Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 2

Conspiracy theory category

I'm guessing there's an impression that "conspiracy theory" implies wackiness, and obviously this impression is not invented out of whole cloth. However, in Iceage77's defense, aren't we talking about a conspiracy, or at least coming close to it? I suppose a well-documented conspiracy isn't necessarily a conspiracy, but that might be splitting hairs. At the very least, I think its validity for inclusion in that category should be discussed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The essence of the article is that big oil is conspiring to keep the "truth" about global warming from the public. So the category is appropriate. Iceage77 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the essence is more that they're conspiring to distort the "truth" by inventing doubt, but your point remains valid. Rebuttal from those against inclusion in this category? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But isn't there evidence that major corporations did in fact fund denial of the scientific consensus -- whether or not you agree with or depart from that consensus -- as documented by the link Stephan mentions (and other in the article provided by Cyrusc)? This is my confusion: I of course respect the right of editors to form their own opinions about climate change and the legitimacy of one theory or another, but the question here is whether or not corporations like Exxon did in fact get involved. The UCS and other reports cited in the article need to be contested, in my opinion, for this article to be reduced to a "conspiracy theory." “Conspiracy theory” of course implies a lack of concrete evidence. I'm not just contesting the category -- I'm trying to understand the entire POV issue in the first place! I appreciate your thoughts...Benzocane 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the term "conspiracy theory" necessarily implies a lack of concrete evidence, although it is often used in that sense pejoratively. I think "conspiracy theory" merely means a theory (in the colloquial sense, of course) that there is a conspiracy. That would seem to fit here, despite the negative connotations. Conspiracy theories aren't necessarily wrong. They usually are, but not always. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If Exxon et al did in fact fund the denial, and that's the evidence I see in the entry, what's theoretical about the conspiracy?Benzocane 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A valid question, but does theoretical necessarily imply uncertain? Also, have you demonstrated conspiracy or just complicity? (Of course, I'm not sure that we're necessarily arguing conspiracy here, either, so I suppose that point could just as easily be turned against inclusion in the category.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good questions. My sense is that we shouldn't describe something as a conspiracy theory when the evidence supports the actuality. Otherwise what's to prevent any fact from being redescribed as a theory by those who find it inconvenient? The specific denotation of a "conspiracy theory" is that the reality is unproven. But isn't the evidence to the contrary here? Has anybody shown that the various references in the article aren't credible? I don't have a theory that Tobacco companies funded studies to dispute the ill effects of cigarettes; we have the evidence. Isn't that the relevant analogy? Thanks for your thoughts.Benzocane 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, being a scientist, I think theories are pretty dandy things (but we are not talking about those kinds of theories). Obviously, I never felt that strongly about it in the first place (and just as clearly, I hope, I agree that the evidence has been documented), so I will let Iceage77 address your concerns. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that this article survived, I think at least it ought to be categorized in the conspiracy theories. Unless I missed something, there is no hard facts to show that the mentioned organizations are funding scientists with the intent of disinforming the public - the sources are limited to opinions and editorials, mostly from partisan publications, which suppose of some profitable scheme, but that's it. The alleged aim of "promoting controversy and doubt" is quite different from the admitted aim of "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours". --Childhood's End 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. You're simply repeating the false claims you have made elsewhere on this talk page and on the AFD nom. To wit - the facts presented here are real and verifiable from reliable sources (including the NY times, the Washington Post, etc). The Newsweek quote makes it very clear that, your own false claims not withstanding, climate change denial is a real and funded by industries with a vested interest in manufacturing doubt. Raul654 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for this other passionnate global warming advertisement, but which of my claims above do you pretend to be false? I find this accusation quite spurious. Can you even address my point (provided you cared to read it)? --Childhood's End 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's just a sampling from the BS you have been planting all over this talk page:

• False claim by childhoodsend #1
  • Childhoodsend claims: "there is [sic] no hard facts to show that the mentioned organizations are funding scientists with the intent of disinforming the public"
  • Reality (according to the newsweek quote): "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists... argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless."

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

• False claim by childhoodsend #2
  • Childhoodsend claims: A subject is deemed not notable if it is only covered by partisan sources.
  • Reality: Sources used in this article include the Guardian, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Royal Society.

I've already explained that The Guardian, Vanity Fair, Greenpeace and MotherJones accounted for something like 14 out of the 17 sources used by this article at some point. That you may think that these sources are not biaised allows me to rest my case. As for the NYT, again, please enlighten yourself with [1].

• False claim by childhoodsend #3
  • Childhoodsend claims: This stuff is George Monbiot's pet, offers no source to check if what these theories say is true or verifiable
  • Reality: See the sources listed in response to false claim #2

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

• False claim by childhoodsend #4
  • Childhoodsend claims: "...No explanation has been given as to how it amounts to climate change denial rather than simply communicating scientific skepticism "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists... to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate"
  • See newsweek quote (in reply to false claim #1)

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

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

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

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

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

I do, but apparently you do not Raul654 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Hysteria

On a broader note, who here objects to a Global Warming Hysteria article that is similar in nature to this one? Zoomwsu 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

well, nobody can really object before the article exists. the only reasonable objection is one formulated after the article exists, based upon the article's relevance, coherence, NPOV, and encyclopedic quality, among a host of other things. Anastrophe 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would go with Global Warming alarmism, since hysteria might carry more information than you want. But if you can cite it, you can write it. Surely there exist organized, politically or financially-motivated efforts to exaggerate the threat of climate change, and covering these in an accurate and verifiable way would do the encyclopedia a service. Cyrusc 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If such an article was created, even if it was just started with a list of some of the more extreme newpaper headlines. Then to make it more equivilent to this article you would need to track some of these to some organisation(s) (preferably politically or financially-motivated organisations). When that has been done then perhaps we should consider merging them into one article for Global Warming denial and alarmism so as to attempt to give appropriate length/weight to the scale of the issue on each side.

It might not be difficult to find a financially motivated organisation giving out alarmist views, as a newspaper could be such an organisation. I might query whether an overhyped newspaper is truely equivalent to the 'denial industry' documented here and if there are other newspapers that take opposite extreme views it may be appropriate to move that to something like Bad media reporting of climate issues. If something more substantial than that has been documented then this article shouldn't be allowed without presenting this other side. If it hasn't been documented that doesn't mean this article should not exist until it has been documented. This article seems to me to be much more than just one sided opinion and should stay. I also agree we cannot try to judge whether Global Warming alarmism should be deleted until we see what material it contains but I don't see any reason to object to it on principal. crandles 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After careful consideration of the comments expressed here, I've been convinced the article should remain. However, I do so with certain reservation. The first is, I still believe this article is too POV. Presenting sources like the Guardian and particularly, the NY Times, without some balance is a problem. I know there are sources out there that will present this in a more fair light, I just don't have the time to research nor the knowledge of what these sources are. I think there should be language and links that refer to this in the context of corporate public relations. It shouldn't surprise anyone that companies are engaging in public relations campaigns. It's also important to find sources that judge the results of these public relations efforts (i.e. studies) on their own merits, rather than by the self-interest of the financier. Further sourcing should be done regarding the opinions and statements of those who, paraphrasing the words of someone above, "deny the deniers"--What does ExxonMobil have to say? The broader issue is this, though: this article has the general feeling of a hit piece and I think that's why many here a problem with it. Zoomwsu 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers

Removed the following:

It may be intended to invite comparison with Holocaust denial[2].

as it appears quite inflammatory and the may be intended lacks a bit. The "reference" is a blog discussing a columnists comment. Seems not to belong, especially not in the lead. Vsmith 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. We can say that certain people have compared this terminology with holocaust denial. Plenty of references for this. Iceage77 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. denying that the comparison has been made falls loosely into denial denial denial. *who* made the comparison is irrelevant, as we aren't here to impute motive. Ellen Goodman originally wrote "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers", and she was did not make that statement as a means of denial denial [3].Anastrophe 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether anybody has ever said that the denial of climate change parallels holocaust denial, but whether or not that comparison is noteworthy in an encyclopedia entry relating to the misinformation campaign. It has no bearing on the denial industry, which Anastrophe has agreed is the subject of this entry. Its placement in the article serves no function except to deflect attention from the industry onto a regrettable comment made by individuals unrelated to the subject at hand.Benzocane 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

you're misrepresenting my comments. i've never "agreed" that the subject of this article is "the denial industry", i'm the one who first pointed that out, and suggested that *that* would be a more appropriate title, with an expansion to include manifold examples of same for other issues and topics. the inclusion of the comparison to holocaust deniers serves the function of reporting that the term is not without controversy. refusal to include mention of that comparison merely shows that the article is not NPOV - your - and others' - intent is to suggest that 'climate change denial' is a widely and uncritically accepted term.Anastrophe 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So true Benzocane. Envirocorrector 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A better link would be the Boston columnists' column itself. Right now we're talking about hearsay on a blog. If someone can find the original article, I think it's worthy of inclusion - but probably not as the lede - unless it can be worked in seamlessly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

http://postwritersgroup.com/archives/good0208.htm Anastrophe 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As said before, its not a question of someone having said or linked these - but rather whether this is notable. That a Boston columnist has said something doesn't make it notable - it has to be judged on its weight, and as far as i can see - it would have a rather small weight (if any). Google-search can provide us a hint (even if not conclusive), and there is a rather large difference between this and this. I'd say we need some fairly good sources for this to be mentioned. --Kim D. Petersen 01:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

as has been pointed out countless times, differences in search result totals do not make a compelling argument, nor are the a substitute for actual research. the comment carries great weight, insofar as this article is entitled "climate change denial", but no citation of the origin or evolution of the term is provided. the original authors comparison of "global warming deniers" with holocaust deniers actually provides us with an citation for a variant of this article's title. Anastrophe 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the term is provided in the mainstream, international news outlets cited by Cyrusc in the article. The phrase is taken directly from unchallenged sources. The fact that certain individuals have likened the denial of climate change to the denial of the holocaust is not relevant because it does not relate to the article, which is focused on a specific misinformation campaign. How does the statement from a blog or columnist (or a million blogs or columnists for that matter) give "the origin or evolution" of public relations campaigns funded by the energy lobby to undermine scientific consensus? Benzocane 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

so again, you reinforce my argument that this article is misleadingly titled. it is not about the phenomenon of 'climate change denial', it is about 'the industry of denial'. this article is focused narrowly on this one POV that 'climate change denial' is in some way distinct from other information/disinformation campaigns by industry; it is not. the introductory text is misleading, characterizing the article as (one would hope) an examination of the mechanisms and psychology behind "climate change denial", when in fact, it is merely a record of one out of thousands of similar campaigns that have taken place, and continue to take place. Anastrophe 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anastophe, as i said in my comment - Google gives us nothing but a hint. When trying to link the origin of climate change denial - you have to do better than speculation. (see: WP:SYN and WP:OR) - you need to find good reliable articles that directly link this. And you have to demonstrate that it carries sufficient weight to be mentioned. --Kim D. Petersen 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If Anastrophe is correct that this is "a record of one out of thousands of similar campaigns," that is still neither grounds for deletion or a POV challenge. If there are a great number of misinformation campaigns, that doesn't mean it's wrong to cover this one. Wikipedia covers thousands of pop stars, athletes, products, etc. One doesn't challenge the notability or POV status of an article about a war by claiming that there are thousands of such wars, that wars are commonplace occurrences, etc.Benzocane 02:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a very brief section on the origin of the term. this article opens with the statement "Climate change denial is a term used to describe the denial of all or part of the theory of global warming". who is making that claim? what is its origin? this article goes into great detail about what it terms "the denial industry", but expends no effort in explaining specifically the opening sentence. my brief section was immediately reverted, which is contrary to good wikipedia practice. the section was as accurate as the limited writing on the topic could provide (within the limited time i have available). i cited the quote i added; it was accurate. the section is very brief, so can't be claimed to be giving 'undue weight' in the context of the entire article. improve the article - find citations to back up the earliest use of the term. speculating on the origin of the term is fully appropriate so long as it doesn't attempt to mislead about the possible origins. Anastrophe 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry may be a refinement of the term "Global warming denial", which may have entered the vernacular ... It would seem to be simply a case of original research made worse by the weasel wording "may be" and "may have". Your quotes may be examples of comparison with Holocaust deniers - but not sure how relevant that is. You seem to be determined to make the association. Vsmith 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i've added the text back with citations, without "may be", "may have". i'm not determined to make the association. those cited made the association long before i did. Anastrophe 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

this is maddening. there is no attempt to improve the section; it is merely reverted as being 'speculation'. should the whole article be deleted then, since the opening sentence appears to be someone's speculation as to what the term means? there seems to be widespread misunderstanding of what reverting is for. my addition is not vandalism. it is well cited. Anastrophe 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that you aren't referencing any sources to your text about origins, you are only sourcing the various elements that you are yourself deducting must be the origin - thats WP:OR in a nutshell. Try finding a source that actually talks about the origins of the term. Why is the origin btw so interesting? Its a commonly used term - as demonstrated by a lot of reliable sources. And secondarily why are you referencing Goodman - the comments by her is from 2007, very far from the origin (which you place around 2001 - and the sources on this page place at least before (or in) 2005)? Goodman tells us nothing about the origins of the term. --Kim D. Petersen 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i have renamed the section to simply 'terminology', which should neutralize this criticism. Anastrophe 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe - please read up on what WP:OR and WP:SYN means. --Kim D. Petersen 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

bad faith. misrepresentation of my edits upon reversion. not a single actual edit attempt at improving the section. unbelievable. 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust reference 1) is not notable. It is an unfortunate comparison made by isolated individuals that neither explains the origin and development of the phrase “climate change denial” (which is taken from far more credible sources – NYTimes, Guardian, etc.) nor does it relate to the misinformation campaigns that form the center of the entry. 2) The insistence on inserting the comparison is a POV attempt to associate the aforementioned credible sources with the unrepresentative and irrelevant position of the isolated individuals. Exxon et al funded the denial of climate change science. This is uncontested. Let's move on. Benzocane 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you missed some of the later edits. the section was moved from 'origins' to 'terminology', and the section reworked to provide two examples of the interchangeable use of "climate change denial" and "global warming denial" within the same context of use. so the argument that it was original research or failed to explain origins was moot. regarding '2', you further bolster the argument that this article is not about "climate change denial", certainly not as a phenomenon or organized construct, the article is about "the denial industry", citing merely one example of a widespread activity. yes, it is uncontested that exxonmobil funded people and organizations to promote one view on one issue. exxonmobil has done this on countless issues over the last century, as have countless other businesses and special interest groups. if you are unwilling to have the colloquial term "climate change denial" described - through sources - that are *not* party to your - or the article's - POV - then the article remains explicitly POV. 'no criticism of the term, its use, or examples of same, will be allowed in this article!!'. not how one builds an encyclopedia. Anastrophe 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those of us who disagree with Anastrophe and think that most people using the term "climate change denial" or "global warming denial" are not trying to compare it to Holocaust denial, should nonetheless try to work with him on this issue. Up until he provided the Boston source, I was convinced that the whole allegation had been invented out of whole cloth. Now I see that at least one columnist who believes in AGW has used the term in connection with Holocaust denial (although this does not support the allegation that this has anything to do with the term's origins). Unfortunately, trying to trace down the actual origins of the term comes close to violating WP:OR, if not actually doing so - unless we can find where someone has actually published something about those origins. I realize that a lot of people disagree with Anastrophe (myself included), but I genuinely believe he is acting in good faith, and he should be treated as such. Anastrophe - do you have a sandbox already started where we can work on a section or paragraph discussing this topic? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you. having been slapped with my first 3RR, i bow out of further editing of the article, even for non-contentious matters (which, if anyone will care to take note, i performed at minimum a dozen contextual, grammatical, syntactical etc changes to improve the article - aside from those i attempted to perform in good faith response to the relentless reverting of the section in question). but i digress. the final revision i put up addressed all of my devoted reverter's complaints, but was slapped down clearly without having even been read from top to bottom, based upon the edit summary. so, no point in trying again. Anastrophe 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but good faith alone does not prove notability. Unless notability is proven, the material should not be included. Including the material in an encylopedia entry has the effect of making it seem representative. That effect is misleading here for reasons given above.Benzocane 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you be certain there's no notability? First of all, several notable people (e.g., Limbaugh, I presume - although we'd need sources, etc.) have accused AGW believers of using the term to slur by comparison to the holocaust. Unfortunately, it's very hard to demonstrate that it's not being used this way (which is why I'm sure a lot of us are against even mentioning it) as it's hard to prove a negative, especially if no WP:OR is allowed. Right now we have to support the Limbaugh et al. crowd the comments of a single columnist. It's entirely believable to me that this is the entire basis for this assertion and that it has since snowballed. I'll admit this will be a difficult point to cover in an NPOV way, but I do not agree that the allegation that the term is being used to compare with holocaust deniers is not notable, even if the comparison itself is. I will freely admit that I am somewhat new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how the notability of Limbaugh balances against his unreliability. I imagine that in numerous other places, however, his comments have been used and documented as inaccurate where necessary. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made my arguments about notability above -- that the statement of a few individuals is not notably related to the Exxon et al funded denial which is the subject of the entry and its extensive sourcing. I hardly feel Limbaugh is going to be a sufficient NPOV source! Regardless, the prior question is: what's at stake in including this holocaust analogy. Limbaugh etc seize on such comments in order to claim a moral high ground relative to scientific consensus. It has nothing to do with the uncontested denial documented in this entry. The only argument put forth for its relevance is that it explains the origin of "climate change denial" -- but the sources Cyrusc used for the origin -- NYtimes, Guardian, etc -- are both more NPOV and relevant! An analogy: many people (check Google) have likened George Bush to Hitler. Should this analogy be prominent in the Bush analogy? No. Why? Because it represents a fringe opinion of an unencylopedic nature that does not contribute to the substance of the article.Benzocane 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian and NY Times are not NPOV on the issue of climate change. Of particular note in those links are the NY Times' selection of a melting globe and stranded polar bears that accompany their articles on GW. Note these selected NY Times Watch articles as examples: Hardly unbiased! Zoomwsu 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

sources do not have to be unbiased; on the contrary. what has to be unbiased is wikipedias treatment of topics. references from multiple POV's are routinely used within articles to provide the article with the neutrality desired. which is why i object to the whitewashing of this article as being completely without controversy. Anastrophe 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe that Limbaugh et al.'s harping on the supposed holocaust denial comparison is a prime example of the type of tactics used by the denial industry. Trying to work that in within the constraints of NPOV would definitely prove challenging, however. I suspect that you might be underestimating the scope of these allegations. Many, many right-wing sources bring up this supposed connection, although I've only now seen one example of the connection actually being made by someone who believes in AGW. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the holocaust analogy should be included and then criticized in the article as a right wing tactic, and have sources for that claim, I wouldn't remove it, although I still feel like even criticizing the assertion is to lend it a legitimacy it doesn't have. But you're right that the only NPOV option for including the analogy is to include the uses to which that analogy has been put by Limbaugh, et al.Benzocane 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source for the holocaust analogy - Green MEP Caroline Lucas. Iceage77 12:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is attribution - you also have to consider the weight. And a section on this is out of proportion (see above). There is already one mention - and thats large considering the relative weight. --Kim D. Petersen 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The whole purpose of this term is put global warming sceptics on the same moral plane as David Irving. You won't find a more blatant example of the ad hominem attack. We have multiple references to support this including 3 from members of the global warming faith. If we're going to keep the article, which I've argued against, this has to be prominently mentioned. Iceage77 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is opinion - and is ruled out by NPOV. And your entire premise here is WP:SYN/WP:OR (ie. he said it - so it must be the reason). But lets take a look at the WP:WEIGHT here - If we use Google as a guideline - the number of articles that use the wording "climate change denial" is 49,300, while if we add "holocaust" to the search, we go down to 796. This gives us a rough estimate of the relative weight of the terms. Roughly 16 article in 1000 make this distinction. Now Google searches cannot give us more than an estimation. But its pretty clear that this is a minority issue. --Kim D. Petersen 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

can you provide some reference for where google results are considered a reliable guideline, benchmark, valid statistic, reliable source, or something along those lines? your repeated use of google search results to suggest that they signify something other than the state of google's spidering algorithms and saved data as of the moment you performed the search constitute WP:OR and WP:SYN. please stop. your results have zero probative value. Anastrophe 03:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you do not like the results from google. You could check out WP:GOOGLE. The usage here is entirely consistent with the guideline. (specifically: "Confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is"). And i very much disagree with your attempts at dissection of the Google bias - since i do not rely at all on the order in which results turn up - but merely on their quantity (ie. relative weight), and i really have trouble finding a way to acknowledge that the spider-algoritm is severely biased against either side. --Kim D. Petersen 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

google's longstanding, primary measure in spidering is "how many pages link to this page". in other words, "how popular is this page". as WP:GOOGLE points out, popularity is not a measure of notability, or weight. for "climate change denial" i get 49,500 results. for "climate change denial" + "holocaust denial", i get 1660 results. furthermore, "iphone" results in 98 million hits, "holocaust" 24.6 million. therefore (by this ridiculous measure) the iphone is far more notable than the holocaust. in other words, it tells us nothing. you may wish to review the subsections of WP:GOOGLE entitled "Search engines cannot:", as well as "Notability". perhaps you missed them. Anastrophe 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe - i did not overlook any sections in WP:GOOGLE. But then your entire argument is a strawman. You cannot weight different subjects in this way.

This is a minority view, expressed by a few individuals - and as such is already amply represented by the quote from Monbiot. The section that i reverted was WP:OR/WP:SYN as well, by trying to combine "A says X about Y" and "B says X about Y" - ergo "Y is about X". --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for justifying your edit based upon something substantial, rather than the misleading "x has more google hits than y" tactic. Anastrophe 16:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Deny

I'm posting the definition (Merriam Webster online www.m-w.com) of "to deny" for everyone to use as a basis for any further discussion of the title of this article. Uses 1,2 and 5 are particularly appropriate here.

Deny:

1. to declare untrue;
2. to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW;
3. to give a negative answer to, to refuse to grant, to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires;
4. archaic : DECLINE;
5. to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

Envirocorrector 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And let's stop pretending that using the term denial is ipso facto analogous to holocaust denial. It cheapens the very real travesty of denying the holocaust and it distracts us from the issues at hand: the uncontested historical facts recorded in the entry.Benzocane 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm unaware of anyone ipso facto claiming it is analogous. i am aware of widely published examples of such a comparison, which were accurately cited. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. we aren't here to determine the truth. we're here to accurate publish information on a given topic. your denial that the comparison has been made - and, remarkably enough, not by partisans attempting to perform a 'double play' on the term, but by people who are in - for lack of a better term - "your camp" who do indeed believe that climate change denial is roughly equivalent to holocaust denial (because of the implicit worldwide catastrophe impending if we don't do something about AGW). oh, and if i might add: wikipedia is not a dictionary. this article is not about "denial". it is - at least ostensibly - about "climate change denial". defining only one word from a term does not illuminate the meaning of the term itself. Anastrophe 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I deny that the comparison has been made? I've made arguments about its notability given the focus of the entry and the sources of the analogy. And I've made several responses to your claim that this analogy somehow reveals the origin of the phrase. My "camp" consists entirely of those who believe that well documented entries should not be contested or distorted for POV purposes. The holocaust analogy is a red herring with the effect -- no matter your intention, which I'm trying not to doubt -- of deflecting attention from the still undisputed facts of the misinformation campaign onto the marginal statements of a few individuals. See the Bush/Hitler analogy above. Benzocane 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

as i noted a few moments ago further above, the section was reworked, and no longer attempted any claim at origin. this article is currently written with the POV that the term is implicitly without any published controversy wrt its use; that's demonstrably false. two unrelated examples of the use of the term in comparison to holocaust denial were provided. those uses are notable for having made the comparison in widely published and read venues; that this discussion is taking place - with such extreme pushback against inclusion of cited examples of that use - further points to an implicit expectation that this article is to remain grounded in one POV on the matter. Anastrophe 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading a lot of comments here and the articles Anastophe posted, I believe that these comparisons to Holocaust denial are notable and need to be included in the article in some way. I didn't like how Anastophe included those references, though. We need to bias towards inclusion of content and suggest that Anastrophe find a better way of including the content. Zoomwsu 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to lay off this thread for a while and let other editors consider what's to be done. I respectfully disagree about inclusion.Benzocane 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion

User:Cyrusc asked me to have a look at this dispute, as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record Task Force.

My first thought was that this article should be kept, although I agree that it has a somewhat breathless, verging unencyclopaedic tone. Then I had a look over the Global warming controversy page. I can certainly see the argument to break down articles into smaller ones, but I would me minded to move the content of this article to the GWC page. It would also be a good idea to add some more on the "Climate Change Alarmism" issue to the GWC page, to answer POV issues raised above.

With regard to holocaust denial - I would like to see more than one or two very good references before it is compared to climate change denial. This is simply for reasons of taste and decency. Parmesan 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is here to stay so we need to address the POV issues. Firstly, this phrase is always used in a derogatory sense. All of the references are from the Guardian newspaper and other far-left sources. This is indicative of the bias inherent in the article. We need to state this explicitly. Comparison with holocaust denial has been made by numerous reliable sources and also needs to be stated. Both proponents and sceptics of AGW including The Great Global Warming Swindle have made the comparison. I suggest a separate section "Comparions with Holocaust denial". Iceage77 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase is used in a derogatory sense (as it's being contrasted to skeptics). However, so far all we know is that a proponent and several "skeptics" have made the comparison. I am not aware of more than one proponent (yet) who has made the comparison. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

you likely missed the last iteration of the 'Terminology' section i added before it was reverted (without having even been read by the reverter, evidenced by his edit summary). that iteration listed George Monbiot's similar published comparison to holocaust denial. I can see no objection to him as a source. Anastrophe 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see one. WP:NOTE correctly indicates that a subject is not notable if it's covered only by partisan sources. Well it happens that George Monbiot is to climate change what Karl Marx was to socialism. And for this reason, this article should really be deleted, while it is going to be maintained because of... guess what... partisan issues. --Childhood's End 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean 'without POV'. it's perfectly legitimate to cite partisan sources, so long as you cite them in a balanced manner. this is the basis for my interest in having the comparison noted: the article is written from the POV that "climate change denial"/"global warming denial" are terms without any controversy or opposition. the quotes by monbiot and goodman, are by partisans who are in the AGW POV. some of the commentors above have suggested that citing the comparison of "global warming denial" to "holocaust denial" by people such as rush limbaugh, who are 'anti-AGW' POV, would be legitimate - but it would not, it would only be in service to reinforcing the POV that it is *not* AGW POV proponents who make the comparison, which is false. AGW POV adherents need to accept that "their own" have made this comparison. and that the comparison is pejorative. for that reason, it would be a partisan POV addition to balance the POV of this article. (the subtextual argument that is invariably thrown out is that this article is really about the corporate disinformation campaign...which then begs us to ask, 'then why is it entitled "climate change denial"?')Anastrophe 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You dont get it... Forget about the holocaust. A subject is deemed not notable if it is only covered by partisan sources. Well, that's exactly the case of "climate change denial", a concept which you will not find outside partisan sources (The Guardian, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, etc.) except perhaps for a few exceptions. The nature of the sources creating the existence of this story should tell you that it is 1- inherently POVed and 2- non-notable outside partisan circles. --Childhood's End 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian, NYtimes, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, etc.--these are consistent resources for Wikipedia. Although Mother Jones is a more politically partial source, the claim that the phrase is not found outside of "partisan sources" is innacurate. The bulk of the citations are from the sources you describe as "exceptions." I remain confused: are you disputing the factuality of the misinformation campaign? Then please provide credible sources in support of your position. We are a few days into these discussions and no such sources have been offered.Benzocane 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian and the Times may be used as resources for Wikipedia in many other areas, but on the issue of climate change, they are clearly biased. I've referenced some criticism of the Times, in particular, above, which you may want to check out. Regardless, while I don't necessarily oppose their inclusion in this article, it is fair to balance their POV position. Zoomwsu 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact that you may think that The Guardian/George Monbiot is not a partisan source regarding climate change shows that you are partisan yourself. To answer your question, my position is that the story of a misinformation campaign is essentially built up by partisan sources and is a political matter. Outside propaganda, the reality is that yes, some funding organizations have a vested interest in slowing down climate public policies, but that does not mean that they are entertaining a misinformation campaign and cannot fund honest science. Skeptics do not enjoy public funding like the climate folks do and must look for private funding to pursue their scientific research. To label their findings as "misinformation" requires that you take for an absolute truth what the IPCC tells you, otherwise the skeptics' findings are simply alternative views to a generally accepted scientific theory. Science has always advanced like this, and only when political and partisan motivations are underlying do we label as "misinformation" alternative views. --Childhood's End 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is news to me that science has always advanced by multinational corporations funding PR campaigns that portray generally accepted scientific theory as if it were generally disputed in order to promote their economic interests!Benzocane 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice strawman. But I'll care to answer and point to you that the problem is that this articles puts in the same basket both the funding of PR campaigns and the funding of credible scientists with divergent views about global warming. --Childhood's End 13:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the "denial industry"

I think that this section must be revisited. If, as the intro says, 'climate change denial' is different from scientific skepticism, then why would it be 'denial' to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours" and to use "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate" ? Right now, what we have is an article that says "it's ok for scientists to pursue research that is skeptical of climate change, but promoting or communicating their findings amounts to climate change denial".

Rest of the section is essentially about some conspiracy theory involving Phillip Morris and the tobacco industry, as if the CEI, George Mason University (!) or the Heritage Foundation were driven by some of their donors and could not reach independent opinions despite the fact that they receive funding.

This stuff is George Monbiot's pet, offers no source to check if what these theories say is true or verifiable, and should not be given a Wikipedia encyclopedic entry. --Childhood's End 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically "climate change denial" is a slur used by the left-wing press against anyone who questions AGW theory. That is all that the citations prove. The idea that it differs from scepticism is original research introduced by the writers of this article. As for Monbiot, this guy is extreme even by environmentalist standards: he wants to cut airport capacity by 90% and close down every out-of-town supermarket! Hardly a reliable source. Iceage77 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceage77, "climate change denial" refers not to scientific criticisms of the theory, only to statements like Global warming is just a liberal lie. Count Iblis 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting choice of citation. curious that the article insists the term is only used to describe the corporate misinformation campaign, and that any reference to other uses isn't acceptable, since it doesn't reinforce that claim (nicely self-sealing). Anastrophe 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, "used to describe the corporate misinformation campaign" should be qualified with "as liberal and left-leaning pundits see it". There is no way to verify that this conspiracy theory has any merit and is more than a conspiracy theory. --Childhood's End 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you mean other than the many, well documented occasions where money is transferred from an oil company into the hands of a person or organization that comes out against global warming? But of course, just because they take money from an oil company has no bearing on it, right? Give me a break. Your claims don't pass the laugh test. Raul654 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Here is some 1st grade high school basic philosophy (an interesting read topic).

Ad hominem : said of the logical fallacy of appealing to personal considerations rather than to fact or reason. A very basic example of this that could be teached in class could be "Scientist A received money from Oil Company B and argues against global warming, thus his opinion is that of the oil company and need not be considered"

Hope you're not still laughing... --Childhood's End 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that you aren't being followed" --Kim D. Petersen 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There's also this bit from Ad hominem:

On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

No doubt overlooking that bit was purely by accident. I think Raul can go on chuckling all he likes. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this lesson about evidence; this naive comment certainly was made in good faith. For the record, when it comes to evidence, one can come with ad hominems against a witness in the hope of reducing is credibility. But it always remains within the judge's discretion to believe or not the witness' testimony despite the allegations about his credibility, not to one of the parties before him to instruct him in this regard. --Childhood's End 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If scientists are corrupted by the small amounts received from oil cos, what effect do the much greater sums received from governments have? Iceage77 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. Amazingly enough, it does not seem to have bought as much loyalty as the oil company has. Perhaps this is because scientists receive more funding per study from oil companies than they do from the government. If our government wants to really silence climate change studies, perhaps it should pay its scientists more. If there's a bias in the current administration towards climate change, it's not in the direction that you seem to be implying. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you find the amounts small. But you are absolutely right that government influence can often compromise scientific objectivity, and whenever there is evidence of an effort to manipulate science or perception of science, that should be chronicled. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/ etc.Benzocane 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no explanation has been given as to how it amounts to climate change denial rather than simply communicating scientific skepticism to use "as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom" or to attempt to convince "journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases" (something that many skeptical scientists argue), I am deleting this portion of the article. --Childhood's End 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Monbiot

I reverted to include "journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot". I think it's helpful to include this reference. Zoomwsu 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly helpful, as both the quote and the link make his perspective clear. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly harmful, either, so I'm really surprised this has changed back and forth multiple times. Also, I'd like to give kudos to Zoomwsu for taking it to the talk page. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what's the point in putting in the Monbiot quote? ~ UBeR 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also delete it. --Childhood's End 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please do. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose. ~ UBeR 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, let's just delete it. Zoomwsu 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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

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

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

Pernicious demonization campaign

The article lacks a criticism section that explains that calling someone a "climate change denier" is an attempt to scare dissenters into silence, and to shut down scientific debate. I found one such article (there are bound to be more) here [4] which explains it well and has plenty of references. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to summarize and pick out the main points and references. If anyone wants to do this, I would be grateful. ^rossnixon 03:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coining of the term "Climate change denier"

The neologism "climate denier" is a back-handed referance to holocaust denial. [5] [6] [7] The fact that the word 'holocaust' is not mentioned anywhere in the article is mystifying. Revolutionaryluddite 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite, that some have the opinion that the phrases holocaust denial and climate denial are interlinked, doesn't mean that they are. And selecting some newer Op-Ed's (and one idiotic green ministerMEP (who btw. believes she is original in this)) that says so, doesn't make it so. The phrase climate change denial has been in use since at least 2000 [8]. This has been discussed before, please check above. --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Kim, now that's [9] really in line with Raul654's actions. I wanted to point you out that you were actually, again, supporting double standards but instead of making amends, you brought this there and accused me of being non-constructive. If you support that an article is built on a story that comes from opinions taken from the press, you should support that relevant "opposing" opinions (holocaust denial), also taken from the press, be added to the article as sidenotes or bonus info. There's the Boston Globe and BBC Radio there. That's all I meant with my big 2-lines oh-so-disruptive comment. --Childhood's End 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The scotsman.com article puts the term denial in quotation marks and does not direct to a person. Referring to an abstract ideological position as being "in denial of climate change" or something like that is not the same thing as labeling a specific person a "climate denier". Dr.Petersen mentioned that "that some have the opinion that the phrases holocaust denial and climate denial are interlinked, doesn't mean that they are." I agree, but my own personal opinion is irelevant. The fact that widely read and quoted public figures have made this connection, means that the article should make some mention of it. As the great William Safire put it, "coiners can't be choosers". [10] I have no idea what you mean by "green minister". 72.47.71.160 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"my personal opinion of their merit does not justify banning them from the encyclopedia, nor trying to pretend they're used only by a radical fringe." That is exactly my point! I am not advocating the deletion of this article, wholesale scrubbing of its material, or renaming it. The fact of the matter is that the terms 'global warming skeptic' and 'holocaust denier' have been linked together by many people, and the article should reflect the reality. What is it about the authors of [11] or [12] that justifys calling them "radical fringe" and therefore unquoatable? The neologism "climate denier" is undisputably pejorative. Nobody would liked to be called a bigoted anti-choice wingnut Christofascist, nor a "climate denier". Revolutionaryluddite 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effect of climate change denial (1)

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

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

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

Criticism section

I've cut the Carter Op-Ed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephan Shultz has reverted this edit that I made regarding funding by governments [15], claiming irrelevancy. I can somewhat agree with his point that since the amount includes "alternative energy" research expenditures, it becomes less relevant. But there is still something to it, and that is that there exists notable claims that the government grants more funding to climate change supportive research than Exxon grants to skeptics. I would thus suggest as a compromise that we keep the paragraph as it is (before my edit) but that we simply add the refs so that the reader can make his own mind. --Childhood's End 14:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benzocane has summed up the entire premise of the article as "So unless you believe in a giant conspiracy theory, the case is not "government vs. Exxon", but rather "Scientific opinion vs. Exxon". The problem is that most of this article assumes that "if Exxon gives money that- through whatever processes- ends up going to do a scientist and that scientist disagrees with any aspect of the scientific global warming, bribery has occured". There clearly has been a documented misinformation campaign, witness the horrid Oregon Petition, but that doesn't imply that industry funding of scientific research is morally worng in all circumstances. The fact is that government spends far more on climate research than businesses can hope to match [16]. Wikipedia should not have a quasi-romantic view of the federal government; the case is not "government vs. Exxon", the case is "government vs. media vs. Scientific opinion vs. Exxon vs. other industries". I'm not saying that the article is fundamentally wrong, there just has to be more of a balance. Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect of climate denial

This section appears to make four specific claims:

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

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

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

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

The section mixes the four claims together in a dishonest way. The first is probably true, but I'm not really familar with the subject. The third is, at best, a pessimistic overexaggeration. Given that the media's saturation coverage treats global warming as a historical event like the civil rights movement, most Americans agree that it exists and must somehow be dealt with.[17] The second and fourth statements are heavily disputable in their own right and, in any rate, have no place in this article. Honest, good faith disagreements between qualified economists and political scientists about the effectiveness of specific measures is in no way, shape, or form equal to "climate denial". Revolutionaryluddite 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

The section still needs a counterpoint to the first paragraph claims that the reason the American public and Washington has rejected anti-global-warming measures such as carbon taxes, emissions trading, and building more nuclear plants is because of the 'denial machine'. As the saying goes: "When you point your finger at someone else, your pointing three back at you." House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, opposes a carbon tax: "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that." [18] If claims 2 and 4 belong in the article, than advocates for progressive taxation and members of the anti-nuclear movement should have their views represented. It should then also be mentioned that, right now, Americans are willing to make personal sacrifices to fight global warming. For example, the CBS News poll says that 64% of Americans would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Revolutionaryluddite 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Focusing on ExxonMobil

The phrasing of the article gives the impression that the misinformation campaign was more or less entirely funded by ExxonMobil. What influence did/does Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and BP (which has done a fantastic job of greenwashing themselves [19]) have? Revolutionaryluddite 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Chronology

The article states that "Organized climate change denial efforts began to make headlines shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature in 1997" and quotes a report saying that "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began". There's a frustrating lack of dates in the article- let alone a step by step chronological flow. PBS has a detailed timeline at [20]. This might seem like nitpiking, but I don't think that opposition to global warming during the release of the first IPCC Assessment in 1990 is really on the same page as opposing global warming now. The degree of scientific consensus has changed. Revolutionaryluddite 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The first paragraph

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

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

The money quote from Newsweek is given a lot of weight. The lead in- "As Newsweek reported in August, 2007,"- is POV phrased, and should read something like "The August 2007 Newsweek cover story reported,". The quote says: "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry"- there is no single, uniform popular front-like organization. See Business action on climate change. In any rate, climate skeptics are certianly not well-coordinated due to the fact that they have failed to convince the American people [21]- "has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers)"- snarky snide remarks like this do not belong in an encyclopedia- "argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless."- this is somewhat ludicrous. Those three positions are not interchangable, and all three currently held by a variety of different people. The rest of the article does not show any other source for such a direct, linear progression.

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

The section now reads:

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

"this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless."

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

Double Standard

It has just come to my attention that an Op-Ed piece [22]I cited as evidence that the term 'climate denier' is being used as a comparison to 'holocaust denier'- which was summarily dismissed given that Op-Ed articles are, in general, poor Wikipedia sources- is currently block quoted in the article. Dr. Peter Christoff, a former director of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific [23], states that Op-Ed that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben, I am not sure about global cooling, but this article is the kind of material that anyone can use to show that WP endorses specific agendas and double standards. With regard to global cooling, I can see some relation with what is called 'climate change denial', as 'climate change denial' could definitely be explained at least in part with past failed climate predictions. Moreover, the most famous such failure comes from Newsweek. I would not propose to add a full paragraph about it, but I think that at least a note or reference is warranted. But what strikes me as unforgivable bias is that this article takes most of its steam from the Newsweek article about 'climate change denial', but restrains to a mere 3 lines, at the very bottom, the ensuing Newsweek column by Samuelson [24], a Newsweek editor, that refers to this article as "fundamentally misleading", "vast oversimplification", "peripheral and highly contrived story", making accusations "long ago discredited" to which "NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability", and so on. How can the first article can still be considered a reliable source despite the magazine's editor blasting it, I have no explanation, but that the magazine's rebuttal of its own piece is almost ignored by our article is dishonest. That is disinformation. --Childhood's End 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Crit section either needs to be immediately improved or deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Two Sections

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

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

< Denial vs. skepticism >

Main article: Global warming controversy

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

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

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

Revolutionaryluddite 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Skepticism sentence

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

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

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

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

Holocaust denial analogy revisited

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

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

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

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

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

I think that you're quite on target here Ben. But Kim is known for some inconsistency as to source requirements depending on the issue. You are right to say that the Holocaust analogy is notable (I see at least the Boston Globe and The Age discussing it, plus this ABC [25] piece). No OR there, but it has to comply with WP:UNDUE, yes. --Childhood's End 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've cut this:

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

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

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

Christoff says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Op-Ed says "the global warming denial industry" "pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust." [26] (It differentes between 'climate skeptics' and 'deniers', saying "even Exxon is cutting contributions and distancing itself from the global warming denial industry") Revolutionaryluddite 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Self-criticism or merely criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creation of the category denialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Christoff and Goodman referances

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

'Denial and Deception' Referance

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

Missing Referance

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

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

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

Terminology / Holocaust denial analogy section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm having trouble figuring out what the argument above is. Here's what we have: approximately 9 commentators out of the thousands of articles on the subject of climate change and the perception thereof have asserted in op eds that denying climate change is like denying the holocaust. Nobody on talk has made a compelling case for notability. We have an entire section in the entry devoted to the analogy. The argument has been made that such focus on the issue is a POV tactic for deflecting attention from the misinformation campaign onto this relatively isolated assertion. In the absence of compelling assertions of notability and weight, this section should be deleted. Where are these arguments? Kim, myself, Cyrusc, and others have requested them repeatedly.Benzocane 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also the most inappropriately sourced section. Newsmax, Richard North--why do we have an entire section devoted to conservative op eds about how the phrase "climate change denial" makes them feel? I am removing the section until the issues about notability, weight, etc., are addressed. If CE and Iceage want a sentence that reads: "Some commentators have equated climate change denial with holocaust denial" somewhere in this entry, fine. The undue weight given to this section is completely POV.Benzocane 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[27], [28], and [29] might be good places to start. ~ UBeR 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's only yourself who's totally against this section, and probably Kim who's asking questions. You'll wait to get more support before deleting. --Childhood's End 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What i really want - and have asked for several times. Is a non opinion article in a reasonably mainstream reliable source that makes this comparison, preferably while at the same time commenting on the commonality of it. That way we have a rationale for giving it weight. Unfortunatly i haven't been able to find such an article - nor does it seem that any others have. --Kim D. Petersen 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Here's what we have: approximately 9 commentators out of the thousands of articles on the subject of climate change and the perception thereof have asserted in op eds that denying climate change is like denying the holocaust." Keep in mind that this article is not about climate change per se, so these 9 commentators should not be compared to the thousands of articles on the subject of climate change, but rather to the number of articles on climate change denial. If that number is merely "dozens""hundreds" instead of "thousands" (as I suspect it is), then 9 is not really such an insignificant number, especially if you consider that this 9 is merely a lower bound to the number of commentators making that comparison. Let's be careful in the comparisons we make, as we need to be fair to the "enemy" since this isn't a real war, but rather a struggle to get as close to the "truth" as is possible, where each side has a different perspective on that truth. :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am being careful. And I don't consider there to be a war or enemies here. I'm referring to the quantity of articles about controversy concerning the existence or nonexistence of scientific concensus on climate change. Regardless, I await arguments for the notability of this analogy in the first place, but for the spectacular weight attributed to it in the second: an entire section? An individual quote from Richard North, who describes himself as holding "conservative prejudices"? You yourself have argued that the most notable element of this analogy is its use as a self-victimization tactic. How then can you support the section?Benzocane 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But environmentalists like Monbiot have also made the analogy (some have even called for war crimes trials). So it's got nothing to do with conservative bias. Iceage77 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's use as self-victimization tactic is the most notable element of this analogy, although I'll also admit that my bias might be contributing to that belief. I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but without going through the history, I don't know what those 9 references are. I was assuming (from the context here on the talk page) that these were 9 columnists comparing AGW denial to holocaust denial. Is this not the case? I've created a sandbox for those who are interested in shaping this without any source deleting. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, after digging through the history (of which I put the relevant excerpt on my sandbox), I find that there were 3 people comparing AGW denial to holocaust denial that were cited, and 5 people complaining about that comparison, thus somewhat supporting my notion that the self-victimization tactic is more notable than the claim itself. That said, those 3 and 5 are probably not the only ones of their kind - although I suspect you'll find far more of the latter category than the former. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Weight and notability remain the issues. If you insist on including this information, give it a sentence--"Several commentators have likened climate change denial to holocaust denial."

I'm not going to engage in an edit warwith this POV warrior. He deleted the section again on his own advice. I maintain that the Holocaust analogy is notable, as shown by all the refs discussing it, and is entirely related to the subject of this article. Thus mention should be made. --Childhood's End 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

CE - none of the concerns about this section have been addressed at any point - i've tried several times now to induce you to find a non opinion article from mainstram reliable source that could alleviate the trouble with weight and syn. As it stood, it was a random collection of opinion. We need someone to make the link (ie. saying something like "a number of commentators/editors/whatever have..."). Otherwise it is in my opinion a synthesis of random sources into a conclusion, that hasn't been made by a secondary source. --Kim D. Petersen 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I think I have just identified one little problem. You misunderstand what is WP:SYN. What is forbidden by WP:SYN is joining sources together to advance another position that is not advanced by any of these sources. But here, the position that climate change denial is intended to equate global warming skepticism with holocaust denial is exactly what these sources say, so there's no SYN here and thus, no OR. As for your other point, we have a professor of English language that you cannot accuse of being partisan about the issue. It's also quite strange, to say the least, that you may now require non-partisannon-opinion sources, while you kinda disregarded this aspect during the buildup of this article. --Childhood's End 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to read through my posting a couple of times - but i cannot find any requirements about "non-partisan" in "a non opinion article from mainstram reliable source". This seems to be your own invention. (or are you saying that all mainstream reliable sources are partisan?) --Kim D. Petersen 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I corrected my post above. I can make no material distinction in this context. A non-opinion article does not really exist, imo. --Childhood's End 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No matter what, I'm done trying to fight for consistency and NPOV about this article. I have already made the case [30]. See you around. --Childhood's End 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, you keep saying you're done. Then you just repeat your problematic edits without responding to the substantive issues (and throwing in an insult or two).Notability and weight have not been established.Benzocane 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think I said that I was done previously, but now I am. Benzocane already accused me of POV-pushing (along with others, see discussions above), so I think my comment was fair, but anyway. I can see that I should take a break from this article, and that's what I intend to do. Sorry that you have come to see my edits as problematic, as I think I did respond to the issues. I suggest that you take a look at who's left for editing this article now. Hope we can discuss sometime else in another context. --Childhood's End 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see an undue weight issue here and support Benzocane's edits. A few poorly sourced op-eds can be taken as evidence one way or another and should not be given prominent billing (or billing at all, in my opinion).SlipperyN 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the question is how notable are George Monbiot and others who compare climate change denial to holocaust denial. Even if someone notable like, say George W. Bush, said something outrageous, it would probably be noted, even if what he expressed was a minority viewpoint. ~ UBeR 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the assumption that CE is editing in good faith -- and with the principle of NPOV in mind -- with respect to this article, I think it just that CE take some distance. I concur with SlipperyN in supporting Benzocane's edits. This section gives undue weight to a topic the notability of which has not been persuasively argued, despite numerous and repeated good faith requests for such argument. Furthermore, it is not reputably sourced. Sea.wolf4 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there have been sufficient references made to the fact that this analogy does in fact exist in the discussion about climate change denial. The analogy has been drawn by a number of notable people, on both sides of the argument. It is clear to me that including references to these comparisons is most certainly within the scope of this article and, assuming the section is brief, does not present undue weight issues. As others have pointed out, the main issue is notability, and I think the fact that a number of prominent commentators have drawn the comparison meets the threshold for inclusion. Remember, we need to bias toward inclusion! Zoomwsu 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient references have been offered to show that several commentators have made the claim. No arguments have been offered to prove its notability, let alone the justification of an independent section. The concensus on this page is now against inclusion. If you believe a sentence like "Several commentators have likened climate change denial to holocaust denial," fine--that's already a notability/weight stretch.Benzocane 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of arguments have been made regarding notability. Articles by nationally syndicated columnists (Goodman) and articles in prominent papers like the Guardian certainly are notable. Just because you disagree with the arguments doesn't mean they haven't been made. Zoomwsu 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still going through this. The existence of syndicated columnists does not prove notability--it has to be relevant relative to the topic. But whatever your opinion, your reverts are against the consensus established on this page--even Revolutionaryluddite, one of the primary advocates for the section, has changed his mind after further conversation. I offer this compromise: I have added the following section to the denial/skep section: 'Several commentators have argued that the "denial" terminology is intended to equate global warming scepticism with Holocaust denial.[11][12][13][14][15] [16]' -- this is already more of a compromise than the consensus's here warrants and restoring the section at this point amounts to vandalismBenzocane 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If by "the concensus on this page is now against inclusion" you are referring to my statement at Talk:Climate_change_denial#Holocaust_denial_analogy_.28side_note.29, I should note that I haven't completely changed my mind about its inclusion. (Again, if I am sounding sarcastic, that is not my intent) If there was a vote, I would probably vote 'neutral' or 'non-voting' or whatever. Several convincing arguements have been made that the analogy is 'notable' and the analogy was not given undue weight in it's original phrasing. What I'm stuck on is WP:SYN-- admittedly, because I do not understand the policy. You asked for reliable sourcing indicating that belief in the analogy is held by a 'significant minority' (my words) of commentators, and I can't find anything. I also can't objectively define 'significant' or 'minority'. So, I guess I'm fine with the analogy being absent from the article since "I don't like it" is not a very good arguement. Revolutionaryluddite 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's occured to me that I've been treating the words 'consensus' and 'majority' as synoymns, when they are clearly not inside Wikipedia. Revolutionaryluddite 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current compromise is a good idea. In any rate, I do feel a sense of malaise for having argued for the 'enemy' for so long. Revolutionaryluddite 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link Removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've really enjoyed a few articles in Rolling Stone, I really have. However, to argue that it's part of the mainstream press is to buy into the idea of a liberal media, IMO. It's not exactly fringe, but I wouldn't classify it as mainstream, either. I wouldn't compare it to AEI, but I think a comparison to a serious article in Guns & Ammo (what, there's no article on it?) wouldn't be too far off. It's relevant and notable, but I definitely wouldn't call it unbiased. OTOH, IIRC, Wikipedia doesn't require unbiased sources. Still, I do detect a certain disconnect in how sources are being treated here — and I completely believe that AGW is real and a problem, in case that's not clear. (I feel like I'm arguing so much for the "enemy" recently that I need to make clear where I stand in general. That said, I only argue for the "enemy" when I think s/he has a point.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not apt comparisons at all. Not even close. Rolling Stone has a lot of respected, serious journalists publishing articles, the awards its gathered over the years are testiment to that. Rolling Stone is more comparable to Salon, and aimed at the same audience while they're still college whereas Salon gets them when they're hitting their 40s rather than the bong. Odd nature 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My very simple point is that the presumption is against removing an external link when the periodical is of relative repute. I'm not saying Rollingstone is the highest authority on climate change denial, I'm saying it's not prima facie more or less reliable than other periodicals quoted across the encyclopedia. I AGF for Revolutionaryluddite's deletion, but by his own account, he's still learning the ropes. Rollingstone contributors include, picking at random, Chuck Philips, Pulitzer prize winner for beat reporting.Benzocane 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the name of the page with the guidelines for Wikipedia sourcing? Revolutionaryluddite 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Breaking my sabbatical for a quick moment)

WP:REF Kl4m

Newsweek vs Newsweek

Kim cut the Self-criticism by Newsweek section on the basis that it was already discussed earlier in the article [31]. Seems a fair point to me. I would although suggest, for clarity, that the mention that is included earlier in the article is cut instead and the specific section re-inserted. It has the downside of pushing to the bottom the Newsweek rebuttal, but it separates the ideas, or so I think. --Childhood's End 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Category: Denialism

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

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

This comment is two things: First, its a blatant misrepresentation of the situation; there's clearly no consensus. Second, it constitutes talk page spamming in order to affect the outcome which is a banable offense. Another sly stunt like this Revolutionaryluddite and I'll personally walk your case through WP:DR. Odd nature 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please ease off on him. Sure, educate him, but don't lambaste or threaten him. He's stated many times that he's new to Wikipedia. I think the misrepresentation is merely an example of selective perception, which we can all be guilty of. If we're going to throw around WP's, my favorite is WP:AGF. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that WP:AGF is the necessary first step, but it can only be stretched so far. Fine, I'll just let them deal with him if he keep this sort of activity (and placing his comments ahead of others out of chronological order) up. Odd nature 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not being stretched at all. Look, you're accusing him of "page spamming in order to affect the outcome". Why, then, did he "page spam" you (remember, he directed you over to here), unless he was trying to fight against himself? As for placing his comments ahead of others, I didn't realize your comment was attached to the previous one myself until you fixed it and commented on it. I am 100% sure that these were both innocent mistakes. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down everyone. We can discuss this like civilized individuals. JoshuaZ 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was being calm. I apologize if I came off differently than I intended. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bad indenting on my part, that should have gone to Oddnature, so about one indent back would have been good. JoshuaZ 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, please educate me. I took a look at WP:DR, and the most relevant section seemed to be WP:DR#Discuss_with_third_parties, which seems to be the exact opposite of what you're saying about the inappropriateness of "page spamming". I've heard this accusation made a lot, so I assume it's actually based on a WP, but WP:DR doesn't seem to be it. Do you have a link handy to the policy on "page spamming"? (In case this comes off as sarcastic, that is absolutely not my intent.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPAM has a mention. The main guideline is WP:CANVAS. JoshuaZ 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By those guidelines, it would appear that Revolutionaryluddite's comment does not qualify, as it is a limited posting to an audience that is nonpartisan (or at least fairly evenly mixed partisan). I'll admit that the message could be considered biased, but not unduly so, and I'm certain it was unintentional. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. JoshuaZ 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I should probably say something. (...) (...) Okay, I have no idea what to say. I would do something if I knew what I've gotten myself into. Revolutionaryluddite 03:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's a consensus or whatever that I should take a day or longer sabbatical from Wikipedia, than I'm fine with that. (WP:'Step back from the situation'/'take a deep breath'/whatever-it's-called) Revolutionaryluddite 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:DR#Second_step:_Disengage_for_a_while and agree. Revolutionaryluddite 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (A solid week of non-stop Wikipedia editing is not a good idea)

If you feel that you need it - do it. It can get heated at times. But personally i have to say that in general your contributions have been positive ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you call POV deletions and disrupting an CFD with bogus objections while not even knowing what WP:RS, WP:V and WP:ATT is (all of which nullify his objections there), positive, then sure. I disagree. Odd nature 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

noted. now, do you have any positive contributions for the article? or are you going to continue throwing around direct and indirect threats of policy intervention that in reality are highly destructive to building consensus with fellow editors? RevolutionaryLuddite has admitted his error, has disengaged, and is in all respects acting in good faith. i see no evidence of same from you. quite the contrary. your first step to resolution of this matter is to threaten banning. for pity sake. perhaps revolutionaryluddite isn't the only person here who should contemplate disengagement. hell, i could use a vacation for that matter.... Anastrophe 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the article is no longer in Category:Denialism. Revolutionaryluddite 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I added Denialism to the 'See Also' section, and it has been removed without comment. Revolutionaryluddite 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would re-link denialism, given that I don't see a consensus against it in the same way there is a consensus against the holocast analogy, but I don't want to start an edit war. Revolutionaryluddite 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Note, I am responding to myself)

The introduction now has "It is considered a form of denialism-- the rejection of strong scientific or historical consensus' by groups or individuals seeking to influence public policy" and denialism is back under the 'See Also' links. Revolutionaryluddite 20:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has restored the poorly worded "It is considered a form of denialism, the rejection of views that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence by governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes" without explanation. I'm inclined to leave this in there since any further editing by me is basically nitpicking. Revolutionaryluddite 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed Godwin's Law from the 'See Also' section. Revolutionaryluddite 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is back in Category:Denialism. I hope that this is the end of this. Revolutionaryluddite 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial analogy (side note)

It has been somewhat, well, weird-feeling to fight for the enemy-- no matter how much I also believe in 'loyal opposition' for NPOV. After 'taking a step back' or whatever one would like to call it and reviewing Benzocanes', Kim D. Petersen's, and Ben Hocking's statement, I think I finally understand their essential arguement. (In all fairness, the WP:SYN article is rather confusing.)

Compare "Some Op-Ed columnists and environmental activists argue the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus" and intentionally relate 'climate deniers' to 'holocaust deniers'." to the less grim "Some pet owners believe that the Lhasa apso is the "cutest" and "nicest" breed of dog." (With a bunch of sources after that making the connection)

The statement is true, but it's obviously true. It's factually correct, but it's also unhelpful when mentioned in an encylopedia.

The use of the word "Some" implies that 'a significant number, but less than a majority (50%+1)' of pet owners feel this way. Is it less than 40%? Less than 25%? Less than 10%? How do I know this? The alternative wording "A few pet owners believe" or "Several pet owners" implies 'a number significantly less than than majority'.

Since I don't know how many pet owners think this, my picking of 'some' verses 'a few' is completely arbitrary and they are blatant weasel words.

Revolutionaryluddite 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Yes, I know the world does not revolve around me-- no matter what my T-Shirt says. My point in posting this is simply to state that I've changed my mind.)

If we're going to include this section, which strikes me as an example of a synthesis but whatever, we will need to note that it not just "Some commentators..." making the claim but its only conservative commentators or those in the backpocket of the conservatives. I've yet to see a neutral moderate or liberal making this claim. Please present your evidence if I'm wrong. Odd nature 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Monbiot and Goodman? Zoomwsu 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have only ever heard/read the comparison between 'climate denial' and 'holcaust denial' made by hard-core left-wingers-- note my links presented in the above sections. I don't quite understand your reasoning: "I've yet to see a neutral moderate or liberal making this claim". What is it about one center-left Op-Ed columnist that makes them 'neutral' compared to another center-left Op-Ed columnist? (If I seem sarcastic, that is not my intent. See my comments at Talk:Instrumental_temperature_record#Corrections_to_the_European_temperature_record) But this is all beside the point. Benzocane's line of arguement is that the analogy violates WP:SYN due to its methodology and use of weasel words. I can't say that I'm persuaded, but-- given the emotional resonance of the analogy-- the burden of proof rests on those arguing for its inclusion in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC) ("those in the backpocket of the conservatives" reminds me of those wonderful T-Shirts that say "Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy'.)

Odd nature was talking about conservatives talking about the comparison and not making the comparison themselves. Until I saw the sources previously provided, that was the only way I had heard of it as well. Of the links currently on my sandbox, 3 are from "liberals", and 5 are from "conservatives". (Using scare quotes because I think those labels themselves can be misleading.) Over the short term (a few days), I don't think it matters too much whether this section is there or not. I'm hoping my sandbox can lead to a good quality, reasonably NPOV version of this section that we can then, as a community, have an informal vote on. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

"It is considered a form of denialism, the rejection of views that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence by governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes." It doesn't really seem necessary to define denialism just because the article includes the word-- the introduction does not define 'global climate change' either. Also, why is this statement in the introduction instead of the 'Denial v. Skepticism' section? Revolutionaryluddite 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Providing a short summary of a term of concept being introduced is supported and called for by guidelines and the manual of style. Proper article intros are supposed to be a brief summary of the article and able to stand alone on their own according to the same guidelines, so the article is going to have to mention that it is a form of denialism amongst other things in the intro. Odd nature 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Climate_change_denial#Category:_Denialism Revolutionaryluddite 20:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect of Climate Change

I have added:

Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek has argued that "Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it." Australian Prime Minister John Howard has asserted that the "real climate change deniers" are those who advocate Malthusian pessimism or anti-capitalism because they deny rational policy solutions which take into account economic costs. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, opposes a carbon tax, stated that "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that." Alexander Cockburn of The Nation has accused 'climate spokesman' such as Al Gore of being shills for nuclear energy, arguing that "the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the fearmongers and the nuclear industry" and "Hysteria rules the day, drowning useful initiatives such as environmental cleanup, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its global rewards."

American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45% think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42% think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, though 56% "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants. A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64% would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard."

Revolutionaryluddite 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A few comments: (1) the John Howard quote seems out of place in the "Affect of Climate Change" section. (2) The carbon tax comment seems to come out of nowhere. (I'm not referring to relevance, but to flow.) (3) there was another quote from Samuelson at some point that took a somehwat different perspective on the attitudes of American people that is perhaps relevant here, but I'll have to dig through the history to find it. OTOH, the section might be getting a bit big already. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)I don't understand what you mean. I included Howard's statement because it is a logical counterpoint to the claim made earlier in the section that the 'denail machine' was responsible for the lack of action by polticians. Howard's [32] point is that all "the good intentions in the world are worthless if we wreck our economy for no environmental gain. With so much at stake, we must not confuse panic with virtue. Australia's climate change policy must be rational, far-sighted and sustainable. It needs to reflect our unique vulnerabilities and particular economic strengths." He concludes that "This mix of prudent conservatism and economic liberalism has steered Australia through more than a decade of successful reform, including far-reaching change in our carbon emissions profile. No great challenge has ever yielded to fear or guilt. Nor will this one. Human ingenuity, directed towards clean technology and wise institutional design, remains our best weapon against climate change." His essential point is that the reason widespread power plant regulation, power plant scrapping, and NIRA-style goverment economic regimentation and other anti-climate change measures were not adopted is because they are bad ideas. He believes that "those preaching Malthusian pessimism or anti-capitalism. They are the real climate change deniers".

(2)I see your point. I'm not sure how to rearrange it though.

(3)That's news to me. I'm happy to include the source when/if you find it.

(4 ?)It is a bit long, but it's an important section. The question of whether or not 'the denial machine' has convinced the American public that 'there is no consensus' and 'but it would wreck our economy¹' is a vital one in the context of the article. Revolutionaryluddite 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

¹(Or as Will Ferrel put it: "I gave you tax cuts. I gave your dollar out of every 10 dollars back. Al Gore would have spent this past annoucement boring the heck outta you before giving your dollar to a tree.")

I've re-edited the section; I think that it's fine as is. Revolutionaryluddite 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of including more quotes from Newt Gingrich regarding the carbon tax-- "I think it's nuts. I mean, I read newspaper columnists who ride subways explaining that a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax is the right strategy. Well, if you're a big downtown newspaper and you're not a senior citizen in South Dakota riding around on Sundays, and you're not a suburbanite driving into Atlanta, and you're not somebody whose entire economy is based on trucks, it's easy to be for a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax." On the political debate in general, he also says "Because the left insists on pain, and the right insists on avoidance, and you've had no real leadership that says there's a positive, economically rational, science-and-technology way to solve this that makes your life better". [33]

The section is definately big enough as is, though. The section is also very NPOV as is given that the 'the denial machine succeded' belief has one paragraph, the 'the denial machine failed' belief has one paragraph, and America's divided public opinion has two even-give-and-take paragraphs. Revolutionaryluddite 21:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are getting off topic here. Carbon tax, and a discussion of various views on such belongs on Politics of global warming or Mitigation of global warming (or possibly climate change controversy depending on take). While some context can be included to the subject at hand 'climate change denial' - this is getting somewhat beyond that. --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider this to be entirely on topic. Was it 'the denial machine' that convinced the American public to oppose a carbon tax, the building of new nuclear power plants, and the Kyoto Protocol? Has 'the denial machine' convinced the public that the 'science is uncertian', or does the public understand the consensus and the need for action? These are important questions. Anyway, an embryonic verison of this entire article was on climate change controversy before it spun off into this. I do see your point about length. I rather like this section as is and I don't think anything should be added or removed. Revolutionaryluddite 06:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable secondary sources to make the connection: "climate change denial" => what ever you are describing, then you are doing original research. Its not enough that these are "important questions" - this is an encyclopedia - not an essay, where you are free to explore whatever strikes you as connected. --Kim D. Petersen 08:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your line of arguement, but really I don't get it. The The Truth About Denial article that is the primary source for this page states that it was the 'denial machine' that prevented anti-global warming measures from being entacted and that the 'denial machine' has confused the public about the nature of the consensus. Before I starting editing the 'Effect of Climate Change Denial' section, it read:

According to former U.S. senator Tim Wirth, the denial effort has affected both public perception and leadership in the United States. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. [...] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."[5] Newsweek reports that whereas "majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate," as recently as 2006 only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot." A 2007 Newsweek poll found these numbers were declining, although majorities of Americans still believed neither that scientists agree climate change is taking place, nor that scientists agree climate change is caused by human activity, nor that climate change has yet had noticeable effect.[5] Citing the following remarks in Science by physicist and U.S. Representative Rush Holt, the Newsweek report attributed American policymakers' failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to consistent undermining of science by the "denial machine":

"...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."[22]

In the section as it is now, I've cited reliable secondary sources that disagree with Newsweek's arguements for editorial balance. As far as my own personal opinon goes, I confortable with the section as is, but I'm willing to strike it out completely if there's a consensus that it's off topic. Revolutionaryluddite 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the Newsweek article again, there's a clear logical disconnect in the author(s) mind(s). The article critizes the 'denial machine' for the lack of anti-global warming actions taken by Congress, but it never details what these actions are-- nuclear development, et cetera. Revolutionaryluddite 00:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox for Holocaust Section

user:Benhocking has made a sandbox for this section: User:Benhocking/Climate_change_denial_criticisms

I maintain this content is notable and deserves to be included somehow. The references in the sandbox version are notable and the analogy is in the public parlance on the climate change denialism issue. Moreover, the sandbox version is brief and to the point. User:Raymond arritt demonstrated a good faith attempt to improve the content, rather than simply deleting it and I think we should go with his version. Please prove why this is not worthy of inclusion. Please demonstrate why these are not notable sources. Zoomwsu 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article now notes that the analogy has been made. Why list every commentator who has made the analogy? Why devote an entire section? As for the arguments against notability and weight, they are made above by several editors.Benzocane 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it helpful to provide links to commentators who have made the comparison? The sandbox version is not very big and provides such links in a brief manner. Also, many of the arguments against inclusion above have been made on faulty premises (e.g., it's only a "conservative" analogy). Why don't you summarize the arguments against inclusion for me? That way I don't have to re-read the entire talk page. Zoomwsu 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary to list every commentator by name. A few of the problems: Making the analogy relativley primary in the article deflects attention from the misinformation campaign onto the supposed extremism of the rhetoric used to to describe it. It has been made relatively few times. It has been presented in a way that risks SYN. No argument has been made for its notability relative to the subject of the article. Etc etc. But I think it's rather funny for you to ask an editor to write a summary of the talk page so you don't have to read it.Benzocane 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be snippy (what, no article?), but I also find it rather funny. I agree that the information, if included, doesn't deserve more than one/two/three sentences, belongs in the 'Denial v. Skepticism' section. Why pick and choose various commentators to list to name? Revolutionaryluddite 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Well, I'm back to the light side)

I've already spent a few hours reading the talk page, and felt that my comments had addressed the previous criticisms made. The reason I asked for a summary was because I inferred from your comments that I missed something, and rather than me re-reading, you could simply point out what I missed. I'm much clearer now that what you're really looking for is a better connection between the Holocaust analogy and the "misinformation" aspect of the article. To wit:

The subject of this article is citing instances of supposedly unfounded denial of the tenets of AGW. Many commentators have drawn parallels between such denial and instances of Holocaust denial, a comparison that has made it into the public dialog on the issue. Because of this notability, it is important that the issue is mentioned in this article. I guess I fail to see how the comparisons don't relate to the subject of the article.

It's also to point out that this article is not a soapbox for pointing out instances of denial. What I mean by this is I take issue with the idea that including a few sentences about the Holocaust analogy "deflects attention". The two subjects are obviously related to each other and just because the Holocaust analogy isn't an instance of denial does not mean it doesn't belong. Have I made my points clear? Zoomwsu 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do like Benzocane's version, but that shouldn't surpise too many people. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I am fairly content with the current version. It's concise yet still links to the appropriate sources. I do, however recommend adding an additional sentence on the subject, specifically the quote from Brendan O'Neill--It seems to place the analogy in a better frame. Zoomwsu 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it stands right now, the sentence/refs are slightly inconsistent. Some of the refs aren't referring to the commentators who are complaining about the comparison but to commentators who are actually making the comparison. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the 'Denial Machine'

"Frederick Seitz earned more than US$500,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company"-- I don't quite understand what this means. Did he earn $500,000 per year or per-something-else, or did he earn $500,000 total after twenty years of work? Incidentally, earning $25,000 a year doesn't sound like 'big bucks' and isn't particularly notable. Adjusting for inflation [34], $25000 in 1981 is about $59,000 in 2006. That seems like lower-upper-middle-class [35] to me and, again, not notable. Revolutionaryluddite 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's another "liberal hoax". Cynicism aside, I wonder how the Vanity Fair article by Mark Hertsgaard relates to the Seitz-salary-from-Big-Tobacco sentence in the article. Perhaps the citation belongs somewhere else? As to the notion that a long-time chair of the National Academy of Science received consulting money from RJ Reynolds, is the argument here actually that it's not notable? (Yes, I believe the argument was "isn't particularly notable".) Well, I beg to differ. ... Kenosis 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

When have I ever used the term "liberal hoax"? Why makes you think I believe that? Please WP:AGF. If you're curious about my socio-political views, please see my user page. Revolutionaryluddite 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a brief look at the linked Vanity Fair article will reveal the reference to "liberal hoax" right at the very top of the article. ... Kenosis 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really at the "very top of the article", more like "just adjacent to the very top of the article" :)

Revolutionaryluddite 19:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you weren't serious. Anyway, the specific section from Vanity Fair states that:

"Call him the $45 million man. That's how much money Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, helped R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., give away to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s. The research avoided the central health issue facing Reynolds—"They didn't want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," says Seitz, who is now 94—but it nevertheless served the tobacco industry's purposes. Throughout those years, the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed." Revolutionaryluddite 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it now, thanks for pointing it out. So, I take it that that the sentence in the article can readily be agreed, given Seitz's transition from NAS director to tobacco industry consultant, to be notable and reliably sourced. ... Kenosis 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"For his part, Seitz says he was comfortable taking tobacco money, "as long as it was green. I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue. We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent." Did the research give the tobacco industry political cover? "I'll leave that to the philosophers and priests," he replies."

"Al Gore and others have said, but generally without offering evidence, that the people who deny the dangers of climate change are like the tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking. The example of Frederick Seitz, described here in full for the first time, shows that the two camps overlap in ways that are quite literal—and lucrative. Seitz earned approximately $585,000 for his consulting work for R. J. Reynolds, according to company documents unearthed by researchers for the Greenpeace Web site ExxonSecrets.org and confirmed by Seitz. Meanwhile, during the years he consulted for Reynolds, Seitz continued to draw a salary as president emeritus at Rockefeller University, an institution founded in 1901 and subsidized with profits from Standard Oil, the predecessor corporation of ExxonMobil."

So, I see that Seitz actually received $585,000 for the two decades total in addition to his ordinary salary. Given that he actually said "I'm not quite clear about this moralistic issue" with a straight face (or maybe not, I wasn't there), then the sentence seems very notable. It should be re-worded though. Revolutionaryluddite 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

i noticed that someone reverted revlud's (hope the abbrev is okay) change of "the denial industry" to "the denial machine", citing the former as 'more accurate'. if i'm not mistaken, actually, neither of them is "accurate". both are colloquialisms. there is no 'denial industry' - good luck finding an Employer ID number in the tax regulations, and there is no 'denial machine' - where does one plug it in? something better needs to be found. colloquialisms are confusing to the general readership at best, a form of WP:Bias at worst.Anastrophe 20:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course; maybe it's more accurately called a "cottage industry". Because "machine" implies a direct connection amongst all of its components or constituent parts, it appears more accurately termed an "industry". ... Kenosis 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Revlud!? No, I'm not offended; it's too silly to be offensive. No problemo. Anyway, while both terms are indeed colloquialisms-- my use of "denial machine" was a direct referance to the primary source of this article [36] and I used quote marks to specify this. See Talk:Climate_change_denial#.22Denial_Industry.22_verses_the_.22Denial_Machine.22. Revolutionaryluddite 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hockey stick graph

I removed:

'Hockey stick graph'

Main article: Hockey stick controversy

Environmental scientist Fred Singer argues that the IPCC's hockey stick graph is an example of climate change denial, as it uses flawed statistical methodology to deny two significant periods of climate change - the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age:

"Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."

I don't see how any of this relates to the article. Revolutionaryluddite 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. AFAIK, it's a relatively obscure debate about statistical summary data. Problem is, in part, that the newer data more clearly show the little ice age than the summary data that came to be called the "hockey stick". The methodology is sufficiently arcane that the controversy reflects neither denialism nor oversimplification or overstatement of the extent of present climate change. Though calling such issues into question admittedly is one of the many commonly used strategies of the "denial industry" ... Kenosis 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If mention of the hockey stick is to be included, we need a better source than Singer. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Singer is notable, as is the controversy. The problem is, it demonstrates the other side of the argument, thereby detracting from the main purpose of this article: propaganda. Iceage77 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Singer has published no research relevant to the hockey stick controversy. (In fact he has published little climate-related research at all for a couple of decades.) Better to cite someone directly involved in the matter, such as McIntyre. Raymond Arritt 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I cited Singer because he used the "deny" terminology. McIntyre is of course cited on the hockey stick article so I don't see the need to duplicate those refs here. Iceage77 20:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, however, that Singer did not say it was an example of climate change denial, as this sentence was tortured to imply — just so it could be stuck in this article. (I know I should assume good faith. I tried, but I see no other explanation for your interpretation of his comment.) Instead, he made the notably ridiculous claim that they denied the existence of past climatic change. Neither his wording, nor his meaning, match the definition of "denial" as it is used in this article. (To deny something is not the same as to be in denial.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Denying the existence of past climatic change is a common theme in the environmentalist movement. They see a creationist garden of eden state of perfect equilibrium. Then man comes along with his industry and ruins the natural order. The hockey stick graph is a very good representation of this. Iceage77 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. And Nature is not an "environmentalist" publication, but one of the foremost scientific journals on the planet. --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question for you Iceage77 — which part, exactly, of the hockey stick shape do you think were M&M challenging, the main body or the sharp rise at the end? If you're going to claim that any climate scientist has ever denied past climatic change, then you're going to need to provide a primary source. (I.e., of them making that claim and not hearsay claiming they made that claim.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceage77: Singer's, McIntyre's, and Watt's arguements regarding the Instrumental_temperature_record are reasonable and notable in their own right, but I still don't understand why any of this should be mentioned on this page.

Ben Hocking: I'm strongly biased about this given that I'm a overly emotional individual who cried at the end of ET, but I AGF in this case. Revolutionaryluddite 06:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (Actually, I consider WP:AGF to be a cause célèbre of mine except in extreme circumstances.)

You're right about AGF. I've read enough from Iceage77 to think that he might really interpret that the way he says he says he's interpreting it. When he went onto claim that it's a "common theme in the environmentalist movment", I found it such a ridiculous claim that I thought he couldn't possibly believe that. I wasn't give him enough credit in that regard. Although I think he's wrong about a lot, I do think that he is sincere in his beliefs. I consider myself properly chastised. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Denial Industry" verses the "Denial Machine"

Someone has changed my edit 'Origins of the "denial machine"' back to 'Origins of the "denial industry"'. The primary source for this article is a Newsweek cover story that explicitly states "Inside the 'denial machine'" on the cover. Why can't we use their terminology? See Business action on climate change. It's misleading to use the term 'the denial industry' when many energy companies have broken ranks with Exxon and its bunker mentality. The premise of this article is not 'capitalism verses global warming'; it is 'misinformation verses sound science'. Revolutionaryluddite 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and there's another Newsweek issue, just recently published, that refers to "it" as the "denial industry". Denial industry is more accurate than denial machine, for reasons that I don't imagine I should need to articulate. In any event, I'm outta' here for now. Later. ... Kenosis 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Revolutionaryluddite 05:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News makes comment about denying climate change...

OK, if you look closely it's only partly true. Fox News has an article (Blogger Forces NASA to Tweak Climate Data) from David Byers of The Times that says

The revelations have been pounced on by the fringe group of researchers and pundits who deny that man-made global warming is taking place. (emphasis mine)

Still, interesting that Fox News has this. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is no surprise. Rupert Murdoch is now a strong global warming 'believer' and will soon start pushing his network to carefully and quietly abandon it's 'many scientists disagree' line. Revolutionaryluddite 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (If the opposition is called 'deniers', why don't we start referring to ourselves as 'believers'? It's catchy.)

Cross-Posting Information

After looking at Global Warming Controversy, I'm somewhat confused about the guidelines for having the same or similar information in different pages. Is there a WP help page for that? Revolutionaryluddite 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that a lot of this article is very biased in that it's main thrust is that people who disagree with GW theory either have some kind of logical ailment or are in the pay of vested interests like oil companies. This is generally not the case and the viewpoint is very subjective and nowhere near neutral. The term is primarily used as a label for propaganda purposes and fits the general pattern of other such labels such as holocaust denial. This should be made clear at the start of the article. A rewrite is in order81.77.52.93 03:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One so-called denier's response

I strongly encourage everyone to read PBS Frontline's interview with Dr. Frederick Seitz [37]. My own two cents: The reporter was a bit of a wiener (did I spell that right?), but I might have acted the same way in her position.

Some interesting quotes from Seitz:

"I would say about half of my waking time was devoted to money and the other half to science."

"When money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used, not the old."

"Most scientists are Democrats. I think, what is it, 93 percent?" The Scientist claims that there is a majority [38]. I don't know where '93 percent' comes from.

"As a president, a responsible president, of an institution that can devour enormous amounts of money usefully, I would take any green money for that cause. It's who spends the money that's important. At the same time, I would tell people to stop smoking, as I did."

"Life's a hazard."

"Well, you have to take my word for it."

"Well, I had decided long ago that to support this institution, I would accept almost any money. I don't know whether I would have accepted from Hitler, but that's another matter."

"Oil people are some of my best friends; this institution was created by oil money. When I came here, I was the one who started private contributions. We got lots of oil money then to support this institution."

"Well, if you're going to stop the use of oil, God help you."

"You know, one-third of the public questioned believes that the lunar landing was faked by Hollywood in the Arizona desert. When you have to deal with a population that is at that level, you can expect almost anything, including confusion." This is false. According to Gallup polls, the number is about 6 percent. [39] It was higher in the past.

I think that this article should have an applicable quote from Seitz regarding the allegations against him given that the article currently has a statement from Exxon. Revolutionaryluddite 06:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this give-and-take somewhat revealing:

So you think I'm being influenced by politics and not science?

That's right.

Is it possible that oil money at the George C. Marshall [Institute] influenced positions --

Not a bit, not a bit. ...

This is a theme throughout the interview. He's convinced that the mainstream scientists are influenced by politics and money (i.e., funding), but that institutions he has been in charge of are not influenced by these things. I also found it interesting that "environmentalists ... said [to him] personally, in private, 'I would take your side, but I would cease to be funded if I did.'" I'm just a wee bit skeptical about that claim. I also thought his comments on R.J. Reynolds were somewhat revealing. I second your comment that it's an interview worth reading. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that this article should use any of Seitz's statements from the interview (with proper context of course)? Revolutionaryluddite 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Most of his comments require quite a bit of context to fully appreciate, IMO. If either "side" tried to pare it down to just the "necessary" context, it'd probably be labeled as POV by the other. I don't feel strongly about not including it, though. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most of his comments require quite a bit of context to fully appreciate"-- No fooling, although I really like "Life's a hazard" (I put it on my user page). Still, it just seems unfair that the article gives Exxon a chance to reply to their critics and does not do the same for Seitz. Revolutionaryluddite 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I just want to follow on your previous post. Claims such as those made by Seitz above make us feel skeptical at first sight, but there's plenty to dig provided one cares to investigage the point he makes. You can get a glimpse there but that really is the tip of the iceberg. Since a lot of material taken from Global warming controversy is reproduced and developped here, I wonder if that would not be a sound exercise of neutrality to develop herein this part as well as a counter-claim or criticism of the denial theory.

Note that I may not see your answer as I removed this page from my watchlist. --Childhood's End 13:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As for quotes that could easily be taken wrong out of context, this one is the winner: "I would say about half of my waking time was devoted to money and the other half to science." I've heard from more than one department chair that this is their primary complaint about taking that job. This statement is an unfortunate truth at that level, regardless of what field you're in. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News' Brit Hume in denial

Check it out: Man-Made Global Warming Links Challenged. Thank God for Wikipedia. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article, but it's really not that big of a deal-- some skeptics' small attempts to push back at the global warming public relations machine. Anyway, I strongly think Wikipedia has a long way to go before ordinary people will start being glad it exists. Revolutionaryluddite 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problem, of course, is that Brit Hume isn't funded by the oil or energy industry. That's the problem with this article. It treats scientific skepticism with the same regard as ignorant "skepticism" so long as there is no connection with ExxonMobil et al., in which case it would be labeled "climate change denial." ~ UBeR 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Brit Hume is an honest, responsible journalist; he's just reporting that some global warming skeptics, not 'deniers' as defined by this article, are doing what they can to combat the recent media blitz. I do agree that parts of this article are embarassingly POV. Revolutionaryluddite 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to get out of here for tonight, but I want to say "i love it!". Kenosis is apparently in denial of Revolutionaryluddite's denial of Brit Hume's denail of denialsim of being denialistically accused of being in denial about responsible journalism. Thankfully, the notion of "denial", like the notion of "pseudoscience", depends on denial of something a bit more specific than "I deny what that person said". Indeed the WP standard is a great deal more specific than the aforementioned [ (a) gobbledygook - (b) confusion - (c) revolutionary ludditism - (d) Kenosisism - (e) Brit-Humism - (f) ______________ (enter a brief essay in the space provided or on an attached page) ] ... Kenosis 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit on Dick Cheney

I don't see how the bit on Dick Cheney has to do with climate change denial. From the very definition within this article, "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," the idea that "'unwavering ideological positions' prioritizing economic over environmental interests" led to bad policy do not mesh.

I'm also curious how this article will differentiate between "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," and plain misunderstanding and ignorance surrounding the topic. ~ UBeR 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They are related, in that the former is designed to take advantage of and exacerbate the latter. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you referring to my second question, or Dick Cheney? I reckon "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus . . ." can be used to take advantage and exacerbate misunderstanding and ignorance. But I what I was trying to get at was whether this article will argue that one who is ignorant of the subject is therefore a denier (by this articles definition), because I reckon one needs not to be paid by the oil industry to be confused. Of course, I'm still curious about Dick Cheney. ~ UBeR 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cheney bit needs to be expanded to include information regarding his Energy Task Force and its link to Exxon et al. That will clarify the connection, I think. Benzocane 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, what I get from that article is that the NEPDG met with several large energy companies, suggesting they might have influenced national energy policy. What I get from this article is that Cheney prioritizes economy over environment, which this article argues led to bad environment policy (or at least making the head of the EPA quit). What I don't see is the connection between that and climate change denial. It looks, to me, as if someone just put it in the article to make jabs. Still curious. ~ UBeR 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to why the information was initially included, but assume good faith. If Cheney and/or others knowingly misrepresented scientific concensus -- that is, didn't disagree with the science per se, but misrepresented the agreement of the scientific community itself -- that would fall within the purview of the article independent of a connection to Exxon; but I think you're right, the connection should be clarified, as it exists and is well documented.Benzocane 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane is right about expanding the article and clarifying the connection re: Energy Task Force. I included mention of Cheney because of this passage from the Washington Post describing both his efforts to deregulate emissions and his portrayal of the science regarding anthropogenic carbon emissions and/or warming as remaining in a state of indecision: "The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem." Cyrusc 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And that's precisely what led to my second question. How will this article differentiate between those who deceitfully spread "disinformation campaigns . . ." and those who might be confused on the issue but nonetheless espouse their ignorance. I cannot say whether or not Dick Cheney is the former or latter, but this article fails to make the connection between his prioritizing economics over economy and "climate change denial" as it is defined here. ~ UBeR 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Seems to be textbook WP:SYN. --Childhood's End 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I should note that the current revision that includes the NEPDG meeting with the energy industry makes an even weaker case towards "climate change denial," as defined in this article. ~ UBeR 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some information regarding the link between Cheney's environmental positions and the corporations funding disinformation. Could you explain why it makes a weaker case? Regardless, you ask an interesting question--there is a difference between dissenting from scientific consensus and misrepresenting that consensus. But what Cyrusc has made clear in the article is that Cheney's rhetoric regarding climate change science as being characterized by "conflicting viewpoints" or as existing in a state of indecision is a misrepresentation of the overwhelming consensus, no matter if he dissents from that consensus or not. That's what the article has to differentiate between -- dissent from consensus and the misrepresentation of consensus. Cyrusc does that effectively, I think, but you are right to emphasize the importance of the distinction.Benzocane 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your reply. I think the main argument in the NEPDG bit just recently added is that the energy industry influenced its decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol. One problem here is that the Protocol is a political treaty that, regardless of one's view on climate change, can be dismissed as undesirable. Another problem is that I don't see Cheney making a disinformation campaign. Can one quote that he made ("Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem") really be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? Can Chaney's prioritization of economics over environment, i.e. a rational personal opinion, be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? This is what I'm concerned about. ~ UBeR 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are all smart questions. While this article is mainly about the corporate funded misinformation campaign, it covers any other misrepresentation of the consensus. You're right that one could oppose Kyoto on grounds that do not fall under the purview of the article, but what's relevant here is the link to Exxon. Re: misinformation vs. rational personal opinion: If Cheney were to say "the position of this administration is to dissent from the consensus," that would not be disinformation, but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public. The claim of the UCS etc. is that Cheney et al know dissenting from the consensus is not politically viable, and so they have denied it exists (which is not the same thing as dissenting from the science).Benzocane 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public" Are you hereby proposing that Richard Lindzen, John Christy or for that matter, all the scientists quoted in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming are misrepresenting existing information to the public? Who is the legitimate judge of what is the correct existing information regarding the existence of a consensus? --Childhood's End 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the small minority of dissenting scientists admit there is general consensus, but they depart from it. They disagree with the conclusions of the majority of their peers, but they do not attempt to convince the public that majority doesn't exist.Benzocane 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you must acknowledge that you are mistaken. Perhaps you did not know, but 'majority' and 'consensus' have different entries in every dictionnary (i.e. they're not synonyms). You may want to read [40] or [41] before claiming again that these scientists admit that there is general consensus. --Childhood's End 15:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, consensus doesn't mean unanimous - and the opinion of 2 or 20 doesn't budge a consensus consisting of thousands. --Kim D. Petersen 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose thousands? Got a list of names? And please dont mix up issues Kim. This article is not about the existence or not of a scientific consensus. The issue at hand is to determine whether we can legitimately call "misrepresenting existing information to the public" the fact of denying the existence of a consensus and/or of climate change. As of now, there are a few credible scientists who fall in the basket of making misrepresentations by this article, whereas this article awkwardly tries to support its existence by distinguishing the skeptical scientists' positions from some conspiring organizations' positions. --Childhood's End 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to acknowledge I'm mistaken about the existence of consensus when "the conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by...all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" (quoting Climate change controversy)? Even if -- no matter your reasons -- you want to dissent from that position, the consensus quite obviously exists. Kim is of course correct about the difference between consensus and unanimity. If the latter were the test, we couldn't speak of a consensus re: the roundness of the earth, etc.Benzocane 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "majority" and "consensus" ? If so, please stop this non sequitur and revisit your previous post. As for quoting Wikipedia to support your view that a consensus exists, that might work here, but that would not fly too high before more serious instances. --Childhood's End 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak for Benzo, but I do; do you? You don't seem to... Nil Einne 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to re-read Benzocane's edit [42] before posting further such ridiculous rant. But I'd be curious... how do you define 'majority' and 'consensus'? --Childhood's End 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My view can be mostly explained by reading Majority, Scientific consensus & Consensus. As stated, I can't speak for Benzocane. However given that you appear to deny there is a consensus when it comes to climate change, when as benzocane nearly said, even the extremely small minority of scientists who's view differs somewhat from the consensus view don't usually deny that it exists, it appears to me that you don't quite understand what a consensus is which was why I asked... It seems to me that if you are going to get all worked up about whether or not Benzocane understands the difference, you should at least understand it yourself first Nil Einne 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep ranting. As for myself, I acknowledge that you use WP articles to indicate your understanding in such matter. --Childhood's End 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we still talking about Cheney and the NEPDG? ~ UBeR 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Benzocane was arguing that since Cheney denied the existence of the consensus, he is guilty of misrepresenting existing information to the public. I'm trying to show him that if this is the case, Lindzen and other credible scientists would thus also be guilty of such blashpemy. The differenciation between denial and skepticism that this article attempts to make is just falling to pieces. --Childhood's End 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for the Cheney section to remain in the article with the provided information. There isn't anything there showing he allegedly denied anything, he just prioritized. Saying he has been alleged of climate change denial when he has not (as defined) is probably a WP:BLP violation. --Theblog 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Category: Denialism Redux

Since the category has survived deletion, is there an editorial consensus that 'climate change denial' should be considered 'denialism' like 'holocaust denial' and so listed? Revolutionaryluddite 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree I'm pretty sure it was pretty much the archetype for the creation of that category (although not the archetype of denialism itself). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I see your point, but I'll go along with whatever the majority thinks. Revolutionaryluddite 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a majority of two is still a majority. Revolutionaryluddite 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect of Climate Change Denial (2)

The article currently includes the quotes "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. [...] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." and "...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing." The Newsweek article that included these quotes argues that the American people oppose actions to mitgate global warming, and that the reason they do so is because of efforts by the 'denial machine'.

I included this paragraph:

American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45% think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42% think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, even though 56% "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants".[37] A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64% would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research.[38] Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard." [39]

in response to Newsweek's claims to provide editorial balance. The paragraph may be too long, but I don't see how it can be called "irrelevant" if the Newsweek quotes are relevant. Revolutionaryluddite 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, the whole section is honestly a mess and needs a complete rewrite. I will at least rename the section now while I think about it. --Theblog 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, my opinion is that this and the two paragraphs preceding it do not belong on this page since it is supposed to be about climate change denial. Maybe a new page can be created, Climate Change Solutions. 4.246.204.207 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Newsweek article that this page is based on made the claims cited in this section. As much as I would like to have the whole section removed, these are their arguements and it makes no sense to list some of them in this page with ignoring other ones. Revolutionaryluddite 06:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Salmon

The section:

The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:

Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991-2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?"[28]

The source is a blog which violates WP:BLP find another source or delete it. Additionally, the information doesn't even fit the definition of denial given in the article. --Theblog 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Cheney' stuff has been debated earlier in the talk page. Personally, I agree with you that the section doesn't add much to the article and should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal experiance is that Wikipedians become extremely snippy when another user posts at the end of an earlier thread that's over two weeks old or so because they believe it's a underhanded trick to get the last word. Revolutionaryluddite 04:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, will repost below. --Theblog 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How is Climate Science Watch a blog? It's part of GAP, it's a non-prof with institutional status, etc. How is this a violation of BLP? Revolutionaryluddite is correct--your edit strategy does risk coming across as underhanded. I AGF, but don't think this is the way to encourage that assumption.Benzocane 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a self published source, same thing according to WP:BLP. Its pretty much in a blog format. I also hereby notify everyone that I added a comment to the Cheney section above apparently falsely thinking that we didn't need new sections every 2 weeks. I have since also added the comment and the Cheney quotes below for easier access and to clear up all questions of underhandedness. Thank you both for your lessons on wikiedicate. --Theblog 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" --Theblog 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it looks like "blog format" to you -- and how is this the case? You mean it's a web page? -- is hardly justification for deletion. Also, by what standard is this self-published? The regulations re: self-published materials have to do with an editor publishing a book out of his basement and citing it as a source, not an institution -- no matter what you think of its conclusions -- posting its research on a web page. Also, have you identified any inaccuracies in the quoted material?Benzocane 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its self published, the article itself doesn't list the author. Why? Because its one guy running the whole shebang, I quoted the relevant information from WP:BLP regarding self published sources which hold for institutions, it makes no distinction. Regardless, in the actual article itself there is nothing that fits the definition of denial. Perhaps you could point out where it is? You are trying to prove he meets the following threshold: "Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data." (Also not good is the editor trying to show this, instead of some other source saying this) --Theblog 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a partisan source with a self-published source. While care should be taken about information referenced to partisan sources - they are not covered under SPS. Whats your evidence for it being a "one guy runs the whole shebang" institute? As far as i can see its a legitimate think-tank/lobby group - surely partisan - but not an SPS. Why btw. are you invoking WP:BLP? This is not a biography of a living person page. (i presume you meant WP:SPS). --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Benzocane about GAP's websites being in "blog formats"; that indicates a lack of imagination on the part of their computer guys rather than any kind of editorial statement. However, Benzocane, WP:AGF is a rule, not a friendly guideline. The fact that it is regularly disgarded like clockwork has been a source of undying frustration for me. Revolutionaryluddite 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If its not self published, why is there no author listed on the article? --Theblog 05:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its important to keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to this section and we must follow it. This section is not at all balanced, we have zero responses by the people in the article or people representing them. --Theblog 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Climate_change_denial#Dick_Cheney. While the section is obviously unbalanced, I think that the GAP referance-- as a statement made a group of people-- should stay in the article. Wikipedia tends to use blogs quite a bit if they meet specific WP:BLP exceptions; see Real Climate. Revolutionaryluddite 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that the site is not self published. I still believe there are issues with the entry as related above. Real Climate does not meet WP:BLP in any way, but that is another issue. --Theblog 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Real Climate does not meet WP:BLP in any way, but that is another issue." And all the air suddenly rushed out the room, and the other users slowly began to raise their heads to offer their jilted glaces at Theblog... Revolutionaryluddite 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Most institutions release statements or reports or news without primary authors. They're quoted all the time across Wikipedia and have nothing to do with BLP! Revolutionary, I share your sentiment about AGF.Benzocane 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Denialism in the introduction

Yes, 'climate change denial' is denialism by that article's definition. But why does the term have such prominence? Why can't it mentioned in the pertinent section-- 'denial verses skepticism'? I know that since 'denialism' is a neologism, it should be probably given a brief discription; most readers are completely unfamiliar with it. But other 'denialist' articles such as AIDS reappraisal and young earth creationism don't describe 'denialism' like this one does. Revolutionaryluddite 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference is that for those other categories there's no claim of a distinction between a skeptic (loosely, one who isn't sure) and a denialist (loosely, one who's sure it isn't). There are few notable people, for example, who aren't sure whether evolution happened or not. (Agnostics on this issue rarely make waves.) That said, the last sentence in the lede could be removed, IMO. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just read the introduction I am struck by this comment, "While the terms 'climate skeptic' and 'climate contrarian' generally refer to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy... " I don't believe that that is at all the case. The terms "skeptic and "contrarian", in the area of GW debate, are pretty much interchangable with "denialist". 4.246.206.105 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A skeptic is someone who hasn't yet made up their mind. For example, one could argue that Lindzen is a skeptic and not a denialist since he does not state that humans are not responsible for global warming, but merely states that he's not convinced that the evidence for it is convincing. As for "contrarian", I'm not sure what the distinction is myself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrarian at least in James Hansen's work - is the same as this pages definition of denialist. (i'lkl find a link). He differentiates between sceptics and contrarians. --Kim D. Petersen 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) link :) --Kim D. Petersen 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So then, perhaps that bit that 4.246.206.105 mentions should be reworked to "While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, the terms 'climate contrarian' and 'climate change denial' usually refer to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby." What do you and/or others think? (On a tangential note, what's up with the single quotes? Why not double quotes or italics?) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In re-reading that, it doesn't flow right. "Climate contrarian" does not refer to a disinformation campaign. The phrase should probably just be dropped altogether. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'Contrarian' has been used to describe several scientists also known as 'skeptics'-- see John Christy and the Wikipedia definition of 'contrarian'. Revolutionaryluddite 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then dropping it altogether is probably for the best, as apparently it can mean skeptic or denialist depending on who is using it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Still though, Hansen's statement is the first time I've seen/heard/read the term 'contrarian' used as a synoymn for 'denialist'. Revolutionaryluddite 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Benhocking, that's a good point; this article makes a distinction between 'skeptic' and 'denier' that others don't. But why not put dicussion of Denialism in the relevant section rather than in the introduction? "There are few notable people, for example, who aren't sure whether evolution happened or not."-- What about Peter Hitchens? Revolutionaryluddite 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In reading what is attributed to him, he sounds more like someone who is trying to pretend to be skeptical but who already has his mind made up. Thus, he fits the definition of a denialist and not a skeptic. (Yeah, yeah, this could be called WP:OR or WP:SYN, but I'm not putting this onany article page.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that he just doesn't want to decide one way or the other because it's not an issue that he cares about. Revolutionaryluddite 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The chronic use of 'single quotes' is a personal preferance of mine. I guess that have a small, subconsious bit of animus twoards the shift key. [43] Revolutionaryluddite 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed "It is a form of denialism-- the rejection of views that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence by governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes." from the introduction. The statement makes no logical sense whatsoever when juxtoposed with the later sentence "Several Op-Ed commentators have argued that the 'denier' and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial.". Revolutionaryluddite 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If these different terms are kept maybe someone can categorize the professional doubters [44] into "skeptics", "contrarians", and "deniers". Of course there are shades of these too. For example you can have genuine skeptics and then there are the phony ones who are "skeptical" for reasons having to do more with trying to create an aura of unbiased objectivity for the purpose of creating doubt in the public consciousness. Contrarians and deniers are pretty much the same people I suspect. I suppose a denier can be genuine though. Contrarians probably more describes the Exxon crowd. Still I've seen the terms used interchangably on the net (including Wikipedia) and that is probably how most people see it. Another point, the term "skeptics" also includes popular but non-scientific people and groups [45]. Perhaps there should be a delineation for those vs those with scientific credentials. By the way, it's kind of funny and telling that the only major "scientific" organization that opposes the science of AGW is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists [46]. 4.246.203.148 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of sourcing. 'Skeptic', 'doubter', 'dissident', and so on are neutral while 'denier' and 'denailist' are blatantly pejorative. I've only came across the term 'contrarian' as a synoymn for 'denialist' once-- the Hansen interview. Where else has it been used that way? Revolutionaryluddite 06:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (I freaking love 'single quotes'.)

Lots out there. Here's some examples: "The fourth witness to testify was Jeff Kueter, President of the Marshall Institute, one of the most active and visible industry-funded global warming contrarian/denialist policy groups inside the Beltway." [47]. Another "The 'contrarian' view on global climate change has a number of different arguments. Some of them deny that any warming is taking place..." [48], "In recent years, a small number of vocal climate "contrarians" have energetically worked to distort, deny, and suppress the growing scientific consensus over the risks of climate change" [49], "However, there are those who deny that climate change is happening at all. We don’t hear much from these people. Climate change contrarians say their lack of a voice is all part of the conspiracy and so in many cases they have banded together."[50] etc. see also WM's [51]. Here they are all equated [sceptic/contrarian/denialist][52]. Lots of equating of these terms on blogs too. Seems that others are also wrestling with these terms [53] comments section.

To expand on my prior comments, maybe further delineation could be made between scientific deniers on the industry payroll and those which aren't (if any). I suggest calling the former "professional skeptics". 4.246.203.52 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The second article you cited describes every scientist in disagreement with the consensus as 'denialist'. "The “contrarian” view on global climate change has a number of different arguments. Some of them deny that any warming is taking place; others admit that it is, but dispute the cause and the rate of warming. Some say it is an honest mistake within the scientific community, while many others say it is either a hoax or some other kind of intentional exaggeration. Either way, most of the contrarians” agree that global climate change is a pseudoscientific tactic by pushed alarmists, and that it can be compared to “global cooling” and eugenics. They see themselves, by contrast, as the honest scientists who have the courage to speak out against the prevailing notions." Even someone like Roger_A._Pielke would be considered 'denialist' under this definition. The third article does the same thing. "In recent years, a small number of vocal climate "contrarians" have energetically worked to distort, deny, and suppress the growing scientific consensus over the risks of climate change. These contrarians use public forums and opinion pieces as their principal avenue of communication, rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals. And recently, they have become more aggressive at trying to silence anyone who challenges their "theories" about climate change." It also never mentions the terms 'denier' or 'denialist'-- just using the abstract term 'deny' once. The third article is an opinion piece from a University student-run newspaper which includes silly phrases such as "The good guys wear white sunhats" and "Meet the sceptics, a modern Stone Age family". The next three citations are from blogs; please review WP:SPS. Look, has the term 'contrarian' been specifically linked to 'denialist' by Newsweek, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, or a news report like that? Revolutionaryluddite 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, as I said before "I've seen the terms used interchangably on the net (including Wikipedia) and that is probably how most people see it". IOW, no one has created an 'official' definition of these people yet, so it doesn't matter what big media wants to call them. The terms as they are used and known by both average people and professionals alike are pretty much interchangable. Note for example that WP itself includes all of them under the umbrella of "skeptic" here [54]. Anyway, the fact that people are not sure what specifically to call them and the fact that they come in different shades of conviction implies that perhaps they ought to be categorized so that it will be clearer where they stand. I suppose that could go for proponents of AGW science too. I'm not sure why you're refering me to WP:SPS. Anyway, it's just a suggestion. 4.246.206.127 00:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the terms used interchangably on Wikipedia; I'm not sure why you brought up Category:Global_warming_skeptics given that it doesn't mention the terms 'contrarian' or 'denialist'. I'm sure that the many average people and many parts of the blogosphere have made the connection, but I've read the term 'contrarian' and 'skeptic' used as symoymns by third party news reporters [55], pro-global-warming partisans [56], and anti-global-warming partisans [57] [58]. Of course, the linking of the term 'denialist' with anything-- 'creationist', 'contrarian', 'AIDS revisionist', or 'anti-psycatrist' -- is a completely subjective judgement call. It's a boolean decision; how many people make the connection? Right now, Google has only 46,100 hits for contrarian+denialist. Revolutionaryluddite 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why you brought up Category:Global_warming_skeptics given that it doesn't mention the terms 'contrarian' or 'denialist'". Okay, look at the list. Is there anyone there that you would categorize as contrarian or denialist? Now, notice how they are all called "skeptics" by WP? Only 46,100? Gosh that's NOTHING! 4.246.206.127 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Look, has the term 'contrarian' been specifically linked to 'denialist' by Newsweek..." Absolutely, and it's even in this WP article. Note that the title of the Newsweek article is "The Truth About Denial". Now notice this paragraph, "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists.... (they hate being called deniers)" [59]. 4.246.206.127 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading the The Truth About Denial article again, I see that it uses the term 'contrarian' twice while primarily using 'doubter' and 'naysayer'. The article's first use of 'contrarian' is clearly meant to be sarcasm. As far as Category:Global_warming_skeptics, it's meant to be a blanket category covering a large group of people, a guide. My point in bringing up Google is that the term 'contrarian' has been used a lot and generally in a non-pejorative way-- 'contrarian' has 2,550,000 hits-- while 'denier' and 'denialist' are undisputably negative and are rarely used-- 'denialist' has 125,000 hits and "climate change denier" has 20,700 hits. In any rate, if you just want to strike out the word 'contrarian' from the introduction, that's fine with me. Revolutionaryluddite 02:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I count four times. Note also this, "In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers...". Anyway this is a bit of a silly debate. 4.246.202.102 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It has gotten silly, hasn't it? Looking back at the sentence, I agree with Ben Hocking that the term 'climate contrarian' should probably be dropped from the article. Revolutionaryluddite 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

This:

In 2007, the Washington Post's four-part examination of Dick Cheney's powerful role in the White House alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" prioritizing economic over environmental interests [1] had led to significant conflict regarding greenhouse gas emissions standards

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. ... And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem."[25]

Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby and to ExxonMobil in particular have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry."[citation needed] In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies. [26] Exxon was also personally thanked by the White House for advising President Bush on the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists

In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’"[27]

There is no reason for this Cheney section to remain in the article with the provided information. There isn't anything there showing he allegedly denied anything, he just prioritized. Saying he has been alleged of climate change denial when he has not (as defined) is probably a WP:BLP violation. Additionally, there are some inaccuracies which I will correct shortly. --Theblog 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing and wording is horrible; I'll try to edit this. Revolutionaryluddite 05:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just delete it and I wouldn't complain. I've spent some more time looking at the sources and I still don't see a link- its not like there is a shortage of negative material on Cheney out there either, if you can't find something clear it shouldn't be in here. --Theblog 05:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, please complain. I'm rather tired of seeing articles undergo drastic changes without any explanation given whatsoever. I'm considering rewriting the first paragraph to:

The Washington Post reported in June 2007 that Vice President Dick Cheney "has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests." The article also alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" and "deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy" influenced a Bush administration "pro-business drive to ease regulations". In autumn 2001, the admnistration contemplated changing a regulatory portion of the Clean Air Act called "New Source Review" that required older power plants "to install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in a way that increases emissions." Energy industry officials argued that the Environmental Protection Agency had applied the program to "routine system maintenance and repair activities" and impeded "safe, reliable, and affordable electricity." The Post stated that the administration's changes instigated in August 2003 "allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls." The Vice President had previously argued that "The aim here is efficiency, not austerity" and "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

The second paragraph should mention [60] and [61]. The description of the recent Supereme Court decision is factually incorrect. It was a split 5-4 decision on technical legal grounds. The fact that the administration is currently taking action against climate change [62] should also be included as a counterpoint for the third paragraph. Revolutionaryluddite 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless this paragraph can actually be linked directly to one of the references that cover this subject directly (ie. climate change denial) - then it should go (as speculative) - since if falls somewhat outside of the articles topic. This is not a article about Exxon (or other fossile fuel companies) lobbying, to get influence. While climate change denial may be tightly coupled to lobbyism - the reverse is not the case, ie. That lobbying on a particular position on climate change issues by necessity is climate change denial. --Kim D. Petersen 13:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific - such discussions on action/non-action should in general go into Politics of global warming or Global warming controversy. It is only where we have a direct linkage (via reliable secondary sources) to climate change denial, that we should/can mention it here. Otherwise we do end up with something close to a WP:POV fork of either article. If information from either of the two articles (or others) should be provided here as background, then it should be a WP:SUMMARY of the relevant articles - and clearly marked as such. --Kim D. Petersen 13:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But it seems that this is indeed the case (that its linked) - the Rolling Stone article cites this particular concern as its first page introduction into the subject:

.... But a new investigation by Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove. An examination of thousands of pages of internal documents that the White House has been forced to relinquish under the Freedom of Information Act - as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration scientists and climate-policy officials - confirms that the White House has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.

--Kim D. Petersen 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Petersen, I don't understand at all why you think that the paragraph violates WP:NPOV. I do see your point about the questionable relevence of the 'Cheney' section in an article specifically about 'climate change denial'. Still, I think that editing the section is a much better idea than wholesale deletion. Revolutionaryluddite 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all - i wasn't saying that the paragraph or section was POV (POV-forks do not necessarily violate WP:NPOV). I was saying that: If this controversy wasn't directly linked to climate change denial - then it should be moved to the appropriate article. I've since then found that the Rolling Stone article does link it, and thus making my own complaint mute. --Kim D. Petersen 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see; I misunderstood your referance to WP:POV fork. Anyways, I've edited the section. Revolutionaryluddite 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are going the other way than I was thinking Revolutionaryluddite. What I would really like to see is the section in list form with something along the lines of:

X was accused of climate denialism (or whatever term we're calling it) by Y for his involvement/role/comments in Z situation.

We don't really have anything good right now, its all just innuendo and not completely on topic. For example:

Rolling Stone has speculated that Dick Cheney has promoted climate denialism due to his 2000 Energy Task Force which favored energy companies over environmental group's concerns.

Or something along those lines with maybe another sentence of details and leave it at that (yes I know I broke my own format suggestion, but thats the best I could come up with quickly, right now I'd say at least 50% of the stuff in the entire section is off topic. It should be clear that the person was alleged of this and then detail when or how it came about, it shouldn't take 4 paragraphs of innuendo that don't really do a good job of spelling stuff out. --Theblog 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Invoking the C option

The proposed sentence in Ben Hocking's sandbox "Several Op-Ed commentators have made the comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial,[6][7][8][9][10] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[1][2][3][4][5]" makes more sense compared to the sources than the current wording. Revolutionaryluddite 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "Several Op-Ed commentators and environmental activists have equated 'climate denial' and 'climate denialism' with 'holocaust denial', [6][7][8][9][10] whereas others have decried those comparisons as hyperbolic and inappropriate. [1][2][3][4][5]" Revolutionaryluddite 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the section. Revolutionaryluddite 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Users

Has user 'Childhoodsend' been blocked from editing this article? If so, why exactly? Also, how does Wikipedia's blocking-of and removal-of process work? I ask because, honestly, I'm paranoid about being removed myself. Revolutionaryluddite 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that i know of. And don't be paranoid :-) --Kim D. Petersen 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been barred from editing two Wikipedia pages already-- Denialism and Category:Denialism. I admit that I do have feelings of 'sour grapes'. Logically speaking, though, I don't understand why a user that's barred from one or more pages can still edit other pages. After all: falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. If a user is grossly incompetent or deliberately malicious, why give them the opportunity to damage other pages? Revolutionaryluddite 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (To be clear, I'm not angry about being barred, more like frustrated-- I am human after all. I must also admit that I made some rather stupid mistakes.)

I have numbered two headings that were identical in name "Effect of climate change denial" since it seemed to be screwing things up. 4.246.206.127 00:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more confusing for me now. Revolutionaryluddite 02:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have been barred from editing any article. There are very few mechanisms for this - little short of an ArbCom decision. And no, CE has not been blocked, either, as you can see here. Blocking is a technical measure. It stops users from editing anything but their own user talk page. See WP:BLOCK. It is, currently, an all-or-nothing option. A ban is by community consensus or ArbCom. It can in principle been very finely tuned. In practice, it's usually either for a small set of articles, or for Wikipedia in total. It has no technical implementation, but may be enforced by blocks. There is no reason to be paranoid. --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay; after reviewing the pages I see the differance between WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Revolutionaryluddite 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, I chose to stop my participation to this article (although I did participate to Ben Hocking's sandbox) but Raul654 and others did try to have me banned. I still maintain that as long as this article will attempt to present 'climate change denial' as something that is true or factual rather than some theory, I think it is hoplessly POVed. I also think that it looks bad on those supportive of this kind of news, what suits me fine, but it also looks bad on Wikipedia, what is quite unfortunate. When an article needs to start off with words like "are believed to be acting out of vested interests", "usually refers to" or "alleged to be promoted and funded by", you cannot ignore that you're walking into speculation territory, but I felt quite alone in my camp, like some mere contrarian, and thus decided to leave this article to its promoters. --Childhood's End 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone, my friend. Zoomwsu 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if you are skeptical about "climate change denial"--funny that those who are skeptical about climate change deny there is denial--that doesn't mean it's not notable, as evinced by countless articles and the use of the phrase in various discourses, and it certainly doesn't make it POV. What's interesting about your above objections is that the language you criticize is carefully phrased to avoid asserting there is no room for skepticism (even though, given the sources, I'm nt sure what you base your skepticism upon--but that's another conversation). What's been troubling about the debates--particularly surrounding the early days of this entry--is how certain editors have conflated their personal beliefs with arguments against notability and assertions of POV. Anyway, I never supported banning you, as you seem to abide by concensus, ultimately.Benzocane 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: "funny that those who are skeptical about climate change deny there is denial" — I don't think it's odd at all. If you think that the consensus of scientists are wrong about global warming or if you think that consensus is invented, then it makes perfect sense to believe that there is no denial. If the scientific consensus were that the Earth were flat, then you'd have a hard time seeing denial in the idea that it were round — even if that POV were being mostly advocated by people who had something to gain from that idea. Now, don't get me wrong — I don't think the consensus of scientists are wrong about global warming (and I do think there is such a consensus), but to deny denial when you are skeptical about such things seems logically consistent and not odd at all. (OTOH, it's also possible to be skeptical and realize that some fossil fuel companies are spending a lot of money in fighting the consensus.)

I think this is an important point in trying to assume good faith. There are people posting here who (to us) seem quite out of touch with reality and as if they have been manipulated by the denialism campaign. However, I think that most of these people genuinely believe what they claim to believe — and some of them are even open to changing those beliefs when exposed to new evidence. That doesn't mean that we should allow them to distort Wikipedia to reflect their own beliefs (AKA POV), but it does mean that we should remember that they are humans, too. If they make an edit that we disagree with, we should tell them why we disagree with it (which might be by simply pointing them to a prior conversation on it) and not simply revert it — although the telling them why might coincide with such a reversion, depending on the case. (Note: I am definitely not claiming that you, Benzocane, have been guilty of assuming bad faith. This second paragraph is not directed at you, but at some of the behaviors I've witnessed in general.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree with you about AGF. But the problem I've had with the denial of denial is that it has primarily come from a gut feeling, not sources. As you'll recall, it required an immense amount of energy to protect this article from editors who simply claimed every one of its sources was biased because they didn't agree with the content of those sources. I believe these editors believe what they claim, but the beliefs of particular editors should not determine Wikipedia content--notable facts from credible sources should always carry the day.Benzocane 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am again flaggerbasted by such POV-based arrogance ("it required an immense amount of energy to protect this article from editors who simply claimed every one of its sources was biased because they didn't agree with the content of those sources"). I did not "disagree with the content of those sources" as you put it (disinformation anyone?). I said that I disagree with an article that is based on the assumption that global warming is a fact rather than a theory, something that even the IPCC would not say. I also said that I disagree with the creation of an encyclopedic article about a topic which exists almost exclusively within partisan sources. This point has not been accepted, and I then pointed out that this article has POV problems due to the fact that it implies that many claims it makes are verified facts rather than speculation, especially with regard to other people's intentions. That's about it, but hey, you're free to believe what you want. --Childhood's End 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

White wash attempt again

I see that the recent changes to the intro removed any mention of Climate change denial being a form of denialism, which it is. In fact, it's one of the most notable forms of denialism currenty. Not only did the changes move mention of denialism out of the intro but out of the article altogether, reducing it a link in the See Also section. That simply will not do. The same changes also implied that the only climate change denialists were in industry, whereas in actuality governments and individuals are as well. Any accurate and complete article on the topic of Climate change denial is going to need to reference the aspect of denialism front and center. We've had trouble with OR and misrepresenting sources at the denialsim article from editor who made these changes to the article, so we're going to need to carefully review changes are made for accuracy and pov in the future. Odd nature 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature - its not white wash. Its keeping within the constraints of what the reliable sources (several) say. You may have a different opinion - and think that this is broader than this - but then you will have to come up with the equally reliable sources that make the specific connection/widening of the subject that you think is correct (and from what i've glanced at references in denialism - that will take quite a bit of work). --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming Climate change denial is not a form of denialism? I've read the sources. Have you? Odd nature 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - i've read the sources. I've also noted that most of them are primary sources, Op-Ed's and self published sources. As a side-note: i would probably vote delete if an AfD came up about the denialism article as it currently stands, based on the article having no secondary sources to define the subject - and link the subjects. It seems to me to be WP:OR based upon a common word "denial". --Kim D. Petersen 06:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs needed

Citations needed for the following two claims:

• the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy
• 'climate change denial' usually refers to willful denialism

They are not supported by the four citations at the end of the intro. Iceage77 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the sources at Denialism and then read WP:NPOV Making necessary assumptions and tell us again that they are unsupported. Odd nature 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy: The section used to say "terms 'climate skeptic' and 'cimate contrarian'", and I changed it when reliable sources were presented indicating that the term 'contrarian' may have ambiguous meaning. I changed the inaccurate, POV-worded phrase "'climate change denial' usually refers to willful denialism" to "it has been accused of being a form of denialism". It has been by columists like this one [63] although none of the sources currently cited in the sentence right now does that. At the same time, I'm mindful of 'synthesis' and 'undue weight' here. I don't think the fact that some political activists have accused 'climate change denial' of being 'denialism just like holocaust denial' is particularly notable in the context of this article (It's important in the context of the denialism article). I think that the article as it is right now is a reasonable compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

POV: environmental propaganda

I've returned POV. This article is absolutely outrageous POV. It is like written from the servers of an ecoterrorist movement. All comments in this text are plain lies. It is neither true that the oil corporations fund people who are called in this way nor it is true that it would matter.

This article should honestly explain that the term "climate denier" is used by radical environmental activists to insult honest but inconvenient people, including scientists, by associating them with holocaust denial. Everything else is absolutely unacceptable at Wikipedia and contradicts every single rule of this encyclopedia. --Lumidek 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Iceage77 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Sounds like an opinion to me. Have a neutral, reliable source for that? Odd nature 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you replaced an intro that was accurate and neutral and supported by 4 significant and neutral sources with one that was neither neutral nor sourced:

Climate change denial is a special term for the scientific approach to the questions about the so-called global warming. The term replacing the previous term global warming skeptic was invented by the ecoterrorist movement in order create connotations with the Holocaust denial.

Then you slapped a POV tag on the article when your changes removed. Your intro read like a personal opinion. Do you even have a single reliable and neutral source to attribute it to? Because if not, your use of the POV tag is completely unwarranted. Odd nature 20:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ecoterrorist--that's a new low. This article has already been vetted by the community. It's sources are unchallenged. It easily beat back an attempt at deletion. Please prove this assertion prior to altering the body of the text: "All comments in this text are plain lies." Iceage, although we've never agreed about these issues, I'm surprised to see you "couldn't agree more" with such an irresponsible post. I thought you respected Wikipedia process more than that!Benzocane 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on Lumidek, you are ignoring all the talk and work that has gone into this. If you think it is POV, substantiate your claims with sources that provide new information or challenge the current sources! Simply adding the POV tag without evidence or real argument is, well, POV. SlipperyN 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I qualify as an eco-terrorist then. I'll have to trade in my Armani suits and italian loafers for cargo shorts and birkenstocks. Gotta love these name-callers. In lieu of facts, call 'em a name. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean like "climate change deniers"? Iceage77 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Voilà... --Childhood's End 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(new indent)

Lumidek,

Wikipedians have steadily and cooperatively raised the standard of debate here by refocusing discussion, time and again, on the relationship between claim and evidence. If we've achieved consensus on one thing, it's that the encyclopedia is founded on reliable, published sources. You're of course welcome to express your opinion here on the talk page without backing up your claims--those directly at odds with the article's own abundantly sourced claims would include:

• This article is absolutely outrageous POV.
• It is like written from the servers of an ecoterrorist movement.
• All comments in this text are plain lies.
• It is neither true that the oil corporations fund people who are called in this way nor it is true that it would matter.

But please don't act on any of these opinions until you can bring reliable, published evidence to bear against material that has already withstood increasingly rigorous, as I said, debate. Cyrusc 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lumidek's POV tag is entirely unwarranted. This article has been extensively debated and amended by the community, as Lumidek could see if s/he bothered to consult the documentation on this talk page. The sources cited in the article are reputable, the claims notable, and the article as a whole meets encyclopedic standards. Unless Lumidek can supply reputable NPOV sources for his/her claims on this talk page, we are forced to view his/her actions not simply as POV, but as plain vandalism. Sea.wolf4 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Op-Ed commentators"

This passage "Several Op-Ed commentators have argued that the 'denier' and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial.^{[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]}" contained 7 sources allegedly supporting the intent to equate the former with the latter to its detriment. A careful reading of those source though reveals that all of the sources but two are being misused. Only one of the sources given, that of British conservative commentator Richard D. North[64], makes the claim on it's own that the term is intended to equate the two concepts in order to tar climate change denialists with the holocaust denial brush. Brendan O’Neill's article directly relies upon North for the issue: [65] Ellen Goodman makes the connection, but is mute on intent, [66]. While Dennis Prager's article [67] is in response to Goodman's article but does not claim that "and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial." This source [68] added nothing new, and this one [69] was not even related. Again, these were inserted by the same editor we've had issues with misrepresenting sources at Denialism before, so more of the same. I've fixed the issue by attributing the views and placing them in the order they were made to preserve the statement/response relationships and removing the last two mentioned above. Odd nature 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed (and fixed) at least once before. I'm not sure how this version got back in there. See version C in my sandbox for a sourced version where the sentence agrees with the sources. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The current content is a marked improvement over that. Your version in your sandbox fails to properly attribute the views to their holders or keep them in the order they were made to preserve the statement/response relationships and still gives undue weight to the view the term is nothing more than a smear. I can't support your version at all. Odd nature 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It attributes them in the best way possible without giving undue weight, IMO. Naming each contributor is unnecessary. Also, this was arrived at after at least a modicum of consensus. I don't think it should be removed without the same. I don't really feel that strongly about it, as I agree that most people aren't using it that way. However, our POV that the term is not meant to conjure images of the holocaust is just that — a POV, and one unsupported by any reliable sources, as far as I can tell. You also seem to be making a false attribution in your statement when you say "nothing more than a smear". To say that the term is meant to be a smear is not the same as saying it is nothing more than a smear. Do you honestly believe that the commentators who are saying that those who deny AGW are similar to those who deny the holocaust want you to believe that they're using this as only a smear?!? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Attributing the views to who published them is central to understanding the notability and significance of each. In that respect alone odd nature's edits are a substantial improvement over both what was previously in the article and what you proposed for all the reasons he mentioned and one more: WP:UNDUE Your version gives undue weight to a minority view. Your version puts the partisan rhetoric of conservative radio pundit Dennis Prager on par with the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. That will never fly. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this again - i do not like the B/C version particularly either (see earlier discussions), but accept that there seems to be a consensus about either of those (or at least mentioning). I haven't yet in this seen an argument that addresses the WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR problems that we've discussed earlier, about such a section. --Kim D. Petersen 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus never trumps NPOV, of which Undue Weight is a central value. Your version clearly violates Undue Weight because it give the views of conservative pundits Dennis Prager and Richard D. North more weight than that of the scientiifc community as described by pulitzer winning journalist Ellen Goodman. There. How's that? Care to rebut? FeloniousMonk 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but Goodman is not an expert on climate change issues - and all of these are opinions of single persons. The question on WP:Undue_weight is not on who we focus, but rather whether all of these individual opinions are significant enough to get weight. What you are saying is that the opinion of Goodman is worth more than the opinion of Prager and North, which may be possible, but is serious POV. I'll state what i've said before: Unless we have a reliable secondary source that makes this connection, and expands upon it - we are in the area of original research, by taking opinions of individuals and make conclusions from it. --Kim D. Petersen 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's a straw man you're ripping apart. Per WP:RS and WP:V Goodman doesn't need to be an "expert on climate change issues", as a journalist she only needs to accurately reflect the current scientific consensus, which she does, and which no one has offered any evidence that her article is out of step with. Odd nature 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And exactly how do you conclude that Goodman views on denial and holocaust accurately reflect the current scientific consensus? (Hint: the scientific consensus has nothing to do with whether or not the phrase "climate change denial" is connected to "holocaust denial"). --Kim D. Petersen 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Feh. You're either intentionally ignoring the obvious point or just plum missed it altogether. In either case, the essential fact is that Goodman spends the preceding paragraph covering the level of scientific consensus for the human role in global warming. [70] Meaning the issue at hand is the degree to which climate change denialists ignore evidence, not that they are being tainted with guilt by association, which is the spin your little group here has been trying to make. Odd nature 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Goodman's correct information on one thing - doesn't make everything she says kosher or making her opinion worth more. You are simply applying your own opinion and POV here. Goodman's article is opinion (its an Op-Ed what did you think?). Finally - please tone down your incivility, attacking the editor is not civil. (incidentally i suspect that i'm mostly seen as being in "your little group", not in the "other little group"...). --Kim D. Petersen 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you'd agree that the views of partisan pundits shouldn't be given the same weight as nonpartisan journalists? So, unless you have some evidence from someone other than a partisan pundit that Goodman is a partisan source, please explain to us all how is it that an opinion of a nonpartisan journalist like Goodman's that reflects the majority view (scientific consensus on cause of global warming) actually weighs the same as the minority view (naysayers of the scientific consensus on cause of global warming) such as Prager's, et al, who are partisan pundits? While your at it, please explain to us why the two views should not be attributed to their holders. Odd nature 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your argument fails when you call Goodman "non-partisan" - she is not acting in her capacity as a journalist here - she is acting here as an opinion writer, stating her own POV. Please read up on what an Op-Ed is and the difference between these and Journalism. --Kim D. Petersen 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am a journalist, and writing op-ed falls squarely within the bounds of traditional journalism, silly. Do you have any evidence that Goodman is partisan other than your personal opinion of what journalist do? Because without a notable and neutral source that she is as partisan as Prager, your opinion carries no water here. Odd nature 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Your version puts the partisan rhetoric of conservative radio pundit Dennis Prager on par with the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist." Yet, putting climate change denial and holocaust denial in the same category (denialism) is fine by you? My response to your assertion is the same as my response to assertions that the categorization is unfair: putting two things in the same sentence/category is not the same as saying they're "on par". (E.g., both George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler are in the category Time magazine Persons of the Year.) Just to be clear about something (that I think was lost in the previous discussion about this), I'm not thrilled with the assertion, either. We initially had version A (well, we initially had nada, but I assume you know what I mean), which satisfies your complaint about attribution (as I understand it), but results in increased weight. Then we had "B" which combined those making the comparison with those complaining about the comparison. I think version "C" has been fairly stable and uncontentious. It's a single sentence that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources. I find it hard to argue that a single sentence in a fairly large article is undue weight. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your comment about Ellen Goodman being a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist seems at odd with your assertion that this single sentence represents undue weight. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" So finally, comparing global warming deniers to holocaust deniers is a reasoned analysis. And even more reasoned I suppose is that Ellen Goodman, a non-scientist, actually asserted that global warming is impossible to deny (as if she knew for sure...). --Childhood's End 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of available credible evidence will always carry more weight than opinion. In this case that evidence being relied upon by Goodman being the consensus of the scientific community. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear — although CE might or might not believe that Goodman's POV reflects consensus, that is not at all what is currently stated in the article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your version that has been added to the article still misrepresents sources, using them to support statements which they do not, and violates NPOV/Undue Weight by giving equal weight to the views of conservative pundits in relation to the consensus of the scientific community. As FM said, that will never fly. I'll have to fix it. Odd nature 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's primarily a matter of 'weight' given that the specific section is more or less a logical 'synthesis' based on several varied sources. I agree with Petersen that the sentence probably should not be in the article, but- in the spirit of compromise- the current phrasing Several commentators have made the comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial, [12][12][13][5][14][15] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[16][17][18][19][20] is best. Odd nature, do you have exact sourcing indicating that climate scientists themselves have made the 'climate denial' = 'holocaust denial' connection? Just among left-wing political activists, how many believe the connection exists and how many do not? Revolutionaryluddite 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a compromise. Unfortunately you're giving equal weight to partisan pundits like Prager and nonpartisan journalists like Goodman alike. Anything so flawed will be recognized for what it is by others and fixed eventually. Odd nature 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a compromise. Well, You Can't Always Get What You Want. Revolutionaryluddite 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me an example, because I'm not seeing where I've misrepresented sources. As for weight, I thought the primary claim by "our side" (once again, I'm going to point out that we're on the same side on this debate in general) was that there were actually more conservative pundits claiming that the comparison was being made than there were supporters of the scientific consensus actually making the comparison. Most of us on "our side" at least have made that claim. Do you disagree with that? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed in my first post that starts this section are the problems with the sources and how they are used, and they're still used in the article in the same manner the net effect is that nothing has changed. Odd nature 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to spell it out for me (us, whatever) explicitly, article by article, why the sources do not support the statement they're linked to. I don't understand what your talking about. Your essential arguement seems to be that left-wing ideological Op-Ed columns are somewhow "non-partisan" while libertarian and/or conservative ideological Op-Ed columns are "partisan". Incidentally, I am completely "on your side" as you have put it if you consider yourself to be a 'climate change believer'. Revolutionaryluddite 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you won't find a shortage of editors willing to do that, given your record. FeloniousMonk 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would respond to your post, but it has no logical connection with what I just typed. So... What exactly is your definition of 'partisanship'? Revolutionaryluddite 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Goodman

[rm per NPA William M. Connolley 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)] I prefer to be positive and explain where the term actually comes from - something that this long slanderous article doesn't even mention.

Climate change denial was actually coined by Ellen Goodman, a journalist in the Boston Globe [71]

She wrote: I 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.

The intent was to put climate skeptics on par with holocaust deniers, and every single person who has used the term "denier" meant the very same thing. It is also a lie that the people who are labeled in this way are supposed to have moral flaws or anything like that. The term is being used for all climate skeptics, see e.g. this NBC video linked here [72]

[rm per NPA William M. Connolley 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)] --Lumidek 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment to free speech. But anyways, you are wrong. The Goodman article is from February 9th, 2007. This Guardian article[73] uses the term (in the headline, no less) on January 27th, 2005. Even quantum loops should not cause such a distortion of the time/space continuum. Here[74] is another one from 2006, which references the Royal Society letter to Exxon[75], which also talks about "denial", although it does not use the exact term "Climate change denial". Or what about George Monbiot's 2005 comment on Bellamy?[76]? "Climate change denial, as David Bellamy’s claims show, is based on pure hocus pocus". Several of these sources are already in the article. And, BTW, none of them suggests any analogy with Holocaust denial. It's ok to have strongly-held opinions and argue them passionately. But especially for a scientist, it is not acceptable to ignore facts. --Stephan Schulz 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The earliest reference uncovered so far is this 2001 op-ed piece by George Marshall. Whether his intent was to equate it to holocaust denial, he does essentially compare it:

Firstly, we can expect widespread denial when the enormity and nature of the problem are so unprecedented that people have no cultural mechanisms for accepting them. In Beyond Judgment, Primo Levi, seeking to explain the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination, quotes an old German adage: ‘Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.’

In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity. Indeed, the most powerful evidence of our denial is the failure to even recognize that there is a moral dimension with identifiable perpetrators and victims. The language of ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘human impacts’, and ‘adaptation’ are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse; they are scientific euphemisms that suggest that climate change originates in immutable natural forces rather than in a direct causal relationship with moral implications for the perpetrator.

We don't necessarily know this is the earliest use of the term, and I'm quite certain that many notable people who use this term are not trying to make any such comparison, the term and the comparison appear to be about the same age. It should also be pointed out that George Marshall, in addition to being a conservationist, is also a co-founder of the American Jewish Committee. One could actually take that two different ways, depending on your bias: (1) He was merely drawing a comparison to something he was familiar with, and if he was trying to equate them he would have done so, or (2) He is very familiar with Holocaust denial and feels so strongly about Climate Change denial that he was still willing to make the comparison. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it that you can know her intent? FeloniousMonk 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Common sense? --Childhood's End 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...usually isn't. --Stephan Schulz 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, troll much? Odd nature 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, when she says "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers", it's not much of a stretch to say that her intent "was to put climate [denialists] on par with holocaust deniers". However, the rest of that sentence "and every single person who has used the term "denier" meant the very same thing" is patently false. (I say that as someone who has used the term and not meant the very same thing). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And what is meant by was "put climate [denialists] on par with holocaust deniers" would be ambiguous were it not for the fact that Goodman spend the preceding paragraph covering the level of scientific consensus for the human role in global warming. [77] Meaning the issue at hand is the degree to which climate change denialists ignore evidence, not that they are being tainted with guilt by association, which is the implication your group has been trying to stretch the source to fit (unsuccessfully). Odd nature 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, you mean the part where she says that "The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get." Funny how a statement that sounds to me so unscientific is brandished by global warming science supporters. Unless we should all know that there's a good 10% uncertainty with regard to gravity, evolution, AIDS and these things? Perhaps you should reconsider your view that this statement by Goodman really supports what you claim she meant instead of what Lumidek suggests... --Childhood's End 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then go edit Scientific opinion on climate change and scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is what it is, or at least what the sources say it is from the Wikipedia editor perspective. Odd nature 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an Op-Ed column, not Chaucer. There's no literary meanings, interpretations. Goodman states that "I 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" after reviewing the IPCC process and the consensus. She believes that 'Global warming is real', 'The fact that global warming is real is now so obvious as to impossible to deny', and 'It's so obvious that, in fact, people who dispute the IPCC's methodology and conclusions have the same kind of mental seperation with reality that holocaust deniers do'. As shown before on this talk page and in the article itself, the term 'climate change denial' has been used many times without mention of 'holocaust denial'. Of course, 'climate change denial' is still a pejorative neologism based on media allegations- allegations with substance, but still just allegations- and the article represents it as such. Revolutionaryluddite 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's "pejorative neologism" is another's apt description. That it's a pejorative neologism is itself a viewpoint. It comes down to attributing views and giving them due weight based on their credibility and prominence, something the policies require and we'll need to be very careful about moving forward apparently. Odd nature 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's "pejorative neologism" is another's apt description. What makes you think I disagree? That it's a pejorative neologism is itself a viewpoint. I just typed that this page is based upon "media allegations- allegations with substance, but still just allegations- and the article represents it as such." I've posted repeatedly that I object to the inclusion of this section because I think that it violates (or comes close to violating) 'undue weight' and 'synthesis' policies. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(A) Odd nature, I've gone to great lengths to point out that this is not "my group". Either you're not reading what I'm writing or you don't believe me — I don't know which. I don't like the claim that the term "climate change denial" is meant to equate to "holocaust denial" any more than you do. However, I do believe in following Wikipedia policy, and I've explained how and why I am interpreting the policy the way I'm interpreting it. (B) It sounds like your complaint is one of ambiguity. How do you think the current sentence gives a false sense of what she's saying, and do you have any suggestions for improving it other than deleting it? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"However, I do believe in following Wikipedia policy..." As if I don't believe in following Wikipedia policy. Poison the well often? I simply do not agree with your interpretation of policy, and neither do several admins here and elsewhere, so I'm comfortable standing my ground. I've seen some clearly specious arguments and claims made around these topics, but I'm not going to force the issue. I'll continue to respect consensus, such as it is, and bide my time until the winds shift. Odd nature 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does this "in my group"/"in your group" stuff come from? Most of the editors here explicitly believe in global warming. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The "However" was meant as a contrast to the fact that the statements don't support my position and not as a contrast to your beliefs, Odd nature. I realize (now) that the comment could be taken the way you took it, however, and I apologize for not being more careful in choosing my words. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Introducing denialism in the introduction

I object to the article's introduction with regard to how it introduces the idea of "denialism". No connection with "climate change denial" and "denialism" seems to be made by any source so far, and the Christoff article makes no reference to the so-concept of "denialism" (a web/newspaper buzzword). I can easily see why some people want this article linked with the other, but WP:OR should prevail, or so I hope. --Childhood's End 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For once i agree ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. As far as the Christoff article goes, it seems to describe 'denialism' as an ideology although it never mentions the exact word 'denialism'. Assuming that, which is WP:OR or close to it, the article still has undue weight. I think that the sentence should not be included, but I also think that moving the sentence next to the 'holocuast denial' sentences (or single compound sentence, whatever) would be a reasonable compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than some weasel words, the intro is reasonably accurate and well sourced. Odd nature 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What weasel words? Also, the statement that 'climate change denial' has been linked to 'denialism' in the abstract sense doesn't have specific sourcing-- as I've pointed out. Revolutionaryluddite 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite, I see you've moved the sentence from the intro to another section. However, I still disagree that this sentence ought to be kept. As I mentioned, neither the Christoff article, nor any other source, seems to make the link between "climate change denial" and "denialism". Pending such a link is made, I think that this sentence should be removed. --Childhood's End 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should be removed since there's no specific soucing, but the page as it is right now is a good compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There can hardly be a good compromise that does not comply with WP:OR... ;) I'll remove the sentence. --Childhood's End 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No sources have been provided that explicitly link 'climate change denial' with 'denialism'. I moved the sentence back to the appropriate section after Oddnature reinstated it. While I really think the sentence should not be in the article becuase it violates or comes close to violating WP:OR, I recognize that "a good compromise leaves everybody mad". Revolutionaryluddite 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong sources 1,2,3,4

The introduction is POV, more precisely it is composed of lies, and the sources 1,2,3,4 that are used to support the outrageous attacks against climate skeptics mentioned in the introduction are not at the level that would be tolerable by the Wikipedian standards [removed per NPA William M. Connolley 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)] POV returned. --Lumidek 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd watch your language there Lumidek, that's not very helpful or constructive. Regarding climate skeptics, the introduction makes a very clear distinction between them and climate denialists (i.e. they are not the same). Are you suggesting that all ostensible "climate skeptics" really are climate skeptics, and there is no such thing as a climate denialist? Or am I missing something? Cheers, --Plumbago 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded William M. Connolley 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Plumbago and William M. Connolley. Lumidek's changes to this page have from the beginning flirted with vandalism. See Cyrusc's very measured post above requesting encyclopedic sourcing and argumentation in the face of Lumidek's rhetoric (""it is composed of lies," etc.).Benzocane 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction seems like the most concise and NPOV section of the article, especially compared to the "Alleged instances of climate change denial" section. The introduction used phrases like "when those involved are believed to", "While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions", "'climate change denial' usually refers to", and "campaigns alleged to be" to make it clear that the existence of 'climate change denial' is based on allegations made by specific reliable sources. Revolutionaryluddite 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We're going to need to review all the sources to ensure that they support the content forward. We've already found significant issues with sources being misused to support content they do not, so I'm reading each and every one against the content its intended to support. Any that do not will be moved from the article to here for discussion. Odd nature 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete entire sentences and paragraphs wholesale without giving detailed explanations on the talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

References

The References section needs editing for clarity, text size, proper attribution of dates, and several other things. Revolutionaryluddite 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)