[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Jesse Ventura

Is former governor Jesse Ventura a "denier" or a "skeptic"? Here's an example of why the term "denier" is problematic:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YCR9tClX8I

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3arkEld7I

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3arkEld7I

According to this TV show episode, oil companies even encourage Cap and Trade and other financial instruments that were invented to support the climate change financial agenda (which a bit contradics the ExxonMobil argument). John Hyams (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above 4 videos most likely belong in Global warming conspiracy theory, since that is just about the most describing term for them. I especially enjoyed the section on the scientist gone underground.... Who anyone with a bit of interest in sceptics, would immediately recognize as Tim Ball - who most definitively isn't "underground". Has nothing to do here (or really at GWCT), unless secondary reliable sources call Ventura a "denier" (or a gwct). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, but is there a difference between climate change conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers? Is Tim Ball a denier? Or is he a scientist who just opposes the mainstream view? Is Jesse Ventura's show considered a denial campaign? That's my point. It's very difficult to define what a denier is, which leads me to question whether the definition of a denier is accurate. It's very easy to tag people as deniers, when in effect they raise doubts or claim for fruad/neglegence/agenda with regards to the IPCC (which is a political body, not a scientific body). John Hyams (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not up to us to define who is or isn't a denier, that is something that we leave to secondary reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Not up to us regarding who but it is up to the article to define what a climate change denier is (as discussed above). John Hyams (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) Responding to some points above:

  • "contradics the ExxonMobil argument" - ExxonMobil is a vast corporation. Even individuals can behave inconsistently or hypocritically, e.g. Tiger Woods marketing his wholesome image while indulging in multiple affairs. How much more, then, might a large corporation employing tens of thousands of people around the world have different units pursuing conflicting strategies. In some cases, the apparent conflict might be a hedging strategy - back every horse so the eventual winner owes you something. ExxonMobil might also have changed its strategy over time, as more people in the company began to realize the science was not coming down on their side. If global warming is real, might as well try to profit in the new environment. The oil industry has long experience with difficult business environments.
  • "difference between climate change conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers" - climatology is a complex science, and there are many separate details of the current IPCC position which a person might reject. As far as I can see, virtually no serious climatologists question the basic physics of the Greenhouse effect, nor the fact that humans are adding to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's very hard to find a qualified scientist who denies that humans are currently changing the climate. The relatively few qualified scientists who disagree substantially with the IPCC (Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc.) all seem to acknowledge humans are changing the climate by burning fossil fuels and chopping down forests. They differ with the IPCC on the direction and magnitude of climate feedbacks, i.e. the Climate sensitivity. This is in contrast to the legion of scientifically illiterate people who flood the Internet with complete nonsense on climate change. My personal working definition for "climate change denier" is someone who says there is no greenhouse effect. That is a scientific error on par with geocentrism. By that measure, Richard Lindzen is not a climate change denier. Of course, my personal definition has no bearing on Wikipedia's definition (WP:NOR).
  • "the IPCC ... is ... not a scientific body" - what is the source for this claim? The first sentence in our Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article says:
    • "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity."
  • "not up to us to define who is or isn't a denier" - the Global warming controversy is much newer than the Creation–evolution controversy, so the scientific and journalistic establishments haven't had as much time to document and label all the various flavors of organized and spontaneous opposition to the mainstream science position. In the creation-evolution controversy, scientists have found it is not sufficient merely to construct a position and present the evidence for it. They must also respond specifically to the arguments against the scientific position. In the creation-evolution controversy, scientists have often appeared to lose public debates with creationists, as the latter are skilled at constructing subtly fallacious arguments that sway audiences who haven't been trained to think critically, and the tricky arguments may be difficult for scientists to refute convincingly on first hearing. It is relatively easy for a skilled rhetorician to raise doubts about a complex topic in the minds of laypeople. So there has emerged a separate class of scientists who confront creationsts, and journalists who document and categorize all the players. The global warming controversy is much earlier in this process. The IPCC presents the evidence, but hasn't gone around playing Whac-a-Mole against the legitimate and specious counter-arguments that spring up. Thus on Wikipedia we may have to wait a bit, until climate change gets more people who function analogously to people like Eugenie Scott and Kenneth R. Miller in the evolution debate. There is also the possibility that dissenting scientists and politicians will change their minds as evidence for global warming accumulates. If the IPCC turns out to be substantially correct, then eventually there will be no almost no climate change deniers. I suspect an important psychological barrier will be broken during the first ice-free summer in the Arctic Ocean. Almost certainly by then people will have much better data for quantifying climate sensitivity.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious passage

WP:NOTFORUM - 2/0 (cont.) 09:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This cracks me up every time I read it: "Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate" LOL ! Six million people vs,. the entire human race (and perhaps the planet itself), who's being inappropriate?! That being said at least the author of this clearly has an ironic- if dry and cynical- sense of humour. 64.222.125.69 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You should visit a doctor soon Joepnl (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Would Antisocial personality disorder be related to this denialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.186.68 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How is the link Climate change exaggeration "blatant"? Please explain more before deletion. 99.27.175.140 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is Climate change denial, did you mean to put it under climate change exaggeration? Dmcq (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think want that anon is wondering is about relates to the article "POV fork" edit by William M. Connolley, right? 99.52.150.17 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge to climate change consensus

I believe this article should be merged into Climate change consensus. Neither article is about the actual science, they are about the public perception of climate change and its manipulation. This would result in an article with a more clearly defined topic an the result would be of an acceptable size I believe. The actual public opinion and the scientific opinion in different countries can then be documented properly in Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change and the science and its criticism covered in Climate change, Global warming and Global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read both articles again I'm withdrawing this. They don't fit as well as I thought they might. It is a bit peculiar that climate change consensus mentions denial in the leader but skirts around it otherwise, I'm wondering how to put a bit more on the business of propaganda about climate change in that article. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Global warming controversy article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was keep. -- ► RATEL ◄ 05:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Global warming controversy. I support this sugguestion. this page would do well to be included as a component of the Global warming controversy.--Zeeboid (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Zeeboid, could you please present your rationale for the merge? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Disagree There can be no rationale, the Global warming controversy page is 122 kilobytes long and this page is 41 kilobytes long. One page is about the history of some attempts to disprove the scientific basis of AGW over the years (which have now amounted to very little), this one is about political lobbying, big business and legal matters. One is about a scientific controversy that eventually reached consensus, the other about corruption and politicking. Two different subjects. The practice in WP for big and growing issues is to split off detailed articles on sub-topics, not merge them into 160 kilobyte behemoths. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps instead there should be a page spicific to political lobbying, big business, legal matters, corruption and politicking in reguards to the AGW believers. Climate Change Fraud for example--Zeeboid (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
By all means, go ahead, and see what you can come up with. --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
ClimateGate? Although, it should be pointed out that the estimated global warming through 2100 hasn't changed significantly this decade, and it was clear to any rational observer that, as of 2001, the data and climate models did not support significant global warming. I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. But i'm not surprised that you haven't got a science source for that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did, but it's been retracted, apparently not for legitimate reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. You are too quick to lable discenting opinion as "deniers" -likening them to holocaust denial. There are also some factual errors in thie page; beginning with the premise that the hypothesis (and that is ALL it is) has the support of every major scientific body with NO DISCENTING view ever being given. Wrong. THE IPCC report has been disavowed by numerous climate scientists. I suggest you start your research by looking up James Hogan's "kicking the sacred cow" and then moving into science. Especially given the leaked CRU data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.9.215 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge — This is a significant and terrifically important subject all on its own, and should never be downgraded through merging with any other topic. Dreadful idea. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be merged to anything, shouldn't it be upmerged to its parent article, denialism? After all, this simply discusses a specific case of that larger phenomenon. The whole "global warming skeptics" seems like a bit of a red herring - that phenomenon isn't a subset of skepticism, it's a brand name that unites denialist with contratrians and curmudgeons. One could write an article about that, but it would lack focus and coherence. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009

  • The point of this article is to say potty words about people who are skeptical about AGW. basically the article quotes many folks who likewise say potty words about skeptics. Where's the beef? No substance, just blah blah blah you're a denialist. OTOH, the confirmation of wrongdoing on the part of CRU is pretty much all out there. This whole article can be blanked and replaced with "Bush Lied People Died" or somesuch, and it wouldn't really reduce the article's factual content. • Ling.Nut 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You really should (a) familiarise yourself with the topic (I take it you're unfamiliar with the phenomenon of denialism?) and (b) stop engaging in attacks against living people, in violation of our BLP policy. In addition, you seem to be imputing ill motive to your fellow editors - you seem to be skirting very close to violating our policy on personal attacks. You're usually a responsible editor, and I'm quite taken aback at this. Have you considered the possibility that you're too personally worked up about this issue? Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • YES, POV problems, now & forever. Dodgy sources, especially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece, cited 9(!!)) times. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would be a POV renaming. This name is used by world leaders, the popular press, and the scientific press. Changing the name would be pandering to a fringe group. This is an interesting subject in its own right (denial, rather than disagreement). Verbal chat 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole article is POV. Not kinda POV. Very POV. Forex, the quote about the Supreme Court "rebuking" the Bush administration. Sure, it's a word-for-word WaPo (liberal publication) quote. But it is presented as unadorned fact. I think it's not uncommon for the SCOTUS to disagree with Administration policy; to call that a "rebuke" is editorialism. The quote should be completely removed. I would do it, but y'all would revert me. Let's not pretend you wouldn't. You would say the quote is sourced, which it is, but you would neglect the fact that the quote is not literally true. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone. Meanwhile, we have Monbiot and Mother Jones listed as reliable sources. Mother Jones? While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill? And the Private Sector section lists AEI funding as denialism. That whole paragraph is one more thing that should be deleted, since all it establishes is that someone disagrees with your POV, and is willing to fund research to probe the relevant issues... is that denialism? Only from your POV. You see denialism, I see someone offering to fund legitimate research. Who says it's denialism? Aside from Monbiot and Mother Jones.. well.. you say it is. But the fact that you and Monbiot and Mother Jones all agree with one another doesn't establish any kind of wrongdoing. Forex, you also have a cite that shows that many AEI folks were Bush administrations folks. And... so... what? Essentially, you're saying, "Look, look, they're Bushies!!! BusHitlerExxon! That Effing Proves that they are denialists!" What is this? Is this evidence of wrongdoing? is this evidence of anything at all? No. And that is a key point. As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications accusing folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None. That's why this article is POV. Deny that. • Ling.Nut 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, let's see. "[Y]ou would neglect the fact that the quote is not literally true. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone". So you are arguing that your analysis should replace reporting of the Washington Post? And that's consistent with our content policies in what way? Mother Jones is a reliable source. You have any evidence to the contrary? Certainly it's more reliable than the Weekly Standard, which you recently quoted as a reliable source. "While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill?" Much like the Weekly Standard, I don't think he's the sort of source we'd want in this article. Reliable sources are much better. "[Y]ou have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing". Hmmm...I seem to recall something about Wikipedia being about verifiability, not truth. "No proof. None." Yep, just like there's "no proof" that Obama is an American citizen.

      We have notable, verifiable information. About a well-known, notable topic that's documented by reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with a topic, the onus is on you to educate yourself about it before expressing an opinion. Guettarda (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Merge, this article is very POV, as much as the leftist editors do not want to admit it. I opposed this article a year ago, and am shocked to see it is still here. Even the title "Climate Change Denial" implies that it is some sort of disease or something, and that it goes against scientific consensus. WIKIPEEDIO 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Which it does (denial of the facts does go against overwhelming scientific consensus). Just read the lede to Scientific consensus on global warming. There's nothing 'leftist' about this. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. This article should not be merged into Global warming controversy, as too many issues would be conflated, and this would not help us improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand the point of view concerns about this article need to be addressed, even if they are overstated, and the POV tag should not be removed while concerns are ongoing. At the moment, this article wears a point of view on its sleeve, and even its title may need further thought. The best service articles like this can do for Wikipedia—and the climate change issue—is to be scrupulous in their impartiality, to describe and not engage in disputes, and to trust the reader to come to their own informed judgment. This article does not achieve this goal at present and I am willing to comment further on where it fails and how to improve it in due course. Geometry guy 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - IDONTLIKEIT is not a merge rationale. Nor are long (or short) rants against 'liberals' and 'leftists'. And verifiability, not TRUTH, is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The POV stuff is in the right section, or the merge stuff could be in the POV section as well. That is, if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged. And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial. You know as well as I do that presenting it unadorned (as it is) creates the impression that SCOTUS actually and literally scolded someone. You know as well as I do this is dishonest and POV. Does WP:NPOV mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of WP:5P • Ling.Nut 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You do, I hope, realise that there have been other attempts to delete or merge this article in the past, and they failed. One is reminded of Don Quixote. ► RATEL ◄ 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Piffle. Let's rmv all the POV. Then we can merge the remaining two paragraphs.
  • This article takes as its starting premise the presumption that AGW is TRUTHTM, then says, "...and anyone who disagrees is engaging in denialism". Its very premise is POV. From there, its structure looks like a melange of half-truths, circular reasoning, guilt by association and other examples of fatally flawed logic. We'll have to go through it sentence by sentence and rmv all the nil content. Then we can merge.
  • I have listed a few starting concerns above. Please address them. Note that I have already stated that WP:NPOV trumps the rather lame "Wikipedia is about verifiability" associated with the SCOTUS quote. I will delete that quote about two hours from now... • Ling.Nut 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a scientific consensus in the world that AGW is occurring, no matter what you may think. Therefore, people who disagree with the concept are ipso facto deniers of AGW, and fall into much the same category as deniers of evolution. See wp:FRINGE. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To quote a friend of mine, "Bzzt. try again." There may be a consensus that global warming is occurring.. though even that is crumbling... but there is not a consensus that it is anthropogenic. I listed a few starting concerns above. 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Mr Nut, perhaps it would help if you knew what you were talking about. A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. ► RATEL ◄ 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, I really don't think Ling.Nut is seriously making a classic climate change denialist argument to argue against climate change denialism. His whole argument here has obviously been poking fun at the denialists. Good one, Ling.Nut. You had me fooled. Seriously though - this is a bit POINTy, don't you think? Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged." Your hyperbole aside, {{cleanup}} isn't a merge rationale. Nor is {{expand}}.

    "And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial." You appear to be conflating these two. Not sure why. You wrote: "As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications accusing folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None." You're using truth claims (or rather, TRUTH claims) as the basis for your argument. But, as you well know, we work on a standard of "verifiability, not truth" specifically because of TRUTH claims like yours, which, it would appear, are predicated on the assertion that anything coming out of "liberal publications" cannot be "true". It saddens me to see you argue against WP:V.

    But you save the best for last, don't you? "Does WP:NPOV mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of WP:5P". And that after you have argued against the first line of WP:V. Though they aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I am tempted by terms such as "broken irony meter" and "lulz". Thanks for the laughs, Ling.Nut. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Let's cut to the chase. Aside from simple distortion/misrepresentation of facts (as in the quote I just rmv'd), what this article does is present an extremely excellent job of verifying that the media and other biased commentators have repeatedly accused folks of denialism. What it does not do is show that denialism has taken place, after providing a meaningful definition of denialism. Moreover, what this thread does not do is... you know.. actually look at the text of the article. Wouldn't that be like a good idea, in theory? • Ling.Nut 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Come on, Ling.Nut. You good as admitted your position is a parody in response to Ratel. I admitted you had me fooled. It was a good joke, but now you're taking it too far. You're not Stephen Colbert. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Given previous (failed) efforts, this all seems rather POINTy. I did get a good laugh from "I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time", though. --PLUMBAGO 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh too. You looking to get another fish in the face? 99.54.138.153 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. See WP:Summary and the article length. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. This topic is notable separately from Global Warming Controversy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not parodying anything. You can't keep the SCOTUS quote, because WP:V doesn't warrant taking a purely editorial assertion and framing it as an unadorned assertion of fact, using Wikipedia's voice. Please do not abuse WP:V to support your POV. You can't keep the AEI stuff because, basically, it uses fallacious logic. It states: AEI funds research that runs counter to the AGW POV. Former Bush administration folks work for AEI. Boxer says there's a denialist conspiracy of some sort. BEHOLD: connect the dots, all Bushies are denialists, all AEI folks are part of a denialist conspiracy, etc. Really, THERE IS NO CONNECTION between the statements you have strung together and the conclusions they leave unstated. • Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose merge Very bad idea. That article is for the generic discussion of issues related to global warming, this article is for the discussion of very specific incident. Not enough overlap to justify a merge.Sorry, misread the proposal, will try again.--SPhilbrickT 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


I made a username! Aren't I smart? 05:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support merge This article currently is a splendid example of a single-sided POV article in esse. Collect (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The terms in question have an established basis in literature and usage. Also see discussion about merging huge articles.Airborne84 (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge or create an article entitled "Climate change hoax" to balance if you seriously think being this POV is alright. --π! 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Global warming controversy is a very long article, and climate change denial is only one small part of the topic. It's a separate issue, and certainly notable enough to deserve its own article. 'Climate change denial' is a neutral term, being widely used in both the scientific literature and the general media. Robofish (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge on the basis that the "denialist" term is a derogatory term used by the climate change "believers" or "warmists". Both are not neutral POV. Alternatively, create a counterbalanced article on "warmists". Note that "skeptic" is a term happily owned by those who are skeptical and is more neutral than "denialist". Alternatively then, rename the denialist article as "skeptic" --Blouis79 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge Essentially for the reasons given by Blouis79 above. Climate change denial is a intentionally derogatory term used to discredit skeptics and liken them to 'holocaust deniers' or ' evolution deniers'. Unlike to two aforementioned subjects there is an ongoing debate involving many respectable climate scientists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge if Climate change scepticism is to redirect, then certainly Climate change denial should also redirect. To do otherwise would be a clear and blatant WP:NPOV violation.jheiv (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

bold;">π!]] 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge The article, as is, demonstrates a NPOV. The merge would alter this for the worse.

98.216.186.55 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge It takes little review of the media and recent books to establish that "climate change denialism" has become a common and notable concept and term; this is true whether one believes it's a "fair and honest" characterization or a "negative smear" - those judgements are not for our editors to make, we are only reporting the documented aspects of the culture, not "correcting" or "endorsing" the fairness or accuracy of such naming. However the article could be retitled to something about "non-scientific biases to climate change science" (with redirections from both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax"), and could seek a more objective reporting of the charges of bias from both sides. To achieve a NPOV it needs to stand outside that debate, and only report the documented cultural phenomenon, not try to "win" the framing fight for either side. If this article is broadened in that way, it will justify being a separate article from the science based ones - the (alleged and often believed) non-scientific part of the climate change controversy. The terminology part is not unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - we can only report the framings that have in fact achieved cultural impact and notablity, not decide which terms *should* be used or suppressed as accurate or inaccurate. In that context, both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax" have become widespread and influential terms and concepts, both alleging non-scientific biases are distorting the truth. The perjorative adjective and the opinion that that term "intends" to analogize to holocaust denialism should also be changed to an attributable assertion of some of the contending parties, not stated as a simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph93 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Both articles have enough content for standalone article. Both articles are notable topics. Both articles are on a specific topic, although there is some overlap (as there is with every single article on WP). Climate change denial is about denial of climate change and it is the process of the denail that is part of the Global warming controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Propose to close as "no consensus" - this has been under discussion for a month now, and without getting into the merits of all the arguments (a judgment call that many would no doubt disagree with) there just doesn't seem to be a consensus developing either way. My own two cents is that this should be a distinct article given its notability and considerable importance in contemporary politics, but it would be a WP:WEIGHT problem to add it all to the main climate change article. I haven't read it thoroughly so I don't have an opinion as to whether it is POV, but if it is the place to fix that is here. Moving the material elsewhere won't reduce any problems with POV or editing disagreements, it will probably make them worse. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge and believe this discussion should be closed. A consensus has been reached by the majority: Oppose. I would however not be opposed to this being renamed "Climate Change Truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.3.50 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge for reasons adequately stated above. Airborne84 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this article should be merged to Climate change consensus instead. The Global warming controversy article is mainly about the science whereas climate change consensus is about the bodies fighting over the consensus on the science with very little actual science involved, and that is what this article is about mainly as far as I can see. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge climate change denial is a specific subject in its own right. It is distinguished from scepticism/controversy as denialism rejects facts and logical arguments, but scepticism/controversy does not. As a subject, climate change denialism is sufficiently important to merit a separate article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mind your language

Scepticism, according to Diderot, is "the first step on the road to philosophy". With due respect to the Express's scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? Or dare I use the D-word? I'm talking about D for denier, as in one who denies (to those looking for fashionable hosiery who have been directed here by typing "denier" into a search engine: you are in the wrong place).

We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics".

David Marsh Mind your language - Guardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.140.64 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

change of article title

The title "Climate Change Denial" should be changed to "Climate Change Skepticism" or some other politically neutral title. "Climate Change Denial" is an inherently politically left-leaning term as the word "denial" has a negative context as it is typically associated with things like the addiction to illegal drugs ("He's an addict living in denial".......).

Calling Climate Change Skeptics "deniers" is akin to calling believers fanatics. Not everyone who is skeptical of climate change/global warming/whatever it will be called in 5 years denies that it exists. One can be skeptical of something but still believe it does exist in some way and/or to some extent(A good example of this is religion. I, for example, believe in God, but I am not a biblical literalist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about skeptics, it's about the denial campaign by oil companies and suchlike. That's not based on skepticism about the science, it's based on sectional interests. The articles Climate change consensus and public opinion on climate change are probably more what you want about seeing the extent of skepticism in the general public. Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK...fair enough!  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, could there at least be a disclaimer at the top of the page saying that denial refers to the opposition from oil companies? That way, there would be no doubting the article's POV. --82.46.154.63 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think something like that might be reasonable looking at the leader which describes various ways the term might be used rather than the particular way it seems to be used in the rest of the article. It might as well emphasise what the topic of the article is! Like to give it a try? Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think adding a disclaimer like that goes beyond the sourcing. Take, for example, Monbiot's denialist deck of cards - much of this is probably linked to corporate funding, but calling people "corporate shills" without better sourcing is asking for trouble. Not to mention that much of this effort has moved beyond oil companies to think tanks and the US Chamber of Commerce. Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't think we should extend the article to start labeling straightforward skeptics as deniers though, that really would be very POV. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Also we wouldn't be calling them corporate shills, we would be reporting generally reliable sources as saying that. Dmcq (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I've tried putting in the topic better into the leader. I moved most of the previous leader to the overview. Leaders shouldn't be burdened overmuch or at all with citations, they should mainly define the topic and summarize the article rather than containing the end content. Dmcq (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the definition in the lead

I think the recent changes in the lead are problematic without changing the title, so one or the other probably should be changed. Here's what the lead now says:

Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Some writers apply the term to all climate change skeptics. Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term.

In addition to making it a bit more confusing to discuss this at the current AfD for the article, it makes it difficult to either prune out irrelevant, WP:UNDUE passages or add other passages. For example, an article about "Climate change denial" overall, as a subject about a point of view, would be improved with sourcing about current public opinion and we would prune, as UNDUE, the 2/3 of the article (or so) devoted to special-interest machinations and things like the Alaska lawsuit, which is worth a short paragraph (if that -- the lawsuit was dismissed), or the very long section going into too much detail about the tobacco lobby (I'd prune it back and put a bit of it in another section). If the article really is about campaigning against climate change by special interests, then that should be reflected in the article title, perhaps Special-interest politicking on climate change? I don't like that name, but it would conform to the lead paragraph. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the lead

I have just replaced some of the material that was in the lead, but had been removed. Per WP:Lead, we should be going for 3-4 paragraphs that summarize the article in full. But especially on a controversial topic, I don't see how we can just weasel the entire lead without any mention of controversy or criticism. We should be providing a quick, full summary of the topic in the lead that reflects the rest of the article. Mackan79 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite all you've done, you've also removed the language in the lead that limited the scope of the article. This is the former lead section:
Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Some writers apply the term to all climate change skeptics. Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term.
That's a significant change. I've got this thing up for deletion at AfD, and I'd appreciate it if editors could work out just what the heck the article is supposed to be about. If it's about the segment of the spectrum of opinion about climate change that denies the consensus of scientists (which would be consistent with the current title, "Climate change denial"), that's one article. If it's only about "those they allege attempt to undermine [it] ... due to financial or sectional interests" then we've really got another article entirely. I opened up a discussion above about that. Mackan79, you should address the difference. I've got objections to the article on either count, and if we decide the article's focus is on the one or the other, it makes a difference as to what baggy, non-policy-conforming parts of this article should be deleted. For instance, I would edit the "Tobacco" section one way under your version, another way with the restrictions of the other version. It makes a difference. Please justify your version of the lead in relation to that. I'm a bit at a loss as to whether this should be discussed here or in the section a little bit above here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I apologize that this is interfering with the AfD. My concern is that I worked pretty closely on the article a few weeks ago, and then I saw the AfD, and then I saw that much of the material attempting to contextualize the lead had been removed. As far as limiting the scope, well, I guess I have become a little skeptical about such statements unless they are used to disambiguate from another specific article. If this article is about "Climate change denial," then probably it should discuss whatever source material out there discusses that in detail. If some use the term one way and others another way, then I would think we should try to discuss differences in the way the term is used, or lay out the different ways it is used. Does that make sense? The point is basically that I'm not sure how or why we would create a distinction with which we would cover this use but not that. A different section could cover each. If there is no substantial coverage of one use or another, then we shouldn't cover it simply for that reason, but then a clarification in the lead seems superfluous. Regardless of whether there is a clarification in the lead, I think any material that is included should be evaluated on whether the sources discuss climate change denial, and almost certainly should focus on the concept of "denial." I'm not sure if this helps.... Mackan79 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see that for some people who are strongly word oriented it might. I think though of a topic as a concept rather than as a title. If you change it to cover all uses of the term then I will view the article's topic as being about the various ways the term has been used and discussion about that. I would view much of the stuff about financial interests as too detailed and too far removed from the topic of the article, only the main headline uses would be relevant. Basically you would change the article to a list of ways the term was used and expanding the financial ones to the size currently in this article would be WP:undue. Dmcq (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be about the term, but in my view a topic of this nature does need to maintain some boundaries in order not to be a POV fork, among other issues. One of the other main issues is the lack of standard otherwise for deciding what's relevant. You could guess that the most likely way it would be expanded is to start including material critical of climate change skepticism, but then should it also include "the case" for climate change denial, as in the evidence which skeptics produce? Rationally it would be easy to explain why we should include information that supports skepticism, even though it does not specifically discuss "denial." Sticking to sources that specifically discuss denial is a good way to keep us honest, so to speak. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And sorry JohnWBarber, I'd been doing meat life things and forgotten about that AfD and missed your comment above. I guess I viewed the AfD as pretty unlikely to succeed and irrelevant but it might have some good ideas in the comments. Dmcq (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I also point out that a leader should be about the article, it should not really be the article. The reference to writers about deniaism should be within the article and a quick summary in the leader. This is the other part of what I was trying to do as well as well as summarizing what the article is about. The revert removed what the article as written is about so I'll revert once. Dmcq (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I must disagree that shortening and generalizing the lead like that is an improvement. The lead is, as laid out in WP:LEAD, intended to be a concise overview of the entire article that is capable of standing alone. Certainly I have not seen the idea that we need to generalize the lead simply for the sake of doing so, and even at the expense of precision. One thing you have removed entirely is any criticism of this term, despite the fact that such criticism is prominent and discussed in the article, a result of which we are now left solely with a generalized definition. This generalization is also problematic in that it overlooks the significant viewpoint that opposes the use of the phrase. The lead needs to be expanded, not reduced. The generalized statements are also unsourced, and I don't believe they are supported by the article. Lastly, I don't believe we can say that the article "uses" the single definition that it lays out; rather, it discusses the term, the claims, the responses to the claims, and other commentary on the claims. These are problems under WP:LEAD but also WP:NPOV in that it presents one viewpoint to the exclusion of other notable viewpoints. Incidentally, I did try to expand it as written. We could add, for instance, that "The term is criticized as an attempt to delegitimize skepticism," but I'm hard pressed to see how this kind of writing is an improvement over something more specific and more closely supported. Mackan79 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The leader should describe what the article is about and your leader doesn't do that, it describes what you think it should be about which is a quite different matter. All your stuff about discusssing the term itself occupies most of even the short form under that it is pejorative and different writers use it for different things. The leader does not need citations. It is a summary of the article. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some confusion, but the additional material in the previous lead seen here does not add discussion about differences in terminology. It explains the meaning, that they believe this is "denialism," and it discusses opposition to the term. It is also more specific about who uses the term in certain ways, since we do not have any reliable secondary sources that otherwise define the usage of the term. In any case, please explain how else you would like to see the lead expanded in keeping with WP:LEAD if you do not agree with how it was previously done. The current three sentences do not make any effort to summarize the article in full; rather they provide only a definition that is not supported by reliable sources. Mackan79 (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You keep on saying WP:LEAD but what you say seems to have very little to do with what that says as far as I can see. The lead is summarized as "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". You are concentrating on the words of the title rather than what is in the article. The term and references to it use is an important aspect of the article but it only occupies a small part of the whole. Emphasizing even more the term and various authors about the term and removing what the article is mainly about completely distorts the lead. The article is mainly about the restrictive use of the term, you just have to read through the whole article to see that the term itself is a minor part and the main article is about one particular usage of the term. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying I removed. The version you have reverted to includes four sentences that speak solely to the different uses of the term. You acknowledge here that this covers virtually nothing in the article. I have addressed more than once the additional material that you have removed and what it covers. Again, I would also like to see sources for the statements you have added which are not sourced; you say that we do not need references in the lead, but certainly the area does not provide a free pass for original research. Besides that there are many articles that discuss specific authors in the lead in order to explain an idea, rather than presenting a generalized concept via weasel words and original research. If you would like to expand it further please do so, but right now you have removed material, and yet you're saying that I have not covered enough of the article. I don't know where to take that. I also find it frustrating that you still have not even addressed the fact that you removed all criticism of the term from the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You removed the last sentence which says what most of the article is about. Including all the other stuff about meanings of the term and references to the meaning is fine in the article but when it is put into the lead it gives an undue prominence to only a fraction of the whole article. And it wasn't discussed in the article. Now it actually is in the article and summarized in the lead in the first three sentences. Please read again what WP:LEAD says The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead is not the content of the article. The article is supported with cited sources. The lead summarizes the article. About the only thing which one might want a citation within the lead of an article is for notability and even there if a sentence asserts a notability and that is supported in the article that is good enough. It should not be filled with citations for other things because they should be in the article. The lead is not the article. Original research only applies to it if it says things which are not in the article.
Perhaps what you are concerned about is [[WP:NOTE}}. That certainly can apply to the lead and there is nothing much in the leader as I put it in of the notability of the interpretation used even though there is citation for it later on. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a good way of thinking about it is that the lead has two functions: it should establish notability, and it is a small article about the main body of the article and its sources are the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq, you are continuing to speak in generalities without addressing the specific points that I have raised. Let me try numbers. 1.) You still do not address the fact that you have reduced the lead to something that only discusses the use of the term, and does not discuss any other aspect of the article. See WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." You have done only the first, and nothing else. 2.) You still have not addressed the fact that you have removed all criticism of the term from the lead. 3.) You still have not provided the sources that support your statements in the lead; your claim that we can violate WP:SYNTH and WP:WEASEL so long as it is in the lead is unsupported. If you cannot provide the sources that support this then I will change and attribute the statements simply for that reason. Please consider also that an article on a term that has not been clearly defined by reliable sources will necessarily be different from an article on a term that has. George Monbiot, for instance, is quite clear in defining how he uses the term, but not in claiming to define how it is used by others. Please address each of these, and please provide the above sources so that we can move forward rather than continuing to go in circles. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to misconstrue the language that I included. "Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[3] and Ellen Goodman,[4] among others,[5][6] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[1][7]" This statement, that you removed, is probably the most significant point to have in the lead, since it is the whole basis of the article: People who deny global warming aren't just denying it, but are engaging in "denialism." Without that we are not doing anything to explain why these three words mean what we are saying they mean in this context. "In favoring the term the environmentalist writer and activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests." This is one of the only clear statements we have about the meaning of the term, in which Monbiot clearly state how he uses it. As a definition, this is the best I have found. You have generalized this into "some writers," but we do not have any source for that point, and for that matter I am not aware of any other writers who have made this distinction. "Monbiot often refers to a 'denial industry.'" This has directly to do with the large part of this article, and the fact that he as a major proponent of this phrase considers this to involve an "industry." "However, writers have described others as climate change "deniers," including politicians and writers not claimed to be funded by industry groups." This you have basically kept except that in your case you say "all climate skeptics," which again is unsupported. "As a pejorative, other commentators have criticized the term as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change." This is the criticism of the term that you have removed entirely. In any case, to say that this is all about terminology is simply incorrect, rather what has been removed is everything that is not about terminology, for reasons that remain unclear. Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I like having the longer lead. I'm not sure right now what that implies about the scope of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You talk here about Monbiot's usage of denialism but you removed saying that the article was about that rather than the term in general. People reading the longer lead got the wrong impression about the topic of the article. That is a very big failure. Also you include Monbiot in the lead and not later in the article - that's simply wrong. The shorter lead summarizes what Monbiot and others said about the term and what they said is later in the article. Using the bit of WP:LEAD you quote: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." the long lead did not define the topic, it confused the context, it did not say why the subject was interesting or notable, and it contained nothing whatsoever about the rest of the article. By putting what was in the long lead later in the article at least the short lead summarized something in the article and it also established the topic. There are problems but nothing like the confusion and irrelevance of the longer lead. The long lead is nice as a bit of the topic but it is not a WP:LEAD. Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As to JohnWBarber, what is it that you prefer about the longer lead? I get the impression from your earlier complaint that you considered it as changing the topic of the article which was in the AfD. Do you believe the article as written is about all usages of the term including climate change skepticism in general or mainly about the specific use for financial or political interest overriding any scientific considerations? And what is your opinion the article should be about if anything? And are they different from what you thought you were proposing for deletion? Dmcq (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, that isn't correct. The text said, in the first paragraph: "Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism." In what way does this fail to define the topic? If you believe other sources clarify that this is not the topic, then please provide them. Also this text does set out why the topic is notable by noting the journalists who have used the term, as it explains why the topic is interesting in noting that they call this "denialism," and that they allege a "denial industry", and it sets out the notable controversies without going into excessive detail.

As far as your statement that this article is about one use of "climate change denial" and not another, please also explain then your basis for saying we should exclude some material from the article. I certainly don't agree with excluding material simply because it does not fit an unsupported conception of what the topic should be. If I try very hard to read into your comments I can presume you only want the article to cover the topic of "denialism" as pertains to the public debate on climate change, e.g., you would like this to be an article on a phenomenon that we would then grant not just to be alleged, but to exist as the basis for our article. The problem is that this is a pejorative, and as such any application of the term is disputed, while there is no consensus among reliable sources that this phenomenon exists. Really it amounts to your picking out a meaning that you consider significant, and saying that the article should focus on that meaning. This doesn't help the article. The topic is set by our definition in the first sentence. Our discussion, in turn, includes everything that focuses in depth on claims of climate change denial. If writers say that all skepticism is "denial," then that is a position that we would cover in this article. If by that they do not intend it as a pejorative we would need to clarify as much, but if they do mean it as a pejorative then certainly we would cover it in the article. When people criticize the term, we have no way to say they are only criticizing some narrow definition. If someone only uses the term in passing then clearly that we would not cover, but if they discuss "denial" of climate change, then that is what we cover. We also have no way of determining that all of the sources intend your specific meaning since many of them do not clarify. Ultimately the distinction is only supported by original research, besides that it does not serve any purpose but to inaccurately frame the rest of the article. If I'm wrong, present the reliable sources that define this topic in the way that you would like to define it. Please also don't just say it is what is in the article; besides the several problems with that interpretation that I've just mentioned it still would not be a reason to start listing things we don't cover. See also notes 7-14 which we specifically present as not fitting the limitation you have set out. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see what you are basically saying is that you want the article to be about the different meanings of "climate change denial" because you have found different people using it in different ways. What I am saying is that the article is in the main about the restricted form of denialism. You ask me for citation for my restriction. My citation is the body of the article. The lead should summarize the article. The article is the source for a lead. The lead should not, I repeat again, it should not contain a lot of references. The obvious way of developing the long lead is to stick in more people who have used the term in slightly different ways and stick in yet more citations for them. That would distance the lead even further from the text. The reference for a lead should in the main be in the article itself. There a section can be developed with lots of people and their definitions. The article has survived AfD four times with the contents leaning towards the restricted form of the term. Monbiot provides a citation for a restricted form of usage. There are lots of articles where a term means one thing even though it could also mean others. Personally I don't think there is call for an article on climate change denial referring to all skeptics, a short section in this one discussing the usage of the term in general is quite enough. It does not need to occupy the whole lead to the exclusion of anything else. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No. I am saying that, in the absence of reliable sources clearly delineating some issue relating to climate change denial which we then intend to divide from other articles covering other aspects of climate change denial, this article covers all material relating to climate change denial. You say Monbiot points to a more restricted usage. Monbiot says in one instance that he prefers to use the term in a more restricted sense. As I have just noted, at least notes 7-14 do not observe this distinction and are presented as violating it, none of the material criticizing the term meets this distinction, and in general you do not seem to have any basis for saying that the article makes the distinction other than a general perception of what you have seen in the article (a perception which is incorrect). You must see that in one instance George Monbiot saying "I use the term in this way" does not support our deciding to restrict an article solely to that meaning -- or if it does that we need to be very clear that we are writing an article on George Monbiot's meaning. To say you don't think "there is call for an article on climate change denial referring to all skeptics" does not address my point, which is that this article should cover the material that reliable sources discuss when they discuss climate change denial. I don't think that would be an article about "all skeptics," though if it were, then that is the article we would have. In any case we don't decide to cover it just as a real life phenomenon, or just as a political pejorative, or just as a term, but we cover all of these aspects to the extent reliable sources discuss them. Honestly I don't see how there can be any question that this is the case. The obvious way to expand the lead further, incidentally, would not be to include more writers using the term with slightly different meanings (though it would be interesting to have this), but to provide additional coverage from the article. You also continue to misconstrue text attributing a statement to a writer as text that is just about one writer's definition. I am attributing statements because that is our responsibility when we do not have secondary sources providing general definitions. If it is just Monbiot that presents a (personal) definition, then we should attribute it to Monbiot; it is still our effort to define the topic, but simply an accurate and responsible way of doing so that better informs the reader than reducing it into generalities that only we have deduced.Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just expanded the previous version of the lead into something that includes more of the article. Please let me know if there are any problems with the version below:

Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described a public campaign against the scientific consensus on climate change that, they argue, amounts to a form of denialism.[5][6]
In favoring the term the environmentalist writer and activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who are driven by financial interests. Monbiot has referred to a "denial industry," while others have detailed financial ties between industry lobbying groups and commentators who publicly dispute the scientific consensus on global warming. The relationships between industry funding and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of second hand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. However, journalists have described others as climate change "deniers," including politicians and writers not claimed to be funded by industry groups.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
Some commentators have criticized the phrase, as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views with misplaced comparisons, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.[14][15] Some of those accused have contended that funding does not affect their views or the nature of the scientific research, and have contended that financial incentives exist on both sides of the public debate on climate change.

This is attributed, but attempts to cover the various aspects of the article in more detail as laid out in WP:LEAD. Mackan79 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems much better to me, fine by me. I just had a look at those notes 7-14 you mentioned and a couple of them seem to only talk about skeptics rather than denialism, we probably should be careful to restrict the references to those that are definitely talking about something like denial rather than just inferring it I think, skeptic is just a little to far from denial I believe. The ones I'd remove are:
[9] ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism Guradian.co.uk - Climate change scepticism portal
[10] ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 The Business Insider - The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics
I couldn't find the newsweek one [7] Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, I'm fine removing those two. I will try to get to this in a bit then, to organize the references and put it together a little more neatly. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Add link regarding http://www.skepticalscience.com/ [1] "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" by John Cook Chicago Tribune 99.155.148.45 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more relevant to global warming controversy or climate change consensus? It says that somepeople grab at any evidence they can that global warming is untrue but it neither says that is denialism nor is it a strong form where they get paid for doing so or have other such motives. Dmcq (talk)

Removing sources

I'm not happy with these edits. Several independent sources are removed, and the whole story is left sourced solely to the NY Times piece by Cushman, the main player in the discovery. I think it is better also to have references to the original memorandum (the primary source), as well as to other authors and to Cox's book, a clear secondary source. Do others agree? --Nigelj (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain. The entire passage was ultimately sourced to the New York Times article. One website simply reprinted the article, and I thought linking directly to the New York Times was better than that. Also, the book happened to mention the article, so we were mentioning the book mentioning the article rather than simply reporting on what the article said. By doing that, I thought we made the attribution stronger. Also, no need to mention a journalists name for a news report: The New York Times stands behind its news articles with all its authority, something different for opinion pieces, where we want to mention authors to make sure readers understand that the opinions they're reading come from the authors.
I didn't see a value in linking to a book that simply mentioned what the New York Times had written. What's the value of that source to this article? One source saying that another source said something -- that could be said for a lot of our sources, but of what use is it to the article? If there's a use, or if its helpful to the readers to know about the book, I'm fine with it. Is there anything else from the book that is worth using in that passage or elsewhere? Do you know if this book would be helpful for our readers? Have you seen it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there was also this: [2] It's supposedly a copy of the leaked memo, posted by Greenpeace on the Web. We're using a partisan source, giving us WP:RS problems, with a primary source. Since Greenpeace is a partisan group, how can we reliably know that this is a true copy of the actual memo? If there were third-party, reliable sources saying, "Greenpeace posted the memo and, yes, that's the memo", then it's something we should link to. WP:RS says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. This is working as a "statement of fact", and it would need attribution in the text of the article. Could you please see if it's on the web anywhere else? I'm uncomfortable with it, but not absolutely opposed. I think over at the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident they prohibited copies of the leaked emails on "copyright" grounds. I don't think those are good grounds to oppose. It does seem useful to the readers. The reliability issue is what makes me uncomfortable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Firstly you should not say removing citations is a minor clean up. Secondly you should have a check to correct problems. The appropriate check for your qualms here is to do a quick google search of 'http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/leaked-api-comms-plan-1998' for the greenpeace memos and look at the first page of results, where you will find it mentioned in a book and a journal amongst the first four returns, both interestingly on the subject of denial. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the book because I was happy to see that we could actually support the notability of this incident with multiple references. Putting it in the text tells the reader that this was actually picked up by someone or another, and not just some random thing that we decided to include. It's certainly useful for us as editors to know that. Given that this is Wikiepdia I do think we may as well put it in the text as well, as something that may benefit a reader. Mackan79 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have Dmcq in favour of the primary document and Mackan in favour of mentioning the book. I'm in favour of using both, and I don't see a problem with either. --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@Nigelj -- I looked into it and I'm convinced, sorry this is a bit long, but here are suggestions on how:
@Dmcq -- I'd never done a web search for a web address before and never thought of that. I'll remember that. I'm seeing books that look reliable using that Greenpeace web posting as a source. That's reliable enough for me. Let's add it back, but why not just mention it somewhere, rather than as a kind of "blind" link. We could do something like "(posted online by Greenpeace)" and stick the footnote to the end of that, possibly even with mention in the footnote that it was a source for some books. I think if something reliable is worth including, we should do it with more than a footnote.
@Mackan79 -- It's an interesting point, but I'd rather see it be done in a more natural way in the course of giving the reader more information. An important article will naturally get follow up and other sources will tend to get important information that we could add. Here's the way the text read before I changed it:
In his book, Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, Robert Cox states that an early effort by industry "to influence public perception of environmental science" was uncovered in 1998 by John Cushman of the New York Times, who reported [...]
It seems to me that if we can get a more interesting bit of information from the book it would work better -- the information itself should be in the spotlight, and you'd achieve the same thing in terms of telling the reader that it wasn't just the NY Times reporting on it. I think opening the section with mention of the book looks bad because the reader is going to wonder (I did), "why is the article mentioning this book?" This seems to be the passage in Google Books [3] Actually, how 'bout this: "One of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change" then just footnote it to the book and go on to the article. A footnote accomplishes the same thing you wanted to do with naming the book, I think. If you look at the next page, the book states "Other sources noted" other information. We could take something from there, although I think the idea that this was one of the earliest efforts in this area is probably the most important bit, and this book would seem to be an authoritative source for that, since it covers a broader subject.
When I did that neat search trick Dmcq referred to, I found this other book (published in late 2009) that also cites it, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by James Hoggan, "co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com," and Richard Littlemore. (Google Books has some of it [4]) This Christian Science Monitor article [5] interviews Hoggan, making me think it's reliable enough for certain purposes, and we might use that, too (that CSM article is also making me rethink how important the Tobacco section is).
What about a "For further reading" section where we put the Hoggan book? (I'm not sure the Cox book covers this subject enough to make it worthwhile.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone see the value of this paragraph? It's a tangent

In the Climate change denial#Connections to the tobacco lobby section, this whole paragraph focuses on research funded by a tobacco company. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article:

One figure associated with tobacco lobbying and global warming skepticism was former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned approximately US$585,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. During that time R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others at Rockefeller University. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, and Seitz defended his independence, saying "We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent", Hertsgaard writes that the tobacco industry frequently cited these grants as showing its commitment to science, while claiming that scientific views on the health effects of smoking were mixed.<ref name = "HertsgaardSlept">Hertsgaard, Mark (2006). "While Washington Slept". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2007-08-02. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)</ref>

Let's remove it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing is on this topic, isn't that the test? I generally go on the assumption that we include the types of context that reliable sources include when discussing the topic at hand. Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
We aren't bound to present all the context that the source did, and we always pick and choose. I'm wondering what the use to the reader is with this particular paragraph. When I read it, I felt I was being distracted from the article subject for too long. Wouldn't we fulfill the purpose of this whole paragraph by saying, "Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned approximately US$585,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company [...]" and then go on from there? It's also a bit historic, since Seitz died in 2008. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That's true, at least the latter parts. Mackan79 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph should probably be removed as-is, or rewritten to give a context which has to do with the main subkect of the article. If there are evidences that he lobby for petrolium compagnies, the tobacco lobbying become relevant showing he is known to lobby for pressure groups. -RobertMel (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. [7] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative

I see the word 'pejorative' in the lede has become an issue again. From what I can see, this was added without much discussion by TMLucas about two years ago.[8] According to his edit summary, I wonder if s/he really grasped the meaning of the term: "If deniers, by definition, are not acting in good faith, the term is pejorative". This seems to say that denial is a bad-faith act, so naming it, or calling it out, is pejorative. That's not so, a pejorative is defined as a term "expressing the contempt or distaste of the speaker", not describing the motivation behind an act itself. A few people have tried to remove the term since, including myself[9][10] or tone it down as Jaymax tried to do[11][12]. More recently it has been removed by Stephan Schultz[13] and by Ratel.[14] In each case (except the last) it has been instantly restored by others without much discussion.This is not necessarily a thorough survey, I may have missed other notable insertions or removals of the term.

It seems clear that this prominent use in the lede is uncited and does not summarise any cited section of the article. It also seems to me that its importance to those who instantly restore it is as a kind of ad hominem counter-attack before the article starts presenting the evidence - to imply that anyone who would use such a hateful term are clearly spiteful and maliciously motivated themselves. Looking at the main article on denial, of which this is a sub-article, gives a whole different perspective, and is the one that this article should try to maintain. As for those who get upset by this - if the cap fits... Why not learn more about the science, find the bit you have evidence to disprove and become a useful sceptic? In the meantime, the word should go from this usage. --Nigelj (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back for reasons that have nothing to do with my position on global warming. For some time now, I've said I simply believe in global warming. I'm not even a skeptic. This is not an article about the science of global warming. Under some versions of the lead, this is not even an article about the actual "denialism" position itself. This article implies that anyone who takes the denialist position is either the dupe of the oil companies and other industry conspirators or is on their payroll (if I'm wrong, please point out to me where we contradict that idea -- I can point out plenty of spots where we imply it). The fact is, on numerous occasions, people who are skeptics and people who are denialists have objected to the use of the word because they find it pejorative. I don't think, other than Newsweek that it is a term much used without quotes by major newspapers and news organizations. There is very good sourcing that calls the word pejorative.
Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust. [...] This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system.
Why do people become climate change deniers?
It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers.
  • Ellen Goodman, from the article we link to: [17]
would like to say 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.
  • Similar commentary comparing climate change "denial" with "holocaust denial" or objecting to it: in the Guardian, [18] and a commentator in The Age is very explicit about the pejorative nature of it [19], and there's this [20] and this [21] and this [22]
  • When I look at this Google News search [23] I do find the phrase "climate change deniers" but it seems to be used by commentators, not news reports. Compare with "global warmism" [24] and "'climate change' + warmist" [25] There are terms that are used by commentators and avoided by people trying to be fair.
It is definitely a term that has been used pejoratively quite often, and I think all this proves it. I wouldn't say it's always used pejoratively, because sometimes it simply seems to be a shorter way of saying "people who do not believe in global warming" or "people who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming", but it can easily imply something is morally wrong with them, and in the links above, you can see some commentators doing it and others who say it's beyond the pale to simply attack people you disagree with. And when the lead said "generally pejorative" there was reason to say so. The term seems to crop up most prominently when severe criticism is underway. We say in the article that it's been associated with holocost denial by some and that association has been objected to by others, a closely related point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Those links include a lot of blogs and op-ed pieces, many of which only exist to put forward a biassed point of view. How can someone in the 21st century not "believe in" scientific facts, and expect that not to be mentioned using a normal word? That's why I said there is a different term for those who have studied the science, and think they may have found a flaw in the data or the logic (sceptic). Not engaging with it, but simply not "believing in" it is a form of denial, just like not believing in other major events in our history, or in other aspects of science like HIV/AIDS. That's what the term 'denial' means. It's not a pejorative, but when correctly used is a word that describes a fact about some people's stance. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to decide this on blogs and op-eds, then here is just one that says that successful climate change denial could have the result that "hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change". --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Nigelj, I can agree with you (and with TS below) to a point. But the issue isn't whether or not it's a good name to call them. As I've said, it isn't always used in a disparaging way. The issue is whether it's generally pejorative. It's simply the case that often it is. The diffs show it. Comparing anyone to Holocaust deniers -- and as the diffs show, this has been done very prominently and caused a stir when it was done -- is meant not only to describe but very obviously to hurt and disparage. And yet I think the term has also been used as simple description. I think, looking at the evidence, we can agree on all of that, can't we? It would be honest and fair to mention this briefly in the lead, very prominently, very close to the top. If "generally pejorative" is not acceptable, why not suggest different phrasing? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
JWB, then if you contend it is sometimes used in a pej. way, e.g. when comparing to Holocaust deniers, then say that somewhere in the body of the article. However, because the juxtaposition of AGW denial and Holocaust denial is a rare thing (when it's done it "causes a stir" as you say), giving this relatively uncommon event lede status is quite wrong. ► RATEL ◄ 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The term has previously been supported by people of quite some different viewpoints. I strongly support using the term, as I think it's clear this is widely used as a pejorative, and failing to say so gives a reader an inaccurate picture of how the term is used (not by those to whom it is implied, unless to be ironic). I don't see how anyone familiar with the commentary on this can deny that it's a pejorative; I previously provided numerous other sources that went to this point. (Those sources are here; I notice that there is a January archive that doesn't show up in the list, if anyone knows how to fix that.) Of course this article is almost entirely based on journalistic sources, so it isn't surprising that they would be the ones to explain that this is usually pejorative. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Someone fucked up the archiving system, but now it's repaired plus you can search the archives from the top of this page. ► RATEL ◄ 04:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the question of whether it's pejorative matter? I deny creationism. I'm a creationism denier. I'm a god denier (not to mention a God denier), I deny the phlogiston theory of combustion, the notion of a flat earth and the notion that vaccination causes autism. Are you going to pejorate my ass, or are we going to agree that denial is a two-way street? --TS 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

pejorate my ass -- I'm not quite sure what you mean by that phrase, Tony. If it's an on-topic activity, please explain and I'm sure it will be given due consideration. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It may not matter, if this were an article on general disbelief that global warming is a serious issue (that would create some other problems, of course, and would probably just be Global warming skepticism). As we have it, the article is on the negative characterization that this is a form of "denialism," and assembled around that negative characterization. "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining," as they say. Mackan79 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pejorative should not be used. That is how people who are sympathetic to denialism want it to be seen. It is a factual statement, and some denialists are even proud of the tag (there is a book, by a well known denialist Lawrence Solomon, proudly titled The Deniers). ► RATEL ◄ 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC
Actually, Ratel, not quite so. I followed your link and found that there's a whole section in that article about the provocative nature of the title. Solomon, the author, wrote, "I have been asked many times why I titled my series and now this book The Deniers, in effect adopting their enemies’ terminology. Many of the scientists in this book hate the term and deny it applies to them. Sounds pejorative. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion, Ratel, please see that there is an extended discussion in the section above here in which the expanded lead was proposed and discussed with another editor's approval. You comment that I have created a long "content" section, when in fact the section summarizes the article exactly as is laid out in WP:LEAD. Considering that you have reverted twice and did not participate on talk I'd like to request that you undo your revert and discuss changes that you would like to see on the talk page. The statement that a pejorative is simply how sympathizers want the term to be seen, also, is not relevant or accurate (you even note that some embrace it, although it's obvious that this is ironic). George Monbiot states that he reserves the term for those with illicit financial motives. Numerous sources are provided above and also here. See also the discussion in The Deniers here, with Solomon's statement, "To that end, as you read through this book, judge for yourself the credibility of those who dismiss these scientists as cranks or crooks, and call them The Deniers." I request again that you undo your revert and discuss what concerns you have here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this was discussed and proposed over several days, and that pretty clearly Ratel should not have simply reverted it after already having reverted another editor today, and facing the options of waiting around to see if he comes back or reporting this for enforcement, I'm simply going to put the expanded lead back for now. I will leave out the fact that this is generally a pejorative for the time being, even though it is strongly supported and should also be replaced. Naturally I would welcome other views and certainly any discussion about any changes that should be made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I would just like to add that it is quite absurd not to note that this is generally a pejorative as we are discussing it, when all we present is accusations, without anything about any actual "denialist" or "pro-denialist" position. It needs to be added back, but I suppose I can wait it out.... Mackan79 (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, you have me, Nigel and Tony against inclusion. So there is no consensus on which to base your insistence on inclusion. Stating that you'll "wait it out", presumably until our focus is elsewhere, is not how we do collaborative editing. Maybe you'd like to rephrase...? ► RATEL ◄ 10:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ratel, I'm afraid what we have is that you reverted a second editor who included this despite not having taken part in the talk page or posted a serious comment about the sources that address this point. If anyone continues to believe that we should not state this is generally a pejorative, I welcome their comments. However, in the bizarre case that we decide the term is not primarily a pejorative, and is only about the "denial" of climate change, then the entire article needs to be rewritten to start with the reasons why people deny this and only then addressing why others critize them. Considering I don't see how anyone can seriously propose this, I am suggesting we should put the word back and move on to something else. You may also consider previous edits by William M. Connolley such as here and Arthur Rubin here. The idea that skeptics generally want denial of climate change to be considered a pejorative is simply not accurate, to the extent that is even relevant. Mackan79 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I removed it once, let me add why. It simply does not belong. It's a matter of opinion and interpretation (which is why it's energetically discussed here), not a matter of fact. I have no problem with an attributed discussion in the body, but I don't find it helpful at all in the lede. We don't state this is Holocaust denial or AIDS denialism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the validity in those comparisons. Holocaust denial is not considered a pejorative; while Holocaust deniers may prefer to call it "revisionism," the term has a firm consensus as a descriptor for those who deny that the Holocaust occurred as generally understood. Similarly with AIDS denial, the term is not simply a word used by one camp against another, but denotes a generally accepted term for people who take a specific position. "Climate change denial" does not enjoy any such consensus that it can be considered a general term for a specific position, but also refers specifically to those who take a position for illicit reasons. This has long been understood on this talk page, as seen for instance by William Connolley's edit here. The term is not considered by anyone to be a neutral descriptor for their own views (notwithstanding those who ironically embrace it). Besides that, do we really think the consensus regarding this topic is the same as that for Holocaust denial and for AIDS denialism? The sources are different. Here we have numerous sources noting that it is a pejorative, and for pejorative terms the general practice is overwhelmingly to note it in the lead. The compromise here is that we have noted it is "generally" a pejorative. I am very skeptical those sources would be found for Holocaust denial or AIDS denialism. To contravene this I would think that we would need some sources somehow going in the other direction. I'd request that you also explain, if this is simply to be an article on denial of climate change, whether the article then should not give a full representation of skeptical views before getting into the criticism of those views. Mackan79 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis. Calling someone a Holocaust denier or an AIDS denier is not value-free, but indeed usually pejorative, even insulting. This depends, of course, on context, just as it does with climate change denial. There is no need to expound the obvious. I checked some of the sources above, and while many mention negative connotations, none of the ones I looked at used the word "pejorative". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
First, see here for "deeply pejorative." Another source calling it "powerfully pejorative" is here. Besides that I think we all know what "pejorative" means, why it is normally included in a sentence that defines such a word, and that this reasoning does not depend on every source using the specific word. Second, the point you miss is that with those other terms there is an undeniable consensus among reliable sources that the position itself is the problem, and not simply that some people pursue the position in a problematic way. Regardless, do you see any other way of saying this? As you may have seen the previous way was to say that it referred only to downplaying that was done dishonestly. Alternatively, what is your view on the topic that we are covering? If it is an article on denial itself, in accordance with WP:NPOV, I have asked if we should not then expound on the viewpoint itself before getting to criticism. It seems to me some people here are trying to have their cake and eat it. Mackan79 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think any of the two links point to reliable sources? One is an opinionated blog, the other a political polemic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that people called out for their AIDS and holocaust denial feel cross that someone has mentioned it too. That doesn't mean that their dislike of such speakers is notable enough to alter the lede of those articles. --Nigelj (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
These are certainly both reliable and partisan sources, which establish at least that the term is widely and specifically regarded as a pejorative by those to whom it is applied. Is your view that sources who are considered to be "partisan" are not reliable? Meanwhile, the comments of those who use the term are also unequivocal that it is used as an aspersion and not as a neutral label. Each of you seems to be arguing that this is irrelevant because two other terms are also negative but not considered to be pejoratives. I have pointed out that those terms are not considered pejoratives by reliable sources of any partisanship, nor is there any debate about the appropriateness of the terms or any partisanship in who applies them. You are frankly ignoring this and continuing to make the same comments. The next step would be to start an RfC on whether reliable sources establish to be generally a pejorative, and if so, then how we should state this, or how else we should then adjust the article. It would simply be nice if those here could give a little more effort to engage the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, now you have threatened those who disagree with you with both "the enforcement page" and "to start an RfC" over this one word you want to see in the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A WP:RfC is not a threat, Nigelj, it is a means to request additional input when discussion on a talk page breaks down. I would like to convince you that it makes more sense simply to engage the specific issues, which is generally how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It is rather dismaying that some here do not seem to recognize this. Mackan79 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Stuck

More editors against inclusion than for. Let's move on ... ► RATEL ◄ 06:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, your approach to dialogue here is obstructive and not appropriate. Please respond to the points that have been raised if you wish to take part in discussion. Alternatively I will take this to the enforcement page for the view of an uninvolved administrator on your participation. The question remains whether editors will acknowledge that the term is largely a pejorative, and that articles on pejorative terms state this clearly for the reader. If not there are immensely larger problems with the article. Terse statements of opinion, e.g. polling, is not how WP:Consensus works. Mackan79 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the personal attack and threats I have struck above. ► RATEL ◄ 12:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I have unstruck my comments, and ask that you please don't edit them again. That you consider it a personal attack I regret, but frankly you seem intent on not giving me any options to work cooperatively with you. Your efforts to show otherwise would be appreciated. Mackan79 (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusionary, subjective, emotive adjective

It's in the eye of the beholder, that's also why it shouldn't be in the lede. Your pejorative is not my pejorative. Let the readers absorb the content of the article and decide if the term is indeed pejorative, or simply accurate. We don't have to make value judgements for people. It's not our place, in an encyclopedia, to insert value assessments into an article, based on subjective perceptions, especially when there are such opposing views on the topic, as you can see from the opposition you are getting on this point, McKan. I mean, the argument above is a clear indication of a lack of consensus, so stop beating a dead horse and let it go. ► RATEL ◄ 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead has stated that this is "generally" a pejorative. If you look at Category:Pejoratives, you will see that the general practice is to note that pejoratives are pejoratives. See Limousine liberal, or Bible thumper, or any number of others. The problem that we have here is that editors want an article on a pejorative term, focused on a negative view of a particular subject, but now they are trying to remove even the notation that this is a negative view of the subject. Great, so we can have an article all about what is wrong with a position while presenting it as if it is just a neutral article on that position. Well, that is a problem, because "Climate change denial" is not a neutral name for an article on any position, meaning that if this is not an article on the pejorative, or "negative characterization," or however you want to describe it, then the article has no business existing. This is my final request, also, that you stop telling me to drop this issue without it being resolved, before I take the issue to arbitration enforcement. This talk page is for discussion, and you are not entitled to repeatedly attempt to shut it down without any basis for doing so. Mackan79 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The actual facts are that climate science is an established branch of scientific work, with a history going back to the 1930s, which has published and refined results about global warming since the 1980s. Climate change denial is an orchestrated, funded and organised political movement, originating among the US right, that has tried to manufacture FUD about this science since soon after that. There's nothing insulting, vindictive or pejorative about saying these two things: they are both facts. I've no doubt anyone can find small groups of extremists somewhere who will say in print that they hate being called X, Y or Z deniers. That doesn't alter the facts either. US opinion polls show that climate change deniers have had a small victory on the public's impression recently via blogs and the popular media; that doesn't make them right, nor their activities any other than the denial of established scientific facts. --Nigelj (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
+1. Nigel puts it accurately. And as already stated, neither Holocaust denial nor AIDS denialism contain such language in the lede.► RATEL ◄ 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to see if we can understand each other. It appears you are saying that, because "climate change denial" to any extent simply is dishonest, we should not say that this is denoted by the term, and should simply write the article from a perspective of explaining the ways in which climate change denialists are dishonest. You seem to disagree with, i.e., William Connolley, who has included that the term denotes dishonesty. Is this correct? If so, what type of information could establish that the term is widely recognized to have a negative connotation as a significant component of its definition? Mackan79 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is what it is. Why do you feel we need to characterize it in some way? I suggest this compromise: add to the body of the article a formulation that states (with citations and examples) that those so labelled usually feel the term is pejorative. ► RATEL ◄ 04:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion, but it strikes me that people are over-reading what a pejorative is. A pejorative, according to Wikipedia, is a word that "express[es] the contempt or distaste of the speaker." Would anyone other than critic of the position use this phrase (without irony)? Not "generally," that I can say for certain. The problem is that if we don't replace some statement to the first sentence, then the second sentence should not be the critique from Monbiot and Goodman, et al., and even the first sentence should not be that it is the view that "downplays," since that is itself a pejorative (e.g., non-neutral) statement. This is simply different from Holocaust denial, where there is no debate about the validity of the position among reliable sources. I would be restructuring these first sentences, then, but I think it will be to the detriment of the article, since I think it is quite clear that this article should focus on an argument against denial and responses to that argument, rather than on the view that climate change is not a serious issue. It is too bad this has become a matter of dispute, but I'd like to think that on consideration editors would see why a statement to this effect has been in the first sentence for some time, and that it is a simple way to focus the rest of the article in keeping with WP:NPOV. Mackan79 (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Would anyone other than critic of the position use this phrase" That's the crux of this. It's not a debating "position", as in scepticism, it's a deliberate, organized and concerted effort to derail science, for ideological, or, more usually, commercial reasons. `► RATEL ◄

Ratel I will thank you in advance for not deleting my comments again if they challenge your POV fueled editing. The science is questionable and I felt the need to explain why as well as describe why it is preposterous to assume someone's questioning of it is fueled by comercial interests. Comparing it to holocaust denial is interesting given the fascist censorship of dissent!If this appeared as a forum argument to you or any editors posting on this a little self reflection on your own rhetoric may be in order for you to see why I felt I had to explain this. The science is questionable as every researcher made this their life's work. The "world is doomed" hysteria has put our service related economy in a tailspin. The measures so far implemented made the alleged problem WORSE and the article as written insults me as only being paid off by the oil companies for wondering all of this. If this does not make sense we can take it to a forum and I will detail the particulars but the POV pushing here is out of control. Batvette (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
But Ratel, your statement that it is not just skepticism and rather a "deliberate, organized and concerted effort to derail science, for ideological, or, more usually, commercial reasons," sounds very much like saying the term is not a neutral description for a viewpoint, but indeed a pejorative. If there is no underlying position, and it is precisely a matter of promoting lies, then all the more so. Let's say we made that the definition: "Climate change denial is a term used for the deliberate, organized and concerted effort to derail science, for ideological, or, more usually, commercial reasons." Would this be appropriate in your view? Mackan79 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it's a neutral description of what it clearly is. And yes, the article is about a deliberate attempt to derail scientific consensus. That's the long and short of it, neutrally described as per wp:SPADE. BTW, wikipedia also has pages on other forms of malfeasance, and we don't sugarcoat that either, eg Aktion T4. ► RATEL ◄ 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you recognize that some reliable sources dispute the validity of this phrase, suggest that it should not be used, do not agree that to deny certain aspects of consensus requires illicit motives, and have stated that the term is a pejorative? Also, do you agree that the lead should cover notable controversies on the topic, as it states in WP:LEAD? Mackan79 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede needs changing and simplifying

The lede has been broken. The short lede of a week or so ago was fine, specifying what GWD is and noting that its Wikipedia definition was restricted to people with ulterior motives behind their disagreement. But the current lede makes double mention of far-Left journalist Monbiot, as if this is all his work, whereas we know the term denialism has been discussed by scientists, pre-dating Monbiot's leveraging of the term. In the archives you'll find scientific papers discussing denial/denialism and how scientists should respond to it. The current lede reads badly, seems unfocused and diffuse, and does not impart a clear meaning. I suggest we go back to the simpler lede. ► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see that there has just been a lengthy discussion about this above here. Ultimately there are several problems with your suggestion. 1.) For the relevant guideline, see WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." It used to state that it should be 3-4 paragraphs; whether that is necessary or not, the lead cannot simply provide a definition. 2.) The shorter lead did not mention anything about the extensive criticism of this term. That directly contravenes WP:LEAD, and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV which requires that we present all notable viewpoints. 3.) If you have other sources that provide clear statements about the meaning of the term, then they could surely be used to formulate the lead. While some are of the opinion that the lead itself does not need to list citations, it certainly does need to be supported by reliable sources. I would welcome any additional reliable sources that could clarify or expand on any part of the lead. Based on this, it seems to me that any improvement would be a matter of clarifying as appropriate based on reliable sources. Mackan79 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As also in the discussion above I'd be quite happy to have more of the discussion about the term moved to a section within the article and the leader just summarize it. I'm not too keen on the big discussion in the leader, it is better I think if the main body of the article has the main text and the leader summarizes it. At least the present leader mentions a bit about what the main body of the article is about. My argument with Mackan was that Mackan seemed to want to stick in an older lead which didn't mention anything about what the main article was about but just had those meanings of the term. As it is the current one is less explicit about what the article is about but at least it isn't completely rubbed out. Dmcq (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
What you'd have to do first I think to fix the leader is to properly develop a section of the article where the various meanings and the stuff by Monbiot and others could be put. I was thinking before the overview was the right place but I think now it really deserves a proper section of its own, perhaps the overview section could be renamed and bits moved out of it that aren't relevant. Once there is a proper section discussing these things the leader could be tackled again. There always seems to be problems with articles when the leader contains a whole bunch of citations. Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the fact is that Monbiot has talked about the scope of the term. Does that mean he has written essays on its meanings, implications, and so on? The fact that a particular writer qualified in the field has defined something doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a lot of totally abstract material to provide about the concept. Most of what we discuss in the article is "climate change denial in action." This could come from someone who defined the term, or it could come from someone else. Nevertheless, an article usually starts by defining the term. If someone provided definitions from somewhere else that provided a more in depth discussion of what this situation is really about, then certainly that would change the picture. We use what we have. Mackan79 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AEI

The Guardian story on AEI was extensively refuted and shown to be misleading. Why isn't that mentioned? THF (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the "AEI"? 99.102.176.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC).
Probably the American Enterprise Institute, a NoThink Tank. THF, any sources for your claim? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be civil in your discussions. Just because you disagree with an organization doesn't make it thoughtless. THF (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the claim that my remark was uncivil to be much more so. "Think tanks" typically don't think, they collect supporting material for predetermined positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOT#CHAT. Your personal fictional opinion about think tanks is irrelevant, and insults editors who do serious academic work in think tanks. Can you explain why you reverted the refutation of the fictional Guardian account and restored the BLP violation to the article? THF (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
From the wikipedia article on them it doesn't sound like they are deniers but I'll be interested to see what THF means. Dmcq (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See the sources in American_Enterprise_Institute#Payment_controversy, which completely refutes the Guardian's hit piece.[26][27][28][29] It's a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and plain accuracy to include the paragraph in this article. At a minimum, the refutation would need to be included, at which point there's a substantial WP:WEIGHT violation. THF (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh that letter from AEI and that Newsweek reply Samuelson certainly are cause for thought. I hadn't quite realized how ingrained the american idea was of burn burn the planet or the Chinese will burn it before us, and helping is unamerican wishy washy. I was wondering again if perhaps AEI were straight deniers but I'm coming to the conclusion that they're red necks and that's just how they think and view the world. You can see in some of their studies things like mitigation which show a bit of reality rather than them just straight taking the money and writing the piece. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Erm - i see no consensus for removal. Sorry but AEI's own comments (while interesting and certainly notable) are not "proof" or "refutal". They are AEI's point of view. Btw. don't you have a bit of a COI here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek are not "AEI", and conclusively demonstrate that the Guardian's reporting is not reliable on the subject. THF (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
These are all opinion sources - right? And most/all of the information comes from the AEI - right? Of course the AEI will dispute it - whether correct or not. And of course political opinion writers will have an opinion depending on where they stand with regards to the AEI, whether it is correct or not. I'm sorry - they do not refute - they present another view. Had the Guardian retracted or corrected the story - then that would have been entirely different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All the Guardian's information comes from the opinion source at Greenpeace. It's not reporting, and the article violently violates NPOV as well as basic accuracy and BLP. THF (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think my opinion that they are just thoughtless rednecks really should not count, it is how they have been reported that counts and they pretty definitely have been reported as deniers of the ideological or financial sort. It is reasonable to summarize and cite their refutation though and for that it doesn't matter whether they have a conflict of interest or are unreliable or whatever, all that matters is they are the target of an attack and the statement is theirs. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your comment Dmcq --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's move it from debating the issue to discussing it as sourcing, OK? The Guardian piece has been criticized quite a bit, but from what brief searching I've been able to do, I haven't seen another news article really debunking it. If we had that, then we could discuss whether or not the Guardian article would be a bad source, right? If we can't find that, then let's simply cover what the Guardian said and find the most cogent defense of AEI, either from the organization itself or a third party, and include that. I personally like David Frum's blog post [30] because he's with AEI and isn't an AGW skeptic or "denialist" so he seems even more convincing, but probably AEI's response as well. Fair? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) From what THF added (since reverted) this seemed very cogent and brief: the ExxonMobil funding was spread out over a ten-year period and totaled less than 1% of AEI's budget. The Wall Street Journal editorial stated: "AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon." any objections? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This subject has just been raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Climate_change_denial. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So: there's consensus that what's on the page is factually incorrect. No one defends it as factually correct. Is it going to get removed or corrected? THF (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong in your claims, both about the "refutation" and about consensus on this page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any basis for the claim that the refutation isn't a refutation beyond your already-stated biases against thinktanks? THF (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not our purpose here. It's enough that rebuttals were made. Pick the best, keep it short and let's move on. I notice no one else has proposed any alternative passage to the one THF tried to put in. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
When a popular news source such as the Wall Street Journal does an article on global warming they will often report on points raised in peer-reviewed papers and interview scientists that publish in peer-reviewed journals. To balance these opinions the Wall Street Journal's go to source is the AEI researchers and the AEI's journals that are made to look like peer reviewed papers. The only problems is that the AEI journals are not peer reviewed much like Merck's Australian Journals. Now paying a scientist to publish an article or giving them a lot of money to to give a presentation is really shady. For example all NIH employees need to pay their own travel expenses or file extensive reports explaining why and who is paying for what. This is to due to past conflict of interest controversies that occurred between NIH employees and the Drug/Bio-tech companies. These things are almost impossible to prove and it is generally safe to assume the worst. Even if it can't be proven that Exxon was essentially paying scientists to debunk global warming it can't be disproved either. I think our section American_Enterprise_Institute#Payment_controversy is written reasonably well, the only problem is that people who are unaware of how the scientific process works don't realize the level of corruption the section describes. What I'm basically saying is that authors of the NW, AEI, WSJ, and TWS articles the counter the Guardian article as well as THF need to get some education.--OMCV (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is off-topic. Defenses of AEI need to go in the article, and it doesn't matter whether you or I think they're cogent defenses. It's just a matter of NPOV. Everything else is WP:FORUM. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Doubt is our Product" — New material for this article

I am too busy, but I encourage other editors to listen to this podcast called "Doubt is our Product" featuring interview with Clive Hamilton about his book and TV series covering the topic of this article, and interview with Stanford's famous climate scientist, Stephen H. Schneider. His latest book has been frozen out by major media. His teaching has been harried by attacks from climate deniers.

More data can be mined from NANCY ORESKES: MERCHANTS OF DOUBT. Podcast of her speech ► RATEL ◄ 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent research. Naomi's speech is on YT, with slides. [31] Wikispan (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This is excellent stuff. For the last part of her talk she reads from her book, so we could quote from what she says and cite it to the book, I think. Alternatively, has anybody here got access to the book, to write and check a suitable summary of what she has to say? --Nigelj (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.99.184.230.86 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added something based on Nancy Oreskes' talk under 'background'. --Nigelj (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Background section

JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverted [32] my edits with the comment "ill advised" and asked me to come here to discuss them. Perhaps he'd be so kind as to enumerate his concerns more fully for me so that I may respond. ► RATEL ◄ 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No response yet, so I'll make some pre-emptive comments:

  1. I removed the word "current" because the scientific consensus is not a changing consensus and has been stable for a long time. The word's only purpose is to suggest that this opinion is subject to variation, and presumably therefore carries less weight.
  2. I changed "contributes to global warming" to "causes global warming" in line with the scientific consensus, which states that the global warming the Earth is experiencing is caused by man-made emissions. Again, the formulation "contributes to" is a deliberate weakening of the scientific consensus.
  3. The Hamilton book quote is a wonderful backgrounder to the article, clearly showing the origins of denialism in the US. It may be a bit overlong, and if necessary I can look at shortening it.

Hope this helps. ► RATEL ◄ 02:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Yes, the Hamilton quote is a bit overlong. Why don't you suggest the best tenth of it for quoting? Clive Hamilton seems to be less expert and less influential than George Monbiot and shouldn't be afforded more space unless he's got something particularly brilliant to say, and I haven't heard the case for that. He appears to be a commentator who wrote a book -- which doesn't sound like a very reliable source for allegations that amount to a conspiracy theory. Also, why rely on an Australian commentator for reporting facts on "the origins of denialism in the US"? The WP article on him states, Hamilton faced heavy criticism following his advocacy of propaganda to instruct children to trust the state above their parents in matters of ecology. Doesn't exactly give me confidence in his reliability. I don't see the value in concentrating too much on the tobacco lobby, since smoking isn't what this article is supposed to be about, and we've already got too much about that subject. As for "contributes" vs. "causes", I thought the scientific consensus was that other natural forces could also account for part of global warming, but maybe I'm just "anti-science." Feel free to point out language in the IPCC reports that supports "causes" rather than "contributes". I've got no problem at all with your removing "current" -- you make a good case for that. You should also back up "Some conservative think tanks and business groups have engaged in "denial" of the science of climate change since the 1990s." with rock-solid specifics before it goes into the article: Give examples of conservative think tanks and business groups and good sourcing that those examples have "engaged in 'denial'". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Hamilton is a college professor and an expert on ethics. The fact that he lives in Australia is immaterial. This is a global issue, and ethics feature heavily, or the lack of them.
  2. He also wrote another book on global warming: Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change which is why he is well suited for quoting here. So he is not simply a common-or-garden "commentator".
  3. His story of a denial campaign (or "conspiracy theory" in your language) is well sourced with footnotes; read the online book. The same material can be sourced from other recent books, including the 2010 book by Oreskes Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. So please stop trying to exclude this material as unsourced or poorly sourced.
  4. As for "causes" vs "contributes", please read the language of the scientific opinion on climate change, specifically "due primarily to human-induced emissions".
  5. The sentence "Some conservative think tanks and business groups have engaged in "denial" of the science of climate change since the 1990s." is backed by a lot of sources, even the two 2010 books I cite above. I'm happy to cite that again in situ if reqd. ► RATEL ◄ 03:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you've rewritten the article to say Samuelson responded to "the Oreskes article". Oreskes was quoted in the article, she didn't write it. Please correct that. The primary author of the Newsweek cover story is named just a bit further up. Hamilton's credentials are still not impressive. College prof (so what), wrote books -- more is not better. Being in Australia isn't immaterial, it's indicative of how poor a source this is for alleging detailed facts about how our specially defined form of "denialism" evolved in the U.S. This appears to be a questionable source, as defined by WP:RS. Please stop telling me I'm "trying to exclude this material" -- I'm telling you that better sourcing is needed. If you can find better sourcing, propose it, and we can evaluate it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll make the correction you've requested. As to sourcing, two books by well known college professors (Oreskes, Hamilton) meets RS requirements, and then some! ► RATEL ◄ 05:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that Hamilton does indeed meet WP:SOURCES policy and WP:RS guideline criteria w.r.t. assessments of what are considered WP:Reliable sources. And given the recent fourth WP:AfD nomination of this article, I would think it important to have an effective background to help readers understand why the word "denial" might be appropriately used in an article title such as this. On the other hand, articles are generally expected to be reasonably in keeping with the guideline WP:Summary style. I should think there is some way to summarize what Clive Hamilton says in the long quotation currently offered in the "Background" section. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've thought about that, and it's tricky, because there is a tale to tell here, an interesting one, and the more its truncated the less sense it makes. I'm not sure why we feel the need to stubbify articles sometimes. The page is not pushing size limits ... yet. ► RATEL ◄ 06:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd sure agree that even mere writing and editing is often "tricky"-- but often there needs to some way to summarize things for other folks who've not necessarily read all the sources-- after all, why not just provide links to the reader? Is Hamilton the only source for background? Of course not. Why lean on a long block-quotation of Hamilton? ... Kenosis (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Quick follow-up: Of course sometimes the original words of the source are the best way of expressing things to readers. Perhaps elipses between the unnecessary parts of the blockquote might be appropriate? I haven't parsed it thoroughly, so this is just a preliminary thought here, as were my comments just above. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
A rewrite of the section is another option, paraphrasing Hamilton (or Oreskes, or other similar sources). It's hard work though, and I'm getting tired. Can you do it? Perhaps try to write the same facts, using different words, with a few key phrases quoted along the way. It may be better, if you have access to a copy of Oreskes's new book, to include some material from that high-qual. source too, or others, to satisfy people intent on questioning sources. ► RATEL ◄ 07:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC
Nor being adequately familiar with Oreskes' work at the moment, I think I'm not adequately able to competently integrate her work into the article. I'll try to do some further background research into WP:RS material including Oreskes and get back to everybody here about this issue when I'm better able to do so. ... Kenosis (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no other way of saying that this section, last seen here is completely inappropriate. First, there is the fact that numerous reliable sources dispute the validity of this phrase altogether. Thus, anyone who believes that this page should be written from the perspective of "documenting" various denial campaigns as they have taken place, will need to show how the reliable sources disputing the concept in its entirety can simply be disregarded. Second, to say affirmatively that "Some conservative think tanks and business groups have engaged in 'denial' of the science of climate change since the 1990s" based on a couple of sources, is completely unsupportable: Wikipedia cannot present allegations of this sort as facts without even attributing who states this. Third, to make a statement that an author "documents the astroturfing origins of climate change denial in the United States" is just as bad. With all due respect, this is egregiously tendentious writing that would need to be reworked entirely. Mackan79 (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're getting a little confused. It's best to add the well sourced 'denials of denial' into the article rather than howl about the existence of these facts in RSes. WP is simply here as a tertiary source. ► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is you are presenting controversial statements as true. Notably disputed statements have to be attributed, and all notable sides presented without presenting any as true. Mackan79 (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE applies even in an article all about a fringe phenomenon (i.e. the denial of CC). This is not any kind of denialist playground where the rules of WP:FRINGE are reversed. --Nigelj (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (My comment reinstated, after accidental deletion in this edit by JohnWBarber --Nigelj (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC))
Nigel, stick to the subject: Ratel's source is presenting as if the source were reporting facts, allegations about a conspiracy of business interests and lobbyists. The present sourcing is too weak for that. It's got nothing to do with fringe science or fringe anything. It's got to do with proper sourcing. Quit trying to make everything a battle of science and denialists -- where are the denialist editors on this page? Who besides you is arguing over science vs. denialism? Stick to the topic, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
A book like this does not get into print without considerable editorial and legal oversight by the publishers. If any statement that Hamilton makes cannot be supported by his evidence, then Phillip Morris et al will sue their proverbial rear ends off. In the absense of that, that is the definition of a RS. --Nigelj (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of publishers do not do fact checking, and when they do, it's not so much to ensure accuracy as to prevent lawsuits -- a much lower standard (the decision to file a libel suit involves not just inaccuracy and unfairness, but the amount of it and the type of it -- Wikipedia's standards are different). If Hamilton has sources, those are probably the sources we should be using. We can't trust Hamilton to give a fair and accurate description of what those sources said. This is an Australian academic (in the field of ethics, a philosophy teacher) who can't be expected to have done his own reporting half a world away. His stock in trade seems to be commentary. I strongly suspect he's simply rewriting what other published sources have said in the U.S. but that haven't been widely read in the Australian market. This is another reason not to use an Australian source for a U.S. story. If you accept what's reported in a typical book about ongoing, contemporary controversies, we could start quoting the denialists' books here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There is no consensus here for adding the Hamilton material. Why did you add it back, Ratel? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have shortened and summarised it, as discussed above. This book certainly is a valuable source for 'background' here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That's an improvement, although it's unclear who is being quoted between the quote marks at the beginning of the block quote. If we're going to use any partisan source here for facts, that should apply to both sides. We have been given no reason to believe that this source is particularly reliable, and we have every reason to believe the source is shaky. Whatever standards we chose, they'll need to apply regardless of the source's particular POV. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I added back in the orginal attribution for the quote within hamilton's blockquote. Since I had already tracked it down I also added a cite direct to the original "Doubt is our product..." memo, held as a scanned image at UCSF Library. There is no doubt about the accuracy of any of this stuff. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, Hamilton is a long-time scholar who is a vice-chancellor of an accredited university; Oreskes is a provost of an accredited university. But I think it's time to branch out a bit here, since the article appears to be here to stay after its fourth AfD was closed as a keep. In addition to Oreskes' and Hamilton's books, here are a few additional books on what is apparently a rapidly growing list of published material which deals with this topic:

--David Michaels (2008) Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health
--James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore (2009) Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
--Stephen H. Schneider (2009) Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate
--Thomas O. McGarity (2010) Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research

... Kenosis (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Continued problems with added back material despite lack of consensensus here

This is the way the article read before Ratel edited: The current scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is contributing to global warming. He changed "contributing" to "causing".

Ratel claims this is in line with the scientific consensus, which states that the global warming the Earth is experiencing is caused by man-made emissions. Again, the formulation "contributes to" is a deliberate weakening of the scientific consensus.

I reverted this, among other edits, and suggested discussion here. Before achieving consensus, Ratel then reinserted material back into the article despite the fact that it was still under discussion here, falsely claiming that objections had been met [33] (the time to reinsert disputed material is when you actually get a consensus to do so). My objection remains and hasn't been answered regarding the description of the mainstream science: This is what our article on Global warming states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
Source in footnote: IPCC (2007-05-04). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-03

"Contributes" is clearly the mainstream science. And here I'm supposed to be, in Ratel's uncivil words, "anti-science". Let's either change it back or come to a consensus on it and stop making edits to the article while they're still under discussion here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Contributing is too weak, and causing is too strong. Stick to the mainstream which is contributes (or causing) most of the warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a POVFORK

This article is a split from Global warming controversy. As such, it cannot be considered a POVFORK even though controversial. Note that the chief reason for splits like this is size, and Global warming controversy at 125Kb, is already far over the recommended size of 30 to 50 Kb. This article is more correctly termed a "spinout". I ask Mackan to replace the disambiguation please. ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A content fork would have no need to focus on "Climate change denial," which would unnecessarily amount to a criticism article. A content fork would be something like "Funding for partisans in the global warming controversy," split off with a summary remaining in the particular section. This article can't be considered a fork at all; it must be an article on the concept of "climate change denial," as one would presume from the title. That's an interesting topic, with various views. But a content fork would never have this type of a partisan title. Mackan79 (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this view. I'd support a change in article title, not sure to what (your suggestion is a little verbose), a redirect on "climate change denial" to the relevant section of this article, and another section within the article where the silly (in my view) accusations of funding of scientists to falsify data and create alarm are aired. But I think this big change needs discussion and many other views. ► RATEL ◄ 09:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If the article's focus is on "climate change denial", as the title indicates, then it must go way beyond what some business-funded conspirators are doing and address who the principle denialists are, what their stated reasons are for denial (their fringe theory) and what the scientific mainstream position is on those reasons. It would delve into various reasons for climate change denial, including the affect of the recent climate-change scandals and the cold weather on public opinion (I've already linked to sources on this at the top of the recent AfD). The article has never done any of that. Easier to change the title than the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The main meanings of denial do not require the deniers have any theory at all, nor do they commonly state their reasons for denial! Doubting climate change because of the scandals can be reasoned skepticism not denial though it may be used as a prop by a denier. See denialism about denial. Dmcq (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Except that there are reasons that deniers give for their beliefs -- whole books about them. If we treat this article as a description of denialism on this topic, rather than just the special-interest machinations, that must be a prominent part of the article. You can't have an article on a viewpoint and then not give a good description of what it is people with that viewpoint say. That's essential and must be very prominent. That's just NPOV treatment. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article renaming

Proposal for article renaming rejected on consensus

As per above, could we have some suggestions for an article renaming please? The term "Climate change denial" will still link here. But this is actually a spinout from Global warming controversy and should be formatted as such, even if only to prevent repeated PROD attempts (we've had a few). The new article will also include accusations of funding 'anomalies' on the science side, to guarantee NPOV.

Either way, such an article would cover funding and partisanship on both sides. Are there sources that cover the funding for partisans on the other side? Are there sources that cover the disinformation campaigning on the other side? I think for the second one, there are plenty. They're the same kind of partisan sources we're using now, only on the other side. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the current title is fine and see no point in this discussion. I do not think this is a spinout from global warming controversy. This is not about reasoned debate. And I would very much prefer if references to skeptics as opposed to deniers were not removed. It is perfectly possible to be a skeptic without being a denier accrding to most of the uses. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Then what do you think the scope of the article should be? Just the way Monbiot uses the term, as a deliberate attempt by some to foist a lie on the public, or should this article focus on the POV itself, as held by part of the public, and include anything else that causes a part of the public to deny global warming? (This would imply the current title is fine.) This is a very important question because it governs how the article should be expanded. I've asked this in previous discussions and haven't got a clear answer from everyone. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As Monbiot uses it and a bit on as the article denialism uses the term. It is not unreasonable for the general public to be skeptical given all the obfustication that goes on and all the reasonable skeptical stuff is covered in the global warming controversy article, so I see no great reason to spend much time on the use of the term as a pejorative except to note that some people do that. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "a bit on as the article denialism uses the term". The subject is either the viewpoint as a whole or the financial and backroom maneuvering to encourage that opinion (which could be a part of the larger article, but there could be some limits on that). I consider the subject of whether or not "pejorative" belongs in the lead a separate one from the scope of the article. If you think the scope should be as Monbiot defines it, then the title is overly broad and leads to confusion. Even though denialism is wrong, we shouldn't imply that everyone who believes it is duped by the special interest campaigning -- it's simply a fact that other factors are at play (as these sources mention [34] [35] [36]), and we would need to mention them prominently, per WP:WEIGHT. So which is it, Dmcq? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By a bit on as the article denialism uses the term I mean people who genuinely are in denial rather than have any reasoned idea or are doing it for nefarious reasons. It isn't clear to me how one can reliably distinguish the two easily and if one can't distinguish things reliably the easiest thing is to not try doing it and have the article cover both. I'm pretty certain the obfustication has contributed to the reasoned skepticism of many people, I think calling such people dupes is quite uncalled for in these circumstances. I have tried twice to distinguish between denial and skepticism in the leader but it has been removed both times so I've come to my limit of trying on that account. I';m not certain what the problem is with making a clear distinction. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose renaming this is the well sourced name given to this phenomenon. Verbal chat 12:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • No, "climate change denialism" naturally refers to the point of view, not the behind-the-scenes process of trying to influence the public, which is what the focus of this article is. If you title it one way and focus another way, you've got an NPOV problem. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Views are not observable. They are the 'behind the scenes' latent variables if anything. What is observable is that a person chooses to express or act on a view for whatever reason. What can be inferred from a persons action is what they want to achieve, not what they think. Personally I have found peoples actions far more rational than what they say. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If this is an article on a viewpoint then that's what we need to concentrate on. Views are easily observable: They're documented. You go to the sources, quote them and describe them in summary form. We do this all the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
We can cite what people write, but for something like denial that can be quite a different business than anybody's viewpoint. It can also be something to influence other people, it can just be cracked, it can be anything. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you mean that some are insincere in what they write, then I think covering the business about the special-interest PR campaigning adequately deals with that in an article about the denial segment of opinion. But it stands to reason that not everybody's mind was influenced solely by the PR campaigning. The links to the articles about the polls that I cite on this page show other factors were at work, like the weather and the science scandals. That would have to be mentioned in an NPOV article about this viewpoint, and it would have to be prominent, because the denial POV went way up in the polls just this winter, in which the weather and the scandals have been the most prominent aspects of public discussion about this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're mixing up denial and skepticism here. They are quite different things. I would call it the skeptical POV. I've tried to emphasize the difference in the lead but it seems that other editors just can't accept that the difference should be mentioned. I think this is a real cause of problems with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose renaming too. If anything, I see this as a spin-out from denialism, but luckily in WP we can have multiple inheritance ans so do not have to agree on a single parent article for this one. --Nigelj (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead and nearly all of the article describes a conspiracy similar to several of the items in List of conspiracies (political). Although the conspiracy was not to overthrow a government, as the lead of the article I just linked to states, that article is a list where many of the items are not attempts to overthrow, so this would fit in well in that list. If we put "conspiracy" or "conspiracies" in the title, it will be absolutely evident that the article is not about all people who happen to believe in climate denialism, but concentrates on the conspirators. The article should also be put in Category:Conspiracy. The Alaska lawsuit alleges a related Conspiracy (crime). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose renaming i see no rationale for doing so. And we've just had a rename round (and an AfD one)... with no consensus to change. There are two different kinds of CCD that the article concerns itself about, the first is a deliberate campaign (a sort of "teach the controversy") designed to stall action, and the other is involuntary denial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Documents?

A recently edited sentence reads: He (Hamilton) documents the establishment of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) as a 'fake front group' set up 'to link concerns about passive smoking with a range of other popular anxieties, including global warming'.

I think that we cannot use "documents" without a separate reference as to it being true, even if Hamilton supplies (pointers to) documentation. We need an appropriate word indicating it's Hamilton's opinion, without our agreement to that opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that putting the two contentious statements into quotes after stating that we're quoting Hamilton, and then giving the reference more than covers that. What wording do you suggest? --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seitz, tendentious writing in violation of WP:NPOV

The accusations against Seitz, which Nigelj readds here are already presented in the section of the article on connections to the tobacco lobby here. Besides that, this is more material which states as a fact that with regard to the tobacco lobby, Seitz's "principal strategy on their behalf was to defend their products by doubt-mongering, by insisting that the science was unsettled and therefore that it was always premature for the US government to act to control tobacco use." I am sorry to say that this is low quality, tendentious writing. Encyclopedias do not say that an individual's principal strategy was to engage in "doubt-mongering." Encyclopedias do not take an accusation by a particular source against an individual and present them as fact. Encyclopedias do not use rhetoric like "it was always premature for the US government to act...." Encyclopedias do not state opinion as fact.

Besides that encyclopedia articles don't say the same thing twice, but if anyone really believes that this kind of writing is appropriate let's please hash it out so we can get it over with. Mackan79 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote those three paragraphs on the assumption that a reader would have the attention span to read all of them without forgetting by the second one that we were still describing the points made in a talk given by Oreskes at a university. Because you have already raised this point, I added the citation to each of the paragraphs in the hope that would help the reader's mental flow. Evidently you have proved me wrong, and I have further corrected myself by explicitly attributing the speaker again in each paragraph. Someone had already added that she 'writes' it to the first paragraph, just under where I had said she spoke it. --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to repetition, I don't see anything about the specific points made by Oreskes in the section you link. The point about Oreskes' talk was that she developed a sustained idea over best part of an hour of speaking. I have summarised the part of this idea relating to the origins of CC denial into three paragraphs. The middle one isn't really optional or I would have left it out. These are not unrelated bullet points, but a developed idea. If you feel it would help, there is some duplicate wikilinking in the later section that could be removed, but I feel that it is not overlinking per WP:LINK as they are far enough away from the first usages, and this may change as the article continues to develop. --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for additional comments on the lead

Several discussions above have focused on how this article should treat the lead.

  • On December 22 before I first edited the article we had this. The text stated that the term was a pejorative, and referred to views that climate change is naturally occurring. It discussed what "some denial campaigns" involved, mentioned a couple of writers who used the term, and added a statement about the G8 that was later found not to be supported by the source.
  • On January 11, after some thorough revisions of the article by Ling.Nut and myself, the lead had this. Instead of "is a pejorative," we have "generally a pejorative." The article now clarified that it is specifically for those who downplay the risks of global warming. Gone were the statements about denial campaigns, on the reasoning that we should not affirmatively call something a denial campaign in our neutral voice since it is a negative statement that is in all cases disputed, and several writers dispute the entire term.
  • On March 5, Dmcq removed most of the lead so that we had this. This maintained the same first definitional sentence, but removed all statements about specific writers. It then provided two meanings, and said that the article focused only on those who are alleged to undermine the consensus for ulterior motives. That the statement was generally a pejorative was retained.
  • On March 11, Stephan Schulz removed that the phrase is generally a pejorative so that we had this. A lengthy discussion was ongoing between Dmcq and myself about his other deletions.
  • On March 13, with Dmcq's agreement, I expanded the lead significantly so that we had this. Replaced was the statement that it is generally a pejorative, and attributions to specific writers. New material summarized the allegation of a denial "industry," and of ties to the tobacco lobby found in the article, as well as of the major criticisms of the term.
  • As of now, Ratel has reduced the lead to two sentences that define the term, and then state that the article uses a restricted definition denoting denial for the sake of ulterior motives.

I would like to have something that complies with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. WP:LEAD states that the lead should be able to stand as a "concise overview of the topic," and specifically that the lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." WP:NPOV requires that "all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." WP:V requires that reliable sources "must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

In my view the version here is by far the closest we have come. The current version clearly does not satisfy WP:LEAD or WP:NPOV. It is also inaccurate, in that the article does not just use or include material focusing on allegations of ulterior motives, while I am aware of no reason to. I would like to invite additional opinions on how to improve this. Mackan79 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed some time ago and the decision was, IIRC, that the page Climate change scepticism would discuss good faith doubts about GW while this page would discuss the bad faith attempts by various organisations and individuals to muddy the topic for their own agendas. ► RATEL ◄ 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusing people of acting in bad faith raises serious BLP concerns. Accusations against organizations need high quality sources--not opinion pieces-- at least. See WP:LABEL.--agr (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That is true, certainly. I would also ask, however, why the article would not focus simply on what reliable sources say about climate change denial. To focus merely on bad faith disinformation campaigns seems to make it an article on criticism, which is generally considered a POVFORK. Here, it would be an article that was not even labeled as criticism. That would seem rather extraordinary. Mackan79 (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you please start a section on this page titled "sourcing concerns" or similar and list the sources you feel would fail review at wp:RSN. We can then address each one in turn. On your other point: please understand that this article is not on criticism, it merely documents a phenomenon that has happened and is happening in the real world, and which has been written about by numerous reliable sources. ► RATEL ◄ 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I went through the article earlier and removed all of those I saw that did not qualify under WP:SYNTH. But as far as the topic, my point is that your view must be incorrect. There are reliable sources that dispute the issue that you would like to document. As such, we have to address the issue in keeping with WP:NPOV. I believe you feel that nobody disputes that some denial campaigns exist, but to me this betrays a lack of familiarity with political topics. Any political accusation can be presumed to have a kernel of truth, but to pick out that kernel as the basis for an article does not satisfy WP:NPOV. Mackan79 (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree the lead should describe more. However I have problems with having a lead that concentrates mostly on an aspect of the topic that isn't covered to any great extent in the article itself. At the very least there should be a section set up about the criticisms of the term first. I'll try splitting up the background section in two with one bit covering meanings and criticisms of the term. This will also mean that the lead actually refers to the article when talking about this aspect and doesn't need to be cluttered up with citations and peoples names when they are of peripheral relevance to the actual topic.. The citations can be left to the section about the meaning of the term. Dmcq (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I pared the lead back to the bare minimum, so I'd be pleased to see your attempts to flesh it out a little to summarise the article. ► RATEL ◄ 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
tangential misunderstanding
User:Dmcq, Why did you modify part of another's (User:JohnWBarber) comments, in "...value of this paragraph..." section? 99.35.10.13 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Because his contribution was causing a big red error message at the end of this talk page. I removed nothing and in fact made what was there more explicit. I guess another way round he problem would have been to add a <references /> tag straight after his bit. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussions above leave no room for doubt that the term commonly has been used in a pejorative way, and most of the sources in this article use it that way when they mention "denial". It's an important enough point that it needs to go into the lead. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing on this, I was just interested to look closer at the passage in Christopher Horner's book, and see that in fact he was quoting Brendan O'Neill in the Guardian.[37] It is O'Neill who comments:
Over the past year, climate-change sceptics have been steadily demonised as a public enemy, even a threat to security and prosperity. This is clear from the tag "climate-change denier", which is used to describe a mixed bag of people - from those who think the planet is getting hotter but argue that we will be able to deal with it, to those who deny outright that any warming is taking place (who are in a tiny minority). The term "denier" is powerfully pejorative. As Charles Jones, an emeritus Professor of English at Edinburgh University, has argued, the denier label is intended to assign any "doubters" with "the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust denial". In short, they are wicked people with base motives.
This makes it three qualified commentators who have specifically stated that it is pejorative, with countless others suggesting the same. The truth is I have been trying to come up with a way not to say it in the first sentence. For instance, we could add a sentence: "Commentators including Paul O'Neill, Richard D. North, and Christopher Horner have described the term as pejorative." But, well, isn't that kind of ludicrous? Self evidently it is pejorative in the way that we are defining it. Otherwise it would simply be "views that dispute the existence of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior." The fact remains that when you define a pejorative term you generally note that it is pejorative. I wonder if others can suggest ways to address this. Mackan79 (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note that O'Neill is talking about skeptics, not deniers as defined in this article. This is an important distinction that is not well understood on these talk pages and leads to much unnecessary bickering. If you have a source that says it is pejorative when applied to the organized denialism we discuss on the page, then that's different. ► RATEL ◄ 05:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Why would a source say that it is pejorative when applied to an "organized campaign"? I hear you saying that we would somehow need to clarify that it is still pejorative when it refers to things that are actually bad. "Pejorative" does not denote an incorrect value judgment, simply a value judgment. A pejorative may be well deserved, or it may not be. That isn't the point. The sources certainly call it a pejorative, so if you contend there is a distinction then we need reliable sources to show it. In any case: please show some support for the view that this article is not focused on "climate change denial," and rather is on the general topic of bad faith disinformation campaigns to undermine public concern over global warming. If that is the topic, it seems quite clear the article would need a new name, and most likely would need to be deleted as a POV fork. Mackan79 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the new source and a little thought I'd like to propose the following. I continue to find it odd that we would suggest there is any question over whether the term is pejorative, as if it might not be, but this may be the least problematic alternate way I can come up with to do this.

---

Climate change denial is a term used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[mck 1] and Ellen Goodman,[1] among others,[mck 2][2] have described a public campaign against the scientific consensus on climate change that, they argue, amounts to a form of denialism.[mck 3][3] The term itself is described as a pejorative by writers including Christopher Horner and Brendan O'Neill.[mck 4][mck 5]

In favoring the term the environmentalist writer George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who are driven by financial interests. Monbiot has referred to a "denial industry," while others have detailed financial ties between industry lobbying groups and commentators who publicly dispute the general scientific opinion on global warming. The relationships between industry funding and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of second hand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. However, journalists have described others as climate change "deniers," including politicians and writers not claimed to be funded by industry groups.[mck 6][4][mck 7][mck 8][mck 9]

Commentators such as Robert Samuelson and Brendan O'Neill have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.[5] [6][7] Some of those accused contend that funding does not affect their views or the nature of the scientific research, and argue that financial incentives exist on both sides of the public debate on climate change.

  1. ^ Monbiot, George (2006-09-19). "The denial industry". Guardian Unlimited.
  2. ^ Christoff, Peter. (2007, July 9). Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect. Opinion page. The Age Company Ltd.
  3. ^ Begley., Sharon (2007-08-07). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek.
  4. ^ Horner, Christopher. (2008). Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception. Regnery Publishing, Inc. pg, 61.
  5. ^ O'Neill, Brendan. A climate of censorship. The Guardian. November 22, 2006. Last retrieved 3/18/10.
  6. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10 Guradian.co.uk - Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers
  7. ^ Adams, David (2005-01-27). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
  8. ^ Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-02.
  9. ^ Gelbspan, Ross (1995). "The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper’s Magazine. Retrieved 2007-08-02. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

---

  1. ^ Ellen Goodman (2007-02-09). "No change in political climate". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  2. ^ Connelly, Joel. (2007–07–10). Deniers of global warming harm us. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2009–12–25.
  3. ^ "Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers". Newsweek. 13 August 2007.
  4. ^ Complaint for Damages, Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Et al. Climate Justice, Friends of the Earth International. Retrieved 2009–12–25.
  5. ^ O'Neill, Brendan. A climate of censorship. The Guardian. November 22, 2006. Last retrieved 3/18/10.
  6. ^ Samuelson, Robert J. (2007-08-20). "Greenhouse Simplicities". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  7. ^ Townhall.com::On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial::By Dennis Prager

I made small changes for readability to your work above, Mackan. I think this proposal should wait upon the outcome of responses to your suggestion of a retitling and reformatting of the page. It makes this moot. Sorry Dmcq ► RATEL ◄ 10:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence saying 'Climate change denial is a term used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. ' is way off the mark. Lots of skeptics think something like that and they are not denying anything. They are quite honestly looking at the evidence as they see it and coming to a rational conclusion. That what they see has been clouded and befuddled by deniers does not make them also deniers. Some commentators have applied the term to skeptics in general but that is not how most people use the term and it shouldn't be at the top in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Could I also ask you please not to try turning the lead into a citation soup of people who have used theterm. The lead should say what the article is about and its main points. The citation for the lead is the body of the article. The article should discuss these things in more detail. The lead should only have a couple of very major citations that cover most of the article if anything. Citation arguments about the meaning of the term can go in meanings of the term. The lead should then summarize the main points. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've put back the pejorative word in the lead as applied to the particular cases where it has been applied in such a manner. I've put in the skeptic reference to deliniate the difference between having reasonable doubts and being a denier. The leader could still do with a bit more on actual cases I believe but shouldn't get bogged down so much on the term. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to tidy up the English in the new text. I think it's still a bit clunky. One reason for that could just be that we're trying to say too much in a single sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep I wish my prose was less clunky as in
There once was a man from Japan
Who's poems, they would never scan
We asked why it was
He said "It's because
I always try to fit as many words into the last line as I possibly can
:) Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Which sentence do you see as citation soup? I did not write the original sentence that Ellen Goodman and George Monbiot have used the term, but it seems appropriate to provide some information of this nature. An introduction to a topic in philosophy would note the prominent figures associated with the topic. Considering particularly that there is ongoing political debate over this topic, I do not see how we would be better off omitting mention of the personalities involved. Would you really prefer to put all of it in passive voice, including the arguments and criticism? The current lead, seen here is narrow to the point of inaccuracy (the term is not only used in that way), and original research (that the term is only a pejorative in some cases). Mackan79 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph
Climate change denial is a term used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[mck 1] and Ellen Goodman,[1] among others,[mck 2][2] have described a public campaign against the scientific consensus on climate change that, they argue, amounts to a form of denialism.[mck 3][3] The term itself is described as a pejorative by writers including Christopher Horner and Brendan O'Neill.[mck 4][mck 5]
has 8 citations and mentions four people names. None of the citations should be there and none of the people names should be mentioned. This statement is something that should all be in the meaning of the term section and summarized in the leader. None of those names is part of the topic. They are all just citations. This is the sort of stuff I call citation soup. Fine for a subsection where you want to cite something to death and justify every word. Not fine for a leader. The leader is a summary of the article. This does not summarize anything about the article - it tries to override the article and ignores the article. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to introduce the topic as well as summarize the article. When the lead is contentious, and this one clearly is, citations are appropriate and necessary. See WP:LEADCITE.--agr (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That is no excuse to have so many citations or mention the peoples names. The lead would not be so contentious if people would develop the part of the article about this first. What has been happening is that stuff has been put into the lead which isn't repeated in the article and most of the stuff in the article isn't summarized at all in the lead. In fact the lead before just giving meanings of the term didn't even introduce the subject as it was completely disjoint from the article. What I would like to see is a lead that actually was a lead that introduced and summarized the article rather than something that obfusticated the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq, will you acknowledge that the term is not accepted among all reliable sources? If the term is used by some people and not by others, my feeling is that it is necessary to point out who uses it and who doesn't. Otherwise we would certainly also be saying that the term is a pejorative, as stated by three reliable sources who are no more or less "partisan" than those who use the term. Attributing provides information and gives a more accurate view of the subject. I don't understand why someone would oppose it, other than to suggest that there is no political element to the use of the term. That's plainly wrong, as pretty much any of the commentary on the term shows. Mackan79 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You removed the bit in the lead where I pointed out that it had different uses saying 'eh, this is not in any of the sources that have been discussed' even though it was covered by the section 'meanings of the term'. You can stick loads of attributions into that section. Putting so many attributions into the lead just obscures things. If you could summarize what you mean then people could check it with the meanings section and fix one or the other. Your leader would just compete wiuth the meanings section and does not summarize. It is not a reasonable introduction to the article. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
For my benefit, as I don't know my way around all of this Talk page, could you, Mackan, list the three reliable and non-partisan sources that say that the term is 'a pejorative'? --Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The three sources so far that specifically state it are Christopher Horner, Brendan O'Neill, and Richard D. North.[38][39][40] As far as partisanship, you will have to please clarify. Is this article limited to comments that are considered to be non-partisan? Above I have proposed a way to attribute the statement to O'Neill and Horner in any case. My point to Dmcq is if that we are not attributing, then we would simply be saying that the term is pejorative, we would simply be saying that the term "is criticized" without stating by whom, etc. Mackan79 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq, who says that "[t]he term has also been applied to any unreasoned refusal to accept (that is, to the denial of) global warming, and has been used as a pejorative for what others prefer to term global warming skepticism." I have not seen any source to this effect, particularly that it is a pejorative only in some instances. But again, would you answer my question? You simply keep saying I should summarize, but I am saying exactly that we should not gloss over who uses the term when it is a contentious term with a limited usage. I am wondering whether you contend that the term is apolitical, or why else you think it is acceptable not to discuss who presents particular arguments with this term. Alternatively we could come up with some way to attribute less of it. I don't see why you would insist on no mention of individual writers at all. So far the summaries have also all been highly problematic, in that we do not have any secondary sources that provide them so editors are trying with great difficulty to come up with summaries of their own. Mackan79 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Your own reference from North pretty well supports the removed sentence you quote. he says, "there are many varieties of climate change denial. There are those who believe that... [extended content]" and "Some people labelled as "deniers", aren't. For instance, Richard Lindzen seems to be a robust sceptic rather than a denier."[41] --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll stick that one into the meanings section since you've gone to the bother of formatting it nicely. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, of course North criticizes the phrase as being too broadly applied, but he is criticizing the phrase, and certainly he is not conceding that the positions are "unreasoned." Is that a reliable statement about the term's meaning, in any case? When he talks about different kinds of "denial," you will see that he first notes the pejorative meaning of the term itself, and then proceeds to discuss different types of denial in fact. He is not talking there about any kind of ulterior motives, certainly. Mackan79 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, of your three refs above, you do know that Horner is directly quoting O'Neill, and not writing independently, don't you? --Nigelj (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
He's quoting and agreeing, yes. I would say that makes it more reliable for us to go on rather than less, however, if you consider Wikipedia's preference for secondary over primary sources. Mackan79 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And what is the big problem with trying to summarize in the leader? A summary is like a map. A map doesn't detail each and every single thing in the land otherwise it would be too big and obscure everything. We now have a section to stick most of the stuff about meaning in a meanings section and then summarize it. We don't need the names of everybody who used the term in a book or newspaper and all the ways they used them in the leader. That's getting as bad as the map in Sylvie and Bruno. Dmcq (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason that I included Newsweek, George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman when I reinserted the sourced material in the lead awhile ago was (1) the lead had previously included these three examples, and (2) to avoid the inevitable occasional accusation of WP:WEASEL w.r.t. words like "some commentators" [describe climate change denial as a specific form of the general phenomenon denialism]". No harm in giving several examples-- in addition to which, the provided citations include two more examples of commentators who've described it as part of a broader phenomenon of denialism. Of course, there's a good deal of editorial flexibility afforded by WP:LEAD in how we provide a quick summary of the article contents, though a mere definition won't meet the WP:LEAD guideline (remember also that it's a guideline and not a policy).
..... Anyway, I attempted to be as faithful to the prior fairly long-standing first-paragraph language as I could, with minor copyediting to the specific language. Speaking only as one editor of course, I'm not stuck on the particular language from before, nor on the similar language I used, nor on any one particular approach, nor even on the given citations. But that basic approach with similar language and the same basic set of citations had previously stood as part of the lead for quite some time before being recently removed along with some other material in a second paragraph. The prior second paragraph quite arguably wasn't necessary to the lead, But IMO something like the second and third sentences of the first paragraph quite arguably was necessary in order to provide a reasonable lead. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have noted at least two major problems: 1.) The usage of this term is limited, and the term is widely considered controversial; therefore readers need to understand the nature of its use. When terms are used in certain ways or only by certain people, that is something you say immediately. You don't write much of the article before informing someone about limits in the term's use. But more importantly, 2.) For unattributed definitions, we simply do not have the sources. So far I don't believe a single reliable source has been provided that defines the term, partisan or otherwise. We have extremely little in secondary sources discussing the term and what it means, besides those who criticize it. This makes it nearly impossible to provide any clear explanation of the term's meaning without reference to sources that have actually used it. Those are the major problems; the question is if you have any other solutions. Attributing the statements, meanwhile, does not create any problems that I am aware of. You contend that it is confusing, but it is not clear why that would need to be the case. Mackan79 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

M79, what would you consider a single reliable source that defines the term? Would a peer reviewed academic paper suffice? ► RATEL ◄ 08:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed published study defining denial and denialism

Apropos the above discussion with M79, here is a study editors can use for RS definition issues:

<ref name="definition">{{cite journal |title=Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? |pages=2–4 |author=Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee |journal=European Journal of Public Health |year=2009 |volume=19 |issue=1 |url=http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/2.pdf |format=pdf}}</ref>

Just copy and paste the citation and you can use it to quote sections of the paper into the article. ► RATEL ◄ 08:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is cited in the denialism article now referenced again in the leader after Mackan79 removed it for I haven't the foggiest reason. I'd now like to see the distinction from skepticism moved back. Mackan79 also removed the reference to pejorative with reference to skeptics because as far as I can see thinking that saying specifically that it is pejorative when applied to skeptics implies it is not when applied to deniers and Mackan79 would prefer it not referred to at all rather than have some people infer that. I had separated the two because although the phrase is pejorative that is not its chief use when applied to deniers. The term is applied to deniers because it is a fair description and sometimes it is applied because it expresses distaste. Applied to skeptics it is used for no better purpose than either ignorance of its meaning or as a pejorative. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are saying I removed. Mackan79 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe this here [42] is your edit. Dmcq (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so I removed that it is also applied to "any unreasoned refusal to accept," and that it is a pejorative when referring to what others prefer to call skepticism. Are you saying this source addresses those points? Mackan79 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you may have mistaken my statement that we did not have a definition for a statement that there are no definitions, but sure, this looks useful to me. "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.6 In this viewpoint, we argue that public health scientists should be aware of the features of denialism and be able to recognize and confront it." I think that could be used. Of course, the definition is not specifically about denial in relation to climate change, though I see that they mention it from time to time. Mackan79 (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Good, at least we can move on from definition issues then, after this is inserted (someone else to do it, I'm holding off editing for a day or 2). ► RATEL ◄ 09:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify what you are saying is resolved. A single definition of "denialism" does not resolve any issue that I was aware of. Mackan79 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is turning back into a disorganized mess, followed by proposal

I'm not sure how to address this, but it's apparent that the recent attention and editing is not resulting in a higher quality article, but to the contrary is resulting in an extremely disorganized jumble of largely tendentious material. I wish this were an exaggeration. It is not. A few points:

1.) The new "Background" section is unfocused, repeats material that was already better covered in other parts of the article, and presents a tendentious narrative about the tobacco lobby that does not help explain the article.

To summarize by sentence, we have first: "The scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is causing global warming." Then, that there is nevertheless debate over some aspects. Then, that in a book about tobacco industry denial leading to climate change denial, two writers say climate change denial has taken place since the '90s. In the next paragraph we have Clive Hamilton arguing that this started with a tobacco lobbying group. We then have three more paragraphs from Oreskes about scientists or commentators who are said to have been interested in promoting libertarianism, with a continuing heavy focus on the claims of relation to tobacco lobbying.

A list of problems: a.) The first sentence is not background or presented as background. It does not say when this opinion arose, but simply attempts to represent "the scientific opinion" on this topic as a single point, that humans are causing global warming. This isn't background, and in its over-simplicity and lack of direct connection to the topic is of questionable relevance. b.) The entire narrative provided by the rest is extremely tendentious. A person who wants to understand the discussion on climate change denial does not first need to understand how certain critics of the scientific consensus have been tied to the tobacco lobby. If anything they first need to understand what the term means, and then they need to see how it is used. An article on a contentious topic, as this obviously is, needs to be straight forward, not start with convoluted narratives linking a view to a less popular view. c.) This material on the tobacco lobby is already discussed in a section on the tobacco lobby. The sections are now completely redundant.

2.) The "Meanings of the term" section is extremely disorganized, and is mislabeled, as the majority does not discuss meanings of the term. This makes it impossible to discuss in total, so I will go through piece by piece.

This section starts with a very hyped up allegation from the Newsweek article having nothing to do with the meaning of the term. It then provides a similar statement by Orsekes, and then a rebuttal in the same paragraph by Samuelson having nothing to do with the meaning of the term. The material is so far indistinguishable from any other random statements that could appear anywhere in the article.

Next is a statement that some call this denialism, followed by a statement in the same paragraph that some compare it to Holocaust denial and that some decry the comparison. None of this has anything to do with meaning. The statement about Holocaust denial could be a section of its own, but is included here in the second half of a paragraph that is incorrectly said to be about "Meanings of the term."

We then have a statement by "North," meaning Richard North, although his name has not previously been given. The paragraph then blatantly misrepresents North's criticism of the term, and states that he "recognizes a number of types of climate change denier [sic] but says many that others call deniers are actually sceptics." This is nonsense; North comments that there are types of "denial," not types of "denier," in noting that there are many different points of consensus that one can dispute (deny). He then criticizes looking at financial motives.[43] The misrepresentation is, on its own, completely unacceptable. In its favor it does actually present the first discussion of the meaning of the term -- a statement by someone criticizing the term, presented as if they are endorsing it.

The next paragraph starts with Monbiot's statement that he limits his usage to those with financial interests (about the meaning), followed by a statement that he refers to a "denial industry" (not about the meaning). We then state that others have been described as deniers such as politicians (not about the meaning).

Finally we have Dennis Prager's criticism of the analogy to Holocaust denial, separated from the other statement on this topic, and still nothing about the meaning of the term.

3.) Finally we have the rest of the article, that has actually been put together with some care. Unfortunately a person had to read through two sections of an unorganized mess to get there, including a mishmash version of the material that then follows.

In total, the first two paragraphs, both of which have just been created, are a mess of highly questionable material. No effort has gone into organizing much of it. The "Background" section presents a convoluted explanation of how climate change denial is an outgrowth of another type of lobbying, before even getting to the very basics of what the term means and how it is used. The explanation is completely unnecessary as "background," which if anything should focus on the debates on climate change, and hardly stories about certain individuals connected to the tobacco lobby. The material also creates a large redundancy in the article. The next paragraph is just a mess, that claims to be about the meaning of the term, but is anything but. The little bit that is on meaning is primarily a misrepresentation of Richard North criticizing the overly broad use of the term to suggest that he is presenting an overly broad definition.

Proposal

My proposal: First, the background section should be removed in its entirely, or lowered and combined with the section on tobacco lobbying, to the extent any material can be moved there. A "background" section on ties to the tobacco lobby certainly does not help the article. A section on general debates over climate change might, but that would need to be an entirely new section. Second, the section on the "meaning of the term" should be removed since it is not on the meaning of the term. We have one statement from George Monbiot on how he uses the term, and we have criticism of how the term is used, but this does not support a section. Third, given that we did actually have a fair summary of the topic in the other sections below, we should do what we can to move quickly to the substance of the article. A brief overview may be appropriate, but really we should be using the lead to give an overview of the entire article, which has basically already been done. Mackan79 (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the meaning of the term is important and people have made errors in that then perhaps you could try editing that section so as to get a consensus rathert than just removing it. I see little benefit in having a lead talking about the meaning if there is nothing in the article about it and you disagree with others about it. As to the background section perhaps you could be more specific about what you find wrong about having a background section in an article, same comment applies about improving and reaching consensus. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for many reasons. I agree the article can be tweaked for logical flow, but to try to sever the link between the tobacco astroturfing and this topic is completely dishonest and would entail a rewriting of history. Secondly, I see no reason for a section on "general debates over climate" on a page on climate change denialism. It would only serve to make the page less focussed and more equivocal and wishy-washy, and I know you don't want that! The "meaning of the term" issue is resolved by the paper I presented, to be quoted, so there's that issue solved too. ► RATEL ◄ 09:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You comment that you oppose "to try to sever the link between the tobacco astroturfing and this topic." My proposal is that we should cover this in the section that we already have, Climate_change_denial#Connections_to_the_tobacco_lobby, so clearly this would not "sever the link." The question I would like to see addressed is whether the appropriate way to introduce this topic is to start, before summarizing the topic or discussing what climate change denial actually is, with material suggesting that climate change denial is somehow a product or outgrowth of tobacco lobbying. The material is currently in two sections. Mackan79 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Background too long

I notice the background is getting rather long rather than just being a short intro and backgrounder. If there are specific details about climate change denial shouldn't they be moved further down the article into the nitty gritty of the body? About the tobacco bit just for interest I had a good read through the 'Doubt is our product' document. I'm not really sure after reading it if the writer had nefarious purposes or was a self-deluded denier. I guess it is what I was saying earlier that the distinction between those two was hard but both are deniers and so fit in th scope of this article. However I feel that the quote on its own might be out of context as coming onto it on its own it is hard to see how it could have anything but nefarious intent behind it. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the background section dealing with the way CC denial has evolved out of other campaigns in the past. We have two main sources, Hamilton's book and Oreskes' talk about her book (I think everything in the latter could be sourced to her actual book, but I don't have access to a copy at the mo). Hamilton concentrates on TASSC and the tobacco lobby, Oreskes looks at different people and the Marshall Inst. who have a broader history, including SDI, ozone, acid rain, DDT, as well as smoking. The common thread is doubt and the exaggeration of and capitalisation on it. I don't see that that is too much to say. In the light of these two scholarly analyses, maybe the Background section could be sub-sectioned, but I don't see any need to cut it. Maybe some of the other stuff below, if it really is seen as repetition could be cut or merged into an expanded background section. What I saw as imprtant was to halt discussion in the Background section at the point where the lobbyists began to attack global warming theories, as I see that as the main topic to be covered in the rest of the article.
Now, it is true that at the moment these two sources don't overlap much or refer to each other that I know of. We have a list from Kenosis above of four other books that may well have information to add to the background, and maybe some of that will help to tie together and harmonise what we already have. In the meantime, I don't see a need to cut anything from this useful section just because it is new, or just because it doesn't hang together into one simple narrative (yet). --Nigelj (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just tried a WP:BOLD move: I moved the first para of Background into the last para of the lede. There was some repition there, but this is justified as the lede is meant to introduce and summarise the main points in the article. The wording could possibly still be improved given its new home, but do others think the idea is sound? --Nigelj (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have just posted above, this material is not helpful background, but a tendentious argument that has been added in place of any explanation of what the topic is. The material attempts to explain that climate change denial should be understood simply as an outgrowth of tobacco lobbying. That is not background on this topic, but background on another topic, or background on certain individuals said to be influential on both. The issue was already discussed and remains in the section, [44]. Mackan79 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that your views on this are not supported by the reliable sources cited in the text. There is nothing to be gained by simply repeating them in every discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think what is being said about all the tobacco stuff in background is that they provide a history. i think therefore the easiest thing is to put that bit into a history section after the meanings section. That way all the discussion about the term that Mackan79 thinks is so important can be closer to the top but not overwhelm the lead. I'll try doing that and see what people think. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the background isn't necessarily too long, but rather is at present overly dependent upon Naomi Oreskes as a source. A number of other authors have dealt with the background of this topic, which are equally useful sources, which could help to make clear to readers that this isn't just Oreskes' and Hamilton's personal theory. A number of the recent books on this topic are partially available to research online (for example, I noted four of them in the previous talk section about "Background", at least a couple of which I was able to partly scan on Google Books). I imagine this will simply take time, especially after factoring in the inevitable wrangling over language and sourcing and such, to develop the section into any kind of reasonably stable state. But I don't think the present length of that section is a problem. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up: LOL. Well, after this edit it certainly isn't too long. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In light of the reduction of the Background section to one brief summary paragraph, I eliminated it and moved the paragraph up to the lead. What was "background" is now "history" and the paragraph appears to me to be suitable under WP:LEAD and WP:SS to add to the lead. Here's the edit. Hope this helps move the article forward a bit. Seems like it might be some forward progress on the article thanks to everybody here. I trust I'll get corrected quickly enough if I'm off the mark. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. What you've done looks very good. There's still the 4 books you listed. Plenty more to do. --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Plenty of homework out there for everyone. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent changes, which help a lot. It is a matter of presentation, much of it, and ultimately I'm not sure the real disagreements on how to cover the issue are as significant as some may suppose. That doesn't seem to make it easy.... Mackan79 (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the sourcing for the last paragraph of the lead, I am basing it essentially on the section here. I will try to look through for a good one or two sources to include. Mackan79 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A huge improvement

Thanks to the people who have worked hard on improving this article. This diff from the last AfD nomination to the current revision represents a great improvement of focus, removal of apologetic phrases and whatnot, and addition of relevant sources. Thank you to all involved. --TS 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is an improvement, though given my recent complaints I would clarify that the diff includes fairly drastic changes in the last day. These changes have indeed made a great deal of difference. Mackan79 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Outright denial is rare?

I'm not sure about this sentence under 'Meanings of the term'. "In terms of denial, he notes that outright denial of all the major points of scientific consensus is rare, though scientists are known to dispute certain points." First, the source (North) doesn't actually say this. The nearest I can find is "There is a relatively small group of climate scientists who disbelieve very much of the global warming (GW) hypothesis", which doesn't say they are the deniers, or that outright denial is rare. Secondly, I think it is off-topic for that section as it is discussing the prevalence of actual denial (or maybe scepticism), rather than the meaning of the term 'climate change denial'. I think that sentence should go, as the rest of the paragraph holds together just as well without it. --Nigelj (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the next sentence? He says:
There is a relatively small group of climate scientists who disbelieve very much of the global warming (GW) hypothesis. Unpick that a bit and one finds that there are many varieties of climate change denial. There are those who believe that the planet will soak up much of the additional carbon which we now emit as part of our greenhouse gas cocktail....
If you wanted to say "outright disbelief in all of the major points of scientific consensus is rare" that would be fine. You could remove the word "outright" as well. Nevertheless, when he says that unpacking the first sentence means that there are "many varieties of climate change denial," he is clearly referring to the disbelief that he just noted. As to your second point, he is indeed talking about usage as it relates to meaning. These are both certainly relevant; you may note that the first several sentences are much more vaguely connected as usage rather than meaning, as well. Mackan79 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem of low quality material that is thought to be "pro-science"

This discussion was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Please post any additional comments below.

I would like to request for editors here who are not convinced there is a content problem with editors who present themselves as "pro-science," to look at the current state of Climate change denial. Possibly someone would need a familiarity with the sourcing on this topic, but I don't believe so.

A few weeks ago, User:Ling.Nut and I put some extensive work into cleaning up this article. The result can basically be seen here, on March 15. The article is not perfect by any means, but contains a decent lead section summarizing the article, a brief introduction, and then some organized and topical discussions focusing on the "Private sector," the "Public sector," "Connections to the tobacco lobby," "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil," and "Effect of climate change denial." The main material on this topic was all covered in these sections.

In the last few weeks with heavy editing by a few activist style editors, the article has turned into a long, repetitive, disorganized, mess. Gone is the lead providing an outline of the subject. Instead of a brief introduction we now have a long section on "Background," explaining the history of tobacco lobbying and individuals who are said to be involved in both topics. This was already in the section on "Connections to the tobacco lobby," of course, so now we have it twice, including once before the reader has been given any basic explanation about what the topic is. Next we have a section on "Meanings of the term" which in fact has almost nothing to do with meanings of the term, and instead provides a series of strongly worded statements that have been thrown in seemingly randomly. One piece that is on the term (a statement by Richard D. North) is actually a fairly blatant misattribution of someone who was criticizing the term and not defining it. After all of this, we get to the basic outline of the article that had already existed, but which is now largely repetitive of the jumble that preceded it.

There are basically three editors who have created this, User:Ratel, User:Nigelj, and User:Dmcq. Each of them is extremely resistant to discussion, seem set on continuing to turn the article back into a series of unorganized tendentious arguments, as it had been a few months ago. For that see here, where the article was basically a disorganized quote farm, interspersed with material taken from sources that had nothing to do with the topic.

I wonder if people can see why this is a problem, not having to do with pro-science vs. anti-science. Mackan79 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you trying to start a discussion on this content here? Surely that is a job for the article talk page, or if you're not happy with what's going on there, something like the reliable sources noticeboard? Also, please stop trying to characterise other editors, whom you don't know, according to their motivations, that you also don't know. --Nigelj (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that old version before Mackan79 and Ling.Nut got at it is far better than what they produced. I certainly shows people have very different ideas of what is good. I'll have to study it and see if there is something that can be brought over. Dmcq (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
p.s. thats a funny term, pro-science. Am I to assume Mackan79 is anti- this whole 'science' thing, and thinks Ling.Nut is as well? Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Not commenting on the merits one way or the other, but this is not an enforcement matter. Please continue this discussion at the article talk page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Mackan, I think admins will resist considering anything that looks like a conflict over content, but if you expand on the resistant to discussion part or show behavioral violations, you may have a chance on grounds of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DISRUPT. It would be better if admins confirmed this, but I think the type of behavioral problem that admins might consider is Ratel's restoring material [45] that I had previously removed [46] while the talk-page discussion of those passages was still ongoing and didn't (then) have a consensus (the status of the discussion when Ratel restored the material [47], my objection when I saw what Ratel had done [48], and a permalink to that thread as of now [49] when there does seem to be consensus for Ratel's restoration -- although the point is there wasn't consensus at the time). If you can add more examples like that, showing a pattern, you might get some results. One other reason for expanding on this, with diffs, is that it might make it easier on the arbitrators in the future. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You're planning on this being escalated further in the future? --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking there might already be enough evidence out there to show a pattern on the part of a number of editors (indicating either a sanction for that page or for those editors or both), but I haven't looked and can't be bothered anymore. As to the future, I expect present trends to continue, based on past experience. Not a good assumption for the stock market, but not bad for WP:GSCC articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I only commented because it seems the consensus, just above, was that things are getting less agenda-driven and more collegiate, and you seemed to be planning on escalating the agro rather than going with that flow. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This issue is something that editors on this page need to seriously consider. I understand that Dmcq, Nigelj and Ratel like the way the article is going, as they are the editors making the changes. The question is whether other editors agree that the work is of sufficiently high quality. Frankly the amount of editing they are doing makes any sort of dispute resolution over content impossible. Could one post an RfC when three editors, at least one and probably two of whose comments here confirm that they are pursuing political activism on Wikipedia, are drastically revising the entire article? It is far from clear what kind of dispute resolution here could serve any purpose. In fact it is taking a large amount of time even to look through what they are doing and see all the problems that it is creating.

I am specifically asking as part of this probation that editors look through my initial post here and comment on what they see. It is not a content issue, but an issue of whether the current process is resulting in something acceptable, and otherwise whether there are any behavioral mechanisms to deal with it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. Whether you have a point or not could only be decided by a quality comparison of versions as far as I can see and that's heavy content not conduct. I had a quick look through various versions of the page and you may have a point about some of the rubbishy general denial stuff not belonging in that article but I am not getting involved in content (except BLPs). --BozMo talk 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Mackan79, there are not enough people in this discussion for the accusation "pursuing political activism on Wikipedia" not to feel like a personal attack. I assume you didn't mean it as such, so please refactor or strike it before someone mistakenly takes offence. --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that this is an appropriate venue for such discussions. Firstly, and primarily, it does not address the project page, secondly, should matters arising from the discussions here then be referenced on the project page any "uninvolved admin" commenting on the issue may need to review their participation in the relevant section of the project page (and there are not enough "uninvolved admins" partipating at the moment), and lastly - and further to the last - some "uninvolved admins" feel unwilling to participate because it may prejudice their participation on the enforcement page. As suggested previously, an RfC on the article talkpage regarding the presentation or style of the article may be an appropriate step of dispute resolution. Advertising the RfC on this high traffic talkpage would not be amiss. I am inclined to collapse this discussion as "wrong venue", but would prefer that parties agree a better venue before I (or they) do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of moving the entire discussion to the talk page of the relevant article. --TS 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    Good enough. I am collapsing it, since I wouldn't be especially comfortable pursuing any of the threads after it has been moved. I think any additional thoughts should be posted below. As stated above, I have been glad to see many of the changes in the last day. Mackan79 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I notice that M79 refers to "activist style editors" and names me and other editors as being "tendentious" and turning the page into a "mess". M78, that is how you forego an assumption of good faith. Ironically, I've recently been chastised for not extending an assumption of good faith to you, based on a complaint you made, yet you make these blatant bad faith accusations yourself with impunity. ► RATEL ◄ 03:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I can only really note that my complaint was not that you assume bad faith, and I don't believe the warning about AGF was the correct result. The complaint was about reverting without discussion. I have only noted that your response was simply to make numerous unsupported claims about my political views. As an aside, I do believe there is a quite clear difference between accusing someone of WP:Tendentious editing, or even describing them as an activist style editor when they continually change topics while talking about Wikipedia-based concerns to talk isntead about the extent of an external global risk (see, i.e., WP:SOAP), and on the other hand saying someone is engaged in subversive attacks or that they despise a particular individual without evidence. However, I don't believe anyone would have taken issue with you simply for detailing a specific problem that was disrupting the encyclopedia, on the grounds that you said something which could be perceived as negative about the involved editor. I'll say in any case that my comment was not meant as any attack on your motives. Mackan79 (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag removal?

The POV tag has been on the article for a while (months), and looking at this page I can see to-and-fro over content, but no substantive evidence of a POV dispute. Isn't it time to remove the tag? If not, where exactly is the POV issue? Which section? If necessary, we can tag the section in dispute rather than the whole page. ► RATEL ◄ 03:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Diff please? Myself, I've not seen a revision where it's been removed for quite some time. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Strike that-- I now notice you were advocating removal of the arilcle-POV template. I don't see that POV issues have yet been stably resolved. Perhaps in a few more days, depending on what arguments and edits are henceforth posted? Personally, I think there's more work to be done to arrive at a potentially more stable set of article contents and citations. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we'll revisit in a while. ► RATEL ◄ 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Having re-read the article with a close eye to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR compliance, I agree it's time to remove the NPOV template. Seems to me at this stage of development that no core-content-policy template is legitimately merited for the entire article. Offhand I don't presently see any whole sections that would legitimately merit a content-policy template either. Kenosis (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, some questions

[Copied from Kenosis's talk page]

Please carefully rethink your edits today. You have done the following:

  1. Restored a sentence that states that Prager objects to denialism being compared to holocaust denial, when this fact Prager's objection is already mentioned (through citation) 2 paras above.
  2. Restored a book reference that I added to Further reading; myself, then immediately removed when I saw it was already mentioned under "References"
  3. Moved a general introductory sentence from the top to the bottom of the "Meaning" section, in defiance of logic.

Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For an explanation of why, please read the edit summaries at least (though one of them is a bit clumsy I admit). Any further question please raise on the article talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the edit summaries do not explain your actions to me. Could you elucidate please? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 05:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
For easy reference, here's the recent history of this article. I didn't see any additional original justification here for why you made the edits that I partially changed either. Perhaps you might choose to provide some better level of specificity about justifications for either your edits, or about my specific changes, or both. Towards that goal, if it helps at all, I can easily say that the reinsertion of the book removed from "Further reading" section was based on that WP:Further reading doesn't guide us to remove anything that's been noted in a footnote, nor for that matter in the article text. Possibly you confused it with part of the guideline WP:EL? ... Kenosis (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why we now have Prager cited twice for the same fact. Nor does the moving of an introductory comment to the end of a section seem rational. Reverting soon if further explanation not forthcoming. ► RATEL ◄ 06:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Moving the following comment(s) by User:Ratel from my talk page to here, where they belong: ... Kenosis (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


I'll make this comment here rather than the article talk page. You completely farked up this sentence, both in meaning and punctuation, with your edits. Please try to stay alert when editing. before your edit:

Denial, often referred to in this context as "denialism", was defined by one of the developers of the term in the U.S., physiologist Mark Hoofnagle, as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.

after your edit:

Physiologist Mark Hoofnagle, said by authors Pascal Dietheol and Martin McKee to be one of the developers of the concept of denialism. [should be a comma] argues that <<denialism is>> [missing subject and verb I've since inserted] the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.

Hmm. ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit more specific. The primary problem was that at first you attempted to present Hoofnagle's definition of denialism, as presented by Dietheol and McKee, as definitive in a summary paragraph of Climate change denial#Meanings of the term. It's not definitive, but rather is Hoofnagle's definition, one of many, as interpreted through the lens of Dietheol and McKee. I attempted to resolve that issue here and here. Incidentally I also notice you've since started an article on Mark Hoofnagle which currently portrays him as one of the originators of the concept of denialism, material which has yet to have an opportunity to be examined and edited by other WP editors. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As to Prager, as of my last edit (which was prior to your questions and comments above), he's only mentioned in one place in the body text. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit, integrating Prager into the paragraph farther up makes good sense to me, since, as of the beginning of this talk exchange, the sentence mentioning him had become stranded by itself at the end of the section due to the heavy proliferation of back-and-forth editing over the last day or two.
This edit summary, by the way, is funny (and thanks for the grammatic correction following up on my edit). When you referred to me as "M79", were you referring to Messier 79 the globular cluster in the constellation Lepus? or the M79 grenade launcher (the American-made weapon)? or M79 rocket launcher (the Soviet-bloc weapon)? ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that abstrusely witty, unfortunately. I was referring to Mackan79 in error, due to fatigue, for which I apologize. But no biggy anyway. ► RATEL ◄ 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I would have forgiven the comparisons, if they were intended. Mackan79 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_26&oldid=1144572375"