Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Pejorative

I see that Manscher and Arthur Rubin want to edit-war the word pejorative into the lead of this article without discussion and without citation.diff This word is highly value-laden, and its use compared to the previous studiously neutral language, "...describes efforts to state..." is unjust. It is also unjustified with no citation of any reliable source that applies that term to this subject.

I also note that, just to confuse the discussion we're are going to have to have, they are trying to remove "and disinformation" from a later sentence in the lede. This is despite the fact that that word is used no fewer than four times in the cited source at the end of that sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has commented here, and the lede is still misleading. There is no mention of denialism under Category:Pejorative terms for people, there is no mention of pejorative anywhere in Denialism. There is no reference cited for the use of the word in the lede. And there is no further mention of pejorative anywhere else in this article that the lede is summarising here. It is simply a value-laden and unwarranted distraction where it is in the first line, that confuses the issue before the article even gets started. --Nigelj (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see the objection, if I can suggest you are actually reading it in the opposite way in which I believe it's intended. The word made sense to me solely to clarify that nobody would use this phrase to describe themselves, e.g., this is a phrase used to denigrate a particular group or argument, and not a neutral term for any position. I think it's actually rather necessary to make that point. The point is not supposed to be that anyone who "denies" the significance of anthropogenic global warming is thereby a "climate change denier." Of course this is then difficult in the article, because we say things like "Climate change deniers downplay the significance of global warming," and you say we shouldn't take an editorial position on anyone who does that, but at least if defined correctly I think we're not. (I guess next thing we'll get some denialists in here saying "Hey, I'm offended, I worry a great deal about global warming!") I did try to improve this by pointing out that the term doesn't always refer to "hidden political or financial motives," but ultimately the point is that this article can't just be on the general debate, or it should be merged with the other articles; to be a distinct subject, it has to be specifically focused on the debate about "denialism." It does concern me whether there is sufficient material on that debate itself, although of course that's a slightly different issue. Mackan79 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

'The way I am actually reading it' has no bearing. My point is that labelling the term 'denial' as a 'pejorative' is not supported by any other article on the subject in Wikipedia, nor by any cited source. That 'you think it's actually rather necessary to make that point' first thing in the lede is also entirely irrelevant unless there is considerable support for your view in the reliable sources, which there is not. The use of the term changes the whole slant of the article. What it is about is a denial trend or movement, its possible causes and extent etc as per cited sources. Starting off by stating a personal opinion of one editor that the term itself is a kind of insult to the person so labelled changes what should be a neutral, impartial overview of this type of denial. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you are missing the heavy connotations of the phrase, which I have seen discussed by at least two sources who say the very purpose of this phrase is to draw parallels to Holocaust denial. To say "Climate change denial" is just the rejection of current prevailing views is for that reason incorrect, in my view, and more prejudicial than the way we have it. "Pejorative" is just a word here, incidentally; we could say "critical" or "derogatory" or "accusatory," or any number of other words to note that this is intended as a negative. I think "pejorative" is good. I would certainly be persuaded by sources that describe "denial" just in the neutral sense of skepticism, or even "denying" that there is climate change altogether. This is noted in the second sentence, but I think the first sentence describes the more common use of this phrase. Mackan79 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

@Peterlewis: Please don't revert-war in the article - please rather join the discussion here.

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

References for use as pejorative

People keep disputing this, when I think the point is pretty clear. Here are a few sources.

• It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers.[1]
• I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action — it illustrates the immorality and potential damage of climate change denial. / Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science.[2]
• Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust.[3]
• I notice in your 'The gathering pace of change’ piece (RSA Journal, February, 8) that the phrase “fear and denial of climate change” is used. It appears to me that it is becoming more and more common to see the term 'denial' and, in particular, the phrase 'climate change denial' used with reference to those who question some of the current scientific thinking in this area. The use of a phrase like 'climate change denial' is particularly worrying since it immediately suggests an analogy with 'Holocaust Denial'. In this way it assigns to any doubt expressed concerning those climatolgy models which advocate ever-increasing, damaging and man-made warming the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust Denial itself.[4]

I am sure the term has at some point been used in a non-pejorative sense; sometimes, as is well known, people even decide to embrace a pejorative used to describe them. Nevertheless, the phrase is a pejorative. It is often used as a pejorative. We have sources for this, so if people want to discuss other ways to write it let's do so with reference to what these and other reliable sources say. Mackan79 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and for your continued diligence in trying to bring some encyclopedic rigor to this miserably-contentious article. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The more appropriate word is that it is sometimes perceived as a pejorative. Most of the sources given above are individual opinions. Please see the various discussions in the archives as well as the lively discussion on precisely this issue in the AfD. Your inference that it is a perjorative is based on incomplete and dubious material - and has a very high chance of being Confirmation bias (add: I agree that it is often used as a pejorative, but it is also used descriptive. And i surmise (without knowledge) that the holocaust link is confirmation bias) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This article itself makes the holocaust link and cites 8 separate sources. --agr (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does - because there are reliable sources that surmise that this is the reason for the wording, and others still dispute it, and i do not think that we have a good RS to determine weight on the issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked the 8 references given in this article. One, to the RSA Journal Feb 08, was a dead link. Six made the holocaust connection. One was a 2006 weblog where the connection was being debated. That's six to one--or unanimous if you remember that weblogs are not considered reliable sources.--agr (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the sources discussing this phrase as a phrase seem overwhelmingly to note the link to the term, "Holocaust denial." I don't think that's surprising, since it's hard to imagine someone discussing the phrase without mentioning the obvious analogies. These are the sources that are talking about why this term is used, what is meant by it, and what it has for connotations, e.g., secondary sources discussing the term. Whether there is confirmation bias I can't say; you suggest there are sources disputing that the term intends to make this link, but I have not seen any sources saying that. I have only seen sources disputing whether the link is legitimate. That isn't to deny, as you suggest, that people may use the word "deny" in any of its recognized meanings when talking about climate change, and I think this is a significant point. Perhaps we could say, "Climate change denial is a phrase, generally pejorative, used to describe views...." Mackan79 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative means "expressing disapproval." The article says, "Climate change denial is a term... used to describe views that attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to hidden financial, political or personal interests." Is that definition correct? (I don't see a source for it.) If it is, can anyone offer an example of where the term is used to say someone is secretly motivated by personal bias in an approving way? Are there any sources documenting its use that way? Does the article itself include any examples of such approving use? If not, can some be added? I'm surprised that this is a point of contention. --DGaw (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, and other online definitions, a pejorative must go beyond "expressing disapproval" "A disparaging, belittling, or derogatory word or expression" - consequently, usage can be neutral, or near neutral in intent, for the term to not be a pejorative in all cases. There is no requirement to find an approving case. Assuming "global warming denial" is an analogue, I offer: Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaymax. The source you cite (Sandman) says he is not using the term "denial" in the sense it is defined in this article (and by the examples included here.) "Nor am I talking about intellectual denial, the position of climate change skeptics and contrarians." He is speaking of psychological denial, which he explains as a different thing. --DGaw (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Indeed. However the two (actively motivated deniers and passive responsive denial, or vv.) are connected, and the article should (I believe) address both. This relates directly to my addition of 'personal reasons' to the unsourced lead definition. (and now to new section below) ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "climate change denial"

The definition of the term and more broadly, the first paragraph of this article, appears to be original research. Does anyone have a reliable source that can provide a neutral, accepted definition of the term? --DGaw (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

From the source I gave above (might be helpful)

"So we can distinguish three kinds of global warming denial:

• Strategic denial: I pretend to disagree for reasons of my own – to keep my job, enrich my business, get elected by my constituents, placate my spouse, whatever.
• Intellectual denial: I genuinely disagree (whether based on evidence or based on intuition and mistrust).
• Psychological denial (the focus of this column): I can’t bear to let myself agree; I have a strong cognitive or emotional need to avoid the issue or to be on the other side.

In the real world the three can be hard to distinguish. Most people in psychological denial avoid the issue that gives them pain. But some are unable to push it away, and become scoffers instead … which makes them look like the intellectual deniers, the contrarians. And of course the strategic deniers work hard to look like contrarians. Moreover, the three are sometimes intermixed."

‒ Jaymax✍ 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me from this discussion that the term "climate change denial" is a rhetorical device used mainly in opinion pieces whose meaning varies greatly with the writer. It does not have a single, broadly accepted, reliably sourced definition. I can see value in an article that traces the term's various meanings, but I have great concerns about then going on to describe various organizations and individuals as engaging in climate change denial. In the Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial example cited above by Jaymax, the reusable shopping bag is called a form of climate change denial. Therefore the sections describing specific activities should be moved elsewhere, either to one of the other articles on climate change or a new article, perhaps Efforts to downplay the significance of climate change, a phrase that occurs in the current article and at least has the virtue of being clear.--agr (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ClimateGate

• There's a very legitimate reason why Climategate must be discussed. It is germane. This article (in an inexcusably POV manner) tries to make the case that public skepticism is because of those ignorant "denialists". Not so fast -- skepticism has increased tremendously recently, mainly due to Climategate:

Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 40 percent of Americans distrust what scientists say about the environment, a considerable increase from April 2007. Meanwhile, public belief in the science of global warming is in decline.

• While I'm here, the poll info in this article is embarrassingly outdated.
• • Ling.Nut 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a reasonably-current AGW poll at [5] "World concern about climate change has fallen in the past two years, according to an opinion poll..." (OCT 2009 poll). Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil section

I commented the section out since it adds systemic bias and a comment in a court case it not notable for this article. A one line comment if anything may suffice. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the well-documented allegations that Big Oil money has funded much of the climate change denial that we have seen in recent years are fundamental to the topic. What do you mean 'systemic bias'? Are you trying to create an article that is balanced in the sense of saying 'most climate change denial is good denial'? That would be an extraordinary view of lack of systemic bias. I shall revert this blanking of sourced material. If you want to shorten the summary here, considering that the topic is notable enough to have its own entire article, I shall be happy to consider realistic proposals. 'One line' is not reasonable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest pagemove to "Climate change dissent"

• The very title of this article is POV. To wit: Some folks passionately subscribe to the belief in AGW. Some folks do not. The folks who are true believers call the dissenters "denialists". The folks who are NOT true believers... would probably call themselves "skeptics" but perhaps "denialists" would not be as offensive. And the two key points are

1. The term is offensive, and
2. Wikipedia titles its articles based on the terminology of one camp, but not the other. That's the flaming definition of POV.

• I don't know which one is better: pagemove or merge. But if we can't get a merge, then I suggest a pagemove to "Climate change dissent". It accomplishes two goals: it intimates that AGW is conventional wisdom (at this time, and most particularly, among a limited but extremely influential group) and it is non-pejorative. It is not an insult. It is not POV. It could perhaps be an interim solution, with merge as a future option. However, Wikipedia should not indulge in the purple pleasures of POV.
• 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs) Oops! I posted this. • Ling.Nut 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A point that has been brought up before and discussed at length. Please read through the archives and threads above. You will need to try to build a consensus for such a change. Airborne84 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous points at the start of this thread would be reasonable if climate change was a lifestyle choice, a consumer choice or a political option. They make no sense at all in the light of the fact that AGW is a scientific fact. The financial interests that continue to try to make it seem like a matter of personal choice are doing great harm: if nothing much is done for several more years, millions more people worldwide will die unnecessarily in the decades to come. --Nigelj (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a theory. The great harm you list if nothing is done is projections and conjecture, not fact. 75.85.48.172 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• POV considerations aside, the article is not about dissent. Dissent should be sufficiently covered by the controversy article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone suggesting ths needs to at least bother read through the archives and show awareness of the previous debate William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Seems to be an "i don't like it" argument more than anything else. See the archives as others have suggested, since your point has been raised before. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• There are reliable, academic sources on climate change denialism, which call it by that name. It's a subset of denialism. "Dissent" is a brand name, like "AIDS dissent". Guettarda (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If you have reliable, academic sources on climate change denial, it would be helpful to add them to this article. Right now the intro paragraph is tagged "citation needed" and no one on this talk page seems to be able to provided a widely accepted, sourced definition of the term.--agr (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The archives show discussions that took place before ClimateGate. Everything is completely different now, as numerous national polls show. The AGW crowd has lost their comfortable air of invulnerability, as a result of losing the appearance of scientific objectivity... Anything that took place before ClimateGate comes from a galaxy far, far away.. as for academic or reliable sources: Ahhh, wait a few weeks. I can't do much now. Busy. • Ling.Nut 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • This is not the place for off-topic soapboxing. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Not soapboxing, and don't accuse me of it.. that would be wiki-lawyering.. My point is very relevant: Editors have no basis for saying "Screw this, it's been tried before" as several do above. Because of current events (see above),conventional wisdom has changed and is continuing to change; past !votes are irrelevant. • Ling.Nut 05:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Even if anything comes of this "scandal", it would take months, if not years, for it to filter through into reliable sources about climate change denialism. For the purpose of this article, it's irrelevant. Since the issue cannot have any effect on this article at this point in time, I don't see how your comments have any bearing on this article. This page isn't the place for airing political views. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Dear G., you keep accusing me of airing political views. Stop. Just stop. Please stop. Now. I am, as always, concerned about the article and only the article. I suggested a pagemove to a new name since the current one is blatantly and quite grossly POV, as well as being patently insulting. Folks chimed in and said "Shut up! Been there, done that, your suggestion failed." I said "That was then, this is now." Everything I said was completely relevant and completely aboveboard. Stop. Accusing me. Now. As per WP:NPA. Thank you. • Ling.Nut 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
              • As long as no new sources exist that can be used for this article, nothing has changed. Not from the perspective of this page. There are no reliable sources that support your claims, not in the context of this article. So why would you even express these opinions? They're only relevant if one were to throw out core Wikipedia policies. And even if you were advocating for something like that, this would still not be the place for it. If it fails WP:RS, WP:V or WP:NOR is doesn't belong here. Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I know from glancing at AFD that everybody screams that ghits don't make a case. I'm not making a case (yet), but suggesting that looking into this is worthwhile: see 32,000 Internet ghits for climate change dissent. I looked in both Google Books and Google scholar and found further instances; dealing with them appropriately would take considerable time.... here's climate change dissenter oh and even a national newspaper of record, USA Today, leads off the ghits for climate change dissenters. More can be found. Can we talk about pagemoves now? Am I permitted to speak? • Ling.Nut 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are aware of course that dissent != denial right? Lomborg (the dissenter in US Today) is not a climate change denier by any definition of the word. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that 1) The term "denial" is absurdly POV, and 2) We need a non-POV title and 3) You looked at only one article. • Ling.Nut 09:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not be against merging the content to global warming controversy, and renaming it to "global warming consent" or something similar wouldn't change my opinion on that. Moreover the article is specifically about denialism in global warming, not dissent, which is well covered in the controversy article and others. --TS 10:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here. Move all the content? some of the content? Redirect Climate change denial or keep an article on the concept? --agr (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail controversy, definitions

I haven't looked into it much, but I did see Ling.Nut say he thought the e-mail controversy should be mentioned here. If so, he or others might look for sources discussing the two topics together. I'm posting this to highlight a piece by George Monbiot I found here, also because it has perhaps a helpful comment on definitions:

When I use the term denial industry, I'm referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn't happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts.

Just one example, but perhaps of use along with others. Mackan79 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic drift

I just removed an entire section that seems to have nothing to do with this subject. Please watch that topic drift tendency. --TS 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I kinda anticipated that the section would be rmvd after (and only after) my ameliorative edits. That section has been there forever and ever, always claiming all disinterest and disbelief re AGW was due to the pernicious denial machine. I introduced RS info that shows "Nope, get real, many sources of trend, and (alleged) propaganda is the least of these". Having no way to argue against the sources, the best thing to do (if you want to say that "denialism" is evil and has many ill effects) is rmv the entire section and let the POV nature of the while article lead readers into its logical conclusion. Please do not rmv sections thusly without any reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not gonna revert today. I'll wait for you to do the right thing. • Ling.Nut 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Lingnut. Please note that my reason for removing the section is that it seems to have nothing to do with climate change denial.

Secondly I looked at the last edit of 2009 and could not find the section there, so your claim that "That section has been there forever and ever" seems to be incorrect. Perhaps you too an existing section and edited it so that instead of discussing climate change denial it discusses some other topic entirely. Obviously that isn't very sensible.

Third, and not wanting to be pedentic, you do realise that the word "thusly" was invented as a joke to parody the speech of the uneducated? --TS 08:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That section has been there since 8 August 2007, umm, diff here. The section has always maintained that public opinion is shaped largely by this "denial machine"... I think a section about the impact (whether significant or not) of the "denial machine" is quite relevant as it bears on the relevancy of this article. The remark about "thusly" is informative, thank you. Considering the adversarial nature of this page etc., and the potential for misunderstanding, perhaps you should have emailed me this insight. Please restore the section that has been there for over two years [preserving my RS edits, of course] ... and discuss its relative merits here on Talk. • Ling.Nut 09:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying a version of that section that is actually about climate change denial. I have restored that version. Please do not repeat your edits, which made the section off-topic. --TS 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, please. This is WP:UNDUE to the max. You have a set of circumstances that are being explained in a section, and you offer one and only one explanation. Mmm, I'm OK with discussing an appropriate subheading; I though mine was awkward. But please do restore my relevant and RS edits. Please. • Ling.Nut 09:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what your edits were doing there in the first place. Any connection between those and the subject of this article must surely be original research. Your new section name itself, "Possible causes of waning interest in global warming", showed just how far you had dragged the section from this subject matter. --TS 09:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just now explained how relevant the edits to the section (not the heading; more on that later) were. I'll say it again: 1) The section has existed for two years, and bears on the relevancy of this article. 2) However, the section is UNDUE and thus POV because it lists one and only one source for the phenomena (waning interest, etc.). 3) As for the subheading, well, the original (which you have restored) is as UNDUE and POV as the section itself, for precisely the same reason. I tried to un-UNDUE and un-POV the subheading, but I readily admit my attempt may not have been the best. Please restore my RS and relevant edits to the section, and let all the folks here hammer out a subheading that is appropriate (and better than my stab at it). • Ling.Nut 09:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(considerably unindented here)

Maybe somebody who understands your explanation and agrees with it will explain why your text has to be restored. I do not see anything adequate--or even anything that I understand--above. --TS 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have not explained myself well. I have no idea how to do the third party content review process. If I may, I would suggest that the proper thing to do is to restore my RS edits and ask someone impartial, someone respected, someone who has not touched AGW stuff for an opinion. I could suggest a couple names, but again, I don't know whether that's the appropriate procedure.• Ling.Nut 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't restore edits that render a section incoherent and unrelated to the topic. You'll have to persuade somebody else. --TS 09:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The section should start out with this idea (but written and sourced better): People have suggested that denialism is the cause of many things, such as waning interest in global warming, etc.". Then add my text as it was, e.g., "However, there are many...". Now do you see the relevance? • Ling.Nut 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that you aren't describing CCD as secondary reliable sources see it, but are instead doing a synthesis based upon your own opinion on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to quit for the night. But no, this is not OR. The sources I listed explicitly say "these are reasons why x is happening". We really, really, really, really need Wikipedia to step up to the plate and get content review of the entire suite of AGW articles done by uninvolved (and respected) parties. 10:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source that says the "however, there are many ..." then you are taking A which states something about C, and combining it with B which states something about C... The trouble is that only A makes a connection to CCD - which is why what you are doing is a classic synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a reliable source that backs up the first sentence in the article. The very definition of what this article is about appears to be classic synthesis.--agr (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you'll take a moment to consider the definition of SYNTH, it talks about new conclusions. What I propose is not a new conclusion. If you have one RS that says "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups taste good because of the chocolate" and another RS that says "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups taste good because of the peanut butter", then it isn't SYNTH to have an introductory sentence that says "Some sources say Reese's taste good because of the chocolate, while others suggest that the peanut butter is the key element". That is simply the style of introductory topic sentence that is customary in English language literature, essays, etc. Hope you'll drop this novel argument. • Ling.Nut 02:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious

Should Climate Change Denial be considered a religious POV (as opposed to a scientific). By definition, aren't proponents of man-made climate change theory, who attack opponents as climate change deniers, are themselves not using scientific argument, but are rather making their beliefs an article of faith? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Failing to be scientific" is not the same thing as "being religious". Boldra (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question was confusing. If you say that CH denial/support is a matter of faith, then it's like saying that the entire Global Warming article should be tagged as POV/faith subject as well, not just the denial article. You realize of course that this is not something feasible. Although I personally doubt man-made global warming, the subject has nothing to do with faith. It's about facts, data, and interpreting/analyzing/understanding the data (so long as the data is not false or misleading). There are scientists who oppose the mainstream opinion, and there are scientists who go along with the mainstream opinion in order to keep their job/position. Rather than a religious issue, it's more a political/financial issue. John Hyams (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, to be sure - but to say that someone 'denies' global warming by definition is to say that there is an absolute consensus on the matter. In fact, it attacks any discussion of the matter. It is the antithesis of science (which is founded on constantly testing hypotheses, etc). This sort of knee-jerk reaction is similar to religious justification which specifically does not back up arguments with evidence (apart from liturgical), but instead attacks the apparent immorality of opponents for having questioned this article of faith. Now, climatology is a branch of science, but 'climate change denial' is something entirely different.

On an apparently different note, I am opposed to the illegality surrounding holocaust denial. History, and indeed all humanistic endeavours which aim to increase knowledge, and expose falsehood, are meant to engage with opposing views. Now some holocaust deniers suggest that the holocaust didn't happen at all. A fair enough viewpoint, but one which is very easily shown to be nonsense (due to whole reams of written, physical and video evidence, not to mention eyewitness accounts). Some holocaust deniers question the figures quoted in relation to the holocaust (with varying degrees of rationality and evidence). However, the imprisonment of people who fall into these categories is not done with the aim of furthering human knowledge, or to solidify historical truth, but rather to drive home a political point about ethnic tolerance. Whilst central European governments might rationalise this approach by saying that it disrupts anarchic elements which rally around the specter of fascism, the government of the Republic of China could equally justify the strict censorship surrounding Tiananmen Square protests, and falsification of information divulged to the public regarding it, as a means of safeguarding the nation against potential unrest. Either way it is a method of saying that certain viewpoints are politically (and legally) acceptable, somewhat divorced from the truth of the matter.

It is illegal in some countries to deny the 'existence' of God. Will it become illegal to deny the 'existence' of climate change? Ok, maybe 'climate change denial' isn't a religious POV, but it most certainly isn't scientific. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest link to Creation_care#Opposition_to_Evangelical_Environmentalism

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Creation_care#Opposition_to_Evangelical_Environmentalism 99.184.231.107 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Denial vs. Skepticism

Reading through this section, it's remarkable to find that there is not actually anything on "Denial vs. Skepticism." Is there material that distinguishes between these two phrases?

Or maybe it's just intended to be an overview, as in, "Is it denial, or is it just healthy skepticism?" If so perhaps we should just call it an overview. In either case there is still woefully little material here discussing what makes something "denial," in comparison to the large volume of examples. If the article has merit, it seems this is one of the major discrepancies that needs to be improved. Mackan79 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I opened another discussion below since I didn't notice this section. You're invited to join. John Hyams (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a good addition, explaining the depth of this "denial"?: http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/dan_gilbert__poptech_2007

Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning? by Daniel Gilbert (psychologist) 99.24.248.144 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think so. There are some other sources on psychology of climate denial at http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/#psychology . If someone who knows the policy on reliable sources better than I went through that, we could maybe put to bed the discussions about "does denial need its own section" and "is denial the right term" 155.56.68.216 (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful addition to "human behavior": Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning? Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)

"Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning?" by Daniel Gilbert (psychologist) ... a useful addition to "human behavior", i.e. the depth of "denial", or more may be more accurately "Blind spot"  ? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting talk but not relevant for this article, I am afraid. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest adding Scientific American link "... . Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity."

Suggest adding de-denial from Scientific American link "... . Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity." ==

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=4 [6] ... "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity. > It is virtually impossible to disprove accusations of giant global conspiracies to those already convinced of them (can anyone prove that the Freemasons and the Roswell aliens aren't involved, too?). Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years [7]... 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator: please add the following

                                          Climate change “artists“.

The same mindset which causes individuals to create and propagate self-replicating, harmful software viruses over the internet inciting the worries of huge population groups even though the individuals may never personally experience this actual “infection” is the identical mindset adopted by “climate change” activists. This “trollish” behaviour is characterised by the deliberate dissemination of un-provable “conclusions” which are purposefully calculated to evoke negative responses to “carefully designed incorrect statements” in order to stir up “fear of change” responses. Any exploration of these “conclusions” done by the authorities is necessarily done “off budget” and the goal is continually being shifted by these activists precluding thereby any definitive answer because there really is no definitive question. Only nebulous statements such as ‘the Ross ice-shelf collapsed and “climate change” is the mechanism responsible’. Definitely not good enough. Common sense dictates that if the ice-shelf never “broke” over the past millions of years our planet would, by this time, be encased in a sheet of ice several meters thick… At least the same common sense used by our climate bete noire… The question to these “climate change” activists and radicals, therefore, is a simple one. Show us all your previous research budgets and prove all the previous expenditure. Let’s see those payrolls. Let’s see those income statements. Let’s see those financial transactions! Let’s see that assets register with all the tools and apparatus required for your investigations and studies. We don’t want to know about your movies and pamphlets and books. We don’t want to know about your harrowing travels and tribulations. Show us your raw data and show us all your laboratory work. Show us your research premises. Show us your research staff - tell us who they are and let us examine/verify their science and mathematics credentials. Show us all your papers, published and peer-reviewed in the well-tried and tested publications. Let’s see your successful climate science seminars sans your chanting, screaming, placard-bearing, destructive, under-educated rentacrowds! Prove that your “assumptions” are not thumb-sucked and not a result of “magic mushrooms” and mescal/peyote cocktails and “trollish” ambitions. Let’s see your hard science without the massaged and polished statistics. Show us! No one can possibly examine and process such an enormous amount of data without matching massive administrative expenditure and the complimentary equipments. So prove it! We have sufficient genuine worldwide economic problems, pollution complications and natural disasters without needing to pander to your collective egotistical mischief eating away at our scarce resources! So prove it - publicly! Otherwise you must go away swearing loudly “I’m not gonna play with youse anymore if youse don’ts believes me!” And, truly, good riddance to you! Thanks for this opportunity and if I have somehow offended - kindly advise. You'all have my email address. Semperlibre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperlibre (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen calls himself a denier

I found this interview interesting, in which Richard Lindzen says that he is not a skeptic but a denier, on the grounds that he considers the scientific evidence for his position clear. They mention the fact that it is used as a pejorative, and the whole thing seems to be rather tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps it's of some use. Mackan79 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sources

I think there are significant problems with a number of the sources in this article. Op-eds are reliable sources only for the author's opinions, and I'm unclear as to why these opinions are considered appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Just to list a few, sources 1-4, 7, 15, 17-20 are either op-eds or blog posts, and therefore shouldn't be considered WP:RS, even under the broadest definition. I suggest removing these and similar sources, and any statements in the article upon which they are based. J. Langton (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Airborne84 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

41 is another example, and it was quoted incorrectly anyway. It is possible to use an op-ed under WP:RS, but a case would have to be made for it's use. Let's see what others have to say on it. Airborne84 (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. When we describe the subject at hand, we also give examples of usage (that was demanded in earlier discussions btw), and that is what all of these are used for. Opinion sources are reliable to the opinion of the author, and that is how it is used here. It is also properly attributed so that it is clear that we are talking about individual opinions (ie. "George Monbiot..", "several commentators"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that op-eds, etc., are reliable sources for the author's opinions. What I'm less clear on is why a collection of various opinions is considered encyclopedic, especially when those opinions are those of journalists rather than climatologists. Right now it reads very much like "X, Y, and Z think A, but P, D, and Q disagree." Why is this notable? J. Langton (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Authoritative opinion and solid secondary sources on the core topic, it seems to me, would come more from psychology and investigative journalism, than from climatology. Why does the lead not say: "Climate change denial _is_ a form of denialism [ref] and has been described as such by commentators ... [primary source refs]" (or something)? ‒ Jaymax✍ 20:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the technical answer is that Wikipedia covers issues where sufficient "reliable sources" are present to suggest notability, and then at that point the editors decide in accordance with policy how the article should be written. Issues are considered "notable" generally when they're discussed by several independent reliable sources. At the same time, there are concepts like WP:POVFORK, which states, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." Personally I see an argument that this material should be covered as part of Global warming controversy. I think in large part the question comes down to whether there is valuable material in this article that could not effectively be covered in Global warming controversy. I haven't really come to a conclusion one way or the other. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Another, possibly more appropriate, place for the specific incidents covered here might be Politics of global warming (United States), as all the incidents relate to the U.S. --agr (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess my question at this point isn't so much whether this article should be deleted or merged. It's more along the lines of "Why is, for example, Monbiot's opinion regarding the motivation of AGW skeptics notable?" He has no particular expertise in psychology or climatology, so I don't see how his opinion could be considered authoritative. Not to pick on Monbiot; I think the same argument applies to most of the authors of the op-ed pieces in the references. J. Langton (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two parts to the article. The beginning and the end talk about a rhetorical term, climate change denial. I suppose a journalist's opinions might be helpful there in clarifying how the term is used. The middle, from "Public sector" to "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" describes specific incidents without an explicit connection to climate change denial. There reader is apparently supposed to infer that these are examples of whatever the term means. It's this latter section that I think should be moved elsewhere. --agr (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot's opinion doesn't need to be notable to be included WP:N - Only the topic itself requires notability. We should be able to find a strong source for the notability of the topic. There's a few potential hits on Google Scholar, but I don't have access to the papers. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Surely one can't contend that wikipedia policy allows for the inclusion of anything that anyone has ever written about a notable topic is fair game for inclusion in an article. In particular, I don't think a random collection of various opinion journalists opinions is particularly worthy of being included in an encyclopedia, regardless of how notable the subject of their opinions may be. Maybe the letter of WP:N or WP:RS doesn't specifically exclude these sources, but I think the spirit does. And in any case, the determining factor should be the quality of the article, and in this case, I think the article suffers because it's basically "opinion journalists have opinions!" which is not something I find particularly interesting. J. Langton (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to second sentence

I propose to change

• "Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.

to

• Climate change denial is can be a form of denialism

Thoughts? ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed 'is' to 'can be' after reading comment below. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree, since that would be to adopt one point of view and make it our own. We've discussed above how this term can be used in different ways, sometimes with a specific meaning as used by Monbiot, or sometimes that I've seen recently just in the sense of so-and-so being in denial about the truth. I just noted how Lindzen calls himself a denier. Does that mean he is a "denialist"? Under at least one significant view this term is a pejorative meant to denigrate a particular position; to speak then as if "Climate change denial" is an accepted description for a certain set of criteria isn't generally accepted to the point that we can state it as fact. This is a classic case where attribution is quite important, in my view. Mackan79 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the original wording. The use of the term "denialism" as applied to climate change is controversial -- the article even states as much. Therefore, I think it's important to be clear on just who is refering to "climate change denial". J. Langton (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator: please add the following

Since the page is protected, would an administrator please add the following quote to the article?: The December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, "discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so.... [The author] gives a name to those such as ExxonMobil who deny that global warming is occurring and are working to persuade others of this money-making myth: they are the Denyers and Delayers. They are better rhetoriticians than scientists are.... [The book] gives us 10 years to change the way we live before it's too late to use existing technology to save the world. '...humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. The tragedy, then, as historians of the future will most certainly recount, is that we ruined their world not because we lacked the knowledge or the technology to save it but simply because we chose not to make the effort'" (Hell and High Water, p. 25).

Please add the link ExxonSecrets.org (Greenpeace USA). Thanks! --Gsälzbär (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OUT OF BALANCE EXXONMOBILE

Intresting video about exxonmobile's impact on climate change. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8066462153626602821# —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuKu (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)