Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 22

Globalise

As an example of how parochial this article is see the section called "Instances of climate change denial" the subheading is "Public sector" but what it encapsulates is "American public sector". The whole art article seems to be an internal US debate with a couple of lines thrown in from the UK. There is nothing in this article about the position of the rest of the G20 countries or none US multinationals, and the internal debates those countries and the position of multinationals like Shell. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As with any Wikipedia article, this one is only as comprehensive as the contributing editors make it. So, please feel free to add any relevant material you think it needs.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

add Climate change deniers 'gambling the future' (Lateline)

Add Climate change deniers 'gambling the future' (Lateline) http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/07/2736006.htm?section=justin Climate change deniers 'gambling the future' (Lateline) 99.35.8.106 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a video is likely to be a good source for a new section. Suggest waiting to see if reliable print media pick up the story.--Pete Tillman (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

many more, examples Rudd wages war on Coalition climate deniers

Many more, examples Rudd wages war on Coalition climate deniers 99.35.8.106 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest adding Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action

Suggest adding Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action 99.155.156.1 (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Still absurd. If you insist on adding unrelated and anti-related categories, you should be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropedia: might be a suitable alternative outlet for this material. On Wikipedia, it is difficult to write about climate change as if the problem is as dire as scientific consensus indicates, because on Wikipedia we have a neutral point of view. In the case of climate change, that could be something like saying our Constitution actually is a suicide pact - but only if 97% of climate scientists turn out to be correct. No need to panic, however, as it is quite possible to document the reliably-sourced facts about climate change on Wikipedia without lapsing into advocacy. If you want to advocate for or against, there are plenty of other Web sites for both agendas. --Teratornis (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

evidence

Should any evidence disputing global warming not be included? It seems kind of unfair to dedicate an entire page to the effect with scientific bases, while there is also (unexplained) evidence questioning this. 78.21.38.109 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've noticed that - as many proponents of the theory do - the article also focuses on what could happen if we don't respond to the threat. These kind of scare tactics do not belong on an encyclopaedia in my opinion, at least not without a counterpart or nuance. 78.21.38.109 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting problem. The mainstream scientific assessment is that global warming is proven, but it would be fraudulent to suggest that there isn't evidence against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone claims a house is burning down, the potential effect of the fire on the occupants - if the warning is true - is relevant. We could (if we wanted to) handle this with game theory to illustrate the range of possible outcomes (there are two binary variables in four basic combinations to consider: anthropogenic global warming true or not true; preventive action taken or not taken). See also Precautionary principle. It's hard to consider individual Wikipedia articles in isolation. Wikipedia has many articles about climate change and global warming which collectively discuss a wide variety of aspects. We can't pack them all into one article. It would be nice if all the editors of each article had read all the related ones, but admittedly that is difficult. --Teratornis (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Is the U.S. News Media Failing to Do Its Job on Climate Change?

Add Is the U.S. News Media Failing to Do Its Job on Climate Change? http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmEnergy/idUS343035023720091109 Is the U.S. News Media Failing to Do Its Job on Climate Change? 99.35.8.96 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wandering opinion-piece, of marginal relevance to this article (imo). Psychological denial mentioned once and in passing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term, "bad faith" in the introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraphs represent an awkward attempt to juxtapose climate change denial and climate change skepticism. The problem with the current phrasing is that it leads one to presume the truth of the label, rather than understanding the label as conveying the intended meaning attributed by the person who assigns it. In other words, just because I call my dog a pig, does not make him a pig; it may only reflect my belief that he resembles a pig.

I would accordingly suggest the following replacement text:

global climate change. People who engage in such activities are commonly called either "climate change deniers" or "climate change skeptics," depending upon whether they are perceived to be acting in good faith. The "denier" label evokes the unflattering image of a "holocaust denier" - i.e. a person who is unreasonable, irrational or even ill-intentioned in holding to his/her belief. A "denier" is a person who disputes a state of affairs about which there is so much consensus that just making the argument appears manifestly unreasonable to people who share the consensus opinion. People or institutions who refute or dispute the proposition that human-caused global warming is real and requires immediate action will naturally find the motives for their beliefs questioned. It has been argued that individuals, associations and corporations who profit from the status quo may engage in climate change denial because it is in their narrow self interest to do so. Companies accused of engaging in, or sponsoring, climate change denial include oil and gas producers such as ExxonMobil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griwei (talk • contribs) 07:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something like that, that's much better.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather indifferent as to whether we in the first sentence say good faith or bad faith - it comes out the same way. So if that particular wording change is better, then do it. The rest of it i disagree strongly with, its written (imo) as POV. The "holocaust denier" part is certainly not significant enough to be summarized in the lede (see archives, AfD's etc). "Will naturally find" is original research, and in fact the whole of the 2nd paragraph (starting with "People and institutions" is unsupported by the references and text in the body of the article. So: 1st sentence Ok - rest: No. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that we still need citations for the good faith - bad faith assertions. Has anyone looked for these? As it stands, lede is OR -- as is the proposed substitution. I agree it's an awkward lede -- and a very problematic article. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a strange article. Why does the first paragraph suddenly swerve away from a definition of "Climate Change Denial" and into the definitions of "Climate Change Denier" and "Climate Change Skeptic". Which sentences in the first paragraph are defining "Climate Change Denial" and which are not? Is Climate Change Denial an act of good faith or bad faith? The title of this article and the entirety of the article itself smack of POV. Let's call a spade a spade. Those in control of Wikipedia, and the majority of Wikipedia editors, tend to be from the left end of the political spectrum. Therefore, all Wikipedia articles relating to global warming have a left-leaning POV taste to them. Ultimately, this cheapens Wikipedia and tarnishes its image. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this article is nothing more than using Wikipedia as a tool to disprove any kind of skepticism, because as we all know that's the way a non bias encyclopedia must be. In fact, why is there not an article about Global Warming supporters acting in bad faith?, or, why is there not an article about Climate Change Skepticism, but there is one about those who are "acting in bad faith". Even the subtitles sound bias, "Denial industry", "Possible effects of climate change denial". --58.158.139.201 (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

High-strung tone in the debate

Not criticising the well balanced article (good job everyone!) the section Denial vs. skepticism explains:

Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial,^{[8][17][18][19]} whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.^{[20][21][22][23][24]}

A fast skimming of those sources, make it appear the about 100% of the Holocaust-denial-labelers are journalists, while 30-60% (very approximately) of the anti-labelers are scientific sources. Should this be implied in the text, by inserting f.ex. "Several journalist commentators", and similar? If I were a neutral political analyser of this climate change debate — I would be very interested in learning who is who and works for whome. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me -- as is, this is an awkward & rather uninformative sentence, so it could also be expanded a bit, especially if some commentary is by notable people. WP:Be bold! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

additions to discussion

Addition to discussion "How it all ends" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And, for further detail, The American Denial of Global Warming regarding Frank Luntz and Global Warming / Climate Change ... P:GW 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube videos are rarely appropriate anywhere, and that only if claimed by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag?

This thing reads like a blog, and parallels the Global Warming controversy acrticle, only showing one side. Also we are missing a lot of cites and placing undue weight on a lot of individual statements. Agree? Carowinds (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree but good luck with that one. This page looks like a lost cause on the NPOV front.