Talk:Climate change denial

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?

A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming.^[1]^[2] According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence.^[3] Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable."^[4]

Q2: Is this article a POVFORK?

A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion."^[5]

Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers?

A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust.^[6]

Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?

A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this.^[2]

Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along?

A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:

1. Because a "consensus" indicates that scientists with expertise in the relevant fields are in general agreement about some topic, such that they often refer to it as a "fact" (though technically nothing in science is ever proven with the 100% level of certainty necessary for it to be considered a fact). There is, for example, a consensus that smoking causes cancer, which is widely considered a fact.^[7]
2. No; in fact, it is essential to the progress of science, since scientific discoveries are made based on what the consensus of scientists established before them.^[8]
3. This argument is a form of the association fallacy often called the "Galileo Gambit." The best debunking of this argument may have been provided by Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."^[9]

References

^ Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
^ ^a ^b Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
^ Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
^ Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014.
^ AFD Diff, 7 August 2007.
^ Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
^ Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
^ On Scientific Consensus
^ Broca's Brain, p. 64

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 28, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 4, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 10, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 13, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 9, 2012	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 29, 2014	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version
March 16, 2016	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes

Section size for Climate change denial (43 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	13,179	13,179
Terminology	12,737	12,737
Categories and tactics	8,188	57,224
Discussing specific aspects of climate change science	8,959	25,271
Playing up the potential non-human causes	546	546
Playing up flawed studies	2,213	2,213
Disputing IPCC reports and processes	4,935	4,935
Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes	8,618	8,618
Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical"	1,817	1,817
Pushing for adaptation only	5,895	5,895
Delaying climate change mitigation measures	9,379	9,379
Promoting conspiracy theories	6,674	6,674
Psychology	984	984
Connections to other debates	35	17,018
Links with other environmental issues	2,295	2,295
Links with nationalism and right-wing groups	6,663	6,663
Conservative views	8,025	8,025
History	12,154	31,405
Similarities with tobacco industry tactics	3,517	3,517
Republican Party in the United States	15,734	15,734
Denial networks	934	18,529
Conservative and libertarian think tanks	4,974	4,974
Publishers, websites and networks	4,473	12,621
Publications for school children	8,148	8,148
Notable people who deny climate change	46	15,345
Politicians	11,188	11,188
Scientists	4,111	4,111
Lobbying and related activities	2,494	24,074
Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors	5,911	5,993
ExxonMobil	82	82
Attacks and threats towards scientists	3,598	3,598
Funding for deniers	11,989	11,989
Effects on public opinion	11,370	22,534
United States	8,600	8,600
Europe	2,564	2,564
Responses to denialism	1,574	23,066
The role of emotions and persuasive argument	6,177	6,177
Following people who have changed their position	8,334	8,334
Effective approaches to dialogue	4,144	4,144
Approaches with farmers	1,972	1,972
Statements of well known people calling for climate action	865	865
See also	685	685
References	332	332
Total	237,112	237,112

Doubt as pseudoscientific?

I express doubt at the concept that expression of doubt is pseudoscientific. On the contrary science is all about doubt. NOT expressing doubt - unexamined dogmatic belief - is what is unsceintific. Science necessarily entails continuing attempts to falsify its own claims because of the dubious nature of inductive reasoning. Unexamined justifications "because science says so" are no better than "because God says so", if you are not prepared (or allowed) to question the scientific claims. 80.5.192.29 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.

@IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.

@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.

The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. 109.148.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What straw man did I employ? Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed

Climate science is not "special". Pretty much every science has loons attacking it. Biologists have creationism, astronomy has Velikovskians, medicine has quacks, math has circle squarers, physics has perpetual motion tinkerers, and so on.
There are no "alternative rational explanations" that are consistent with the facts.
Denialists should not be "suppressed", they should be exposed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the world a better place "Hob" - one day, perhaps, the people you don't like will all be gone. Good luck in your task. 2001:569:FC56:8A00:AEB0:188A:6FD:2EAE (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references you use in the summary only fit one worldview while two worldviews are prevalent: the incoming administration of the United States government includes high ranking officials whom cite scientists that disagree with the popular worldview; more egregiously, in this talk, you are openly stating you personally believe the opposite view is “incorrect”, and therefore it shouldn’t be included, rather than gatekeeping a completely unbiased or equally balanced article. You are politicizing Wikipedia. It should have both popular viewpoints expressed in the summary to remain unbiased. You are wittingly or unwittingly making a once completely fact-based website, a once important website, fit a narrative that doesn’t remain purely objective. That is unacceptable. 2600:1002:B160:38E9:4094:317D:6C20:723 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incoming administration of the United States government is a bunch of clowns. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources (real science), not on a pathological liar and his minions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of rubbish by the anonymous user with the IP address. Thanks Hob Gadling for even responding to this rubbish. As per WP:NOTAFORUM we should probably kill off this conversation here and now. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. EMsmile (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Hob Gadling rightly stated, "Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented." IP, instead of trying to deny climate change, it would be great if every government on the planet worked together to solve the problem, without excuses. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the third option, skepticism without denial or affirmation?

Theists believe, Atheists deny, Agnostics are skeptical
engaging in pseudoscience requires deliberate effort, those who don't have an opinion are not claiming to be scientists or researchers.
there is unsubtle polarization, implying that only two positions exist, with no middle ground, or not having an opinion, You are either with us, or against us

Skullers (talk)

They went extinct a few decades ago. Nowadays, the honest and knowledgeable people all accept climate change as real. Maybe you should inform yourself on the subject instead of spouting platitudes.

But the real problem with your contribution is that you do not have reliable sources; it is just your opinion, and those do not count on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Politics

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blakepet (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Blakepet (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, style, and overuse of quotations

This article reads like it was written by one angry person who screams "lies, damn lies! These people are lunatics and shills!" at literally every possible opportunity. In case you skipped every other part, we'd like to remind you that the denials are fake, dishonest, and discredited!

Consider the articles on Flat Earth and Perpetual motion: there is total scientific consensus that both are impossible, yet we don't call their proponents lunatics and trolls multiple times per paragraph or even per sencence throughout.

The amount of quotecruft exceeds the amount of prose throughout. Loaded language and weasel words throughout.

Here are some examples (highlighted in bold and italics): Lead (10 instances):

Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance
...includes unreasonable doubts about...
...accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action...
...remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay...
...reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work...
...fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus...
...Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science...
...originate from right-wing think tanks...
...Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change...
...for several decades, oil companies have been organizing a widespread and systematic climate change denial campaign to seed public disinformation, a strategy that has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking.
...Some of the campaigns are even carried out by the same people who previously spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda.

Terminology section (at least 6 instances, not including direct quotations):

The terms climate skeptics or contrarians are nowadays used with the same meaning as climate change deniers even though deniers usually prefer not to, in order to sow confusion as to their intentions.
Both options are problematic, but climate change denial...
...said in 1995 that industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" to confuse public opinion in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial"
...with "the climate skeptics" confusing the public and influencing decision makers.
...and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. It said...
...by accepting the scientific consensus but failing to "translate their acceptance into action".

Rest of the paragraph almost entirely made of quotations (quotefarm) that need to be summarized.

Categories and tactics section (at least 6 instances):

...how the media give the misleading impression that climate change is still disputed ... to climate change skeptics' PR efforts.
...who think climate change is harmless or even beneficial...
...a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same people.
...But scientists have known for over a century...
Playing up flawed studies

(not including multiple quotations per paragraph)

Some climate change deniers promote conspiracy theories alleging that the scientific consensus is illusory, or that climatologists...
(not a quote not inside citation) It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to manufacture political and public controversy disputing this consensus.
These people typically allege that, through worldwide acts of...
(not inside a quote) They promote harmful conspiracy theories alleging that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.

...too many instances of "claim", "allege", "propagated", etc to list
...more quotations than prose

He defined luke-warmists as "those who appear to...
...has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science.
...whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change deniers... (links to this article itself)
another paragraph consisting almost entirely of quotations
Climate change deniers tend to argue that... Conversely, the general consensus is that...
As such denials became untenable, content shifted to ...
Another paragraph or quotations.
A 2016 article in Science made the case that... (contrasted to "deniers have alleged that" sort of thing)
more quotations exceeding prose
People with certain cognitive tendencies are also more drawn than others to conspiracy theories... (we all know what that means!)
more predominantly found in narcissistic people and those who... (either name-calling, the personality disorder can only be diagnosed in individual people)
..."disbelief is also linked to lower levels of education and analytic thinking."
Scientists are investigating which factors associated with conspiracy belief can be influenced and changed. They have identified
Examples of science-related conspiracy theories that some people believe include that aliens exist,
This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.
...studied two forms of national identity—defensive or "national narcissism" and
"Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs, was also found to be negatively correlated with support for genuine climate mitigation policies."
Political worldview plays an important role in environmental policy and action. Liberals tend to focus on environmental risks, while conservatives focus on the benefits of economic development. (polarization, and Left/right politics exclusively)
...shows that conservative white men in the U.S. are significantly more... (ok, great)
...if the discourse is instead framed using moral concerns related to purity that are more deeply held by conservatives, the discrepancy is resolved. (purity? of essence? what?)
"More highly educated people are less likely to rely on their own interpretation and political ideology rather than on scientists' opinions."

History section:

A 2000 article explored the connection between conservative think tanks and climate change denial.
...were significant participants in lobbying attempts seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations.
"During the same period, billionaires secretively donated nearly $120 million... to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change."
..."people with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations that were responsible for most efforts to downplay the threat of climate change in the U.S."
But some books clouded the human causes of...
"a reliable tool to manipulate public perception of climate change and stall political action" (framing the rest of quotes in the paragraph)
"a group of mainly U.S. businesses, used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight the Kyoto Protocol. Large corporations and trade groups from the oil, coal and auto industries financed the coalition. The New York Times reported,"
"Their work played a key role in undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives in the US over a span of decades. This study illustrates how..."
...found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change... in the past 50 years on spreading doubts about climate change.
"(now X), key figures at the company who ensured trusted content was prioritized were removed,"
"CNN reported that meteorologists and climate communicators worldwide were receiving increased harassment and false accusations" (this one not in quotes for some reason)
"provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about climate science"
"...especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism." (no true contrarian does it for money)
Climate change conspiracy theories and denial have resulted in poor action or no action at all to effectively mitigate the damage done by global warming.
"...believed (ca. 2017) that climate change is a hoax even though 100% of climate scientists (as of 2019) believe it is real
"American media has propagated this approach, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics."
"In 2006 Newsweek reported that most Europeans and Japanese accepted the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans thought human activity plays a major role"...
"Deliberate attempts by the Western Fuels Association "to confuse the public" have succeeded."
"According to a 2012 Pew poll, 57% of Americans are unaware of, or outright reject, the scientific consensus..."
"On the other hand, global oil companies have begun to acknowledge the existence of climate change and its risks. Still, top oil firms are spending millions lobbying to delay, weaken, or block policies to tackle climate change."
"Popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community" (cites from 2004, 2005, 2012, 2015, presented presented in present tense)
..."promoted by several far-right European parties, including Spain's Vox, Finland's far-right Finns Party, Austria's far-right Freedom Party, and Germany's anti-immigration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD)" (what does immigration have to do with it?)
more quotations...

I have tagged this article for multiple issues. The lengthy and redundant quotations ought to be summarized and not inserted in the middle of every sentence. The tone throughout needs be more WP:IMPARTIAL, encyclopedic, and informational; weasel words should be replaced with more appropriate synonyms. Skullers (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick read-through of your list, I don't see anything objectionable. Maybe part of the reason for the statements that you find objectionable is the fact that deniers and fossil fuel industries and a certain political party are knowingly spewing disinformation and purposely sowing doubt. Flat Earthers don't seem to have the same motivation or deceptiveness (maybe self-deception), or influence on the planet as climate change deniers; unlike climate change denial, Flat-Earthiness is a ~harmless belief. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Nohorizonss (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a pretty big deal and denying it isn't helping to save the world etc doesn't change the fact that policy still applies. It has been clarified in the Climate change Arbitration Request:

2) Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Wikipedia, give to this topic area. The existence of these strongly held competing views on a matter of significant public and scientific interest does not excuse editors from complying with all of Wikipedia's governing values, policies, and norms.
— WP:ARBCC/PD#Nature_and_extent_of_dispute

If the world was ending "pretty soon" we'd still have to write about it in an impartial manner and adhere to policies and norms. Skullers (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between this and the response above, since nobody suggested that Wikipedia's governing values, policies, and norms be violated. Also, nobody mentioned pretty big deal or helping to save the world. Maybe you are on the wrong Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was said that in contrast to flat-Earth, there is different motivation and deceptiveness and influence on the planet and that it's not as harmless as flat-Earth. Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there is no connection to Wikipedia's governing values, policies, and norms. They are not violated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I will admit that this list was too long for me to read every item, I don't see anything NPOV violation here. The article is reflecting the tone and bias of reliable sources, all of which consider climate change denial to be pseudoscientific. Badbluebus (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tone should not reflect the tone of biased sources. Relevant policies:

Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.
— WP:IMPARTIAL, from WP:NPOV

Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. ...the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
— WP:TONE

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not written in news style (in any sense other than some use of the inverted pyramid, above), including tone. The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different. Especially avoid bombastic wording
— WP:ENCSTYLE

Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...

Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.
In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose.
— MOS:CLAIM

The examples listed are of loaded language added on top of and in addition to selected quotations. Skullers (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see any NPOV violation here. Perhaps you (User:Skullers) could take another look at your long list and only single out let's say the 5 most prominent examples where you think we have a problem. I've scanned your list and don't see anything particularly objectionable there but maybe I have missed some. There is always room for improvement but your list doesn't convince me. Please zoom in on any instances (let's say 5 to start with) that you think are the most problematic. Also maybe specify which of the quoted text exactly ought to be converted into non-quotes? I think it would be difficult to do so as we are trying to explain what wording and language the climate change deniers use... EMsmile (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skullers probably suffers from the common misconception that WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia is supposed to always sit on the fence when there is a conflict, even when the conflict is between science on one side and a bunch of ideologically motivated anti-science wackos on the other. Or they are unaware that that is the case here. So, they see problems where there are none. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. One doesn't um suffer from it. Aware of WP:UNDUE and all that. The tone, style, and sentiment of text are not encyclopedic or impartial, that is outside of quotations. Of which there are 190 (ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY, had to feed it into a machine) and the text goes the extra mile above and beyond with weasel words, loaded language, peacock terms, editorializing, etc. It stands out even among other politicized topics. Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

impartial is not among the requirements. I cannot see any "weasel words", and neither is it Wikipedia's fault that reliable sources reject the bad reasoning of the denialists, nor that the denialists' reasoning is bad. You see that as "loaded language" or "editorializing", but it isn't. Your problem is not with Wikiepdia, it is with reliable sources and with reality.

We get the same reasoning as yours from people who think that Wikipedia is unfair to flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. You are just the last in a long line of people who think that Wikipedia is biased against one specific pseudoscience. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised to hear any of this. We are aware of your tactics, your sentiment, and your traits. venceremos Skullers (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skullers, you must make constructive comment on content, not on the contributor: venceremos looks rather combative, please explain its relevance to the article, or redact it. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will highlight some examples .... Skullers (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be constructive, please show how the examples relate to the cited sources, and what alternative wording you propose while taking care to show clearly the mainstream views of the scientific community, and not give undue weight to fringe or pseudoscientific views. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Anderegg-1] Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.

[DZ_EOS_2009-2] Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

[Christoff-3] Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010.

[4] Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014.

[5] AFD Diff, 7 August 2007.

[6] Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

[Shwed_and_Bearman_2010-7] Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010.

[8] On Scientific Consensus

[9] Broca's Brain, p. 64

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]