Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:24, 9 August 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Until someone comments on the Talk page, I do not see how the {{npov}} template could possibly be appropriate! Ben Hocking 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

POV Fork

Isnt this a clear POV Fork instance? --Childhood's End 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Have just stumbled on to this article, I don't understand what you mean. Was it forked from Climate change skepticism? Is that what you mean by "POV Fork instance"? Ben Hocking 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the Climate Change Hysteria page. Anastrophe 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could create one, although I suppose you were trying to make some sort of statement with this comment since you posted it here. There are definitely people who exaggerate climate change problems, so as long as you find sourced, notable references, I don't know that the article would be deleted. Depending on how it was written, it could very likely garner a "npov" template of its own. However, AFAIK, such a template requires that editors, in good faith, first strive towards making an article NPOV by specifically mentioning what they think is POV and how it could be improved. Ben Hocking 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article is hopelessly POV, it needs to be submitted for deletion. Iceage77 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being redundant, what is POV about it? Which facts are you challenging and/or what wording would you like to see improved? Ben Hocking 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the title is POV for a start. We could get around this by saying "CCD is a pejorative term used by supporters of AGW theory in order to equate sceptics with holocaust deniers." However the rest of the article is merely a rehash of the "big oil" conspiracy theory which is already discussed at global warming controversy. Iceage77 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's an interesting take. Interestingly enough, the only people who I've known who have compared AGW "skeptics" with holocaust deniers are AGW "skeptics" (in the same context that you are now using it). As this article states, there is a distinction between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is someone who has an open mind and is trying to reach the truth the best way they know how. A denier is someone who is trying to spread misinformation because it helps support their checkbook and/or ideology. Granted, there is a certain amount of POV involved in distinguishing between the two, but to suggest that the terminology is intended to conjure up images of the holocaust is to "play the victim" in an effort to halt the conversation (Godwin the "thread", as it were). As for the "rehash" argument, how is that different from one main article pointing to other subarticles before providing a brief summary of that article? This article is new, help to improve it - I noticed that Anastrophe already has (and I agree with his change about removing the "alleged fact"). Ben Hocking 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Anastrophe, for your positive contributions in trying to make the article more NPOV. They are appreciated. Ben Hocking 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome, though i don't really believe the article warrants its own page. i'm generally anti-AGM, having formerly been merely skeptical of AGM, mostly due to http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_to_measure_temperature.html . UHI contaminated stations are poisoning the global temperature record, to the point that i'm now not even convinced that we *are* experiencing warming. but i digress. i think the article paints with a broad brush based upon allegations and conspiracy modes of thinking. i think the 'denial industry' is far less potent than it's made out to be by the article. Anastrophe 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the UHI, you should read the Misplaced Pages article on it, and how it relates to global warming. Perhaps that will at least alleviate your doubts that global warming is happening (if not the anthropogenic nature of it). I assume you do not doubt that the rapid increase in CO2 is primarily anthropogenic? Keep in mind that the blog you're linking to is just one person's opinion, and that person does not appear to have a solid scientific background with respect to climate science. Ben Hocking 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

• I don't see this as a POV fork. Global warming controversy is about the controversy; climate change denial is about an organized and reasonably well-documented effort to foster public perception of the issue as controversial.
• I agree with the NPOV tag. The article would be improved by citations defending or denying practices here imputed to ExxonMobil and others. Help?

Cyrusc 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Benhocking. If Iceage77 wants to challenge specific facts with credible sources, of course he/she should do so. The article is clear and encyclopedic about the use of the term "denial" and the citations offered legitimate the usage. The real POV issue is that we continue to describe climate change as "controversial" in the face of unprecedented scientific unanimity. But regardless of a paritcular editor's opinion (mine included), we should focus on the facts. I would be interested to see substantial sources refuting the assertions about climate change denial.Benzocane 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

well, for starters, can someone provide a citation for the first use of the term "climate change denial"? it's referenced as a formal term in the article and in the listed citations. *somebody* coined the term. therefore, a first use should be able to be cited, along with a citation for the description as provided in the opening paragraphs. otherwise, it's original research. Anastrophe 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if first use would be easy to find (or to show that it was indeed first), but I agree that notable use should be referenced. Ben Hocking 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree usage needs to be cited, but isn't it?Benzocane 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is! (And that's actually even evident from just looking at the references section, which I was obviously too lazy to do.) Ben Hocking 22:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Half of the sources used in this article are from The Guardian, which essentially comes to copy/paste Greenpeace flyers. So that's a bad start for referencing. There's also quite a number of weasel words (like the last phrase of the lede - '"often" groups with ties...') and material unsupported POVed allegations (such as 'the so-called "denial industry" is motivated to promote controversy and doubt' and that Exxon funds think tanks to contest climate change rather than to fund their inquiries of the science). That's only a really short review. --Childhood's End 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

cyrusc has added a reference for "denial industry", stating in summary "supply references per discussion". but that's not what a citation was requested for. "climate change denial" is not the same as "denial industry". Anastrophe 01:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Childhood's End's comment right above yours mentions "unsupported POVed allegations (such as 'the so-called 'denial industry'...", which is what I presume he was referring to. I agree it would be better if we could find more diversity of sources. If time permits tomorrow, I will attempt to follow some of the sources of The Guardian or find some other way of locating the supporting information. Ben Hocking 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I added two citations, one for the Guardian article "The Denial Industry" and one for "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'"--these were both already cited in the article. "Oil firms funds climate change 'denial'" opens with the line, "Lobby groups funded by the US oil industry are targeting Britain in a bid to play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists have warned." This, as I see it, is the "denial" in question. Anastrophe, can you be more specific about what kind of references you're looking for? Cyrusc 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is clearly in common and wide and the article is extensively sourced. One might dislike the phrase, but that doesn't erase it from the discourse. Cyrusc has gone out of his way to respond to the requests on this page. The point that "controversy" is at least as POV as denial, given the overwhelming scientific consensus remains unaddressed. I find it rather humorous that editors that deny climate change are attempting to deny an article about climate change denial! Have any of the facts in this entry been disputed? I would obviously not object to the inclusion of substantial sources contesting particular points. But in the absence of serious dispute, let's move on.Benzocane 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the article is actually about the 'denial industry'. much less so about climate change denial - it's only secondarily about that topic. you could substitute virtually any controversial topic for 'climate change', and drop in a near identical article. Anastrophe 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

hi anastrophe. The article includes myriad sources about the industrial funding of denial. So I'm not clear what you're objecting to at this point. Benzocane 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not clear how that counters my point. Anastrophe 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that what Benzocane is trying to say is that global warming denial primarily is about industry funding of denial. (Well, he's literally saying that he doesn't understand your point, so that would make it hard to counter.) If there are additional sources of denial, they would definitely be welcome here. Are you suggesting a name change to "The Global Warming Denial Industry"? Ben Hocking 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)what i'm suggesting is that wikipedia already has articles on

Denialism
Politics of global warming
Astroturfing
Fear, uncertainty and doubt

etc.. Shall we create articles for every instance of businesses attempting to influence public opinion? i look forward to the article on Palm oil health effects denial.

the problem i have with the article is that it does not reveal any information that is not already covered in other wikipedia articles, and in a more encyclopedic manner. Anastrophe 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of this material is mentioned in the entries you list, but it is not elaborated substantially, as it is here. There is plenty of precedent in Misplaced Pages for creating an entry to expand on an important issue that is referenced in entries of a higher level of generality. Why aren't you contesting, say, Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? Their opposition is of course noted in a variety of articles. Elaboration is not redundancy! Benzocane 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is more elaborated substantially is the old POV rhetoric that AGW skeptics are doing it for the money or because they're heretics. Rest is covered elsewhere. --Childhood's End 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, this issue is much more complex than "they're doing it for the money". Global Warming Controversy covers most of the real meat of this article. Zoomwsu 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it's a good thing we have an article where we can document the complexity then, right? (Also, Global Warming Controversy is currently a mess and could no doubt be improved by having more of its material separated into subarticles.) Ben Hocking 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

except that this article does not go into any greater complexity than "they're doing it for the money"! that's a large part of the argument for me. it is a litany, from asses to teakettles, of instances where ExxonMobil spent money to try to influence opinion on the topic at hand. this is no different from a thousand instances of businesses in some way attempting to modify public opinion about their industry, whether for "good" or "bad" (to wit, the sugar industry funds sites that exaggerate the possible risks and dangers of sugar substitutes; the sugar substitute industry funds sites that exaggerate the possible risks and dangers of sugar). Anastrophe 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the elaboration--the "litany"--as consisting of information far past the threshold of notability. (As do the major news sources and politicians who have weighed in on the controversy). I respect your opinion that this is business as usual, but I don't see why that means the article is either a POV violation or a candidate for deletion. What's wrong with Misplaced Pages documenting such dishonest PR efforts, no matter the industry? If there is strong evidence and extensive coverage of sugar industry manipulation, by all means that would justify new entries! Misplaced Pages has hundreds of entries on cartoon characters and minor American poets and urban legends. Why not advance those for deletion before articles treating massive corporate misinformation campaigns? And why focus on an article encyclopedic both in the quality of its prose and the extensiveness of its references?Benzocane 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is hopelessly POV and out of date

The article is out of date in that it pretends "big oil" and "big coal" are still funding climate research. All of the large firms, stopped funding research a year or two ago. The article is hopelessly POV in that the climate changes all the time. No one seriously denies that, not even "big oil" or "big coal." What is currently being denied by some scientists is that the current alarmism is justified or that the recent warming is predominantly the fault of anthropogenic CO2. These scientists include Pielke, McIntyre, Christy, Shaviv, Svensmark, Akasofu, Kukla, Giegengack and on and on. These guys have never taken money from "big oil" or "big coal." This article is attempting to ridicule a valid scientific position held by some of the most respected and prolific climate researchers on the planet, including professors of climate science at Ivy League schools. Cyrusc has evidently bought into the idea that "the science is settled." Nothing could be further from the truth. The more science that comes out the more we realize that this whole idea has been overblown. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, even according to Phil Jones. The PDO has switched to a cooler mode and South America is currently suffering through the coldest winter it has had in 90 years. And it turns out that a good many of the weather stations in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) are poorly sited due to land use/land ocver changes resulting in an artificial warming bias in the temperature record. See www.surfacestations.org to see some of the pictures for yourself. The weather stations are located right on top of parking lots and next to buildings with a/c exhaust blowing on them. See Instrumental temperature record for more information. The article should be speedy deleted. RonCram 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I recognize any of the other names from your list (and without first names, they might be hard to otherwise identify), but are you seriously suggesting that Stephen McIntyre, "the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited which merged with CGX Energy Inc., an oil and gas exploration company", has never taken money from "big oil"? Provide me with references for the other names on the list, and we'll see if that's equally true for them. I do not dispute that there are laypeople who exaggerate (i.e., misrepresent) the science, and that there is uncertainty in the extent of climate change, but without citations, you're not really helping. If you have more recent material, by all means, present it. As for the surface stations argument, check out the Misplaced Pages article on Satellite temperature measurements. Ben Hocking 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that some scientists oppose the consensus on climate change without being funded by major corporations in no way justifies the deletion of this article, which accurately tracks the history of corporate involvement in the claims of certain scientists. Also, if the links between corporations and scientists have been severed (a claim I would dispute, but that's neither here nor there), that doesn't mean the encyclopedia shouldn't record what transpired. By that standard, every historical entry would be "out of date!" Of course credible sources citing the end of corporate/political-funded denial should be included in the article and any innacuracy should be corrected. Finally, Ron's opinion about climate change (like mine) is irrelevant to an entry documenting "a public relations campaign promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining this scientific effort, such as groups with ties to the energy lobby."Benzocane 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article clearly presents a non-neutral point of view and should be deleted. Zoomwsu 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is non-neutral about the documented fact of Exxon et al's involvement in denying climate change science? Could you respond to any of the sourced assertions within the entry? Could you please respond to the link provided by Stephan? My hope is that we can move beyond polarization and start addressing the entry itself! Benzocane 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a) The sources (UK Guardian, NY Times, Climate Science Watch) are biased in support of the AGW orthodoxy.

b) The title "deniers" is biased itself, suggesting that Exxon et al's support of AGW critics is not legitimate. Why don't we judge the merits of the arguments and research they support, instead of who is funding it? Exxon's campaign against AGW does not necessarily imply anything underhanded or anti-science, whereas this article implies such nefarious motives. Exxon could simply be bringing to light scientific opinions and research that otherwise would have gone unnoticed were it not for their (admitted) self-interest. Zoomwsu 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a) The original sources for some of the evidence is Exxon itself. Surely that's a reliable source in this case?

b) Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf? After a few dozen demonstrations as to why the science behind denying AGW is faulty, it gets old. Furthermore, once the science is discredited, it is natural to ask, "what were the motives behind publishing faulty data/conclusions?" Ben Hocking 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BenHocking, Steve McIntyre never took money for research. He was a hard mineral exploration guy and had very limited contacts with an oil company when he sold out. They never funded his research into climate. Are you saying you have never heard of Roger A. Pielke, John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, George Kukla, Bob Giegengack. Perhaps you need to spend some time reading Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. BenHocking, I do not think of you as intentionally misleading, just as ill-informed. You might also benefit by spending some time reading Global warming controversy and try to spend some time actually understanding some of the issues. You also might spend some time reading this. Earlier studies indicate more than 12% of weather stations are poorly sited and subject to an artificial warming bias of more than 3 degrees. If this is accurate and averaged over the globe, more than half of the perceived warming is an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. SurfaceStations.org is auditing the U.S. network now and then will audit globally. Again, this article is ridiculing some of the leading climate scientists for a valid scientific position. It should be speedy deleted. RonCram 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It´s ironic and funny that the talk page to "Climate change denial" has become such a hotbed of, well, climate change denial. It's safe to say that the contributing authors of the article are familiar with the many sources of disinformation about climate change - hence the article. Envirocorrector 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm "ill-informed" when it comes to certain areas of denial. However, I'm informed enough to know that the criticisms of land surface temperature record are not well-founded, since those records are weighted, and, more importantly are supported by satellite temperature measurements. The Pielke name is somewhat familiar (presumably due to his stance on Global Warming), but the other names mean nothing to me. I suspect that you might benefit from reading more about Global warming and not just about the scientists who think it's not real/not anthropogenic/a good thing/will be fixed by peak oil and/or technological progress. Ben Hocking 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Point by point with respect to the scientists you mention:

• McIntyre: I find it hard to believe that the president/founder of an oil and gas exploration company had limited contacts with them.
• Pielke: "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Not exactly a climate change denier, then.
• Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
• Shaviv: I have read about his work before, after all, but the name did not stick in my head. This scientist is clearly a skeptic/denier and almost definitely not in the pocket of big oil, etc. Although his theory is unconventional, it should be falsifiable, and in fact, appears to have been falsified. It should be pointed out that contrary to what many in the AGW denial industry claim, Shaviv has received more publicity than he deserves exactly because he is going against the mainstream.
• Svensmark: See Shaviv.
• Akasofu: I'm skeptical that he's a skeptic (although I'm not denying it) since I see no evidence of it.
• Kukla: Similar to Shaviv and Svensmark, he seems to be a bonafide skeptic/denier of global warming.
• Giegengack: More of a skeptic than a denier, if you read what he says in the article you linked. He says Al Gore got the science wrong. Tell me something I don't know. To say that people are exaggerating global warming is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. You have to read the entire article before you can finally find out that he's skeptical about CO2's influence on global warming, and that it doesn't really matter because eventually it would be self-correcting and the world will survive without humans (presumably part of the self-correction is to get rid of humans).

Finally, note that skepticism and denial are two different things, as mentioned in this article. I see four deniers in that list (only one of which has ties to the oil industry), one skeptic, and one unknown. Ben Hocking 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Source

I don't have the time becoming involved in yet another climate page, espially if Ron is here (who take a lot of convincing ;-). However, I missed this source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the issue. --Stephan Schulz 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the useful link. I think the point is that this entry isn't about our personal views on climate change, but rather about the factual documentation of an effort to fund the denial of the scientific concensus. That effort took place, as the link you supply demonstrates, no matter if one agrees or disagrees with the science itself.Benzocane 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall there be a similar article which factually documents the determined effort to fund studies which support the AGW conclusion? I think someone above suggested the title Global Warming Hysteria. The fact that I'm even suggesting this should make you consider whether the current article should exist in the first place (it should not). Zoomwsu 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if there is evidence that science has been manipulated by interested institutions in order to support the AGW conclusion, that could be included here or in another article, so long as it meets encylopedic standards.Benzocane 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

What's the difference between ] and ]? Ben Hocking 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was listed at the top of the category (rather than alphabetically) to give it undue prominence. Iceage77 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just for the record, I copied that category from another article, and it was definitely not my intention to give it undue prominence. Hanlon's Razor definitely applies here. Ben Hocking 15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry for implying that. But it's normally done only for the main/title article in each cat. Iceage77 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is very valid!

Another fine piece on climate change denial from "America's gas price lady", via CNN web, look at the two bottom paragraphs: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/10/fa.lundberg.qa/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.68.145 (talk • contribs)

Once again, that is someone's opinion whom is related to gas/petrol that thus makes them biased. It is not fact, just a POV. Scarian 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory category

I'm guessing there's an impression that "conspiracy theory" implies wackiness, and obviously this impression is not invented out of whole cloth. However, in Iceage77's defense, aren't we talking about a conspiracy, or at least coming close to it? I suppose a well-documented conspiracy isn't necessarily a conspiracy, but that might be splitting hairs. At the very least, I think its validity for inclusion in that category should be discussed. Ben Hocking 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The essence of the article is that big oil is conspiring to keep the "truth" about global warming from the public. So the category is appropriate. Iceage77 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the essence is more that they're conspiring to distort the "truth" by inventing doubt, but your point remains valid. Rebuttal from those against inclusion in this category? Ben Hocking 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But isn't there evidence that major corporations did in fact fund denial of the scientific consensus -- whether or not you agree with or depart from that consensus -- as documented by the link Stephan mentions (and other in the article provided by Cyrusc)? This is my confusion: I of course respect the right of editors to form their own opinions about climate change and the legitimacy of one theory or another, but the question here is whether or not corporations like Exxon did in fact get involved. The UCS and other reports cited in the article need to be contested, in my opinion, for this article to be reduced to a "conspiracy theory." “Conspiracy theory” of course implies a lack of concrete evidence. I'm not just contesting the category -- I'm trying to understand the entire POV issue in the first place! I appreciate your thoughts...Benzocane 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the term "conspiracy theory" necessarily implies a lack of concrete evidence, although it is often used in that sense pejoratively. I think "conspiracy theory" merely means a theory (in the colloquial sense, of course) that there is a conspiracy. That would seem to fit here, despite the negative connotations. Conspiracy theories aren't necessarily wrong. They usually are, but not always. Ben Hocking 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If Exxon et al did in fact fund the denial, and that's the evidence I see in the entry, what's theoretical about the conspiracy?Benzocane 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A valid question, but does theoretical necessarily imply uncertain? Also, have you demonstrated conspiracy or just complicity? (Of course, I'm not sure that we're necessarily arguing conspiracy here, either, so I suppose that point could just as easily be turned against inclusion in the category.) Ben Hocking 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good questions. My sense is that we shouldn't describe something as a conspiracy theory when the evidence supports the actuality. Otherwise what's to prevent any fact from being redescribed as a theory by those who find it inconvenient? The specific denotation of a "conspiracy theory" is that the reality is unproven. But isn't the evidence to the contrary here? Has anybody shown that the various references in the article aren't credible? I don't have a theory that Tobacco companies funded studies to dispute the ill effects of cigarettes; we have the evidence. Isn't that the relevant analogy? Thanks for your thoughts.Benzocane 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, being a scientist, I think theories are pretty dandy things (but we are not talking about those kinds of theories). Obviously, I never felt that strongly about it in the first place (and just as clearly, I hope, I agree that the evidence has been documented), so I will let Iceage77 address your concerns. Ben Hocking 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that this article survived, I think at least it ought to be categorized in the conspiracy theories. Unless I missed something, there is no hard facts to show that the mentioned organizations are funding scientists with the intent of disinforming the public - the sources are limited to opinions and editorials, mostly from partisan publications, which suppose of some profitable scheme, but that's it. The alleged aim of "promoting controversy and doubt" is quite different from the admitted aim of "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours". --Childhood's End 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. You're simply repeating the false claims you have made elsewhere on this talk page and on the AFD nom. To wit - the facts presented here are real and verifiable from reliable sources (including the NY times, the Washington Post, etc). The Newsweek quote makes it very clear that, your own false claims not withstanding, climate change denial is a real and funded by industries with a vested interest in manufacturing doubt. Raul654 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for this other passionnate global warming advertisement, but which of my claims above do you pretend to be false? I find this accusation quite spurious. Can you even address my point (provided you cared to read it)? --Childhood's End 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's just a sampling from the BS you have been planting all over this talk page:

• False claim by childhoodsend #1
  • Childhoodsend claims: "there is no hard facts to show that the mentioned organizations are funding scientists with the intent of disinforming the public"
  • Reality (according to the newsweek quote): "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists... argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless."

• False claim by childhoodsend #2
  • Childhoodsend claims: A subject is deemed not notable if it is only covered by partisan sources.
  • Reality: Sources used in this article include the Guardian, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Royal Society.

• False claim by childhoodsend #3
  • Childhoodsend claims: This stuff is George Monbiot's pet, offers no source to check if what these theories say is true or verifiable
  • Reality: See the sources listed in response to false claim #2

• False claim by childhoodsend #4
  • Childhoodsend claims: "...No explanation has been given as to how it amounts to climate change denial rather than simply communicating scientific skepticism "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists... to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate"
  • See newsweek quote (in reply to false claim #1)

Perhaps this will enlighten you. Raul654 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Climate change exaggerators

What about the AGW proponents who manufacture consensus? Aren't they just as bad as people who unfairly sow doubt? Or are you letting your personal biases against "big energy" drive support of this clearly biased article? Zoomwsu 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not relying on personal biases; I am relying on the sources provided in the entry--I am relying on the only documentation that has been presented in these discussions. Of course if you have evidence from credible sources regarding how "AGW proponents" have distorted the concensus, I would like to see them! Perhaps they could be integrated into this entry. Let's assume good faith and let the facts speak! Benzocane 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Climate change denial". I think that if there is a notable body of evidence that there is a collection of AGW proponents who are manufacturing false consensus (e.g., exaggerating its effects), then that should be in its own article. A link from here to there in a "see also" kind of way would be wholly appropriate. Ben Hocking 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

this is where the whole argument that this is adequately covered under Global warming controversy arises from. we can keep subdividing general topics into infinitely finer entities, but the coherence and relevance is gradually lost. shall we have a separate article on Exxon promulgation of climate change denial, then one on Mobil promulgation of climate change denial, and of course Mother Jones magazine enumerated listing of Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil instances of promulgation of climate change denial, then ExxonMobil promulgation of climate change denial via websites, then ExxonMobil promulgation of climate change denial via print media and so on and on and on? Anastrophe 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I fully concur with your opinion. This information is much more appropriate on the Global Warming Controversy page. Zoomwsu 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is sufficient information to generate such articles (major "if"), than yes. Why not? The coherence or relevance of this article does not seem to be dependent on what other articles say. In fact, by keeping it on-topic (and limiting the scope of the topic), it becomes more coherent and not less. Should we get rid of Geography of the United States because it's already somewhat covered in United States? No, because limiting the scope of the topic makes it more coherent. Ben Hocking 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Benhocking for two main reasons. 1) Elaboration does not = redundancy, as I've argued above. There are countless precedents vetted by the community where the length of a general article is kept manageable by the creation of subsidiary articles. Do Zoomwsu and Anastrophe agree we should delete articles such as Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and all related entries? Or does this standard only apply to articles that reflect a position that differs from their personal opinion? 2) No serious argument has been made against the notability of the information contained in this entry. Again, how is it that we can have such extensive discussion on this page without anybody actually challenging the encyclopedic documentation presented within the entry?Benzocane 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's Stick to Science

In almost all the other GW articles, we stick to scientific facts supported by reliable sources. Because GW is a scientific issue, it would be prudent to stick to the science. Articles like this are obviously biased. This polarizes the audience, muddles real, productive discussion and makes it difficult for readers to seperate real facts from opinions masquerading as facts. This article should be deleted! Zoomwsu 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Let's stick to the facts. Do you dispute any of the citations in this article? If so, which ones? I see on the one side, extensive citations documenting Exxon et al's involvement in the denial campagin. On the other I just see people claiming that such documentation is "obviously biased." Now that we agree that we need facts and reliable sources, let's proceed! Benzocane 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of the language of "denial" itself is a major problem. But addressing the reliable source issue: I'm sorry, but the UK Guardian, New York Times and Climate Science Watch are not RS when it comes to the issue of climate change. Remove their citations and almost the entire article goes bye-bye. Zoomwsu 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Although GW is a scientific issue, there are plenty of facts worthy of discussion that are political and not scientific. For example, the decision by the current administration to selectively excise text from scientific documents for political reasons. This is a documented, important fact, but it's not science. Ben Hocking 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but putting under a heading of "Denial" and not also referencing the Administration's own justifications and positions on equal footing clearly make this a biased article. Zoomwsu 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Have they provided any justification for the redactions? If so, I agree we should include it. If not, how is it biased that we don't include it? Ben Hocking 18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you include the Administration's position on the issue, it will contribute to making this article less biased. However, it does not address the fundamental point of putting such information under a heading called "Denial".

So, we´re not supposed to cite the Guardian or the New York Times? That's a new one on me. Those are both highly respected sources of thoroughly-researched information, and to pretend otherwise because you disagree is the height of arrogance. As stated over and over again by other editors, if you can source another side of this issue with strong sources (Fox News may be your only hope), feel free to contribute productively. Envirocorrector 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Hysteria

On a broader note, who here objects to a Global Warming Hysteria article that is similar in nature to this one? Zoomwsu 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

well, nobody can really object before the article exists. the only reasonable objection is one formulated after the article exists, based upon the article's relevance, coherence, NPOV, and encyclopedic quality, among a host of other things. Anastrophe 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe. Ben Hocking 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would go with Global Warming alarmism, since hysteria might carry more information than you want. But if you can cite it, you can write it. Surely there exist organized, politically or financially-motivated efforts to exaggerate the threat of climate change, and covering these in an accurate and verifiable way would do the encyclopedia a service. Cyrusc 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If such an article was created, even if it was just started with a list of some of the more extreme newpaper headlines. Then to make it more equivilent to this article you would need to track some of these to some organisation(s) (preferably politically or financially-motivated organisations). When that has been done then perhaps we should consider merging them into one article for Global Warming denial and alarmism so as to attempt to give appropriate length/weight to the scale of the issue on each side.

It might not be difficult to find a financially motivated organisation giving out alarmist views, as a newspaper could be such an organisation. I might query whether an overhyped newspaper is truely equivalent to the 'denial industry' documented here and if there are other newspapers that take opposite extreme views it may be appropriate to move that to something like Bad media reporting of climate issues. If something more substantial than that has been documented then this article shouldn't be allowed without presenting this other side. If it hasn't been documented that doesn't mean this article should not exist until it has been documented. This article seems to me to be much more than just one sided opinion and should stay. I also agree we cannot try to judge whether Global Warming alarmism should be deleted until we see what material it contains but I don't see any reason to object to it on principal. crandles 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After careful consideration of the comments expressed here, I've been convinced the article should remain. However, I do so with certain reservation. The first is, I still believe this article is too POV. Presenting sources like the Guardian and particularly, the NY Times, without some balance is a problem. I know there are sources out there that will present this in a more fair light, I just don't have the time to research nor the knowledge of what these sources are. I think there should be language and links that refer to this in the context of corporate public relations. It shouldn't surprise anyone that companies are engaging in public relations campaigns. It's also important to find sources that judge the results of these public relations efforts (i.e. studies) on their own merits, rather than by the self-interest of the financier. Further sourcing should be done regarding the opinions and statements of those who, paraphrasing the words of someone above, "deny the deniers"--What does ExxonMobil have to say? The broader issue is this, though: this article has the general feeling of a hit piece and I think that's why many here a problem with it. Zoomwsu 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV" rewrite of intro

I object to Iceage77's rewrite. I do not think the term "denial" is expressly pejorative--it is simply the most accurate term to describe the issue, viz. funded, organized denial of scientific findings. Let me restate that references to Godwin's Law etc. are coming from outside the article and appear to be conclusions based on original research. Cyrusc 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any scientists who deny climate change. It is generally accepted by scientists that the earth's climate is always changing, and has done throughout history. It is proponents of AGW who use this term (inaccurately and pejoratively) to describe those who are sceptical of AGW theory. Iceage77 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust assertion is out of line and warrants no response save deletion. "Pejorative"is POV; the article derives its title exclusively from unchallenged sources. The term is not pejorative if the evidence is correct; the term is accurate. Again, this isn't about editors' opinions of climate change science, this is about a well documented and uncontested misinformation campaign. Iceage77, denial is the term used in the citations. Are you claiming your opinion trumps all the citations provided?Benzocane 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers

Removed the following:

It may be intended to invite comparison with Holocaust denial.

as it appears quite inflammatory and the may be intended lacks a bit. The "reference" is a blog discussing a columnists comment. Seems not to belong, especially not in the lead. Vsmith 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. We can say that certain people have compared this terminology with holocaust denial. Plenty of references for this. Iceage77 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. denying that the comparison has been made falls loosely into denial denial denial. *who* made the comparison is irrelevant, as we aren't here to impute motive. Ellen Goodman originally wrote "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers", and she was did not make that statement as a means of denial denial .Anastrophe 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether anybody has ever said that the denial of climate change parallels holocaust denial, but whether or not that comparison is noteworthy in an encyclopedia entry relating to the misinformation campaign. It has no bearing on the denial industry, which Anastrophe has agreed is the subject of this entry. Its placement in the article serves no function except to deflect attention from the industry onto a regrettable comment made by individuals unrelated to the subject at hand.Benzocane 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

you're misrepresenting my comments. i've never "agreed" that the subject of this article is "the denial industry", i'm the one who first pointed that out, and suggested that *that* would be a more appropriate title, with an expansion to include manifold examples of same for other issues and topics. the inclusion of the comparison to holocaust deniers serves the function of reporting that the term is not without controversy. refusal to include mention of that comparison merely shows that the article is not NPOV - your - and others' - intent is to suggest that 'climate change denial' is a widely and uncritically accepted term.Anastrophe 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So true Benzocane. Envirocorrector 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A better link would be the Boston columnists' column itself. Right now we're talking about hearsay on a blog. If someone can find the original article, I think it's worthy of inclusion - but probably not as the lede - unless it can be worked in seamlessly. Ben Hocking 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

http://postwritersgroup.com/archives/good0208.htm Anastrophe 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As said before, its not a question of someone having said or linked these - but rather whether this is notable. That a Boston columnist has said something doesn't make it notable - it has to be judged on its weight, and as far as i can see - it would have a rather small weight (if any). Google-search can provide us a hint (even if not conclusive), and there is a rather large difference between this and this. I'd say we need some fairly good sources for this to be mentioned. --Kim D. Petersen 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

as has been pointed out countless times, differences in search result totals do not make a compelling argument, nor are the a substitute for actual research. the comment carries great weight, insofar as this article is entitled "climate change denial", but no citation of the origin or evolution of the term is provided. the original authors comparison of "global warming deniers" with holocaust deniers actually provides us with an citation for a variant of this article's title. Anastrophe 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the term is provided in the mainstream, international news outlets cited by Cyrusc in the article. The phrase is taken directly from unchallenged sources. The fact that certain individuals have likened the denial of climate change to the denial of the holocaust is not relevant because it does not relate to the article, which is focused on a specific misinformation campaign. How does the statement from a blog or columnist (or a million blogs or columnists for that matter) give "the origin or evolution" of public relations campaigns funded by the energy lobby to undermine scientific consensus? Benzocane 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

so again, you reinforce my argument that this article is misleadingly titled. it is not about the phenomenon of 'climate change denial', it is about 'the industry of denial'. this article is focused narrowly on this one POV that 'climate change denial' is in some way distinct from other information/disinformation campaigns by industry; it is not. the introductory text is misleading, characterizing the article as (one would hope) an examination of the mechanisms and psychology behind "climate change denial", when in fact, it is merely a record of one out of thousands of similar campaigns that have taken place, and continue to take place. Anastrophe 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anastophe, as i said in my comment - Google gives us nothing but a hint. When trying to link the origin of climate change denial - you have to do better than speculation. (see: WP:SYN and WP:OR) - you need to find good reliable articles that directly link this. And you have to demonstrate that it carries sufficient weight to be mentioned. --Kim D. Petersen 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If Anastrophe is correct that this is "a record of one out of thousands of similar campaigns," that is still neither grounds for deletion or a POV challenge. If there are a great number of misinformation campaigns, that doesn't mean it's wrong to cover this one. Misplaced Pages covers thousands of pop stars, athletes, products, etc. One doesn't challenge the notability or POV status of an article about a war by claiming that there are thousands of such wars, that wars are commonplace occurrences, etc.Benzocane 02:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a very brief section on the origin of the term. this article opens with the statement "Climate change denial is a term used to describe the denial of all or part of the theory of global warming". who is making that claim? what is its origin? this article goes into great detail about what it terms "the denial industry", but expends no effort in explaining specifically the opening sentence. my brief section was immediately reverted, which is contrary to good wikipedia practice. the section was as accurate as the limited writing on the topic could provide (within the limited time i have available). i cited the quote i added; it was accurate. the section is very brief, so can't be claimed to be giving 'undue weight' in the context of the entire article. improve the article - find citations to back up the earliest use of the term. speculating on the origin of the term is fully appropriate so long as it doesn't attempt to mislead about the possible origins. Anastrophe 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry may be a refinement of the term "Global warming denial", which may have entered the vernacular ... It would seem to be simply a case of original research made worse by the weasel wording "may be" and "may have". Your quotes may be examples of comparison with Holocaust deniers - but not sure how relevant that is. You seem to be determined to make the association. Vsmith 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i've added the text back with citations, without "may be", "may have". i'm not determined to make the association. those cited made the association long before i did. Anastrophe 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

this is maddening. there is no attempt to improve the section; it is merely reverted as being 'speculation'. should the whole article be deleted then, since the opening sentence appears to be someone's speculation as to what the term means? there seems to be widespread misunderstanding of what reverting is for. my addition is not vandalism. it is well cited. Anastrophe 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that you aren't referencing any sources to your text about origins, you are only sourcing the various elements that you are yourself deducting must be the origin - thats WP:OR in a nutshell. Try finding a source that actually talks about the origins of the term. Why is the origin btw so interesting? Its a commonly used term - as demonstrated by a lot of reliable sources. And secondarily why are you referencing Goodman - the comments by her is from 2007, very far from the origin (which you place around 2001 - and the sources on this page place at least before (or in) 2005)? Goodman tells us nothing about the origins of the term. --Kim D. Petersen 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i have renamed the section to simply 'terminology', which should neutralize this criticism. Anastrophe 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe - please read up on what WP:OR and WP:SYN means. --Kim D. Petersen 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

bad faith. misrepresentation of my edits upon reversion. not a single actual edit attempt at improving the section. unbelievable. 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust reference 1) is not notable. It is an unfortunate comparison made by isolated individuals that neither explains the origin and development of the phrase “climate change denial” (which is taken from far more credible sources – NYTimes, Guardian, etc.) nor does it relate to the misinformation campaigns that form the center of the entry. 2) The insistence on inserting the comparison is a POV attempt to associate the aforementioned credible sources with the unrepresentative and irrelevant position of the isolated individuals. Exxon et al funded the denial of climate change science. This is uncontested. Let's move on. Benzocane 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you missed some of the later edits. the section was moved from 'origins' to 'terminology', and the section reworked to provide two examples of the interchangeable use of "climate change denial" and "global warming denial" within the same context of use. so the argument that it was original research or failed to explain origins was moot. regarding '2', you further bolster the argument that this article is not about "climate change denial", certainly not as a phenomenon or organized construct, the article is about "the denial industry", citing merely one example of a widespread activity. yes, it is uncontested that exxonmobil funded people and organizations to promote one view on one issue. exxonmobil has done this on countless issues over the last century, as have countless other businesses and special interest groups. if you are unwilling to have the colloquial term "climate change denial" described - through sources - that are *not* party to your - or the article's - POV - then the article remains explicitly POV. 'no criticism of the term, its use, or examples of same, will be allowed in this article!!'. not how one builds an encyclopedia. Anastrophe 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those of us who disagree with Anastrophe and think that most people using the term "climate change denial" or "global warming denial" are not trying to compare it to Holocaust denial, should nonetheless try to work with him on this issue. Up until he provided the Boston source, I was convinced that the whole allegation had been invented out of whole cloth. Now I see that at least one columnist who believes in AGW has used the term in connection with Holocaust denial (although this does not support the allegation that this has anything to do with the term's origins). Unfortunately, trying to trace down the actual origins of the term comes close to violating WP:OR, if not actually doing so - unless we can find where someone has actually published something about those origins. I realize that a lot of people disagree with Anastrophe (myself included), but I genuinely believe he is acting in good faith, and he should be treated as such. Anastrophe - do you have a sandbox already started where we can work on a section or paragraph discussing this topic? Ben Hocking 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you. having been slapped with my first 3RR, i bow out of further editing of the article, even for non-contentious matters (which, if anyone will care to take note, i performed at minimum a dozen contextual, grammatical, syntactical etc changes to improve the article - aside from those i attempted to perform in good faith response to the relentless reverting of the section in question). but i digress. the final revision i put up addressed all of my devoted reverter's complaints, but was slapped down clearly without having even been read from top to bottom, based upon the edit summary. so, no point in trying again. Anastrophe 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but good faith alone does not prove notability. Unless notability is proven, the material should not be included. Including the material in an encylopedia entry has the effect of making it seem representative. That effect is misleading here for reasons given above.Benzocane 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you be certain there's no notability? First of all, several notable people (e.g., Limbaugh, I presume - although we'd need sources, etc.) have accused AGW believers of using the term to slur by comparison to the holocaust. Unfortunately, it's very hard to demonstrate that it's not being used this way (which is why I'm sure a lot of us are against even mentioning it) as it's hard to prove a negative, especially if no WP:OR is allowed. Right now we have to support the Limbaugh et al. crowd the comments of a single columnist. It's entirely believable to me that this is the entire basis for this assertion and that it has since snowballed. I'll admit this will be a difficult point to cover in an NPOV way, but I do not agree that the allegation that the term is being used to compare with holocaust deniers is not notable, even if the comparison itself is. I will freely admit that I am somewhat new to Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure how the notability of Limbaugh balances against his unreliability. I imagine that in numerous other places, however, his comments have been used and documented as inaccurate where necessary. Ben Hocking 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made my arguments about notability above -- that the statement of a few individuals is not notably related to the Exxon et al funded denial which is the subject of the entry and its extensive sourcing. I hardly feel Limbaugh is going to be a sufficient NPOV source! Regardless, the prior question is: what's at stake in including this holocaust analogy. Limbaugh etc seize on such comments in order to claim a moral high ground relative to scientific consensus. It has nothing to do with the uncontested denial documented in this entry. The only argument put forth for its relevance is that it explains the origin of "climate change denial" -- but the sources Cyrusc used for the origin -- NYtimes, Guardian, etc -- are both more NPOV and relevant! An analogy: many people (check Google) have likened George Bush to Hitler. Should this analogy be prominent in the Bush analogy? No. Why? Because it represents a fringe opinion of an unencylopedic nature that does not contribute to the substance of the article.Benzocane 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian and NY Times are not NPOV on the issue of climate change. Of particular note in those links are the NY Times' selection of a melting globe and stranded polar bears that accompany their articles on GW. Note these selected NY Times Watch articles as examples: Hardly unbiased! Zoomwsu 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

sources do not have to be unbiased; on the contrary. what has to be unbiased is wikipedias treatment of topics. references from multiple POV's are routinely used within articles to provide the article with the neutrality desired. which is why i object to the whitewashing of this article as being completely without controversy. Anastrophe 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe that Limbaugh et al.'s harping on the supposed holocaust denial comparison is a prime example of the type of tactics used by the denial industry. Trying to work that in within the constraints of NPOV would definitely prove challenging, however. I suspect that you might be underestimating the scope of these allegations. Many, many right-wing sources bring up this supposed connection, although I've only now seen one example of the connection actually being made by someone who believes in AGW. Ben Hocking 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the holocaust analogy should be included and then criticized in the article as a right wing tactic, and have sources for that claim, I wouldn't remove it, although I still feel like even criticizing the assertion is to lend it a legitimacy it doesn't have. But you're right that the only NPOV option for including the analogy is to include the uses to which that analogy has been put by Limbaugh, et al.Benzocane 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source for the holocaust analogy - Green MEP Caroline Lucas. Iceage77 12:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is attribution - you also have to consider the weight. And a section on this is out of proportion (see above). There is already one mention - and thats large considering the relative weight. --Kim D. Petersen 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The whole purpose of this term is put global warming sceptics on the same moral plane as David Irving. You won't find a more blatant example of the ad hominem attack. We have multiple references to support this including 3 from members of the global warming faith. If we're going to keep the article, which I've argued against, this has to be prominently mentioned. Iceage77 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is opinion - and is ruled out by NPOV. And your entire premise here is WP:SYN/WP:OR (ie. he said it - so it must be the reason). But lets take a look at the WP:WEIGHT here - If we use Google as a guideline - the number of articles that use the wording "climate change denial" is 49,300, while if we add "holocaust" to the search, we go down to 796. This gives us a rough estimate of the relative weight of the terms. Roughly 16 article in 1000 make this distinction. Now Google searches cannot give us more than an estimation. But its pretty clear that this is a minority issue. --Kim D. Petersen 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

can you provide some reference for where google results are considered a reliable guideline, benchmark, valid statistic, reliable source, or something along those lines? your repeated use of google search results to suggest that they signify something other than the state of google's spidering algorithms and saved data as of the moment you performed the search constitute WP:OR and WP:SYN. please stop. your results have zero probative value. Anastrophe 03:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you do not like the results from google. You could check out WP:GOOGLE. The usage here is entirely consistent with the guideline. (specifically: "Confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is"). And i very much disagree with your attempts at dissection of the Google bias - since i do not rely at all on the order in which results turn up - but merely on their quantity (ie. relative weight), and i really have trouble finding a way to acknowledge that the spider-algoritm is severely biased against either side. --Kim D. Petersen 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

google's longstanding, primary measure in spidering is "how many pages link to this page". in other words, "how popular is this page". as WP:GOOGLE points out, popularity is not a measure of notability, or weight. for "climate change denial" i get 49,500 results. for "climate change denial" + "holocaust denial", i get 1660 results. furthermore, "iphone" results in 98 million hits, "holocaust" 24.6 million. therefore (by this ridiculous measure) the iphone is far more notable than the holocaust. in other words, it tells us nothing. you may wish to review the subsections of WP:GOOGLE entitled "Search engines cannot:", as well as "Notability". perhaps you missed them. Anastrophe 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe - i did not overlook any sections in WP:GOOGLE. But then your entire argument is a strawman. You cannot weight different subjects in this way.

This is a minority view, expressed by a few individuals - and as such is already amply represented by the quote from Monbiot. The section that i reverted was WP:OR/WP:SYN as well, by trying to combine "A says X about Y" and "B says X about Y" - ergo "Y is about X". --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for justifying your edit based upon something substantial, rather than the misleading "x has more google hits than y" tactic. Anastrophe 16:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Deny

I'm posting the definition (Merriam Webster online www.m-w.com) of "to deny" for everyone to use as a basis for any further discussion of the title of this article. Uses 1,2 and 5 are particularly appropriate here.

Deny:

1. to declare untrue;
2. to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW;
3. to give a negative answer to, to refuse to grant, to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires;
4. archaic : DECLINE;
5. to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

Envirocorrector 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And let's stop pretending that using the term denial is ipso facto analogous to holocaust denial. It cheapens the very real travesty of denying the holocaust and it distracts us from the issues at hand: the uncontested historical facts recorded in the entry.Benzocane 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm unaware of anyone ipso facto claiming it is analogous. i am aware of widely published examples of such a comparison, which were accurately cited. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. we aren't here to determine the truth. we're here to accurate publish information on a given topic. your denial that the comparison has been made - and, remarkably enough, not by partisans attempting to perform a 'double play' on the term, but by people who are in - for lack of a better term - "your camp" who do indeed believe that climate change denial is roughly equivalent to holocaust denial (because of the implicit worldwide catastrophe impending if we don't do something about AGW). oh, and if i might add: wikipedia is not a dictionary. this article is not about "denial". it is - at least ostensibly - about "climate change denial". defining only one word from a term does not illuminate the meaning of the term itself. Anastrophe 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I deny that the comparison has been made? I've made arguments about its notability given the focus of the entry and the sources of the analogy. And I've made several responses to your claim that this analogy somehow reveals the origin of the phrase. My "camp" consists entirely of those who believe that well documented entries should not be contested or distorted for POV purposes. The holocaust analogy is a red herring with the effect -- no matter your intention, which I'm trying not to doubt -- of deflecting attention from the still undisputed facts of the misinformation campaign onto the marginal statements of a few individuals. See the Bush/Hitler analogy above. Benzocane 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

as i noted a few moments ago further above, the section was reworked, and no longer attempted any claim at origin. this article is currently written with the POV that the term is implicitly without any published controversy wrt its use; that's demonstrably false. two unrelated examples of the use of the term in comparison to holocaust denial were provided. those uses are notable for having made the comparison in widely published and read venues; that this discussion is taking place - with such extreme pushback against inclusion of cited examples of that use - further points to an implicit expectation that this article is to remain grounded in one POV on the matter. Anastrophe 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading a lot of comments here and the articles Anastophe posted, I believe that these comparisons to Holocaust denial are notable and need to be included in the article in some way. I didn't like how Anastophe included those references, though. We need to bias towards inclusion of content and suggest that Anastrophe find a better way of including the content. Zoomwsu 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to lay off this thread for a while and let other editors consider what's to be done. I respectfully disagree about inclusion.Benzocane 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion

User:Cyrusc asked me to have a look at this dispute, as a member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record Task Force.

My first thought was that this article should be kept, although I agree that it has a somewhat breathless, verging unencyclopaedic tone. Then I had a look over the Global warming controversy page. I can certainly see the argument to break down articles into smaller ones, but I would me minded to move the content of this article to the GWC page. It would also be a good idea to add some more on the "Climate Change Alarmism" issue to the GWC page, to answer POV issues raised above.

With regard to holocaust denial - I would like to see more than one or two very good references before it is compared to climate change denial. This is simply for reasons of taste and decency. Parmesan 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is here to stay so we need to address the POV issues. Firstly, this phrase is always used in a derogatory sense. All of the references are from the Guardian newspaper and other far-left sources. This is indicative of the bias inherent in the article. We need to state this explicitly. Comparison with holocaust denial has been made by numerous reliable sources and also needs to be stated. Both proponents and sceptics of AGW including The Great Global Warming Swindle have made the comparison. I suggest a separate section "Comparions with Holocaust denial". Iceage77 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase is used in a derogatory sense (as it's being contrasted to skeptics). However, so far all we know is that a proponent and several "skeptics" have made the comparison. I am not aware of more than one proponent (yet) who has made the comparison. Ben Hocking 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

you likely missed the last iteration of the 'Terminology' section i added before it was reverted (without having even been read by the reverter, evidenced by his edit summary). that iteration listed George Monbiot's similar published comparison to holocaust denial. I can see no objection to him as a source. Anastrophe 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see one. WP:NOTE correctly indicates that a subject is not notable if it's covered only by partisan sources. Well it happens that George Monbiot is to climate change what Karl Marx was to socialism. And for this reason, this article should really be deleted, while it is going to be maintained because of... guess what... partisan issues. --Childhood's End 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean 'without POV'. it's perfectly legitimate to cite partisan sources, so long as you cite them in a balanced manner. this is the basis for my interest in having the comparison noted: the article is written from the POV that "climate change denial"/"global warming denial" are terms without any controversy or opposition. the quotes by monbiot and goodman, are by partisans who are in the AGW POV. some of the commentors above have suggested that citing the comparison of "global warming denial" to "holocaust denial" by people such as rush limbaugh, who are 'anti-AGW' POV, would be legitimate - but it would not, it would only be in service to reinforcing the POV that it is *not* AGW POV proponents who make the comparison, which is false. AGW POV adherents need to accept that "their own" have made this comparison. and that the comparison is pejorative. for that reason, it would be a partisan POV addition to balance the POV of this article. (the subtextual argument that is invariably thrown out is that this article is really about the corporate disinformation campaign...which then begs us to ask, 'then why is it entitled "climate change denial"?')Anastrophe 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You dont get it... Forget about the holocaust. A subject is deemed not notable if it is only covered by partisan sources. Well, that's exactly the case of "climate change denial", a concept which you will not find outside partisan sources (The Guardian, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, etc.) except perhaps for a few exceptions. The nature of the sources creating the existence of this story should tell you that it is 1- inherently POVed and 2- non-notable outside partisan circles. --Childhood's End 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian, NYtimes, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, etc.--these are consistent resources for Misplaced Pages. Although Mother Jones is a more politically partial source, the claim that the phrase is not found outside of "partisan sources" is innacurate. The bulk of the citations are from the sources you describe as "exceptions." I remain confused: are you disputing the factuality of the misinformation campaign? Then please provide credible sources in support of your position. We are a few days into these discussions and no such sources have been offered.Benzocane 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian and the Times may be used as resources for Misplaced Pages in many other areas, but on the issue of climate change, they are clearly biased. I've referenced some criticism of the Times, in particular, above, which you may want to check out. Regardless, while I don't necessarily oppose their inclusion in this article, it is fair to balance their POV position. Zoomwsu 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact that you may think that The Guardian/George Monbiot is not a partisan source regarding climate change shows that you are partisan yourself. To answer your question, my position is that the story of a misinformation campaign is essentially built up by partisan sources and is a political matter. Outside propaganda, the reality is that yes, some funding organizations have a vested interest in slowing down climate public policies, but that does not mean that they are entertaining a misinformation campaign and cannot fund honest science. Skeptics do not enjoy public funding like the climate folks do and must look for private funding to pursue their scientific research. To label their findings as "misinformation" requires that you take for an absolute truth what the IPCC tells you, otherwise the skeptics' findings are simply alternative views to a generally accepted scientific theory. Science has always advanced like this, and only when political and partisan motivations are underlying do we label as "misinformation" alternative views. --Childhood's End 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is news to me that science has always advanced by multinational corporations funding PR campaigns that portray generally accepted scientific theory as if it were generally disputed in order to promote their economic interests!Benzocane 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice strawman. But I'll care to answer and point to you that the problem is that this articles puts in the same basket both the funding of PR campaigns and the funding of credible scientists with divergent views about global warming. --Childhood's End 13:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the "denial industry"

I think that this section must be revisited. If, as the intro says, 'climate change denial' is different from scientific skepticism, then why would it be 'denial' to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours" and to use "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate" ? Right now, what we have is an article that says "it's ok for scientists to pursue research that is skeptical of climate change, but promoting or communicating their findings amounts to climate change denial".

Rest of the section is essentially about some conspiracy theory involving Phillip Morris and the tobacco industry, as if the CEI, George Mason University (!) or the Heritage Foundation were driven by some of their donors and could not reach independent opinions despite the fact that they receive funding.

This stuff is George Monbiot's pet, offers no source to check if what these theories say is true or verifiable, and should not be given a Misplaced Pages encyclopedic entry. --Childhood's End 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically "climate change denial" is a slur used by the left-wing press against anyone who questions AGW theory. That is all that the citations prove. The idea that it differs from scepticism is original research introduced by the writers of this article. As for Monbiot, this guy is extreme even by environmentalist standards: he wants to cut airport capacity by 90% and close down every out-of-town supermarket! Hardly a reliable source. Iceage77 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceage77, "climate change denial" refers not to scientific criticisms of the theory, only to statements like Global warming is just a liberal lie. Count Iblis 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting choice of citation. curious that the article insists the term is only used to describe the corporate misinformation campaign, and that any reference to other uses isn't acceptable, since it doesn't reinforce that claim (nicely self-sealing). Anastrophe 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, "used to describe the corporate misinformation campaign" should be qualified with "as liberal and left-leaning pundits see it". There is no way to verify that this conspiracy theory has any merit and is more than a conspiracy theory. --Childhood's End 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you mean other than the many, well documented occasions where money is transferred from an oil company into the hands of a person or organization that comes out against global warming? But of course, just because they take money from an oil company has no bearing on it, right? Give me a break. Your claims don't pass the laugh test. Raul654 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Here is some 1st grade high school basic philosophy (an interesting read topic).

Ad hominem : said of the logical fallacy of appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact or reason. A very basic example of this that could be teached in class could be "Scientist A received money from Oil Company B and argues against global warming, thus his opinion is that of the oil company and need not be considered"

Hope you're not still laughing... --Childhood's End 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that you aren't being followed" --Kim D. Petersen 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There's also this bit from Ad hominem:

On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

No doubt overlooking that bit was purely by accident. I think Raul can go on chuckling all he likes. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this lesson about evidence; this naive comment certainly was made in good faith. For the record, when it comes to evidence, one can come with ad hominems against a witness in the hope of reducing is credibility. But it always remains within the judge's discretion to believe or not the witness' testimony despite the allegations about his credibility, not to one of the parties before him to instruct him in this regard. --Childhood's End 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If scientists are corrupted by the small amounts received from oil cos, what effect do the much greater sums received from governments have? Iceage77 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. Amazingly enough, it does not seem to have bought as much loyalty as the oil company has. Perhaps this is because scientists receive more funding per study from oil companies than they do from the government. If our government wants to really silence climate change studies, perhaps it should pay its scientists more. If there's a bias in the current administration towards climate change, it's not in the direction that you seem to be implying. Ben Hocking 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you find the amounts small. But you are absolutely right that government influence can often compromise scientific objectivity, and whenever there is evidence of an effort to manipulate science or perception of science, that should be chronicled. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/ etc.Benzocane 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no explanation has been given as to how it amounts to climate change denial rather than simply communicating scientific skepticism to use "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom" or to attempt to convince "journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases" (something that many skeptical scientists argue), I am deleting this portion of the article. --Childhood's End 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Monbiot

I reverted to include "journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot". I think it's helpful to include this reference. Zoomwsu 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly helpful, as both the quote and the link make his perspective clear. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly harmful, either, so I'm really surprised this has changed back and forth multiple times. Also, I'd like to give kudos to Zoomwsu for taking it to the talk page. Ben Hocking 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what's the point in putting in the Monbiot quote? ~ UBeR 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also delete it. --Childhood's End 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please do. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose. ~ UBeR 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit on Dick Cheney

I don't see how the bit on Dick Cheney has to do with climate change denial. From the very definition within this article, "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," the idea that "'unwavering ideological positions' prioritizing economic over environmental interests" led to bad policy do not mesh.

I'm also curious how this article will differentiate between "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," and plain misunderstanding and ignorance surrounding the topic. ~ UBeR 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They are related, in that the former is designed to take advantage of and exacerbate the latter. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you referring to my second question, or Dick Cheney? I reckon "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus . . ." can be used to take advantage and exacerbate misunderstanding and ignorance. But I what I was trying to get at was whether this article will argue that one who is ignorant of the subject is therefore a denier (by this articles definition), because I reckon one needs not to be paid by the oil industry to be confused. Of course, I'm still curious about Dick Cheney. ~ UBeR 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cheney bit needs to be expanded to include information regarding his Energy Task Force and its link to Exxon et al. That will clarify the connection, I think. Benzocane 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, what I get from that article is that the NEPDG met with several large energy companies, suggesting they might have influenced national energy policy. What I get from this article is that Cheney prioritizes economy over environment, which this article argues led to bad environment policy (or at least making the head of the EPA quit). What I don't see is the connection between that and climate change denial. It looks, to me, as if someone just put it in the article to make jabs. Still curious. ~ UBeR 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to why the information was initially included, but assume good faith. If Cheney and/or others knowingly misrepresented scientific concensus -- that is, didn't disagree with the science per se, but misrepresented the agreement of the scientific community itself -- that would fall within the purview of the article independent of a connection to Exxon; but I think you're right, the connection should be clarified, as it exists and is well documented.Benzocane 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane is right about expanding the article and clarifying the connection re: Energy Task Force. I included mention of Cheney because of this passage from the Washington Post describing both his efforts to deregulate emissions and his portrayal of the science regarding anthropogenic carbon emissions and/or warming as remaining in a state of indecision: "The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem." Cyrusc 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And that's precisely what led to my second question. How will this article differentiate between those who deceitfully spread "disinformation campaigns . . ." and those who might be confused on the issue but nonetheless espouse their ignorance. I cannot say whether or not Dick Cheney is the former or latter, but this article fails to make the connection between his prioritizing economics over economy and "climate change denial" as it is defined here. ~ UBeR 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Seems to be textbook WP:SYN. --Childhood's End 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I should note that the current revision that includes the NEPDG meeting with the energy industry makes an even weaker case towards "climate change denial," as defined in this article. ~ UBeR 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some information regarding the link between Cheney's environmental positions and the corporations funding disinformation. Could you explain why it makes a weaker case? Regardless, you ask an interesting question--there is a difference between dissenting from scientific consensus and misrepresenting that consensus. But what Cyrusc has made clear in the article is that Cheney's rhetoric regarding climate change science as being characterized by "conflicting viewpoints" or as existing in a state of indecision is a misrepresentation of the overwhelming consensus, no matter if he dissents from that consensus or not. That's what the article has to differentiate between -- dissent from consensus and the misrepresentation of consensus. Cyrusc does that effectively, I think, but you are right to emphasize the importance of the distinction.Benzocane 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your reply. I think the main argument in the NEPDG bit just recently added is that the energy industry influenced its decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol. One problem here is that the Protocol is a political treaty that, regardless of one's view on climate change, can be dismissed as undesirable. Another problem is that I don't see Cheney making a disinformation campaign. Can one quote that he made ("Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem") really be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? Can Chaney's prioritization of economics over environment, i.e. a rational personal opinion, be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? This is what I'm concerned about. ~ UBeR 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are all smart questions. While this article is mainly about the corporate funded misinformation campaign, it covers any other misrepresentation of the consensus. You're right that one could oppose Kyoto on grounds that do not fall under the purview of the article, but what's relevant here is the link to Exxon. Re: misinformation vs. rational personal opinion: If Cheney were to say "the position of this administration is to dissent from the consensus," that would not be disinformation, but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public. The claim of the UCS etc. is that Cheney et al know dissenting from the consensus is not politically viable, and so they have denied it exists (which is not the same thing as dissenting from the science).Benzocane 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public" Are you hereby proposing that Richard Lindzen, John Christy or for that matter, all the scientists quoted in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming are misrepresenting existing information to the public? Who is the legitimate judge of what is the correct existing information regarding the existence of a consensus? --Childhood's End 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the small minority of dissenting scientists admit there is general consensus, but they depart from it. They disagree with the conclusions of the majority of their peers, but they do not attempt to convince the public that majority doesn't exist.Benzocane 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you must acknowledge that you are mistaken. Perhaps you did not know, but 'majority' and 'consensus' have different entries in every dictionnary (i.e. they're not synonyms). You may want to read or before claiming again that these scientists admit that there is general consensus. --Childhood's End 15:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, consensus doesn't mean unanimous - and the opinion of 2 or 20 doesn't budge a consensus consisting of thousands. --Kim D. Petersen 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose thousands? Got a list of names? And please dont mix up issues Kim. This article is not about the existence or not of a scientific consensus. The issue at hand is to determine whether we can legitimately call "misrepresenting existing information to the public" the fact of denying the existence of a consensus and/or of climate change. As of now, there are a few credible scientists who fall in the basket of making misrepresentations by this article, whereas this article awkwardly tries to support its existence by distinguishing the skeptical scientists' positions from some conspiring organizations' positions. --Childhood's End 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to acknowledge I'm mistaken about the existence of consensus when "the conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by...all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" (quoting Climate change controversy)? Even if -- no matter your reasons -- you want to dissent from that position, the consensus quite obviously exists. Kim is of course correct about the difference between consensus and unanimity. If the latter were the test, we couldn't speak of a consensus re: the roundness of the earth, etc.Benzocane 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "majority" and "consensus" ? If so, please stop this non sequitur and revisit your previous post. As for quoting Misplaced Pages to support your view that a consensus exists, that might work here, but that would not fly too high before more serious instances. --Childhood's End 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for Benzo, but I do; do you? You don't seem to... Nil Einne 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to re-read Benzocane's edit before posting further such ridiculous rant. But I'd be curious... how do you define 'majority' and 'consensus'? --Childhood's End 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My view can be mostly explained by reading Majority, Scientific consensus & Consensus. As stated, I can't speak for Benzocane. However given that you appear to deny there is a consensus when it comes to climate change, when as benzocane nearly said, even the extremely small minority of scientists who's view differs somewhat from the consensus view don't usually deny that it exists, it appears to me that you don't quite understand what a consensus is which was why I asked... It seems to me that if you are going to get all worked up about whether or not Benzocane understands the difference, you should at least understand it yourself first Nil Einne 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we still talking about Cheney and the NEPDG? ~ UBeR 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Benzocane was arguing that since Cheney denied the existence of the consensus, he is guilty of misrepresenting existing information to the public. I'm trying to show him that if this is the case, Lindzen and other credible scientists would thus also be guilty of such blashpemy. The differenciation between denial and skepticism that this article attempts to make is just falling to pieces. --Childhood's End 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climatechange
2. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
3. http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070419143213.aspx
4. http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070118115252.aspx
5. http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070117132528.aspx