Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climate change conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:02, 17 April 2007 editUBeR (talk | contribs)11,746 edits Tags← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:29, 7 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA
(785 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk oldafd" style="text-align:center;"
{{Talk header}}
| width="48px" | ] || This article was nominated for ] {{#if:March 21, 2007|on March 21, 2007|recently}}. The result of ] was '''keep'''.
{{controversial}}
|}<!-- From Template:Oldafdfull -->
{{Old AfD multi| page = Global warming conspiracy theory
| date = March 21 2007
| result = '''Keep'''
| page2 = Global warming conspiracy theory (2nd nomination)
| date2 = August 7 2011
| result2 = '''Keep'''
| page3 = Global warming conspiracy theory (3rd nomination)
| date3 =11 December 2011
| result3 = '''no consensus'''
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(390d)
|archive = Talk:Climate change conspiracy theory/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}


<p><center>'''NOTICE:''' Per the probation sanctions logged this article is currently under a '''1RR editing restriction'''.<br/>The 1RR is being retained under the general sanctions noted above. </center>
==On the intro refs==
{{trolling}}
I marked the phrase "The term conspiracy theory is commonly, though not always, used in a pejorative way," with a fact tag, because it was unreferenced. I noticed one editor put a lot of useless refs around other things I wasn't inquiring about. Said editor then removed the fact tag and put after commonly, though I don't know why because it seems out of place and the article doesn't seem to be talk about it. The excuse he gave in the edit summary says confirm in conspiracy. Perhaps said editor is unaware, but Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources. Try again. ~ ] 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


{{old move|date=2 October 2022|from=Global warming conspiracy theory|destination=Climate change conspiracy theory|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1116239030#Requested move 2 October 2022}}
:Can you cite an authority for your view that "Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources". It doesn't appear to be stated in ] and it is not consistent with the practice of other encyclopedias, which routinely use cross-references for this kind of thing. Obviously, I can go to the article and cite its sources, but this is going to get very cumbersome, very quickly.] 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


{{Archives
::Actually ]. Lest you're lazy, I'll quote it for you: "Misplaced Pages and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Also, ] makes this fairly clear as well. It makes sense, because otherwise we would just be arguing in circles (circular logic/begging the question). My claims are justified. Are yours? ~ ] 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
| search = yes
| bot = MiszaBot
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
:::Fair enough. And although I thought that the relevant bits of the ] article were well-sourced, they actually are not. So, I'll find and add some sources to both.] 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-10-05">5 October 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-12">12 December 2018</span>. Further details are available ]. Peer reviewers: ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Article added to ] ==
== Should the title say "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"? ==


== Requested move 2 October 2022 ==
I just need some citations to justify inclusion in that list. ] 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:First, "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" is not a scientific claim. Ergo, it cannot be a pseudoscience. Real science doesn't care why people may or may not lie. ~ ] 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
== What should be the in the claims section ==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 22:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
From reading this article, it appears only Crichton's State of Fear and Durkin's documentary are being labeled as conspiracy theories. The rest of the sources in "Claims" have not been labeled as conspiracy theories by any sources. ~ ] 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|Climate change conspiracy theory}} – The phrase "]" is currently deprecated. According to ]: "Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone." ] (]) 20:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;] (]) 22:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)</small>
:At this point, it would be better to focus on improving the structure of the article, sources and so forth, rather than trying to delete material. If you want to help on the former, that would be great. ] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. ] (]) 22:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' per ], for consistency with the primary article which was moved from global warming to ] in 2020. ] (]) 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per the reasons given above. I thought we had already renamed all the sub-articles after the move from ] to ]. It seems that we missed this one. ] (]) 08:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 15:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Looks like an oversight to not have done it already. --] (]) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per above. More accurate. ] (]) 10 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – how about Conspiracy theories about climate change, similar to conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. ] ] 07:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 15:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Merger ==
::I disagree. I think the unbalanced, unsupported, and other material in violation of Misplaced Pages policy should be removed first. I will gladly work on improving the article, especially in terms of cleaning it up, etc. after that. ~ ] 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


I propose to merge this to ] (the final title could be discussed later, perhaps "climate change controversy", or it might be merged later with ]). We have too many overlapping articles on this. ] (]) 12:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:::We just went over all this on afd. Do you want to reopen proceedings there? If not, I think you should take it that your view that material alleging frauds, hoaxes and so should be deleted does not command significant support.] 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' There is a discussion at ] to merge ] to ]. The Controversy article should not exist because the "controversy" is fabricated by deniers. ] is a bad destination for any content, because it's probably (hopefully) going to be merged out of existence. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

:: Yes, I see it just as an "interim merge". Whereever ] is merged to (my preference is to ]), this article could be merged to the same location. Or? ] (]) 08:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree that the article is unbalanced. The "Criticism" section is currently geared towards providing evidence that many notable people have described skeptics as propounding conspiracy theories. I think it should summarise the more ''substantive'' arguments that critics of the conspiracy view have made. Of necessity this will need to link back to other global warming articles on Misplaced Pages, to avoid too much duplication of material, because obviously many of the substantive arguments are actually arguments against what are claimed to be "scientific" arguments made by the GW-skeptics.
::: Hi ] would you agree to either: that ] is merged to ]; or that it is merged into ] temporarily, knowing that that article will later be merged/dissolved as well (pending outcome of discussion). I am fine with either option. Perhaps the first option is easier, i.e. merging into ]. - If you disagree with both options, do you have a third option? Or is your preference to keep it as a stand-alone article, i.e. to keep the status quo on this one? ] (]) 21:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

::For info - above discussion now finished ] (]) 18:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Furthermore, the idea that global warming could be a hoax, ''without'' being a massive and far-reaching conspiracy, is a wee bit puzzling to me, and therefore the "overheated rhetoric" section could do with an example or being deleted.
* '''Support''' now you have trimmed the target article somewhat ] (]) 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

* '''It's complicated'''. Frankly, I'm not following this confusing set of proposals for this loose collections of articles. My main hope is to eliminate, for all eternity, ]. Any "controversy" is fabricated by conspiracy theorists, and does not deserve a standalone article, even for an instant. Anything that could be placed into a Controversy article, even on an interim basis, should be placed directly into the article into which the supposed Controversy would ultimately be absorbed. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 22:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::This is a point where you could certianly help, ]. I included this section because I thought it would be reasonably easy to find people calling AGW a hoax without invoking a conspiratorial motive of some kind, but a trawl through hundreds of ghits produced no good example. You have claimed many times that people who call AGW a hoax are not conspiracy theorists, so maybe you could provide some examples.] 10:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Yes it's complicated and it'll take us some time to find consensus about the ] problem. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climate_change_denial#Merge_global_warming_controversy_into_here? . Meanwhile, I find it easier to figure all this out by taking a step-wise approach and by generally merging similar articles into fewer articles. So then if it's OK by you, I would merge ] into ]. Bits might also fit or overlap with ] which is then a sub-article of ]. ] (]) 08:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

::: I'm not familiar with the details of these articles, but in general I'm in favor of consolidating articles as long as the result is concise and isn't too long. Misplaced Pages has become bloated over >22 years, and cleaning/organizing isn't very interesting to most editors. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">] (])</span> 16:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::As for your claims about improper synthesis in the article: I want to register my disagreement with the synthesis policy - I think it's an overly bureacratic rule which needs loosening - but it's official Misplaced Pages policy so I'm willing to adhere to it. Having said that, what specifically do you think is still contrary to Misplaced Pages policy in the current version of the article? —] 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: I've carried out the merger to ] now. More work is required to condense and shrink down ] now. Some of the content could be moved to ]. ] (]) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

==Tags==

], please indicate which citations you have a problem with, and what points of dispute you have regarding factual accuracy and neutrality. ] 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'll just quote Noroton on the sources:<br>
::#"The Greenhouse Conspiracy" documentary on Channel 4 in Britain: "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but "
::#The quote from the Cooler Heads Coalition says of someone who criticized another skeptic of promoting a conspiracy theory: "Sounds plausible to us." That was the last line in their press release (or whatever announcement it was on their Web site). Absolutely nothing in the words that precede that statement shows that they seriously believe it's a conspiracy. The quoted statement was a rhetorical flourish (irresponsible, in my opinion, but not a claim that there's a conspiracy).
::#The Washington Post "article" is a Sunday magazine piece that engages, more than most, in rhetorical flourishes of its own and doesn't pretend to be objective. It characterizes the statement of a skeptic as a "conspiracy theory" but the quote used to back it up (shown in the WP article) could be interpreted as either describing a conspiracy theory or describing ideologues run amok. A couple of paragraphs before, the author writes that both sides have their own charges of a "conspiracy theory, of a sort." ''Of a sort???''. Let's change the title of this article to ].
::#"The general claim that the theory of global warming is a lie promoted by members of one or more interest groups '''secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes''' has been made on a number of occasions " (emphasis added). The problem is that none of the citations back this up:
::##On its Web page, the Oregon Petition does say global warming is "a lie" but doesn't say it's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes"
::##Melanie Philips calls global warming theory (in 2004) a "fraud". An irresponsible rhetorical flourish, not a charge of a conspiracy.
::##Same with Martin Dirkin calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." Nothing else in the article where this quote comes from supports the idea that Dirkin actually thinks there's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes." What we have is another rhetorical flourish from a filmmaker hawking his movie.
::And what we have overall is an article that is full of holes and not worth keeping. Overheated rhetoric is not conspiracy theorizing. Writing Misplaced Pages articles is not propagandizing. Or at least it's not supposed to be.] 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)"
:~ ] 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)



:::Well, a lie is by definition dishonest. If a large number of climate scientists are lying to us, and politicians are involved too, surely a conspiracy must be involved? Please cite a published theory which clearly explains how it can be simultaneously that (a) they're lying, but (b) it's '''not''' a conspiracy. Or at least could you provide a relevant historical analogy to illustrate how this could be so?—] 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


::Gee, ], given your active involvement in the discussion, how did you happen to miss Noroton's subsequent comment?

::: Comment on changing my vote The article has been improved quite a bit since I saw it last. It proves to me that the charge that there's a Global warming conspiracy has been made numerous times both as an explicit statement and at other times as a clear implication. I think the article should make it clearer up top that this is often more a rhetorical tic than a serious charge (that many of the people who make the charge don't take it seriously is clear from the quotes in the article). But my problems with the article no longer warrant deletion: There's clearly some value here. Kudos to JQ! Noroton 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

::If your only support is a statement that's been withdrawn by its own author, I'll deleti the tags.] 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, he supported the article for being kept, but that does not mean his criticisms on the sources vanish. They're still there. ~ ] 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The article was edited in response to the criticisms made by Noroton, which is why they were withdrawn. Claims that refer only to a hoax or fraud, with no link to an assertion of conspiracy have been listed separately, and I've noted the possibility of rhetorical overheating. So I've removed your tag and will keep it off unless you can raise specific problems with particular quotes. Also, since you've never made any claim of factual inaccuracy, I've replaced your "totally disputed" tag with a POV tag.] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep note that my original proposition stands. Currently, as it stands, Crichton's ''State of Fear'' and Durkin's ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' documentary are the only pieces claiming "that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" and being labeled as conspiracy theories. ~ 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:29, 7 March 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change conspiracy theory redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 13 months 
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.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEnvironment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related redirect 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
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect 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
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Section sizes

error: Climate change conspiracy theory is a redirect (help)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.
The 1RR is being retained under the general sanctions noted above.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
On 2 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Global warming conspiracy theory to Climate change conspiracy theory. The result of the discussion was moved.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4


This page has archives. Sections older than 390 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chloehyman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the title say "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"?

Requested move 2 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


Global warming conspiracy theoryClimate change conspiracy theory – The phrase "global warming" is currently deprecated. According to NASA: "Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone." Hank Benson (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Climate change has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger

I propose to merge this to global warming controversy (the final title could be discussed later, perhaps "climate change controversy", or it might be merged later with climate change denial). We have too many overlapping articles on this. EMsmile (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see it just as an "interim merge". Whereever Global warming controversy is merged to (my preference is to climate change denial), this article could be merged to the same location. Or? EMsmile (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi RCraig09 would you agree to either: that Climate change conspiracy theory is merged to climate change denial; or that it is merged into global warming controversy temporarily, knowing that that article will later be merged/dissolved as well (pending outcome of discussion). I am fine with either option. Perhaps the first option is easier, i.e. merging into climate change denial. - If you disagree with both options, do you have a third option? Or is your preference to keep it as a stand-alone article, i.e. to keep the status quo on this one? EMsmile (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
For info - above discussion now finished Chidgk1 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support now you have trimmed the target article somewhat Chidgk1 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It's complicated. Frankly, I'm not following this confusing set of proposals for this loose collections of articles. My main hope is to eliminate, for all eternity, Climate change controversy. Any "controversy" is fabricated by conspiracy theorists, and does not deserve a standalone article, even for an instant. Anything that could be placed into a Controversy article, even on an interim basis, should be placed directly into the article into which the supposed Controversy would ultimately be absorbed. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes it's complicated and it'll take us some time to find consensus about the global warming controversy problem. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climate_change_denial#Merge_global_warming_controversy_into_here? . Meanwhile, I find it easier to figure all this out by taking a step-wise approach and by generally merging similar articles into fewer articles. So then if it's OK by you, I would merge Climate change conspiracy theory into climate change denial. Bits might also fit or overlap with psychology of climate change denial which is then a sub-article of climate change denial. EMsmile (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the details of these articles, but in general I'm in favor of consolidating articles as long as the result is concise and isn't too long. Misplaced Pages has become bloated over >22 years, and cleaning/organizing isn't very interesting to most editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I've carried out the merger to climate change denial now. More work is required to condense and shrink down climate change denial now. Some of the content could be moved to psychology of climate change denial. EMsmile (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories: