Talk:Climate change denial

Until someone comments on the Talk page, I do not see how the {{npov}} template could possibly be appropriate! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 Wikipedia 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! Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article on Satellite temperature measurements. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 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.[1][2][3]"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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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. [1] 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. [2] 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 [[Category:Global warming|*]] and [[Category:Global warming]]? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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^Talk 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 [sic] 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."

That you might call "reality" what you find in a Newsweek op-ed is telling us enough already. Try to tell a college teacher or a judge that reality is found in Newsweek op-eds and that his claims are thus false, see how he will react to your convincing argument.

• 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.

I've already explained that The Guardian, Vanity Fair, Greenpeace and MotherJones accounted for something like 14 out of the 17 sources used by this article at some point. That you may think that these sources are not biaised allows me to rest my case. As for the NYT, again, please enlighten yourself with [3].

• 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

Still presenting as truth or fact opinions that you find in op-eds?

• 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)

Failing to address even my point, and providing again merely an op-ed to support that I make false claims, I see no reason to consider this any further.

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

Hmmm. Not really. --Childhood's End 13:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So your defense of your comments - which have no basis in reality and are uniformly debunked by every source cited in this article - is to attack some of them (on the basis of vague claims of bias) and ignore the others. Sorry, but I'll take their word over yours any day. Raul654 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you at least realize that what you call reality are op-eds and that this is upon what you support that I make false claims? Do you understand the difference between an editorial and hard evidence or facts? --Childhood's End 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, but apparently you do not Raul654 14:33, 10 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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[4].

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 [5].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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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. Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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)

I agree that this quote does not seem to serve any purpose and looks overweight in such a small section. I'll remove it. Cyrusc 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that Anastrophe has reverted my deletion. A, I would be curious to know how you think this quote improves the Denial vs. skepticism section. I envision this section (which certainly needs work) as a discussion of the difference between a) good-faith scientific skepticism and b) what the sources for this article make out to be a disinformation campaign. To me, the Monbiot quote doesn't seem to clarify this distinction. Cyrusc 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Cyrusc's deletion ought to be reinstated. The Monbiot quote is neither notable nor relevant to the section in question (or the article at large, for that matter). Sea.wolf4 06:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cyrusc and Sea.wolf4: the quote is completely irrelevant to the section. I support Cyrusc's deletion.Benzocane 16:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll bracket the quote without deleting it, in case anyone else wants to weigh in on this discussion. Cyrusc 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's just delete it. Zoomwsu 01:12, 14 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 [6] or [7] 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 Wikipedia 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 [8] 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)

Keep ranting. As for myself, I acknowledge that you use WP articles to indicate your understanding in such matter. --Childhood's End 13:30, 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)

NPOV tag

It seems to me that the discussion taking place here is relevant to this page as well. Should we keep an NPOV tag if what the tag asserts is POV is based in uncontested fact? Wouldn't that cause the endless multiplication of such tags across the encyclopedia? In the absence of sources refuting this unusually well referenced article, why should the tag stay? Note I'm not removing the tag unilaterally, just proposing it as a topic of discussion. Thoughts?Benzocane 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, I have removed the tag. Raul654 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, I concur that the removal of the tag is justified and appropriate. The notability and encyclopedic character of the content, as well as the plurality and reputability of the sources cited have not been persuasively contested in either discussion. Sea.wolf4 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pernicious demonization campaign

The article lacks a criticism section that explains that calling someone a "climate change denier" is an attempt to scare dissenters into silence, and to shut down scientific debate. I found one such article (there are bound to be more) here [9] which explains it well and has plenty of references. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to summarize and pick out the main points and references. If anyone wants to do this, I would be grateful. ^rossnixon 03:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coining of the term "Climate change denier"

The neologism "climate denier" is a back-handed referance to holocaust denial. [10] [11] [12] The fact that the word 'holocaust' is not mentioned anywhere in the article is mystifying. Revolutionaryluddite 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite, that some have the opinion that the phrases holocaust denial and climate denial are interlinked, doesn't mean that they are. And selecting some newer Op-Ed's (and one idiotic green ministerMEP (who btw. believes she is original in this)) that says so, doesn't make it so. The phrase climate change denial has been in use since at least 2000 [13]. This has been discussed before, please check above. --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but that some have the opinion that funding skeptical scientists and denying climate change are interlinked means that they are and that we should build an entire article about this, right? --Childhood's End 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this! If isolated individuals--either skeptics or people in agreement with the consensus--draw an analogy between the denial of the holocaust and climate change denial, that's their problem. It has neither weight nor notability. This mainstream press has consistently used the phrase "climate change denial," as this exceptionally well-sourced article makes clear, without evoking that analogy. The attempt to give undue weight to the holocaust analogy is a distraction tactic--it deflects attention from the uncontested misinformation campaigns onto the rhetoric of a few marginal critics. CE--you know (or you've never read the article or its sources) we're not talking about just funding skeptical scientists. And you know the "some" that have the opinion about corporate funded climate change denial range from the British Royal Society to Newsweek to Science.Benzocane 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, now that's [14] really in line with Raul654's actions. I wanted to point you out that you were actually, again, supporting double standards but instead of making amends, you brought this there and accused me of being non-constructive. If you support that an article is built on a story that comes from opinions taken from the press, you should support that relevant "opposing" opinions (holocaust denial), also taken from the press, be added to the article as sidenotes or bonus info. There's the Boston Globe and BBC Radio there. That's all I meant with my big 2-lines oh-so-disruptive comment. --Childhood's End 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The scotsman.com article puts the term denial in quotation marks and does not direct to a person. Referring to an abstract ideological position as being "in denial of climate change" or something like that is not the same thing as labeling a specific person a "climate denier". Dr.Petersen mentioned that "that some have the opinion that the phrases holocaust denial and climate denial are interlinked, doesn't mean that they are." I agree, but my own personal opinion is irelevant. The fact that widely read and quoted public figures have made this connection, means that the article should make some mention of it. As the great William Safire put it, "coiners can't be choosers". [15] I have no idea what you mean by "green minister". 72.47.71.160 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Should have been MEP - not minister. Caroline Lucas is a Green Party MEP. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I agree that the British Green Party is an unreliable source for any information whatsoever. 72.47.71.160 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"The mainstream press has consistently used the phrase "climate change denial," as this exceptionally well-sourced article makes clear, without evoking that analogy": Was the label "climate denier" ever used before the beginning of the Bush Administration? There has been a clear change in retoric from "skeptic", "doubter", and "contrarian" to "denier". It's not like there was a accompying dramatic change in the actual scientific evidence for global warming. 72.47.71.160 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the earlier comments, I agree that a scientist with good faith skepticism to claims made by the popular media such as Carl Wunsch or Roger A. Pielke should not be placed in the same category as Timothy F. Ball. I know that a "climate denier", who intentionally spreads misinformation due to personal bias, is not the same thing as a global warming skeptic. I also strongly disagree with the idea of deleting the entire article.

However, looking at google, "climate denier" has 811, "climate change denier" has 18,200, "global warming denier" has 31,200, "climate change" "holocaust denial" has 43,900, and "global warming" "holocaust denial" has 81,900 (hits, respectively). In comparison, "global warming denial" has 61,500 hits. I don't see why some sort of compromise can be reached regarding the coining of 'climate denier". 72.47.71.160 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The point here is more procedural than substantive: even if you dislike the phrase "climate change denial," it is--and this has not been debated-the term used in scientific and political discourse, as the citations make clear, to describe the subject of this article. There are all kinds of phrases in circulation that I find unfortunate, but my personal opinion of their merit does not justify banning them from the encyclopedia, nor trying to pretend they're used only by a radical fringe.Benzocane 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"my personal opinion of their merit does not justify banning them from the encyclopedia, nor trying to pretend they're used only by a radical fringe." That is exactly my point! I am not advocating the deletion of this article, wholesale scrubbing of its material, or renaming it. The fact of the matter is that the terms 'global warming skeptic' and 'holocaust denier' have been linked together by many people, and the article should reflect the reality. What is it about the authors of [16] or [17] that justifys calling them "radical fringe" and therefore unquoatable? The neologism "climate denier" is undisputably pejorative. Nobody would liked to be called a bigoted anti-choice wingnut Christofascist, nor a "climate denier". Revolutionaryluddite 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Many people"--many people have described George Bush as Hitler--should that be included in his entry? We are talking about thousands and thousands of instances of the phrase "climate change denial" being used in public discourse, and comparatively few instances of this analogy. But bracketing that for a moment: why do you find the analogy notable? Statistically it is not. What's at stake in giving encyclopedic weight to this analogy (which within these discussions, interestngly enough, has only been mentioned by climate change skeptics)? Benzocane 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” David Roberts at Grist Magazine. [18] Look, I know that the majority of people trying to educate the public about glocal climate change use phrases like "they're in denail" or "he's/she's in denial" and don't make the connection. However, I can't ignore the fact that a number of public figures have made the connection no matter how much it disgusts me personally. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an idealized version of reality. Revolutionaryluddite 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Look its a question of weight. On the one hand we have serious reliable mainstream sources - that do not reflect the opinions of individuals. And on the other hand we have some individuals that have made some unfortunate comments. The question is do the individuals represent a significant enough minority to warrent mention in the article according to WP:WEIGHT? So far i haven't seen this. As i've said here a couple of times - find a mainstream non-opinion article that carries this line, and i'll consider changing my mind. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you find objectionable about the links I cited. Of course, the authors have rather disgusting socio-political views, but, statistically speaking, the connection they've made is quite common. Revolutionaryluddite 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that the semi-abstract terms "in denial over climate change", "denying climate change", et cetera have no relationship to the term "holocaust denial". But saying "they're in denial of climate change" is not the same thing as labeling a specific person a "climate denier". I see what you mean about sourcing, and I'll try to find a non-Op-Ed news article on the subject. Revolutionaryluddite 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the comparison needs to be mentioned in some way in this article. The comparison has been made by notable pro- and anti-AGW individuals and is in the public debate enough that it should warrant some sort of mention. Zoomwsu 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned; it's a matter of finding reliable sourcing. Revolutionaryluddite 01:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Climate_change_denial#First_Two_Sections Revolutionaryluddite 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect of climate change denial

Given that the rest of the article is solely focused on the United States (or, arguably, the United States and Great Britian), it doesn't make much sense to bring up what the people of Japan or other countries believe about climate change. Yes, I know that the general point of the article is to detail a disinformation campaign made against the American people. Still, the politics of Japan, the culture of Japan, science and technology in Japan, and Japan's economic obligation under the Kyoto Protocol make the relevance of the poll a bit strained.

Also, shouldn't there be more American poll results in this section? Right now, only the controversial Newsweek issue is mentioned. From the point of view of a "climate change believer", it seems very pessimistic. A lot of other polls paint a different picture:

A CNN report from this May says that 20% believe that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities" and 22% believe that "Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven." A 54% majority believe that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories." ABC News ran a poll this April in which 84% think that "the world's temperature" has "been going up slowly over the past 100 years." A Gallup poll in March stated that 70% believe that "the effects of global warming" "have already begun to happen", "will start happening within a few years", or "will start happening within" their lifetimes. [19]72.47.71.160 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've cut the Carter Op-Ed:

According to Australian scientist Bob Carter, more than $50 billion has been spent by governments since 1990 to study climate change.

Bob Carter is a geologist, and not an expert on this subject. The claim about $50 billion is rather extraordinary - how does he tally this? Is he including money for weather satellites to get to that figure? Are there any other sources (non Op-Ed/WP:SPS) that can substantiate this claim? --Kim D. Petersen 11:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also cut the Pielke Jr. quote. This is a WP:SPS from a non-expert source. Please find a reliable source that makes this assertion - and then you can fill in with some opinions. Otherwise you are doing exactly the same error as has been discussed numerous times here. --Kim D. Petersen 11:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you substantiate the "Many sceptics have argued" - can you find a reference for this - or is it original research based on you finding a couple of individuals who have done so? (btw. Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic). --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC:This entire article is built on op-eds from non-scientists. I accept Pielke is not a sceptic so this needs rewording. However he is merely commenting on the terminology not the science so doesn't need to be an expert on the science. Iceage77 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

False--British Royal Societh, Union of Concerned Scientists, Science--not to mention the scientists quoted within the other periodicals.Benzocane 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough - i count only 1 Op-Ed (Christoff) in all the references (+ a couple of columnists). Pielke is not an expert here, as a political scientist, this is his own personal opinion. We can't just cherry-pick opinions to suit some line of argumentation here. That is WP:OR/WP:SYN - as well as giving undue weight to individuals. Find a WP:RS that supports your argumentation - and then fill out with individual opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Pielke is not an expert here, as a political scientist, this is his own personal opinion. We can't just cherry-pick opinions to suit some line of argumentation here. That is WP:OR/WP:SYN"

Wow, Kim, how nicely this could apply to every source used by this article and warrant entire deletion, if you would just take the time to realize it.

That Pielke is not an expert about this is irrelevant because we're in the realm of opinions throughout this article, not verifiable facts, as you finally seem to acknowledge is important. I dont think that there are many 'political scientists' quoted by this article so if they're allowed, Pielke is allowed too on this basis. But you are right to point out that this is a SPS and I have always been consistent about this - better sources are required. Hopefully, you will require it in every instance, on both sides of the debate. --Childhood's End 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, its getting tiring to hear you harp "i don't like it" (psst: we have noticed). We have sources to the article that covers all aspects - and they are not Op-Ed's nor are they WP:SPS - but large firmly established reliable sources. The rest is simply filling in details - WP:OR/WP:SYN is only when you make the connection - not the sources. --Kim D. Petersen 15:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, if you would be consistent on your positions and if you would not misrepresent mines all the time, we could agree more often that not. I'm not arguing because I dont like it, I am pointing out to you that even if the article's sources are notable and reliable, they're not hard evidence, they're not even political scientists, and they dont prove that Exxon is disinforming the public on purpose - they are opinions purporting to 'make the connections', as you put it. You cannot deny this. As for the Pielke quote, he was making the connection, not me, so your point, again, doesnt hold, but, again, I agree the source is SPS. Can I be anymore clear? --Childhood's End 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Shultz has reverted this edit that I made regarding funding by governments [20], claiming irrelevancy. I can somewhat agree with his point that since the amount includes "alternative energy" research expenditures, it becomes less relevant. But there is still something to it, and that is that there exists notable claims that the government grants more funding to climate change supportive research than Exxon grants to skeptics. I would thus suggest as a compromise that we keep the paragraph as it is (before my edit) but that we simply add the refs so that the reader can make his own mind. --Childhood's End 14:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Exxon et al funds the misrepresentation of scientific consensus--that's PR, not science. The government funds all sorts of scientific research--what you would need to show, is how the government funds willfully misrepresentative PR. But your basic assumption--that the government funding research consistent with the scientific consensus and Exxon attempting to manipulate the public perception of said consensus are equivalent--is patently false.If you can show us how the U.S. government has portrayed climate change as a greater threat than it actually is through the misrepresentation of scientific consensus, than you have a point. It will be hard to find sources for that, however, as the U.S. gov. has been linked, again and again, to the climate change denial that is the subject of this article (viz. Cheney's energy task force).Benzocane 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First, as CE himself hase seen, the source is somewhat irrelevant. Alternative energy is clearly distinct from climate research, but also, not all "climate research" funds go into global warming related projects. A GCM, e.g., is a general tool for climate research. The supercomputer it runs on even more so. But what is more: By including this point, you at least suggest that government(s) have a specific agenda and influence the research results. It's easy to see why Exxon is interested in a certain outcome, and indeed the motivation has been fairly clearly exposed in several reliable sources. It's much harder to suggest that the government (or all governments?) influences research in a similar manner - not because the executive might not want to (although in the Bush case probably in the same direction as Exxon), but because there is a fairly large bureaucracy involved, with different checks and balances to ensure that proposals are evaluated on merit. So unless you believe in a giant conspiracy theory, the case is not "government vs. Exxon", but rather "Scientific opinion vs. Exxon". --Stephan Schulz 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, there is no need for a giant conspiracy theory here, like that of Exxon trying to evily disinform the public rather than trying to fund and communicate legitimate scientific minority viewpoints. Government money goes where the votes or other interests are, and some believe it's enough to make a parallel (I think that's what matters - we have notable sources, and our opinions should not prevail). Now, as bureaucracy being a check and balance, especially in the US, you may want to read about the iron triangle. --Childhood's End 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, "conspiracy theory" is a phrase we use to described unsubstantiated conjecture. This isn't theory, this is a factually documented misinformation campaign. How many different editors are going to have to refer you to the facts? So far we have your opinion against all of the sources in the article. I'm sure Exxon is very touched by your belief that their attempt to misrepresent scientific consensus had only scientific motivations--but your personal faith in the good intentions of the energy lobby is not relevant to an encyclopedia entry. Don't you think the theory that requires substantiation is your personal theory that Exxon et al only have the interests of intellectual progress at heart?Benzocane 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane, I may be perhaps alone in my camp, but please allow me to make myself clearer since I may have not been enough so that you can properly understand what I have tried to explain. You might then stop misrepresenting my positions like Kim does. Perhaps you do not have a material background in "substanciating conjectures" and "factual documentation", but as a lawyer, I do. As for myself, I hold no theory here, what could not be said of many other editors here including yourself. No matter how many press articles or editorials you would present a judge in any matter, failing any hard evidence like direct witnesses, confessions, expert testimony or else, your case would be earnestly dismissed (and your career likely over). An encyclopedia, being different than a newspaper, normally requires similar levels of evidence prior to asserting that something is a fact. All that I have asked is that this article, if it is maintained despite any such evidence existing, should avoid WP:SYN instances and be drafted as if it was reporting a theory that exists in some media, rather than as if it was reporting verifiable facts. I hope you do not believe, like Raul654 does, that news outlets are a "proof" that something is true, otherwise we might as well revisit the article about UFOs. I hope that with this, you can now grasp my point. --Childhood's End 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. You've explained the fundamental problem of this article I've had trouble pinning down. The perspective of the article needs to be taken as one that explains a current theory, rather than as if it is known fact. The article basically describes inferences based on observable activities of AGW critics--inferences made mostly by members of the media (not scientists). Therefore, this article needs some serious restructuring to describe this theory in a more encyclopedic manner. Zoomwsu 01:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane has summed up the entire premise of the article as "So unless you believe in a giant conspiracy theory, the case is not "government vs. Exxon", but rather "Scientific opinion vs. Exxon". The problem is that most of this article assumes that "if Exxon gives money that- through whatever processes- ends up going to do a scientist and that scientist disagrees with any aspect of the scientific global warming, bribery has occured". There clearly has been a documented misinformation campaign, witness the horrid Oregon Petition, but that doesn't imply that industry funding of scientific research is morally worng in all circumstances. The fact is that government spends far more on climate research than businesses can hope to match [21]. Wikipedia should not have a quasi-romantic view of the federal government; the case is not "government vs. Exxon", the case is "government vs. media vs. Scientific opinion vs. Exxon vs. other industries". I'm not saying that the article is fundamentally wrong, there just has to be more of a balance. Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect of climate denial

This section appears to make four specific claims:

Corporate misinformation kept the public from understanding the evidence of global warming discovered in the late-80s and early-90s.

Corporate misinformation convinced the public to oppose the Kyoto Protocol and other environmental acts promoted by the Clinton Administration.

The majority of Americans still do not understand the current scientific consensus.

Due to corporate misinformation, the majority of American's oppose the necessary measures to reduce such as a carbon tax and carbon trading programs.

The section mixes the four claims together in a dishonest way. The first is probably true, but I'm not really familar with the subject. The third is, at best, a pessimistic overexaggeration. Given that the media's saturation coverage treats global warming as a historical event like the civil rights movement, most Americans agree that it exists and must somehow be dealt with.[22] The second and fourth statements are heavily disputable in their own right and, in any rate, have no place in this article. Honest, good faith disagreements between qualified economists and political scientists about the effectiveness of specific measures is in no way, shape, or form equal to "climate denial". Revolutionaryluddite 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The third claim--which you describe as a pessimistic overexaggeration-is substantiated by the source you offer to counter it: "64% think scientists disagree with one another about global warming" in the face of overwhelming consensus. Why do the 2nd and 4th have no place in the article? Benzocane 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You can call me an extreme literalist if you like, but if I was asked by a pollster "do scientists disagree with one another about global warming" or "do scientists all agree with each other regarding global warming"- I would respond with the former. Disagreement and verifiablity is a vital part of the scientific method and the peer review process. Suppose I were to ask you "do you support abortion" or do you "oppose it"? Time Magazine has a unfortunate record of boneheaded phrasing of their poll questions. Please look at my earlier posting about the 'Effect of climate denial' section (I forgot to log-in). Revolutionaryluddite 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the results of a recent CBS poll to give the section more balance. Revolutionaryluddite 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The section still needs a counterpoint to the first paragraph claims that the reason the American public and Washington has rejected anti-global-warming measures such as carbon taxes, emissions trading, and building more nuclear plants is because of the 'denial machine'. As the saying goes: "When you point your finger at someone else, your pointing three back at you." House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, opposes a carbon tax: "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that." [23] If claims 2 and 4 belong in the article, than advocates for progressive taxation and members of the anti-nuclear movement should have their views represented. It should then also be mentioned that, right now, Americans are willing to make personal sacrifices to fight global warming. For example, the CBS News poll says that 64% of Americans would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Revolutionaryluddite 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This article says "A 2007 Newsweek poll found majorities still believed neither that scientists agree climate change is taking place, nor that scientists agree climate change is caused by human activity, nor that climate change has yet had noticeable effect." This misrepresents the actual story, which says "49 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today." I have corrected this. Revolutionaryluddite 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The section looks NPOV right now as far as the third point goes. Revolutionaryluddite 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The second and fourth points are, though heavily disputable, very relevant to the article. They section does need some criticism on those two points for balance. Revolutionaryluddite 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on ExxonMobil

The phrasing of the article gives the impression that the misinformation campaign was more or less entirely funded by ExxonMobil. What influence did/does Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and BP (which has done a fantastic job of greenwashing themselves [24]) have? Revolutionaryluddite 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the links, it's clear that ExxonMobil is basically on their own. Revolutionaryluddite 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

The article states that "Organized climate change denial efforts began to make headlines shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature in 1997" and quotes a report saying that "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began". There's a frustrating lack of dates in the article- let alone a step by step chronological flow. PBS has a detailed timeline at [25]. This might seem like nitpiking, but I don't think that opposition to global warming during the release of the first IPCC Assessment in 1990 is really on the same page as opposing global warming now. The degree of scientific consensus has changed. Revolutionaryluddite 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the external link. Revolutionaryluddite 02:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph

"Those who believe anthropogenic climate change to be real and skeptics alike recognise that climate change has occurred throughout geologic history; more in dispute is what role human activity plays in recent climate change." This statement seems entirely unnecessary in the context of the article. There really is no need to include a little summary of what global warming is in the the first paragraph. The statement "more in dispute is what role human activity plays in recent climate change" is misleading, prominent AGW skeptics such as Timothy F. Ball and Anthony Watts disagree with the belief that the earth has been significantly warming. Again, it's safe to presume that someone searching for 'climate denail' already understands the global warming controversy.

"Whereas skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific effort to understand these changes, 'climate change denial' typically refers to a disinformation campaign thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby." 'Climate change denial' is not the same thing as 'climate scepticism'. It should probably say something like "Environmental skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific method and the peer review process. The neologism 'climate change denial' refers to a disinformation campaign alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a bad-faith-based interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change- particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby."

The money quote from Newsweek is given a lot of weight. The lead in- "As Newsweek reported in August, 2007,"- is POV phrased, and should read something like "The August 2007 Newsweek cover story reported,". The quote says: "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry"- there is no single, uniform popular front-like organization. See Business action on climate change. In any rate, climate skeptics are certianly not well-coordinated due to the fact that they have failed to convince the American people [26]- "has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers)"- snarky snide remarks like this do not belong in an encyclopedia- "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."- this is somewhat ludicrous. Those three positions are not interchangable, and all three currently held by a variety of different people. The rest of the article does not show any other source for such a direct, linear progression.

I suppose I may be making too much of this, but, as the great Nigel Tufnel said, "Well, if they had made too much of it, it would have been a good idea." Revolutionaryluddite 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The section now reads:

Climate change denial is a term used to describe the denial of all or part of the theory of global climate change. Skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific effort to understand these changes. While the terms 'climate skeptic' and 'climate contrarian' generally refers to scientists taking impartial positions on the global warming controversy, the neologism 'climate change denial' refers specifically to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a vested interest in misrepresenting scientific consensus on climate change, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby. The August 2007 Newsweek cover story reported,

"this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) 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."

I'm not sure how to phrase the basic 'good faith'/'bad faith' (or cock-up before conspiracy) distinction. A more consise quote from Newsweek, "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention", or something like that has a place in the article, but not in the introduction. Revolutionaryluddite 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Standard

It has just come to my attention that an Op-Ed piece [27]I cited as evidence that the term 'climate denier' is being used as a comparison to 'holocaust denier'- which was summarily dismissed given that Op-Ed articles are, in general, poor Wikipedia sources- is currently block quoted in the article. Dr. Peter Christoff, a former director of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific [28], states that Op-Ed that:

"There are grave risks in drawing analogies with any aspect of the Holocaust. One easily oversteps the mark, losing a valid point amid counter-accusations of hysterical overstatement, of engaging in distressing, offensive and exploitative mis-association. Even so — and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming. I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action it illustrates the immorality and potential damage".

"The panel warns that we face a high risk that our collective behaviour will lead to the extinction of cultures as well as a significant proportion of Earth's non-human species, and the suffering and deaths of many thousands, if not millions, of humans. Given the consequences of inaction, or insufficient action, or delayed action, to trivially undermine these findings by stirring up a "faux debate" over its results and projections is a matter of desperate practical and moral seriousness."

"It would be inconceivable for the ABC to screen a film that denied the Holocaust. This is not merely because "the facts are in", but because of the offence this would generate in trying to set aside the memories and lessons that this dark history delivered us. So why then is the ABC proposing to show this Thursday a "documentary" that denies global warming?"

Dr. Christoff says "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, 'sceptics'. But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change" in the current 'Denial vs. skepticism' section. This should be removed, and the section rewritten.Revolutionaryluddite 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the only example of double standards. Mention of the Newsweek global cooling article was removed on the grounds that it's irrelevant to the issue. But we still have a section on passive smoking in the global warming controversy article. Iceage77 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the Newsweek global cooling dispute as a double standard as you are comparing apples (climate change denial) to oranges (global warming controversy). This article is specific, whereas the latter article is quite general, hence the argument that the global cooling canard has no place here. If there is a dispute in having that reference in the global warming controversy article, then your complaint is valid there. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I am not sure about global cooling, but this article is the kind of material that anyone can use to show that WP endorses specific agendas and double standards. With regard to global cooling, I can see some relation with what is called 'climate change denial', as 'climate change denial' could definitely be explained at least in part with past failed climate predictions. Moreover, the most famous such failure comes from Newsweek. I would not propose to add a full paragraph about it, but I think that at least a note or reference is warranted. But what strikes me as unforgivable bias is that this article takes most of its steam from the Newsweek article about 'climate change denial', but restrains to a mere 3 lines, at the very bottom, the ensuing Newsweek column by Samuelson [29], a Newsweek editor, that refers to this article as "fundamentally misleading", "vast oversimplification", "peripheral and highly contrived story", making accusations "long ago discredited" to which "NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability", and so on. How can the first article can still be considered a reliable source despite the magazine's editor blasting it, I have no explanation, but that the magazine's rebuttal of its own piece is almost ignored by our article is dishonest. That is disinformation. --Childhood's End 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to start by mentioning that I've been "off-line" for over a week, so I've apparently missed a bit of the "excitement" with respect to this article. Now, having said that, I've re-read the article as it currently stands. The Newsweek article that you claim this article gets most of its "steam" from gets 5 lines here, as opposed to the 3 lines in the criticism. (cf the original version of this article] that doesn't mention Newsweek at all.) That said, I agree that the criticism could and should be expanded on, given the critic's closeness to the original source. Personally, I also wouldn't be against moving the original Newsweek source down closer to its criticism. As it stands now, it would be very easy to miss its criticism. OTOH, if you want an excellent example of a non-Newsweek source, check out the very last link in the External Sources section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, you have to take another look. The Newsweek "denial" story is referred to a whooping 7 times through the article. It accounts for more than 20 lines. --Childhood's End 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I missed a lot of the other references. Personally, I'd like to see the Newsweek reference removed from the lede. It doesn't belong there, and I don't feel it adds anything to the article. If no one objects, I'll remove it in a bit. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crit section either needs to be immediately improved or deleted

I'm not going to delete a small "criticisms" section, no matter how misplaced I feel its contents, but it still needs to meet encyclopedic standards. 1) Even if the holocaust analogy is somehow notable, the text must explain why the use of this analogy by x number of commentators is a criticism of the phrase. I, for instance, think the holocaust analogy is stupid, but I nevertheless feel the phrase "climate change denial" is appropriate. The entry must show why the isolated use of the analogy amounts to a criticism of the general term or this section should be deleted. 2) It in no way is a criticism of the corporate misinformation campaign that governments give more funding to science than Exxon. If Iceage and CE want to create a separate article showing how gov. research has been faulty or manipulative, and can find credible sources for such an entry, so be it. But trying to excuse Exxon by noting there are larger funders of research is preposterous. The larger governmental contribution has not been shown--in talk or in the body of the entry--to in any way alter the fact of the misrepresentation of scientific consensus. This is an attempt to write a failed deletion campaign into the text of the article and is POV. If these issues aren't addressed, and the content improved, these sections should be deleted.Benzocane 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the funniest bit about using gov't funding of science as a "contrast" to corporate funding of "science" is the complete blind spot about how the US government has actually treated science. It's amazing that any real research gets done at all! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)}-14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me about the claim that "ExxonMobil is vastly outspent by governments in the field of global warming research" is that, based on the evidence cited in this article, I don't feel comfortable lumping Exxon's efforts together with those of, say, the IPCC under the banner of "global warming research." I have no doubt that Exxon does fund actual scientific research, but is that really the issue? What this article seems to be about is not Exxon et al.- funded research, but Exxon et al.- funded disinformation. If an organization hires a PR firm to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," is that "research"? If Exxon offers scientists $10,000 apiece not to interpret data as best they can, but to interpret it, from the start, with the express purpose of undermining IPCC findings, is that "research"? "Research" is when scientists deliver the most accurate findings their data and their consciences permit, regardless of whether those findings serve the purposes of a third party. It does not seem intellectually honest to call the denial described here a form of "research." Cyrusc 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But what you, other editors and this article overlook is that the IPCC takes the care of telling the world that even its most "certain" findings are subject to some 10% uncertainty, a margin that can be considered quite significant in science. We're far from established "facts", even without discussing the distinction that ought to be done between a theory, overwhelmingly accepted or not, and a fact. There's all the room in the world for the API to legitimately try "to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours". How can this article survive while claiming that this amounts to "disinformation" is telling books about what's going on here. --Childhood's End 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(That's not my point, but yes, good methodology provides uncertainty guidelines. The IPCC's are here. Note that the 90% certainty CE refers to corresponds to what IPCC calls "very likely." My point is that "research" and "public relations" campaigns are two very different things, and that to represent as "research" what is actually a public relations campaign to foment doubt and controversy seems intellectually dishonest. Cyrusc 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC) )

Yes, margins of error exist in all scientific investigation, but these margins of error have not precluded the consensus we've discussed. And for the hundredth time, what's at issue here is less the fact of climate change than the fact of Exxon and public sector misinformation campaigns. Benzocane 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, CE is factually wrong. The greater net cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions in the Northern hemisphere (compared to the Southern) is described as "virtually certain", i.e. as having probability greater than 99%. And even the main result is quantified with a probability of >90%. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly only an accident that you ommitted that the probability assessment is itself subject to some uncertainty... And I was quite obviously referring to the other main IPCC conclusions as well (and not even those with a lesser level of certainty), so I dont know where you're trying to go with your "CE is factually wrong" and your blah-blah. --Childhood's End 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote you: "[...]the IPCC takes the care of telling the world that even its most "certain" findings are subject to some 10% uncertainty". You may wiggle around with the "some 10%", but this statement is still factually wrong. The IPCC does no such thing. And it assigns a >95% probability to the statement "that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750" - something that I would call a main result. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite obviously the one wiggling with my "most certain findings"... --Childhood's End 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed that section, which is particularly glaring and misleading. What remains is a quote from Exxon's PR department and an unexplained mention ofthe holocaust analogy. What do people think we should do about those two subsections? They hardly seem encyclopedic.Benzocane 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that both sections can be kept, but they desperately need to be improved. A lot of references have been provided for the holocaust assertion in the past, so there's material there for anyone who wants to dig for it. This material includes both holocaust comparisons from a couple people who support the science behind AGW, as well as several critics who have cited those people (or just made vague accusations). However, IIRC, at least one of the holocaust comparers and several of the critics are notable people. I don't know how to improve/expand on the Exxon PR quote. I feel that it's relevant, but I don't have a strong argument for it being encyclopedic. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of sources that document that the holocaust assertion has been made by several commentators. But what we need is a coherent argument for the notability of that assertion, and a statement of its status as "criticism" of the phrase. A single line at the first mention of the Exxon funding that says "Exxon denies these accusations" will suffice as a statement of their position unless evidence defending that position is available. PR soundbites are not evidence.Benzocane 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the holocaust assertion is very notable among deniers themselves (playing the victim, as it were), and far less notable among those actually using the term "climate change denial". However, this is no doubt influenced by my own personal biases and selective perception. As for the PR comment, I think you nailed it - that they deny the accusations should be mentioned, but we don't actually need their PR sound-bite. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only credible criticism is about the Newsweek cover story and I've accordingly reduced the section to that material that CE has provided. The larger question is: in an article supplied with 20 some sources, does a critique of one periodical warrant its own section? I leave this up to other editors. But encyclopedic standards cannot allow a floating fragment about the holocaust denial and an Exxon PR quote. I agree with Benhocking that the relevance of the holocaust analogy is its use as a tactic of self-victimization, but I do not have sources for this claim, nor do I find it notable enough to warrant inclusion.Benzocane 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So we have one long attack piece on Exxon with numerous quotes saying how evil they are but they are not allowed a response? Are you serious? Iceage77 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to a statement of Exxon's response; it does not warrant it's own subsection under "criticism."Benzocane 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

can you provide a basis for that? is there a wikipedia editorial guideline you can cite that suggests that their response doesn't "warrant" its own subsection? Anastrophe 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not claiming there is a Wikipedia rule that prohibits the subsection, I'm voicing my opinion. It seems to me that Iceage's recent edit makes more sense than the subsection that preceded it. The denial should be near the assertion, not floating in a "criticism" section. I support Iceage's recent edit.Benzocane 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's frustrating to have to monitor this article as if it were being vandalized. Yes, only the Newsweek rebuttal is notable because of the prominence of that source, although that is one of many sources, and should be mentioned somewhere--the rest, as Benzocane has made clear--is somewhere between POV and incoherent.Varlet8 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at FairTax and other articles, I don't think it's a good idea to have a specific "Criticism" or "Self-criticism" section- the information contained in the first version of it should be spread across the article. Revolutionaryluddite 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what FairTax has to do with this, but I find that criticism sections are standard in Wikipedia. It has the downside of relegating to the bottom of the article what may be information that is just as important as the one criticized or that even refutes it, but it has the upside of separating ideas and probably making clearer articles that focus on the subject. --Childhood's End 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Varlet8 and others; Iceage and CE continue their failed deletion campaign by other means. Only the Newsweek rebuttal is at all relevant. Nice PR quote from Exxon, by the way! SlipperyN 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to make this personal, SlipperyN. My point in bringing up FairTax is that (See Talk:FairTax) highly rated wikipedia articles tend to have a logical back and-forth progression that incorporates different opinions and facts.Revolutionaryluddite 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I did not express a preference for one style or the other; I only pointed that in my experience, a criticism section seems standard in WP. --Childhood's End 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First Two Sections

I suggest {I messed up the links a bit a whole lot}:

:Climate change denial describes bad faith based efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. Skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific effort to understand these changes and the terms 'climate skeptic' and 'climate contrarian' generally refers to scientists taking sincere positions on the global warming controversy. In contrast, 'climate change denial' refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby.

< Denial vs. skepticism >

Main article: Global warming controversy

"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresentating science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."

The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." Newsweek published a rebuttal piece by contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson calling it "a vast oversimplification of a messy story" and "fundamentally misleading". He argues that "journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale... in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed". Several Op-Ed columnists have asserted that the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus. Dr. Peter Christoff, a former director of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific and current direct of Environmental Studies at the University of Melbourne, argues that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."

Several columnists also believe that 'climate deniers' should be compared to 'holocaust deniers'. Ellen Goodman argues that "we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." Christoff concludes that "because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming. I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action it illustrates the immorality and potential damage".

Revolutionaryluddite 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've editied the Denial vs. skepticism section. Revolutionaryluddite 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism sentence

I've removed this sentence: Skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific effort to understand these changes -- which I know is not all new -- as it amounts to a clear POV violation. Since "climate change skeptic" refers to a minority view--a decision to depart from consensus--to claim "environmental skepticism" as essential to understanding climate change gives the impression that a minority few is the consensus.Benzocane 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is poorly worded in any case and should be kept out. I removed the word "especially", replaced "often" with "usually", and swapped "good faith" with "unbiased". Sans the Newsweek quote, the introductory paragraph looks just fine. What do you think about my reworking of the 'Denial vs. skepticism' section? Revolutionaryluddite 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to second the idea that the Newsweek quote does not belong in the introductory paragraph. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the Newsweek quote and placed it into the 'Denial vs. skepticism' section. I also added some information to and rearranged some of the current quotes in the 'Denial vs. skepticism' section.Revolutionaryluddite 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial analogy revisited

I am genuinely confused about the inclusion--let alone the prominence--of the holocaust analogy. When I review the discussion here, it seems that the editorial consensus is that this information is not notable. Benhocking has made an argument that it's notable as a rhetorical strategy of self-victimization; this is the most coherent argument I've encountered for its inclusion, but it is not the context in which it appears. A handful (out of thousands) of sources mention this analogy. Why is it given such weight in this entry? I don't want to start an edit war--I want to understand.Benzocane 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the holocaust analogy prominent? It's only mentioned in a single paragraph at around the middle of the article. I've editied the first sentance so its more clear that commentators, not responsible scientists use the specific term 'climate denier'- rather than 'denying climate change', et cetera- and commentators, not responsible scientists associate those with a belief of 'climate change denial' with 'holocaust deniers'. If there's a consensus for cleansing the article of all/nearly all Op-Ed sources, than I'm happy to go with it. Revolutionaryluddite 06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing wikipedia for less than a week. I'm sorry if I'm leading the article twoard an edit war. Is it customary to take a poll in this cirumstance or something like that? Revolutionaryluddite 06:21, August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the mentioning of these individuals that link to holocaust denial is WP:SYN/WP:OR and under all circumstances very questionable regarding weight. The reason that its a synthesis is that you are trying to show that this is either a common or significant viewpoint, since you have no sources that guide you in this assumption, then it is you who are doing it. Please find a reliable source, here specified as something more than the opinion glanced from an Op-Ed/Columnists/WP:SPS - then you can afterwards put some "spice" into it, by quoting people, to show (an) example - preferrably one that is referenced in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your weight comment, but how can sourced opinions of other individuals be considered WP:SYN or WP:OR? Like Revolutionaryluddite, I'm relatively new, but I've read these policies and neither one seems to apply here. If an editor's comment is that person X said Y, then isn't an Op-Ed piece where person X said Y a reliable source? I see your comment that s/he is "trying to show that this is either a common or significant viewpoint", but I think good faith requires that you assume inaccurate wording than intent. I'm not arguing for (or against) inclusion here, as I'm acknowledging that some representations of the holocaust argument have had an inappropriate weight, but I see WP:SYN or WP:OR thrown around a lot, and frankly it makes me somewhat skeptical of neutrality when I see them from "either" side applied in what seems to me, at least, to be a buckshot method. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're quite on target here Ben. But Kim is known for some inconsistency as to source requirements depending on the issue. You are right to say that the Holocaust analogy is notable (I see at least the Boston Globe and The Age discussing it, plus this ABC [30] piece). No OR there, but it has to comply with WP:UNDUE, yes. --Childhood's End 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The synthesis is this: A says B about C, D says B about C as well.... Ergo C involves B. Thats classic SYN. If we had a reliable source that directly linked B with C, and indicating the notability of it. Then this should go in. But currently we haven't got such a source. When and if we have such a source, then it becomes something to talk about. --Kim D. Petersen 17:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the issue is more one of Weight than OR, although I understand Kim's reasoning, and I certainly agree with Kim's edits. CE is still playing the "if I can find several instances of the analogy it's notable" game, which is completely beside the point, as has been discussed at length. To be clear: I do not doubt the good intentions of Revolutionaryluddite. I just feel clear arguments against the notability of the analogy to the entry have been made and are yet to be refuted. A paragraph is certainly prominent for a subject whose relevance to the entry is yet to be established.Benzocane 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cut this:

Several Op-Ed columnists assert that the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus. Dr. Peter Christoff, a former director of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific and current direct of Environmental Studies at the University of Melbourne, argues that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."

Thats definitely not supported by any of the references (or anything else) i've seen yet. Both Goodman and Christoff, the two references that are used to support these assertions, both make a clear destinction between scepticism and denial. A link to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is severely misleading - please check the article for description. There has to be a destinction here, Pielke Sr. would not fall into either of the two's definition, but Ball might. --Kim D. Petersen 07:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has a somewhat misleading title, see Talk:Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming, and is designed to include scientists who disagree with the current IPCC report- even if they, like Pielke Sr, wholeheartedly accept global warming.

Christoff says:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's yearly reports are the result of several thousand scientists' collective work, based on detailed research and closely argued, evidence-based, peer-reviewed published articles. Its fourth report, published earlier this year, states, with confidence, that global warming is occurring and is predominantly the result of human activity; that unless we alter our behaviour, global temperature will rise on average between 1.8 and four degrees by 2100; and that the evidence of climate change is visible amid droughts, storms, extreme temperatures and other events.

The panel warns that we face a high risk that our collective behaviour will lead to the extinction of cultures as well as a significant proportion of Earth's non-human species, and the suffering and deaths of many thousands, if not millions, of humans. Given the consequences of inaction, or insufficient action, or delayed action, to trivially undermine these findings by stirring up a "faux debate" over its results and projections is a matter of desperate practical and moral seriousness.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was screened on Channel Four in Britain in March. It was subsequently debated and its "arguments" conclusively demolished.

The documentary is a clear case of climate change denial."

The Great Global Warming Swindle was not 'cimate change denial' as this article's introduction describes it. It was produced by neo-Marxist-- and, ironically, genocide denier-- Martin Durkin and wasn't financed by Exxon or aything like that. Anyway, Christoff clearly believes that any scientist who criticizes the IPCC is a 'denier' and equivilent to a 'holocaust denier'. Revolutionaryluddite 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you cut "Several Op-Ed columnists assert that the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus" because of inadequate sourcing and/or undue weight, or because you believe the statement is factually incorrect? Revolutionaryluddite 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because the assertion, that it should apply to all sceptics. This is unsupported by both the Christoff and the Goodman references. Both of them make a distinction between sceptics and deniers. Christoff: "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics" and further limiting it to those disputing "underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections", Goodman limits deniers to those who dispute that humans have a (significant) role (thats btw. only inclusion criteria #2 at the sceptics page). And again see above about weight and original research. --Kim D. Petersen 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Christoff says "because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming." Note the use of the word 'threat'- even someone that strongly agrees global warming is occuring, is primarily due to human factors, and will have negative effects if left unabated but questions the IPCC conclusions regarding potential devasation is a 'denier'. Right after he says "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science", he says "we face a high risk that our collective behaviour will lead to the extinction of cultures as well as a significant proportion of Earth's non-human species, and the suffering and deaths of many thousands, if not millions, of humans. Given the consequences of inaction, or insufficient action, or delayed action, to trivially undermine these findings by stirring up a "faux debate" over its results and projections is a matter of desperate practical and moral seriousness." Christoff does not differentiate between 'global warming skeptics' and 'clmiate deniers'. He specifically says "The documentary is a clear case of climate change denial." The documentary included many, though certainly not most, of the scientists at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Given that Ellen Goodman only mentions the 'holocaust' analogy once, in passing, and in a semi-ambiguous way and her article is based on another topic, I've changed my mind about the quote- she shouldn't be mentioned. Revolutionaryluddite 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This Op-Ed says "the global warming denial industry" "pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust." [31] (It differentes between 'climate skeptics' and 'deniers', saying "even Exxon is cutting contributions and distancing itself from the global warming denial industry") Revolutionaryluddite 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Goodman says "By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get. I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny." Her article is mostly about 'how to respond to global warming', so global warming skepticism is mentioned only is passing. Her statement "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers" is phrased in a way that implies 'global warming deniers' and 'Holocaust deniers' were not comparable until recently- unlike Christoff. However, she also believes that any scientist who criticizes the IPCC is a 'denier' and equivilent to a 'holocaust denier'. Revolutionaryluddite 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. If Christoff is misrepresenting it, than I don't think he should quoted in the article at all Revolutionaryluddite 17:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-criticism or merely criticism?

Where does the "self" in self-criticism come from with respect to the Newsweek article? The critic is a contributing editor (i.e., a free-lance writer), not a regular editor. He is not a spokesperson for Newsweek, nor is he on their editorial staff. Why is this considered "self-criticism" instead of just "criticism"? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the "self" on the basis that the criticism pas published by Newsweek, and necessarily was allowed publication through the editorial process of Newsweek. Also, without the "self", it sounds as if the criticism comes from anywhere, whereas it was published by the source. But I see your point and it is surely worth discussing. --Childhood's End 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also see your point about it being published by Newsweek. I don't really feel that strongly about it, but as I was confused by the term "contributing editor", I thought others might be, too. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-criticism is misleading, unencylopedic, and POV. It implies that Newsweek is retracting its position--that one editor speaks for all of Newsweek. Obviously, Newsweek decided to run the article independent of the opinions of one of its contributing editors. So the use of "self" is inaccurate. It is common practice for a periodical with several editors to also publish a minority view. It is not self criticism: it is the opinion of a minority editor. I'll let it stand until I hear from other editors.Benzocane 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an odd phrase, but I'm not that concerned about it being misleading, as it more makes me wonder "what is self-criticism" then anything else. Using the word "retraction" would definitely be misleading. I agree that it should be removed, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to contribute to any edit-war. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "criticism" is the only term that makes sense. Self-criticism carries a lot of baggage (jiǎntǎo e.g.). In this context, it's inaccurate. You wouldn't call a rebuttal in a presidential debate "self-criticism," despite the fact that it and the statement prompting it are being broadcast in the same medium. Cyrusc 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited to "Criticism" pending further discussion. Cyrusc 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cut the section. This has already been integrated in the text, further up. (under denial vs. scepticism) It merits mention, but not two seperate ones. Integration of criticism in text is preferable, since you get both views immediatly when reading the article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Creation of the category denialism

This category makes me uneasy. Holocaust denial is not yet in this category, but it is an obvious candidate. I assume I do not need to elaborate too much on why that makes me uneasy, as it feeds into a perception that certain people want to equate climate change denial and holocaust denial. I know this was not the intention, but consider this carefully. Perhaps it is appropriate, but I do think it should be discussed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The category itself is already up for deletion. Please vote. Revolutionaryluddite 20:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't vote. XfD is not a vote. Do participate in the discussion, if you have reasoned opinion. --Stephan Schulz 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What is 'CfD' and 'XfD'? Revolutionaryluddite 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

'CfD' is Category for Deletion, and I believe 'XfD' is a generic something for deletion. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That the category makes me uneasy doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. At this point, I'm undecided on that particular point. I'm actually leaning more towards keep than delete, but I would like to see some meaningful discussion about it. So far, I don't see any from either side on that page. I did find the Deletion review, which allowed me to find the original CfD. This does have a few cogent arguments about POV problems, but still leaves me somewhat undecided. (I did love Grutness' comment, though.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Christoff and Goodman referances

Given the concerns about WP:RS and the accompying anti-Op-Ed editorial consensus, I removed the quotes from Christoff and Goodman. I also removed the exploratory lines "Some Op-Ed columnists and environmental activists argue the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus" and intentionally relate 'climate deniers' to 'holocaust deniers'." Revolutionaryluddite 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Denial and Deception' Referance

The leaked memos at "Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming" are grainy enough that I can't read them at all. Revolutionaryluddite 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Referance

Reference number 13 appears to no longer exist.Revolutionaryluddite 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It vanished here. --Stephan Schulz 04:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for restoring it. Revolutionaryluddite 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology / Holocaust denial analogy section

I'm sorry, but I don't see how Iceage77's additions were any more WP:UNDUE than the section "Effect of climate change denial". He has a couple lines from Pielke (who is notable) and a few from Brendan O'Neill (who is less notable, but writing in the Guardian). Their opinions are their opinions, and are definitely indicative of quite a few deniers viewpoints. I think his comments should be added back. (Keep in mind that I am definitely not being POV here.) Is Newsweek better than the Guardian? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This terminology section is ridiculous. CE is quoting what appears to a be joke: a study described in "The Age" as "conducted by a non-partisan think tank located somewhere between the small township of Tibooburra and the NSW border, identified global warming as the current topic of choice for people who want their dinner party to finish early." See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-now-worlds-most-boring-topic/2007/07/17/1184559781053.html. I'm removing this section--it takes encyclopedic standards to a new low.Benzocane 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In any event, this joke indicates the author's opinion. Since your view of "encyclopedic standards" is known to vary according to whether the source supports or not your POV, I'll re-insert the section but will remove the "survey joke" for the time being. --Childhood's End 15:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I missed that one. I agree that a joke has no place in this section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you knowingly passed off a joke editorial as a notable survey of global opinion on the holocaust analogy? Or you made a mistake?Benzocane 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Did not realize it was a joke. Doing a few other things while doing this. Good catch. --Childhood's End 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What has changed here? We got another Op-Ed, once more not from an expert, but from a political spin-doctor (Morano). As sources go, this is just about the least reliable source out there, regarding the opinion of other than Morano/Inhofe. This can under no circumstances be used as a source for Pielke (Pielke's original blog-article is more reliable). It is still undue weight, nothing has changed here - its still exactly the same problems as such a paragraph has had in the past. Its cherry picking of quotes, put into a context that noone yet has found a reliable source to support. --Kim D. Petersen 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What a good question Kim, what has changed? These sources are not used to prove that "climate change denial" means "holocaust denial", but rather that commentators have argued that the former is meant to equate the latter. No OR there, and your WP:WEIGHT argument really is a blind shot since the section amounts to 3 lines and since the analogy itself has been made quite notable by both sides of the debate and should legitimately be discussed somewhere in this article. --Childhood's End 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also the small problem of both articles now being included in the same category "Denialism". Iceage77 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrmmm - Flat Earth Society, AIDS reappraisal, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, Holocaust denial. Looks like a good fit for this article. Raul654 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It actually supports the point, imo. --Childhood's End 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but how are you able to determine from random quotes from individuals, that this is not a tiny minority view? If it is - then its certainly undue weight. What i've said all the time, is that you need a mainstream reliable source to show that this is more than a fringe viewpoint. When you have this - then you can include various viewpoints. WP doesn't include everything. As it is, some editors are pushing to get this into the article, but have yet to find a reliable source (one that is not a self published source or an opinion piece. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

just so i'm clear, as i haven't read every policy on wikipedia: are op-ed pieces of any kind explicitly not reliable sources under any circumstances? Anastrophe 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Op-Ed's are reliable only to the opinion of the author of the op-ed. (see for instance this). --Kim D. Petersen 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the section to address some concerns and changed the title as to reflect the specific subject. --Childhood's End 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All i can see in this section, is that someone is good at using Google, to find opinions from completely unrelated sources - and collect them into their own original research about this. Find a mainstream reliable source first, and then give examples... Or are we suddenly in POV-land where we can all synthesise our own critiques? --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the information in the 'Terminology' section really belongs in the 'Denial vs. Skepticism' section. Also, "Many commentators have argued" should be rephrased to something like 'Some Op-Ed columnists and poltical activists have argued" to emphasize that this is a significant minority, not a majority viewpoint. In the same vien, "Climate change denial (not skepticism) has in fact been associated with the Holocaust denial by some commentators, notably" should say "A few commentators have argued that the term 'Climate change denial' should refer to all of people and groups disagreeing with the consensus, and directly associating them with 'holocaust deniers', by". Revolutionaryluddite 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To frame my trouble with this: "to emphasize that this is a significant minority" <- how do you know this? All you know about, is 9 unrelated opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The most basic issue--the notability of this analogy--has never been established. Far more than 9 people have compared Bush to Hitler, or to Jesus for that matter (take your pick), and we don't include the analogy in the entry. To make it an entire section is absurd--from pure fatigue, I'd be willing to compromise with a sentence that notes that isolated commentators have made such an analogy, although even that is to give undue weight to an insignificant phenomenon.Benzocane 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the page George W. Bush Administration before, but if it does not mention that his use of Christian Fundamentalism in his domestic policies and his strong belief in the Imperial Presidency has been criticised... Well, I'll be very surprised! Revolutionaryluddite 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link Removed

I removed-- Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Current Biology. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2007-07-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Revolutionaryluddite 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Its a resource that might be integrated into the article. Which is what external links are for. (amongst others) --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you include a link to Popular Science in an article about Rush (band)? I know that external links don't have to be NPOV, but the Rolling Stone report is particularly bad in terms of objective journalism. Revolutionaryluddite 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just read your statement in (terminology), I don't see how you can cite Rolling Stone as 'mainstream reliable' journalism in the same vein as Time Magazine. Revolutionaryluddite 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rollingstone has published work by some of the most famous international journalists. I have not read the actual report in question, but Rollingstone is certainly sufficiently credible to have a presence as an external link. External links often include blogs (or worse), let alone periodicals with considerable, if particular, prestige.Benzocane 20:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

an aside, however: "has published work by some of the most famous international journalists". fame does not confer reliability, freedom from bias, credentials, or relevance. see Paris Hilton. but i digress. ;^) Anastrophe 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If an external link to Rolling Stone is acceptable, that why isn't a link to the AEI or the Brookings Institution or National Review acceptable? Revolutionaryluddite 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Rolling Stone article itself. It may superfically be 'mainstream reliable' journalism since it is not specifically marked as opinion, but it reads like an Op-Ed. Revolutionaryluddite 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a relevent article in a notable publication in the mainstream press, regardless of how you view it, most here still think it belongs. Odd nature 01:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek vs Newsweek

Kim cut the Self-criticism by Newsweek section on the basis that it was already discussed earlier in the article [32]. Seems a fair point to me. I would although suggest, for clarity, that the mention that is included earlier in the article is cut instead and the specific section re-inserted. It has the downside of pushing to the bottom the Newsweek rebuttal, but it separates the ideas, or so I think. --Childhood's End 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As Revolutionaryluddite alluded to earlier, "good articles" usually won't have a Criticism section. Specifically:

In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet

This was news to me, but the policy page seems to confirm it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'm surprised too though. --Childhood's End 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Most WP:FAs on controversial subjects still contain 'controversy' or 'criticism' sections, so this is far from being the rule. Odd nature 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category: Denialism

It appears to me that there is a large majority view on the talk page that this article should not be in 'Category:Denialism' (assuming the category survives deletion). Revolutionaryluddite 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not seeing that. It looks more 50/50 to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)