Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 7

Skepticism and denialism in A. W. own words
I read sometime WUWT in my spare time: not the only thing I read, not the only climate research source. Sometime I do and I admit it. So I really think that [Anthony Watts own words http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/25/the-sad-tales-of-the-wikipedia-gang-war-regarding-wuwt-creepy-and-a-little-scary/] reflect the real position of his blog:

''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 Earths 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.''

Being a "technical professional" (with two master's degrees, about to become three with MBA) with work experience in both university and private enterprise environments, I really hardly explain myself such a harsh debate on climate changes, without involving politics, not science. The real debate, and this directly touches my job (but in a surprising way: I would only benefit from CO2 cuts or taxes) is about what to do of CO2 emissions, and how to force policy makers to act in a certain way; not at all about scientific theories or technical measurements (the latter being a thing I had large experience when studying and working at university). I think that A. W. position is in the end "skepticism" and not "denialism". Filippo83 (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "I really think that [Anthony Watts own words] reflect the real position of his blog." You may wish to familiarise yourself with other remarks Watts has expressed on his blog. Pop over to Wikiquote. He is firmly in the "CO2 doesn't matter much" and "It's the sun" camp, contrary to what the best scientific evidence tells us. — TPX 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikiquotes is a POV collection of "quotes" to say the least. It is probably the most worthless crap in the WP universe.  If you want to frame someone (bad or good) wikiquotes is a great place to present your POV.  BLP doesn't even exist in that mudpile.  Arzel (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They all look to be nicely sourced. They don't suit your agenda, perhaps, but do you dispute any of them as accurate? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool down please, the question of (A)GW is very big and there are other pages where it has to be discussed: but we can say that now Watts says that CO2 has some weight in climate change, and that he does no more deny it. On the other side, since as written above it is also about my job, I have seen IPCC or Hadley changing a bit their mind in the last decade, from "natural variability doesn't matter much" and "it's the Man only" camp, to concede more space to natural variations as well as talking about the recent "hiatus" a.k.a. "slowing" of warming (which NOAA is now trying to challenge, but I am not confident their last oceans data corrections will be accepted by all involved scientific institutions). I mean, saying that science is "established" or "based on consensus" is a non-sense: vaccines are the best thing for mankind because they really work against diseases, not just because of medical "consensus" or because medical research is over, at the contrary research on them will go on for long time; astronomy evolved a lot from Copernicus on, and some common but old assumptions are no more valid (e.g. Sun is not the center of the universe nor a fixed star, orbits are not circular, planets classification changed as recent as 2006 etc.) And so on. It is perfectly normal that positions might change, data might be challenged, or forecasts might prove imprecise: the contrary would be abnormal. I think that discussion on climate change / global warming will go on for long, also because (as written above) it involves politics, so it is not a mere academic problem, and because we often see "what-if scenario" as precise forecasts of the future, which is not their function (a difference not very clear to many people). So I would like to talk only by a technical point of view: in this way, we might say that A. W. blog moved from a denialist to a skeptical position, even if for "denialist" I would assume one who denies even climate change / global warming and not just CO2 role.
 * Filippo83 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, as ever, Watts disputes the mainstream scientific assessment about the evidence of global warming, and makes accusations about the integrity of the scientists actually working on the topic. See below. When did IPCC or Hadley state "natural variability doesn't matter much" or "it's the Man only"? The NOAA refinement of their dataset was already discussed in 2008, far from "now trying to challenge" the mythical global warming hiatus, it's merely the latest in a series of research publications to reaffirm that there's been no statistically signification deviation from the long term trend: remember, climate is classically assessed over at least 30 years, and as a standard update brings their dataset more into line with other datasets. Climate change denial covers a range of arguments or views, ranging from "there's no global warming" to "there's human caused global warming, but it's good for us or it's too late to do anything". Watts has perhaps shifted a little from "there's no good evidence of any significant warming" at a time when warming was solidly accepted in science, to "well maybe there's been some warming, but not much". . . dave souza, talk 17:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Watts and similar outlets also argue from both sides of their mouth. On one hand they cry (paraphrased) "The consensus is BS because the data contains errors that need to be fixed!!!!"  Thankfully, real science is self-correcting, and the real climate scientists are eager to identify any errors in the data.  When they manage to quantify data biases and make the necessary adjustments Watts and similar outlets condemn the scientists as making up the data.  Do your neighbors tend to trust people who speak out of both sides of their mouth? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are some more of his own words: Dear Dr. Peterson... After seeing the desperate tricks pulled in Karl 2015 to erase “the pause” via data manipulation, I no longer hold that opinion. You needed it to go away, so you prostituted yourselves, perhaps at the direction of higher ups. . Would you like to use those, too? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WMC, let's revisit that three years or so from now.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: reliable secondary source meeting WP:NEWSBLOG, showing Watts publicly agreeing amicably with Peterson about solar power, and at the same time accusing him of prostituting himself with hints at fraud. Revkin's reaction is worth reading. . . dave souza, talk 11:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it does show the problems of using current words from an unreliable primary source. Going back three years, "The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments", as reported in a reliable secondary source which described this as "the serious accusations Watts et al. make about the integrity of NOAA’s temperature analysis". Unsurprisingly, it took just a couple of days for Watts' analysis to unravel: see Anthony Watts (blogger). Or, going back three years earlier, in his book published by Heartland, "We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher." Accusations which were completely unfounded, as Menne et al. soon found. . . . dave souza, talk 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking over this thread, it seems to say that Watts is a frequent skeptic of scientific opinions about climate change. In light of his straightforward acknowledgement that the Earth has warmed over the last century, It does not seem fair to say that he is engaged in "Climate change denial". MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Professional literature examining climate denial notes that there can be
 * denial about it warming
 * and/or denial about it being a problem
 * and/or denial about it being our fault
 * and/or denial about our being able to intervene
 * etc.
 * Since denialists just look foolish set against the backdrop of widespread evidence of the first point, they have sort of more or less on good days started hinting sort of like they kinda concede point 1, maybe, but then maybe not when scienists quantify bias in the dataset and then they start screaming fraud after all. Ever tried to nail jello to the wall?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How on earth do you put yourself forward as an impartial editor protecting this page? You obviously have very strong opinions about the subject.  What is "Professional literature examining climate change denial?"  A sociologist with an agenda who puts out a little-read book?  Because he talks about "denial" we are supposed to believe that is scientific parlance?  Because Michael Mann, who is right at the heart of the debate and is even involved in a lawsuit having to do with it, uses the term "cliamte change denier" that makes it accepted usage?  In absolute contradiction of the dictionary definition of the word denier?  Is there a text being used at a university that uses the term?  Is it a term defined in a widely read dictionary or reference book?  Of course not.  It is used because it is leading and derogatory and is the precise opposite of encyclopedic terminology.  Using it here makes a mockery of Wikipedia's goal of objectivity.Darkthlayli (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing policies for Wikipedia are WP:RS and the "objectivity" policies are WP:NPOV. If you want us to take your case seriously you should refer explicitly to how proposed sources or wordings contradict those. Simply asking a number of rhetorical questions and then impugning dark motives on those with whom you disagree is something akin to not assuming good faith, a practice that is discouraged. jps (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

e/c
 * Darkthlayli asks "What is 'Professional literature examining climate change denial?'" Answere, try reviewing the sources cited in the article or discussed on the talk page and archives at Climate change denial;  Alternatively, try a google scholar search on (climate skepticism OR denial).   Meanwhile, if you find an article edit of mine that you think violates wikipedia POV (or any other) policy, please let us know via that article's talk page where everyone can hear your reasons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy states "Since denialists just look foolish set against the backdrop of widespread evidence of the first point, they have sort of more or less on good days started hinting sort of like they kinda concede point 1, maybe, but then maybe not when scienists [sic] quantify bias in the dataset and then they start screaming fraud after all." Saying that "denialists" look "foolish" is pretty clear evidence of a point of view.  No one who makes that quote should then act as admin on the question of whether "denial" is an accurate descriptor.Darkthlayli (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I've never claimed to be an admin so all's apparently well. Other than your violation of the prohibition against personal attacks, I mean.  Have you reviewed WP:ARBCC yet?  You should.  See also the WP:Talk page guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse the terminology. You are the guy who protected the page, as far as I know.  I was under the impression you ahd to be an admin to do that, but I guess not.  Nonetheless, to take that step I'd think you had to be more or less neutral, which the quote would suggest you are not.  I'm not sure how any of this constitutes a personal attack.  You called denialists foolish; it is hardly an attack to say you are not neutral.141.162.101.50 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only admins can impose page protection. I am not an admin, and I didn't do it.   But I certainly applaud it.   We should work through our WP:Dispute resolution procedures instead of running a protracted WP:Edit war.  Don't you agree? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lists of sources
In connection with some discussions above, it may be helpful to populate the following:-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That isn't particularly useful, no. The quality of the source matters, not just the number of references. We need to assess each source independently. There are several sources in the article already (Grant, Mann, Manne, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook) which are respected, often-cited academic sources. Could you provid a source of that quality for us to consider?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just add the caveat "not already in the article" as of the current revision? I actually think it would be very useful to see the latter section populated. People (some new, some established editors) are up in arms about the sources being used, but they don't seem to be willing to provide comparably high-quality sources in defense of their favoured wording. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would rather that all sources he added to the list. The article is a fluid concept, maybe those in the article today will be different than those tomorrow. If someone wants to review the sources, it makes the process more difficult if they have to look in two places. Why not simply copy the ones already used to this section?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the case for "denialism" has been made (and discussed at some length in the past). I'm not adverse to listing those sources, but I really think the onus is on people calling for change to list the sources they would like to see added. So far, as best I can tell, they have proposed zero. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article didn't have denialism until Jess added it, controversially. It was removed and added again, a few times, leading to a minor edit war. Despite the fact that there is a section or two starting a discussion, no consensus has been reached. Per well-established procedures, when controversy exists, you do not include controversial items until a consensus has been reached.


 * I suggested compiling some sources.


 * Zero have been added to the list so far.


 * If you want to propose an alternative way to resolve this, propose away, but edit warring is not the right approach.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact, there is consensus, and has been consensus for some time. Unfortunately, since this article was linked on WUWT, editors have been repeatedly removing incredibly well sourced content. You're right, no sources have been added to your list; many sources backing up the content you removed have been provided above, but none have been provided to support the removal. This is tendentious. Please provide sources for discussion, or we have to reintroduce the sourced material.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the quality of the sources matter. But we have to start somewhere. I proposed a way to start listing sources, we can then decide how to assess the quality if necessary. I see a lot of words added here, but no sources. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no one has added a single source yet. It appears, based upon some comments, that it is OK to used the highly charged pejorative term "denial" or "denialist" and the burden of proof is on those who disagree. That isn't how this place works, as any regular editor should know. I see that some sources are in the article. I suggest we start discussing some of those, first to see if they qualify as supporting the claim, then as Jess suggests, for quality. I'll start.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources supporting the use of the term "denier" or "denialist" to characterize WUWT

 * 1)  created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.
 * 2) Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists, Inside Climate News, 3-2015
 * 3) Climate Change: An Encyclopedia of Science and History
 * 4) The Inquisition of Climate Science, p. 136
 * 5) The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
 * 6) Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
 * 7) HOW VESTED INTERESTS DEFEATED CLIMATE SCIENCE...the most effective denialist media weapon was...the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?...were established. One of this online network’s early victims was Michael Mann. For this reason, he developed an excellent understanding of how the denialist disinformation distribution system operated.
 * 8) Meet The Climate Denial Machine, Media Matters, November 28, 2012
 * 9) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012
 * 10) No More Minnesota Nice: John Abraham Tears into Anthony Watts, ClimateCrocks.com, March 28, 2013
 * 1) Meet The Climate Denial Machine, Media Matters, November 28, 2012
 * 2) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012
 * 3) No More Minnesota Nice: John Abraham Tears into Anthony Watts, ClimateCrocks.com, March 28, 2013

Sources supporting the use of the term "skeptical" to characterize WUWT

 * 1)  -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  (Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012
 * 4) Meet The Climate Denial Machine, Media Matters, November 28, 2012  (Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)
 * 5) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012(Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)
 * 1)  -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  (Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012
 * 4) Meet The Climate Denial Machine, Media Matters, November 28, 2012  (Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)
 * 5) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012(Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)
 * 1)  -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  (Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012
 * 4) Meet The Climate Denial Machine, Media Matters, November 28, 2012  (Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)
 * 5) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012(Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)
 * 1) Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories, LiveScience, September 07, 2012(Hat tip to Ubikwit for identifying this source)

Sources supporting CCCM to characterize WUWT

 * 1)  (available as a downloadable pdf by searching for "Climatic Change Brulle"; I was unable to find a direct link) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

 * Farmer/Cook (Denial support #1) It is interesting that Farmer/Cook claim that WUWT "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis". They don't cite a single example, but that's an aside. The source is being used to support the term "denial", which is not the same as misinformation, even if that claim were true.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * DeSmogBlog (Skeptical support #1) I trust most here are familiar with DeSmogBlog, one of the leading blogs on climate science issues, and decidedly not in the denialist or even skeptical (in the climate science sense of the term) camps. Thir discussion of him uses terms like skeptic, skeptical, and lukewarmer (as a quote) but no where do they describe him as a denier.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think third-party blogs are acceptable because of the close relation between Watts and Watts's blog, that is, they'd be WP:BLPSPS even in this WUWT article. So I added only RS non-blog. Some are academic i.e. published by academic presses by authors with PhDs (unlike Grant and Cook, as far as I know). However, academic sources are not "better" according to any policy that I know of -- WP:SOURCES merely says they are "usually" the most reliable, but that wouldn't apply where lack of expertise is demonstrable, and we can set that against the fact that the put-denialism-in crowd are stuffing in statements with no consensus, but according to WP:NOCONSENSUS we "commonly" are supposed to stay with the version as of before the stuffing started. The above is not including additional sources saying Watts himself is a skeptic, such as PBS, New York Times, Science Magazine, and of course Watts himself -- it's acceptable for Watts to be a source about what is the opinion of Watts. On the same grounds it would be acceptable to quote WUWT about WUWT, but I didn't look for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * John Grant(Denial support #2) This is a very accomplished science-fiction author some of whose books I have enjoyed. This book is a non-fiction polemic of some skill. It is published by the non-fiction wing of the publisher that also does the Pyr science-fiction imprint. I would suggest that this is reliable for the opinion of Grant. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Grant (Denial support #1) I agree it supports the claim. I don't know the source, and eyebrows raise at the purple prose - I'll be interested to see if they back their claim up with evidence, as opposed to opinion, but there's no question is supports the wording.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dunlap (Denial support #3) At first blush, this seems to be a clear example of a supporting source. Although the exact phrasing of the reference to WUWT doesn't use the word "denial" it is clear in context that it is being added to the list of columnists, scientists, companies, newspapers, foundations, and other organizations which are claimed to be part of the organized denial machine. I started counting the entities involved, got to 30 before reading halfway through, and marveled at the sheer number of organizations involved in denial. The answer is found in the footnote at the end. Rather than make a distinction between those actually denying the concept of AGW from those who express some skepticism of any of the claims, they simply decide that "denier" is a more accurate term than "skeptic". They are, of course, entitled to define terms any way they want, just like you can call a tail a leg and declare than most dogs have five legs, but if you do so, you will find that you aren't contributing to knowledge, you are obfuscating it. I get that it makes their life easier, they don't actually have to do any work to distinguish true deniers from mere skeptics, but it means, in any broad conversation about denier versus skeptic (e.g. Wikipedia), that their comments need to be excluded, or at least caveated, to note that they are not using a definition consonant with the prevailing meaning of the word.

In other words, this fails to support.

It isn't a chapter about denial as used in Wikipedia, it is about both the entities involved in denial, and those involved in challenging one or more aspects of climate science issues in an honest way. An honest title would be "Organized climate changes skepticism or denial (sorry, we are too lazy to sort out the difference)."-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to footnote 1 on page 156? If so, that footnote doesn't say what you're claiming: "The actions of those who consistently seek to deny the seriousness of climate change make the terms 'denial' and 'denier' more accurate that 'skepticism' and 'skeptic' (Diethelm and McKee 2009), particularly since all scientists tend to be skeptics (Scneider 2010: 205)." I get that you feel the word "denial" applies only to certain people, but our high quality sources are consistently saying this is the appropriate and most accurate term for the topic. That matters more than our opinions.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the high quality sources are NOT consistently saying this. There are probably some who take the lazy approach, but the burden is on you to show that virtually all reliable sources equate denialism and skepticism. Good luck accomplishing that, because I've read many of them and they do not all do that. Are you one of the people who feel that way? If so, it might explain why you are trying to use the term. You seem like a generally reasonable person other than this one fixation, so perhaps it is simply that you are under a misunderstanding about the term.


 * By the way, if denialism and skepticism are the same thing, then given the highly charged emotional content of the term "denial" it would be best to use the more neutral term. (I personally do not think they are the same thing, not that my personal belief counts for anything, but for those that reach the curious conclusion that denialism and skepticism are not distinguishable, what is the argument for using the loaded term over the neutral term?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * From the sources in the article and proposal above: 1) which are the highest quality, and most academic? 2) Which sources suggest "climate change denial" is incorrect? Which suggest "skepticism" is incorrect?
 * 1) Mann, Dunlap and Farmer/Cook are the highest quality academic sources we have right now. The Times, Scientific American, etc, fall in second place. Fox News, the Washington post, etc, fall in third. 2) None suggest "climate change denial" is the wrong term. 3) Several suggest "skepticism" is the wrong term, including Dunlap, Farmer/Cook, and Mann.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are seriously claiming that Mann qualifies as a high quality source? He has strong credentials as a scientist, so his statements about climate science make up solid sources, but surely you are aware of the many controversies involving Mann, and the extensive criticism, often included at WUWT. Being criticized does not make one wrong on the science, but we ought to tread very carefully when considering sources for characterization of those who criticize him. Can you possibly imagine that Mann might have a bias, even if unconscious, when it comes to labeling WUWT? As for Dunlap, I'm fine with calling it a high quality source, but as noted, they punt on the distinction between denialism and skepticism, so you either need to show that the consensus equates the two, or concede that this source isn't helpful for the present question. As previously noted, Farmer/Cook doesn't call WUWT a denialist site. Which means, of your three best sources, one doesn't call WUWT denialist, one does, but only because they label all skeptics and denialists, and one has a massive POV issue. These are your best sources? BTW, are you in the camp that doesn't make a distinction between skepticism and denialism? It might help explain your position.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously denying that Mann's book is a high quality source? Being smeared in WUWT isn't a good reason. As for Dunlap, his more recent publication draws a continuum between climate change denial and climate skepticism, and a sharp distinction between what bloggs like WUWT promote and the scientific skepticism of Mann and other scientists. You appear to have massive POV problems. . dave souza, talk 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't read it, but I am seriously making a distinction between the quality of his observation on the science (which I would rate as high) and his personal vuews about WUWT (which are obviously subject to potential bias).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All sources are biased, and you've not been slow at putting forward sources involved in the climate denial machine. Mann's bias is clearly in favour of mainstream science, a view we're required to show to meet weight and WP:PSCI policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Farmer/Cook (Denial support #1) As an amusing aside, I just ran across an article by Cook There is no such thing as climate change denial. He isn't saying there are no denialits, he is simply challenging the accuracy of the label.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Brulle (CCCM support #1) An intriguing third option is CCCM. (Climate Change Counter-Movement) This currently has a fatal flaw; it is not used enough at this time to justify its inclusion. However, it does have two nice attributes, which will be relevant if the term catches on. It avoids the pejorative "denier" while also avoiding the more accurate, but still misleading "skeptic". As has been pointed out, all good scientists should be skeptics, so this term, while known in the climate change community as having a narrower scope, is short of ideal. Even though it may not work for us as a source, some will find it interesting reading.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Meet The Climate Denial Machine, Media Matters (denial support #12) The title uses the term "denial", but the section about Watts describes him as a former television weatherman and climate skeptic . Do the authors think that skepticism is a subset of denialism? More likely, they didn't think much about it an simply chose the more eye-catching headline, but this source really belongs in the list of sources supporting "skeptic"-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree that this belongs on the "skeptic" list as well, but like the following source, Watts and his "skeptic" blog are described as "denialist" in the overall context. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories(Denial support #12) It is clear that the contributor of this (and several other items) used a search for terms to find articles. There is nothing wroing with that in itself; however, one should actually read the articles to make sure it supports the purperted point. I am familiar with the Lewandowsky "study" the subject of this article, which has been roundly criticized, inlcuding in this article, which discusses the failure to contact skeptics. However, the shortcomies of that study are an aside, the present question is how WUWT is charaterized. I quote ...Anthony Watts, who blogs on the popular climate skepticism website Watts Up With That? (empahsis added). This belong on the other side of the ledger.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read it--rather quickly skimmed some portions--but should have included it on both lists, as with the previous source. This source is a little more ambiguous regarding use of the terms. I apologize for not adding these to both lists.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, I understand you were looking for sources with both Watts and denier and you found this. One emerging theme is that many of the authors are casual about the terms, some using them interchangeably. If they are largely the same term in their minds, this is understandable, but it is distressing to those who think "skeptic" is a badge of honor while "denier" carries a very different connotation.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say interchangeably, as there are nuances, sometimes more ambiguous than others. Incidentally, I used various terms for searching: "climate denial", climate change denial", "climate denier", etc.
 * The connotation is highly subjective, and there are sources addressing the differentiation between the terms in relevant contexts.
 * The fact that there are a number of climate scientists specifically refuting the connotation that Watts is a skeptic in the scientific usage of the term is reason enough not to apply it to him, in my opinion.
 * The blog is about a scientific topic, and that makes WP:PSCI applicable.
 * Watts' self-description as a "skeptic" is not usable per WP:SPS, as a number of scientists working in climatology have published refutations of that, making it an "unduly self-serving claim".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Climate Change: An Encyclopedia of Science and History (Denial support #6)
 * I don't see the point. A few critics continue to seek confirmation of their denial... In particular, Anthony Watts... He continues to contest the results of the Berkeley study. This is not about "warming" in general, but about specific data (and related methodology).-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Inquisition of Climate Science(Denial support #7)
 * You have to go up to the beginning (2nd para) of the section titled "Watts Up with That?" ...deniers say that the US historical temperature record is unreliable because... The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts...-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists(Denial support #9) Each of these discusses Watts involvement in a study of temperature siting issues. One used the phrase "denial of the warming in data on air temperatures". An honest summary would be "questioning, in light of siting problems, whether air temperatures have actually risen" but we don't require honesty in our sources, we accept their wording, so some sources do contain some variation of the claim that Watts denied that temps have increased. However, the study came out in 2010 (IIRC), has largely been abandoned, and importantly, while Watts may have said the evidence for increased temps was lacking, he has changed his position, so the strongest statement one can make is that he may have denied there was warming in the past, he no longer holds that belief. This belongs in the body, if anywhere, probably in the section about the study, not in the lede.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The last source listed, Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists, states (underlining added):
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality(Skeptic support #18)
 * This is an example where “skeptic” is in quotation marks (p. 262), and the author clearly does not agree with the appellation. one conservative blogger, the top climate "skeptic" Anthony Watts
 * I don't know how we should consider this source in this context, but at most he is quoting Watts own description of himself, at worst, he is mocking Watts. He is not applying the term as a purely descriptive adjective.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Painter, James; Ashe, Teresa In fairness, while this source clearly refers to WUWT as a sceptical site "... espoused on sceptical websites (McIntyre 2012, Watts 2012) ...", the paper does not appear to make a distinction between denialism and skepticism. It uses the term "denial" exactly once, and thereafter uses the term scepticism. Based upon a cursory review of the references, some of which uses the term "denial" it is not the case that the authors intended the scope to be limited to scepticism as opposed to denial, rather that they prefer to use the term for all those who challenge any portion of the mainstream view. As an aside, despite the ubiquitous use of the term "scepticism", and the avoidance of the term "denial", this source is cited eleven times in Climate change denial.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments on analysis
Have you actually read the source, not just that single quote? As a start, I'd suggest reading through section 23.4: "Drivers of Climate Denial", where that quote is found. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read it, except for pages 457 and 458, is there anything interesting on those pages? It does not support the claim that WUWT is denialist. The present question is whether it says WUWT is denialist. It does not. One things it does say is that the denial machine is funded by fossil fuel industries. This seems plausible. But Watts gets zero funding from fossil fuel companies, so that discussion of denialism is not about him. Is there something specific you wanted me to read?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how someone who's read the book could come to the conclusion it does not support the claim that WUWT publishes information on climate change denial. The full quote, by the way, is "This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficed climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis" and WUWT is listed in the section "Drivers of Climate Denial".  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Headlines (section headings) are not Reliable Source for anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone made such a claim? Seriously Jess, I don't know where you dig up these straw men. Does anyone challenge the notion that some deniers contributes to comments? No. Does anyone challenge the notion that there might even be some contributors who would qualify as deniers? No. That's what happens when you have a blog interested in pen open inquiry; instead of closing your mind and only allowing narrowly vetted opinions, you will get some contributors who say some things that some, myself included, consider absurd. Calling WUWT a denier blog simply beaause a few items might qualify as denial is like calling Instapundit an anti-education blog becasue he had a post today advocating the firing of education administrators. -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it a strawman to say that anyone has called WUWT a "denier blog"? Those two words don't seem to appear in the article now, nor before. Or are you looking at what you consider to be a synonym? If so, can you see how someone may not see it as a synonym? jps (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see the terms as synonymous, but it seems others do, which may be the key to this debate. Where do you stand?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Farmer and Cook's words are: "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis." They didn't say "publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis in the comments". Had they meant that, they probably would have said it. As for the claim that the section entitled "Drivers of Climate Denial" isn't about drivers of climate denial, if you're going to make that (somewhat absurd) claim, you should really read the section in its entirety. The first paragraph of 34.4 Drivers of Climate Denial are pretty explicit that this section explores, you know, the driving forces behind the climate change denial movement. Or, to use their words: "We shall now explore the driving forces behind the climate denial movement and the growing polarization." As for the subsection itself, they cite Johnson et al. (2009), a journal article about blogs, not blog comments as "CyberGhettos".
 * Read in context it's clear that Farmer and Cook are talking about WUWT as an example of a driver of denial. Any other interpretation requires an incredibly convoluted reading of the chapter. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deniers rarely self-identify as deniers. Science deniers achieve very little coverage outside the walled garden of their own denialism. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first sentence. I suspect the second sentence is true is you mean true deniers, not skeptics. I recently searched for evidence of denial that is not a greenhouse gas, and I was pleasantly surprised at how hard it was to find. Other than a screed by Tim Ball, not much. In contrast, the points made by skeptics are getting coverage.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism
There is dispute over the significance of WUWT being described as a climate change denialist blog, particularly in the lede. There appear to be three main possibilities within the lede:


 * 1) Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog.
 * 2) Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution.
 * 3) Go with denialist.

Please discuss, identifying whether you support or oppose each of the three options.

Note that due to canvassing, as per normal practice in Wikipedia debates, the closing editor or admin is likely to disregard the opinions of editors with little or no prior contribution to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I oppose the first, strongly support the second and weakly support the third. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not ripe. One might hope that an RfC on a content question would be heavily influenced by what the reliable sources say. I started an initiative to identify the relevant sources c.f. Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F and although it is strongly weighted toward support of skeptical only (with a possible inclusion of a minority section), I don't think it is close to complete. I would urge us to gather some facts before pronouncing sentence, is that fair?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a neutral question about the issue. Guy did not discuss this wording or follow the WP:RFC suggestion to "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". One alternative is not to base just on "self-identification", the alternative is to follow the prevalence of the reliable sources on the matter (which generally say skeptic). I should warn anyone wishing to engage here that Guy has referred to those who don't call it a denial blog as "idiots" here, so bring a thick skin if you're joining this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is not neutral aboutbt he statement that "There is dispute over the significance of WUWT being described as a climate change denialist blog, particularly in the lede"? That is precisely the question at issue above. I offer three alternatives (exclude, include alongside Watts' preferred characterisation, include without Watts' preferred characterisation). You could have started an RfC yourself if you wanted the question phrased differently, but you didn't. Someone has to break the logjam. Also you appear not to have understood the meaning of the term "useful idiot". We have an article, do read it. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explained, it's the wording of your "alternatives" that is not neutral, and the example I gave was that you pretend the desire to allow skeptic is due to what Watts self-identifies as / prefers, when in fact it's due to what most reliable sources say. Others would probably have concentrated on other alternatives or wording, if they'd been asked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I could add to this, this rfc as presented has major problems with all three options.


 * Option 1: "Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog."  Aside from inserting his own opinion in this option, this option is presented as an "all or none" choice for the entire article.   The question is relating to the article's lede, but this option is asking if we should remove all mention of word 'denial'.  The option could simply say; "Identify WUWT as a blog committed to climate change skepticism.  Omit the word 'denial' from the article's lede."


 * Option 2: "Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution." This option is vaguely worded and could be interpreted many different ways by the usual POV-pushers.  What exact wording is being suggested?  What is being presented as fact in the article's lede?  Does this mean clarify 'denial' as being used be Watts' opponents?  Does it mean clarify that 'skepticism' is a self-identification, or to present it as fact?  I'm not sure how anyone voting for this option could possibly know what they are voting for.


 * Option 3: "Go with denialist" Again, not sure what this means exactly.  I guess it might mean state as fact in the lead that "WUWT is a blog dedicated to climate change denial".  Is so, it should be more clear.


 * I suggest this rfc be rejected entirely and reworded by someone who understands the concept of neutrality. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Confusing RFC -- see PG's comments above. What we should be working towards is a short NPOV article that represents RS's fairly. This may be difficult to achieve. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And one step towards that is to settle the vexed question over the issue of whether to describe it as a denialist blog in the lede. Feel free to give your opinion on that. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a neutral question about the issue I question Guy's motives and sincerity. (and Jess's also).  The efforts to use the label 'denial/denier' in the lede is an obvious attempt to smear the WUWT blog. It's quickly obvious to anyone who reads the wuwt blog that neither Anthony Watts, nor any of his contributors "deny" that the climate is changing, that 20th century warming has occurred, or that co2 has an effect on climate.   The sources being cited in favor of using 'denial' are just opinions written/published by known enemies of Anthony Watts, and with a vested interest in suppressing criticism over CAGW.   If "denial" is used at all, it should be demoted to the body of the article, with clarification that "denial" is a label used by Anthony Watts' opponents, and be accompanied by a quote of Mr Watt's official position on climate change.  24.9.166.120 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * btw, just in case there's any question, I was not "canvassed" by WUWT to sway voting. I've been following this article and posted a comment as early as May 21, several days before this controversy was ever mentioned on the WUWT blog. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose first, support' second, don't think the third would fairly represent Watts' characterization of the blog. I'm having trouble seeing why Sphilbrick, Peter Gulutzan, Pete Tilman, and 24.9.166.120 don't want to answer the question Guy poses. If you think the question is badly worded, simply rephrase it to this: how should WWUT be described? Should any mention of denialism be excised from this article, should Watts' self-identification of skeptic or lukewarmer be used along with attributed descriptions of denialism, or should the blog simply be described as denialist? Not a hard question to answer, I'd think. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose first, support second and third. My preference is #3, since (thus far) the highest quality sources we've been able to find identify the blog that way. If it's contentious enough in reliable sources (though I haven't seen that), we can discuss the controversy over wording in the body and express Watts' views explicitly. I can also live with Guettarda's proposal, which is in the article now. Several claims above (such as "denial" being a minority position) are untrue, but unfortunately, it is necessary to read the entire talk page to see why. I have additional concerns about starting an RfC only several days after this page was canvassed by the subject, which has led to disproportionate participation from editors sympathetic to the subject's pov. Of course, we should therefore expect disproportionate !voting in that direction, which is going to make this RfC less useful.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PLEASE stop talking about sources for "denial" and "denialist." This is patently absurd.  These are not scientific terms.  No one can believe that Watts actually denies the climate is changing.  He acknowledges it over and over.  So what you have is a derogatory colloquialism.  No matter how many "experts" use it, it is completely unencyclopedic.  If they all called the blog a "dogsh-t," would you reference them and make the argument that term should be used in the lede?  Of course not.  This is blatantly POV and reflects on all the worst problems with Wikipedia.Darkthlayli (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why ? "dedicated to denial" is not wrong, although quite logically leading to a full characterization of denialism at the end of the lede. Note that there are two major kinds of motivation for expecting reading denial ( of climate change. ) Interest, such as in aggressive productivism, and anguish, "maybe it's simply not so after all". --Askedonty (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Please stop talking about sources"? No. We are not saying "denialist", or even just "denial"; we are saying "climate change denial", the common name for a topic that WUWT promotes. You should read that article; it is not only about denying climate change broadly, but also dismissing and downplaying facts about climate change. WUWT is not only identified as an actor in climate change denial, but one of its primary promoters. Academic sources back that up, which is the whole reason it should be included in our coverage.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, your argument is that "climate change denial" does not, literally, mean denying climate change. Used as a term, it actually includes a much wider array of activities.  And you think it is better to use this term, which, read literally, does not mean what it says, than just to use words which do mean what they say.  And to establish that "climate change denial" means what you say, you point to... another very contentious wikipedia page.  "Climate change denial" does not appear in Oxford English Dictionary.  It does not show up in scientific texts.  It appears only in various articles and books published by people on one side of the issue.  If we set up a wikipedia page on "Global Warming Alarmism" we could find references of equal quality, from famous scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Happer, Pielke, Singer, Christy, Dyson, Koonin, etc.  Would you be okay with that, and with subsequent references to Mann as an alarmist and Skeptical Science as an alarmist site (as though anyone would take the time to write about Skeptical Science).  Do you really contend, seriously contend that your choice of this terminology is because you feel it is most descriptive, and has nothing whatsoever to do with its pejorative connotation?  I can't believe any objective administrator would believe that.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If a reader doesn't know what it means, we provide a link to our article which describes the topic in detail. You seem to be under the misconception that opinions are divided on the topic of climate change within the scientific community. They are not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people know exactly what climate change denial means, and will not check your link. They rightly believe that climate denial means denying that climate is changing.  Wattsupwiththat is not guilty of this.  I don't see what the opinion of the "scientific community" has to do with this.  It is not a matter of opinion.  I can link to hundreds of quotes from Watts and his contributors that acknowledge climate is changing.  But, if what you are saying is that I believe many, many experts use the term "alarmist," I certainly do.  Do more experts use the term "denier?"  Undoubtedly.  Is that an argument for employing one term and not the other in an encyclopedia?  No.  For the record, I doubt you know what percentage of the scientific community believes what about climate change, since there is only one reliable survey out there and I've never seen an alarmist cite it.Darkthlayli (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If this were a political topic, it would be self-evident that the appropriate approach to neutrality is the second. Further, it would be self-evident that the sources required to substantiate the pejorative description must be held to a higher-than-usual standard.  Specifically, that mere accusations from those holding the opposite opinion in the debate are insufficient.  The sources themselves must demonstrate some level of neutrality in the characterization. For example, if Republican Politician Alice calls Democratic Politician Bob a socialist, that statement would not be enough to rewrite the lede of the biography to describe Bob as a socialist even if Alice's statement was definitively sourced and witnessed by millions.  The fact that Alice said it might be encyclopedic but that mere claim does not become an assumption of truth.  Nor does it become "more true" when other Republicans repeat the same claim.  Actual evidence of independent evaluation is required.  Rossami (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I should clarify. The approach to the article is the second option.  The opening paragraph should be more neutral.  Critical characterizations by opponents in the debate are included in the body of the article but almost never in the opening paragraph.  Rossami (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but this is a bit more than Alice and Bob. Mann is a significant figure and a world-renowned expert in the field. This is more like the Speaker of the House castigating Bob for socialist propaganda from the chair. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WUWT is not a colleague of Mann, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook, engaged in a political dispute. WUWT is repeatedly identified by nearly all the sources we have available as an actor in a movement known as "climate change denial", and Mann, Dunlap, and Farmer/Cook are the experts in the relevant field we are citing to demonstrate that. There are many other experts who say the same thing. This isn't "republicans vs democrats", it is "science vs pseudoscience" or "experts vs non-experts"; it would be absurd to weight the claims of republicans over democrats, but we are not only allowed, but compelled to weight science over non-science, and experts over non-experts.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 11:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2: obviously the important thing about the blog is that it takes a particular position (or range of positions), and so the lead needs to reflect this fact. Obviously also there is disagreement about the terminology used to describe this position.  The most natural resolution is to include both the preferred "skepticism" label of the blog-owner, and the well-sourced "denialism" label.  (I would also be open to something like "opposes the scientific consensus on climate change," which was in use at Watts's page at some point, but it did not seem to garner a lot of support there.)  --JBL (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 3: obviously the important thing about the blog is that it takes a particular position (Denial), and so the lead needs to reflect this fact. This is of course backed up by solid mainstream scientific sources, as discussed at length on this page, and denied by some editors. I don't understand why. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The RfC is pretty heavily weighted toward using Watts' self description primarily. There are several variations of option 2, including:
 * Guettarda's suggestion: is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial
 * ...opposes the scientific consensus on climate change, with Mann's quote linking to climate change denial later.
 * The most direct reading of Guy's phrasing in the RfC: is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism with Mann's quote later.
 * It would be helpful to rephrase the RfC so option 2 read "use both labels", and if it receives enough support, have a follow-up discussion about what precise wording is most appropriate. As it stands, I had supported option 2, but there are definitely versions of options 2 I would be opposed to. For instance, I dislike my 3rd variant above.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2 or 3; leaning towards Jess' suggestion above. It seems obvious to me that using high quality sources (weighted most heavily to peer-reviewed literature and books by academic presses, less to books by other mainstream publishers, less still to more ephemeral sources like newspaper and magazine articles, and least toward SPSs) we end up with "climate change skepticism/denialism" in some form. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, I say put all the sources in, all the valid information, and make it an encyclopedic entry, with a bunch of factual sources. Trying to slant the article by removing sources, and removing information, is not NPOV, in fact it's the opposite of NPOV. If all sources and all data is included, the reader can either make up their own mind, or realize there is a fair bit of controversy and vastly different views of the blog. Which is of course, the actual situation. Fxmastermind (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if there had been a choice for that -- something like "include in the article all the known reliable sources that say denier or skeptic (or words with the same roots)" -- I'd have "voted" for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 2 - self-description and description by high quality reliable sources seems most pertinent to include in the lede. Try to ensure both are given equal-ish weight. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

'''NOTE: This RfC is a complete waste of time. None of the 3 possible solutions included in the RfC are even options. Per WP:WTW, the term "denialist" should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is not the case here.''' The outcome of the RfC is completely meaningless as local concensus cannot override community concensus. We simply cannot violate the rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That means we avoid the term unless reliably sourced. Which, in this case, it unquestionably is. So the onyl debate is around significance and weight. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose false trichotomy Per WP:LABEL, the term "denialist" should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is not the case here.  Therefore, so all three aren't even realistic options.  This RfC is a complete waste of time as none of the 3 'solutions' apply to this article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have peer-reviewed scholarly publications and books by major academic publishers that support the usage. These are the best possible sources. As you well know. Guettarda (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the vast majority of peer-reviewed scholarly publications do not use the term 'denier'. This has already been discussed at length and the fact remains that the vast, overwhelming majority don't use this term at all.  As you well know (or at least should if you've been following this discussion).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good thing we're not discussing the label "denier", then! You say "peer-reviewed scholarly publications" largely use your preferred wording, but the only sources presented on this talk page have been low quality, non-scholarly sources, like news clippings and blogs. The academic sources presented thus far (from experts like Mann and Dunlap) all say "climate change denial", and having reviewed the sources personally, I assure you there are more that haven't been listed too.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is false. Sources saying skeptic blog are listed and quoted in an earlier section of this talk page here. Ignoring the two blogs (#1, #13), there are four academic reliable sources (#4, #6, #8, #9) and seven mainstream-media reliable sources (#2, #3, #5, #7, #10, #11, #12). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AQFK, where has this discussion taken place? Please link to it. Not here, not on this page, not as far as I can see. Seriously, calm down; you're making wild claims here, you're edit-warring on Watts' bio... You have a hard time abiding by the norms of the community on this topic, hence your topic ban from the arbcomm. Given your past behaviour, the onus is on to you abide by a higher standard than the bare minimum we expect from editors. For your own good you need to step away from this topic. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, of course we're discussing the label "denier". And no, I don't have preferred wording, I check my policitics at the door.  I look at the sources first and then form my conclusions based on empirical evidence.  Not the other way around.  I suggest that everyone do the same.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guettarda: According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say? In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic" (as randomly selected by Google):

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as: I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results: Google Scholar Totals: Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number approaches zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS - "skeptic"
 * Scientific American - "skeptical"
 * American Thinker - "skeptic"
 * New York Times - "skeptics"
 * Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text.  Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
 * PBS - "skeptic"
 * LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics".  In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
 * Fox News - "skeptical"
 * USA Today - "skeptic"
 * The Telegraph - "science"
 * BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general
 * 1) Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
 * 2) Meteorologist - 1 Source
 * 3) Science - 1 Source
 * 4) Denier - 0 Sources
 * IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
 * The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
 * Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
 * Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
 * Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
 * Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
 * Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
 * Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
 * The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
 * Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".
 * 1) Skeptic - 3 times.
 * 2) Meteorologist - 2 times
 * 3) Conservative - 2 times
 * 4) Anti-climate science - 1 time
 * 5) Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
 * 6) Science - 1 time
 * 7) Science (in quotes) - 1 time
 * 8) Denier - 0 times


 * You've posted this list repeatedly, despite several users having pointed out that "random sampling" from google isn't a useful metric. Since it's a waste of time, I hadn't bothered investigating further, but I just did, and your summary is disingenuous and misleading at best. You've listed 21 sources, and claim that "denier" is not applied to the subject even once. Yet, 6 of your sources (roughly 30%) directly state or heavily imply that Watts Up With That or its author promote climate change denial:


 * : "Unfortunately, the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, for example..."
 * "'Climate scepticism' and 'climate denial' are readily used concepts..." Spends several paragraphs discussing the concept and equating the two labels, and in so doing, references Watts.
 * "Watts Up with That? and Climate Audit... are anti-climate science, conservative sites that deny that climate change results from human activity"
 * "Anthony Watts, who the "Facts" group described as a "climate change denier", "Watts where he gets to espouse his political beliefs... boiler plate climate denial", "the denier Anthony Watts", "debunked denier, Anthony Watts"
 * He is listed under the heading "Derision from deniers"
 * "has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs"... Watts up With That is listed a few paragraphs later, clearly still discussing the same idea.


 * I'm not interested in debating which way your "random samplings" lean, but I am interested in you representing your sources fairly. To claim the word "denier" is never used in these sources is a fabrication.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mann_jess: First, "heavily imply" doesn't cut it. Second, I think you might be counting words in quotations.  That's a completely different thing as the author's own words.  In any case, I'm going to be busy the rest of the day, but I'll try take a closer look at your list tomorrow, and if I need to make any corrections, I will.  But even if you are right about 30%, that's still a minority, not the majority.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious what I intended; I'm doing my very best to be honest about the source's intention, but all 6 use a variant of the word "denial" while discussing Watts or his blog. To reiterate, it doesn't matter which direction your "random sampling" leans; it is a worthless metric. It is not random, and not a representative sample, but even if it were, that's not how we make content decisions on wikipedia.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Watts is a skeptic...he even stated in his own words this and claimed he also believes that some of the climate change is due to humans. Why is it that unless one absolutely agrees with everyone else they get misrepresented?--MONGO 01:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest option 2.a which is to use the terms he does which is that he is skeptical in regards to AGW. His arch rivals opinions are not really very important. I may feel otherwise if Watts outright denied that humans are impact climate but he does not do that.--MONGO 18:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 1 as the other 2 are pejorative and unencyclopedic. There is nothing scientific about "denial". it's all political which makes no source authoritative about it. --DHeyward 02:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1, support 2 and/or 3.
 * Wikipedia's guidelines related to pseudoscience apply.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling Watt's [sic] a "pseudoscience pundit" is a BLP violation. As is alleging funding by "industry culprits". As is claiming his goal is to "disinform the public". About the only thing you said correctly is that Wikipedia guidelines apply. Please self-revert. (I know should probably remove it myself, but there will be less drama if you do so.) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but have removed the sentence as a courtesy. All of the above characterizations are sourced. Please read the Watts BLP (particularly the lead, blogging, and relationship with Heartland and quotes in footnotes) and Talk page. I've added a couple more sources below.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 3 - Persons/websites/blogs that hold an opinion so far outside of the mainstream, accepted point-of-view as to be considered "fringe" do not get to color themselves favorably in a neutral encyclopedia. We would never, in the Wikipedia voice, call Holocaust Deniers "holocaust skeptics". Tarc (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support skeptic Alternatives are worded in a biased fashion. Just as we have United States pro-choice movement and United States pro-life movement, which are the terms the movements use to describe themselves, Watts clearly describes himself as a "skeptic", so that's the term we should use.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Except no one claims either side in the abortion debate have picked a moniker inconsistent with reality, whereas there are lots of sources talking about that inconsistency in the area of climate change denial.


 * Support 2 To students of genuine scientific skepticism vs denial, Watts is obviously a denier, but that's using specialist knowledge.  Since we're lowly wikipedia editors, we NPOV the sources, and since this is a BLP we report the conflict between his self-description and that of his critics.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that WUWT has asserted that they are climate change deniers?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 3 or possibly 2, but with the same concerns as Jess as to the issues that arise with option 2. We say what the sources say, but the wording of option 2 could be improved. Stickee (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)