Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 21 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 10 March 2010, see discussion. Keep, 29 August 2008, see discussion. Keep, 28 March 2008, see discussion. Keep, 31 July 2007, see discussion.

This article was nominated for merging with Global warming controversy on 4 December 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Rename this article

I don't think that this article should be deleted but I do think it could do with being renamed for reasons I have given above. Not sure how to request this tho, sorry my fellow editors. SmokeyTheCat 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RM. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that just your opinion or is your suggested new name the common name used by the preponderance of media/scholarship? The former is irrelevant, the latter requires evidence. What new name are you suggesting and what are the sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Climate change skepticals/ism. SmokeyTheCat 11:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This article goes to some pains to distinguish between skepticism and denial and to say it deals with denial so that would definitely be wrong. The article for skeptics is global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about scientific skepticism or in any way related to it, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I say keep the article. It is an excellent example of how climate change skeptics routinely are demonized on Misplaced Pages by the usual suspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.195.61 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyTheCat -- you can propose a new title and provide explanation. I don't see your prior post of reasons, believe that would work better if you put reasons for the title here, and hopefully propose a title also, not just a mention of "given above" which got whacked. Do you maybe want it as Climate Change lobbying because this is by definition excluding non-lobbying Denialism, or do you want it merged into Business action on climate change or Global warming conspiracy theory or Carbon offset or what ? Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please rename this article to 'Climate change scepticism' please my fellow editors? 'Denial' is really a vile word in a scientific subject. We don't call those who don't believe in evolution 'evolution deniers', do we? We don't those who believe that the Earth is flat 'spherical deniers' etc. In no other field of science do we use the word 'denial' and we shouldn't here. This seems very uncontroversial to me. SmokeyTheCat 07:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate change denial and climate change scepticism are two different subjects, where the latter is based on scepticism. Climate change denial are the political motivated actions to undermine the science and related to psychological bias (See Just-world hypothesis). Prokaryotes (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the precise motivations are but oil companies and politicians pouring money into rubbishing the science and attacking scientists is very ugly indeed - and it isn't scepticism. And climate change scepticism redirects to global warming controversy like it should. Climate change denial is what the sources call the topic covered by this article, have you got some preferred name and a source that uses it? Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose renaming per the reasons given above. Also, I do call those who don't believe in evolution deniers and I also call those who oppose vaccination deniers. They are science deniers no matter the topic. Regards. Gaba 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting over-simplification (which I assume you are making to make it simple for you). There is clear backward/forward/provable evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations (don't get vaccinated = you WILL get sick) and "NO" evidence that vaccinations cause any of the diseases/conditions that it is purported to cause. Thus the non-vaccinations crowd is similar to the alien/black limo crowd - trying to prove as fact something that has been PROVEN otherwise over and over. On the flip side, the Man-Made Global Warming deniers are arguing against a simple theory (although one based on short-term temp "evidence", but still a theory) that does not have the backward/forward/provable evidence that is suitable to prove it as fact (NO ONE knows that if man-made CO2 levels are cut - say - in half = a huge drop in global temps). Thus these deniers are arguing against other people's OPINIONS. Yes there has been GLOBAL WARMING in the recent past, but it is OPINION that man is causing it and is also OPINION that the warming we are seeing is not just another natural short-term wax/wane period that we've seen over the past 2000 yrs+ such as the Little Ice Age. Clear difference.

As an aside, its continues to be somewhat laughable (to me) that we are arguing a 2000 year max (based on suppositions about temperatures in the first millenium) showing a world-wide catastrophe when we have no idea what the previous 500 millions years had for temps. That's like saying that what happened 2 seconds ago (with only minute data from the previous 24 hrs) is a 100% accurate predictor for what's currently happening and what going to happen in the future. Scientists will always tell you that short snapshots in history never accurately predict/explain the time before and after the snapshot - why is this different? We don't even know what caused the Little Ice Age (for which only one possible explanation somewhat includes man's impact), how can we difinitely determine the cause for the current warming period WHEN WE ARE IN IT? Come on... Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Nope, anthropogenic global warming is an opinion as much as the benefits of vaccination or the roundness of the Earth are, because the scientific community as a whole has concluded as much. And shouting won't make you any less wrong my friend. Regards. Gaba 19:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Really?!?! How is it an "opinion" that the Earth is round when we can clearly observe and confirm this from outer space - which we cannot do with man-made global warming. So thank you for making my point for me! Beyond that, I'm not sure what you read, but you clearly didn't read my post - unless your facile and incorrect distallation of my long and specifc text is your version of it. Or is this what passes as dialogue with dissenters - sticking your fingers in your ears and simple parroting that I'm wrong? Oh and next time, I'll make the capped words bold (which is how I made them stand out as key words, apparently not as benignly as intended) so I don't hurt your feelings... Ckruschke (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

No feelings hurt but thanks anyway for not using caps. As per WP:NOTFORUM I bid you good day. Cheers. Gaba 20:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

which we cannot do with man-made global warming -- yes we can, and we have. We don't even know what caused the Little Ice Age (for which only one possible explanation somewhat includes man's impact), how can we difinitely determine the cause for the current warming period WHEN WE ARE IN IT? -- very very bad fallacious reasoning. If I see someone flick a cigarette into a dry patch of weeds, I can determine the cause of the ensuing forest fire, despite not having been able to determine the cause of past forest fires. Anyway, your illogic and lack of knowledge of climate science aren't germane to the issue of a name change ... the name should not be changed because it's the term in actual use, and the argument for the name change is wholly invalid. -- Jibal (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the line between scientific "disagreement" and "denial?" I'm not sure whether this article makes the distinction. 70.75.173.234 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This article makes no assumption that the people funding the denial actually do disagree with the science. They are quite different topics. You are mixing up action and belief. This article does not go into the science or what people in general believe about it except as affected by the denial activities. Actually this article is more restricted in scope than is covered by denial which also covers peoples disbelief for say religious financial or other reasons like you get with Boko Haram or various other fundamentalist nutters around the world. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

All discussion so far might have missed the point. Smokey's only basis for this proposal is that he thinks the current title is "vile". That is pure WP:POV dressed up as a reason. Smokey, without addressing the current RSs in the article that do use the "denial" verbiage, and without other contrary RSs to support your views, your comments here are WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems to me the time for hatting has come. Regards. Gaba 20:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Another good reason to not rename this article is that originally most scientists were skeptical of climate change, and it took many years before the majority came to accept that it was not only happening, but that it was anthropogenic. So, calling it "climate change skepticism" would be very ambiguous: Is it referring to the old mainstream position, or the current minority/fringe position? This article is clearly about the latter. Denialism goes beyond skepticism. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

For the history section...."Global warming: How skepticism became denial"

A good source which could be used here is this one:

• Weart, Spencer. Global warming: How skepticism became denial, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan 2011, Vol. 67 Issue 1, p41. Full article as .pdf

This source could be used in the history section. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert J. Brulle paper, "The $1 billion/year denial industry"

This has gotten a lot of play and commentary in a lot of the usually RS journals. But it's quite a bit less than it seems from the hype & puffery.

• Drexel press release re Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic) paper
• the actual paper at Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations"

• Brulle has another paper at The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011) 195–202 © 2011 Midwest Sociological Society: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF POLITICS: Climate Change Denial and Political Polarization. This one, however, had little impact.
• Brulle entry at here Climate_change_denial article:

...The money funded a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a 'wedge issue' that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg." (sourced to "Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks" at The Guardian.

It appears that Brulle counted all the money raised by 91 conservative political groups, for whatever purpose. At the Guardian, he said:

‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’ at the Guardian

-- and here's what he wrote to Revkin at the NYT:

I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities... Email, Brulle to Revkin

So he doesn't really know how much was spent by these groups on what he calls the "Climate Change Counter-Movement" (CCCM). Which rather deflates the argument to "91 conservative groups fundraise around $1 billion per year." Not quite as snappy a headline, that. The money to fund "denial" is somewhere between $0 and $1 billion.... -- Pete Tillman (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, these groups activities include

• Climate denial
• HIV causes AIDS denial
• Vaccinations are beneficial denial

What other things do they do, besides spreading denial about scientific subjects, and is there any reason to infer the total "denial" budget is closer to zero dollars instead of closer to $1 billion? Are there RSs to support the answers to these questions ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of this section of discussion seems to be about the Graun's headline. We know that sub-eds who write newspaper headlines are not the best RSs, and I don't see a need to fill the discussion page here with long discourses or personal opinion pieces about that. Looking at other secondary-source coverage of the same paper, for example in Scientific American, personally I don't see much that we haven't already covered in principle in this article. Perhaps the new paper could be added as an additional ref to the existing sentence about Robert Brulle's work. There is the quote Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers." --Nigelj (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds more like Boko Haram, do those denial think tanks really go in for that business about AIDS and vaccination like them? Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are the religious believers in AGW theory trying to attack anyone who criticizes their theory? Correlation doesn't equal causation, consensus is not science. They haven't even tried falsified their theory, they've already started on the basis they are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.225.177 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly should who have "even tried falsified their theory"? You do know that we've understood the basic mechanism of greenhouse gases for more than 100 years, right? And that computation of the effect, while using much more simplified models, arrived at roughly the same effect back then that we still find today? If you can somehow show that CO2 does not preferably pass visible light and absorb infrared light, you're welcome to a publication in Science or Nature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Currency

Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.

Why is there a conversion to pounds? I mean, in this case, why not add AUS$, NZ$ and all other currencies of English-speaking countries? This is a legit (non-rhetoric) question. I think this is the only article I've seen that does that. And, if indeed there is a reason, there should be the date and the currency exchange rate. Cheers, Thouny (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a close paraphrase of the source, which also does the conversion, probably because it's a UK article talking about a US thing? Don't know that we also need to have both numbers... Sailsbystars (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A reader can assume the exchange date at when the cited news was written but in Misplaced Pages we're happy enough to just say what the source says. They don't explicitly give a date for the conversion. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Manual of Style has a section on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Liberal billionaires donated to the activists promoting AGW theory. And? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.225.177 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Slanted Effect?

Alarmist bias

This article is adressing the views of hardcore alarmists and is nowhere close to neutral. There are so many debunked "facts" that it is not possible to correct the article without deleting most things. Just one example of the most disturbing "facts". The attempt to plant fake strategy papers at the Heartland institute. The stunt even has a name "Fakegate", yet it is described as facts in this article, eventhough the criminal himself, the activist researcher Gleick, admits the whole thing. The irony was that Gleick was an important expert on science morality. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2849337/posts. http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/. (Google "fakegate" or "heartlandgate")

He has been condemned not only by the "climate denier"-society but also by established collegues amd mainstream green sites and magazines. It is a shame when Misplaced Pages is used to whitewash criminal acts! Neutral references supporting my comment: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/scientist-admits-taking-leaking-think-tank-papers/ http://sites.agu.org/leadership/files/2012/12/AGU_BOD-presidents-perspective_2012-04.pdf

Quote: washington post: "WASHINGTON (AP) - In the field of climate science, when someone _ especially skeptics _ did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts, scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society’s ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming. Now Gleick admits that he posed as a board member to get and then distribute to the media sensitive documents from a conservative think tank that is a leader in denying mainstream climate change science. And ethicists are criticizing the man who took others to task for what they say was stepping way over the ethical line. The think tank, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, is considering legal action against him. Gleick, who won a MacArthur genius award and is co-founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, was chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s ethics committee. He also had a column at Forbes.com where he criticized climate skeptics and trumpeted the resignation of a scientific journal editor who published a disputed study. He admitted taking Heartland documents Monday night in a blog on The Huffington Post. Gleick resigned chairmanship of the ethics panel last week. “What a mess,” said Mark Frankel, head of scientific responsibility for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s leading scientific society, which also had Gleick as a panel member on some committees. “It’s compounded by the fact that he was chairman of the ethics committee of a professional society. … It’s an ethical morass that he finds himself in.” And Gleick’s actions cast unwarranted doubt on the work of other scientists, Frankel said. Last week, someone identifying himself as “Heartland insider” sent 15 media members and others six documents, purportedly from Heartland. They included a fundraising document, a budget and a two-page “climate strategy.” They showed the think tank receiving millions of dollars _ more than $14 million over six years from one anonymous man _ in big contributions with plans to teach school children to question mainstream climate science. It also showed funding of scientists who are climate-change skeptics. Heartland said the two-page strategy document was a fake and the others were stolen. The Associated Press, which received the documents, was able to verify the accuracy of several of the most sensational parts with the individuals named. The documents caused a stir, mirroring the hacking of climate scientists’ emails two years earlier from a British research center. “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts _ often anonymous well-funded and coordinated _ to attack climate science and scientists,” Gleick wrote. “Nevertheless, I deeply regret my own actions in this case.” Not good enough, Heartland president Joseph Bast said in a press release: “It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts and organizations we work with.” The issue is about deception and there are only a few things that could possibly warrant that _ and embarrassing Heartland isn’t one of them, said Dani Elliott, who teaches ethics at the University of South Florida. The geophysical union, a scientific society, said in a statement that Gleick’s actions are “inconsistent with our organization’s values.”

Quote AGU: "Peter Gleick, former chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics, admitted in a blog posted on February 20 that he used false pretenses to obtain confidential documents from the Heartland Institute. AGU issued a press release on February 21 (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-11.shtml) and a subsequent President’s Message on February 27 (http://www.agu.org/about/presidents_msg/scientific_integrity27_feb.shtml) in which we made it clear that AGU did not condone his actions regardless of the motives. I gave interviews with NPR, the Washington Post, and the Australian Broadcasting Company to emphasize our position that the success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved" Meaning that Gleick didn´t do that!!! (My comment).

Washington Post again: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/30/behind-fakegate/) "..The centerpiece of Mr. Gleick’s counterfeit cornucopia was an alleged insider memo outlining plans to stop teachers from “teaching science,” and to “undermine” reports from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The memo also claimed the Charles G. Koch Foundation was funding Heartland’s climate-change efforts. None of this was true, but it didn’t stop Mr. Gleick from loading his “smoking gun.” Unfortunately for him, his ammunition turned out to be blanks. Computer forensic work showed that the memo couldn’t have come from any Heartland computers. It references only the documents that Mr. Gleick stole (a theft which he later was forced to admit). It also contains factual errors that no one at Heartland would have made. So why create this spectacularly inept forgery that has come to be known as “Fakegate”? It seems to be an obvious attempt to build a counterversion of “Climategate,” a genuine scandal that erupted when emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked in 2009 and 2011. They showed that certain scientists were manipulating data that didn’t support the left’s climate-change agenda and were blackballing scientists who refused to go along with that agenda."

What more do you need as a reference?!!!!! Christ, Gleick himself has admitted the crime and resigned. And, you still believe in the lies in Desmoblog et al? Also, I saw someone claiming Judith Curry as a not trustworthy source?!!!! She is a full-credential climate scientist but happens to conclude that there are NO clear evidence on a lurking, immeadiate catastrophy. Is that why someone claim her not to be trustworthy? Well, I can assure you that she is on top af all persons contributing to this sorry excuse for an article. Just check her CV (and please, not on the lying Desmoblog. Check her University homepage.

/JPC Lindstrom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.243.18 (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I just restored the above comment, but my explanation was inadvertently truncated. I complained that it was wrong to delete - to censor - the above discussion, which is perfectly appropriate for a Talk page. It is a discussion of admitted poor behaviour relevant to the article. cwmacdougall 13:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

POV redux

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics