This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Great Global Warming Swindle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
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. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was annoyed by this article, because after reading about an assertion made by the program I had to hunt through "Reactions from scientists" to see if there had been a response to it. It would be far more effective to group the claims and explanations together: if nothing else it would prevent readers from lazily assuming that everything claimed was false! -- Tom Edwards ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to object if I delete all the External Links except the first three? As far as I can see none of the ones which are already cited inline should be in, according to WP:EL. I was considering keeping the reference to the 176 page critique, but it's already cited inline in the appropriate place, and it is at least debatable whether it's sufficiently neutral to provide lots of background (which is apparently one of the main uses for External Links). I imagine sceptics would argue that it isn't neutral. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Beniaster ( talk · contribs) has twice deleted the bolded section of this quotation: " Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, and has close financial and organizational ties to ExxonMobil". The source is a Mother Jones article claiming that forty public policy groups working to undermine global warning are funded by ExxonMobil. How is this not relevant to the article? The relevant quotation from the source article is: "Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil. Between 2000 and 2003, the company gave $40,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which is registered to Milloy’s home address in Potomac, Maryland, according to IRS documents. ExxonMobil gave another $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute—also registered to Milloy’s residence." — C.Fred ( talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that my behavior here is sanction-worthy, then please feel free to pursue the appropriate avenues, with which you are familiar. I would be surprised if providing links to two reliable sources addressing a disputed point is sanctionable, but you never know. In beams-and-motes terms, you might want to correct your claim about a Monbiot "blog". I'm not sure where you came up with "blog" - the Guardian piece is an excerpt from his book, edited for publication. MastCell Talk 04:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I question the relevance of the following links in the "See also" section:
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The lede makes the uncited claim that "scientific organizations" criticized the work. I see nothing to support this in the article body. The closest I can find is that a single organization (The Royal Society) did so. Are there others or is this more overstatement? Fell Gleaming talk 11:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
After reading just the introduction to this article it was painfully clear why the ensuing combativeness. The article should be allowed to stand on the substantive content of the film itself without nuanced verbiage- which also persists throughout the article. Any Wikipedia article should be descriptive in nature. In this case the film is consequentially undermined with the language and presentation of the article in general, hence the dispute. It should be of no contest that scientists, by definition of privilege, determine the path of scientific pursuit of knowledge. The film’s very point is that in the case of climate change research, this privilege has been corrupted by ideology, research funding, and politics with negative global implications. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the implications put forth in the film is not the point. Usage of terms and concepts such as polemical, scientific opinion, scientific consensus, and excessive use of quotes undermines the substantive content of the film’s description. In effect, the language of the article and its content gives undue credence to the film’s opposition argument by drawing forth particulars that are issues of dispute and not adhering firming to the description. These particulars are the source of the contention and need not be in the article. I hope this is of some help. Dispelling37 ( talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's certainly not written with NPOV in mind. The "attitude" in this reply from "hans adler" says it all 212.69.38.4 ( talk) 11:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The film suggests ways in which scientific consensus can be influenced, whether or not the film is accurate. In fact, it doesn't matter the ways are actually done, or even possible to be done. I think the lede should include that the film mentions specifics, whether or not the film justifies them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What is in dispute? Are they saying that there is no consensus among scientists about AGW? Or is it a fact that there is a consensus, and are they saying that they disagree with it? Let's be clear. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The repeated use of the the term "denialist" belies the inherent bias of this coverage. Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis supported by data, not a metaphysical truth or a legal conclusion. Denial is a pejorative most often used to liken those with dissenting opinions as being similar in moral character to those who deny the existence of a European holocaust. Science is the process of using data to analyze and describe how things work or how they might work by constructing hypotheses, theories and forecasts. Science is advanced by more data and more debate, not by attempting to stifle dissent. 70.75.25.133 ( talk) 03:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just reverted an edit that removed one of the occurrences of the term, saying, 'Removed first sentence which used biased term "denier".' This article need not take any position of false balance over the matter. The facts of global warming are well known, and this film expressed an extreme WP:FRINGE stance. It would be wrong to make the views expressed by the film appear any more widely accepted than they are, by scholars in its field. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The facts of global warming do not appear to be well known. This is from a climate scientist quoted in a December 2022 article in the Washington Post:
"...the research inspired a flurry of follow-up studies that Swain expects will eventually clarify a link between climate change and cold-weather outbreaks."
“We’re 10 years into this conversation and there’s still a lot of mixed feelings in the scientific community..."
Earth's climate remains poorly understoodWrong. Parts of it remain poorly understood. Denialists pretend that all of it is, but the poor understanding is theirsand theirs alone.
this article is just one example of evidence that this is an ongoing scientific debateThere are lots of ongoing scientific debates, but the long-settled question whether climate change deniers are deniers or skeptics is not one of them. The article is not related to that question either. And the question is not a political one. Deniers are deniers because their claims are clearly false, and that is a scientific fact.
The hyperlink on reference 28 to :
Jones D; Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M (2007). ""The Great Global Warming Swindle": a critique.". Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Retrieved 2009-03-20
IS NOT WORKING (for me at least) !!!
This is sad as this would help to understand what is true not true in the arguments presented in the movie.
Brgds Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.98.68.196 ( talk) 09:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
In the criticism section of the article one can read
" In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:
All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.
"
I would like to stress that this is not correct . The Movies on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLTDscToOo&index=50&list=WL from 22:39 onwards show two important slides.I do not presume if their content is correct or not, but the fact is that data are up to 2000 and the expert judgment in the article and reproduced above is not fair as not "ALL the graphs stop "around 1980"" as the expert says in its critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.98.68.196 ( talk) 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Lockwood is used with various quotes, namely that global warming does not directly correlate to solar activity. I assume this is a biased quotation. Lockwood, inspired by the Swindle Film, did a study and stated 2007 that he wondered why no cooling took place as soon as then. According the study in question and the interview on the new scientist, all solar factors that should affect climate had performed an "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid eighties and pointed towards cooling. Lockwood has now (2013) been quoted recently (on Paul Hudsons blog) that a new Maunder minimum is on the way. His research must in so far not be misused as Turn state's evidence against any correlation between solar activity and climate. To the contrary, solar influence on climate (change) is just his field of research;). Serten ( talk) 17:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Great Global Warming Swindle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Great Global Warming Swindle. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
At least one link you added, " http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk", appears to lead to a page with essentially no content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on The Great Global Warming Swindle. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/4/parent/0/pid/4/t/publications/title/response-to-recent-documentary-the-great-global-warming-swindle-bamos-articleWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus." It is an oxymoron. It goes against the idea and the spirit of the scientific method. (If you doubt this then go look at the wiki page around the theory of the atom.) It should never be used in regards to anything scientific. It's use hints that the only argument one has is one of authority and not in the value of postulate and value of the evidence. A lot of scientists backing an incorrect theory doesn't make the theory correct. And how many times has that happened in the history of science? Too many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.32.50 ( talk) 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Argumentum ab auctoritate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.33.171 ( talk) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter who I am. It only matters that the article is based on reliable sources. That is why PaleoNeonate and I linked WP:RS, several times now. You should really read it. You should also read WP:OR. Its gist is that your reasoning on this Talk page does not matter. Can you please stop using this page for purposes it does not have? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The current language of the article inaccurately refers to "climate change deniers". Acknowledging the existence of climate change but attributing it to a different cause is obviously NOT denying climate change, regardless of what convoluted rationale someone may have come up with to support using the pejorative "denier" term. It may be denying that humans are having a major impact on the climate, but if that's what skeptics are denying, the nature of the denial should be specified, rather than just inaccurately accusing people of "denying climate change". It's like a Christian accusing someone of "denying Jesus" who didn't deny the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but merely denied that he was God or performed any supernatural miracles, which is quite different. Starchild ( talk) 05:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
That article doesn't address the point I raisedYes it does. What part exactly denialist deny does not matter to them. The essential point is that the result must be that the market is not regulated. They always choose the specific lie leading to that goal depending on what they expect the recipient will believe. If the recipient has no clue at all, they can tell him that the Earth is not warming at all; if the recipient knows that is false, they tell him that humans did not cause the warming and so on. The flavor of denialism is a minor detail.
Wikipedia has a bias problemNo, Wikipedia just follows the science and you do not. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
six stages of denial", a ladder model whereby deniers have over time conceded acceptance of points, while retreating to a position which still rejects the mainstream consensus:
[..]
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Great Global Warming Swindle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
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. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was annoyed by this article, because after reading about an assertion made by the program I had to hunt through "Reactions from scientists" to see if there had been a response to it. It would be far more effective to group the claims and explanations together: if nothing else it would prevent readers from lazily assuming that everything claimed was false! -- Tom Edwards ( talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to object if I delete all the External Links except the first three? As far as I can see none of the ones which are already cited inline should be in, according to WP:EL. I was considering keeping the reference to the 176 page critique, but it's already cited inline in the appropriate place, and it is at least debatable whether it's sufficiently neutral to provide lots of background (which is apparently one of the main uses for External Links). I imagine sceptics would argue that it isn't neutral. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Beniaster ( talk · contribs) has twice deleted the bolded section of this quotation: " Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, and has close financial and organizational ties to ExxonMobil". The source is a Mother Jones article claiming that forty public policy groups working to undermine global warning are funded by ExxonMobil. How is this not relevant to the article? The relevant quotation from the source article is: "Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil. Between 2000 and 2003, the company gave $40,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which is registered to Milloy’s home address in Potomac, Maryland, according to IRS documents. ExxonMobil gave another $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute—also registered to Milloy’s residence." — C.Fred ( talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that my behavior here is sanction-worthy, then please feel free to pursue the appropriate avenues, with which you are familiar. I would be surprised if providing links to two reliable sources addressing a disputed point is sanctionable, but you never know. In beams-and-motes terms, you might want to correct your claim about a Monbiot "blog". I'm not sure where you came up with "blog" - the Guardian piece is an excerpt from his book, edited for publication. MastCell Talk 04:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I question the relevance of the following links in the "See also" section:
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The lede makes the uncited claim that "scientific organizations" criticized the work. I see nothing to support this in the article body. The closest I can find is that a single organization (The Royal Society) did so. Are there others or is this more overstatement? Fell Gleaming talk 11:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
After reading just the introduction to this article it was painfully clear why the ensuing combativeness. The article should be allowed to stand on the substantive content of the film itself without nuanced verbiage- which also persists throughout the article. Any Wikipedia article should be descriptive in nature. In this case the film is consequentially undermined with the language and presentation of the article in general, hence the dispute. It should be of no contest that scientists, by definition of privilege, determine the path of scientific pursuit of knowledge. The film’s very point is that in the case of climate change research, this privilege has been corrupted by ideology, research funding, and politics with negative global implications. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the implications put forth in the film is not the point. Usage of terms and concepts such as polemical, scientific opinion, scientific consensus, and excessive use of quotes undermines the substantive content of the film’s description. In effect, the language of the article and its content gives undue credence to the film’s opposition argument by drawing forth particulars that are issues of dispute and not adhering firming to the description. These particulars are the source of the contention and need not be in the article. I hope this is of some help. Dispelling37 ( talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's certainly not written with NPOV in mind. The "attitude" in this reply from "hans adler" says it all 212.69.38.4 ( talk) 11:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The film suggests ways in which scientific consensus can be influenced, whether or not the film is accurate. In fact, it doesn't matter the ways are actually done, or even possible to be done. I think the lede should include that the film mentions specifics, whether or not the film justifies them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What is in dispute? Are they saying that there is no consensus among scientists about AGW? Or is it a fact that there is a consensus, and are they saying that they disagree with it? Let's be clear. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The repeated use of the the term "denialist" belies the inherent bias of this coverage. Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis supported by data, not a metaphysical truth or a legal conclusion. Denial is a pejorative most often used to liken those with dissenting opinions as being similar in moral character to those who deny the existence of a European holocaust. Science is the process of using data to analyze and describe how things work or how they might work by constructing hypotheses, theories and forecasts. Science is advanced by more data and more debate, not by attempting to stifle dissent. 70.75.25.133 ( talk) 03:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just reverted an edit that removed one of the occurrences of the term, saying, 'Removed first sentence which used biased term "denier".' This article need not take any position of false balance over the matter. The facts of global warming are well known, and this film expressed an extreme WP:FRINGE stance. It would be wrong to make the views expressed by the film appear any more widely accepted than they are, by scholars in its field. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The facts of global warming do not appear to be well known. This is from a climate scientist quoted in a December 2022 article in the Washington Post:
"...the research inspired a flurry of follow-up studies that Swain expects will eventually clarify a link between climate change and cold-weather outbreaks."
“We’re 10 years into this conversation and there’s still a lot of mixed feelings in the scientific community..."
Earth's climate remains poorly understoodWrong. Parts of it remain poorly understood. Denialists pretend that all of it is, but the poor understanding is theirsand theirs alone.
this article is just one example of evidence that this is an ongoing scientific debateThere are lots of ongoing scientific debates, but the long-settled question whether climate change deniers are deniers or skeptics is not one of them. The article is not related to that question either. And the question is not a political one. Deniers are deniers because their claims are clearly false, and that is a scientific fact.
The hyperlink on reference 28 to :
Jones D; Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M (2007). ""The Great Global Warming Swindle": a critique.". Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Retrieved 2009-03-20
IS NOT WORKING (for me at least) !!!
This is sad as this would help to understand what is true not true in the arguments presented in the movie.
Brgds Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.98.68.196 ( talk) 09:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
In the criticism section of the article one can read
" In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:
All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.
"
I would like to stress that this is not correct . The Movies on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLTDscToOo&index=50&list=WL from 22:39 onwards show two important slides.I do not presume if their content is correct or not, but the fact is that data are up to 2000 and the expert judgment in the article and reproduced above is not fair as not "ALL the graphs stop "around 1980"" as the expert says in its critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.98.68.196 ( talk) 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Lockwood is used with various quotes, namely that global warming does not directly correlate to solar activity. I assume this is a biased quotation. Lockwood, inspired by the Swindle Film, did a study and stated 2007 that he wondered why no cooling took place as soon as then. According the study in question and the interview on the new scientist, all solar factors that should affect climate had performed an "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid eighties and pointed towards cooling. Lockwood has now (2013) been quoted recently (on Paul Hudsons blog) that a new Maunder minimum is on the way. His research must in so far not be misused as Turn state's evidence against any correlation between solar activity and climate. To the contrary, solar influence on climate (change) is just his field of research;). Serten ( talk) 17:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Great Global Warming Swindle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Great Global Warming Swindle. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
At least one link you added, " http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk", appears to lead to a page with essentially no content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on The Great Global Warming Swindle. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/4/parent/0/pid/4/t/publications/title/response-to-recent-documentary-the-great-global-warming-swindle-bamos-articleWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus." It is an oxymoron. It goes against the idea and the spirit of the scientific method. (If you doubt this then go look at the wiki page around the theory of the atom.) It should never be used in regards to anything scientific. It's use hints that the only argument one has is one of authority and not in the value of postulate and value of the evidence. A lot of scientists backing an incorrect theory doesn't make the theory correct. And how many times has that happened in the history of science? Too many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.32.50 ( talk) 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Argumentum ab auctoritate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.33.171 ( talk) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter who I am. It only matters that the article is based on reliable sources. That is why PaleoNeonate and I linked WP:RS, several times now. You should really read it. You should also read WP:OR. Its gist is that your reasoning on this Talk page does not matter. Can you please stop using this page for purposes it does not have? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The current language of the article inaccurately refers to "climate change deniers". Acknowledging the existence of climate change but attributing it to a different cause is obviously NOT denying climate change, regardless of what convoluted rationale someone may have come up with to support using the pejorative "denier" term. It may be denying that humans are having a major impact on the climate, but if that's what skeptics are denying, the nature of the denial should be specified, rather than just inaccurately accusing people of "denying climate change". It's like a Christian accusing someone of "denying Jesus" who didn't deny the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but merely denied that he was God or performed any supernatural miracles, which is quite different. Starchild ( talk) 05:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
That article doesn't address the point I raisedYes it does. What part exactly denialist deny does not matter to them. The essential point is that the result must be that the market is not regulated. They always choose the specific lie leading to that goal depending on what they expect the recipient will believe. If the recipient has no clue at all, they can tell him that the Earth is not warming at all; if the recipient knows that is false, they tell him that humans did not cause the warming and so on. The flavor of denialism is a minor detail.
Wikipedia has a bias problemNo, Wikipedia just follows the science and you do not. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
six stages of denial", a ladder model whereby deniers have over time conceded acceptance of points, while retreating to a position which still rejects the mainstream consensus:
[..]
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.