Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 9

RfC: Should "Watts Up With That" blog be called "denier"?
(Timestamp of first post changed to discourage RfC Bot from closing.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The basic Watts Up With That description before May 1 was "is a weather and climate commentary site (blog)". Here are two ways to change the article:
 * 1. 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 most other mention of either denial or skeptic in the article. Like this.
 * 2. Or, Go with denialist -- which means the article as it stands at this moment, since it's already been changed to say WUWT is denialist. Like this.

? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment: Choice 1 has my "vote". An earlier RfC got no consensus; this one differs by showing reliable non-blog sources for both "skeptic" and "denier" in choice #1, and making clear what "go with denialist" (the words of the earlier RfC) actually implies in choice #2. I believe the sources for saying "skeptic" alone are overwhelming but this is an attempt to compromise. If there is yet another failure to get consensus, my understanding is that we must return to the original wording, without either skeptic or denier, as of May 1 2015, before the worst disputes began. Since that date editors who have edited the article or talk page (excluding bots etc.) are: User:A Quest For Knowledge User:AClimateSkeptic User:Akhilleus User:AnotherProf User:ArtifexMayhem User:Arzel User:Askedonty User:Capitalismojo User:Cptmrmcmillan User:Cpwernham User:Darkthlayli User:Dave souza User:DGaw User:DHeyward User:Filippo83 User:Fxmastermind User:Gmakwiki User:Guettarda User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc User:Joel B. Lewis User:John G Eggert User:Johnuniq User:JzG User:KMAnomalocaris User:Mann jess User:Mc6809e User:MissPiggysBoyfriend User:MONGO User:NewsAndEventsGuy User:Nigelj User:Nomoskedasticity User:Oefinell User:PeterPearson User:PeterTheFourth User:Pigsonthewing User:Rex Forcer User:Rossami User:Roxy the dog User:Sarms58 User:Sphilbrick User:Stephan Schulz User:Stickee User:Sunrise User:ThePowerofX User:Tarc User:Tillman User:TMLutas User:Ubikwit User:William M. Connolley [User:141.162.101.50]] User:24.9.166.120 User:68.116.52.99User:68.40.50.81 User:71.227.188.49 User:84.250.122.35 User:86.31.123.65 ... User:Anythingyouwant User:Bulk Moduli User:Everymorning User:Longauria User:Ponysboy User:Sodium Fluoride User:Shoalshone User:SJ Defender User:Starstrux User:Tafortos User:Valentine Michael Smythe User:Vsmith User:108.195.137.231 User:108.51.65.63 User:2600:1003:b007:d95e:0:1c:a3e2:e301 User:68.146.174.30 User:86.152.125.244 User:88.168.219.244 Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A solution that tries to disambiguate between a skeptic and a denialist as your Option 1 does is not an acceptable solution. There seems to be a consensus of reliable sources that the two terms are synonymous. jps (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that there is a consensus that the two terms are synonymous. It may be helpful to do a formal inventory but I'll react with an off the top of the head reaction. Many sources do use the terms to mean different things. At least one important source made it clear the two terms are not the same, but then made a curious decision to use denier to refer to both groups. This might be an acceptable pragmatic decision, but it would not be accurate to identify this source as claiming the terms are synonymous. There are others who recognize a difference between the two terms, but find it difficult to identify a clear demarcation line, so might opt to use one term or the other. This may be an acceptable approach, but an inability to articulate a unique way to identify each group is not the same as a conclusion that the two terms are synonymous. If we want to conclude that the two terms are synonymous, we need to find that a large portion of the reliable sources make the statement. I doubt that this claim is made in a quarter of the sources much less enough to justify calling it a consensus.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources on this topic are the papers written in the social science journals and the ones written in the environmental science journals. I have gone through an extensive search of the topic and find that generally the indistinguishability of the two groups is given as a rather plain fact in these mainstream discussions. I understand how someone who includes Alan Moran's massively unreliable book, Climate change : the facts. on their reading list may be led to believe that there is something different going on in the actual mainstream community, but we don't give credence to such WP:FRINGE views as elucidating the general form of the mainstream understanding of a subject. jps (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For easy reference, here is what Watts has said on the subject:

I fully understand that his opinion is not controlling. I don't doubt, for example that a convicted pedophile may claim he is not a pedophile. If the reliable sources support the claim we would not omit it simply because the subject disagreed. However, we should not casually use a pejorative term when the subject disagrees with it. We should ensure that we are on absolutely solid ground making a claim that contradicts a subjects own view. I don't think we are even on weak ground much less solid ground.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about Watts. We're talking about his blog. If you want to discuss Watts, go to Talk:Anthony Watts. jps (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that he is probably the single largest contributor, he is relevant. However your point is well taken but to characterize a blog, which includes the contributions of a diverse group of contributors, makes it even tougher to ascribe a single term. There are undoubtedly contributors who might be characterized as deniers, but many contributors are not. On what basis do you use a single narrow term to apply to a blog when it represents a diverse set of views? There may be some blogs whose subject matter is sufficiently narrow that a narrow description is appropriate. When the subject matter is more diverse it would be grossly misleading to characterize the entire blog according to the views of a minority of contributors.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The blog's contributors are, on the whole, even more anti-scientific than Watts himself. The vast majority of commentators who are supportive of the site are way out on a limb. The site is firmly in the denialist camp, and we have plenty of reliable sources which indicate this (including all of the academic work that mentions it). It's actually difficult to find a single post that's not denialist. jps (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claims are frankly preposterous.

Here is a contribution from today:
 * Another BBQ Summer Fiasco: Met Office Gets It Wrong (Again)

Another from today:
 * The artificial tree: the “green” replacement for real trees?

One from yesterday:


 * Study: Wind farms offer diminishing returns as they grow more widespread

Reasonable people might have issues with any one of these articles, but I don't see how any of them could be described as denialist.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Know what a dog whistle campaign is? That's what those blog posts are when it comes to any relevance to climate change. They're dog whistles for anti-science denialists and crumbs to pass on to politically conservative enviroskepticts. All three of them serve one purpose: to sell doubt about claims regarding climate change and other environmental problems. jps (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Plate o' shrimp. The very last thing I read before coming to check this page used the term dog whistle. Someone use the word "they" and a suggestion was made this was a racist dog whistle. Your comment falls in the same vein. If that's all you've got, let's move on. You claim that virtually all posts are denialist, when I give you three examples you can't find a scintilla of evidence that they deny science. A dog whistle may count as evidence in some venues but in Wikipedia we want actual evidence, not pseudo-evidence.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Met Office Gets It Wrong Again" -- Okay, what exactly is the Met Office getting wrong so many times? I'll give you one guess.
 * "The artificial tree: the “green” replacement for real trees?" Quote the blog itself: "Is it just me, or is there something deeply unsettling about the modern green movement, and its infatuation with technological monstrosities?" You've gotta be kidding me. This is just enviroskepticism laid bare. Let's not try to come up with new ideas, the sky's not falling, Chicken Little!
 * "Wind farms offer diminishing returns as they grow more widespread" The author of the blog even admits: "While the researchers stress that no current or planned wind farm approaches the size or concentration that would cause the slowdown effect...." So why is this at all relevant? Could it be because the blog's outlook is that any alternative energy endeavor is a boondoggle because climate change isn't an issue? I think so!
 * So there are your scintillas. If you think my interpretations are out of the ordinary, I encourage you to read the comments on any of those blogs and see what they're saying. Care to keep on denying it?
 * jps (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to each in turn:
 * The Met office has egg on its face for a number of short-term and medium-term weather forecasts that have turned out to be embarrassingly wrong. This is hardly surprising, forecasting weather in the short term while getting better is hard to do, and in the medium-term is even harder. I fail to see how observing and reporting this fact makes one a denialist. Why do you think that?
 * To use your own word "enviroskepticism"? Do I need to place the emphasis on "skepticism" to see that you supported my point?
 * If you read your own response you'll see that it is you who imputes denialism as a reason they have concerns about proliferation of windfarms. I support the use of wind, in fact I'm looking into adding a windmill on my own property to supplement my solar panels, but just because I support wind and solar doesn't mean I have to pretend it is a panacea and is problem free. In the same vein, someone can identify the challenges associated with wind without necessarily thinking that climate change is a fraud. Replacing fossil fuels must be done eventually, but it is harder to do than some people realize. I'm puzzled that you would think pointing out challenges of renewable fuels means one is a denialisy/ I call it being a realist and I intend to live in a reality-based universe. You can choose otherwise but it won't work.
 * You seem to manage to see a lot of things through the lens of the nihilism. Your dog whistle comment was most apt as it is an example of a sound that cannot be heard by humans, yet some are convinced that humans act in response to it. In the same way, you think you see did nihilism in these articles but it isn't there. We are going to describe a weblog based on your made up imputations that aren't born out by facts.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know whether I'm dealing with willful ignorance or otherwise. WUWT attacks the Met Office because of climategate. That's the only reason they do it. As I've pointed out above "skepticism" and "denial" are not meaningfully disambiguated by reliable sources on this topic, and finally the general tenor of the commentary is all with an eye towards denial and the ideas it supports are those that support an almost conspiracy-theory claim that the mainstream understanding of environmental problems is incorrect (that wind power won't work, that solar power companies are shills, etc.). Go ahead and read the comments. But, really, why are we arguing this anyway? The best sources we have that describe this blog all firmly place it in the denier camp. jps (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ...willful ignorance... Seriously? Casting unsupported aspersions is often a sign one is losing an argument, but whatever the reason it's beneath you. You can do better.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just calling it like I read it. It is possible that you aren't being willfully ignorant of the indicators of climate change denialism, but that's what it seems like coming from someone who has been involved in this area on Wikipedia for years. jps (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So, I see you've ignored every other editor and started an RfC anyway. Please don't ignore others. Our current lead is a compromise between several editors, and includes both "skepticism" and "denial"; it is not the "go with denial" option from months ago. If you'd like to make another proposal, please do so, but rerunning the same RfC that just closed is not helpful at this time. Your suggestion that we remove use of climate change denial (except for one mention of "some sources say...") is problematic for a variety of reasons, and its thrust was opposed in the last RfC which just ended. We can't do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors who wish to check the validity of Mann jess's accusations can look at the thread above ("Another RfC") where I asked in advance for suggestions about changes to the wording, at how Mann jess inserted denial in this article and reverted 12 editors who didn't go along with that, at Mann jess's attempt to have me banned from editing articles or talk pages including this one, and at the diff between choice 1 and choice 2. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To assist with the easy referencing, here are a couple of things Watts has written on the subject:

The first quote was written by Watts in 2009, the second and third are recent comments he made on WUWT. As was reported in 2012, "Watts is asserting the U.S. temperature trends you’ve seen reported from NOAA about warming in the last few decades are inflated due to flawed adjustments made to temperature records." No doubt further clarifications can be found. . . dave souza, talk 18:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave, I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. As you are well aware, Watts did considerable research into siting issues connected with temperature gauges. I think it is fair to say that both supporters and detractors of Watts agree that he highlighted a problem, and there have been some initiatives to address the siting problems. Watts initially went further, and claimed that the siting problems introduced a meaningful bias into the historical record. The BEST initiative attempted to study the historical temperature record and, inter alia, concluded that the siting problems did not account for a meaningful contribution to temperature trend. Watts initially rejected their conclusions but has backed away from his criticisms of that study. He has subsequently stated publicly, as I quoted above, that he now believes there is a nontrivial temperature trend over the last century.
 * Isn't this precisely what we want people to do? When they identify a real problem, observe that the real problem has the potential of a meaningful impact on the temperature trend, and after reviewing an in-depth study of the question which concludes that the trend impact is not significant, change their conclusion. This is exactly what a skeptic does. It is not what a denialist does; they tend to keep asserting their previous beliefs while willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary.
 * If, in fact, you are bringing up Watts history with the temperature issue as evidence that he's a skeptic and not a denial list I apologize if I missed your point but I don't think it was made explicitly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Watts didn't highlight any problem in the way that he claimed it was a problem. People knew that his arguments about siting problems weren't problems before BEST, and BEST's confirmation of that is unsurprising to anyone paying attention. What Watts does is distract from real problems. If you can find a quote that indicates that Watts believes he was wrong to have claimed what he claimed in the past, I'm happy to look at it. It still does not show that his blog is anything but a denier's paradise. jps (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I already provided a quote and you rejected it. I tried facts, but you heard dog whistles. If you have some actual evidence that a consensus of reliable sources labels the Watts blog as a denialist blog go for otherwise life is too short to waste time with dog whistles and divining rods. I prefer science.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are in the article identifying this blog as a denialist blog. I haven't seen any sources to the contrary. The original research you attempted doesn't really cut it, in my opinion. jps (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Sphilbrick, where's the quote from Watts that "he now believes there is a nontrivial temperature trend over the last century"? The quote you gave above concedes "that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable", but trivialises that point and places emphasis on his dispute over "climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as 'the pause'." The quotes above show that he didn't just highlight a problem, he exaggerated the problem and continues to accuse mainstream scientists of deliberately distorting the record. His accusations of scientific incompetence or dishonesty aren't new, the box below comes from the same 2009 statement by Watts. The initiatives to address the siting problems preceded the intervention of Watts, but he disputed them for years. His minimal backing away still fits well within the spectrum identified as climate change denial, as do the views shown by various commentators at WUWT. dave souza, talk 02:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That was 2009. Here's a joint effort by Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts from WUWT in 2015, which also quotes Watts himself remarking “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”... dave souza, talk 02:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC) –


 * Agree with jps, and strong opposition to option 1 -- it is not acceptable under any circumstances. (I would support option 2, with the caveat that I would recommend using 'denialist' and omitting any mention of the term 'skeptic' entirely in any context that implies it has a meaning distinct from denialist, save when explicitly quoting individuals who hold that view; and when they are quoted, it must be made explicit that their views in making that distinction are WP:FRINGE.  "Climate change skepticism or denial" is not an appropriate way to word it; it should simply say "Climate change denial.")  I see no evidence in the sources that there is a meaningful distinction between 'skeptic' and 'denialist'; it seems to be one pushed solely by people who are described as denialists by the mainstream scientific community.  Since (even if you allow for a distinction) anyone who falls into that category has extremely WP:FRINGE views on climate science, we cannot structure the article or categorize people according to the lines they draw.  "Denialist" clearly has extensive mainstream sources, and there are (as far as I can tell) no mainstream sources in the field challenging that categorization; it is only Watts' personal belief that 'skeptic' is a meaningfully distinct category.  We are required to avoid giving undue weight to that perspective to per WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Denier, as in option 2 and firmly reject option 1 per WP:WEASEL. Every time, the same answer (and usually the same people asking the question). Watts is a climate change denier, the handful of editors who don't like that fact just need to learn to live with it. The "skeptics" of climate change are pseudoskeptics, and Watts is a very obvious and thoroughly documented promoter of denialism. The fact that some sources fail to correctly make the distinction is a problem, and it's one we deal with by blowing away the dust. I can find you a million sources that describe stage psychics as clairvoyant, but they aren't and we don't call them clairvoyant. This is the same. The absolute most we should say is that he is a denialist who describes himself as a skeptic, but even that is giving undue weight to a fringe view. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an easy issue but stamping your feet in insisting that he be called the denier is not the way we do things. There is no question that there are some sources which label Watts as a denier. (When I pointed out some contrary evidence I was yelled at for missing that this is about the blog not the person. Which one are you discussing?) There are some sources which label the blog as a denier blog. Some are sketchy, the one by Michael Mann is obviously biased, and some might be legitimate. But for everyone that labels the blog is a denier blog, this one or more that characterize it as a skeptic blog. In what universe do we ignore substantial evidence supporting one term, and instead use the term many view as highly pejorative?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not seeing any reliable source that supports your implication that 'climate change denial' and 'skeptic' opposed or contradictory terms. You have shown that people also use the term 'skeptic' to refer to him, so we can also use that term elsewhere in the article; but you have not shown that there is any serious question that he supports Climate change denial, because nothing about calling someone a 'skeptic' implies that.  Presenting "skeptic" as if it refutes or opposes the fact that his blog supports Climate change denial is therefore WP:OR.  The fact that he supports climate change denial is well-sourced, and it is misleading to phrase it as "climate change skepticism or denial" as if these are necessarily distinct things.  --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Sphilbrick, your comments appear obviously biased in favour of fringe pseudoscience; it's clear that Michael E. Mann's bias is that of the mainstream scientific views which we're required to show to meet WP:WEIGHT policy. Many use "skeptic" as a synonym for climate change denial, and neither the NCSE nor historian Spencer Weart share your own opinion that it's "highly pejorative". . . dave souza, talk 14:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Dave souza, you say Mann has a "bias" which would mean that the opinion he expresses "cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact" (WP:NPOV). Although I believe WP:WEIGHT is against you and I know terms aren't synonyms just because "many" say so, you could help end this fighting by accepting that we could acknowledge what reliable sources say on both sides, or neither. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * False equivalencies between climate change deniers and climate scientists do not a cogent argument make. Mann is an expert. Watts is an amateur. The WP:MAINSTREAM bias is to take Mann seriously and to not give Watts a soapbox. Thus, the proper WP:WEIGHT is to emphasize Mann and those other reliable sources which support him while de-emphasizing Watts and the claims of the unreliable commentary that ostensibly supports him. jps (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Peter Gulutzan, from the fringe viewpoint you seem to be promoting, mainstream science looks biased. Even at that, your reading of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV looks a bit selective: don't forget the next bit, "It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion". And that's to be read in the context of WP:NPOV, including "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference." Which is what Sphilbrick would be doing, if he were proposing another source. The point that "skeptic" and "climate change denial" are commonly synonyms is supported by good quality sources shown in that article: exactly what source are you proposing to dispute this? . . dave souza, talk 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have something to say, say it, with evidence. If all you can come up with is that Sphilbrick "appears" biased, that I "seem" to promote a fringe viewpoint, that something is "commonly" a synonym -- but never that Sphilbrick is biased or I'm promoting or it is a synonym -- there's nothing to answer here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter, you say above you "know terms aren't synonyms just because 'many' say so" and want everyone to "acknowledge what reliable sources say on both sides". What good quality reliable sources say that "skeptic" isn't commonly used as a synonym for climate change denial, [including denier or denialist]? Seem to recall asking you that before. . . 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm calling it, User:Sphilbrick's reputation as a "neutral" editor on climate change is hereby impeached. Claiming that Michael Mann, one of the world's pre-eminent climate scientists, is "biased" when it comes to identifying the pseudoscience of climate denial is like claiming that Jerry Coyne is biased when he identifies the pseudoscience of creationism. This is simply WP:FRINGE WP:POVPUSHing. It's a distraction from the task of writing a reliable encyclopedia that uses the most reliable sources. jps (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we were going to start from the premise that we can't use anything Michael Mann says because he's 'obviously biased', then we would be sunk. --Nigelj (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * jps, It is not yours to call. Nigelj, I thought you were a more careful reader. My statement doesn't remotely say we cannot use anything Michael Mann says. Not remotely. I accept him as a reliable source on the subject of climate science. But if you've been tan attention and I think you have, you are well aware that Watts and many other contributors to WUWT have many harsh things to say about Michael Mann. In light of the many vitriolic statements directed at Michael Mann is hardly unreasonable to suggest that his characterization of WUWT might not be the most unbiased viewpoint ever.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So the suggestion is that any scientist or organization that WUWT attacks suddenly becomes "biased" when characterizing WUWT... and as we've seen, WUWT attacks anyone who characterizes them distastefully. Interesting how that leads us to parrot their own self description, since any source that disagrees with them must have a bone to pick. Mann, Dunlap, Weart, Farmer/Cook, the NCSE... we can respect their academic credentials and trust them when it comes to the science, but once they start talking about WUWT, it must be an emotional vendetta.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! This is just denialist apologetics and acrobatic maneuvers to protect and promote the blinkered views of pseudoscientists. I don't think SPhilbrick is exhibiting the kind of editorial competence we would want in a contributor to these kinds of pages. jps (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? (and convenience break)
I realize that some think that Michael Mann walks on water. There's an irony at being accused of supporting pseudoscience. One of the attributes of pseudoscience is the elevation of practitioners to godlike status, wherein any disagreement, no matter how slight, is treated as blasphemy. I made the highly unremarkable observation that someone subject to repeated vitriol might not have an unbiased view of those excoriating him. Does this seriously surprise someone?

Jps goes on about experts and amateurs. Has someone missed that this is an article about a blog not an article about science? Michael Mann is an expert in the subject of climate science. That doesn't make him an expert on blogs. Discussion of the denialism versus skepticism is not in the arena of science it is in the arena of philosophy of science.

Jess seems unable to distinguish between a single disagreement and the way WUWT has treated Michael Mann. Surely she knows better.

Is anyone heard the maxim - address the content not the speaker? I'm perfectly happy to field challenges to any statements of fact or even opinions I might issue, but the characterizations of lack of competence, failure to be neutral, and a supporter of pseudoscience a bordering on if not crossing over into personal attacks.

Let's all take a deep breath and return to them question at hand. What do neutral sources say about WUWT? That's what we're here to discuss.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Has someone missed that this is an article about a blog not an article about science? Michael Mann is an expert in the subject of climate science. That doesn't make him an expert on blogs." That argument would only work if this article was confined to analysis of WUWT purely as a blog, with no mention of the blog's commentary on climate science. That's obviously inappropriate. . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "question at hand. What do neutral sources say about WUWT?" I've tried looking, and can find no policy requirement for "neutral sources". What I have found in WP:V is "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Can you link to any Wikipedia policy discussing this principle? . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC) – p.s. the WP:BIASED guideline covers this: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." . . . dave souza, talk 06:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You missed my point entirely. You've established some weird criteria whereby we dismiss or downplay reliable sources because of WUWT's actions, not theirs. Your criteria favors sources WUWT likes, and dismisses sources they don't like. The problem isn't with bias in the sources, it's with the bias in your criteria for selecting sources. This isn't a new phenomena, it's been happening since the dispute started; every source which characterizes WUWT a way they don't like is conveniently "just an opponent of WUWT". That's not a part of WP:RS, and not the way we write articles on WP. I've still yet to see any sources showing Mann, Dunlap, Farmer/Cook, Weart, the NCSE... are incorrect. The only standing accusation is that we can dismiss their opinion because WUWT has written lots of negative things about them. Well, yea... that's what WUWT does.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss your point at all. In fact, it appears you didn't understand my point. I didn't proposal a weird criteria. I made an entirely reasonable argument. I haven't challenged Mann's status is a reliable source on the subject of climate science. Is my point too subtle? -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You've made a strong claim  every source which characterizes WUWT a way they don't like is conveniently "just an opponent of WUWT". Can you back it up? I don't believe I've ever used such an argument. There might be someone who has but you didn't say it has happened on occasion you said it happens every single time. I trust you will follow up with dozens of citations. Or retract it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been playing these games long enough pretending that you, User:Sphilbrick, are somehow neutral when it comes to articles dealing with climate change. You clearly are pushing this idea that there is equal validity to be had between the WUWT claims and those who dispute them. This is in spite of the fact that the people who dispute WUWT's claims are credentialed, respected scientists who have published in the best venues. These sources are exactly the sort of sources that WP:RS demands, and yet, you seem to be willing to ignore that and simply argue off the top of your head that they're wrong! You claimed that there was a difference between a climate skeptic and a climate denier without dealing with the fact the vast majority of sources see no difference between the two ideas. You accused Michael Mann of being biased without meaningful evidence. This isn't a problem with Mann Jess and myself. This is a problem with your arguments and evident inability to do the requisite research to see where your misconceptions lie.


 * If you want to take a deep breath, deal with this: I have yet to see a single reliable source that argues that WUWT is not a blog that promotes climate change denial. I have seen plenty of reliable sources, on the other hand, that do indicate this. That's a pretty straightforward point. Go ahead and find a source that disputes any of the reliable sources that are already in the article which indicate that WUWT supports climate change denial.


 * jps (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Michael Mann is a bit of a blowhard, but he is, crucially, a blowhard with a solid grasp of the science, an international reputation as a specialist in the field, and one who has been viciously attacked by the denialists for stating the facts as he sees them. The whole problem here is a collision between science, which follows the evidence and cares about factual accuracy, and politics, where beliefs are considered inherently valid regardless of their evidential status. There is an extremely strong crossover between climate change denialism, evolution denialism and opposition to gun control, universal health care. In every case there is a collision between belief and evidence. In every case there is a whole industry of manufacturing "evidence" to bolster belief, but the belief persists even when this "evidence" is exposed as fraudulent. There are a few examples of creationists who have been convinced of evolution, warming denialists who have become convinced of the reality of warming and so on, but very few, if any, have gone the other way because there is no good evidence to support the denialist positions.
 * There's a contrast here with the environmental movement, which is entirely in favour of tackling climate change but opposes GMOs. Here, the belief is the other way - instead of distrusting government, they distrust corporations. These folks are not scientists - again, some are persuaded in favour of GMOs (or, as with George Monbiot, in favour of nuclear power) but few become persuaded to switch to opposition to nuclear power or GMOs by evidence.
 * Most denialists are from the political right. They make the fundamental mistake of assuming that climate action comes entirely from the political left, the environmental movement (or "communists" as they think them). That allows them to cast it as the familiar battle between "good" and "evil" (i.e. my politics and people whoa re wrong).
 * Michael Mann is a scientist. He is also a gifted communicator. He's popular for the same reason Neil Degrasse Tyson is popular: he tells us the science in language we can understand. Academic science doesn't use terms like denialism and tends not to concern itself with the political motivations of denialists, but popular science does, and as an author of popular science books on the climate issue, Mann is free to engage in blunt speaking that is not normal in scientific discourse. He is not a plaster saint, but he is - and this is really really important - right. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Guy, "a bit of a blowhard" ( boaster or braggart) looks wrong, Mann doesn't have the British trick of exaggerated modesty but I think it's more accurate to say that he's a bit stroppy when attacked. More significantly, the term "denialism" is used in academic social science (and public health) as shown by multiple references in the climate change denial article. This is something I'll discuss below in the next subsection. . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dunlap & McCright 2011
@Jess I'll supply an example where I think a source characterized WUWT in a way "I don't like" (more accurately, in an intellectually lazy manner.) Here's the diff For convenience I'll copy here the main point:

I stand by my comment–This is a clear example of a source that has deliberately decided to use the word denial to cover both the actual concept of denial as well as skepticism. That's not my OR, that's what they say. I didn't dismiss the source as "just an opponent of WUWT". I explained in detail why the source described WUWT in such a way that some might think they were labeling it a denialist blog, and why the conclusion is misleading. I invite you to show me where I dismiss them as "just an opponent of WUWT". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "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 don't actually have to do any work to distinguish true deniers from mere skeptics." Assumes facts not in evidence: namely that there is a difference between "true deniers" and "mere skeptics" in this context. All the reliable sources we have which discuss this matter dispute this attempt at splitting hairs. jps (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Sphilbrick, your commentary on Dunlap looks very much like original research: the source is and that page clearly identifies WUWT as one of the most popular of the numerous blogs that "now constitute a vital element of the denial machine". You give your commentary on some footnote, could you quote it and explain how it's related to that text? The paragraph is cited (Dickinson 2010; Harkinson 2009b), can you give details of these references? Your assertion that "they are not using a definition consonant with the prevailing meaning of the word" is contradicted by the NCSE, Weart and by numerous behavioral and social science publications. What source do you propose for "the prevailing meaning of the word"? . . . dave souza, talk 23:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote is in the source. It is the first footnote at the end of the chapter. I'd copy it here but the Google link won't let me copy and paste. It is on page 156 if that helps. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @jps You keep suggesting there are no reliable sources characterizing WUWT as a skeptical site. Is that your position or you making some subtle point I'm missing? Many examples have been cited and I don't recall you challenging a single one of them. I you for example suggesting that the scientific American doesn't know what it's talking about when it characterizes WUWT as a skeptical site?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NO I am suggesting there are no reliable sources which dispute the characterization of WUWT as a denialist site. Labeling it a "skeptical" site is not good enough since we have lots of sources which indicate that climate change skeptic and climate change denier are synonymous. jps (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the two are accepted synonyms, then why is it not good enough to call it "skeptical". If they mean the same thing then why the continued insistence in calling it "denier"?  Arzel (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or we could keep the lede as it is where we use both words since they're synonymous. jps (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arzel: Are you asking that because you hope to get a sincere answer, or are you indicating support for one of the choices in this RfC, or are you proposing something else? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I still hold the same position I did many months ago when I said that it should be skeptic, and the words are not synonyms. I ask the question because most think it should be skeptic, and if those that don't already say the two words are synonyms, then why do they give two cents if it is called skeptic.  Arzel (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Arzel, Dunlap & McCright answer that argument: see below. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick note: when I tried looking into the first cite in the proposed version, SciAm seemed to be using "skeptic" as a synonym for climate change denial, quoting Rawls and/or someone else claiming it was the sun causing any warming. The relevant claim is discussed in this article. . . dave souza, talk 23:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick, you said it was the first footnote. That reads: "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'..." Your claim the authors have sloppily failed to distinguish is incorrect; they simply claim "denier" is more accurate. This source further demonstrates that "skepticism" and "denial" are not mutually exclusive, so we have no sources AFAICT that contradict Mann/Dunlap/NCSE/Weart/etc's assessment. Of course, your argument isn't relevant anyway; that's a high quality source which explicitly places WUWT in the "denial machine", and your original assessment that it does so sloppily seems unjustified, and insufficient to discard it as a source.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm not interested in getting down into the weeds in the parsing of that footnote. I know where you stand. Please read the opening sentence of this section. I am responding to your inaccurate claim which I think you ought to either defend or retract. Remember that you said all the sources are dismissed as "just an opponent of "WUWT". I get that you aren't buying my argument but that's not the point. The point is my argument is not close to your characterization. Do you disagree? If so please explain how my argument translates to "just an opponent of "WUWT".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , as for "getting down into the weeds" this looks like a re-run of Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 7, with a a bonus argument about how to parse Jess's post of 0:57, 4 September 2015 which included "This isn't a new phenomena, it's been happening since the dispute started; every source which characterizes WUWT a way they don't like is conveniently "just an opponent of WUWT"." In my reading that doesn't refer specifically to you, and is an exaggeration: other sources that characterizes WUWT a way they don't like are dismissed with original research and "I don't like it". In this instance, Dunlap & McCright 2011 say "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'" and to dismiss this, you allege "they simply decide" this as "it makes their life easier, they don't actually have to do any work to distinguish true deniers from mere skeptics" – your argument is spurious, the work is their field of expertise and is cited to Diethelm & McKee (2009) so that's four authors in two reliable published sources you're trying to dismiss with mere hand-waving. You want them to "make a distinction between those actually denying the concept of AGW from those who express some skepticism of any of the claims", but climate change denial doesn't necessitate "actually denying the concept of AGW", and WUWT doesn't merely "express some skepticism of any of the claims". You're ignoring research published in high quality academic sources. Disappointing. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How chivalrous Dave, but I'd like to hear from Jess. She's the one that screamed about my "weird criteria". She referred to my "criteria" multiple times, then said "This isn't a new phenomena, it's been happening since the dispute started; every source which characterizes WUWT a way they don't like is conveniently 'just an opponent of WUWT'." She is responding to me, I think someone attacking another person's integrity should have the guts to either defend the claim or retract it. We'll see which happens. You and I disagree, but you haven't attacked my integrity.


 * The exaggeration defense doesn't cut it. If something happens 90% of the time, you might forgive them if they say it happens all the time, but they shouldn't be making the argument to a person who doesn't do it. If something happens 10% of the time, it isn't an exaggeration to say it happens all the time, it is an inability to discern reality. If she wants to claim that she launched into a diatribe at me, then through in a statement that wasn't directed at me, while we both know that isn't the case, but if it helps her save face will have on the record that her comment wasn't directed at me. Then I'll ask her to back it up because it isn't remotely true.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Sphilbrick, it's not a defence, it's my view of the argument: if you want to discuss user behaviour, take it to their user talk page. The essential point is that a reliable academic source says that 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', and the academic assessment in that source is backed by other reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in how Jess responds - does she have the intellectual integrity to recant from the charge she leveled at me, or will she ignore it and hope it goes away?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about the chapter by, and focusses on footnote 1, which is cited in the first paragraph of the chapter: The concept of the 'denial machine' is cited to  (MSNBC single page version, archived 20 August 2007) Notes are on p. 156: The actions which make 'denier' more accurate than 'skeptic' are cited to. So, the decision on use of terms is well covered. @Shilbrick, you wrote "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'," but you've ignored their description of climate change denial as also shown on p. 144: That looks very much like the evolution of Watts' views. An example re regulation;. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your puzzlement over the difference between denial and slkepticism. It is the result of deliberate obfuscation assiduously pursued by the climate change denial industry over many years. It's echoed in other areas - for example, there is an Australian anti-vaccine cult called the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, they are vaccine denialists. One problem is where skepticism becomes wilful contrarianism. In climate science, that point may have been as little as five years ago, there were some people who were actually skeptical of parts of the science as recently as that. But this is a blog run by someone who is nto a climate scientist, and devoted to preaching climate change denialist talking points. That's why the term is appropriate, and that's why the there is a small group of Wikipedia users who are absolutely determined to exclude the word denialism from this article. That's why we see so much motivated reasoning in the endless arguments used against every source that correctly identifies WUWT as a climate denialist blog. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks Guy, fully agree with the points you're making. Didn't think I was confused, though did feel déjà vu relating to similar discussions on climate science. Someone [jps?] accurately compared WUWT to Uncommon Descent. Have now added a section on which deals specifically with the terminology. . . dave souza, talk 11:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American 14 December 2012
It's been proposed that we use this as a source for "skeptic": This is an example of  'climate sceptic' and 'climate scepticism' used as meaning 'climate denier' around that time: see  The SciAm news article is about IPCC drafts leaked "at StopGreenSuicide.com, a website created by climate skeptic Alec Rawls", but "several climate scientists said skeptics were misinterpreting the leaked drafts' conclusions." Subsequent investigation showed that the WUWT claim was rubbish. Conveniently, Rawls also posts articles at WUWT, on 25 July 2014 Rawls wrote that he'd be "detailing a train of 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." Don't think that promised post has appeared yet, but clearly SciAm was using "climate skeptic" to refer to climate change denial. . . . dave souza, talk 11:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave souza mistakenly suggests that this item is proposed as a source for "skeptic"; in fact it's proposed for the words "According to some sources the blog is skeptic". Then Dave souza irrelevantly adds a claim that the source's author meant denier when writing skeptic, but Nerlich doesn't say that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan proposes misleading weasel wording on the basis of a primary source that clearly uses "climate skeptic" to refer to an unqualified amateur who breaks an embargo agreement he signed up to, misrepresents draft wording, makes an unscientific claim that "it's the sun", and goes on to allege a worldwide intergovernmental hoax involving scientists from multiple countries. A secondary source is needed for analysis, and Nerlich says such usage has been common post 2009. Peter Gulutzan, your original research isn't good enough. If you think there's evidence of climate skeptic meaning anything different from climate change denier, please provide a good secondary source for your argument. . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL does not apply to the words of choice 1 (if that's what Dave souza means) because they are "supported by reliable sources"; if the words look vague, it's because the known sources are. WP:OR does not apply to the words of my post above (if that's what Dave souza means) because they refer to what was said on this talk page. I googled for Watts saying "worldwide intergovernmental hoax" on WUWT but found nothing; I'll assume this is just another smear of a BLP until I see the full quote. Some evidence that skeptic and denier are not always synonyms is a good dictionary, but it's not necessary, Dave souza should first provide evidence that they are always synonyms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The work skeptic is ambiguous, I've provided evidence that in this field it's commonly a synonym for climate change denial, but it covers a vague "disposition to incredulity" while wrongly giving an impression of scientific skepticism. I've never said they're "always synonyms" which is misdirection on your part. The point is that the ambiguity readily misleads the public into giving climate change denial undue credence. Hence the decision of the NCSE and Weart to use the unambiguous phrase; on Wikipedia there is a similar issue about giving undue weight to fringe views such as those of WUWT poster Alec Rawls. Why did you search for what Watts said when SciAm is discussing what was on WUWT? . . . dave souza, talk 07:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Wotts 2013/01/05 reminds me that the SciAm subhead is "Climate deniers used the leak to press their case but the new IPCC report closes the case on a human cause for global warming", which looks like a fair description of the WUWT (re)post of Rawls' blog. . . dave souza, talk 07:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave souza quotes yet another unreliable source (Wotts) which fits well with the earlier unreliable source (the "open letter" quote), but doesn't fit with championing so-called good sources. Dave souza decries WP:WEASEL again as if the earlier point hadn't been refuted, which doesn't fit with how Dave souza decided to use a source that employs weasel words -- Brainard who says "scientists have repeatedly criticized" without saying who -- as a source for the first sentence of the article. The fact is that the sources cited for "skeptic" include academic publications and are reliable for what choice 1 says, although I'll note yet again that choice 1 cites the denier stuff too. And when Dave souza wants to treat X as a synonym of Y, it requires that every X is a Y. You can't say "somebody says that many X blogs are Y blogs, WUWT is an X blog, therefore WUWT is a Y blog" -- logic doesn't work that way. Either Dave souza should admit that by saying "many" and "commonly" his argument is worthless, or Dave souza should admit that his argument is that every skeptic is always a denier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan is obviously wrong again: while I gave a tip of the hat to Wotts, I quoted the SciAm source he's been pushing. The point about his weasel wording stands. Genuine skeptics aren't climate change deniers, but fake skeptics abound on WUWT. . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They say the sun is red. They come up with sources from fiction authors (Homer noticed that dawn is rosy-fingered), or weasel-wording out-of-context quotes (scientists say the sun is getting redder). They observe that many or most stars are red, therefore it's reasonable to assume that the sun is red. When we point out that most sources say it's yellow, they reply: yellow and red are on a "spectrum" so attempts to distinguish them are silly, and besides they're synonyms because dictionaries don't specifically say they're not. When a compromise is proposed citing both red and yellow, they claim the yellow sources are no good according to their own unwikipedian policies. They call other editors incompetent or idiots or redness deniers, or pretend other editors don't exist i.e. there's consensus re redness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Peter Gulutzan, you've gone off-topic: please comply with WP:TALK and avoid soapboxing. . dave souza, talk 19:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dave souza: I regret that you are unable to understand that what I said was on topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Peter Gulutzan, your unsourced and irrelevant soapboxing merely looks like tendentious and disruptive editing. Please desist. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I get a civil question about sources, not prefaced by baseless assertions about me, I will reply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In summary, the Scientific American news article of 14 December 2012, referring to the then current event of "Early Drafts of Next Climate Report Leaked Online", discussed as "Climate deniers used the leak to press their case" the actions of "climate skeptic Alec Rawls", a poster on WUWT, and of "a popular skeptic blog, "Watts Up With That?' "; clearly indicating that the authors were using "skeptic" as a synonym for climate change denial. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article says Rawls was writing on a website named StopGreenSuicide.com not WUWT, the article says WUWT is a skeptic blog, the headline (not the article itself) mentions "deniers" but the article never says WUWT is a denier blog. The article's short enough that people can read it rather than an erroneous "summary". But Dave souza is welcome to try again with the next 10 cited sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, the only examples in the article of any "Climate deniers" having "used the leak to press their case" are Rawls and WUWT, and the WUWT blog concerned was simply a repost of the article Rawls had already put online on the throwaway "StopGreenSuicide.com" which he set up "in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation". I encourage people to read carefully the SciAm article as well as the WUWT reposting of the self-justifications given Rawls to excuse his leak, and his paranoid accusations of "the fundamental dishonesty" of the IPCC draft report. . . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordion knot
The discussion about whether skeptic or denial is a better descriptor of the blog does not appear to be going well. Let's consider a different option.

Note that there are four blogs in the category Category:Climate change blogs


 * Watts Up With That?
 * Skeptical Science
 * RealClimate
 * Icecap (blog)

Not one of the three uses language in the form of "which promotes X or Y". I suggest that we drop the language and use something closer to that of RealClimate, which uses the simple statement that it is a commentary site (blog) on climatology. We might need a different final word, as WUWT is not narrowly focused on issues of climatology but then neither is RealClimate. I note the absence of any extended disagreement about the characterization of the other three, which in my opinion is because they avoid controversial language.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, but contrary to your statement, the short article about RealClimate describes exactly what it does: "a commentary site (blog) on climatology. The site's contributors are a group of climate scientists whose goal is to provide a quick response to developing stories and providing the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The forum is moderated, and is restricted to scientific topics to avoid discussion of political or economic implications of the science." Perhaps we should describe WUWT as a blog presenting posts by a group of non-scientists who allege scientific wrong-doings as part of a worldwide political conspiracy to impose taxes and regulations? For a primary source, Tim Ball's opinion, posted by Watts on WUWT on 6 September 2015, lists the Pope, "the President of the US and his cabinet, most world leaders, a majority of the world’s politicians, all environmental groups and their followers, and most with a left political leaning. Sadly, most have no understanding of the science, but typically they have very definitive positions; it is emotional and politically fuelled ignorance." And Tim Ball should know about ignorance, but does that make him an exemplar of skepticism or distinguish his views from climate change denial? . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC) p.s. Tim Ball exposes the astounding news that a hacked email reveals that "AGW proponents even set up web sites to obfuscate, deflect and deny, The first was Realclimate set up at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)." Exciting, no? . . dave souza, talk 19:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling my attention to Icecap which I noticed survived a deletion discussion with a merge suggestion and a weak keep based on Boston Herald white knight reporting. As per the discussion at the AfD, I have redirected the page to the executive director's bio since it seems to be very heavily under his editorial control. I see nothing similar about the other two blogs to this website since there are no sources which identify them as supporting climate change denial while we've got oodles of sources which identify WUWT as doing so. There is nothing "controversial" about following sources and calling a spade a spade. I'm sorry that climate change deniers don't like that, but that's not really our problem, is it? jps (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just say skeptic This is absurdly simple. Since jps and dave souza all agree that the words "skeptic" and "denial" are synonyms, we go with the less polemical word per WP:TERRORIST. Simple, case closed, no need to kill lots of innocent bytes arguing over sources. Note to the closer: strength of the arguments is the criterion, right? Everyone wins -- jps and dave get a lead that uses a word they consider synonym for "denial"; Arzel and SPhilbrick get a lead that uses the word "skeptic". Why fight when there is such a simple answer that accepts the main points from both sides and is consistent with all policies to boot? MissPiggysEx (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. While "skeptic" has commonly been used to mean climate change denial, it's misleading as shown by multiple sources, for example who discuss WUWT as part of the denial machine, as shown above. We should not give our readers the impression that claims of an international hoax, or unjustified allegations of malfeasance, can be conflated with scientific scepticism. Defenders of "skeptic" haven't gone beyond finding usage that at best is  ambiguous. Clearly the mainstream view of high quality academic sources should be shown, the question is how to give appropriate weight to misleading news coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately, "just say skeptic" doesn't work here any more than "just say anomalistic scientist" works when describing a parapsychologist. jps (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not been involved, but I believe that there are regular campaigns to get the article on Anti-abortion movements to be renamed Pro-life movements, or something like it. I see this hasn't happened, but that the article has developed a nice little section on the issue, including a link to Framing (social sciences). It is very important to people who feel that they have come up with a good political framing for their views that they should try and get their own framing used whenever the matter is discussed. As we can see at the top of the section here, the two words have very different meanings, there is no way they are synonymous. What's going on is that those who want to deny the science are very keen that their denial be labeled 'skepticism', as this is the framing that they feel will promote their cause. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting causes, and so a website like WUWT should be called exactly as the most reliable sources from mainstream academia call it. Comparing the opening line with our description of other blogs that report the mainstream science is irrelevant. If WUWT didn't want to be labeled 'a blog which promotes climate change skepticism or denial', then it shouldn't have published the material that it did. BTW, shouldn't that be that, not which? --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. We can discuss the framing as framing but per WP:FRINGE we do not pretend that denial and pseudoskepticism, are skepticism. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you describe David Irving as providing commentary on the holocaust? Would you describe Age of Autism as providing commentary on vaccines? The four blogs are not the same. For a start, Watts is not a climatologist. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? This is where you want to go? Okay, let's see where it leads. I would describe David Irvin as a denier of the Holocaust, one of the darkest stains on the fabric of history. Without question, the perpetrators of the Holocaust are among the vilest in the history of humanity. They deserve to rot in hell. Those who would pretend this despicable act did not occur are not much better. Can any sane thinking human being disagree? The utter depravity of those responsible prompted the corollary to our former legal counsel's law, that even to bring up their name brings a discussion to a halt. Can the deniers of this atrocious act be far behind? It is no wonder that the term "denier" is so evocative. Yet you use it even knowing the parallels that it entails. Do you deny that you brought up David Irving to revoke parallels to Nazis in the Holocaust? Should I now call you a denier?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been a significant study on "climate change denier fragility" where deniers and their supporters get upset when the denial of facts related to climate change is associated with the denials of facts associated with the holocaust or AIDS or vaccines. Oh well. jps (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your passion for truth about the Holocaust is creditable, but your rhetoric exposes an emotional rather than an analytical response. My view of holocaust deniers is that they are a strange creature worthy of study. Their message can and probably should be suppressed as legitimate censorship of hate speech, but the process of motivated reasoning that leads to such wilful denial is a fascinating problem in psychology. And the same applies to those climate change deniers who are not cynical opportunists. The tiny minority of genuine scientific holdouts are part of the long and honourable tradition of being wrong in science but those who promote their work, I find absolutely fascinating. Are they truly so fact-blind as to fail to realise what a minority view this is? Or do they fully understand and just not give a fuck, because they are ideologically opposed to the implications of the reality of climate change? Maybe this explains it at least in part. The study of science denialism is fascinating, IMO. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point I believe 6 editors (jps, Mann jess, Dave souza, Aquillion, Guy/JzG, Nigelj) seem to like something close to Choice#2 although only one has said it as a "vote"; I believe 3 editors (S Philbrick, Arzel, MissPiggysEx) seem to like skeptic alone; and I know 1 editor (Peter Gulutzan) likes Choice#1. (So there are 4 editors who dislike anything close to Choice#2.) For the request to close, which could take place soon if nobody wishes to lengthen the talk, I'm okay with asking either "Would an experienced editor assess the consensus ..." or "An uninvolved administrator is requested to close ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As indicated at the very top of WP:AN/RFC, formal closure is not necessary when there is a clear result. Even by your continued insistence on vote counting, without considering the arguments used, the result is clear. Let's please just move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For the last month I've believed, and I expect that others have believed, that this RfC talk page section was visible in Wikipedia:Requests For Comment. But today I've discovered that on September 2 Mann jess destroyed the RfC template that I had placed at the start of the section, so the RfC bot removed the posting. I'll try to fix this by simply restoring the template tomorrow. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There were no new comments after I restored the template, and there were no suggestions to lengthen the talk. I have made the request to close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)