![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Global warming controversy. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Per the discussion in the merge discussion, I will work on the article and get it up to standard, since skepticism and denialism are not the same. Please feel free to jump in and help. GregJackP Boomer! 03:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Ref name="Peter Woods">Woods, Peter (10 February 2010). Academic Questions. 23. Springer Science+Business Media,: 1.
doi:
DOI: 10.1007/s12129-009-9150-6
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j641v84113pm62m5/. The release onto the web by a hacker or whistleblower of emails and 15,000 lines of computer code from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has changed the debate over global warming.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)</ref>
(1) When different claims get bundled together, (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate, (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line, (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish, (5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent, (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented, (7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists, (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus, (9) When "scientists say" or "science says" is a common locution, (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies, (11) When the "consensus" is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible, (12) When we keep being told that there's a scientific consensus
...there is no consensus—except agreement there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system.
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.
It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates.
Will continue to add resources. Minor 4th 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Global warming controversy is the appropriate redirect. It is inappropriate to equate skeptics to "deniers", a pejorative political term. It's well established that the historic origin of "climate change denial" is by explicit analogy to Holocaust denial. See (forex) Climate_change_denial#Meanings_of_the_term -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I posted an RfC on this redirect at: Talk:Climate change denial#Redirects to this page. Please feel free to provide your input. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Global warming controversy. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Per the discussion in the merge discussion, I will work on the article and get it up to standard, since skepticism and denialism are not the same. Please feel free to jump in and help. GregJackP Boomer! 03:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Ref name="Peter Woods">Woods, Peter (10 February 2010). Academic Questions. 23. Springer Science+Business Media,: 1.
doi:
DOI: 10.1007/s12129-009-9150-6
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j641v84113pm62m5/. The release onto the web by a hacker or whistleblower of emails and 15,000 lines of computer code from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has changed the debate over global warming.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)</ref>
(1) When different claims get bundled together, (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate, (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line, (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish, (5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent, (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented, (7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists, (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus, (9) When "scientists say" or "science says" is a common locution, (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies, (11) When the "consensus" is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible, (12) When we keep being told that there's a scientific consensus
...there is no consensus—except agreement there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system.
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.
It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates.
Will continue to add resources. Minor 4th 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Global warming controversy is the appropriate redirect. It is inappropriate to equate skeptics to "deniers", a pejorative political term. It's well established that the historic origin of "climate change denial" is by explicit analogy to Holocaust denial. See (forex) Climate_change_denial#Meanings_of_the_term -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I posted an RfC on this redirect at: Talk:Climate change denial#Redirects to this page. Please feel free to provide your input. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)