Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 8

Asking readers to ......
The article now includes RS based statement that "WUWT asks its readers to vote in the Bloggies". That got me thinking about how it asks readers to other things also. For example, WUWT recruited readers to come here and impact our consensus on this article. Should we fold in that meat-puppetry somehow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As you note, the bloggies part is RS based. Unless the meat-puppetry was covered in a published RS, we have to ignore it in the same way that we ignored attempts by creationist blogs to recruit edits to intelligent design articles. However, at there's a link to a piece by Philip Yam, Managing Editor, of Scientific American, discussed WUWT getting readers to game their informal online poll. Amusingly, he's responding to a WSJ editorial by "techno-utopian intellectual" George Gilder, ID proponent and co-founder of the Disco Tute. . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This in Science Progress also looks a possibility, as does Global climate denial industry turns its sights on Joy Burch - Canberra CityNews. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unless the meat-puppetry was covered in a published RS, we have to ignore it".... but of course. Wasn't such a source being discussed awhile back in the scads of comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * From a quick scan, the only source seems to be WUWT and I think we need a reliable secondary source. Glad to be corrected. . dave souza, talk 11:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made an effort at Anthony Watts (and plan to do the same here) to deprecate primary sources from the subject in favor of independent secondary sources. I think we should shy away from covering any topic that's only discussed on WUWT and not independently. Yes, it makes finding content a lot harder, but it ensures we're not covering anything insignificant.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I found what I was thinking of, and its just a blog. Sorry. for some reason I thought this was an RS disucssion earlier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * [sark alert] Ha! And Al Gore is fat, so there :-) (/Poe) Anyway, the other instances look possible. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That blog is… mind-boggling.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You even get a mention. Reading that blog certainly beats reading WUWT if you want to keep up with the denialosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to neutral
This article is in breach of the neutral point of view policy from the first word to the last, but what is the point of trying to change closed minds? It amazes me, as a rational atheist in the best tradition of the Enlightenment, that people who support climate alarmism cannot see that they are the ones who are behaving like religious fanatics. 86.31.123.65 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. Please list a specific issue you would like to be fixed, backed up by reliable sources. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At least the frequent pejorative and sourced use of word 'denial' shows clearly what is going on. Real Science or The Hockeyschtick might be best described as denialism. WUWT merely gives voice to a wide range of dissidents with very varying background, with opinion varying from lukewarmism to hard core denial. The article could be improved by including Watts' own public position regarding the climate change, which is not denial. Won't link it here, though. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Another RfC
The RfC which JzG/Guy began on May 28, "Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism", has been closed by User:Sunrise with several remarks, of which I believe this is the most important:
 * "As such, there is no conclusion in favor of any specific wording. This also means that for those editors who feel that more sources should be identified or that more options should be considered, they can make proposals to remedy that in the future."

Right, so -- if User:Sphilbrick has no more sources to add -- I here make a suggestion that we can try for a wording which is either neutral or fairly representative of the two or more non-neutral sides in the dispute. My own suggestion for a question is:
 * "Put in the lead: 'According to some sources the blog is skeptic (about climate change and/or global warming issues), according to other sources the blog is denialist.' -- citing reliable sources given by each side in our argument, removing all other mention of either denial or skeptic in the article."

and at a guess the put-denialism-in folks can suggest
 * "Go with denialist -- which means the article as it stands at this moment, since it's already been changed to say WUWT is denialist."

If once again there is no consensus, then I believe policy requires us to revert the recent changes, which should be a simple matter of restoring the lead to what it was on (say) April 21 2015. Or suggest another dispute resolution mechanism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposed question is ill-formed, "some sources" isn't acceptable as . You're welcome to make specific proposals, citing sources thus allowing examination of the usage of "skepic" as a synonym for climate change denial. The question arises of who's using the "skeptic" label, which is more prevalent in the media but doesn't accuragely reflect mainstream scientific opinion. Similarly, the provenance of sources for denial should be shown. Detailed consideration of actual proposals is needed rather than jumping to a RFC on vague principles. . . dave souza, talk 06:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't understand my words "citing reliable sources given by each side in our argument". To expand: the idea is that each side can present their own reliable sources for the proposed question, and the sources get cited after "skeptic" and after "denial", or at sentence end. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead already does that. What further sources do you propose, and how are your ideas consistent with giving due weight to the clear majority expert view on the science? . . dave souza, talk 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Assume one extracted from "Lists of sources" from the earlier talk thread and you reject all the skeptic ones, just as I would reject the denial ones -- that's why I suggest using both, it's one way of compromising. Of course anyone could refuse to compromise and vote against such a choice. Now, does anyone have anything to say about what should be the choices in the RfC and how they should be worded, i.e. the thread topic? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time that list was started, I was clear it was not useful for this purpose, but I was ignored. It's not helpful to "source count" uses of the word "skeptical" vs uses of the word "denial", and especially not when there has been minimal effort to even flesh out the "denial" list or assess the literature fairly. Another RfC is not going to encourage new dialogue, especially if you plan to ask the same question again. The RfC was successful - we got comments from new editors, and developed the current wording (along with several variations). If you have an issue with our current coverage, you should list specific sources which back up a change.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The result of JzG's RfC was no consensus, that is, the put-denialism-in side failed despite its non-neutral presentation. You are free to try to "flesh out" the denial sources before a new RfC. If you don't like the wording of one of the questions because you think it is the same as in JzG's -- presumably the "go with denialist" bit -- suggest another way to express it. If you just don't like seeing another RfC, suggest another way to get dispute resolution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The most common input in the RfC was that it was premature, the question was ill-formed, and the options were not exhaustive. Starting another RfC without discussion, and with essentially the same formulation and options, is ignoring the close. I already suggested another method of dispute resolution: clarify the issue you have with our current wording along with a change, and back up your change with reliable sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, there was no suggestion in the close of the RfC that it should be re-run immediately, let alone that there was a need for further dispute resolution. The part of the close relating to possible future action said that "those editors who feel that more sources should be identified or that more options should be considered, they can make proposals to remedy that in the future." I see no new sources proposed here; nor any new options for possible wording based on new or particular sources. --Nigelj (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has started a new RfC "without discussion", you're looking at the attempt to discuss before starting. Again: are there other suggestions what the RfC's wording should be? I believe this RfC differs in important ways from the one that failed, so it is going to take place, barring agreement about another method of dispute resolution. (Mann jess's suggestion isn't in that category, since I believe I have already clarified the issue and pointed to some reliable sources -- subject to revision.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All too vague: all that suggests is that you don't like due weight being given to the mainstream view that WUWT promotes denial of climate change science. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a few more days to see whether other suggestions occur. We disagree so I'll continue to try for compromise and outsider dispute resolution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: I think "skeptic" and "denialist" are essentially synonymous. The shades of gray applied to each are largely only accepted by those who are so labeled. Adopting any wording which would tend to disambiguate between "skeptic" and "denialist" is essentially adopting the POV of those who have been so labeled. jps (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism and denial - two words
A lot of electrons have been disturbed here and elsewhere recently over these two words. I wonder, if we discuss them as words briefly, if that may help. Sourcing and context of course remain important. There is no doubt that these are two different concepts, yet we also read, "Denial and skepticism are often treated as a continuum, from outright denial of the reality of anthropogenic climate change and refusal to accept evidence of its existence to skepticism about various aspects of climate change... The former tends to be held by key actors in the denial machine, while the latter is more prevalent among broader sectors of the general public." (Dunlap and Brulle, 2015)
 * Skepticism: "from Ancient Greek σκεπτικός ‎(skeptikós, “thoughtful, inquiring”), from σκέπτομαι ‎(sképtomai, “I consider”)" My understanding of this word fits with usage like, "Hmm, that's a pretty extreme, unusual or unique conclusion you have reached there. While I see your logic, I have to say I'm skeptical, so I'd like more time to look at your data as well."
 * Denial: "from Latin denegare ‎(“to deny, to refuse”), from de- ‎(“away”) and negare ‎(“to refuse”), the latter ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *ne ‎(“no, not”)" Here we might say, "The singer has issued a sweeping denial of all the rumors," and "We couldn't break through his denial about being alcoholic."

Personally, I think that we have enough sources easily to justify a statement that articles on the WUWT blog have and do encompass most of this continuum, with the balance more to the denial side. On balance, I would suggest changing the or to an and, and swapping the order of the words in the lead section, so that we state that WUWT "promotes climate change denial and skepticism". Do other editors have any different (sourced or common-sense) perspectives on the words, and their use in this context? --Nigelj (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Two different concepts until the "climate change" adjective is tacked on. Then suddenly, the ability to distinguish becomes murky -- and intentionally so. This happens in a lot of "edge" or "boundary" work where the provenance is insecure. To make a comparison, alternative medicine advocates argue that they are doing something different than "holistic healing". However, to the outside experts, it's a distinction without a difference. In much the same way climate change "contrarians" often argue that they aren't "denying" and the external experts say it's a distinction without a difference. Since Wikipedia ostensibly follows reliable sources and the most reliable sources on this topic are outside of the "contrarian" camp, for the most part, I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to engage in heavy amounts of editorial demarcation between "skeptics" and "deniers". jps (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If they mean the same thing, then why do the anti-WWUT people insist on calling WWUT a denier blog? If they mean the same thing then why do you care so much?  I have much more important things to do in life, but I see after several months you all are still making the same old arguments.  Arzel (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pro life" and "anti choice" refer to the same movement. Intelligent design proponents call it a "theory", but it's not a scientific theory. There are many cases where our choice of words matters. We must be careful not to imply things which are not true. Climate change denial is not scientific skepticism (or, really, skepticism at all, according to academic sources). Right now we're using both labels; there isn't a movement AFAICT to wipe out discussion of "...skepticism", but there is a movement to excise "climate change denial" from this page, and others. If you think the labels refer to different things, and are not applicable here, provide sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we just stick to the topic at hand. Do you think the words mean the same thing or not?  Don't worry about what anyone else thinks, because that is not relevant.  Arzel (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is probably the most irrelevant question. The third sentence of WP:V says, "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Just finding out what each other thinks, in the absence of reliably published information will get us nowhere. --Nigelj (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since so many of you completely disregard the RS which use the term Skeptic, the question is highly relevant. Arzel (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arzel, what RS? Remember, we need RSs which define what they mean by the term, rather than those that use it in an ambiguous way. Clarification of the definition is given by Dunlap & McCright in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (2011), relatively ambiguous usage appears in Scientific American 14 December 2012, though their subhead about "Climate deniers" makes it clear that's what SciAm mean in their reference to "skeptic" when discussing Rawls on WUWT. . dave souza, talk 19:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As cited in above, "The actions of those who consistently seek to deny the seriousness of climate change make the terms 'denial' and 'denier' more accurate than 'skepticism' and 'skeptic' (Diethelm & McKee 2009)". Also,  If you think WUWT doesn't promote such conspiracy theories, try Watts' November 29, 2014, post of an opinion by Tim Ball; "In my recent article about the motive behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deception on global warming, I challenged people to offer an alternative suggestion to my proposition that it was about political power and control", or the post on July 25, 2014 by Alec Rawls; "specific unscientific and anti-scientific steps in the IPCC analysis that render it not just scientifically invalid but properly classify it as a hoax and a fraud." The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are real skeptics, unlike the WUWTers. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The CSI doesn't own the term. Do you think the two words mean the same thing or not?  Arzel (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Boslough is the author of that item, which is an open letter with multiple signatories, who are "fellows of the committee", which Dave souza thinks is worth something. An open letter would not be an RS even if it mentioned WUWT, which it doesn't. But it's comic to see the promoter of a deniers-and-skeptics-are-synonyms sort of argument citing an item with the title "Deniers are not skeptics". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? You don't think CFI's website is an appropriate venue for CSI fellows to present their views? You really think there is any dispute opver the fact that CSI is pissed off with denialists suborning the term skeptic? Or are you simply playing contrarian for the fun of it? Guy (Help!) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who cares what they think. Do you think the words mean the same thing or not?  Arzel (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Arzel, no-one cares what you think or what I think: reliable sources including the CSI show that "skeptic" is commonly misused to describe climate change denial. . . dave souza, talk 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, CSI doesn't own the word. Are you going to answer the question or not?  Arzel (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going by strict argumentation, then we can point out that the reliable sources which use the term "skeptic" are doing so equivocally according to CSI which means we should remove the word "skeptic" from the article. On the other hand, words change meaning depending on context, time, and audience, so I'm not endorsing this position. It's the one that would make sense if you take Arzel's truculence seriously. jps (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Words do change, but not usually in response to the Orwellian usage by the political right. Freedom still means freedom despite the fact that neocons use it to mean the supremacy of corporate profit over human rights and social obligations. The climate "skeptics" are engaged in pseudoskepticism and denial. There's no need for us to portray this as anything else, any more than we should follow the press descriptions of antivax activists as being in favour of informed health choice and the like. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Just as it isn't wrong to encourage word meanings to change, it's also not wrong to resist that change in meaning. jps (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please give up the hyperbole and personal attacks. You have lost the argument so you resort to trying to change the meaning of a word in order to try to "win".  The AGW is the only crowd grounded in Orwellian word manipulation, and this attempt to do away with the concept of skepticism as it relates to AGW is a perfect example.  BTW, vaccination science is actually rooted in a real scientific process.  AGW has all the markings of religious dogma.  Arzel (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.pngCarbon_Dioxide_400kyr.pngGlobal_Carbon_Emissions.svg haven't "lost" anything. WUWT is a climate denialist blog. Over time, more and more sources will say it. Eventually the mainstream press will stop misusing the term skeptic, and the deniers will be correctly identified. We've seen the end of false balance on vaccines, we'll see it on climate science as well (in fact we're nearly there in most countries). The only dogma in respect of anthropogenic climate change is in the denialist camp: if the Heartland Institude and a handful of other bad actors shut down, the "controversy" would be over in a matter of months, and in the scientific community it's been over since the last IPCC meeting. Regardless of what the political right might think of the implications, the climate is changing, we are doing it, and the options are limited to trying to fix it, or preparing to deal with the consequences. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How very "scientific" of you. If we get rid of dissenting scientific views then we won't have a problem! Just imagine how great our world would be if that approach had been taken throughout the history of science.  You are clearly not a scientist, as no real scientist would ever take such a stance.  The numbers don't lie (unless manipulated).  If your numbers can't stand up to the scrutiny then your science is crap.  If CO2 was as much of a direct cause of global temps then the past 15 years would show your models to be accurate.  Something is wrong with the models.  CO2 does not have the impact claimed.  You have been unable to prove this point with observational data.  Thus the simulation models need to be fixed.  Trying to get rid of those that point this out will not change the facts, just like the fact that predictions of hurricanes with regard to AGW have not materialized.  Yet you call skeptics like me dogmatic?  Arzel (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Arzel, as a sceptic myself I'd call you misinformed: why are you bringing up those climate change denial talking points about the recent short term so-called global warming hiatus? Haven't you heard that climate is classically defined over a 30 year period to even out short term fluctuations, and even over these shorter periods the models have been doing pretty well? Where does this rant relate to WUWT? Remember, weight requires that we show with reliable sources how these fringe views you're discussing have been received by mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 19:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be muddling fellow Wikipedia editors with some kind of scientists whose data you wish to question: Who are you addressing when you say "If your numbers can't stand up to the scrutiny then your science is crap." You seem to be muddling writing a Wikipedia article with doing scientific research when you say "You have been unable to prove this point with observational data." You seem to be muddling this page with an internet forum where people get together to argue as if they ruled the world, and decided grand scientific questions. What we do here is review sources, and sift published references to decide the best way to summarise the preponderance of significant views that have been reliably published on this topic. I don't see any sources to review in your post. In addition, you seem to have strayed significantly from the purpose of this section, which was to look at two words, and to decide how best to introduce and use them in this article. Please stick to the topic or start a new section. There are several policy pages about all this, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:TPG and so on. --Nigelj (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Nigel's original question, it seems to me that our sources paint a clear picture: I think Nigel's ending summary is fair, except that I don't know of many sources which discuss a continuum and place WUWT on the "skepticism" side. Also, since the words are often used interchangeably, changing "or" to "and" will be confusing for some readers. I think it's ok to use both terms as synonyms in the lead (like we do now, with "or"), and I think we can clarify a lot of these issues in the body if need be. The definition probably isn't the place for that, however. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have sources that say WUWT promotes "climate change skepticism"
 * We have sources that say WUWT promotes "climate change denial"
 * We have sources that say "climate change skepticism" and "...denial" are used interchangeably
 * We have sources that say "climate change skepticism" is misleading
 * We have sources that say any 'unique' definition of "climate change skepticism" does not apply to WUWT
 * The sources using "climate change skepticism" are largely blogs and news posts
 * The sources using "climate change denial" are largely academic journals and books written by experts in their field.
 * We have no secondary sources that say "climate change denial" does not apply to WUWT.
 * I don't know where we slipped into these 'used interchangeably' and 'synonymous' ideas. The words clearly refer to two quite different things, per their etymologies and dictionary definitions at the top. Dunlap has introduced the idea that they are ends of a continuum. The other thing we have is that "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." Falsely branding yourself with a word that describes something you are not, does not make the word you chose synonymous or interchangeable with the word you should have chosen. --Nigelj (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Different authors use the labels differently. Some (like Dunlap) use them as opposite ends of a continuum. Others (like Painter/Ashe) use them interchangeably. Some sources say they are (or should be) different, but that no "climate change skeptics" exist anymore, and everyone using the label is actually a "...denier". Overall, there isn't broad agreement on the precise use of each label. There is agreement that they refer to largely the same phenomena. Some authors exclusively use one label to refer to the whole phenomena, and others use the other label exclusively for the same purpose. That's what I mean by "sometimes used interchangeably". Importantly, no sources which discuss the terms as different entities referring to different things place WUWT on the "...skeptic" side; AFAICT, WUWT is only a "...skeptic" when the label refers to the entire phenomena, "...denial" and all.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm talking about "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism", not "denial" and "skepticism". The latter two are very different, but we can't always break down phrases that way. In "What's up?", "up" does not refer to a direction. In "climate change skeptic", "skeptic" does not refer to someone who espouses traditional (or scientific) skepticism.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Nigelj, fair point that "commonly used to mean the same thing, even though the primary definitions differ" isn't really the same as synonymous. The development of this usage is discussed at climate change denial and #History sections. It had already begun by 1995, when Ross Gelbspan wrote about the fossil fuel industry having "relied on a small band of skeptics" [ in which "The skeptics assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized."] Weart describes a historical process in which the emerging science was subject to genuine skepticism, then as consensus emerged, so too did "self-styled skeptics [who] were not proceeding in a normal scientific manner... At some point they were no longer skeptics–people who would try to see every side of  a  case–but  deniers..." WUWT falls into this category, where the term "skeptics" is misapplied. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Words mean whatever people use them to mean; words mean whatever you want them to mean; words mean whatever I tell you they mean... Is one or more of them postmodernism? I really don't know, but it's kind of irritating, and it makes me want to look up the original Greek or something. There is no doubt that some denialism has called itself skepticism completely in error and without justification, and that WUWT authors do not like being called out on that, but there are certainly reliable sources that have done so. I think that whenever WP's voice utters the word skeptic it should do so only when it clearly has nothing but it's original meaning. If we mean 'so-called skepticism, which is actually denialism misnamed for the sake of flagrant political framing', then we should always say so, or simply say denialism. That's what I mean by 'not interchangeable'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessarily started as this political framing, but as Weart points out it became a misnomer which was adopted by the press in a false balance between fringe and mainstream science. Fully agree with the need for clarity, which is why it's not enough to find mere usage: sources should be used which show clearly what they mean. The SciAm discussion above shows the problems which can arise when there's any ambiguity, and also the problem of using as a primary source a news article rather than a secondary source which is an academic analysis discussing the terminology, preferably peer-reviewed. . dave souza, talk 22:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly think there is a whiff of humpty-dumpty about the denialists. The issue is not that they brand themselves as "skeptics" (of course they do: charlatans rarely accept they are charlatans, still less identify themselves as such) but that the media has historically misused the self-identified label. And of course by "the media" I am referring in no small part to Faux News, which is ground zero for the attempted legitimising of climate change denialism. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)