Talk:Climate change conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Problems with the article

1. The "Background" section is written as if there were no merits to (sensible) climate-change skeptics objections, and as if the Science was Settled. Fails WP:NPOV, per WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE.

Para 2, "Despite scientific consensus...." -- Loaded language. Delete.

2. The "Motives" section seems rather contrived, and perhaps poorly-named. We say "Alleged motives" in the first line, probably a better title choice choice.

In particular, "Those who claim global warming has been falsely promoted..." -- lede to section, more loaded language, implies all of these folks are conspiracy theorists. Fails NPOV, rewrite.

A. The Melanie Phillips column, from Jan. 2004. It's histrionic and boilerplate-laden, but how does it support a conspiracy claim? And is a ten-year old column by a pretty obscure journalist the best evidence available?

B. Promoting nuclear power. There is some evidence for both Thatcher and Kohl doing what the "Motive" claim says, but how is this evidence for a conspiracy? How is this different than standard (if perhaps ill-advised) political maneuvering, misdirection and "hot air"?

There are more problems here, but this is a start. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re (1), In this case, WP:FRINGE, which requires we contrast fringe ideas with mainstream ones, trumps Loaded language; the word "despite" is a direct result of this required comparison.

Re (2), Let's bubble up a step... I have a hard time seeing the distinction between the "motives" section and the "sample claims" section. They seem to cover pretty much the same sort of thing. Should they be merged?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

[reply to NAEG, Re (2), Let's bubble up a step...] That seems like a reasonable idea. But it might be better to deal with specific problems, one by one. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re 1(A), para 2, The "Despite ... consensus" phrase was discussed on May 21, 2013: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#Background_Section_.22unequivocal.22_and_.22more_than_90.25_certain.22. User:I am One of Many wanted the "despite" clause removed; I agreed (for a different reason); User:NewsAndEventsGuy disagreed. I don't believe that WP:FRINGE is applicable for this particular clause because the specific topic is not a global warming consensus, it's whether an alleger alleges despite it.

Re 2(A), Melanie Phillips does say that "Scientists know, however, that they won't get funded unless their research confirms global warming." Would that be a better quote, enough to take care of the "not specific" tag?

Re 2(B), for Helmut Kohl, the cited source says that, according to a perhaps-not-notable U of Tasmania professor named Aynsley Kellow, Kohl "talked up climate change as a problem because he wanted to compromise the Social Democrats and the Greens". That is: Kellow says that the motive was to embarrass political opponents. Although the opponents' dislike of nuclear power is mentioned, it's synthesis to say that Kellow meant that Kohl's motive was a desire to promote nuclear power. So I'm sure that the reference to Kohl should go; I don't know about Thatcher. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Peter G's paragraph 1, where he says fringe does not really reply to this article because of the context, I disagree and illustrate with reference to how we treat this issue at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. At that article, we handle the first two bullets as follows,

• Science says warming.... those saying cooling are fringe
• Science says its us.... those saying nature are fringe

That is greatly simplied, of course, and the article doesn't say "they are fringe" in so many words. But the talk page archives are chock full of discussions just like this one, and the result has always been that WP:FRINGE applies. At least, that's how that article is currently structured. Doing the same here is logical and avoids giving the fringe views being expressed by many of the same soruces any WP:UNDUE weight so we should follow suit, to wit -

• Science arrives at consensus via an honest process..... those saying the whole thing is an international scam involving tens of thousands of people are fringe.

CONCLUSION - of course the conspiracy charge is about the consensus.... not in the details but in the very biggest broadest view. One might say this is the most radical (i.e. "to the root") of the various consensus-bashing tactics of the $1 billion/year denial industry (not that anyone here is part of it).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." -- WP:IMPARTIAL. Yeah, it's a talk page, but... Keep cool, OK? Back later with some specifics, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This comment was originally interjected in the middle of Peter G's multi-paragraph comment and is a reply to Peter G's paragraph #1. It was moved by NAEG pursuant to WP:TALK (don't intject in other's comments)

[@Peter G, paragraph 1] Thanks for the history. I read this intro as saying:

"Despite this near-unanimous scientific consensus, these dunderhead deniers still tortured innocent climate scientists..." dah dah dah. </parody>

-- but I can see NEG's interpretation, too. But what do we lose by dropping this clause? There's plenty of other "consensus" stuff already in here, and two other editors don't like the phrase, either. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What we would lose, Pete, is our neutral point of view. Think of the effort that has been invested into proving the various "claims" and "motives"! Any success should be in the article. Where is that text? ANSWER: so far as I know, it does not exist in what wikipedia considers "reliable sources". All that is left are allegations, which is great only for anti-science public relations. So in my view, losing the "despite" and concluding that WP:FRINGE does not apply elevates the credibility of the allegation-makers, even though nothing has really "stuck", and we thereby lose NPOV. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The reading of the intro with "despite this near-unanimous scientific consensus, ..." is correct and how it should be and especially in the introduction. Wikipedia should describe the facts with due weight where weight is heavily biased towards established science in peer reviewed journals rather than the website blogs of conspiracy theorists. Later bits of the article can be devoted to describing things without every sentence being contradicted into unreadable prose if the setting is established properly at the beginning - and that means making it clear the global warming conspiracy theory is a stinking pile of dog poo fringe stupidity and people who believe it are dunderheads. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Humor aside (that was humor wasn't it?) "the way it should be", in my opinion, is that we just to adhere to the "Nutshell" at WP:FRINGE, especially the part that says, "When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No humour, that is exactly what I think it is. However I do wish to avoid the thing I saw in the aquatic ape hypothesis where every sentence had another sentence after it saying why it was wrong and whole chunks were left out because it would otherwise support the theory unduly. As you say the context should be set up properly. Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: you wrote: "In reply to Peter G's paragraph 1, where he says fringe does not really reply to this article because of the context, I disagree ..." I never said anything that remotely resembles that absurdity. Let me repeat, a bit a time. I wrote "Re 1(A), para 2" -- in reply to Mr Tillman who wrote that para 2 [i.e. paragraph 2 of the Background section] was about the "Despite ... consensus" phrase and said it was loaded language. Then I wrote "The 'Despite ... consensus' phrase was discussed on May 21, 2013" etc., figuring that maybe people who didn't re-read Tillman would need to see I was talking about the "Despite" phrase. Then I wrote That I_Am_One_Of_Many "wanted the 'despite' clause removed", yet again identifying what the subject was. Then I wrote that "I don't believe WP:FRINGE is applicable for this particular clause", so for a fourth time I was making it 100% clear and in fact being quite emphatic that I was talking about the "despite" clause and nothing else. And so, when I read your claim that I said wp:fringe "does not really reply to this article", I guess I have to say it a fifth time and even more emphatically: I believe the "despite" clause, and only the "despite" clause, which is the sole subject, which I wish you were able to see is not the same thing as the whole article, does not fit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A bit of an aside but you talked in that previous discussion about merging climate change denial and this article. There certainly is some sort of case for doing that but I think I should point out that they are about different types of things. This article is about the belief that has been going round that scientists are in some conspiracy. The climate change denial article is about industrial and political efforts to derail the science for their own ends, there is no implication they actually believe what they say. There is an intersection but both have bits which aren't in the other. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the May 2013 talk thread? I don't see where I talked about merging. It seems to have been I_am_One_of_Many. I'll tell him/her/them that this talk is going on, but fear we've gotten into too many "asides" from what Pete Tillman wanted to bring up.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Peter G, my apologies for misunderstanding, and unfortunately I still haven't understood what you're trying to say. I know you don't like the "despite phrase", but I am still unclear why. If you feel like trying to get it into my thick head again, I'd be interested in hearing you start over from the beginning! Maybe I'll get it next time.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's get back to Mr Tillman's topics, and I'll try to re-explicate with regard to the "Despite" clause. Thank you for your patience.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

From where I sit, we are still talking about the original post. Mostly we've been belaboring the first item Pete (Tillman) brought up, the "despite" phrase. What were you trying to say about it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary and progress report

Let's go back to Pete Tillman's original comments, and I'll try to be clearer about one of my original responses.

1. Mr Tillman says the "Background" section is NPOV. But he's mentioning "climate-change skeptics" objections. This article should be about conspiracy theorists only. As I understand it, Mr Tillman has no support so far.

1 / para 2. Mr Tillman says "Despite scientific consensus..." is loaded language. First, it's my turn to apologize -- I said that User:I am One of Many wanted that phrase deleted, but in fact it was User:Andrew Nutter. Sorry. Second, let me try to analogize with these sentences: "The police produced three witnesses who state that they saw Bob doing the deed. Despite these statements, Bob's defenders say the witnesseses were bribed." Here, it's clear that Bob's defenders are alleging bribery not "despite" the statements -- obviously it's precisely "because of" the statements that the defenders are alleging bribery. If the witnesses hadn't made the statements, then no allegation would have been made. And the topic for this detail is not whether a fringe minority think Bob is innocent, because the phrase "despite the statements" still makes no sense as an introduction for the sentence, even if you're part of the majority who know Bob's guilty. Perhaps I'll fail again to persuade NewsAndEventsGuy, and certainly I've gone on too much about a really small thing, but I'm supporting Mr Tillman's suggestion to delete -- if he is suggesting to delete the phrase, not the whole sentence. I'm guessing that Mr Nutter might still also approve of deleting the phrase.

2. Re "Motives" being changed to "Alleged motives", I see that there have been no comments. But I see that a similar-looking change (to "Claimed motives") was made on November 16, and reverted. So somebody must find a change objectionable.

2A. Re Melanie Phillips: Mr Tillman objected that she's not notable but, well, she has a Wikipedia article. Still, Mr Tillman is right that the quote is not proving anything, and there was no applause for my suggestion to use a different quote. Seems undecided, then.

2B. Re Thatcher and Kohl. Mr Tillman had objections about both of them. I said at length why at least Kohl should be gone. If there is no objection, then the relevant passage would become: "A desire on the part of conservative political leaders including Margaret Thatcher[17] to promote nuclear power while attracting the political support of Green groups". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tillman's first paragraph only contains unsupported personal assertions so there's nothing in his paragraph 1 for us to discuss.
• "Despite clause" The police analogy is inapplicable. First there are thousands of witnesses who have to be in cahoots, not just three; Second, the "defenders" have already (past tense) failed at several attempts to establish scientific fraud; Third, in this thread I previously linked to news of a peer reviewed bit of research showing that the "defenders" get $1 billion annually to cast doubt on the science. So let's repeat your analogy with these thoughts in mind,

The police produced ten thousand witnesses - generally thought to be upstanding community members - who state that they saw Bob doing the deed. Despite these 10,000 statements, Bob's defenders, who receive $1 billion/year to undercut the witnesses' statements but have not been able to do that in any recognized forum, persist in saying the 10,000 witnesses were bribed to such an extent each of the 10,000 were willing to risk their careers and possible criminal convictions.

"Despite" is entirely appropriate to describe the fringe allegations of the defenders, in my opinion.

• title of Motives section; I'm opposed to changing the title until someone explains precisely how this section differs from the sample claims section. I see no real difference and think they should be merged.
• Other items; currently I have no opinion.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] Thanks, Peter -- a nice summary, which I (mostly) agree with. In fact, I was coming here to write a similar progress report. I hope you don't mind me setting off your nice post as a subhead -- this will make it a lot easier for new entrants (and old) to keep track of things. The "Wall of Text" gets intimidating pretty quickly.

My comments and conclusions:

1. NPOV in "Background" section. No support from others, and PG's comment re "conspiracy theorists" has merit. Objection tabled.

But -- who are these "conspiracy theorists"? Do they really exist, or are they a rhetorical "straw man" used to belittle or dismiss political opponents? Our parent article Conspiracy theory looks into this usage in some depth, but that possibility seems neglected here. I'll return to this question on another occasion.

1a. I think "Despite scientific consensus..." is loaded language. Mr. Guzman and (perhaps) Andrew Nutter would support deleting this phrase. NewsAndEventsGuy and Dmcq strongly support retaining it. No Consensus, and seems a small thing, so perhaps best tabled also.

2. I changed title to "Alleged Motives". We'll see if anyone objects.

2A. Melanie Phillips column. On second thought, I pulled my tag, and think the quote we have is fine. Peter G., the quote you suggest would better support the second "alleged motive" bullet point.

2B, Nuclear-power promotion : PG's Kohl rebuttal seems firm, and I'm unaware of such a scheme by anyone else, so I went ahead and rewrote it just as Thatcher. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Peter G.... Since we agree that we need to keep the proper context for this minority view, I suppose there might be a way to write text that keeps that context but uses wording other than the "despite" clause that you don't like. I've an open mind if you want to suggest an alternative bit of text that still preserves the context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that everything Mr Tillman raised has been addressed: mentions of Thatcher and Kohl and Phillips are gone (and -- bonus -- so are Minchin and Fumento and Phillips); the NPOV concern is tabled; "alleged motives" became moot because NewsAndEventsGuy boldly merged the section with sample claims. If this particular talk page discussion ends now, I'll be happy.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok by me.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a source to support the "Despite scientific consensus…" statement. I think that it is about as close as any source comes to making this statement. I think that it is important to keep the "Despite scientific consensus…" clause. My main reason is that it is part of the meaning of conspiracy theory in science. All the conspiracy theories that I'm aware of seek to explain an apparent scientific consensus in terms of something else such a political motivations or biases in grant funding. I am One of Many (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Despite" is part of the weasel words to be avoided. the reports speak for themselves. Passive voice and weasel words should be eliminated. Also the lead sentence declaring AGW needs to match the the sources. It is okay to replace adjective/adverbs like "very likely" and "most" with the percentages listed in AR4. it's not okay to substitute broad GHG increases with specifics like deforestation or fossil fuel emissions. Lot's of the report is done in CO2 equivalents which this section does not delve into. --DHeyward (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

'Despite' is not a weasel word. It is in no way similar to the type of statements at WP:WEASEL. As to the rest do you mean the first sentence of the background instead of the lead? Could you be more specific about what you object to please, surely you're not saying we should copy the stuff instead of putting it in our own words? Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward, I'm not wedded to the "despite" clause, but I am wedded to following FRINGE, especially the part that says in the nutshell, "when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." Suggestions for other wording that makes the mainstream/fringe context perfectly clear would be worth discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't like quotes so re-write in the tone/voice of the encyclopedia. existing:
Despite this scientific consensus, allegations have been made that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.[6] There have been allegations of malpractice, most notably in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[7] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[8][9] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.
non-weasel/non-loaded
X (name them) has alleged that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax. There have been allegations of malpractice, most notably in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The cause and conclusions of research that support the scientific consensus regarding global warming were not changed.[7] The Muir Russell report found that the UEA and CRU scientists displayed a pattern of behavior of not displaying the proper degree of openness with regard to their research and data.
. --DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to make much sense of what you have written. I hope that is not what you want in the article.

Thinking about 'despite', the closest I can come up to in Wikipedia policy about such a word is that it may introduce WP:SYNTH. I don't think there is any synth in its use in the article though, it is pretty clear that is exactly what the sources say is happening. As NewsAndEventsGuy says you're always welcome to try and do things better. How about just trying to write what you think should be there without all the comments, insertions etc like some form? Dmcq (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And take time to format & indent to help us understand your suggestions?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:W2W
This is the original wording existing today:
Existing

• Despite this scientific consensus, allegations have been made that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.[6] There have been allegations of malpractice, most notably in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[7] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[8][9] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.

this is proposed to fix the MOS issues:
Proposed:

• X (name them per ) has alleged that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or are engaged in a manipulative hoax. X has alleged malpractice, most notably from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The research that supports the scientific causes and conclusions of global warming were not changed. The Muir Russell report found that the UEA and CRU scientists displayed a pattern of behavior of not displaying the proper degree of openness with regard to their research and data.

This removes passive voice (by identifying the accusers), weasel and W2W issues, illustrates all the same points and conclusions while also adhering to WP:MOS standards. Since the conspiracy is a fringe position but the Muir Russell report doesn't appear to be (is it?, I haven't read it), it's important that the fringe conspiracy group is named. Here's what I did and why:

1. Remove WP:W2W - "Despite" clause is unnecessary and discouraged in MOS as an exptression of doubt prior to a sourced statement. Compare: "The State charged John Smith with murder." to "Despite his alibi, the State charged John Smith with murder." It's clear that despite is a W2W.
2. Active voice. WP:WEASEL, WP:CLARITY Vague "allegations have been made" are passive. The allegers are actively making a claim so it should always be written in active voice. This is a preferred style and helps enforce citation with reliable sources. (an older reference is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Clarity which addresses voice and weasel words directly). Many MoS's cite active voice style.
3. As I understand it, the allegations were broader than just challenging "consensus" and were challenging the basic integrity of the organizations. The existing language is unnecessarily narrow and sounds dogmatic rather than describing the allegations against the science. If the allegers challenge consensus, that's a separate issue. If they are a fringe group, it would be appropriate to identify them when replacing X (i.e. "X, fringe group/person noted for Y")
4. paraphrase and shorten the Muir Russell report quote. Quote mining often gives undue weight and reads like shit in encyclopedia articles. Grab the relevant details, paraphrase it, move on. The one quote is larger than the eight committees.
   

I hope that was easier to follow. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Still fails FRINGE because it makes it sound like the claims are still alive and ticking somehow. A baby step toward a compromise would be to change the first sentence from present perfect tense to plain-and-simple past tense. Second, to modify "allegations" with "failed", which is consistent with the mainstream view of this ancient history. This proposed rewrite makes it sound like there's still smoke under which to seek the fire. However, the mainstream view is that we've been there, done that, and nothing stuck. Let's not give any UNDUE credence to these past claims. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that. The rewrite makes it sound like two equal sides are presently being considered and that evidence for one side has been presented but the issue is still debatable. It misrepresents the situation badly. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. First, it's not possible to write without identifying who "they" are that have alleged a conspiracy. Second, the eight committees findings are what lays it to rest and removing the quote is much better at taking undue weight away from the argument. Third, if they are still alleging/saying/accusing, that needs to be stated as well. Adding that the matter is closed after the reports is fine. FRINGE isn't a license to write bad articles. though. This article is about "Global warming conspiracy theory". If you are trying to balance coverage within every single sentence with OPED intro's, it's crap content. If we can't identify "they", then maybe the article or section should be deleted and moved to CRU where it can be covered in context of how CRU responded or change the article to investigation of CRU email leak/hack.

Depending on the source, the first sentence can be:

• X (name them per ) alleged that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research were part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.

or if it's still being alleged

• X (name them per ) allege that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaging in a manipulative hoax.

The point is the allegers need identification. The results of the inquiry speaks for itself. It would be even better to identify the institutions if they were specifically named and the eight committees. Remember that this article is on the conspiracy theory itself and not every sentence, statement or paragraph needs to be refuted. WP is not the voice of a side, it's coverage of the topic so whatever group has made the allegation is what is reliably sourced. Fringe conspiracy theory article (i.e. JFK assassination conspiracy theories) have entire sections devoted to the alleged conspiracies without needing to confront them. Write it as an article on the conspiracy and it will be an article about a fringe topic, but if it's written as a ongoing battle were every fringy point needs rebuttle, it makes it sound like the battle is still being fought. Read this entire section of JFK: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Possible evidence of a cover-up. There's no need to respond to every allegation (or any) because it's already over. --DHeyward (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• X (name them per ) is a problem and that is we don't have an independent reliable source listing those people claiming a conspiracy or hoax. We might be able to put together some type of list, but that would require considerable original research, synthesis, and interpretation on our part. Who all of the conspiracy theorists are and the particular conspiracy theories they hold is fuzzy in the sources. I would say that the way the paragraph is written now captures the state of things. Sure, we could probably do better but I don't see how without doing our own original research. I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If we don't have reliable sources about a conspiracy or hoax, how does this article even exist? We are saying "allegations have been made" but can't name who made the allegations in reliable sources? That's more WP:SYNTH than actually finding sources where the allegations were made. --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you were familiar with the RSs cited in the article. For example, the current ref footnote #6 (Goertzel, 2010) says "The conspiracy meme has been especially prominent in the deate about global warming...." (italics added). He goes on to discuss an example and lists sources discussion that example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's another passive statement. Goertzel must have listed who. Or if not, it's Goertzel himself as the active accuser. If all we have is a 'meme', there are lots of meme's that wouldn't rise to the level of "conspiracy theory." Should the article be about a meme or a conspiracy? They are quite different. I still don't think we can have a conspiracy without conspiracists. Otherwise it becomes a WP:COATRACK. If it's just a meme, it's already a WP:COATRACK with unsubstantiated conspiracies. If it's is just a meme, then it should be rolled into whatever article is supporting the meme with a redirect. --DHeyward (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We have an article based on reliable sources; it's crystal-clear you haven't read that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And even if we didn't the point of Wikipedia is to say what reliable sources say. It is not up to Wikipedia to prove anything. This is not a court of law where we have to produce accusers, what we have to do is produce citations that back up what is said in the article and put the article together without undue bias. The relevant question is does the article summarize the sources in a reasonable way? Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

2006 quote now in lead

In this edit, User:Pete Tillman added a 2006 WashPo quote to the lead 1st paragraph. I think it should be deleted, and here's why

• (A) It seems like compositional "glue" to create flow in the column, and it seems like that because it appears cut off from supporting coverage of belief the skeptic/denial bunch get funded; in addition there is a paucity of data on the skeptics side to be "skewed" (which is why the campaign doesn't publish much in the peer reviewed lit;
• (B) Being from 2006, before the CRU tiff and before A4 was even released, the quote is stale. Since then there have been a lot investigations into "skewing that data".
• (C) Since 2006 we have learned a lot about funding of outright denial from fossil fuel interests. What core research has been shot down due to data-skewing for money?

In sum, journalistic glue from 2006 seems to be a low-weight entry in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor clarification: the edit was by Tillman (talk · contribs) whose sig is Pete Tillman, . . dave souza, talk 13:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur. This edit ignores ceaseless accusations that scientific data is being skewed for nefarious purposes (e.g. world governance), a charge no credible evidence has ever been produced for, whereas solid research has documented many instances of monetary and political incentive to dispute the science. The WP quote brushes aside a preponderance of reliable sources to plumb for "both sides are bad as one another". — TPX 12:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is very clear that this is not an article about a symmetrical dispute between two legitimate viewpoints. --Nigelj (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, odd that Pete Tillman has elsewhere been very insistent on high quality sources in this topic area. . dave souza, talk 13:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

---

"The most vocal partisans in the climate change debate often describe their opponents as part of a conspiracy, of sorts. Both sides think the other side has a monetary or political incentive to skew the data." -- Joel Achenbach, Washington Post [1]

NAEG is right, probably not the best choice for the lead. Nevertheless, it's an issue that merits discussion, in an article that has many problems remaining -- even after significant recent cleanup.

One of the biggest problems: who are these "conspiracy theorists"? Do they really exist, or are they a rhetorical "straw man" used to belittle or dismiss political. opponents? Our parent article Conspiracy theory looks into this derogatory usage in some depth, but that possibility seems neglected here. The WaPo article might be a starting point. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is AR4

On January 3 this edit was made with the explanation "(Import text from the top article in this tree of articles, and that top article is Global warming)". It's not that simple. The Global Warming article indeed has the figure "95-100%", but it is based on IPCC AR5. This Global Warming Conspiracy Theory article said "90%" because -- look at citation #3 -- it is based on IPCC AR4. I don't know whether there is a policy about a "tree of articles" (never heard of it), but in any case the text in this article has to go according to the citations that are in this article, not the Global Warming article. So I reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

What's the function of this as a section? Whar's it meant to carry? If it's meant to be the views of people who don't think that global warming is a conspiracy, then it's out of kilter with NPOV because that's the mainstream anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is rather an incoherent jumble, isn't it? Looks like another place for cleanup here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

About a year ago, the section was called "Criticism of global warming conspiracy theories" and I renamed it as I believe there's something in WP:MoS somewhere about not repeating the article title in section headings. Explicitly stating or arguing that 'there is no conspiracy' is not mainstream, it is a direct response to those who have said that there is. --Nigelj (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrase

It's not clear to me what the phrase "climate scientists are more than 90% certain" means. Does every climate scientist agree that the 90% figure is correct? Probably not. Where is the peer-reviewed article in which this 90% figure appears? Kerry (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It comes from the IPCC report if I remember correctly, take a look at the sources it should be there. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The IPCC AR4 report, which is cited, says "very likely" means "> 90%" and "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Based on that, I would propose that the phrase be rewritten to state that the IPCC AR4 report makes the likelihood claim. This is factually correct. To state that "climate scientists" have made this claim is not. Kerry (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the IPCC reports do not represent climate science. Do you have any references to back that up? --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the original phrasing is unclear on its face, and I'm proposing a rephrasing that is clear, unambiguous and factually correct. Kerry (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps clearer to say ""climate scientists are certain with greater than 90% confidence"? . . dave souza, talk 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

^ Endorse rephrasing. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

to me that says the same thing while making the text more like tech speak instead of readily accessible presentation of tech speak. Does the op think it addresses their original comment? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no simple way of explaining what 90% confidence means by just rephrasing one sentence, someone is always going to have difficulty with it. The people who know what it means are okay and those who don't will not get get it clear straight away. The best we can do is give layman's terms which someone who knows what confidence limits means will also understand and a citation they can look up if they want more. Dmcq (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My original objection has little to do with the meaning of "90% confidence." My point is that it is not factual to say "climate scientists believe X," unless X is something utterly trivial like "fire is hot." Some climate scientists agree with the 90% estimate, some do not. What we can say accurately is what a given report says. This is the gist of my point. Kerry (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was what you meant. So, have a look at WP:ITA: "Simple facts ... are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions." To imply that the basic findings of the IPCC are WP:FRINGE by applying in-text-attribution to them would be to turn the whole fringe policy on its head. If you find any references that claim that "the IPCC reports do not represent climate science", as I asked above, I can guarantee that they will not pass WP:RS. --Nigelj (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"To imply that the basic findings of the IPCC are WP:FRINGE" I really made no such implication. In fact, by referencing a prominent organization, one reinforces their credibility. I'm not sure how one makes the jump from citing a report to implying that the report is from a "fringe" group. It's true that it's not necessary to cite a report when claiming "fire is hot," but climate change is not as trivial. --Kerry--

See Scientific opinion on climate change. What you are implying is equivalent to denying that. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on exactly WHAT you believe I am implying. Can you be more explicit? Kerry (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to reinforce credibility that way and it doesn't reinforce credibility any more than saying a particular science academy believes in evolution when a cite refers to one whatever about any creationist scientists who don't believe in evolution. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a very poor analogy. The IPCC is a singularly prominent source of climate information, and I still don't think any reasonable person would consider citing it as an implication that climate change is "fringe." You might have had a point if I had cited an obscure report published by an obscure climate study institution, but that's not what I did. Kerry (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify again: The information in the article is already cited, there is a 'reference' to the IPCC after the statements in the text, which shows up as a little number in brackets. What I was talking about here was in-text attribution, which I introduced because Ksoileau (talk · contribs) said, "I would propose that the phrase be rewritten to state that the IPCC AR4 report makes the likelihood claim." In-text attribution throws a statement into doubt, usually as the opinion of a minority or fringe element, compared to simply stating something in Wikipedia's own voice followed by the citation reference. It appears that the consensus is clear here - there is no need for in-text attribution for headline statements made by the IPCC as they are the recognised authority to summarise the present state of mainstream climate science. If you have a new suggestion for article improvement, please start a new section, as, as you can see below, this discussion has long since moved on from that point. --Nigelj (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• should update to ar5 instead of talking about AR4
• since text change that resulted did not address OP's issue, We should say that scientists say ithere is a "95-100% probability" because A) that is verbatim from the text box called "treatment of uncertainty" in AR5 WG1 tech summary (PDF printed pg number36); and B) that is more familiar language to the average reader.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I like this rephrasing. It is simple to understand. It intuitively captures the idea of a confidence interval without the need to explain it. In addition, when there is scientific consensus, there is no need to give a percentage of the scientists in consensus such as "95% of climate scientists are more than 90% certain". I am One of Many (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence that follows ("These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[5]") refers to a document that was written long before AR5. An "update to AR5" would have to involve either removing this sentence, or finding a new citation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  "These findings" refer to evidence for global warming and not to any specific report or to changing confidence intervals as I read it. Unless any of the signed national academies of science have explicitly changed their position (based on reliable sources), no new source is needed. I am One of Many (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The words "These findings" have to refer to what's in the sentence that immediately precedes the words. If, as suggested, that sentence is changed to include "95%", then it's referring to a specific report, AR5. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but as I read the sourced agreement, it is an agreement that global warming is occurring and "These findings" are the ongoing and developing body of evidence. The "95%" reflects the updated confidence in "These findings". One to clarify this is to change "These findings" to what the source agreement states that the various national academies agree that global warming is occurring. For example, one possibility is "The evidence for global warming is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[5]".I am One of Many (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User Prokaryotes changed the phrasing from "climate scientists are more than 90% certain" to "[warming is] extremely likely (95-100%)" etc. Since there was no attempt to justify removal of mention of "climate scientists", and no recognition of the fact that the subsequent sentence ("These findings are recognized ...") cannot refer to AR5, I reverted the change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely correct, your revert included the removal of the consensus too. Also, recognize that the 95% figure is from the latest IPCC AR5 report. However, i noticed the Ref was broken, and updated the part you were critical of, with the related part from global warming. However, the 2nd ref after the quote might be redundant now, it's still there. prokaryotes (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you take issue with future edits, consider to edit them yourself rather then to delete entire content. Especially when it's about a few words. prokaryotes (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Given your insistence on changing to refer to a figure which is only in AR5, without fixing or deleting the following sentences about recognition by national science academies of "these findings" (which of course happened before AR5), I'll accept the suggestion from I-am-One-of-Many to change to "The evidence for global warming is recognized by the national science academies" etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have adjusted the new text to be more accurate, and tried to clarify its relationship with the cited source. The 'findings' previously referred to always included findings about the unequivocal warming, and the relative certainty of human influence on the climate. With any new wording, at least both of these factors must be acknowledged, as is clear from the 2005 cited source, which itself is based on the 2001 IPCC TAR. --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a nice solution, Nigelj. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Title section

Since this thread lacks article-improvement ideas, it is WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. Click 'show' to read anyway.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The main title of this article is misleading and inaccurate as well as biased. The wording "Conspiracy Theory" and the general tener of the article is biased. Global warming or climate change is itself a scientific theory and is not established as factual data. The fact is that the data itself has been skewed through processes such as homogenization. Analysis of the actual data after homogenization leads to the incorrect conclusion that global warming or climate change is correlated with the amount of CO2 emissions. However if the RAW data were to be analyzed than differing patterns emerge. Homogenization on random data sets result in a clearly biased trend. This anomaly can be found in all forms of data analysis not just this specific data set. The point here is that this page is misleading in that "Conspiracy theory" has no scientific sopport or data when this is empirically not the case. See the following links for further information on actual scientific research. http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/ http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#!JQKfg http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467 Just saying these are actual scientist who disagree not based on Conspiracy theories but actual research and experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.6.142 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• A. IDEA: Change the page title. "Climate Change Dissent" This title would be of a neutral bias as opposed to implying that those who are not in agreement are lunatics.

The current title is dated even those who are proponents of the idea are calling it "Climate Change"

• B. IDEA: Include supporting material for dissenting opinions. This article has no resource material support the dissenting views.
• C. IDEA: Include a description or discussion of unresolved questions or concerns with the Climate change theory. such as why the historical data indicates that CO2 concentrations show as indicators of temperature change a.k.a. it follows the trend as opposed to drives temperature change a.k.a. dose not precede it. There are several inconsistencies in the theory of climate change yet none of them are mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.6.142 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Re A, Some naysayers go beyond saying nay to saying "fraud", "biggest hoax" etc. This article is not merely about dissent, so your rename suggestion is offbase. As for the rest - that's the subject of Global warming controversy and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the title is NPOV as it leaves one in no doubt about the perspective of the wikipedia editors behind the article, which should be impossible to discern.

The title List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is also a clear breach of the NPOV policy. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a basic misunderstanding about WP:NPOV. NPOV is not a ""all points are equally valid view" but instead "presented from a weight balanced point of view". The neutral view of climate change (ie. the position the majority of the literature holds) is that global warming is happening and has a major human component. The extreme (fringe) positions being "global warming is not happening" and "we're all gonna die". --Kim D. Petersen 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Close Kim. Your particular word choice, narrowly read, admits the possibility that the science is an honest mistake. The extreme viewpoint I think you had in mind is the one that goes "Not only is it not happening, but the scientists who say otherwise are part of an international hoax (or scam or fraud)" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Not Accepted Here?

Collapsing WP:WALLOFTEXT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Still not sure why my edit(s) have been completely undone. I had hoped to promote neutrality on the viewpoints for global warming and, rather than simply undoing my edits, I would rather someone revise them, or rewrite the article in some other way, to present this issue in a way that doesn't automatically declare those against Global Warming as Conspiracy Theorists (and provides adequate evidence and rebuttal by both sides). I don't believe that it qualifies as a conspiracy theory. Nor do I feel I have any "ownership" of the article as accused. To undo my edits, and claim I have claimed such ownership, is hypocrisy of the highest order for it, in the process of deconstruction without further building upon new ideas, suggests others have claimed ownership of the article and/or have bias(es) of their own. As far as Soap Boxing, perhaps I have worded things outside of the neutrality I was attempting due to my own personal bias. However, that does not validate complete deconstruction of my contribution(s). The current article, ie without my edits, is on a Soap Box much higher than my own if I'm on one at all. Despite the consensus of the IPCC there has not been approval by other scientific organizations, which the public often holds in higher regard, or individuals. Excluding them, or shoving them onto another page, is misleading in that it doesn't present both sides of the view equally. The exclusion of non-governmental research, or those with ties to government, is perhaps the most disturbing. Why is wariness in this regard labeled as conspiracy, but claims, even if they likewise have some evidence in support of them, that fossil fuel groups are funding "denialist" claims not? Both sides have the makings of a conspiracy theory if one, or the other, does since both sides of the argument have an equal number of unprovable claims. With the exception of extremes, such as those that think climate change of any kind is completely bogus or think that every level of the process has been corrupted, there is also the possibility of oversight, miscalculation, or political bias being imposed upon those in the IPCC (without the scientists themselves having any bias or providing minsinformation). The way information is presented, whether by IPCC or other sources, is often biased (regardless of the validaty of the IPCC reports). Both sides of the argument need to be presented in a neutral manner and the inclusion, or referendum, of conspiracy theories located at the bottom of the page automatically invalidates the "denialist" point of view in the eye of a public who might already be misinformed before viewing the article. Lumping together political debates, that large portions of the country are still unsure on, with Big Foot, 911, and similar conspiracies is unwarranted in this case. I would also suggest the changing of the title page. Labeling "deniars" as skeptics, rewording the opening as I tried, and replacing instances of claim with assert, for example, are much more neutral than current. A weighted point of view, in this case, is not a valid course. Having one here, in fact, further biases those reading the article here towards said point of view. This creates a closed system that, for many, discourges further debate outside the article. By a closed system I mean that the content on this article could potentially create it's own supporters perpetuating it's own POV within an infinite loop (and may have done so already). Consensus or majority agreement has not been made outside governmentmental organization(s) and surveys relating to public opinion have not been asked, or presented clearly, in an unbiased manner to confirm, or deny, public consensus. Focusing on only literature, or published results, is also an invalid method since scientists who have argued otherwise have often been filtered, out by peer review processes, and attacks on "deniars" are very reminiscent of the McCarthy Trials. 71.74.249.0 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) As it now reads, this is deletable or at least collaps-able WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. There are no specific article improvement suggestions and no citations to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Please review the basics about Wikipedia policy on WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is biased if that is how you prefer to think of it in favor of scientific evidence rather than conspiracy theorists. The proper page for skeptics to look at is Global warming controversy, this article is about the conspiracy theorists.Dmcq (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC) It is not soap boxing and, if you read the whole thing, yes there are specific suggestions. Not only that, but I referenced my changes themself as a suggestion (which had sources) in addition to that. Don't selectively read and cherry pick to support your own view point. Soap boxing infers the promotion of an idea or ideal, but if I were doing so I would have deleted content relating to proof for global warming (not presenting the other side). I simply presented both sides on a more equal basis. You can't reference rules for your own use and then turn around and say they don't apply to you. I clearly stated that both sides should be represented equally. And by claiming it is a "Conspiracy Thoery" you are showing your bias. The scientific evidence has always been under question by legitimate sources (did you even read what I wrote above?). In disputing, or claiming my interpretation is incorrect, you are soap boxing. Why, because you presented no evidence to the contrary and quoted articles I have already been made aware of. It applies both ways. You presented nothing to suggest that the common consensus, or mainstream, view is that Global Warming is real. All of the 'evidence' within the article itself can also be argued on several basis(es) including bias in the original report(s) and within the surveys. Also, look at the Scientific Process itself. Consensus means nothing in the science world. A scientific theory is only 'accepted' once the majority of scientists, in most institutions, have no argument against it. One groups approval does not counts as science. The IPCC is a government owned organization that doesn't have any control over what is, or is not, science. Have you even read the IPCC reports? I have and they assumed they were correct before actually proving that they were. And, yes, I did mention this within my edits (and with references). So don't even pull that card. Scientists must follow certain processes for their science to be valid. The IPCC, with it's ties to government, is not a valid source, not because there are absolutely conflicts of interest, but because the possibility for them to happen is there. It is ingnorant to think that mistakes are never made by any group (government or not). So, regardless of the "mainstream view," you are effectively endorsing a view that has not been proven through proper scientific channels. Validaty of the science, in this case, is irrelevant. Similarily hiding, or threatening to delete, what I have written here, by claiming things I specifically did not say, or infer, is more or less libel against my person. Requiring me to reference a wikipedia article, that has already been posted and referenced, is silly and repetative. Especially if you know what they mean and where they are. The Global Warming Controversy page, in itself, is also biased, if to a lesser degree, so telling me to go there really doesn't help your case. Additionally, you can't have a page on "conspiracy" if there is no conspiracy. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary a conspiracy is "the secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful". Disputing the validity of a scientific theory does not automatically qualify as conspiracy (making the claims of conspiracy in the article disproportionate to reality). Also, why do I need to make references, which I had anyway, to discuss what I believe to be an unfair representation? And why can you claim I'm doing a disservice in doing the exact same thing you did in return to myself. I was specifically arguing the presentation of the content itself and not the content, but then you turn around and say that my presentation is wrong by arguing your own presentation on the same body of evidence. No, I really don't think so. Your bias is showing horrendously. At the very least the article should, at it's forefront, refer to the other page and point out the difference between the skeptics and conspiracists. 71.74.249.0 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum for soapboxing. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Again. I'm not soapboxing. You, by claiming I am, instead of discussing relevant issues, are however. Troll somewhere else. I have tried to be as non-inflammatory as possible, but you continue to scream "SOAPBOX" from atop your own instead of discussing anything civially or professionally. I really don't understand how you can't see your own hypocrisy here. You are "so sure" that you are "absolutely right" that you continue to scream from the top of your soapbox. Please read everything that I have written. Denial of global warming is not a conspiracy theory. Seriously, look at the claims from both sides. And then look at the forum arguments across the net. In addition to not meeting the definition of conspiracy theory global warming is argued differently than those that are. This blind acceptance, which borders on religeous belief, prevents issues from being discussed seriously. Also, tell me why, with every 'other' conspiracy theory, people have laughed it off and presented obvious evidence to the contrary, but people, with this issue, scream and rant, or otherwise act childishly, over global warming without presenting evidence? This is not how people usually react to conspiracy theories. 71.74.249.0 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Have you ever looked at the scientific opinion on climate change? The IPCC position has been endorsed by essentially every major scientific organisation on the planet. There is a reason for that, namely that the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, and that the basic mechanism has been understood for 150 years and quantified with decent accuracy for 100. We are working on the details now, not the big picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) First, thank you for responding to this seriously. It's not that simple though. It has not went through the standard scientific approval process other theories have. Their report, as I've said before, is also completely biased in the way it presents things. And every major science organization, as I recall, counts as a total of 11 international science schools, that I, or anybody I know, have never even heard the name of, some geophysicist organizations, and with endorsements from a few science agencies here and there. One of the Ivy League schools even published a page against Global Warming. Also look here. Nearly half the public, even with the somewhat biased questions on the survey(s), don't agree with human caused global warming. Note too that, before the word Climate Change was changed to a different meaning (see below), the results were higher for those surveys (since it did not infer human interference). Remember, also, that Climate Change and Global Warming, though sometimes used interchangably by some groups, do not mean the same thing as one another. Climate Change, before it was hijacked by Global Warming, meant, and, when used by these groups may still mean, simply that the climate is changing or warming up. This flip flopping is confusing, especially for the general populace. Now, Global Warming is essentially Climate Change with humans as a predominant clause. So yes, the science is definite for Climate Change, but not Global Warming. Let's also not forget that, unless I missed it when reading their absolutely massive pdf report, that they hadn't thoroughly researched alternative causes, which is a standard in science, nor have they definitively subtracted CO2 emissions from other sources, such as volcanoes (including the hundreds constantly spewing CO2 underwater) from their results. This could make the results much higher than they should be. Also keep in mind that our current hike of global temperatures, from "Global Warming," coincided with a change in the sun's activity and sunspots. Yet this wasn't even considered though good science suggests that it might be a factor. Almost forgot another point to note. In business it is often non-scientists in charge, or those with the most funding, that get the most attention. So just because organization - so and so - has endorsed Global Warming, you can't know if all of the individuals researching into the theory also agree with the company they work for. And many companies will fire someone for 'disparaging' views. In the scientific community there is no "one group" that has say. Even once "accepted" a theory is just that. A theory and not a law of science. Most other theories have gone through testing by other scientists, whether by individuals or other organizations, before they were presented as fact to the public. And even once something is "accepted" it is generally the habit of scientists to do everything they can to disprove it. That is what science is about. You must be confident in your work, but always skeptical of it's results. Otherwise we might as well go back into the dark ages and plead mercy from the church. 71.74.249.0 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about. See attribution of recent climate change and Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. Both the solar component and volcanic and other natural sources of CO2 are reasonably well understood and taken into account in the literature and by the IPCC. I don't think its productive to quibble over the common and scientific usage of the terms global warming and climate change - it's a fact that both are widely used synonymously for the current and ongoing episode of climate change that coincides (and not coincidentally) with a massive release of CO2 from fossil carbon. We know roughly how much CO2 is released by humans because we quite carefully monitor the production and use of fossil fuels, which are major strategically and economically important resources that produce (mostly) CO2 using well-understood chemistry. Most countries have a tenure system for academics precisely to ensure that they can say what they believe, not what someone wants them to say. The scientific system is not perfect, but it is pretty good at encouraging well-founded dissent. The reason that there is little such dissent in this case is simply due to the fact that competent scientists broadly agree on the issue. Yes, we question Newton, and get Einstein. We question Einstein, and maybe something better comes along. But that does not change the fact that a thrown stone roughly follows a parabola. We use Newtonian physics to guide our life and society all the time. I've never heard of a court that refused to convict a murderer because the laws of motion guiding the bullet may not be (pun intended) totally bullet-proof. I don't jump off high buildings in the hope that I'll float down gently. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) But it isn't as well understood as you think it is. Look at the many research papers, from many institutions, across just the United States alone. Results differ depending on who did the testing: For example this 'site, which references a pdf report from a university, suggests a lower effect form CO2. Unfortunately the PDF link isn't there anymore, or is moved, but you can look through their courses in their weather section to see if you can find it's new location or similar results. Here we see that carbon dioxide, for example, factors in to only about 20%. This result seemed consistent in other searches. Also, the more CO2 present, see Tar 3, Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate of the IPCC report, shows results that suggest the rapid increase in temperture eventually tapers off naturally, possibly before it can reach 'catastrophic levels'. The Run-Away Greenhouse effect, as it were, would require something much more drastic than what we have now. Also, near the same area I believe, it points out that feedback, that is how greenhouse gases interact with one another, affects how much energy is trapped and what warming actually happens. There is still debate in the mainstream scientific community as to the exact details on this, but depending on how this is determiend it could radically affect the amount of predicted heating. Here is text from a book at Harvard. Research there suggests a large amount of unknowns. Climate study is a direct part of their studies. Or how about here, which also uses universities are also a resource. There are a myriad of factors that, if there is global warming, have not been calculated. And now we have scientists that want to reflect sunlight with mirrors in space (no joke, watch the Discovery Channel). And that, ironically, is one of the more "down to earth" ideas they have come up with. If we make a wrong conjecture regarding it, and then use it for policy, we can do more damage to ourselves than global warming has ever been projected to do. It's not like we don't have plenty of other health reasons to lower pollution anyway. Whether or not global warming is real action still needs taken. Also remember that just because we think we have an understanding, all the above aside, doesn't mean that we do. Until 10 years ago we couldn't even predict the local weather. Even now we still deal in percentages since we don't know for certainty. Climatology is, in some ways, like a macro form of meteorology. There is no believable way that we can predict odds so accurately. The newest report(s) might take it into account, but previously the temperature estimates might not have been as accurate as they claimed. Most of the sensors are landborn, rather than at sea, and they measure largely near the surface. Temperature varies not just by geography, but by height and proximity to water. Also, did they do the study in cities or heavily blacktopped areas? These areas can be up to 10 degrees warmer due to the way they hold heat. Testing in cities, rather than wilderness, would skew the results, since, if our cities just dissapeared, the temperature increases from this would quickly drop to normal. How about where they placed the sensors? How many failed, how far were they placed apart, and, also, did they take the day and night cycle into account? The rotation of the planet, atmosphere lost to space, debrii from space, sun activity, and possibly even our electromagnetic field have to be factored. There's also the ozone, which "miraculously repaired itself for no reason we know, even though we think we caused it," that is a greenhouse gas (which has been on the rise). After further research I have, in fact, found that they used Hansen's Model. It assumes that earth is a disc, not sphere, and assumes 24 hours of sunlight. And the reports also don't factor in estimates far enough back to be accurate. We had the midieval warm period, an ice age, and another warm period all within human history. And I still haven't seen anything, at least not in the IPCC projections, that factors in the volcanoes under the ocean. Granted most of it is absorbed by the water, but it's likely that some amount of it escapes and, also, what happens if the water can't hold any more CO2. Once a body becomes saturated with it it could release it in massive plumes. There is also mention of some results being too insignificant to actually have any effect, but, if they were counted and tallied, what would they end up being equal to? Oh, and lets not forget entire ecosystems that affect this. And I'm not just talking about plants or animals. Bacteria, algae, and other microscopic creatures, which are estimated to weigh more than every other creature on earth combined, have long since regulated such levels and should increase in population from higher CO2. There is also the fact that scientists suspect that, before humans when the continents were united as Pangea, CO2 was at least 3 times what it is now. And I think I'm lowballing the original estimate. Can you say that they understand all of this to the degree necessary for such calculations? The IPCC didn't include big name biologists or thermodynamicists, but rather geologists and climatologists. Meteorologists, despite not being 'experts', are educated in some climatology. I don't believe they were included either. And before you say 'yes' or 'of course' they 'understand', I'm making a more subtle point here. You can't exclude a group of relevant specialists by calling them irrelevant. And geology has less to do with the climate than Meteorology, Biology, or Thermodynamics. In fact Thermodynamics outright rejects some of the climatology models (and they had no say?). And, as pointed out before, scientists do not broadly agree. Only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the Scientists from the original study at the IPCC worked on the project (at least originally and then the 'scope' for further research was limited only to research into human caused Global Warming, without much leeway for other types of study into other causes) and, even with a 97% consensus, that accounts to approximately, once you count in other scientists in the field, as well as all relevant fields, around .5%. Seriously look at the parameters of the study, at their official site, and who is involved. Also, if you look into the Discovery Channel, there is a special discussing how an ice age is triggered. The ice melting is likely to change ocean currents. Yes this could create a hike in temperature, but past events suggest that immediately after this it will trigger an ice age, from the way the ocean currents lock and change the air currents, that we probably won't see the results of for a 100s of years. By then we should be capable of some level of terraforming. And as far as your court analogy goes, that might not be an entirely accurate one. People have used science before to get off of things. See the physicist here that got off from a speeding ticket for an example. So I bet you that someone who fired a gun, in the chance of right circumstances, might actually be able to use that defense. 71.74.249.0 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing a distorted quote

The Wikipedia article cited an article in "Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society" 20(3) 63-72, I found an online copy on the Society's site: http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/27. The original sentence was

The documentary does not attempt to argue the latter view through any critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies. Rather, it contends that modern climate scientists are at best seriously misguided in their collective opinion on the nature and causes of global warming, or are at worst guilty of lying to the rest of the community.

But the Wikipedia article discarded the specificities and qualifications, ending up with:

... the film made no attempt to offer a "critical deconstruction of climate science", but instead used various other means to suggest that climate scientists are "guilty of lying to the rest of the community" ...

The section could of course be changed to state what the BAMOS article actually said, but then it would be irrelevant. So I removed it all. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In any normal conversation 'are at best seriously misguided' is a coded way of trying to stay on the side of not libeling someone whilst saying they are lying if it applied to anything other than something based on personal opinion. It is not a straight statement that people might just have made a mistake. I believe the gist of what was there was correct but to preserve the original's defense the 'or seriously misguided' should be added. Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The problems with the quote were worse than that. It's a distortion to say "climate science" when the actual words were "climate science orthodoxies". It is non-neutral language to say "observed" as if we're talking about something other than an opinion about what the film makers meant. And the only thing that you corrected -- the distortion about "lying" -- makes this review irrelevant. Without the claim that the film-makers claimed that the scientists were lying, nothing remains that bears on the topic of the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We are supposed to use our own words to rephrase what is said in Wikipedia to avoid copyright violation. Using different words is not of itself distortion. Please say why you think the meaning is distorted not just that some different words were used. I fail to see how the seriously misguided makes it irrelevant. Conspiracy theorists are usually seriously misguided in the general sense rather than deliberately lying, the climate change denial article talks about the think tanks set up to deliberately obfusticate and conceal. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just added the bit from the RS that uses the word "scam".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq: I don't know why you bring up something about conspiracy theorists lying, that's not the subject of the quote. As for using "our own words", that doesn't apply when putting something inside quote marks. But anyway, although I changed the details I brought up yesterday, I left the stuff in rather than argue about what you marked as "personal opinion". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It seemed to me you were saying that the possibility that they were saying the film makers were seriously misguided instead of lying made the what they were saying not fit for the article. As to not arguing the point but believing you are right that's fine by me but you should consider the possibility that you might be wrong if others do not agree with you. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) That's what I thought Peter was saying too.

(B) This version of the article text is ok with me, and since it was Peter's tweaks I presume its ok with you, Peter? If Dmcq also approves, then this thread is a wrap. Whaddya say, folks? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I regret that anybody thought I was saying what I didn't say. I did say that I left the stuff in rather than argue about the remaining problems. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory?

How is it a conspiracy theory that people bend their statements or research to further financial or ideological goals? --41.151.231.146 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The summary says

Global warming conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons, or both

that is rather different from what you said. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Chriton not a "scientist."

The article states that Inhoe incorrectly states that Michael Chriton is a scientist. Chriton had medical doctor degree from Harvard. I would think that probably makes him eligible for the "scientist" moniker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.187.44 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not believe all medical doctors, or all doctors from Harvard, are scientists. ldvhl (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere we define 'scientist' as "an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences," this excludes all the people who simply have had a scientific education, have some science qualifications, or who 'self-identify' as such. --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Crichton got an article published in Metabolism and Metabolism does peer review, so he'd qualify according to that criterion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that one article about undergrad work 34 years ago qualifies him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, this looks like a pretty heavy goalpost. You might have trouble moving it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd happily take on the job. Do you seriously claim that one undergrad paper 34 years ago qualifies one as a scientist? The fact that we have been overly generous to avoid too much bickering at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming does not translate to real life, or even all of Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If Mr Inhofe happens to use the same rules as Wikipedia, then it doesn't matter that the rules are ridiculous, Wikipedia would be hypocritical to call him mistaken. It's a valid question whether I'm serious, since I admit I had a laugh when I saw Nigelj seriously posting that this was the criterion, but let's see whether others think the word "mistakenly" could/should be removed from the words: 'Inhofe mistakenly described Crichton as a "scientist"'. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that not only should they have published, but a scientist should also work in a scientific capacity. Michael Crichton did not. ldvhl (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

One publication on Host factors in “chromophobe” adenoma of the anterior pituitary: A retrospective study of 464 patients qualifies an author as an expert on climate? Whooda thunk. However, on WP we go by sources, not by an internal WP guideline for compiling a list. "Calling Crichton a "scientist" -- actually, he's an M.D. -- Inhofe credited the author with telling "the real story about global warming" to the public."[2] . . . . dave souza, talk 20:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree? ldvhl (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, if you are a medical doctor (a Biologist) you are not a scientist, but if you're a former engineer who hosted a children's television series, you ARE a scientist and can be seen as an expert in climate. Got it. Wikipedia is biased. (From the Bill Nye Wikipedia entry: "William Sanford "Bill" Nye (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, writer, SCIENTIST, and former mechanical engineer, best known as the host of the Disney/PBS children's science show Bill Nye the Science Guy (1993–98) and for his many subsequent appearances in popular media as a science educator.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There is a fatal flaw in your premise: Wikipedia does not credit (or quote) Bill Nye as a scientist, or expert on global warming. --Kim D. Petersen 13:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia does call Nye a scientist although he appears to deserve that term less than Crichton, but a complaint about that would belong on the Nye talk page, not this one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, medical doctor is not synonymous with biologist. ldvhl (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If we were to apply the peer-reviewed paper criterion then we would come to the conclusion that the Apollo and Soyuz vehicles were not built by... rocket scientists. There does seem to be a problem here, in that not all scientists publish papers. Some may not be allowed to if they are on classified projects.--Anteaus (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Article should focus on the topic: Global Warming Conspiracy

Like many articles on Wiki, the authors have a closed mind on the topic, as in this case the article provides little information on why people might believe in the conspiracy, instead sets out to debunk the theory and impugn anyone who questions Global Warming. By comparison, read Wiki's article on the Kennedy Assissination Conspiracy, you will come away with an understanding of why the theorists believe as they do, without having to agree with them. If you think that anyone who disagrees with global warming is an idiot, then you will have difficulty explaining their position, so you should recuse yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.156.4 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources you recommend we use to improve the article? ldvhl (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What are reliable sources? See, this is where some of the authors and I diverge. Most of this article seems to be disparaging the theorists and trying to prove that Global Warming is real. I think that is another article, probably called "Global Warming". I think this article ought to explain why the phenomenon of the conspiracy theory exists. It exists because people hear what they hear, read what they read, and believe what makes sense to them. Therefore, the theory could survive on totally unreliable sources. Some of the topics to explain the phenomenon include: Al Gore gets rich as he lives in a 12,000 sq ft house and flies in a private jet, steady flow of articles on data manipulation, the inability of computer models to predict past events let alone future events, the dire warnings on hurricanes that seemed to have ceased in 2005, sea rising that isn't visible to laymen, the fact that the earth has been inexplicably hotter than today, that the earth does seem to be influenced by natural cycles and the progression of warming has reversed since 1998, and so on. This is why the conspiracy theory exists. It's not Imhofe's fault, he also forms an opinion based on the vast information that's out there, and frankly, there is as much info on global warming as there is exposing a scam. I think many people take all the information on both sides with a grain of salt. Alarmist or Denier? The public seems to be in the middle, waiting for Florida to submerge or another Little Ice Age before committing to one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.156.4 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an article Global warming and most of those things you point out are myths and misinformation. I think the article would be better off with some social studies analysis of the phenomenon but you get it with anything. People just don't like to hear that their normal actions are damaging. Unfortunately there's just too many people around in the world now to be able to live without any constraint and still not cause damage. It just conflicts with the idea of freedom and driving in a big car and of course people don't like it and people are amazing good at rationalizing. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That was one of my points -- there IS an article called 'Global Warming', so why use this separate topic to educate people on it? My interest here is, what is the Conspiracy Theory? You are the very guy I'm talking about, you just want to hear what you believe, over and over again, even if the topic isn't exactly global warming. You can't resist saying "most of the things you point out are myths and misinformation". Wake up! Gore does live in a big house, data is substituted when it appears to be an anomaly, computer models cannot explain the Little Ice Age or the Pleistocene warming, climate does change cyclically -- I can't believe you dispute these simple truths. You reinforce my conception that there may be a conspiracy made up of an army of people who want to be right at any cost. I agree with what you say about people wanting to drive big cars without constraints however, this is likely a self-interest factor that drives the Conspiracy Theory. I think that's interesting, and relevant to the title of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.156.4 (talk • contribs)

Ok, so what specific change to the article are you proposing? --McSly (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion #1: the article opens with "Background", that cites a 2014 UN report that concludes that Global Warming is real and man-made, then later the article cites the theorists (such as Imhofe) making statements a about the conspiracy a decade earlier. Obviously, the UN report is not "background" to the Theory, the report is inserted up front to suggest that the Theory is wrong before we even tell the reader where the Theory came from. I think the "Background" is, that throughout the earth's history there has been climate change resulting in periods that were hotter and colder than today, and man had nothing to do with it. Rather suddenly a new idea came up, Global Warming, where nature isn't changing the climate, man is. Since this is a radical change in the ·accepted thinking, there is a suspicion that man is not changing the climate so much as certain individuals and groups are merely changing the accepted thinking (for their own benefit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.156.4 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Suggestion #2: the article gives more information on why the Theory is wrong than it gives to the Theory itself. All we get on the Theory is the paragraph name "Claims" listing four statements from Theorists. There are only two points to the Theory, one being researchers protecting their funding, and two being people wishing a world government. Seems to me there must be more behind the Theory, and more could be said to explain the Theory. There are only five sections to the article: 1) is the Background that says the Theory is wrong, 2) called Claims is the Theory, 3) is Criticism which again says the Theory is wrong, 4)is Funding, which suggests that the only Conspiracy Theory is on the part of people who don't want man-made warming to be true, and 5) Fictional Representations, of which there is only one example, and it too is criticized. There is no balance to this article, and little information on the Theory. As I said, the authors seem to want argue for Global Warming and can't put a check on their own bias long enough to discuss a different topic. People who believe there is a Conspiracy Theory behind the Global Warming debate should be writing this article, not people who are annoyed by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.156.4 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what this article is about, perhaps you were looking for Global warming controversy which discussion ideas about global warming. This article is about conspiracy theories, and you removed part of the essence of that from the lead. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Global Warming Conspiracy Theory". Although "theorists" are the authors of the "theory", it seems odd to me that the stand-alone lead in sentence would immediately speak to the "theorists" and not the "theory" itself. It's a minor point, but I would knock off a few a points if you began an essay titled "Evolution" with the opening line that says "Evolutionists typically allege that biological populations inheritable traits change over over successive generations". It just seems tangential rather than to the point. I think I'm clear on what the article should be about. It should explain how the theory came to be, who would be behind such a conspiracy, why that conspiracy might be useful to anyone, and why it is believed by so many people. No, I don't think the article should explain or debunk Global Warming (discussion) as I've said many times in paragraphs above. I actually am complaining that the authors seem to be making a case for Global Warming, and aren't really interested the Conspiracy Theory. I think the article needs to "get in the head" of the conspiracy theorists. Tell us why the conspiracy is credible or appealing. An obvious topic is Al Gore, he is the poster child for both the "alarmists" and the "skeptics". Al Gore is not a scientists, he is newly rich based on the fear of Global Warming, so he has ample personal reasons for Global Warming to be believed. His use of jets and lavish home seems to be hypocritical to the conservation and carbon footprint that he preaches, and his solution of Carbon Credits is at best an indirect solution to Global Warming. I think the theorists are extremely suspicious of Al Gore, they doubt his motives and his science, especially his movie, and his way off prediction that the Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2013. It's harder to defemd Global Warming when Al Gore is out there, don't you agree? Other topics in the headlines that contribute to he conspiracy theory: data manipulation, and charts that are biased to a point of view, the U.N. backing of monetary re-distribution as a cure, inability of computer models to predict future events or explain past events, the dearth of strong hurricanes that were predicted, record snow in Boston. It's pretty easy to see why a typical person might assume there is a conspiracy to make money while presenting facts that seem illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.156.4 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If you could give a reference to a newspaper of book or other reputable source that describes what you're trying to say I could figure out what you are trying to get at. It should talk about a conspiracy or something like that. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)