Talk:Climate change denial

Article half complete at best

Where are citations of those who argue against this term? Where are the voices of those who point out, such as Rush Limbaugh, the most obvious truth behind this term, which is that it was created to equate those who do not believe in global warming with Holocaust deniers? This is a fundamental point behind this terms creation and use, and not one citation? When there are dozens of articles that refer to it?

And where are the voices of those who believe this whole term is absurd, and simply an attempt by extreme leftists to push global warming politically and thus to vastly grow the size and power of government and raise taxes? The lack of neutrality is not only is what is included, but what is seemingly purposefully left out. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is hardly a reliable source, lacking any scientific qualifications and having somewhat of a reputation for shooting from the hip without checking his facts. If you can find a reliable source expressing this viewpoint, then by all means add it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who asserted that the origins of this word are in any way scientific? And to cite criticism of the word, in that context he would be reliable as a very prominent political pundit. I'll round up some sources when I get the chance. Judgesurreal777 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate change is a scientific issue, therefore so is the issue of whether various forms of dissent from the scientific consensus are legitimate "climate skepticism" or illegitimate "climate change denial". If you do not understand the science (and Limbaugh apparently doesn't), then how can you tell a legitimate scientific argument from an illegitimate one? Why does being "a very prominent political pundit" make him reliable? All that it means is that a large number of people within his political constituency listen to him, not that his statements are in any way well-substantiated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I just read that someone wants to use Limbaugh as a reliable source? Hold on, I think I'm going to blow out a carotid laughing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would point Judgesurreal777 towards the reliable sources guidelines....for why Mr. L is not a relaible source, even for his own opinions. --Rocksanddirt 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am afraid Rush, although entertaining, is in no way a reliable source. This is particularly true on a scientific issue. I stand by what I said earlier, lost above in a storm of nonsense, that there are features of denialism on all sides of this debate. The science that Judgesurreal is looking for resides in linguistics, which is not much of a science. New terms emerge in English or other languages all the time. And this is one of those times, apparently. So what?--Filll 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

and as an emerging new term, other terms that clearly influenced the evolution of this one should be referenced (and there are abundant references). they provide a uniform schema for the linguistics. denial that the term 'climate change denial' was influenced by the existence of the term 'holocaust denier' is, well, an interesting epiphenomenon, to say the least. Anastrophe 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And what about AIDS denialists? And other forms of denial and denialism? And what about those who claim denialism has nothing to do with denial? This is just a playground for those who want to obfuscate and confuse.--Filll 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. The term "denial" is a very loaded one, meant to infer that those with doubts about this climate change proposal are denying reality, that their POV lacks legitimacy. That's an extremely biased stance, and not in keeping with Wiki's neutral POV. As for obfuscation, no comment is necessary. -- jds 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.13.206 (talk)

I think the article really needs to mention Godwin's Law, at least in the "See also" section. --Helixdq (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The word is "heresy" not "denial"

I'm amazed at the number of logical fallacies in this article (appealing to authority, appealing to numbers, etc.) when the gist is that anyone who speaks against doctrine is a heretic.

This article should be deleted as far below an intellectual standard needed for anything representing itself as an encyclopedia. As long as it remains it will simply be another example of why Wikipedia cannot be seriously considered as an accurate, reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.57.199 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the very title suggests that is will be a rather one sided article. The word "denial" suggest that the main theory is un-disputable, or not up to debate. That can not be known with complete certainty until AFTER it is completed which it hasn't.65.75.110.90 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to "see also"

It seems we should add Energy lobby to "see also."Benzocane (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Credibility

Articles like this one (there are several) damage Wikipedia's credibility. All attempts to delete these articles, or even make them NPOV, will fail, until the global warming alarmist movement itself collapses, which will happen eventually. Open skepticism among experts is building, and will continue to rise. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Vegasprof (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion if you like to contribute: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Senate_Minority_Report Brusegadi (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an EXTREMELY biased article

This article, nearly in its entirety, is written in the POV of someone who believes in global climate change to be true. Currently, Global Climate Change is a highly disputed topic, and has been proved neither true nor false, as there is counter evidence to every evidence. Personally, I do not believe even rewriting this article could save it from being biased. Please tell me if you believe otherwise. WIKIPEEDIO 18:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I overall agree with you, but this article is some sort of playground for a political cause and WP must live with it it seems. There are several serious articles about climate change but the scientific editors involved in these, for some reason, have allowed this to live despite that it somewhat damages their cause. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

CE, the article is based upon a very real viewpoint in several reliable sources - thus it survived the AfD - which is why this article is still around. While i personally do not like some of the argumentations used, its a widely used concept. If you believe that its not - then you are welcome to resubmit it for AfD. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a very messy leftist blog entry, no more. It has 4 sections, among which 2 are titled with "alleged"-something and another with "possible"-something. Perhaps it fits in the NYT, but not in an encyclopedia. True enough, the concept is notable and widely used, but that does not excuse you or other editors to allow such a POV-pushing brochure to exist in this form. I see in the first para. that the mention that "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism" is still there, whereas this is a plain lie; this description is not made by any source. Then you have a series of implications that global warming is a fact rather than a theory, something that even the IPCC does not agree with, and that challenging scientific findings must amount to politically-motivated denial. I need not say more. I'd be comfortable with an article restrained to reporting the existence of the concept of "climate change denial" but as it stands now, this article is mostly about reporting various conspiracy theories. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The scientific opinion on climate change is rather clear - but that is in reality quite irrelevant for your statement of bias. The article is strongly referenced with reliable sources - so if you have more specific critique, or equally reliable sources to make the article more neutral then please add them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has the energy to rehearse all of this? The article's citations haven't been disputed; the entry has been extensively vetted. What's POV is the denial of documented denial, or the claim that "there is counter evidence to every evidence" of climate change (if I even understand the phrase)--a claim that is itself totally without evidence. But, yes, Kim is write; disturbing as such an assertion is, it's irrelevant to this entry.Benzocane (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, lets not confuse the state of the science with the state of public opinion in the US. We have to take a world-view on issues and on much of the rest of the world there is no debate. Even in the US, this is still pushing it, since McCain said something taking action on global warming in a GOP debate. If he was not afraid to talk about it there, I think public opinion in the US is moving forward and things are more settled then you think . Brusegadi (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with this statement. Despite what Newsweek and Al Gore state, there is absolutely no consensus among scientists and other "experts". There are many highly-qualified scientists that understand global warming is a hoax brought on by extreme environmentalists to attack oil companies and other industries that are crucial to the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.125.116 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

While I think it's appropriate that this article be unlocked after the long sabbatical, I find it telling that an IP began vandalizing it almost as soon as the block came down. Who here thinks semi-protection would be appropriate for the time being? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There has only been one IP address editing, and they have already been blocked. I don't see any justification for semi-protection at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)