Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 23

{{POV}}

• This article violates WP:NPOV even within its title. It adopts the position that all skeptics of AGW are engaging in denialism. meh.. if my link to Mike's nature trick was summarily deleted as "malicious", then any sane view of NPOV would agree that this page should be moved to a new name. • Ling.Nut 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that parts of this article, particularly the lead section, are very poorly written, but I don't think it's correct to say that it "adopts the position that all skeptics of AGW are engaging in denialism" Although it's somewhat vague about it, the article seeks to distinguish between skepticism and denial. To wit: "The term "Climate change denier" is often used to refer to people acting in bad faith;[citation needed] the term "climate sceptic" generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on the global warming controversy."

However this is after the opening statement: "Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change." I think perhaps the words "through dishonest means" are missing. --TS 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. First, the article needs a lot of rewriting. But save that for later... why do we title it "denialism" if it is intended to discuss both "denialism" (which is a patently POV term) and "skepticism" which is far more neutral? I see a page move (or a merge...) in this article's future, if its goals are thus. • Ling.Nut 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because "skepticism" and "denialism" are two different things (except when they aren't - as in this case, where denialists label themselves skeptics). Skepticism accepts the facts, questions the conclusions; denialism denies the facts, or makes up its own. Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"or makes up its own..." as the CRU folks did. I would also add a third category: "Skepticism wants proof of the alleged facts before accepting them..."... But even though you may be drawing a distinction between denialism and skepticism, this article seems to be about both. If it's about both, it's mistitled; if it's about denialism only, it's POV. So you see our dilemma: delete, rename, or merge? [probably into Global warming controversy ]• Ling.Nut 05:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"[A]s the CRU folks did"? What are you talking about? Where did the CRU folks use made up data? Which publications or reports? I trust you have sources - I know you're not the kind of person who makes unsubstantiated claims of academic misconduct. Could you point me towards them?

And no, I don't see where the article is conflating the two - on the contrary it discusses the difference. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Meh, I just tossed CRU in to establish that you do not have the moral (or academic) high ground. We'll never know if they added data; they modified it and deleted the raw data. Do you trust them? Science should never, ever be required to ask that question: results should always and everywhere be verifiable. But since their results are not verifiable, it most certainly does now resolve into a matter of trust... But... I don't wanna enter that fever swamp of a debate until later. My point, however stands, and you in fact just verified it: the page is misnamed, at the very least. It is also POV, since denialism is not even an issue... There's no such thing as a Holocaust skeptic; the Holocaust is established fact. Likewise, there's no such thing as an AGW denier; AGW is emphatically not established fact. • Ling.Nut 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So the only thing separating skeptics and deniers is whether you agree with them? I can just imagine Holocaust deniers saying "there's no such thing as a Holocaust denier; the Holocaust is emphatically not established fact". The supporting evidence behind global warming at the moment is getting very close to pushing the disbelievers into "denialism" and slanderous accusations of academic misconduct well and truly push them all the way. StuartH (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that AGW is as incontestable as the Holocaust? Really? ATren (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are people talking about the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ here? Its rather off-topic isn't it? Unless of course that somehow the CRU are climate change deniers? Can we stick to the article at hand?

Please see the AfD for answers to a lot of the questions raised so far, it would also be of value to look through the archived discussions.

We describe climate change denial here as it is described in reliable sources (and there are quite a few). As for "sceptics" being labelled "deniers", please read the lede (and the body), where it is made rather clear that this isn't the case:

The term "Climate change denier" is often used to refer to people acting in bad faith; the term "climate sceptic" generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on the global warming controversy

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Kim's reminders to stay on topic and consult the AfD and archives. Wikipedia isn't the place to debate climate change (or the Holocaust, or whether HIV causes AIDS) or whether the term "denial" is appropriate. Reliable sources use the term; if it's defined and used correctly, there's no issue. This is an encyclopaedia. Hurt feelings don't justify slapping POV tags and rehashing old debates repeatedly on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, again perhaps intentionally. This article should be deleted (unlikely) page moved (better, but not the best answer) or merged (best). If it is about both "denialism" and skepticism, it is mistitled. If it is about "denialism" it is pure POV. • Ling.Nut 03:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you're making specific accusations of professional misconduct against living (and identifiable) people. Not only are your accusations inappropriate for this page, they also strike me as a violation of our BLP policy. At the very least, you need to provide reliable sources to support your accusation. As you well know. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am once again including the POV tage, per this exact discussion. Guettarda should not have removed it if you can clearly see this.--Zeeboid (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no discussion of the topic here. I see a simple, unsupported assertion, I see some unsupported accusations of professional misconduct made against living people, in violation of our BLP policy. But no case is made, let alone discussed. Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, as requested below, please made a case for your Merge tag. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede still has problems, needs cites

Is anyone going to deal with this? If not, I'll start deleting the uncited statements, which appear to be WP:original research. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced statement and changed the opening sentence to emphasize that denial is about dishonest means. There are examples in the article. --TS 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking for the "dishonest" cites you mention, and get the familiar sinking feeling when I review the Sharon Begley Newsweek piece, which is a key cite for this article -- nine uses!. To me, it looks like advocacy masquerading as journalism. What do you think?

We could still use Oreskes, who's reputable, if also a bit prone to histrionics (imo). Better if we got a direct cite. Anyone have it handy? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

progress report

• Progress = none, of course. This page is watched by a POV group. The only way forward is a careful line-by-line analysis of the article. That will take a very long time and I am very, very busy. The Merge and POV have little hope of standing long.
• I was just 3RR warned for the first time in three-plus years; congrats gang. Good work.
• Here's another one I will delete later: "Several think tanks funded by...". Again, this does not pass the "so what?" test. Guilt by association is hardly good encyclopedia writing. Feel free to delete it yourselves; I'll have to wait a while.
• Also, your poll data is really outdated. It could use some newer data. • Ling.Nut 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking about this last night, and came to two conclusions: First, focusing solely on this article is not the way to go. I need to go back to square one and add academic rigor (if possible) to global warming and denialism. [Don't tell me GW is FA and is therefore academically rigorous; the FA star does not even come within discus-throwing distance of establishing an article as "academically rigorous."]. Second, your system of defending this Wikipedia page (notice I didn't say "article") is completely airtight, because you hold control over all of the definitions. Join any high school debate team and they'll tell you, if you own the definitions, you own the debate. And the problem here is this: you define anyone who disagrees with AGW as a "denialist"; and you define everyone who agrees with you as an "expert." Done! The page is impregnable. Take forex the quote by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. Using her comments as supporting evidence of the page's (not "article's) thesis is a flagrant act of POV that proves this page (not "article") is an op-ed piece from start to end. Barbara Boxer is a politician. Every bit of power, money and prestige she has comes from her ability to do one thing and thing only: to characterize herself as a noble public servant, and stereotype her opponents as villains, buffoons or both. Even more — and this is important — Barabara Boxer is not a run-of-the-mill politician. It would be nearly impossible to find someone more unwaveringly partisan than she is. In short, the Boxer quote is another bit that does not come close to passing the "so what?" test. I intend to delete that one sometime soon too. I also wonder whether I should give one of those damn wikicookie templates as a thank-you to the editors who revert me, every time they do so. Or maybe a barnstar? I dunno; some token of gratitude or other. • Ling.Nut 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Awwww! Mr Nut is not happy. . Looking at the number of edits you've done, you really should not need to be told to review the concept of consensus. Stamping your little feet in frustration because you can't get your way is not going to change consensus. And your edits above make me suspect that you're reverting to verbose Talk page edits in an attempt to out-talk the opposing editors. That will not work. As for your idea of templating other editors, remember don't template the regulars. Also, please learn not to characterise other editors as a "gang" or "tag team" working to insert "POV" edits into wikipedia. You're approaching a position of disruptive editing. Bottom line: climate change denial exists, and is apparent in the press every day. The costs of any form of carbon emissions control will be enormous, so the forces trying to stop it are likewise, enormous. Given what happened with tobacco, it would be naive in the extreme to assume the opposite, and indeed, companies like Exxon have been caught red-handed, funding denialism. You also seem to want to take issue with the very existence of GW. Is that true? Because if it is, you're going to get very short shrift from us. ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel: Try to focus. Focus on the article. Focus on my comments on the article. • Ling.Nut 05:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ExxonSecrets.org

I came across this website, and it provides an interesting background to this page, and possible material for inclusion:

www.exxonsecrets.org Comments? ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible background, and if it points to reliable sources, those could be used. I can't imagine this being considered a reliable source except as to Greenpeace's policies and beliefs. Greenpeace cannot possibly be considered a reliable source any more than ExxonMobil would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it can. I It cannot, however, be considered sufficiently reliable on most issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been accused of failure of imagination, at times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Move: Balancing Page

If there's going to be a page on Climate change denial, what is the objection to a balancing page on Climategate denial? Surely, Climategate denial is a real and well reported phenomenon. Even in the vaunted "reliable sources" of the mainstream media, the efforts to kill the Climategate story on the spike have been obvious. Or is The Wall Street Journal now suddenly (like Climate Research among Dr. Mann's "Hockey Team") no longer held to be a reliable source?
A balancing page on Climategate denial will serve to describe this phenomenon, and will help to lucidly collate information helping the reader to ascertain the degree to which this denial has thus far operated, why it is so prevalent, and the extent to which it persists over time.
The term "deniers" is deliberately pejorative, and was chosen over "skeptics" for an obviously POV reason. Failing treatment of the conscientiously skeptical examination of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis with due regard for the moral and intellectual integrity of those in the sciences who simply despise the sloppy and dishonest pseudoscience of the CRU correspondents, we might as well sling the scornful language in the direction of those who are deliberately stepping on the Climategate story in order to "ignore it to death." 71.251.133.248 (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Any article can be created if its A) Notable B) you can find the reliable sources to support it. I doubt if this can be done with your example. You may want to read the talk page guidelines and find out why you shouldn't use talkpages as soapboxes (because posts like yours would regularly be removed), and finally the argument "I don't like it" is not a good reason for arguing against an article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Top marks for ingenuity, though. --TS 05:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Or use the polices as exemplified in this article to just make it Climategate denial, even if all your sources only marginally support the statements you make. Anything 'you don't like' will, of course, come from unreliable sources. Treedel (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP (as Kim pointed out) where it states "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Scandal Mongering is also covered under WP:SOAPAirborne84 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased? Of course....

I'm a rabid environmentalist who feels that strong measures should be taken to try and prevent and reverse climate change, and even I think this article is obviously one-sided, biased, and has absolutely no place in Wikipedia. I am passionate about my cause, but this sort of vitriolic bias should be stricken from the site. It serves no useful purpose, and only serves to widen the divide between the factions. --Heterodyne (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so passionate about your cause that the only environment-related edit you've made to wp so far is this one, asking that wp not carry information on the proven campaign to obfuscate AGW. ► RATEL ◄ 00:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Collect (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AEI paragraph

I removed the disputed paragraph:

After the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.<ref>Sample, Ian (2007-02-02). "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-16.</ref> Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."<ref name="Newsweek" />

Reasons:

1. "Reportedly" is a weasel word, which, together with naming living persons, makes it inadequately sourced.
2. The relevance of the funding source for think tanks is, at best, marginal. If it were a lobbying organization, that might be different.
3. The Guardian is a biased source, although generally reliable. Hence anything resembling opinions must be expunged.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The US$10000,- offer for critical papers certainly needs to go in - it caused quite a splash and is more or less unprecedented in its obviousness. We can probably lose some of the dressing (e.g. the consultants section), but I think the link to Exxon is very relevant - Exxon has been named in several reliable sources as a major driver of climate change denial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll find CNN is a direct source too [1] ► RATEL ◄ 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I did it before seeing that CNN had the story too. Anyway, I've just added it back in crediting the Guardian with the reporting explicitly (which is not really necessary unless this was an op-ed piece, which it isn't. And we had the Guardian ref at the end anyway.) There's similar stuff all over the media now anyway. There is no doubt that Big Oil and others have been paying for this 'research' and paying PR houses too to target socio-economic groups with carefully designed 'sound-byte' quotes that they can remember and use in these arguments. The people who spout them here are as much the victims of manipulation as anything. --Nigelj (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We'll talk later. I'll accept CNN as the source for the material, but not as for relevance. AEI and CEI have a definite ideology, but it would be libel in either case to imply that their research results are determined by their sponsors. If CNN wanted to say that explicitly, we could include it, but it would be a BLP violation to make a statement whose only purpose is to imply something (about a living person) we could not include.

I'm off for minor surgery in a few minutes, so I don't have time to explain my arguments further at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that pargraph relevant to "efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change by dishonest means"? Isn't offering grants to scientists standard procedure? Were any papers published based on this grant? (If so, why aren't they mentioned anywhere? If not, why is the offer relevant.)

This paragraph needs serious rewriting to get to the point where it is reporting facts, and not just speculative innuendo. Treedel (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not "standard" to give grants for pre-determined results. In fact it is about as far from "standard" as one can get. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also not standard to offer grants to a pre-selected group of scientist - standard grants work the other way round (there is an open call for applications, scientist apply, applications are peer-reviewed and the most worthy ones are funded). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When I said above that discussion of this kind of corruption is all over the media, this is what I had in mind. In that article we have links to four case studies (US coal companies targeting specific socio-economic groups, Patrick Michaels getting paid 'lavishly', the Heartland Institute with its list of 500, and the Bush presidency working with oil companies). There are also books about it all (The Heat is On, Boiling Point and Heat) and websites devoted to the subject (http://DeSmogBlog.com and http://exxonsecrets.org). I hardly know where to start. --Nigelj (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In regard "It is not "standard" to give grants for pre-determined results": That means we cannot imply that that occurs unless there's evidence, even if it's implied by a WP:RS. If a WP:RS states that it's done, it's OK to include it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to question the funding of skeptics the we should also question the funding of climate change proponents, this has long been an issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

I am paraphrasing some of the quotes in the article, which seem quite overdone. Good and well, I just want to say that people should really be more specific in attributing material to its correct authors. To say that "The Guardian has reported" a particular point, for instance, when in reality it is a piece by George Monbiot extracted from his book, is poor form; that is George Monbiot writing in the Guardian, not a statement from the Guardian itself (it may be with a straight news story that you can attribute it to the paper, but with an extract from a book surely this is not the case). The same is true with Newsweek; I'm not an expert on journalism, but when you have a feature story of this type, I think one should attribute it to the author. Much of the material I am finding is similarly quite imprecise in telling the reader where it came from. This was very much the case with the material taken from John Cushman, that I revised here, which was going back and forth between quotes of the leaked memo and Cushman's representations of it without any clarity as to which was which. When people are concerned about neutrality, or whenever, it's very good to be as clear as possible. Now commence any criticism of my edits. Mackan79 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

fixing refs; ongoing process

• I'm trying to help the refs along to a state of decreased suckiness. At this point, I am correcting only the formatting. Yes I will make mistakes & be inconsistent as I go. I intend to fix things in a process of several steps. Things will be better eventually.
• After the formatting is fixed and we see what we have, THEN we can do fact-checking etc. One thing at a time. • Ling.Nut 06:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"disinformation"

• Hi again Ratel. I was kinda missing you. Hope you're doing well.
• While we're here, please do stop adding crap to the article. It would be very very nice to get it up to encyclopedic standards. It's too late to get it done by Christmas – probably won't even get done by the end of January – but can we consider this one a belated Christmas gift and knock off the editorializing? Thanks so much. • Ling.Nut 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As defined currently in the article, climate change denial is disinformation. --TS 15:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

...which is precisely why the article is POV. Gotta go teach now; will rmv the disinformation part in about four hours. • Ling.Nut 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You could well be right. I'm not comfortable about this article and could be persuaded that it is largely based on speculation. Can we go through the sources and see if anything reliable can be retrieved? --TS 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Th answer is "Yes". I'm busy busy busy in real life. My plan was to do this article little bit by little bit, probably over the next month. In fact, I've been pondering starting a line-by-line review (probably in user space, only to prevent it from getting too messy). I'd be looking for things such as:

1. implicit assumptions
2. circular reasoning
3. Guilt by association
4. Statements by unqualified or patently POV people (see esp. Boxer)

Then I was thinking about posting the final results of my review here on TALK. If you have a plan that seems more effective etc., please do post it here... • Ling.Nut 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[E/C}A good place to start is with Sharon Begley's Newsweek article [2], which is arguably the heart of this article -- we cite it 8(!) times. Tony, why don't you read this and see what you think? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that we are not really sticking to material directly on the topic of "Climate change denial." To fix this I think we need to keep in mind the preliminary question, of what it is that justifies the delineation of a sub-topic in a way that bolsters or attacks a particular point of view within a larger debate. That is generally seen as a POV fork, if, for instance, the article doesn't amount to anything more than "Bad arguments against climate science." The justification I've seen in other contexts is that there is a distinct topic relating to the specific phrase or idea, e.g., people don't just use the argument or phrase in the larger debate, but have analyzed it in depth. But, the obligation remains to avoid a POV fork. This leads to the principle that if you have a concept that bolsters or attacks one side in a debate, but the concept is distinct enough to warrant its own article, it should still be restricted narrowly to the topic of the article, and not allowed to bloat into anything that uses, mentions, or tends to support the idea covered in the article.

To do that, I get the impression we would cover a great deal more controversy over the use of the phrase "Climate change denial," and less of other issues. We have half a dozen sources already disputing the analogy to Holocaust denial, and more than one of these that states the whole point of this phrase is to make that analogy. Our article discusses this in one sentence. We'd need to continue cutting material such as about Cooney's actions under the Bush administration, unless I've missed the reliable sources that discuss this as "Climate change denial" or even "denial." Ideally, the sources should be discussing the concept of denial, and not simply making one-off statements. Per Tony's comment, I think those are the sources, discussing the idea in depth, that should be consulted in deciding whether there is material to support an article. Personally I find it hard to tell, which is why I support continuing to clean up the article so we can get a better view. Mackan79 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of multiple edits removing off-topic and adding topical material

Ratel, your reversion here undoes several edits which are explained quite clearly in the edit summaries. Much of the material that I removed comes from sources that do not discuss any sort of climate change denial; this is a violation of WP:SYNTH, as a reliable source has not "published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" (emphasis added). Some material I added which does relate to this topic, and you removed, such as here. Some of the material is bizarre, as if the United States' largest conservative think tanks decided to question climate change for some money from ExxonMobil (which is not the point Monbiot is making).[3] I have been going through the article in detail, have posted my thoughts on the talk page, and would appreciate if you explain in detail why you have undone each of these edits. Mackan79 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I too am waiting for cogent, point-by-point explanations of these examples of text removal. • Ling.Nut 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This section for any rmvs done by Ling.Nut

• This darn talk page is gonna become a ball of twine as we try to check its refs. From this point on I'm gonna put all rmvs that I do HERE. I'll refactor another one (above) in a couple minutes.

• Here's disinformation for you, though WP:AGF leads me to assert that it must have been unintentional (and thus, merely "misinformation"): "The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial a major topic on its agenda..." Incorrect – unless of course you're willing to delete the word denial. Then it would be correct. But then it would also be irrelevant to this article. Which is why I'm deleting it immediately. I can hear Ratel's footsteps behind me, though... • Ling.Nut 11:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• '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."' VanityFair is getting this info from page 34 of "The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription ISBN 0738200255 (Paperback)by Ross Gelbspan. The Gelbspan cite is referring to a quote from the Information Council on the Environment that seems to date from at or near 1991 (not the Global Climate Coalition, which did not exist in 1991). Needless to say, the ICE does not speak for the GCC; the sentence survives by making a tenuous link between the two seem natural and strong. More importantly, though a painstakingly slow parsing of the sentence would suggest that at least one interpretation of its content is that organizations "such as" the GCC have resolved to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," I think the default parsing of this sentence—the meaning that most readers would take away after reading—is that it was in fact the GCC whose literature included that verbiage. RMV as inaccurate; VanityFair does not dictate Wikipedia text (and VF took liberties with Gelbspan).• Ling.Nut 12:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Haven't had time to look this through - but there is at least one error in the above. The Global climate coalition was created in 1989 so it did exist in 1991. (Rowlands, Ian H. (2000). "Beauty and the beast? BP's and Exxon's positions on global climate change". Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 18 (3): 339–354. doi:10.1068/c9752.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  That comment struck through, thanks. But unfortunately it's peripheral at best. • Ling.Nut 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've looked through the data on this - and Gelbspan makes the same connection (several times (for instance here) by linking the GCC and the ICE campaigns. So the text is supported by both VF and G. By the way, this is bordering on original research, so please be careful in drawing conclusions (such as "teneous connection"), and while i agree that the text needs to be correct, care must be taken to stick to what RS's say. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  The text I rmvd is simply sloppy writing. While I think it could be revised to present facts more accurately, the OR is gelbspan's.. and I submit that his research needs to be questioned. The link is not established by flat assertions that are little more than slapping a single label on a number of groups... Do other groups say they want to reposition the conventional wisdom etc.? I doubt it. In short – are we letting gelbspan and VF drive Wikipedia's text on this point? Unquestionably. • Ling.Nut 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Erh? We cannot as editors discount reliable sources on the spurious grounds that we don't like them. Either they are reliable or not. We can on the other hand discount RS's because they are undue weight (regular part of the editing process), but i fail to see an argument for this... In fact as far as i can see the parity of sources do count the GCC and the ICE as pure astro-turf groups with the intent of disrupting regular dissemination of science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Possible effects" and WP:UNDUE

• Quoting McCright, Aaron M. & Riley E. Dunlap. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Social Problems, Vol. 50, No. 3. , pp. 348-373.:

The continuing failure of the United States to participate in international efforts to ameliorate global warming therefore likely reflects a combination of the crescive nature of global warming; the public framing of global warming as a costly, future problem; the institutionalization of the dueling scientists scenario in the media and Congressional hearings; lobbying by the business community; the tepid involvement of the environmental movement and its allies; and the mobilization of the conservative movement to define global warming as "nonproblematic," and therefore policies such as the Kyoto Protocol as unnecessary.

• Does anyone else out there think our "possible effects" and other sections kinda elide the fact that the countermovement is not the only cause of these "possible effects"? That would place it firmly within WP:UNDUE, at least until it is corrected. • Ling.Nut 14:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One of us is misreading WP:UNDUE. The article may be terminally POV, but I don't see what WP:UNDUE has to do with it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The article really creates the impression that, you know, the entire universe will collapse because not everyone is on board with the AGW crowd.. and here's the UNDUE bit... it further presents the viewpoint that not everyone is on board with the AGW crowd solely or principally because of the evil "deniers". Now, common sense suggests that many folks are not on board with the AGW crowd for reasons other than "denialism". In fact, "denialism" is one of many, and may not even be the most important. But I don't see that here. Just saying. • Ling.Nut 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says that no view should be given undue editorial weight. You seem to be more interested in whether or not the view is correct. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's genuinely trying to sort out this mess of an article -- and thanks, Ling.Nut, for taking it on! As for editors' POV -- weel, we all have one, which is why other editors (with other POV's) keep an eye on the thing. Of course, this only works when people are genuinely committed to improving the article... Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ever exagerated too much? Try without the POV interpretation. "evil" has no place in any discussion. "AGW crowd" is a rather stupid derogative, which apparently includes most of the Worlds scientific and political population.

It represents the viewpoint (which is shared in large parts of the literature) that the reason that the US is "standing outside" to a large extent is caused by industry campaigning. Nothing really strange there. There is a very recent precedent for such, which is also presented. That industry by default is inherently conservative towards change that may influence its profit margit, is normal and expected (it is even beneficial to a large extent), the "new" thing (primarily in the US) is that this is being done via disinformation campaigns (which have been documented (fx. GCC and ICE), and not by regular lobbying, and influence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP and other concerns

I noticed the construction tag and wanted to add some words of caution. This article currently defines its subject as a pejorative. It's fine to have an article discussing a pejorative and the controversy surrounding its use. Applying that pejorative term to a specific organization or person, however, is almost always a matter of opinion, not a question of fact. The only exception I can think of is a final conviction for a crime by a court of law. It may occasionally be appropriate to report use of a pejorative by an otherwise reliable source, but only in the name of that specific source. A pejorative term should not be applied in Wikipedia's voice. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label. Listing organizations (much less living people) under "Instances of climate change denial" would seem to violate that guideline. I would also point out that briefs submitted in a law suit are never considered reliable sources for the facts they aver. --agr (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely. I am attempting to clean up some of this, and encourage you to do the same. I think the point about how we define the topic is especially important; it's something I tried to improve by noting in the lead that the term is sometimes also used without this specifically pejorative intention, simply to mean that someone denies common or scientific views about global warming. These are, after all, three words with generally understood meanings, and by no means exclusively a term of art, which ultimately makes it incorrect for us to assign a purely technical meaning (which then results in the stream of people saying, "hey, I deny this or that about climate change, but I'm not all of that!"). The best way I have found to address that is to acknowledge up front the different ways in which the term is used, and then as you say to attribute all assessments of the term in the body of the article. Mackan79 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)