![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Someone was keeping on removing this and the original removal said it wasn't justified by the sources. Looking at the citations at the end of the sentence they don't seem to be good cites for it though they might be okay for other things. It is social scientists like Dunlap who is cited earlier or Diethelm and McKee who are the basis of that. Perhaps the citations could be swapped over or something like that. Dmcq ( talk) 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Dmcq - OK, so the first para is four lines, which seem to be toward separate points. The first three are clear enough ....
But the intent with the fourth is unclear.
A natural association of "these positions" is to the closest, the line about lack-of-action. But if the association is about the Dunlop cite then that would be more clear to put it next to that line, and even better to make it a comma continuation instead of a period separate thought. Markbassett ( talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Can somebody untangle and better phrase the English of this header paragraph 3 close or convey something on the para topic (of denial impacts politics) that makes more sense ? The line reads "Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles."
Though I would prefer to delete it, I'll offer this as example of possible replacement: "Public debate on climate change commonly includes climate change denial positions." Any other suggestions or explanation of what the existing line was trying to say ? Markbassett ( talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Mark, for some reason you seem to be unable to grasp the point made by both sources, that denialists create a misleading image of controversy where there isn't any in science: that's relevant to this specific paragraph:
"Although scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the primary driver of climate change,[14][15] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[16][17][18] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[19][20]"
Three points: 1. uncontentious science, 2. efforts hindered by denial, 3. denialists pretend science is contentious by faking controversy. All ties together. .
dave souza,
talk
23:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Climate_change_denial#Denial_networks
Is there a need for this to be its own standalone sect ?
Can we keep the material, but merge it into another sect, for better organizational structure for our readers ?
Also, at present that sect seems to have a problem with WP:WORLDVIEW.
— Cirt ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
There is one "clarification needed tag" in sect Climate_change_denial#Denial_networks.
Can someone explain why this is tagged, and how to go about fixing this ?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jess phd ( talk) 08:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The page needs to address the actual debate behind global warming, not just insult those who disagree. Anthropomorphic climate change is not yet proven, and debate must continue until we have a true result one way or the other. just saying it is settled does not make it so. Temperature lags, Antarctic ice gains, solar activity, documented exaggerations and fraudulent studies to garner attention, failure of all weather models to predict temperature, the pause, and documented hiding of evidence by key study panels should be discussed. Otherwise climate change is a religion and not a science.
This edit adding a top hat note pointing to article "Global warming controversy" -- while certainly with good intentions to give our readers more information -- is not needed, for several reasons.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
For this article, I would like to add to the "denial networks" section where it is signified that clarification is needed. The specific sentence that I would like toe expand on reads , "A Pentagon report has pointed out how climate denial threatens national security.[89][clarification needed]". My plan is to further expand on that statement and providing readers with a clearer explanation of the concept. After researching and looking for reputable sources to reference, many articles and organizations agree that climate change is a threat to national security as it will directly affect the ability for our military to defend this country.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/23/3715200/bipartisan-security-experts-climate-change-threat/
Kmmnks ( talk) 04:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Kmmnks April 19, 2016
"
Hi,
I just want to pose a question, really, about the (77?) millions and millions. If one deducts all the campaign funding, is there anything left? I ask this because even if you are the Exxon-like entity E and have a strong motive for not wanting AGW to be true, the best outcome for E would be research that actually showed this. And so it would be rational for them to fund such research, and even to the benefit of all Mankind, if the science held up. This goes to researchers who (try to) do real science, collecting real data and constructing hypotheses and all that - for instance the guys of yore who looked into solar phenomena: they were wrong, and possibly supported by E, but were none of them "sincere"? I might be trying for a misguided attempt at real world AGF towards such people when I say that engaging in dead end research doesn't make them denialists.
Anyways, perhaps this is covered elsewhere and possibly all the millions went to campaigning, if so, then no problem.
T
88.89.219.147 (
talk)
00:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi As a Biologist myself, I too was surprised at the expectation of particular findings by the entity/entities funding a research project. It would be naïve to assume that funder A would be any different than funder B. I was one of the original "hippie" "tree huggers" but I have seen too many instances of data manipulation to fully accept either side of this religious war. 207.191.12.134 ( talk) 09:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
"Climate change denial" is an epithet used only by political activists to demean anyone who is skeptical of their views. Why have we allowed Wikipedia to buy in to this trope?
If I am wrong, then why is there no article on "Climate change skepticism"? Why does "Climate change skepticism" redirect to "Climate change denial"?
Indeed, the entire "climate change" topic is fraught with ill-defined memes which have the effect of steering discussion into a binary, either-or, debate. (Such memes include "climate change", "global warming", and their denialist counterparts.) While Wikipedia cannot ignore the existence of popular memes, they should be identified as memes (i.e. simple ideas popularly accepted as truisms), not as serious subjects.
Behind these memes, lie some serious subjects that do deserve study and understanding:
For each of these, there is considerable discussion and disagreement. In each area, those who disagree with the majority can be characterized as skeptics. That does not make them denialists.
Skepticism can be fueled by several factors:
The possibility of catastrophic climate change is a very serious subject. It deserves serious study and discussion. Wikipedia can aid this process by assembling relevant facts and analysis from authoritative sources.
The Wikipedia I believe in should be encouraging discussion on such a serious subject. This article attempts to shut it off. Frappyjohn ( talk) 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. I don't generally wade into climate change issues, but I noticed that over the last couple of days Frappyjohn has been converting links in other articles from climate change skepticism and global warming skeptics (which redirect here) to global warming skepticism (separate links). This is arguably circumventing community consensus (per this RfC). The relevant edits are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Frappyjohn's explanation is here. I'm cross-posting this at WP:Climate change; otherwise I'm staying out of this and leaving it to editors more familiar with the subject matter. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a funny article. Nominate for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 ( talk) 15:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am Michael Gary Wallace, the first scientist in modern times to demonstrate accurate forecasting of drought and pluvials, years in advance. My forecasting methods are uniquely successful in part because they exclude greenhouse gases as a causative factor. My method is thousands of times cheaper, faster, and better than emissions-based forecasting. My web site includes reproducible demonstrations such as at http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-continues-to-outperform-federal-and-un-ipcc-climate-projections/ which links to examples such as this: http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-demonstrates-proven-drought-forecasting-a-possible-first-in-the-climate-industry/
Either climate change deniers are misguided crackpots or climate change proponents are. Of the two, my forecasts are the only ones which are accurate. Typically when a scientist makes a projection that actually comes true, the scientist is not disregarded, ridiculed, or investigated for fraud by government agencies. In a sane world, those actions are reserved for the ones whose alarming projections fail to materialize. Somehow in the Wikipedia bubble and the societies, institutions, and businesses that it influences, the reverse holds sway.
But we both cannot be right. In that light, Wikipedia's efforts to pin true climate change innovations to this derogative term are impacting my business and professional environment in a most negative way.
Accordingly, unless you can somehow disprove my successes, Wikipedia (through this ad hominem page and other misrepresentations) appears to be actively interfering with interstate commerce clauses, my own constitutional right of free speech without the threat of criminal investigations, and other laws.
I recommend that Wikipedia cease this and related misrepresentations of climate change science as soon as possible. I issued this notification to Wikipedia via their lowly Talk page for the "Climate Change Denial" term on 24 August, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.69.110 ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The phrase above is from the current lede sentence of the taxonomy section. It implies that climate change is no longer disputed within the scientific community. Is this a view of Stefan Rahmstorf himself, or are we all agreed that this is a fact?
If climate change is disputed within the scientific community - e.g., by researchers who publish peer reviewed scientific papers - then perhaps we could clarify the sentence I cited.
But if there is no dispute whatsoever in the scientific community, that might need to be highlighted a bit earlier in the article. Unless I'm a few years behind in my reading, I daresay there are still a few scientists who oppose (what they call) the AGW. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Did I make my question clear enough? I was referring to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
So my question is whether there is any dispute within the scientific community about what is causing climate change or global warming (if I'm not using the terms correctly, please advise). -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the quick answers, but maybe I don't understand the terminology. I'm looking for the place in Wikipedia where I can read about the reasons that various scientists (in the minority of course!) have given for their opposition to the theory that most modern global warming is human-caused. I don't care about ideology, money, or politics; I only want to read about their scientific arguments against the AGW theory.
Or, I want to see a clear statement in Wikipedia that no one in the scientific community - not even a few dozen die-hard holdouts, still disputes the idea that most modern warming is human-caused. Am I asking a clear enough question, and am I in the right place to ask it? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this will probably have to wait a bit for time for a response but it sounds like a good addition eventually.
and it is quite funny too. Dmcq ( talk) 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ORIGINAL
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TEXT Anthropogenic Climate change denial, or Anthropogenic global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, doubt or contrarian views which question or depart from scientific opinion on climate change. ( Anthropogenic meaning caused by humans)
Reason for Change request:-
To use proper descriptive unemotional language and avoid any language tending to push or give weight to a particular view or opinion.
For fully current referall, all the words "global warming" and links for "global warming controversy" might also be changed to insert "Anthropogenic" and replace "global warming " with "climate change" . Higgo888 ( talk) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Higgo888 ( talk) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
For your information: Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles,
The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy, Columbia University Press, 2016 (
ISBN
9780231177863).
128.178.189.94 (
talk)
07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC).
Clicking it redirects here: /info/en/?search=Euclideon but I don't think its supposed to. 96.28.39.103 ( talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
@ Isambard Kingdom: thank you for your concern (( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Climate_change_denial&diff=748810854&oldid=748810560%7C]).
Still, I fail to see how 1) Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Climate_change_and_pollution, elaborating the views of possibly now the most notorious non scientist Climate change denier, and 2) Before the Flood (film) a film that documents climate change denial for more than half of its length, could not be 'directly relevant' in the see Also section. See also: WP:ALSO in case. Regards, --DPD ( t) 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm cool with what ever people want on this one. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
I found this article to be very one-sided. The article is protected, which is resulting in bias. I feel this article goes against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of view. Regardless of your personal views, I urge whoever protected this article to unprotect it, in the name of accuracy and reliability on such a controversial topic.
Thank you. (Did I do this right? First time.) Thanks Jim1138 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 ( talk) 03:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I asked for the article to be unlocked. I shouldn't have to ask for edits. 67.61.143.249 ( talk) 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Why was the "unwarranted" deleted from the intro? It is the most important difference between denial and skepticism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I deleted this image from the article, but the image was reverted by another editor.
First, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts states "don't use images for tables or charts". The image is just data. In this instance, an image isn't necessary.
Second, Wikipedia:Image use policy states:
Generally speaking, you should not contribute images consisting solely of formatted or unformatted text... In most cases these can instead be typed directly into an article.
It also states:
The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article.
In this instance, an editor took data and loaded it into an image meant explicitly to shock readers and bring attention to the article. An analogy would be to add this image to the article Stop Handgun Violence. A read of WP:IMPARTIAL and other nearby policies on that page shows that consensus has already been reached about this sort of editing. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "it's been here for a long time", though I was unable to find any policy or guideline which used longevity as a reason for keeping anything on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the purpose of images is to convey concepts to the reader and this particular image is conveying a proportion that is directly relevant to the topic, it should remain. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is interesting. The image is challenged by - surprise! - SkepticalScience (home of John Cook, who did the earlier lit review and came up with a slightly lower number). Here is their critique. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you need an image at the start the unabomber one at [5] would be much better. It illusttrates the topic, it is not made by a Wikipedia editor to push a POV, and it has no complaints against it by a scientist saying it presents the facts wrong. Dmcq ( talk) 13:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Magnolia677 and Dmcq that this data would be better typed directly into the article itself rather than as an image. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe use this graph instead. It is based on the same data, but looks better. Scmresearcher ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the first sentence of the second paragraph:
"Campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming."
I am wondering if it could be inserted somewhere in the article who or what these "industrial, political and idealogical interests" are? I feel as though it is missing and it would be an effective contribution to fully flesh out the roots of "denialism" overall.
Ryanaldrich3 ( talk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Most of what is put forward in the section called "Public Opinion" seems to assess why people are held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change; however, but the viewpoints that are underrepresented are those that are not held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change, or, more specifically, what is underrepresented is what keeps these people from being held back: Is it just due to better education? Does it also have to do with idealogical and belief systems? Etc.
Example:
"A study assessed the public perception and actions to climate change, on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship. The author found the following barriers: cognition, ideological world views, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes."
But no paragraph about how these barriers have been overcome, how they are not met at all, or if they even have to be met by everyone.
Ryanaldrich3 ( talk) 04:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"There is a debate among those involved in social controversies surrounding climate change about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to people who doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change. Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics and describe their position as climate change skepticism. Their opponents, however, often prefer to call such people climate change deniers and to describe their position as climate change denial." From reference #3 Carlos Danger ( talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
dmcq - Frankly your tone already violates what is supposed to NPOV in my view. Using the term 'denier' to equate people skeptical of claims of catastrophic man-made global warming to equate with Holocaust deniers is the height of bias. SmoledMan 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove headline picture (right). There's much more information now about numbers of scientists maintaining healthy scepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming. One link which refers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/13/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-the-97-climate-consensus-is-a-fantasy/ Commonly cited figure now is 0.3% of all climate scientists are Alarmists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraphs of the History section aren't actually about denial at all but about the history of climate change science. Since the article about that is linked, I propose taking those paragraphs out. We don't actually have any denial occurring before 1979 - was there any? Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A todo: this paper analyses aspects of errors in contrarian papers, and provides links to other useful sources: cite [1] . . dave souza, talk 07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) formatted reference. . .
dave souza,
talk
07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)This article does not come across to me, reading it for the first time, as appropriately objective. Some examples of loaded language in the article include:
"Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none."
"the climate change denial industry"
"all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process" (do they? citation needed)
The various circumlocutions attempting to explain why people who would prefer to call themselves "skeptics " shouldn't be allowed to do so strike me as argumentative rather than informative.
"Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified" (When did Spencer Weart become the definitive authority on this point? Spencer Weart is a "noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics". How does this make him an authority in this area, who has the ability to claim that skepticism was "no longer justified"?)
The commentary on smoking / lung cancer is irrelevant and reads like a smear-by-association.
"These efforts succeeded in influencing public perception of climate science." Weart again. This man has a rather major influence on this article, out of proportion I think.
"Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small fringe group of climate deniers were no longer taken seriously at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in an agreement that 'we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis.'" The Guardian is a left-wing source, and not a few people would say that this "no longer taking seriously" was politically rather than scientifically motivated.
"Despite leaked emails during climategate, " -- surely this major scandal deserves more than a passing mention starting with "despite". Those people admitted to conspiracy to keep opposing views out of the scientific media. That is not a small thing. As the "climategate" article mentions, "The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data." Is that really such a small thing, worthy to be fobbed off with a slight mention starting with "despite"? Again from the "climategate" article -- "John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: 'these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.'" How does this not merit more coverage in this article? Surely a "denier" could look at the climategate fiasco and draw quite a bit of support for his own side from it, yet this article barely mentions it.
"The popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community as a whole." It does not take a genius to see that if the scientific community on this point trends left, and for years now has been unwilling to provide grants to those with views on the opposite side of the controversy, then of course they are not paying attention to skeptics. This is an argument without meaning or substance.
". . . seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship." Essentially this is namecalling, not argumentation. It says that if you have a differing opinion you have a psychological problem.
"manufacture doubt" and "Manufactured uncertainty over climate change" -- more loaded language.
"A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely"." See http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/climate-scientists-manipulated-temperatu . Possibly these beliefs are not without an appropriate foundation.
As someone who is, yes, skeptical, but who is trying to read on these topics, I find this article to be well below the standard of objectivity I normally see on Wikipedia. 71.121.193.107 ( talk) 21:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Global warming conspiracy theory has just been blanked and redirected here. I thought there would be more content there but looking at it again the article was pretty scanty and duplicated bits that are here, so I've no objections. I thought though people here might like to know. Dmcq ( talk) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the page should be edited by deleting the following paragraph in the Terminology section:
"In addition to explicit denial, social groups have shown implicit denial by accepting the scientific consensus, but failing to come to terms with its implications or take action to reduce the problem.[8] This was exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, where residents diverted their attention to other issues.[46]"
My rational is as follows: just because something is bad, doesn't mean that there is a rational basis for taking action. Every significant regulatory action taken by the US Federal Government for example requires a cost benefit analysis. I would like to cite the Wikipedia article on the economics of climate change [2] as an example of why there can be a rational basis for not doing anything (or more likely not doing very much at all even though the science is settled that climate change is occurring). The sources cited there have discount rates varying from 0% to 25%. A 0% discount rate implies that humans should do everything we can to prevent climate change while a rate above about 5-7% implies we should do nothing and a rate at the high end of 12-25% implies that climate change is likely beneficial from an economic perspective. Please note that the economic perspective is not the same as the environmental perspective. Someone could rationally choose to live in a far more polluted environment because of the economic advantages (just look at the rise of cities during the industrial revolution; obviously the tremendous problems with disease, pollution and so forth were outweighed by the economic opportunities that the cities offered at least for the people who moved to them and worked in the factories there.) Everything involves trade offs that vary from one person to another and action on climate change certainly falls in that category as well. People who have a rational basis for not doing anything about climate change (for example developing countries) shouldn't be classified as "climate deniers" any more than someone being called a "bad parent" for buying a junker car instead of a new 5 star crash rated vehicle with all the latest collision avoidance technology for a new teen driver. Mike7835 ( talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Supposedly there are people who hold the absurd position that Earth's climate does not change. If there are any such people then they should be identified. Otherwise the existence of these people should not be implied by this article. Terry Oldberg ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a WP:FORUM discussion based on personal opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
the two sources, 96 and 97 are behind a paywall, how can any one confirm the claim on the fact purported under the denial networks headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C201:4C18:8D0A:F06F:2F25:3B6A ( talk) 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change..." What is the definition of unwarranted doubt? Roberttherambler ( talk) 08:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The article states, "Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming stopped recently, a global warming hiatus, or that global temperatures are actually decreasing, leading to global cooling" but doesn't mention the mainstream viewpoint. There should be another sentence explaining the mainstream view. I know that readers are directed to Global warming hiatus but I think a short summarization in this article would be helpful. I will leave it to regular editors of this article to make any appropriate changes. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.
The problem here is that "climate change" has become a grab bag of loosely related propositions.
One should not be accused of being a climate change denier if one is nihilistic about human potential to remediate the wheels of fate already set in motion.
One could add "... to translate their acceptance into action, whether that be by attempting to forestall worsening of the situation, or laying in survival gear to ride out the inevitable calamity."
Only that isn't very encyclopedic sounding—mostly because the sentence I just modified wasn't exactly a winner in the first place, having overstated its case.
Much of the calamitization of climate change derives from "tipping point" rhetoric. Even if one believes in climate change, there can be skepticism about tipping point mechanics. And even if the tipping point is accepted, there's a choice to be made about whether to board the "precautionary" bus—attempting to ameliorate what "might" happen—or to hew to a more conservative "what seems reasonably incontrovertible" stance. And finally, there's scope for a divergence of opinion on the magnitude and urgency of the intervention demanded—supposing one believes an intervention could accomplish anything at all. Many scientists with outstanding credentials in environmental science seem to feel qualified to pontificate on intervention cost/benefit analysis. I have to admit that annoys me sometimes: it's the flip side of coin of buying into the buffet model, where it's just one giant theory joined at the hip, accepted or rejected wholesale; likewise, if you're qualified at one end, you're qualified for the whole deal. But it's actually not joined at the hip in that manner. There's an entire set of related propositions, each of which can reasonably be argued independently, on different expertise. — MaxEnt 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed some additions citing that fund as a source. I don't think we can count think tanks as reliable sources or just quote what they say - we need a reliable secondry source like a newspaper to say something about what they said I believe. Dmcq ( talk) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The reliable sources noticeboard which is good for resolving this type of problem is at WP:RSN. Dmcq ( talk) 16:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress defined a climate change denying legislator as any who:
- has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change;
- answered climate questions with the “ I'm not a scientist” dodge;
- claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming);
- failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or
- questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change. [1] [2]
Also
A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were members of the Republican Party. [1] [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
In the "Public sector" subsection:
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." [1] In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus. [2] The nonpartisan policy institute and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in a 2017 study of climate change denial in the United States Congress based on Senators' and Representatives' public statements, found 180 Senators and Representatives who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans. [3] [4]
References
Newsweek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The researchers classified as a denier any lawmaker who: has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change; answered climate questions with the "I'm not a scientist" dodge; claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming); failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Addition in bold. Here ThinkProgress is in the role of publisher of the report, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund is in the role of author of the report, "agency". The content is attributed in-text to the authors. The content is not in Wikipedia voice; Wikipedia is not saying that all the climate deniers in Congress are Republicans, we are saying that a recent report says so. The article covers organized climate change denial as an American phenomenon; it seems appropriate that the public sector section of Wikipedia's article on climate change denial might be able to point out the significant correlation of the subject with major US political party. Sources need not be neutral; many sources in this article are not neutral on the subject. (The other addition to the "Public sector" subsection is discussed separately below.) ECarlisle ( talk) 00:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Public sector" subsection:
President Obama often identified climate change as the greatest long-term threat facing the world. [1] [2] In 2015, environmentalist Bill McKibben accused Obama of "Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial", for his approval of oil-drilling permits in offshore Alaska. According to McKibben, the President has also "opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining." McKibben calls this "climate denial of the status quo sort", where the President denies "the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground." [3]
References
Proposed humble addition in bold. McKibben's views are relevant and serves the article as an excellent example which illustrate the issues with the wide range of interpretations of what "climate change denial" means. Here, we present McKibben's view that all that do not oppose all carbon extraction are deniers. Yes, some including McKibben were disappointed with Obama's response to climate change. However, including McKibben's accusation in the "public sector" subsection of this article without clarification may mislead our readers. Obama was in fact outspoken in acknowledging the threat of climate change, the most outspoken President in history on this issue, and was not generally considered a climate change denier, so to that extent McKibben's view is minority, and the summarization of the McKibben accusation source requires a little balance. ECarlisle ( talk) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the Terminology section there is a link to 'Face the Facts', which is a British radio show, not an advocacy group. Citation note 54 is a New York Times article which refers to 'Forecast the Facts' as the group in question. (They have since renamed themselves ClimateTruth.org). More messily, Citation 57 links to the old forecastthefacts.org website securely when no secure connection is available, yet is labelled Face the Facts petition.
213.249.254.59 ( talk) 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Apropos for editors here, a discussion on whether Ross McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial" is taking place at Talk:Ross_McKitrick#.22authored_works_on_climate_change_denial.22. It appears that some editors may use peripheral topics such as that one in line with an ongoing campaign to dilute terminology and institute their own preferred euphemistic language. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 17:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@ ECarlisle:Some citations have been added where it seems difficult to check the source. The sources seem okay but we should have some way of finding them.
Matthews, Chris (May 12, 2014). "Hardball With Chris Matthews for May 12, 2014". Hardball With Chris Matthews. MSNBC. NBC news.
"EARTH TALK: Still in denial about climate change". The Charleston Gazette. Charleston, West Virginia. December 22, 2014. p. 10.
Could you please put in a url parameter saying where you found these please rather than having people searching trying to find them using Google thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 23:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers, according to NBC News. [1] [2]
References
According to a survey by the Center for American Progress' Action Fund, more than 55 percent of congressional Republicans are climate change deniers. And it gets worse from there. They found that 77 percent of Republicans on the House Science Committee say they don't believe it in either. And that number balloons to an astounding 90 percent for all the party's leadership in Congress.
...a recent survey by the non-profit Center for American Progress found that some 58 percent of Republicans in the U.S. Congress still "refuse to accept climate change. Meanwhile, still others acknowledge the existence of global warming but cling to the scientifically debunked notion that the cause is natural forces, not greenhouse gas pollution by humans.
How would you summarize these sources? ECarlisle ( talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
So far I have no opinion on the content at issue (haven't looked at it yet). Just FYI-ing that policy already says offline WP:Reliable sources are just as good as online ones. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources. Whether text they support improves an articles is an entirely separate issue. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, the only current objections to the disputed text are based on weight. The think tank in question probably does congressional surveys on a regular basis, so one thing to bear in mind is chronology. As we look at sources, which specific survey is being discussed? That said, I was curious if survey results from this outfit are really as underreported as alleged? A quickie google search unrestricted to date popped up a couple more mainstream WP:Secondary sources right away, so with that I stopped looking. In my opinion the objections so far amount to handwaving based on personal editorial opinion. It would be more effective to find something that describes the survey's methodology.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
What defined a denier? The researchers classified as a denier any lawmaker who: has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change; answered climate questions with the "I'm not a scientist" dodge; claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming); failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change. Simply becoming a member of the Climate Solution Caucus did not remove the "denier" sobriquet from a lawmaker who had nevertheless denied climate change - it took a clear, recent statement accepting the scientific consensus for the researchers to remove them from the denier column.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Lately an awful lot of political material has been added to the economics section we have labeled public sector. That phrase seems to mean something other than the ideological perspectives of various political parties. I haven't studied the material itself, or its sources. Just saying this political material seems to have been added at a not-so-appropriate subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC) PS and for all I know, there was already political material in that section. Someone may want to take a fresh look at overall organization. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Another approach might be to overhaul Politics of global warming and after accomplishing that herculean feat return here, even better prepared to write a pithy summary with pointer to that article NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the title of the article from "climate change denial" to "climate change skepticism". The current title is a pejorative, and is usually the label given to climate change skeptics by those who are in favor of climate change policy. It is not the title which the climate change skeptics themselves accept. Actuarialninja ( talk) 15:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 17:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
By those who are in favor of climate change policyClimate Change is not only about politics and policies (although these are inevitable to face the issue), it actually occurs and there is overwhelming evidence that human activities are a factor. This being the scientific consensus, we can state this in Wikipedia's voice and also call denial of that evidence denial (as many reliable sources do). — Paleo Neonate – 23:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Well then what should we call the many who agree that human activities have some contribution to changes in the climate, but state uncertainty to how much can be attributed to man, or that climate policy is not a high priority issue among other priorities, or that climate legislation will not cause a significant change in the climate, or those who point to the discrepancy between climate models and temperature datasets etc. Unfortunately, many such people are also labeled "climate deniers" (indeed, the "Terminology" section of the article states that those who disagree on the extent or significance of anthropogenic warming are labeled as "deniers") despite having their findings published in esteemed scientific journals. Using the term "climate change skepticism" would provide a title that uses a term that the skeptics accept, and provides more neutral point of view, as the current title is pejorative. Actuarialninja ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mansnothotabc ( talk) 23:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
“we are basically throwing away money by not addressing the issue”(Rachel becke and angela chen 2017)
housekeeping, per WP:TPG no one owns section headings and all headings must be neutrally stated NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
None - NOT ONE - of the arguments presented by skeptics, many of whom are in fact scientists and specifically climate scientists has been presented in this article, which I would unabashedly describe as a complete disgrace to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. As it stands, I am ashamed of the donation I made this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.240 ( talk) 20:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you don't understand the meaning of denial. You say You want this article to exclude warranted doubts. So, just as I said, it's not an article about denial, it is a article about wrong denial, with the purpose to make equal denial and wrong. To which the reply is:
Having said that, I'm now doubtful that "contrarian" belongs within the definition. One can be contrarian without being a denialist. Shall we just take it out? William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Gem_fr has said "I don't know how to deal with the issue". First, and last, you read WP:Reliable sources and discuss possible article improvements based on those things. Instead, you're talking about POV behaviors based not on RSs but your own opinions. In addition, you have demonstrated a determination to not talk about RSs, for example in this comment (claiming you checked RSs for what IPCC said), and your silence regarding my reply (providing a link to IPCC AR5 WG2 SPM which says the opposite of what you claim they say). Since we're not engaged in talking about article improvements based on appropriate WP:WEIGHT given to WP:Reliable sources, I view this conversation as a WP:DISRUPT issue, and I propose we hat it as RS-free WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. I think everyone involved is on notice that DS under WP:ARBCC applies. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Factual error - lack of source Under Section: Arguments and positions on global warming
Proposition: please change X to Y. Current Statement (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures.” [no citation]
Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 9 days) compared that of CO2 (five to hundreds of years) suggesting that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures < https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm>.”
Additional reasoning:
Aside from discrepancies with data, the original statement may give readers the impression that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is at least greater than 100 years, which could cause confusion with scientific data regarding carbon deposition and ocean acidification. The original statement could suggest that current CO2 deposition and ocean acidification arises from pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 alone, which evidence suggests otherwise.
2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF ( talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC) 2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF ( talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
22:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In reference to previous edit (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing <111>.”
Source added in updated page is sufficient. My apologies, as the water vapor value in the last edit request was not found in the source page I linked - valid points raised by editors - this edit is to address the CO2 residence time listed.
Suggested Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (decades to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing <111>.”
NOTE: The updated source provided suggests CO2 residence times of decades to centuries.
Updated Source 111 - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
The linked Wikipedia Page: Greenhouses Gases - suggests decades to thousands of years - “Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[32] The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[33] This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[34] Although more than half of the CO2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[35] [36] [37] “
The IPCC report (listed in the previous edit) provides a range of 5 to 200 years for anthropogenically sourced CO2
NOTE: I declare no ideological motivations to these edits. I am a scientist/communicator and a woman listed this discrepancy on Wikipedia as evidence of Wikipedia being unreliable. I merely hope to contribute to continued improvement of a very useful site. 2601:18A:C681:69F1:B8A4:9745:11F0:DDCC ( talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. There is a page relating to this matter, entitled “Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Atmosphere.” I merely wish to change the information in the parentheses from (hundreds to thousands of years) to (decades to thousands of years). An appropriate page is already linked to the page and together with the current source just listed yesterday, I believe these are sufficient for those who seek further clarification on both water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. The suggested edit simply corrects a discrepancy with other Wikipedia pages (e.g. Greenhouse Gases) and linked sources. 130.132.173.41 ( talk) 01:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)This page states "This approach to downplay the significance of climate change were copied from tobacco lobbyists" and it does this without citing a source. Is there a basis for this claim? I know what the tobacco lobbyists did, and I know that some people have said they are similar (in that they are both trying to lie to the public), but this claim that they copied their approach from the tobacco lobbyists claims quite a bit more than that. I am wondering if there is a source for this claim or it should be removed. - Obsidi ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The denial networks section is more about public responses to climate change, and not on the various networks supporting climate change denial; there is discussion of these in the History section. I suggest most of the Denial Networks section can go to the section on Public Opinion Xcia0069 ( talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The extent that Heartland Institute is a main part of the climate denial network is not acknowledged. There is one section currently on a free climate denial pamphlet they sent educators but for decades Heartland has provided most elected officials in the United States with free climate denial newsletters, pamphlets, books, and videos. Most of the annual campaigns to influence lawmakers have been larger than the 200,000 booklets sent for that science educator campaign. In addition, there are annual conferences and occasional media blitzes. Elemming ( talk) 10:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million."
to "While reports have suggested that the income of climate change counter-movement-organizations approaches roughly $900 million, this was debunked yielding an actual aggregate figure around roughly $90 million over the past decade." [1] Strakajagr ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Are you kidding me? Did you read the article? The person with the "axe to grind" is disreputable original source. If you actually READ the Forbes article, you will note that this has NOTHING to do with science. The original article aggregates the money spent by conservative think tanks on global warming by allocating 100% of their annual funding to global warming. This is preposterous. Use your brain. The Forbes article simply decomposes think tank spending. The fact that you won't publish this is really solidifies the argument that the left absolutely suppresses intelligent arguments that do not align with their thinking. It's pretty absurd, but great proof. How exactly you have been granted this kind of authority on a site composed by and meant for the general public is beyond me.
You can tell your bosses you cost them a donation by me this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strakajagr ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The article describes the climate change denial, but does not explain the root causes of this denial. I think that such an explanation is relevant and due. I added a short paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation. I suggest that other contributors will add further explanations, based on psychology or social sciences. Lenmoly ( talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @ McSly:. I added a reliable source that underpins the entire short paragraph, when combined with the well-known basic theses of Marxism. Lenmoly ( talk) 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that the contents of Conservapedia are reliable. However, Conservapedia is a reliable source in the present context in the sense that it is a mouthpiece of the capitalist class. Lenmoly ( talk) 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I replaced Conservapedia with Forbes, a much more solid source. The role of the source is only to establish the fact that the capitalist class views the issue of global warming as a socialist conspiracy. When combined with the well-known theses of Marxism the version of the short paragraph I added now is well established and complies with Wikipedia's rules. The paragraph is of relevance and interest because it addresses the question of what causes the denial. Other explanations, apart of the Marxist one, are of interest too. Lenmoly ( talk) 01:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@ McSly: you tell me that "you don't seem to understand how sourcing works." So may I ask - is there any sourcing scheme that may open the door to adding a brief paragraph about the Marxist explanation of the phenomenon of climate change denial? If such a scheme exists, please guide me. However, I have a feeling that the door is being shut in front of my face when try to add a small piece of writing that does bring some added value to this article. I also think that citing other explanations of the denial phenomenon, e. g. according to the suggestion by Dmcq above, which mentions an Elesvier tome on the subject of Psychology and Climate Change, would bring added value to the article as well. Lenmoly ( talk) 14:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Dmcq: You raised the following question: "Do we know whether this Marxist idea has got weight compared to any other explanation?" I have suggested to include the Marxist explanation (properly supported by sources that show that this explanation indeed follows directly from the theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, under the prevailing circumstances) alongside other explanations. I propose to include all available interesting explanations that address the question of why the phenomenon of global warming denial persists so fervently. Lenmoly ( talk) 18:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Hob Gadling: The common premise here is that mainstream science is valid. We are speaking about the need for explaining the root and cause of the denial of mainstream science. Lenmoly ( talk) 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried to add a brief paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation for the phenomenon of widespread and fervent denial of global warming. My paragraph was removed, and no guidance was offered as to how to improve the paragraph so it would fit within the framework of of Wikipedia's rules. I claimed that the Marxist explanation, as well as any other non-simplistic explanation for the said phenomenon, would bring added value to the article. This claim of mine remained unanswered. Lenmoly ( talk) 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I ask your permission to add the following sentence to the article: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle." Lenmoly ( talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle" consists of two parts. The first part says as follows: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle". This statement is founded upon the article itself: The article says that "the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate." The article also says that "Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions". The article also says that "the scientific community had reached a broad consensus that the climate was warming, human activity was very likely the primary cause, and there would be significant consequences if the warming trend was not curbed". Hence, the first part of the proposed sentence is supported by the article itself. Consider now the second part, whose wording is "reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle". To establish this second part I have to cite reliable sources that substantiate the assertion that the Marxist notion of class struggle pertains to a major and crucial social struggle. Such sources are found within Wikipedia itself. The cited article about class conflict says that "The view that the class struggle provides the lever for radical social change for the majority is central to the work of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin." Thus, the proposed sentence is well founded upon reliable sources. Lenmoly ( talk) 22:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Dmcq, thank you for the interesting article by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. I removed the Marxist part from my proposed sentence. I retained only the first part and propped it up on the preceding text. The sentence now reads as follows: "It follows from the description above that the struggle between those who claim that anthropogenic global warming is taking place (with a high probability) and those who dismiss this claim is one of the major and crucial social struggles of the present era." I inserted this version into the article. Lenmoly ( talk) 17:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you say. Therefore I propose that instead of propping up my sentence (shortened version) on the preceding text I will cite the following source: "Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies", by Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, in Routlege Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Abingdon UK, Routledge 2010, edited by Constance Lever-Tracy, pages 240-259. Please let me have your response. Lenmoly ( talk) 13:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This article, first and foremost, makes a fallacious appeal to authority. Eugenics was once scientific consensus, after all.
Secondly, it's not fair to address the controversy over climate change without mentioning the failed predictions of climate change proponents, such as James Hansen saying that famines would increase worldwide when the exact opposite occurred. Another example, of course, would be the fact that storms have not increased in severity or frequency, as per the geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Qrowbranwen4205 ( talk) 14:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
new peer-reviewed research shows that there is a correlation between race and climate denial, "high levels of racial resentment are strongly correlated with reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2018.1457287?journalCode=fenp20 . Might be good to work it in.
Also someone above made the comment that "The article has a few very biased assertions, one being that there is a climate change denial industry", this claim has solid citations, for example:
Skinnytony1 ( talk) 12:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The website at www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html presents much data and numerous charts including one of the temperature cycles for the previous 10,0000 years. It demonstrates that the Earth is completing a hot period and is about to dive into another cooling period. The ancient Romans and those in the Medieval period had a hotter climate than ours.
How will the world claw back the money spent to prevent global warming when the worlds cools again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.111.209 ( talk) 20:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Tell us o supreme climate scientists, where is the 40 degrees by age 40 (40 by 40) you predicted twenty six years ago. I am over 40 now, and last I looked Sydney was not 40 degrees every day. What a massive fail climage change is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.34.201.158 ( talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is biased. Nantucketnoon ( talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|
There is a discussion at Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation about whether Ken Cuccinelli should be described as a climate science denier. You're invited to participate. R2 ( bleep) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Right at the top of the article Global warming controversy, they have the following cross-reference:
This article is about the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change. For denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus, see Climate change denial.
I think that this makes perfect sense. However, as nearly as I can tell, this article currently lacks any links at all to Global warming controversy, which is, technically a parent article. I propose that the following Cross-reference be added at the very top of this article:
This article is about the denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on climate change. For the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change, see Global warming controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.110.193 ( talk) 02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
We've degraded to CAPS and diatribes; nothing more is going to be said here that will improve the article.
|
---|
I propose improving the article by moving toward a more nearly neutral point of view by replacing the current third paragraph in the article with the following paragraph. The current third paragraph in the article speaks of scientific opinion as if there is no controversy on the issue of climate change when in fact there most certainly is. Professor Richard Linzen for one does not agree with the radical views of the Greens. Some scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change, [1] [2] Other scientific opinion such as that of Richard Lindzen on climate change is that it is based on computer models which are over simplified models of the real world and have not been verified as being correct. This skepticism is not a rhetorical device. [10] It is based on what a good scientist should do. Be skeptical. Make sure that none of the variables being ignored in the mathematical model have a significant effect on the results Avoid the use of fudge factors. Has the model been simplified just because excessive simplification is the only way that results can be obtained? The politics of global warming have been helped by climate change scientists who have shown skepticism of over simplified mathematical models, thereby retaining some degree of capitalism and private property rights. Those who dare to criticize the climate change hysteria do not rely on rhetorical tactics but instead base their skepticism on an understanding of the limitations of models in predicting long term world climate. There is certainly a scientific controversy since internationally renowned speaker, scientist, and author, Dr. Jay Lehr, has spoken eloquently on the errors of the computer models and MIT Professor Richard Lindzen has debunked the climate change hyseria. James Delingpole, author of "Watermelons, The Green Movement's True Colors," has discussed Climategate — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 ( talk • contribs) References
User talk:Dmcq, I suggest that you see WP:NPOV or perhaps WP:NPOV tutorial to learn what Wikipedia means by neutral point of view. You people attempt to suppress the many good scientist who disagree with the radical environmentalist by pretending there is no scientific controversy. The opinion of Professor Richard Lindzen, James Delingpole, and Jay Lehr shows that there is. You have a biased point of view. I have an objective unbiased, neutral point of view RHB100 ( talk) 23:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, as a licensed professional engineer, I would never use the unprofessional language you use above. The fact that you resort to such language tells me that Delingpole is a true professional who can't be criticized without resorting to unprofessional language. RHB100 ( talk) 02:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
WELL IF ALL YOU AlL YOU Al Gore lovers who think man is a cancer upon the earth are so sure about climate alarmism, why do you want to suppress the evidence? If you think that the work of Richard Lindzen, Jay Lehr, and Delingpole is wrong, why are you afraid of letting people see it. You spew your propaganda that all scientists think the same thing and that there is no scientific controversy. Yet when I show that outstanding scientists disagree with your proaganda, you jump in and try to suppress that opinion. RHB100 ( talk) 17:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
|
User:RHB100 you write "But of couse he represents a tiny minority viewpoint." Just where, in the whole history of science, has the majority lead the way? If you say that Giaever is in a minority then you say being in a minority is reason to ignore him.
In science it is always the dissenter who makes progress. Think of the resistence to Plate Tectonics; Heliocentic orbits and many many more!
Of course not all dissenters show a fruitful path, but very many do . . .
But are you secure enough in your knowledge to dismiss an idea because it is from a minority?-- Damorbel ( talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Not about improving this article. The initial comment should have been removed immediately.
|
---|
The article mentions that powerful lobby groups, big oil, industry etc. are investing heavy sums into lobbying for "climate denial". Yet, somehow, most of the mainstream media is firmly in the opposite camp. Can anyone explain this? Media conglomerates are usually NEVER in the camp that opposes big corporate interests (see military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, big pharma...) You won't find much opposition to military intenvervention in American mainstream media for example (conservative and liberal alike, in fact, currently, the "liberal" media beats the war drums the most). Or pleas for shorter prison sentences. So, why is there this disconnect regarding climate change between big business and the media? Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.78.216 ( talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article should not be called "climate change denial", it should be called "climate change skepticism". you can point out that climate change skeptics are often called "deniers", but that's due to politically charged language. i'm a firm believer of evolution, and i think there is way more evidence for evolution than climate change - because climate change tries to predict the future, but evolution already happened - but even so, i would not want to call religious people who question it "evolution deniers". that would be a political, opinionated view of mine. they are evolution skeptics. it would not be "neutral" to call them that. so this page clearly needs to be renamed and rewritten. also, i dont care one slightest bit about what "reliable sources" AKA political news outlets call them. i dont get my standards from OPED pieces and neither should wikipedia. just because something appears on biased media is constantly reinforced does not legitimize it due to that reason alone. PumpkinGoo ( talk) 17:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice attack on a very serious topic Mr: McSly. I thought that was clearly prohibited in the terms of use. The term Denier should be removed and only reference as a slight or derogatory term used by uninformed, indoctrinated or simply stupid people who cannot articulate their position on the failed hypothesis of 'global warming' your response is disgusting and condescending. I fear that wikipedia is indeed under represented by educated people and over represented by sad leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemaccutcheon ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Someone was keeping on removing this and the original removal said it wasn't justified by the sources. Looking at the citations at the end of the sentence they don't seem to be good cites for it though they might be okay for other things. It is social scientists like Dunlap who is cited earlier or Diethelm and McKee who are the basis of that. Perhaps the citations could be swapped over or something like that. Dmcq ( talk) 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Dmcq - OK, so the first para is four lines, which seem to be toward separate points. The first three are clear enough ....
But the intent with the fourth is unclear.
A natural association of "these positions" is to the closest, the line about lack-of-action. But if the association is about the Dunlop cite then that would be more clear to put it next to that line, and even better to make it a comma continuation instead of a period separate thought. Markbassett ( talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Can somebody untangle and better phrase the English of this header paragraph 3 close or convey something on the para topic (of denial impacts politics) that makes more sense ? The line reads "Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles."
Though I would prefer to delete it, I'll offer this as example of possible replacement: "Public debate on climate change commonly includes climate change denial positions." Any other suggestions or explanation of what the existing line was trying to say ? Markbassett ( talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Mark, for some reason you seem to be unable to grasp the point made by both sources, that denialists create a misleading image of controversy where there isn't any in science: that's relevant to this specific paragraph:
"Although scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the primary driver of climate change,[14][15] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[16][17][18] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[19][20]"
Three points: 1. uncontentious science, 2. efforts hindered by denial, 3. denialists pretend science is contentious by faking controversy. All ties together. .
dave souza,
talk
23:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Climate_change_denial#Denial_networks
Is there a need for this to be its own standalone sect ?
Can we keep the material, but merge it into another sect, for better organizational structure for our readers ?
Also, at present that sect seems to have a problem with WP:WORLDVIEW.
— Cirt ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
There is one "clarification needed tag" in sect Climate_change_denial#Denial_networks.
Can someone explain why this is tagged, and how to go about fixing this ?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jess phd ( talk) 08:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The page needs to address the actual debate behind global warming, not just insult those who disagree. Anthropomorphic climate change is not yet proven, and debate must continue until we have a true result one way or the other. just saying it is settled does not make it so. Temperature lags, Antarctic ice gains, solar activity, documented exaggerations and fraudulent studies to garner attention, failure of all weather models to predict temperature, the pause, and documented hiding of evidence by key study panels should be discussed. Otherwise climate change is a religion and not a science.
This edit adding a top hat note pointing to article "Global warming controversy" -- while certainly with good intentions to give our readers more information -- is not needed, for several reasons.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
For this article, I would like to add to the "denial networks" section where it is signified that clarification is needed. The specific sentence that I would like toe expand on reads , "A Pentagon report has pointed out how climate denial threatens national security.[89][clarification needed]". My plan is to further expand on that statement and providing readers with a clearer explanation of the concept. After researching and looking for reputable sources to reference, many articles and organizations agree that climate change is a threat to national security as it will directly affect the ability for our military to defend this country.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/23/3715200/bipartisan-security-experts-climate-change-threat/
Kmmnks ( talk) 04:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Kmmnks April 19, 2016
"
Hi,
I just want to pose a question, really, about the (77?) millions and millions. If one deducts all the campaign funding, is there anything left? I ask this because even if you are the Exxon-like entity E and have a strong motive for not wanting AGW to be true, the best outcome for E would be research that actually showed this. And so it would be rational for them to fund such research, and even to the benefit of all Mankind, if the science held up. This goes to researchers who (try to) do real science, collecting real data and constructing hypotheses and all that - for instance the guys of yore who looked into solar phenomena: they were wrong, and possibly supported by E, but were none of them "sincere"? I might be trying for a misguided attempt at real world AGF towards such people when I say that engaging in dead end research doesn't make them denialists.
Anyways, perhaps this is covered elsewhere and possibly all the millions went to campaigning, if so, then no problem.
T
88.89.219.147 (
talk)
00:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi As a Biologist myself, I too was surprised at the expectation of particular findings by the entity/entities funding a research project. It would be naïve to assume that funder A would be any different than funder B. I was one of the original "hippie" "tree huggers" but I have seen too many instances of data manipulation to fully accept either side of this religious war. 207.191.12.134 ( talk) 09:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
"Climate change denial" is an epithet used only by political activists to demean anyone who is skeptical of their views. Why have we allowed Wikipedia to buy in to this trope?
If I am wrong, then why is there no article on "Climate change skepticism"? Why does "Climate change skepticism" redirect to "Climate change denial"?
Indeed, the entire "climate change" topic is fraught with ill-defined memes which have the effect of steering discussion into a binary, either-or, debate. (Such memes include "climate change", "global warming", and their denialist counterparts.) While Wikipedia cannot ignore the existence of popular memes, they should be identified as memes (i.e. simple ideas popularly accepted as truisms), not as serious subjects.
Behind these memes, lie some serious subjects that do deserve study and understanding:
For each of these, there is considerable discussion and disagreement. In each area, those who disagree with the majority can be characterized as skeptics. That does not make them denialists.
Skepticism can be fueled by several factors:
The possibility of catastrophic climate change is a very serious subject. It deserves serious study and discussion. Wikipedia can aid this process by assembling relevant facts and analysis from authoritative sources.
The Wikipedia I believe in should be encouraging discussion on such a serious subject. This article attempts to shut it off. Frappyjohn ( talk) 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. I don't generally wade into climate change issues, but I noticed that over the last couple of days Frappyjohn has been converting links in other articles from climate change skepticism and global warming skeptics (which redirect here) to global warming skepticism (separate links). This is arguably circumventing community consensus (per this RfC). The relevant edits are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Frappyjohn's explanation is here. I'm cross-posting this at WP:Climate change; otherwise I'm staying out of this and leaving it to editors more familiar with the subject matter. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a funny article. Nominate for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 ( talk) 15:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am Michael Gary Wallace, the first scientist in modern times to demonstrate accurate forecasting of drought and pluvials, years in advance. My forecasting methods are uniquely successful in part because they exclude greenhouse gases as a causative factor. My method is thousands of times cheaper, faster, and better than emissions-based forecasting. My web site includes reproducible demonstrations such as at http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-continues-to-outperform-federal-and-un-ipcc-climate-projections/ which links to examples such as this: http://www.abeqas.com/mwa-demonstrates-proven-drought-forecasting-a-possible-first-in-the-climate-industry/
Either climate change deniers are misguided crackpots or climate change proponents are. Of the two, my forecasts are the only ones which are accurate. Typically when a scientist makes a projection that actually comes true, the scientist is not disregarded, ridiculed, or investigated for fraud by government agencies. In a sane world, those actions are reserved for the ones whose alarming projections fail to materialize. Somehow in the Wikipedia bubble and the societies, institutions, and businesses that it influences, the reverse holds sway.
But we both cannot be right. In that light, Wikipedia's efforts to pin true climate change innovations to this derogative term are impacting my business and professional environment in a most negative way.
Accordingly, unless you can somehow disprove my successes, Wikipedia (through this ad hominem page and other misrepresentations) appears to be actively interfering with interstate commerce clauses, my own constitutional right of free speech without the threat of criminal investigations, and other laws.
I recommend that Wikipedia cease this and related misrepresentations of climate change science as soon as possible. I issued this notification to Wikipedia via their lowly Talk page for the "Climate Change Denial" term on 24 August, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.69.110 ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The phrase above is from the current lede sentence of the taxonomy section. It implies that climate change is no longer disputed within the scientific community. Is this a view of Stefan Rahmstorf himself, or are we all agreed that this is a fact?
If climate change is disputed within the scientific community - e.g., by researchers who publish peer reviewed scientific papers - then perhaps we could clarify the sentence I cited.
But if there is no dispute whatsoever in the scientific community, that might need to be highlighted a bit earlier in the article. Unless I'm a few years behind in my reading, I daresay there are still a few scientists who oppose (what they call) the AGW. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Did I make my question clear enough? I was referring to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
So my question is whether there is any dispute within the scientific community about what is causing climate change or global warming (if I'm not using the terms correctly, please advise). -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the quick answers, but maybe I don't understand the terminology. I'm looking for the place in Wikipedia where I can read about the reasons that various scientists (in the minority of course!) have given for their opposition to the theory that most modern global warming is human-caused. I don't care about ideology, money, or politics; I only want to read about their scientific arguments against the AGW theory.
Or, I want to see a clear statement in Wikipedia that no one in the scientific community - not even a few dozen die-hard holdouts, still disputes the idea that most modern warming is human-caused. Am I asking a clear enough question, and am I in the right place to ask it? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this will probably have to wait a bit for time for a response but it sounds like a good addition eventually.
and it is quite funny too. Dmcq ( talk) 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ORIGINAL
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TEXT Anthropogenic Climate change denial, or Anthropogenic global warming denial, is part of global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, doubt or contrarian views which question or depart from scientific opinion on climate change. ( Anthropogenic meaning caused by humans)
Reason for Change request:-
To use proper descriptive unemotional language and avoid any language tending to push or give weight to a particular view or opinion.
For fully current referall, all the words "global warming" and links for "global warming controversy" might also be changed to insert "Anthropogenic" and replace "global warming " with "climate change" . Higgo888 ( talk) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Higgo888 ( talk) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
For your information: Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles,
The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy, Columbia University Press, 2016 (
ISBN
9780231177863).
128.178.189.94 (
talk)
07:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC).
Clicking it redirects here: /info/en/?search=Euclideon but I don't think its supposed to. 96.28.39.103 ( talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
@ Isambard Kingdom: thank you for your concern (( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Climate_change_denial&diff=748810854&oldid=748810560%7C]).
Still, I fail to see how 1) Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Climate_change_and_pollution, elaborating the views of possibly now the most notorious non scientist Climate change denier, and 2) Before the Flood (film) a film that documents climate change denial for more than half of its length, could not be 'directly relevant' in the see Also section. See also: WP:ALSO in case. Regards, --DPD ( t) 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm cool with what ever people want on this one. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
I found this article to be very one-sided. The article is protected, which is resulting in bias. I feel this article goes against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of view. Regardless of your personal views, I urge whoever protected this article to unprotect it, in the name of accuracy and reliability on such a controversial topic.
Thank you. (Did I do this right? First time.) Thanks Jim1138 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 ( talk) 03:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I asked for the article to be unlocked. I shouldn't have to ask for edits. 67.61.143.249 ( talk) 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Why was the "unwarranted" deleted from the intro? It is the most important difference between denial and skepticism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I deleted this image from the article, but the image was reverted by another editor.
First, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts states "don't use images for tables or charts". The image is just data. In this instance, an image isn't necessary.
Second, Wikipedia:Image use policy states:
Generally speaking, you should not contribute images consisting solely of formatted or unformatted text... In most cases these can instead be typed directly into an article.
It also states:
The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article.
In this instance, an editor took data and loaded it into an image meant explicitly to shock readers and bring attention to the article. An analogy would be to add this image to the article Stop Handgun Violence. A read of WP:IMPARTIAL and other nearby policies on that page shows that consensus has already been reached about this sort of editing. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "it's been here for a long time", though I was unable to find any policy or guideline which used longevity as a reason for keeping anything on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the purpose of images is to convey concepts to the reader and this particular image is conveying a proportion that is directly relevant to the topic, it should remain. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is interesting. The image is challenged by - surprise! - SkepticalScience (home of John Cook, who did the earlier lit review and came up with a slightly lower number). Here is their critique. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you need an image at the start the unabomber one at [5] would be much better. It illusttrates the topic, it is not made by a Wikipedia editor to push a POV, and it has no complaints against it by a scientist saying it presents the facts wrong. Dmcq ( talk) 13:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Magnolia677 and Dmcq that this data would be better typed directly into the article itself rather than as an image. Kind Tennis Fan ( talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe use this graph instead. It is based on the same data, but looks better. Scmresearcher ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the first sentence of the second paragraph:
"Campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming."
I am wondering if it could be inserted somewhere in the article who or what these "industrial, political and idealogical interests" are? I feel as though it is missing and it would be an effective contribution to fully flesh out the roots of "denialism" overall.
Ryanaldrich3 ( talk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Most of what is put forward in the section called "Public Opinion" seems to assess why people are held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change; however, but the viewpoints that are underrepresented are those that are not held back from understanding and therefore believing in climate change, or, more specifically, what is underrepresented is what keeps these people from being held back: Is it just due to better education? Does it also have to do with idealogical and belief systems? Etc.
Example:
"A study assessed the public perception and actions to climate change, on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship. The author found the following barriers: cognition, ideological world views, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes."
But no paragraph about how these barriers have been overcome, how they are not met at all, or if they even have to be met by everyone.
Ryanaldrich3 ( talk) 04:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"There is a debate among those involved in social controversies surrounding climate change about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to people who doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change. Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics and describe their position as climate change skepticism. Their opponents, however, often prefer to call such people climate change deniers and to describe their position as climate change denial." From reference #3 Carlos Danger ( talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
dmcq - Frankly your tone already violates what is supposed to NPOV in my view. Using the term 'denier' to equate people skeptical of claims of catastrophic man-made global warming to equate with Holocaust deniers is the height of bias. SmoledMan 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Remove headline picture (right). There's much more information now about numbers of scientists maintaining healthy scepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming. One link which refers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/13/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-the-97-climate-consensus-is-a-fantasy/ Commonly cited figure now is 0.3% of all climate scientists are Alarmists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dommoor ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraphs of the History section aren't actually about denial at all but about the history of climate change science. Since the article about that is linked, I propose taking those paragraphs out. We don't actually have any denial occurring before 1979 - was there any? Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
A todo: this paper analyses aspects of errors in contrarian papers, and provides links to other useful sources: cite [1] . . dave souza, talk 07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) formatted reference. . .
dave souza,
talk
07:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)This article does not come across to me, reading it for the first time, as appropriately objective. Some examples of loaded language in the article include:
"Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none."
"the climate change denial industry"
"all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process" (do they? citation needed)
The various circumlocutions attempting to explain why people who would prefer to call themselves "skeptics " shouldn't be allowed to do so strike me as argumentative rather than informative.
"Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified" (When did Spencer Weart become the definitive authority on this point? Spencer Weart is a "noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics". How does this make him an authority in this area, who has the ability to claim that skepticism was "no longer justified"?)
The commentary on smoking / lung cancer is irrelevant and reads like a smear-by-association.
"These efforts succeeded in influencing public perception of climate science." Weart again. This man has a rather major influence on this article, out of proportion I think.
"Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small fringe group of climate deniers were no longer taken seriously at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in an agreement that 'we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis.'" The Guardian is a left-wing source, and not a few people would say that this "no longer taking seriously" was politically rather than scientifically motivated.
"Despite leaked emails during climategate, " -- surely this major scandal deserves more than a passing mention starting with "despite". Those people admitted to conspiracy to keep opposing views out of the scientific media. That is not a small thing. As the "climategate" article mentions, "The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data." Is that really such a small thing, worthy to be fobbed off with a slight mention starting with "despite"? Again from the "climategate" article -- "John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: 'these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.'" How does this not merit more coverage in this article? Surely a "denier" could look at the climategate fiasco and draw quite a bit of support for his own side from it, yet this article barely mentions it.
"The popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community as a whole." It does not take a genius to see that if the scientific community on this point trends left, and for years now has been unwilling to provide grants to those with views on the opposite side of the controversy, then of course they are not paying attention to skeptics. This is an argument without meaning or substance.
". . . seven psychological barriers affecting the behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship." Essentially this is namecalling, not argumentation. It says that if you have a differing opinion you have a psychological problem.
"manufacture doubt" and "Manufactured uncertainty over climate change" -- more loaded language.
"A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely"." See http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/climate-scientists-manipulated-temperatu . Possibly these beliefs are not without an appropriate foundation.
As someone who is, yes, skeptical, but who is trying to read on these topics, I find this article to be well below the standard of objectivity I normally see on Wikipedia. 71.121.193.107 ( talk) 21:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Global warming conspiracy theory has just been blanked and redirected here. I thought there would be more content there but looking at it again the article was pretty scanty and duplicated bits that are here, so I've no objections. I thought though people here might like to know. Dmcq ( talk) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the page should be edited by deleting the following paragraph in the Terminology section:
"In addition to explicit denial, social groups have shown implicit denial by accepting the scientific consensus, but failing to come to terms with its implications or take action to reduce the problem.[8] This was exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, where residents diverted their attention to other issues.[46]"
My rational is as follows: just because something is bad, doesn't mean that there is a rational basis for taking action. Every significant regulatory action taken by the US Federal Government for example requires a cost benefit analysis. I would like to cite the Wikipedia article on the economics of climate change [2] as an example of why there can be a rational basis for not doing anything (or more likely not doing very much at all even though the science is settled that climate change is occurring). The sources cited there have discount rates varying from 0% to 25%. A 0% discount rate implies that humans should do everything we can to prevent climate change while a rate above about 5-7% implies we should do nothing and a rate at the high end of 12-25% implies that climate change is likely beneficial from an economic perspective. Please note that the economic perspective is not the same as the environmental perspective. Someone could rationally choose to live in a far more polluted environment because of the economic advantages (just look at the rise of cities during the industrial revolution; obviously the tremendous problems with disease, pollution and so forth were outweighed by the economic opportunities that the cities offered at least for the people who moved to them and worked in the factories there.) Everything involves trade offs that vary from one person to another and action on climate change certainly falls in that category as well. People who have a rational basis for not doing anything about climate change (for example developing countries) shouldn't be classified as "climate deniers" any more than someone being called a "bad parent" for buying a junker car instead of a new 5 star crash rated vehicle with all the latest collision avoidance technology for a new teen driver. Mike7835 ( talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Supposedly there are people who hold the absurd position that Earth's climate does not change. If there are any such people then they should be identified. Otherwise the existence of these people should not be implied by this article. Terry Oldberg ( talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a WP:FORUM discussion based on personal opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
the two sources, 96 and 97 are behind a paywall, how can any one confirm the claim on the fact purported under the denial networks headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C201:4C18:8D0A:F06F:2F25:3B6A ( talk) 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change..." What is the definition of unwarranted doubt? Roberttherambler ( talk) 08:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The article states, "Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming stopped recently, a global warming hiatus, or that global temperatures are actually decreasing, leading to global cooling" but doesn't mention the mainstream viewpoint. There should be another sentence explaining the mainstream view. I know that readers are directed to Global warming hiatus but I think a short summarization in this article would be helpful. I will leave it to regular editors of this article to make any appropriate changes. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate change denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.
The problem here is that "climate change" has become a grab bag of loosely related propositions.
One should not be accused of being a climate change denier if one is nihilistic about human potential to remediate the wheels of fate already set in motion.
One could add "... to translate their acceptance into action, whether that be by attempting to forestall worsening of the situation, or laying in survival gear to ride out the inevitable calamity."
Only that isn't very encyclopedic sounding—mostly because the sentence I just modified wasn't exactly a winner in the first place, having overstated its case.
Much of the calamitization of climate change derives from "tipping point" rhetoric. Even if one believes in climate change, there can be skepticism about tipping point mechanics. And even if the tipping point is accepted, there's a choice to be made about whether to board the "precautionary" bus—attempting to ameliorate what "might" happen—or to hew to a more conservative "what seems reasonably incontrovertible" stance. And finally, there's scope for a divergence of opinion on the magnitude and urgency of the intervention demanded—supposing one believes an intervention could accomplish anything at all. Many scientists with outstanding credentials in environmental science seem to feel qualified to pontificate on intervention cost/benefit analysis. I have to admit that annoys me sometimes: it's the flip side of coin of buying into the buffet model, where it's just one giant theory joined at the hip, accepted or rejected wholesale; likewise, if you're qualified at one end, you're qualified for the whole deal. But it's actually not joined at the hip in that manner. There's an entire set of related propositions, each of which can reasonably be argued independently, on different expertise. — MaxEnt 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed some additions citing that fund as a source. I don't think we can count think tanks as reliable sources or just quote what they say - we need a reliable secondry source like a newspaper to say something about what they said I believe. Dmcq ( talk) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The reliable sources noticeboard which is good for resolving this type of problem is at WP:RSN. Dmcq ( talk) 16:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress defined a climate change denying legislator as any who:
- has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change;
- answered climate questions with the “ I'm not a scientist” dodge;
- claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming);
- failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or
- questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change. [1] [2]
Also
A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were members of the Republican Party. [1] [2]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
In the "Public sector" subsection:
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." [1] In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus. [2] The nonpartisan policy institute and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in a 2017 study of climate change denial in the United States Congress based on Senators' and Representatives' public statements, found 180 Senators and Representatives who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans. [3] [4]
References
Newsweek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The researchers classified as a denier any lawmaker who: has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change; answered climate questions with the "I'm not a scientist" dodge; claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming); failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Addition in bold. Here ThinkProgress is in the role of publisher of the report, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund is in the role of author of the report, "agency". The content is attributed in-text to the authors. The content is not in Wikipedia voice; Wikipedia is not saying that all the climate deniers in Congress are Republicans, we are saying that a recent report says so. The article covers organized climate change denial as an American phenomenon; it seems appropriate that the public sector section of Wikipedia's article on climate change denial might be able to point out the significant correlation of the subject with major US political party. Sources need not be neutral; many sources in this article are not neutral on the subject. (The other addition to the "Public sector" subsection is discussed separately below.) ECarlisle ( talk) 00:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Public sector" subsection:
President Obama often identified climate change as the greatest long-term threat facing the world. [1] [2] In 2015, environmentalist Bill McKibben accused Obama of "Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial", for his approval of oil-drilling permits in offshore Alaska. According to McKibben, the President has also "opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining." McKibben calls this "climate denial of the status quo sort", where the President denies "the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground." [3]
References
Proposed humble addition in bold. McKibben's views are relevant and serves the article as an excellent example which illustrate the issues with the wide range of interpretations of what "climate change denial" means. Here, we present McKibben's view that all that do not oppose all carbon extraction are deniers. Yes, some including McKibben were disappointed with Obama's response to climate change. However, including McKibben's accusation in the "public sector" subsection of this article without clarification may mislead our readers. Obama was in fact outspoken in acknowledging the threat of climate change, the most outspoken President in history on this issue, and was not generally considered a climate change denier, so to that extent McKibben's view is minority, and the summarization of the McKibben accusation source requires a little balance. ECarlisle ( talk) 23:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the Terminology section there is a link to 'Face the Facts', which is a British radio show, not an advocacy group. Citation note 54 is a New York Times article which refers to 'Forecast the Facts' as the group in question. (They have since renamed themselves ClimateTruth.org). More messily, Citation 57 links to the old forecastthefacts.org website securely when no secure connection is available, yet is labelled Face the Facts petition.
213.249.254.59 ( talk) 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Apropos for editors here, a discussion on whether Ross McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial" is taking place at Talk:Ross_McKitrick#.22authored_works_on_climate_change_denial.22. It appears that some editors may use peripheral topics such as that one in line with an ongoing campaign to dilute terminology and institute their own preferred euphemistic language. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 17:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@ ECarlisle:Some citations have been added where it seems difficult to check the source. The sources seem okay but we should have some way of finding them.
Matthews, Chris (May 12, 2014). "Hardball With Chris Matthews for May 12, 2014". Hardball With Chris Matthews. MSNBC. NBC news.
"EARTH TALK: Still in denial about climate change". The Charleston Gazette. Charleston, West Virginia. December 22, 2014. p. 10.
Could you please put in a url parameter saying where you found these please rather than having people searching trying to find them using Google thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 23:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were climate change deniers, according to NBC News. [1] [2]
References
According to a survey by the Center for American Progress' Action Fund, more than 55 percent of congressional Republicans are climate change deniers. And it gets worse from there. They found that 77 percent of Republicans on the House Science Committee say they don't believe it in either. And that number balloons to an astounding 90 percent for all the party's leadership in Congress.
...a recent survey by the non-profit Center for American Progress found that some 58 percent of Republicans in the U.S. Congress still "refuse to accept climate change. Meanwhile, still others acknowledge the existence of global warming but cling to the scientifically debunked notion that the cause is natural forces, not greenhouse gas pollution by humans.
How would you summarize these sources? ECarlisle ( talk) 20:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
So far I have no opinion on the content at issue (haven't looked at it yet). Just FYI-ing that policy already says offline WP:Reliable sources are just as good as online ones. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources. Whether text they support improves an articles is an entirely separate issue. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, the only current objections to the disputed text are based on weight. The think tank in question probably does congressional surveys on a regular basis, so one thing to bear in mind is chronology. As we look at sources, which specific survey is being discussed? That said, I was curious if survey results from this outfit are really as underreported as alleged? A quickie google search unrestricted to date popped up a couple more mainstream WP:Secondary sources right away, so with that I stopped looking. In my opinion the objections so far amount to handwaving based on personal editorial opinion. It would be more effective to find something that describes the survey's methodology.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
What defined a denier? The researchers classified as a denier any lawmaker who: has questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change; answered climate questions with the "I'm not a scientist" dodge; claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming); failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change. Simply becoming a member of the Climate Solution Caucus did not remove the "denier" sobriquet from a lawmaker who had nevertheless denied climate change - it took a clear, recent statement accepting the scientific consensus for the researchers to remove them from the denier column.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Lately an awful lot of political material has been added to the economics section we have labeled public sector. That phrase seems to mean something other than the ideological perspectives of various political parties. I haven't studied the material itself, or its sources. Just saying this political material seems to have been added at a not-so-appropriate subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC) PS and for all I know, there was already political material in that section. Someone may want to take a fresh look at overall organization. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Another approach might be to overhaul Politics of global warming and after accomplishing that herculean feat return here, even better prepared to write a pithy summary with pointer to that article NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the title of the article from "climate change denial" to "climate change skepticism". The current title is a pejorative, and is usually the label given to climate change skeptics by those who are in favor of climate change policy. It is not the title which the climate change skeptics themselves accept. Actuarialninja ( talk) 15:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 17:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
By those who are in favor of climate change policyClimate Change is not only about politics and policies (although these are inevitable to face the issue), it actually occurs and there is overwhelming evidence that human activities are a factor. This being the scientific consensus, we can state this in Wikipedia's voice and also call denial of that evidence denial (as many reliable sources do). — Paleo Neonate – 23:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Well then what should we call the many who agree that human activities have some contribution to changes in the climate, but state uncertainty to how much can be attributed to man, or that climate policy is not a high priority issue among other priorities, or that climate legislation will not cause a significant change in the climate, or those who point to the discrepancy between climate models and temperature datasets etc. Unfortunately, many such people are also labeled "climate deniers" (indeed, the "Terminology" section of the article states that those who disagree on the extent or significance of anthropogenic warming are labeled as "deniers") despite having their findings published in esteemed scientific journals. Using the term "climate change skepticism" would provide a title that uses a term that the skeptics accept, and provides more neutral point of view, as the current title is pejorative. Actuarialninja ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mansnothotabc ( talk) 23:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
“we are basically throwing away money by not addressing the issue”(Rachel becke and angela chen 2017)
housekeeping, per WP:TPG no one owns section headings and all headings must be neutrally stated NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
None - NOT ONE - of the arguments presented by skeptics, many of whom are in fact scientists and specifically climate scientists has been presented in this article, which I would unabashedly describe as a complete disgrace to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. As it stands, I am ashamed of the donation I made this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.240 ( talk) 20:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you don't understand the meaning of denial. You say You want this article to exclude warranted doubts. So, just as I said, it's not an article about denial, it is a article about wrong denial, with the purpose to make equal denial and wrong. To which the reply is:
Having said that, I'm now doubtful that "contrarian" belongs within the definition. One can be contrarian without being a denialist. Shall we just take it out? William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Gem_fr has said "I don't know how to deal with the issue". First, and last, you read WP:Reliable sources and discuss possible article improvements based on those things. Instead, you're talking about POV behaviors based not on RSs but your own opinions. In addition, you have demonstrated a determination to not talk about RSs, for example in this comment (claiming you checked RSs for what IPCC said), and your silence regarding my reply (providing a link to IPCC AR5 WG2 SPM which says the opposite of what you claim they say). Since we're not engaged in talking about article improvements based on appropriate WP:WEIGHT given to WP:Reliable sources, I view this conversation as a WP:DISRUPT issue, and I propose we hat it as RS-free WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. I think everyone involved is on notice that DS under WP:ARBCC applies. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Factual error - lack of source Under Section: Arguments and positions on global warming
Proposition: please change X to Y. Current Statement (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures.” [no citation]
Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 9 days) compared that of CO2 (five to hundreds of years) suggesting that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures < https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm>.”
Additional reasoning:
Aside from discrepancies with data, the original statement may give readers the impression that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is at least greater than 100 years, which could cause confusion with scientific data regarding carbon deposition and ocean acidification. The original statement could suggest that current CO2 deposition and ocean acidification arises from pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 alone, which evidence suggests otherwise.
2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF ( talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC) 2600:1017:B009:D7C6:18A8:18F0:5E89:B4EF ( talk) 00:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
22:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In reference to previous edit (X): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (hundreds to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing <111>.”
Source added in updated page is sufficient. My apologies, as the water vapor value in the last edit request was not found in the source page I linked - valid points raised by editors - this edit is to address the CO2 residence time listed.
Suggested Change to (Y): “While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the scientific consensus is the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared that of CO2 (decades to thousands of years) means that CO2 is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing <111>.”
NOTE: The updated source provided suggests CO2 residence times of decades to centuries.
Updated Source 111 - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
The linked Wikipedia Page: Greenhouses Gases - suggests decades to thousands of years - “Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[32] The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[33] This figure accounts for CO2 molecules being removed from the atmosphere by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, and other processes. However, this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the geological reservoirs, which have slower characteristic rates.[34] Although more than half of the CO2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.[35] [36] [37] “
The IPCC report (listed in the previous edit) provides a range of 5 to 200 years for anthropogenically sourced CO2
NOTE: I declare no ideological motivations to these edits. I am a scientist/communicator and a woman listed this discrepancy on Wikipedia as evidence of Wikipedia being unreliable. I merely hope to contribute to continued improvement of a very useful site. 2601:18A:C681:69F1:B8A4:9745:11F0:DDCC ( talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. There is a page relating to this matter, entitled “Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Atmosphere.” I merely wish to change the information in the parentheses from (hundreds to thousands of years) to (decades to thousands of years). An appropriate page is already linked to the page and together with the current source just listed yesterday, I believe these are sufficient for those who seek further clarification on both water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. The suggested edit simply corrects a discrepancy with other Wikipedia pages (e.g. Greenhouse Gases) and linked sources. 130.132.173.41 ( talk) 01:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)This page states "This approach to downplay the significance of climate change were copied from tobacco lobbyists" and it does this without citing a source. Is there a basis for this claim? I know what the tobacco lobbyists did, and I know that some people have said they are similar (in that they are both trying to lie to the public), but this claim that they copied their approach from the tobacco lobbyists claims quite a bit more than that. I am wondering if there is a source for this claim or it should be removed. - Obsidi ( talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The denial networks section is more about public responses to climate change, and not on the various networks supporting climate change denial; there is discussion of these in the History section. I suggest most of the Denial Networks section can go to the section on Public Opinion Xcia0069 ( talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The extent that Heartland Institute is a main part of the climate denial network is not acknowledged. There is one section currently on a free climate denial pamphlet they sent educators but for decades Heartland has provided most elected officials in the United States with free climate denial newsletters, pamphlets, books, and videos. Most of the annual campaigns to influence lawmakers have been larger than the 200,000 booklets sent for that science educator campaign. In addition, there are annual conferences and occasional media blitzes. Elemming ( talk) 10:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Climate change denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million."
to "While reports have suggested that the income of climate change counter-movement-organizations approaches roughly $900 million, this was debunked yielding an actual aggregate figure around roughly $90 million over the past decade." [1] Strakajagr ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Are you kidding me? Did you read the article? The person with the "axe to grind" is disreputable original source. If you actually READ the Forbes article, you will note that this has NOTHING to do with science. The original article aggregates the money spent by conservative think tanks on global warming by allocating 100% of their annual funding to global warming. This is preposterous. Use your brain. The Forbes article simply decomposes think tank spending. The fact that you won't publish this is really solidifies the argument that the left absolutely suppresses intelligent arguments that do not align with their thinking. It's pretty absurd, but great proof. How exactly you have been granted this kind of authority on a site composed by and meant for the general public is beyond me.
You can tell your bosses you cost them a donation by me this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strakajagr ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The article describes the climate change denial, but does not explain the root causes of this denial. I think that such an explanation is relevant and due. I added a short paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation. I suggest that other contributors will add further explanations, based on psychology or social sciences. Lenmoly ( talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @ McSly:. I added a reliable source that underpins the entire short paragraph, when combined with the well-known basic theses of Marxism. Lenmoly ( talk) 00:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that the contents of Conservapedia are reliable. However, Conservapedia is a reliable source in the present context in the sense that it is a mouthpiece of the capitalist class. Lenmoly ( talk) 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I replaced Conservapedia with Forbes, a much more solid source. The role of the source is only to establish the fact that the capitalist class views the issue of global warming as a socialist conspiracy. When combined with the well-known theses of Marxism the version of the short paragraph I added now is well established and complies with Wikipedia's rules. The paragraph is of relevance and interest because it addresses the question of what causes the denial. Other explanations, apart of the Marxist one, are of interest too. Lenmoly ( talk) 01:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@ McSly: you tell me that "you don't seem to understand how sourcing works." So may I ask - is there any sourcing scheme that may open the door to adding a brief paragraph about the Marxist explanation of the phenomenon of climate change denial? If such a scheme exists, please guide me. However, I have a feeling that the door is being shut in front of my face when try to add a small piece of writing that does bring some added value to this article. I also think that citing other explanations of the denial phenomenon, e. g. according to the suggestion by Dmcq above, which mentions an Elesvier tome on the subject of Psychology and Climate Change, would bring added value to the article as well. Lenmoly ( talk) 14:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Dmcq: You raised the following question: "Do we know whether this Marxist idea has got weight compared to any other explanation?" I have suggested to include the Marxist explanation (properly supported by sources that show that this explanation indeed follows directly from the theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, under the prevailing circumstances) alongside other explanations. I propose to include all available interesting explanations that address the question of why the phenomenon of global warming denial persists so fervently. Lenmoly ( talk) 18:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Hob Gadling: The common premise here is that mainstream science is valid. We are speaking about the need for explaining the root and cause of the denial of mainstream science. Lenmoly ( talk) 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried to add a brief paragraph that provides the Marxist explanation for the phenomenon of widespread and fervent denial of global warming. My paragraph was removed, and no guidance was offered as to how to improve the paragraph so it would fit within the framework of of Wikipedia's rules. I claimed that the Marxist explanation, as well as any other non-simplistic explanation for the said phenomenon, would bring added value to the article. This claim of mine remained unanswered. Lenmoly ( talk) 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I ask your permission to add the following sentence to the article: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle." Lenmoly ( talk) 19:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle, reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle" consists of two parts. The first part says as follows: "The struggle between those who recognize global warming and those who deny it is a major and crucial struggle". This statement is founded upon the article itself: The article says that "the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate." The article also says that "Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions". The article also says that "the scientific community had reached a broad consensus that the climate was warming, human activity was very likely the primary cause, and there would be significant consequences if the warming trend was not curbed". Hence, the first part of the proposed sentence is supported by the article itself. Consider now the second part, whose wording is "reminiscent of the Marxist notion of class struggle". To establish this second part I have to cite reliable sources that substantiate the assertion that the Marxist notion of class struggle pertains to a major and crucial social struggle. Such sources are found within Wikipedia itself. The cited article about class conflict says that "The view that the class struggle provides the lever for radical social change for the majority is central to the work of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin." Thus, the proposed sentence is well founded upon reliable sources. Lenmoly ( talk) 22:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Dmcq, thank you for the interesting article by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. I removed the Marxist part from my proposed sentence. I retained only the first part and propped it up on the preceding text. The sentence now reads as follows: "It follows from the description above that the struggle between those who claim that anthropogenic global warming is taking place (with a high probability) and those who dismiss this claim is one of the major and crucial social struggles of the present era." I inserted this version into the article. Lenmoly ( talk) 17:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you say. Therefore I propose that instead of propping up my sentence (shortened version) on the preceding text I will cite the following source: "Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies", by Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, in Routlege Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Abingdon UK, Routledge 2010, edited by Constance Lever-Tracy, pages 240-259. Please let me have your response. Lenmoly ( talk) 13:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This article, first and foremost, makes a fallacious appeal to authority. Eugenics was once scientific consensus, after all.
Secondly, it's not fair to address the controversy over climate change without mentioning the failed predictions of climate change proponents, such as James Hansen saying that famines would increase worldwide when the exact opposite occurred. Another example, of course, would be the fact that storms have not increased in severity or frequency, as per the geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Qrowbranwen4205 ( talk) 14:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
new peer-reviewed research shows that there is a correlation between race and climate denial, "high levels of racial resentment are strongly correlated with reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2018.1457287?journalCode=fenp20 . Might be good to work it in.
Also someone above made the comment that "The article has a few very biased assertions, one being that there is a climate change denial industry", this claim has solid citations, for example:
Skinnytony1 ( talk) 12:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The website at www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html presents much data and numerous charts including one of the temperature cycles for the previous 10,0000 years. It demonstrates that the Earth is completing a hot period and is about to dive into another cooling period. The ancient Romans and those in the Medieval period had a hotter climate than ours.
How will the world claw back the money spent to prevent global warming when the worlds cools again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.111.209 ( talk) 20:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Tell us o supreme climate scientists, where is the 40 degrees by age 40 (40 by 40) you predicted twenty six years ago. I am over 40 now, and last I looked Sydney was not 40 degrees every day. What a massive fail climage change is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.34.201.158 ( talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is biased. Nantucketnoon ( talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|
There is a discussion at Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation about whether Ken Cuccinelli should be described as a climate science denier. You're invited to participate. R2 ( bleep) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Right at the top of the article Global warming controversy, they have the following cross-reference:
This article is about the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change. For denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus, see Climate change denial.
I think that this makes perfect sense. However, as nearly as I can tell, this article currently lacks any links at all to Global warming controversy, which is, technically a parent article. I propose that the following Cross-reference be added at the very top of this article:
This article is about the denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on climate change. For the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change, see Global warming controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.110.193 ( talk) 02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
We've degraded to CAPS and diatribes; nothing more is going to be said here that will improve the article.
|
---|
I propose improving the article by moving toward a more nearly neutral point of view by replacing the current third paragraph in the article with the following paragraph. The current third paragraph in the article speaks of scientific opinion as if there is no controversy on the issue of climate change when in fact there most certainly is. Professor Richard Linzen for one does not agree with the radical views of the Greens. Some scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change, [1] [2] Other scientific opinion such as that of Richard Lindzen on climate change is that it is based on computer models which are over simplified models of the real world and have not been verified as being correct. This skepticism is not a rhetorical device. [10] It is based on what a good scientist should do. Be skeptical. Make sure that none of the variables being ignored in the mathematical model have a significant effect on the results Avoid the use of fudge factors. Has the model been simplified just because excessive simplification is the only way that results can be obtained? The politics of global warming have been helped by climate change scientists who have shown skepticism of over simplified mathematical models, thereby retaining some degree of capitalism and private property rights. Those who dare to criticize the climate change hysteria do not rely on rhetorical tactics but instead base their skepticism on an understanding of the limitations of models in predicting long term world climate. There is certainly a scientific controversy since internationally renowned speaker, scientist, and author, Dr. Jay Lehr, has spoken eloquently on the errors of the computer models and MIT Professor Richard Lindzen has debunked the climate change hyseria. James Delingpole, author of "Watermelons, The Green Movement's True Colors," has discussed Climategate — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 ( talk • contribs) References
User talk:Dmcq, I suggest that you see WP:NPOV or perhaps WP:NPOV tutorial to learn what Wikipedia means by neutral point of view. You people attempt to suppress the many good scientist who disagree with the radical environmentalist by pretending there is no scientific controversy. The opinion of Professor Richard Lindzen, James Delingpole, and Jay Lehr shows that there is. You have a biased point of view. I have an objective unbiased, neutral point of view RHB100 ( talk) 23:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, as a licensed professional engineer, I would never use the unprofessional language you use above. The fact that you resort to such language tells me that Delingpole is a true professional who can't be criticized without resorting to unprofessional language. RHB100 ( talk) 02:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
WELL IF ALL YOU AlL YOU Al Gore lovers who think man is a cancer upon the earth are so sure about climate alarmism, why do you want to suppress the evidence? If you think that the work of Richard Lindzen, Jay Lehr, and Delingpole is wrong, why are you afraid of letting people see it. You spew your propaganda that all scientists think the same thing and that there is no scientific controversy. Yet when I show that outstanding scientists disagree with your proaganda, you jump in and try to suppress that opinion. RHB100 ( talk) 17:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
|
User:RHB100 you write "But of couse he represents a tiny minority viewpoint." Just where, in the whole history of science, has the majority lead the way? If you say that Giaever is in a minority then you say being in a minority is reason to ignore him.
In science it is always the dissenter who makes progress. Think of the resistence to Plate Tectonics; Heliocentic orbits and many many more!
Of course not all dissenters show a fruitful path, but very many do . . .
But are you secure enough in your knowledge to dismiss an idea because it is from a minority?-- Damorbel ( talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Not about improving this article. The initial comment should have been removed immediately.
|
---|
The article mentions that powerful lobby groups, big oil, industry etc. are investing heavy sums into lobbying for "climate denial". Yet, somehow, most of the mainstream media is firmly in the opposite camp. Can anyone explain this? Media conglomerates are usually NEVER in the camp that opposes big corporate interests (see military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, big pharma...) You won't find much opposition to military intenvervention in American mainstream media for example (conservative and liberal alike, in fact, currently, the "liberal" media beats the war drums the most). Or pleas for shorter prison sentences. So, why is there this disconnect regarding climate change between big business and the media? Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.78.216 ( talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Article talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article should not be called "climate change denial", it should be called "climate change skepticism". you can point out that climate change skeptics are often called "deniers", but that's due to politically charged language. i'm a firm believer of evolution, and i think there is way more evidence for evolution than climate change - because climate change tries to predict the future, but evolution already happened - but even so, i would not want to call religious people who question it "evolution deniers". that would be a political, opinionated view of mine. they are evolution skeptics. it would not be "neutral" to call them that. so this page clearly needs to be renamed and rewritten. also, i dont care one slightest bit about what "reliable sources" AKA political news outlets call them. i dont get my standards from OPED pieces and neither should wikipedia. just because something appears on biased media is constantly reinforced does not legitimize it due to that reason alone. PumpkinGoo ( talk) 17:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice attack on a very serious topic Mr: McSly. I thought that was clearly prohibited in the terms of use. The term Denier should be removed and only reference as a slight or derogatory term used by uninformed, indoctrinated or simply stupid people who cannot articulate their position on the failed hypothesis of 'global warming' your response is disgusting and condescending. I fear that wikipedia is indeed under represented by educated people and over represented by sad leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemaccutcheon ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|