This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"The term “denial” is, of course, usually associated with “holocaust denial”―the view that the Nazi destruction of millions of Jews in Europe was exaggerated or did not even occur." --Newsweek Burns Truth in Global Warming Story, by Roger Aronoff, Aug 10, 2007. Could the Title be changed to "Climate change dissent" or "Climate change Skepticism" please? The Enlightened Democrat ( talk) 03:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It is well written and does a good job of arguing a point. But it is non-encyclopedic. I mean what if I create a page on climate change alarmism and build up the concept by citing the poor behavior and now repudiated politicized science of pacifist Carl Sagan in nuclear winter? TCO ( talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
if the subject of this article is climate change denial, should its scope include general disregard for the environment, or should it be confined specifically to allegations of denial of climate change? i ask in re this text:
The Washington Post reported in June 2007 that Vice President Dick Cheney "has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests." The article also alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" and "deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy" influenced a Bush administration "pro-business drive to ease regulations".
i don't dispute those allegations, surely - but the problem is that they're not explicitly directed to climate change denial; rather, they're merely a representation of alleged disdain for the environment. i question whether they fall within this article's scope. Anastrophe ( talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
the following text seems to conflate the actions of an undersecretary, with a corporation being "personally thanked" by the white house (which is an odd grammatical construct in the first place). this seems to be stretching it a bit. the text:
Exxon was also personally thanked by the White House for advising President Bush on the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: "In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’"
this is clearly not 'the white house thanked exxon', it's the undersecretary of global affairs thanking a group of lobbyists, which included an exxon lobbyist. it seems to me to mischaracterize the quoted material. Anastrophe ( talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no denial that climate change occurs, however this article seems to take a rather fatalistic stance on naturally-occuring climate change, equating it with some sort of global warming apocalypse. The author cites the so-called "scientific consensus" without providing any real data, which is a logical fallacy. Incindentally, the aforementioned "scientific consensus" included politicians, journalists and other people who were not qualified to provide an expert opinion about the subject matter. This article is clearly not unbiased and should be edited to appear as unbiased as possible, rather than completely deleted. For good measure, here is a quote from the article:
While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, 'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"The term “denial” is, of course, usually associated with “holocaust denial”―the view that the Nazi destruction of millions of Jews in Europe was exaggerated or did not even occur." --Newsweek Burns Truth in Global Warming Story, by Roger Aronoff, Aug 10, 2007. Could the Title be changed to "Climate change dissent" or "Climate change Skepticism" please? The Enlightened Democrat ( talk) 03:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It is well written and does a good job of arguing a point. But it is non-encyclopedic. I mean what if I create a page on climate change alarmism and build up the concept by citing the poor behavior and now repudiated politicized science of pacifist Carl Sagan in nuclear winter? TCO ( talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
if the subject of this article is climate change denial, should its scope include general disregard for the environment, or should it be confined specifically to allegations of denial of climate change? i ask in re this text:
The Washington Post reported in June 2007 that Vice President Dick Cheney "has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests." The article also alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" and "deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy" influenced a Bush administration "pro-business drive to ease regulations".
i don't dispute those allegations, surely - but the problem is that they're not explicitly directed to climate change denial; rather, they're merely a representation of alleged disdain for the environment. i question whether they fall within this article's scope. Anastrophe ( talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
the following text seems to conflate the actions of an undersecretary, with a corporation being "personally thanked" by the white house (which is an odd grammatical construct in the first place). this seems to be stretching it a bit. the text:
Exxon was also personally thanked by the White House for advising President Bush on the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: "In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’"
this is clearly not 'the white house thanked exxon', it's the undersecretary of global affairs thanking a group of lobbyists, which included an exxon lobbyist. it seems to me to mischaracterize the quoted material. Anastrophe ( talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no denial that climate change occurs, however this article seems to take a rather fatalistic stance on naturally-occuring climate change, equating it with some sort of global warming apocalypse. The author cites the so-called "scientific consensus" without providing any real data, which is a logical fallacy. Incindentally, the aforementioned "scientific consensus" included politicians, journalists and other people who were not qualified to provide an expert opinion about the subject matter. This article is clearly not unbiased and should be edited to appear as unbiased as possible, rather than completely deleted. For good measure, here is a quote from the article:
While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, 'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby.