side to "prove" that those who disagree with him are all deranged conspiracy theorists, but does nothing of the sort and just ends up insulting the very people he should be trying to convince. High quality? I think not. As for "mainstream views", once upon a time it was "mainstream science" to believe the world was flat, that black people were inferior to white, that women were not as intelligent as men, the shape of your head indicated your personality and your future is written in the stars. Science needs to be continually challenged. Bias in favour of the mainstream is not balance.Oefinell (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is a book written by a senior and a junior academic, and published by Springer Science+Business Media, a widely respected academic publisher. That makes it an excellent source. Yes, science needs to be continually challenged, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's laughable to call John Cook an excellent source -- see, for example, our discussion of his lame 97% Consensus paper,
 * and The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' at the Wall Street Journal.


 * And it's definitely against our policies to use Wikipedia's voice to state as fact that
 * "Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial. " (until yesterday our opening for this article)
 * -- based on opinions by opponents of Watts, be they academics or whatever. This is pretty elementary stuff, guys. I'm taken aback that experienced editors don't seem to see a problem with this. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I've not called "John Cook" an excellent source, but rather a book of which he is the junior author and that was published by Springer. And I see nothing in the section you linked to except for undue weight given to the usual echo chamber (Legates, Idso, and "God will save the planet" Spencer). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just mentioning an article written by Joseph Bast on the same page as the word fact is probably undue weight. Gads. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to crib from Media Matters here?
At time of writing footnote three goes to a Media Matters attack piece that seems to bear a suspicious resemblance to that section of the Wikipedia article it's serving as a reference for. Is there any problem with rewording the point to not use any of the same phrases and hunting down a less abusive citation? TMLutas (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You're looking at the part of the result of this edit. I doubt that Fred Singer is really an active guest columnist. You might try using WUWT's own "about" page, which used to be the basis for (quoting from a month-ago version) "The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry and Christopher Monckton." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, a reliable secondary is source needed for associating BLPs with this blog to meet WP:BLPSPS policy, so not WUWT's own "about" page. MediaMatters reflects scientific mainstream views, it's wrong to describe any criticism of WUWT as "an attack piece", but it doesn't look ideal so we could simply delete the points covered until we find a good quality secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 07:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Media Matters, whatever else it is, is *not* a reliable source for science. It's a media criticism group with a very well defined POV. Fortunately, what it's being used for is not a scientific matter. However, the hostility dripping off the page is a real problem here. To delete text when there's no challenge to the text but merely the citation is a good way to destroy an article. Are you challenging the text? If not, then you should not be suggesting we delete it. TMLutas (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not require that our sources lack a POV, or be "neutral". See WP:BIASED.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * True that POV is allowed, but off point. Media Matters, as it happens, published that in 2012 and is actually inaccurate (though they might have been accurate when published). I don't think that WP:BLPSPS extends to excluding mastheads (lists of contributors). The actual contributor list from the blog would be appropriate but the whole treatment of contributors doesn't belong in the intro paragraph, perhaps as a separate section? TMLutas (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're trying to list every contributor, just a few significant ones. That is, contributors that have their own WP article, or contributors that are an integral part of the site. Ideally, our list should only be a few names long, at most.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. We should not attempt to list every contributor, and listing those who have their own article in WP is a decent starting point for a cutoff.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we also agree not to list people that are not on the site's masthead? Listing someone who isn't actually contributing would seem to be a WP:BLP issue. TMLutas (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * List contributors who have been described as notable contributors by reliable sources. The fact that someone is notable themselves isn't really reason enough. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree that a one time or rare contribution by someone who happens to be notable, but isn't a regular contributor should not be listed. Is it as simple as the intersetion of listed contributor s and notable? In other words, those who are identified by Watts as regular contributors, and meet our notability guides?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed criticism section as a possible resolution to NPOV problem
Since Watts explicitly says that he is not a denier/denialist/believer in denialism and that WUWT does not promote that, it would be reasonable to conclude that such labels are contested. The association of climate change denial with holocaust denial makes this a sensitive issue. I'm not saying get rid of any mention of denial. That would certainly make this page inappropriately hagiographic. It does make sense to segregate the accusations using the widely used mechanism of a criticism page. Are there any objections? TMLutas (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are generally a feature of poorly-written articles. So yes, I strongly oppose this. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:CSECTION. We can't relegate mainstream views to a separate section. If we have a secondary source indicating the label is disputed by Watts, we might be able to include that somewhere in the article, but right now I'm only aware of a primary source on WUWT, which signifies to me there may not be a significant encyclopedic controversy. Let me know if you're aware of a better source, however.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object, largely along the same reasoning as Jess. I suggest you are getting ahead of yourself. If we list all the sources, and Case 1: the overwhelming number and quality support the term "denialist" it belongs in the main section. Case 2: If the overwhelming number and quality support the term "skeptical", then it belongs in the main section. Case 3:If a large number support one term, but a significant number support a different term, then I would support the concept of relegating the minority position to a subsection. This isn't a new idea, it is SOP for all articles. However, I do not yet know that we are have concluded that Case 3 prevails.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would work, as long as the rest of the article went into a section called "nonsense WUWT spouts". Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question for those who favor the term "denialist"
It's clear that there are a group of editors here that feel strongly that the term "denialist" should be included on this page. And I think it's equally clear that another group of editors believe otherwise.

A number of references have been added to the article that use the term—but the fact that a source chooses to use a term does not require that it be used on Wikipedia. And in fact, if the term is critical of one side in a political dispute, Wikipedia policy pretty clearly indicates it should not be used.

So. The obvious solution would be for us to find an alternate term that is not in dispute by either side, or to avoid characterizing the web site entirely.

Thoughts? Any objections? If so, what?

If retaining the term "denialist" is important to you, why?

&#32;--DGaw (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're putting forward a false premise: the word "denialist" does not appear in the body text of the article. However, it appears in two footnotes as quotations from good quality reliable sources. So, at present we use alternative terms in the article, not sure that we should. As for "sides", WP:WEIGHT requires us to show how the mainstream "side" has received the minority views promoted on the website. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "denial" appeared in an earlier revision of the page, and "denialist" appeared in one of the notes cited to support its use. We should not split hairs. &#32;--DGaw (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The word denial is what should have been used in this section title. Denial, denialism, and denialist are propaganda terms used by one side of the debate. TMLutas (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken a position on precisely what wording to use. But we have high-quality sources - several published by major academic publishers - that use that term. So we obviously can't ignore it. We can "give both sides", assuming there's another side to give. But we need to give due weight to sources. What do you propose? Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis. And all stating an opinion about the topic—which is fine, so long as it is called out in the text as a statement of opinion. And of course we can ignore it; there is no requirement that we incorporate any characterization at all of the site, let along any particular one. &#32;--DGaw (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "All primary sources; not suitable for inclusion of interpretation or analysis." - No, that's most definitely untrue. Dunlap and McCright is a secondary source ("The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society") while Farmer and Cook is a textbook. The Robert Manne article isn't a primary source either. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears there may be some confusion about what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. Which a source is isn't a function of the type of document it is (e.g. an encyclopedia or textbook) but its relationship to the article topic.


 * In this case, The "Watts Up With That" site is the topic. A primary source talks about the topic.  A secondary source talks about a primary source talking about the topic.


 * So where Dunlap and McCright talk about "Watts Up With That" in Chapter 10 of their book, they are a primary source for the topic. Another reliable source that references Dunlap and McCright talking about "Watts Up With That" would be a secondary source.  It might therefore be acceptable to cite that secondary source to say, "Dunlap and McCright say that "Watts Up With That" is..." so long as the resulting article remains impartial.


 * The essay WP:USINGPRIMARY has a pretty good explanation of primary and secondary sources. &#32;--DGaw (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your evaluation is incorrect. Please try reading WP:PRIMARY again. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're incorrect in your understanding of primary vs. secondary sources. Nonetheless, though Dunlap & McCright have written primary source material, their chapter in the Oxford Handbook is a secondary source - it "talks about...primary source[s]" (some of which happen to be their own, some not). It doesn't present primary research findings, it discusses previous findings. Anyway, that's one of the three sources I discussed. Does that mean that you agree on Farmer & Cook and Robert Manne? Or not? Let's sort through these sources properly. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, what policy says we should not use terms "critical of one side in a political dispute", particularly when it's a political dispute arguing against science? . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. ...The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." &#32;--DGaw (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be a violation of WP:GEVAL. The blog in question is WP:FRINGE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It'd be OK to tell what is Dr Michael Mann's opinion on wuwt and how Dr Mann is treated in wuwt, but not to claim his opinion is true. NPOV means we can tell the major views on wuwt. They can't be represented as a fact but as a claim. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Denier" is a pejorative term, implying that disputing a prevalent climate attitude is equivalent to denying the WW2 holocaust, the only other widespread use of the term. "Denier" and its derivatives do not belong in the body of the article, though its appearance in the citations may be unavoidable.Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not pejorative by its strict definition. Certainly, many denialists think there is an implication of holocaust denial, but I think that argument is a bit hollow. The problem is, there is no really good synonym that is easy to apply. "Skeptic" isn't correct. Some have suggestion "contrarian", but, alas, that designation hasn't caught on. jps (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading a recent challenge to the AntiDefamation League is enlightening. http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

Those who argue, as Watt does, that it is a reasonable scientific position to be skeptical of many political aspects of climate science are referred to without prior definition as 'skeptics.' It is also taken at face value that the application of the word 'denier' to these scientists is not only a reference to holocaust denial, but in fact trivializes the millions of lives lost in the holocaust. In searching for the NPOV, skeptic cannot be dismissed out of hand as "not correct." It is fairly clear that the term "skeptic" accurately identifies the WUWT position on the issue, and "denier" is a pejorative term for the same opinion holder that is used only in a derogatory manner by those politically opposed to that position.KMAnomalocaris (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive, and it seems to be used with the same intent to offend. Most people who are not AGW proponents would seem to be more appropriately classified as "skeptics"...  They are not convinced by the AGW arguments but are open to discussion and willing to change their opinions with rational, unbiased information.  Perhaps there were significant numbers of "Deniers" in the past, but most thinking individuals not convinced by AGW would now classify themselves as "Skeptics" I believe. When I see someone use the term "Denier", it flags the discussion as likely biased.  If the discussion had merit, they wouldn't need to use the term "Denier".

AClimateSkeptic (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find I have trouble taking seriously someone who says 'I find the use of the term "Denier" offensive in the same way I find the "N-Word" offensive'. This seems like a tactic of taking offense to preempt criticism of unscientific viewpoints. I am not surprised to see it being used by a campaign that is apparently being coordinated off-wiki. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The assertion is that the denier label was applied to attempt to create a psychological linkage to Holocaust deniers. There are documented examples of this on the climate change denial page. You're certainly free to say that people labeled deniers should just put some ice on that but it's not only their credibility at stake TMLutas (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All you arrivals from Watts' call-to-arms miss the point. There is not yet a better synonym in the literature being offered. The idea that you all are "skeptics" has been roundly criticized in the mainstream scientific press so we're left without a label that we all can agree upon. "Contrarian" hasn't yet caught on. Sorry. This is not something Wikipedia can solve. Until you all can convince those who are not in your camp not to call you all "deniers" or "denialists" or "those who engage in denial of facts", you will be stuck with contortions of that description. How we do it will be according to the best sources we can find which will be people who are acknowledged experts either in scientific communications, global warming controversies, or climate scientists themselves. The goal for all of you should be to come up with a term that you like that those whom oppose you will also accept as a decent label. For example, the creationists were successful in doing such a thing. Good luck! (Until then, we're stuck trying to do our best to describe the beliefs of Watts et al. as the beliefs of those who deny basic facts and outcomes of climate science.) jps (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that some publications decry using "skeptic" does not mean the word is inaccurate, it merely illustrates the extent to which the discussion has degenerated into name-calling. Skeptic is an accurate term for one who doubts, for example, that the predictive power of climate models is as great as their advocates claim.  On the other hand, the pejorative connotations of "denier" are plainly evidenced by the militancy with which it is insisted upon by overtly hostile writers. Use of the deliberate insult is a stain on Wikipedia's respectability. Peter (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources by experts in the appropriate field. A "skeptic" in science is someone who has good scientific reason to believe that certain claims may turn out to be significantly incorrect or incomplete. There are self-described skeptics who believe vaccination is evil, and self-described skeptics who believe various conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, and self-described skeptics who believe 98% of science is wrong with regard to climate change. Articles at Wikipedia do not use misleading terms to put such beliefs on an equal footing with the reliable sources—there is no equal time here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, we are not entitled to dismiss some sources simply because they are "pejorative". The standard by which we accept or reject sources is this: WP:RS. In that outline, you will find no means to allow editors to determine when a particular sourced description is pejorative or whether it is not, and while it is undeniable that people who are sympathetic to Watts Up With That?'s position tend to, on the whole, dislike the term "denial", it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, the idea that these people are simply "skeptical" is not as well sourced. The way we make decisions about how to handle these types of situations is to look at what sources are best and stick to them. We are not in the position to right great wrongs when it comes to the perceived insults by those who feel slighted by the way the wider literature on a particular subject treats them. jps (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that we cannot dismiss a term simply because it is pejorative. However, when a term is pejorative, simple human courtesy requires that we be scrupulous, and make absolutely sure it is well-supported, and there is no better term that could be employed. We have an article on the subject of Climate change denial. WUWT does not fit within the implied definition. I am surprised to see you say  ...it's also undeniable that the actual definition of the term "denial" is reliably sourced as being roughly what Watts and others who post on his site do with respect to the scientific consensus on climate change. Well, yes, it is easily deniable that the term as used applies to the site. We not only have Watt's own words, we can look at the articles posted. While a careful cherry pick might find a few that fall into the denial end of the spectrum that isn't the case for the vast majority. Please try it. Read the last 20 articles, and tell me which ones qualify as denial that AGW exists, as opposed to skepticism of some of the claims of AGW proponents. Surely, if it is valid to label the site as a denial site, most of the articles would fit that description. If you are willing to take up the challenge, I suggest that you start with the article posted prior to the post about Wikipedia, to avoid the possibility that subsequent articles were chosen in a biased manner. I picked the number 20 out of the air, more could be used if you want.

As editors, we do not have the latitude to interpret claims and assess their truth. All we can do is check reliable sources and see what they say. Searching academic publications and the experts in the field have led to several sources which suggest Watts advocates climate change denial, and in fact, is one of its foremost advocates. We haven't cherry picked; Mann is among the most respected experts on both climatology and the global warming controversy. Other sources are academic textbooks, books published by academic presses, and authors widely cited and respected on this very topic. It is unfortunate that Watts doesn't like the label which has been widely given to him in academia, but we haven't written this article as a service to him; we've written it as an encyclopedia entry, summarizing the best academic sources. If you have another source we haven't considered, please propose it. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue arose because of your edit describing WUWT as a denialist site. We aren't debating the possible inclusion of an edit along the lines of Some sources describe WUWT as a denialist site. Such an edit might be supported by a modest number of cites. (Perhaps we should discuss this.) We are debating whether we can say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that WUWT is a denialist site. The hurdle for such a claim is much higher, and needs to be supported by virtually all sources which proffer an opinion. That hurdle isn't close to being met.


 * I see several editors making claims that there some sources supporting the claim. Apparently Mann said it somewhere, and there may be a paywalled source with a similar claim. Would someone be so kind as to cite these properly, so we can see how many there are, to determine whether there is a consensus in the literature?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are presupposing that there is a spectrum between denial and what many in Watts' camp call "skepticism". Unfortunately, there is no evidence that such a spectrum exists except that the people who are on this spectrum claims that such a continuum is what is found. We are not in the position to accept that claim at face value and I have seen no reliable source which demarcates a difference between denial and other forms of rejection of scientific consensus on climate change as such. What we are ultimately talking about is how to describe a perspective that rejects (read "denies") the scientific consensus on climate change. Whether we use the word "deny" or "reject" or "oppose" or "au contraire", etc. are editorial decisions, but the synonymity of these proposals remains. Arguing over the implications related to the holocaust is a red herring -- a switch from what we're actually trying to decide which is the following: we need to give the reader an understanding of what this website is and how it works. We cannot simply say, for example, that it is a website devoted to "discussing climate". The blog is a whole lot more than that. It definitely has an editorial bent and it definitely opposes/rejects/contradicts/denies/rejoins/disputes/argues against the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. That's where we start, I think. To move forward we have to acknowledge that this is where we start. jps (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There clearly is a spectrum of belief (although I don't understand your use of the word "between"; a spectrum implies a continuum of points, "between" suggests two camps - which do you mean?)


 * @jps Your post seems to be denying that there is any "spectrum" of opinion on climate change at all. Just what exactly is this "consensus"? Watts' own post sets out his position: "I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate.".


 * The real point at issue is how much additional "forcing" amplifies the pure CO2 effect. Those on the extreme "warmist" side of the argument (some call them "climate jihadists" ) suggest large additional forcing (and suggest anyone that disagrees with them is a "denier"); those on the opposing side of the argument think little or no additional forcing .  Indeed some believe that the additional "forcings" may in fact attenuate the pure CO2 effect.  Some recent research on the impact of aerosols on climate point to a lower Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - indeed below the supposed 2 deg C danger limit.


 * Whether one believes in CAGW or not, it is entirely legitimate to be sceptical of the idea that building endless windmills and solar farms is going to make one iota of difference to climate or temperature, especially as developing countries are increasing CO2 emissions very much faster than the West is reducing them slide 8.


 * Use of the pejorative terms "denier" or "denialist" is deliberately provocative and childish and does nothing to advance the debate about climate science at all. I suggest it best to drop all talk of denialists and jihadists and return to a rational debate based on science and research.


 * Rex Forcer (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are some who do not believe is a greenhouse gas. There are some who concede it is, but do not believe that humans can create enough gas to cause climate change. These are not the same point on the spectrum they are two different points, both of whom could be labeled denialists, but there are position not held by Watts or most of the contributors. (You are welcome, of course to provide contrary evidence).


 * It appears, from your words, that you think anyone who does not fully support the so-called consensus position, as well as the calls for massive changes in human endeavors, can be labeled a "denialist". This may be central to this discussion, as you have a profound misunderstanding of the term. Would you label someone who fully accepts as a greenhouse gas, but thinks the feedback multiplier is closer to 1.0 than to 3.0 should be called a denialist? Would you call Lomborg, who thinks it is fine to accept the IPCC scientific conclusions as is, but disagrees with some of the policy recommendations which some propose as a consequence, as a denialist?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To move forward we must start with reliable sources, and jps is not one. Most known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and that includes academic sources -- the reason this is isn't clear is that the put-denialism-in folks destroy mention of skeptic sources in the articles. And despite the talk about how sources must meet a high standard or be academic, the article cites blogs (Deltoid, SkepticalScience), somewhat controversial sites (Media Matters for America), people who clearly didn't have post-bachelor degrees when they wrote or whose education I don't know (Cook, Grant), and six Guardian columns. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I can only say this so many times. It doesn't matter whether we, as editors, think the labels are appropriate. It matters what our high quality, academic sources say. If you have a source to propose, please do so. Right now it's backed up by Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook - all high quality, academic sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jess, then why do you keep saying it? Has someone disagreed?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a section below, which I hope editors will populate it. Simply claiming that the words are supported by e.g. Grant, is not enough. I want to look at the source and see for myself.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of your comments above, which intend to debate whether the label is appropriate, based on your own assessment of Watts' positions. That can never be useful to the article, and WP:NOTFORUM indicates we must stay focused on article improvement here. The best you can do is provide sources and content proposals, not your own assessments.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of my comments? Yes, I have pointed out that Watts himself claims not to be a denialist. As I have also pointed out, this itself is not sufficient, although it is relevant. I have asked for the external, reliable sources supporting the term. I hope someone provides a few, so we can move forward.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann for one, of course. There are others. How many do you require? jps (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just "a blog",
made this edit, which changed the lead sentence to read "Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog created in 2006 by Anthony Watts." I'm not sure I agree that is the best description of the topic. The blog is predominantly (even exclusively?) devoted to climate change denial, and that's what it's known for. We even discuss its prominence in that respect later. Doesn't it make sense to describe the topic of the site when defining the topic? "a blog" doesn't tell the reader much at all. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * On reflection, these edits removed the subject of the blog from the lead altogether. At best, it was described as a "climate blog" and a news site, which is definitely not representing the sources accurately. I've tried to incorporate the labels back in so we are at least covering the subject fully. I'd appreciate some discussion if there's disagreement. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So you're having the very first sentence be a derogatory label of WUWT. Is this Wikipedia?  Or highschool?  (very unprofessional)  Besides, I'm not sure Mr Watts or those on his site would call themselves "deniers".  Skeptic is the appropriate word.  All you've done is set up a red flag that this page is biased and therefore probably inaccurate.24.9.166.120 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We're having the very first sentence represent what the sources say. It doesn't matter what Mr Watts prefers he be called in the article. It matters how our reliable sources describe him.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as policy goes, there are a number of other things that matter.


 * One is that the sources offering analysis or interpretation of a topic must be secondary sources, not primary sources like those now referenced in Notes section (see WP:PRIMARY).


 * Another is that regardless of what references are used, the resulting article must be impartial in tone "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (see WP:IMPARTIAL). Hopefully we can all agree that whether accurate or not, the term "denial" is meant to reject Watts' perspective. (And if we can't agree on that, it is no less true.)


 * Finally, statements of opinion (such as the statement that Watts up with That is a blog dedicated to climate change denial) must be attributed to the person expressing that opinion, e.g. "a blog that such-and-such-a-person says is dedicated to climate change denial" (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)


 * A number of recent edits appear to be out of policy on all these points. &#32;--DGaw (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The RS sources support "skeptic". Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What sources?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source list from Anthony Watts:


 * John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality.
 * The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism
 * the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That
 * Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers.
 * Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.
 * pages 72, 222.
 * page 27: Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog.
 * Manne, Robert (August 2012). A dark victory: How vested interests defeated climate science.
 * More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established.
 * Dunlap, Riley E... The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.
 * page 153: In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine...the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)...Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message.
 * Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate.
 * One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.

Some of those sources are extremely strong, including Mann and Dunlap. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All primary sources, and thus inappropriate to cite for statements of analysis or interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Can you please cite your reliable secondary sources, and upon including them, also attribute statements to the source in the body of the text? &#32;--DGaw (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rolled back to last half-reasonable version. Jess: would you please stop this? It's getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You reverted a significant number of edits which added high quality sources authored by recognized experts in their field, with no explanation or discussion, and then accuse me of being a POV pusher? Can you respond my comments above any substantive way, please?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) On the contrary, Jess, keep up the good work, until someone who objects to your edits makes a substantive post to this talk page. Pete Tilman, as I understand it, rollback is not for use in content disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dedicated to climate change denial?
Hmm. Could there possibly be a problem with opening our article with:
 * Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial.... -- cited to a long list of sources, all apparently personal opinions by opponents of Watts.

Think about it for a moment. Could this possibly be considered inflammatory? Derogatory? Do you think this shows the project at its best?

This is even sillier than the great "Campaign to Quote Michael Mann" over at Watts' wikibio.... Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do these silly remarks even need a reply? You've already been pointed to relevant policies. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Watts aligns himself as an opponent of mainstream climatology... We're not going to avoid citing experts because, by being experts, they are considered his "opponents". Put another way, we're not going to write Watts' bio using only sources from him and his friends.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we are not going to write a bio based solely on sources form him and his friends, but this is a strawman, I don't see anyone proposing it. Have you actually read the blog? Characterizing it as a denialist blog is ludicrous. I have no doubt that some denialists post to the comments, and there may be blog entries discussing articles by denialists, but that doesn't make it a denialist blog.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My assessment of the blog doesn't matter. Neither does yours. What matters is how it is characterized in high quality sources. And yes, there has definitely been a strong suggestion that only sources not critical of Watts should be used. We can't do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. What if several high quality sources referred to the site as "trash?"  Would it be okay in an enyclopedic article to describe the site as trash in the opening line?  Of course not.  High quality sources can and ought to be cited when they make comments relying on their expertise.  "Denial" is not a scientific assessment but just an ad-hominem attack, no matter how many "sources" it has.  If not, if it is scientific, you ought at least be able to say what it is the site denies.  Do you claim it denies climate change?  Do you think one of your sources makes this claim?  In light of these arguments, I am reverting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.50 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with "dedicated to climate change denial", as long as one can point to what it is that is being denied. Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice. Regarding that word "denial". Does Watts deny that the climate has changed from time to time? I suspect not. Does he deny that it is changing now? I suspect not. Does he deny the radiative effects of CO2? I suspect not. Does he deny that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere? I suspect not. So. He asserts that climate changes, CO2 can affect it and humans increase CO2. Seems he is part of the 97% consensus. Stating that his site is dedicated to climate change denial is just plain wrong. Some of those who assert this know this. I'm curious why the word is used when it is so obviously wrong, inflammatory and possibly defamatory. John G Eggert (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the statement "Otherwise, it is libel and those who use it should be aware that they are committing a tort that can be shown to be with malice." may be construed as a legal threat and hence a violation of Wiki policy. This is not the case or the intent. It is a statement of fact that was meant as a favour to those making such statements as they may not be aware of what they are doing. If this is indeed a violation of policy, I will not do this in the future. I'd appreciate a representative of Wikimedia clarifying. I am not Anthony Watts, nor do I speak on his behalf, hence I have no ability to threaten anyone in these matters.John G Eggert (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You're not going to receive a response here from the WMF, but see WP:NLT, which is our official policy on the topic.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

When deciding if using the term "climate change denial" blog injects opinion and bias, maybe we should look at how we categorize other blogs...is the Skeptical Science blog categorized as a "climate change alarmist" blog? If wiki is trying to be objective, I don't think you would use either term...just my two cents worth...Steve Armstrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarms58 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That first sentence should include "man-made", which would make clear what WUWT is really about. 68.40.50.81 (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problem solved
Just put everything in, this stops the war. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It fixes nothing. Calling it a denialist site is factually inaccurate, and propagandistic. But that's Wikipedia, which is completely unreliable on any controversial topic, no matter what it is. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Andy Schlafly believes. Feel free to use his wiki instead, I understand some people manage to make dozens of edits before Schlafly bans them. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia is going to be liberalopedia, then. No wonder no one has any confidence in this horror story of a so-called encyclopedia. This is just one more example of how Wikipedia is unable to deal with ax-grinders like you. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Is a lukewarmer a denier?
Watts puts himself in a camp he calls the "lukewarmer". Apparently other blogosphere nattering nabobs seem to adopt that position when parsing the difference between certain people who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. That's fine with me, but I have yet to see a reliable source (read "not a self-published blog") which demarcates with authority how one might distinguish between a lukewarmer and a denier as imagined by Watts and others on this kick. Does anyone have such a source?

On the other hand, I see many sources which lump (fairly or unfairly) the whole lot of those who thumb their noses at the IPCC as those who "deny" climate change. They may not deny the sum total of climate change, but that's not really the concern of most of the sources who actually study what these groups do. I have been unable to find any reliable source (read "peer reviewed" or at least "published by an academic publisher") which makes the distinction between lukewarmers and denialists clearly. Please provide one if you can find it, preferably that references this blog.

jps (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a rather transparent attempt to distance himself from the obvious lunatic fringe. As one of the leading enablers for said fringe, he doesn't really get to choose. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Guettarda (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I think that seals the deal unless someone can find a source that is more reliable which disputes this evaluation. jps (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe Watts called himself lukewarmer somewhere -- you don't say where -- but what matters is what he usually calls himself (which I think is probably skeptic), and what most reliable sources call him (which is definitely skeptic). As for claiming that something said about an unknown "lukewarm denialist" proves something about all people who've said they're "lukewarmer" -- er, no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Source for lukewarmer. There are no reliable sources which make a strong distinction between "skeptic" and "denialist". The best I can find is an interview with Muller where he provides his personal opinion that seems to indicate he agrees there is a spectrum and that Anthony is on the "skeptic" end, but it's a weak source: I haven't seen any other reliable sources which actually make the point as forcefully as the source provided above by Guettarda. I await your listing. jps (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the source you refer to, Watts appears to refer to himself as both skeptic and lukewarm, not denier. Your "there are no reliable sources" claim has now been refuted by TMLutas, and I see you're not replying about the irrelevance of "lukewarm denialism". In any case, your logic seems to be the usual "WUWT is an X, some people say X equals Y, therefore Wikipedia must say WUWT is a Y." Wrong. Wikipedia must say what the sources actually say about WUWT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this article from the Guardian might help. Lukewarmer does seem to be a non-synonym for denier. TMLutas (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice find, but it remains an acknowledged isolated view by the author and also it seems he identifies "lukewarmers" as people who think something different than Watts does from the source I link above. Still, it's a good starting piece. I wonder if the UK-ness of the distinction is at all meaningful. jps (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV: Skeptic vs denial
Please note that both terms are under discussion here. Both terms are synonyms. Saying the term denial is in dispute is true, but so is the term "skeptic". Removing one and leaving the other is just POV pushing. Guettarda (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also frustrating that the content is being continually removed under the guise of "no consensus" or "under discussion" by editors not participating in the discussion. We established consensus to link climate change denial prior to the canvassing that took place off-wiki. After the canvassing, new editors began disputing that consensus without advancing any significant argument or providing sources. Finally, we have a few low to medium quality sources that say "skeptic", but not one that disputes the list of high quality sources that back up denier. Guettarda's compromise to include both words was just removed, now leaving the intro sourced to the lowest quality sources we have available... and without participation in the relevant section. This is getting insanely disruptive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know about your "consensus" claim in this particular case, but do know you've made such claims before and been wrong. Your claims about "high quality" sources are of course wrong as well. As for the accusation about "new editors" -- perhaps if you would name names and point to diffs, there would be something to refute. If the diffs merely show that some editors were restoring well-sourced or long-established material destroyed by the put-denialism-in folks, good for them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We established consensus to link climate change denial... Where do you find this consensus? I see a section above where you asserted that "denier" is the right word, but you immediately got pushback. As an editor with over 10,000 edits, I would have thought you knew what the word consensus meant. No, it doesn't mean without any opposition, but there is substantial, in-depth opposition. None of which means you are wrong about the term, but it does mean you are wrong to claim the inclusion was done with consensus. Please do some reading about how this place works if you intend on further contributing to this discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Both terms are synonyms? I've been puzzled that otherwise sensible editors seem so intent on using the wrong word, but you may have hit on the problem. Maybe you have been swayed by Dunlap which does claim (without a single backup source) that "denier" is the better term to encompass anyone who questions ant aspect of climate issues. If that source is driving your position, it is understandable, but you need to demonstrate that such an equivalence is virtually universal. Otherwise, you are attempting to use a highly charged word based upon a minority of sources.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on what academic sources do you base that claim? Citation, please. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an academic source stating that tails are not legs, but I don't intend on assuming they are the same. I suggest that the burden is on those claiming equivalence to provide the sources. There is sort of one, Dunlap, but even they don't say the terms are the same, they just declare that they are going to use the term "denial" for all who question the so-called consensus. Can you cite some academic sources equating the two terms?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. dave souza, talk 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean Dunlap, they clearly state It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum which is not the same as equating the two. They then reject the use of the term skeptic for the skeptics, with interesting reasoning, but that doesn't mean they are claiming that WUWT is close enough to the denialist end of the spectrum to deserve that label.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * {{cite journal | last=Dunlap | first=R. E. | title=Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction | journal=American Behavioral Scientist | publisher={SAGE | volume=57 | issue=6 | year=2013 | pages=691–698 | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477097 | doi=10.1177/0002764213477097 | accessdate=27 May 2015}} pdf – "skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists (e.g., Mann, 2012; Schneider, 2009), making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics." Further on; "It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up." Plenty of other sources are cited in the paper. . dave souza, talk 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for providing that quote, which supports my belief that there is a spectrum.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, glad we're getting into agreement. You'll note that the quote about those not skeptical of climate science but in full denial "appears especially true of core actors in the denial machine, ranging from many representatives of conservative think tanks to some contrarian scientists to several bloggers and many of their followers." That source doesn't specifically name Watts or WUWT, but others do. While popular media sources make inappropriate misuse of "skeptic", there's clearly expert option on climate change denial which belongs in this article. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect we are in broad, perhaps not specific agreement. I think there are some full-blown denialists at some conservative think tanks, and some bloggers and certainly some of their followers (not so sure about scientists). However, Watts isn't one of them, which is the key issue here.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The key point is that good quality sources identify Watts as denying aspects of climate change, and it's wrong to try to exclude these sources because you don't like them. More will follow, as time permits. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with some of the positions put forth by some climate scientists is what makes one a skeptic, not a denialist, which requires much broader denial of climate science claims. I honestly don't know where the exact placement of the line should be, but it is clear that Watts accepts many of the important claims of climate science, therefore is not a denialist (except to those lazy writers who can't make a distinction and lump all together.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with some of the positions put forth by some climate scientists is what makes, for example, Mann a scientific skeptic. Casting unjustified doubts on climate science, then refusing to change his opinion when the facts are clearly against him, is what makes Watts an AGW denier or promoter of AGW denial for political or ideological reasons. If that's not covered by good sources put forward already, will aim to cover it soon. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very strong charge and a borderline BLP violation, if not over the border, if not supported by citations. Please provide.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * However, I am not following why you assert there's clearly expert option on climate change denial which belongs in this article. Why? I agree that expert opinion on climate change denial belongs in climate change denial, but I do not follow why it belongs here. Would you push for its inclusion in DeSmogBlog, or Climate Audit? -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann's quote is one example of a good quality academic source, others have been pointed out. More to follow. If you find such sources discussing the other blogs, do please add what they say to the relevant articles. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought your suggestion to include expert option on climate change denial meant general commentary, not specific commentary on WUWT. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To appear in this article it has to specifically mention WUWT, and for Watts' bio it has to discuss him. The general source was provided to help clear up confusion about the relationship between scientific scepticism, climate skepticism and global warming denialism. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree up to a point. Climate change "skepticism" is denialism, and there's nothing wrong with a very short sentence establishing that fact, just as we would with a site on holocaust "revisionism". Guy (Help!) 08:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is not correct to simply equate "skepticism" with denialism. Not even Dunlap does that. I won't be surprised if some sources do that, but it will be the minority, probably a small minority. The burden is on you to show that the vast majority of sources treat the terms as identical, if that is what you think should be done in the article.
 * There is, admittedly, a complication, as all good scientists ought to be skeptics, so I suspect that some members of the climate community are annoyed that the term "skeptic" has come to mean a subset of the community which disagrees with some of the climate science pronouncements. I don't know the history well enough to know whether the so-called skeptics co-opted the term themselves, or if it was used by warmists to distinguish others. (I don't know whether "warmist" is viewed as pejorative by members of that camp, if it is, and there is a better term, please let me know.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember, it's about wording the article
The mildly absurd thing in all this fighting, it seems we have lost sight of one important issue here: the terms "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism" are (well documented to be) synonyms, at least in the context of scholarly communication about the topic. In fact, when people use the term "climate change skepticism" in scholarly communication these days, they tend to add a footnote to say "denial is more accurate, but..."

So how do we capture that? How about "to climate change denial/skepticism" or "skepticism/denial"? We can (and should) argue over which word comes first, but the rest of it is just pointless. Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And also, per this. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct, they are the same. Keep in mind, we have two arguments going on. One is whether we should say "climate change denial" or "climate change skepticism". That argument has been reasonably tame. The other argument is whether we should include (and link to) the topic of climate change denial at all. This second argument appears to suggest we define the topic as simply "a blog by Anthony Watts" and say little aside from him "discussing news and the climate". I find this second argument significantly more objectionable, since it fails to define the topic or encapsulate the mainstream pov. I don't prefer your wording, but it's certainly an attempt to resolve dispute #1, and without question preferable to dispute #2. Thanks, Guettarda.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If its about the wording, and cos he's a Brit, shouldn't we at least spell it "sceptic? Just sayin. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Watts isn't a Brit, is he? Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be wrong. Although some people try to equate the terms in some contexts, that doesn't show that in the specific cases of Watts and/or WUWT the meaning is the same. That is, if WUWT is described as skeptic then nobody has any business declaring themselves to be dictionaries and plunking in denier. And -- this is mostly for Jess but applies to all the put-denialism-in crowd -- you do not have a consensus for any of your recent changes in this article or in the Anthony Watts (blogger) article, there is significant opposition and it might grow. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's not "some people try[ing] to equate the terms in some contexts". On the contrary, the high-quality sources agree. There are two scholarly sources on the "skeptic" list. One (Elgesem et al.) explicitly discusses the skeptic/denier label, acknowledges the argument that 'denier' is probably the better term before saying "Still, in this study..." while the other (Schneider & Nocke) cites WUWT as an example of "Cherry picking obsolete graphs". Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Read further, Elgesem et al say "we classified a blog as skeptic if it explicitly rejected that global warming is happening (trend skeptic), questioned that human activity has an effect on climate (attribution skeptic), or that climate change has serious consequences (impact skeptic)." -- so if WUWT "questioned" then it was classified as skeptic, and Elgesem et al did classify it as skeptic, this is a plain verifiable fact. The other three sources (yes there are four in all, Guettarda miscounted) also say skeptic, the fact that one criticizes WUWT is irrelevant since this is not about whether the source says WUWT used bad graphs, it is about whether the source says WUWT is a skeptic blog -- which it does. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Peter, please read WP:CON; consensus is not a matter of numbers (despite what Watts claimed on his blog), it's about the strength of the arguments. A good starting place to establishing a strong argument would be providing sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Who decides an argument is strong? Editors. How do we know what editors decide? Count. Or appeal for moderation or arbitration of some sort. Or WP:AE. Or change the majority (Watts's hope, I suppose). Or loop till the current majority out-reverts the minority because our fingers might get numb more quickly. I suppose that last might be called consensus, but since it hasn't happened, your claims of consensus are false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your assessment is completely at odds with WP:CON. If you want to suggest a change to policy, feel free to do it at WT:CON, not here. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The policy is fine, the problem is when people say there's a consensus that isn't there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By that reasoning, the article on AIDS denialism should be renamed HIV-AIDS skepticism. What next? Moon landing "skeptics"? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is outrageously non-neutral. It starts with a factual error (denial) and then devotes itself to a one-sided argument against some of the articles that appear there. Very much par for the course for Wikipedia, which is why this "encyclopedia" is universally distrusted when it comes to any topic on which there is disagreement. People here can tell themselves whatever they want. We know they will. But the article is garbage, and quite transparently so. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that our definitions of "factual error" differ. The blog certainly hosts content which denies certain aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Watts also disagrees with certain aspects o such. Do you dispute this? jps (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The term climate denialist is political jargon. This is just one more example of how Wikipedia is routinely manipulated by zealots and can never be trusted on matters subject to controversy. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Dunlap
I've now reread the chapter on Organized Climate Change Denial twice. This source was identified as a high quality source which labels Watts as a denialist.

However, I'm interested in making a different point. A cursory read of the chapter sounds damning; it lists company after company, organization after organization, pundit after pundit, all working, sometimes separately, sometimes concertedly, as part of the big denial machine. However, I looked in vain, for specific examples. Other than one quote by Inhofe, what specific actions do they identify that honest observers would castigate? I recognize that it is written as a survey article, so maybe some of the specifics are buried in their references, but it is usual even in survey articles to provide some specifics.

Can someone please identify some specific examples of denial that are contained in that source?

Let me be clear, I am not asking as a suggestion that none exist. I have no doubt that many organizations are engaged in denial, and I'll work with anyone to help castigate them. I have no doubt that some of the entities mentioned in that chapter are guilty. However, if you are going to write a comprehensive chapter on the denial machine, shouldn't it be full of specific examples? This book is supposed to be one of the high quality sources talking about denialism but I challenge readers to identify a half-dozen examples of denialism covered by the chapter. Is this an unreasonable expectation?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it necessary? This isn't a burden we place on other sources: we require sources to back up our content, not go into additional detail, even if we might like them to. As you put it, the source is clear that WUWT promotes climate change denial. Is that not sufficient to verify the wording "...promotes climate change denial" in our article?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This article, and this talk page, reads like the collaboration of a bunch of writers for MSNBC or Daily Kos. It's fatally slanted right from the start, and shows that Wikipedia is routinely manipulated by zealots and can never be trusted on anything that's controversial. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not very helpful. Do you have something useful to contribute?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia hates to be criticized, and then acts surprised when their follies are exposed. It's "helpful" to tell you people that you're headed straight down another rabbit hole. But zealots never like to be told that, do they? What would be "helpful" would be to eliminate this travesty of an article and start over. You people could begin by following your own rules about "neutrality," but I realize that Wikipedia really doesn't have any fixed rules. 68.116.52.99 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It should not be necessary to try to evaluate a source provided it's reliable etc. But that is a burden that the put-denialism-in side tries to place on other sources, by pretending that the minority of sources supporting their view are the "high quality" ones. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I enjoyed the irony of a supporter of climate denialism castigating the reality-based community for supporting a "minority" view. You do know what proportion of credentialled experts agree with the scientific consensus on global warming, don't you? Hint: it's not a minority. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You missed my point. We do not necessarily require that sources go into great detail. However, when someone characterizes a source as a high quality source, which purports to talk about climate change denial, I suggest it is a reasonable expectation that it talks about climate change denial. It doesn't really, it is a long list of actors, and claimed inter-relationships, with claims they are all part of the denial machine, yet doesn't give examples. I've explained elsewhere why this source fails to work as support for the claim about WUWT, but as I mentioned, I am trying to make a different point. I assume readers of this page are interested in climate change issues, and I thought it was interesting that one of the major sources on the subject contains no details. I am interested to know whether any readers think I missed something, or if other readers think it is perfectly acceptable to list a large number of people and companies, made strong claims about their action, yet not explain what they've done wrong. Do you?


 * To put it differently, do you consider this a quality source which identifies actors involved in the denial machine? If so, can you give an example, from the source, of a specific act of denial?


 * It is my opinion that this chapter uses a lot of words to smear many entities, without any specifics. Is my observation accurate? Is this considered acceptable in scientific discourse?


 * I do realize that the talk page is to talk about the article, not to be a soapbox, and this is borderline, but the source has been characterized as a high quality source, so I think it is on subject to discuss whether the source says anything of value.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't determine a source is high quality because it is detailed. We determine it is high quality based on its author, publication, and reception. There is no part of WP:RS that says a source must contain examples to be valid. You're doing your best to place undue burdens on sources you find disagreeable, but are not not applying the same standards to your own sources, the majority of which also fail this new requirement. We have a page for that. The constant denigration of experts in the field, and the suggestion that those experts represent "the minority viewpoint", has to end. Let's have a conversation about who the experts are if we must, but this behavior isn't helpful.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not doing [my] best to place undue burdens on sources [I] find disagreeable I am doing my best to ascertain what this source says. My reading is that they list a lot of actors, declare them all to be villainous members of the denial machine, but do not actually provide a shared of evidence to support this view. I posted my query here, in case editors interested in the subject might have another view. You haven't identified any such examples, but I don;t know whether that means you didn't find any, or just cannot follow my question.


 * Let me try again—can you find any examples of climate change denial in the source which purports to discuss climate change denial?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The authors are credentialled experts in their field, writing on an area where they have specific expertise. We do not require that they inline-footnote every word that might be challenged by those whose beliefs they challenge, only that we do (they include the sources at the end of the chapter, and the sources credibly support the claims made in the chapter). Having had someone challenge Mann as a source on WUWT being a leading climate denial blog, because he is not a blog expert, to now have this book challenged even though its editors, John Dryzek is a professor of political theory, Richard B. Norgaard is a professor of ecological economics and David Schlosberg is a professor of environmental politics, looks awfully like an epic piece of goalpost-shifting. These are genuine experts in the specific field of the politics of the environment and climate change. However passionately you might believe that they simply make stuff up so that denialist blogs look bad, their academic reputations (a) make it extraordinarily unlikely and (b) provide a strong disincentive to do so, as academics who make shit up tend to suffer real-world consequences. It is also notable that the same allegations can be found elsewhere: even if you magically waved away this source, there are others. The advantage of this one is that it's well written, specific, on-topic and readily available. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing them of making stuff up, I am asking for an example of "stuff". They wrote a long chapter about climate change denial. I am not setting the high hurdle that every word be footnoted, I am setting a low hurdle - it seems reasonable to expect that a chapter about climate change denial would include examples of climate change denial. Is that a reasonable expectation?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, expecting a chapter on denialism to have examples, is an unreasonable expect ion? Astounding.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first. No to the second. It shows a certain savvy of the authors, who avoid being lost in minutiae. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it shows great savvy by the authors, because then the clueless fawn over them and proclaim them a solid source because they didn't say anything, so cannot be challenged.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And who, exactly, are you identifying as clueless here? Guy (Help!) 21:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No one yet. I accept that people make mistakes, and it is possible to read Dunlap, see the allegations that actors are denialists, and leave thinking that something has been demonstrated. Yes, something has been demonstrated—a number of actors know each other, but the article didn't provide examples of denialism, so once that has been demonstrated, if one continues to call it evidence of denialism, then yes, one is clueless.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say that readers who don't understand what kind of article they're reading (in this case, a review article in a handbook) are clueless. Fortunately, it is possible to acquire a clue, if one is willing to learn... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The chapter by Dunlap is a long chapter, and maybe today's attention challenged won't have time to read it all, so as public service, I'll provide a summary:

Did I miss any substance?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And of course clueless self-proclaimed "skeptics" promptly quibble that something clearly presented as an overview lacks allegedly crucial details, thus pulling a version of the Courtier's Reply to dismiss academic opinion. Perhaps they should check if details are in the various cited sources? . . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear not to understand Courtier's Reply.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clue: spot the Watts . . . . .* ..
 * I read it. I didn't see any mention of WUWT, did I miss it?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you look for Watts? The question is, what connection is there between SurfaceStations and WUWT? . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did find Watts, in connection with his SurfaceStation project. They were actually somewhat complimentary. However, I'm not catching your point. This is the talk page for WUWT. While that site is mainly run by Watts, and Watts had a lot to do with the SurfaceStation project, how does knowing this contribute to the debate over the correct label for the website? For those who don't know the relevance - an oversimplified summary follows: Watts had concerns about poorly sited temperature readings. His concerns were valid, as he found many sites that were poorly cited. However, some wondered if poor siting could lead to material impact on the reported temperatures. That was studied, and found not to be the case. AFAIK, he does not dispute that broad conclusion, although he thinks there is some impact (I'm not convinced) and he thinks siting of temperature gauges should be improved (I share that conclusion.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have full text? I have requested a copy via a contact. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the full text is here-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * pdf . dave souza, talk 21:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So that paper barely mentions Watts, and is irrelevant. I am now aware of another substantial source in press that makes the specific and explicit allegation of denialism, but we do not do the crystal ball thing. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While not yet an acceptable source, if it is free online, I'd like to read it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, I only have a statement that it's in there, I have not had sight. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)