Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article is hopelessly POV and out of date

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

The article is out of date in that it pretends "big oil" and "big coal" are still funding climate research. All of the large firms, stopped funding research a year or two ago. The article is hopelessly POV in that the climate changes all the time. No one seriously denies that, not even "big oil" or "big coal." What is currently being denied by some scientists is that the current alarmism is justified or that the recent warming is predominantly the fault of anthropogenic CO2. These scientists include Pielke, McIntyre, Christy, Shaviv, Svensmark, Akasofu, Kukla, Giegengack and on and on. These guys have never taken money from "big oil" or "big coal." This article is attempting to ridicule a valid scientific position held by some of the most respected and prolific climate researchers on the planet, including professors of climate science at Ivy League schools. Cyrusc has evidently bought into the idea that "the science is settled." Nothing could be further from the truth. The more science that comes out the more we realize that this whole idea has been overblown. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, even according to Phil Jones. The PDO has switched to a cooler mode and South America is currently suffering through the coldest winter it has had in 90 years. And it turns out that a good many of the weather stations in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) are poorly sited due to land use/land ocver changes resulting in an artificial warming bias in the temperature record. See www.surfacestations.org to see some of the pictures for yourself. The weather stations are located right on top of parking lots and next to buildings with a/c exhaust blowing on them. See Instrumental temperature record for more information. The article should be speedy deleted. RonCram 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I recognize any of the other names from your list (and without first names, they might be hard to otherwise identify), but are you seriously suggesting that Stephen McIntyre, "the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited which merged with CGX Energy Inc., an oil and gas exploration company", has never taken money from "big oil"? Provide me with references for the other names on the list, and we'll see if that's equally true for them. I do not dispute that there are laypeople who exaggerate (i.e., misrepresent) the science, and that there is uncertainty in the extent of climate change, but without citations, you're not really helping. If you have more recent material, by all means, present it. As for the surface stations argument, check out the Wikipedia article on Satellite temperature measurements. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that some scientists oppose the consensus on climate change without being funded by major corporations in no way justifies the deletion of this article, which accurately tracks the history of corporate involvement in the claims of certain scientists. Also, if the links between corporations and scientists have been severed (a claim I would dispute, but that's neither here nor there), that doesn't mean the encyclopedia shouldn't record what transpired. By that standard, every historical entry would be "out of date!" Of course credible sources citing the end of corporate/political-funded denial should be included in the article and any innacuracy should be corrected. Finally, Ron's opinion about climate change (like mine) is irrelevant to an entry documenting "a public relations campaign promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining this scientific effort, such as groups with ties to the energy lobby.[1][2][3]"Benzocane 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article clearly presents a non-neutral point of view and should be deleted. Zoomwsu 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What is non-neutral about the documented fact of Exxon et al's involvement in denying climate change science? Could you respond to any of the sourced assertions within the entry? Could you please respond to the link provided by Stephan? My hope is that we can move beyond polarization and start addressing the entry itself! Benzocane 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a) The sources (UK Guardian, NY Times, Climate Science Watch) are biased in support of the AGW orthodoxy.

b) The title "deniers" is biased itself, suggesting that Exxon et al's support of AGW critics is not legitimate. Why don't we judge the merits of the arguments and research they support, instead of who is funding it? Exxon's campaign against AGW does not necessarily imply anything underhanded or anti-science, whereas this article implies such nefarious motives. Exxon could simply be bringing to light scientific opinions and research that otherwise would have gone unnoticed were it not for their (admitted) self-interest. Zoomwsu 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

a) The original sources for some of the evidence is Exxon itself. Surely that's a reliable source in this case?

b) Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf? After a few dozen demonstrations as to why the science behind denying AGW is faulty, it gets old. Furthermore, once the science is discredited, it is natural to ask, "what were the motives behind publishing faulty data/conclusions?" Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BenHocking, Steve McIntyre never took money for research. He was a hard mineral exploration guy and had very limited contacts with an oil company when he sold out. They never funded his research into climate. Are you saying you have never heard of Roger A. Pielke, John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, George Kukla, Bob Giegengack. [1] Perhaps you need to spend some time reading Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. BenHocking, I do not think of you as intentionally misleading, just as ill-informed. You might also benefit by spending some time reading Global warming controversy and try to spend some time actually understanding some of the issues. You also might spend some time reading this. [2] Earlier studies indicate more than 12% of weather stations are poorly sited and subject to an artificial warming bias of more than 3 degrees. If this is accurate and averaged over the globe, more than half of the perceived warming is an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. SurfaceStations.org is auditing the U.S. network now and then will audit globally. Again, this article is ridiculing some of the leading climate scientists for a valid scientific position. It should be speedy deleted. RonCram 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It´s ironic and funny that the talk page to "Climate change denial" has become such a hotbed of, well, climate change denial. It's safe to say that the contributing authors of the article are familiar with the many sources of disinformation about climate change - hence the article. Envirocorrector 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm "ill-informed" when it comes to certain areas of denial. However, I'm informed enough to know that the criticisms of land surface temperature record are not well-founded, since those records are weighted, and, more importantly are supported by satellite temperature measurements. The Pielke name is somewhat familiar (presumably due to his stance on Global Warming), but the other names mean nothing to me. I suspect that you might benefit from reading more about Global warming and not just about the scientists who think it's not real/not anthropogenic/a good thing/will be fixed by peak oil and/or technological progress. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Point by point with respect to the scientists you mention:

McIntyre: I find it hard to believe that the president/founder of an oil and gas exploration company had limited contacts with them.
Pielke: "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Not exactly a climate change denier, then.
Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
Shaviv: I have read about his work before, after all, but the name did not stick in my head. This scientist is clearly a skeptic/denier and almost definitely not in the pocket of big oil, etc. Although his theory is unconventional, it should be falsifiable, and in fact, appears to have been falsified. It should be pointed out that contrary to what many in the AGW denial industry claim, Shaviv has received more publicity than he deserves exactly because he is going against the mainstream.
Svensmark: See Shaviv.
Akasofu: I'm skeptical that he's a skeptic (although I'm not denying it) since I see no evidence of it.
Kukla: Similar to Shaviv and Svensmark, he seems to be a bonafide skeptic/denier of global warming.
Giegengack: More of a skeptic than a denier, if you read what he says in the article you linked. He says Al Gore got the science wrong. Tell me something I don't know. To say that people are exaggerating global warming is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. You have to read the entire article before you can finally find out that he's skeptical about CO2's influence on global warming, and that it doesn't really matter because eventually it would be self-correcting and the world will survive without humans (presumably part of the self-correction is to get rid of humans).

Finally, note that skepticism and denial are two different things, as mentioned in this article. I see four deniers in that list (only one of which has ties to the oil industry), one skeptic, and one unknown. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely one-sided. They are basically making people who disbelieve the GW hype into holocaust-deniers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.80.87 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of quotes

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Given that the terms "denial machine" and "denial industry" are exact quotes from the primary source(s) of this article, I don't see why they shouldn't be in quotation marks when used. Revolutionaryluddite 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement. --Childhood's End 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Emphasis as to why not - you only do it in a context where you want to be sure that this is attached to a single source, and remind the reader that its a direct quote. Otherwise it ends up as scare quotes. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my concern as well, but the source you provided seems to suggest that he's using it correctly:

Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name "Aaron" instead of the spelling he used during his life.

I suppose what you're saying is that when the quotation marks are used, a citation should follow, right? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, without presenting them attributed and in context, they're nothing more than 'scare quotes', something that's proscribed. Read WP:WTA. There's a number of WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL issues with this article that we're going to need to fix here. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, so, looking for a fix, what we want is that the first time these quotes are used in the article they should be quoted and sourced. From then on out, they need to be neither quoted (since they involve fewer than four words) nor sourced. Agreed? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Litmus Test Article

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't whether or not Wikipedia can properly handle an entry on the most contentious issue so far this century with neutrality? If Wikipedia can't "get it right" with this page, how can we expect Wikipedia to "get it right" with anything else? Denial implies refutation of a true fact.

As original research is not allowed in Wikipedia, even the title of this article implies that Wikipedia endorses a specific point-of-view or conclusion in a hotly debated scientific issue. This seems in contrast with the stated goals of Wikipedia.

(By the way, I'm not talking content of the article -- just the title. I think all angles, even the influence of external factors like "Big Oil" involvement in public relations, are important and should be represented. I just find the title incredibly offensive to actual scientific work.)

67.149.220.91 00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." and "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

As long as the concept of climate change denialism is verifiable through reliable sources, which it is as the sources in the article attest, it cannot be original research as you claim. Neither this article nor Wikipedia is taking a stance, but is merely reporting both sides of the concept of climate change denialism. If there are omissions from either side that you feel are missing and have sources for, please present here for consideration. FeloniousMonk 01:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Public/Private sector denial

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

After the IPCC released its Feb, 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 letters making the actual offers are up at the AEI website.[3] The letters say:

First, in the public mind at least (which is to say, the news media) climate change has tended to be caught in a straightjacket between so-called 'skeptics' and so-called 'alarmists,' with seemingly little room left in the middle for people who may have reasonable doubts or heterodox views about the range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension. This perception is mistaken, of course, as Andrew Revkin's recent New York Times article on "an emerging middle ground" on climate change made evident. Nonetheless, we would like to attempt to break out of this straightjacket and see if it is possible to create a space for an identifiable 'third way' of thinking about the problem that is similar to the various 'third way' approaches to other social policy problems that were popular in the 1990s.

We had thought to produce a series of essays to review and critique the forthcoming IPCC FAR, early drafts of which are circulating, but have been persuaded that an IPCC-focused project is too limited. Although some commentary on the IPCC FAR is in order, our latest thinking is broaden our scope. One idea is to solicit essays in two categories. The first category would be along the lines of a blue-sky essay on "What Climate Policies Would I Implement If I Was King for a Day." The second category would be specific critiques of existing or proposed policy responses such as will appear in Working Group III or have been put forward in reports such as the Stern Review.

The proposed project was primarily about "climate change policy"-- "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process". Still, I'm not familiar with how the scientific honoraria process. Is $10,000 considered 'generous' or 'above average'? AEI describes it as "modest" and "conventional" and says that "AEI has never paid anyone to conduct research with a predetermined result and has never accepted a donation premised on such research."

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'.

The quotations from the letters seem to be put of context. The AEI has published a variety of different materials on global warming, one of which supports a carbon tax [4]. Also, it's $1.6 million out of what? AEI has stated that "no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget".

More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.

What does this have to do with anything? The adminstration employs large numbers of people. In general, this section on the AEI has nothing to do with the 'public sector' per se. Revolutionaryluddite 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise some interesting questions, and I suspect (i.e., this is pure conjecture) that part of the problem arises with conflating AEI with CEI, maker of the "We call it life" campaign. As for your last question/comment, you are right that the statement is somewhat useless without proper context: how many employees are at AEI? How many consultants has the Bush administration had? How many would you expect to work for the Bush administration if it were unbiased? If it were biased only towards conservatives? I have no answers to any of these, but I do expect (i.e., pure conjecture again) that number is a bit high even if one assumes a conservative bias. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither AEI, which has not taken an ideological anti-global warming position, or CEI, which has, are "public sector" organizations in any sense. I personally think that the current paragraph--

After the IPCC released its Feb, 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.[30] 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."[9]

--should be removed entirely. If the information stays in the article, it should really be moved to a new section, "Private Sector Denial" or something like that, with the appropriate context added. Revolutionaryluddite 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the public sector connection is being made by that sentence without much context as to its significance (i.e., 20 employees yada yada). As this isn't a burning issue (IMO), I'd probably give people a little while to give reasons for why it belongs in the section before you move, however. As for its merit for inclusion in the article, if the claim is true about the $10k offer "to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today", then it seems relevant, and the claim is properly sourced. That said, your AEI source seems (to me) to suggest that, at the very least, it needs to be rewritten to include that information. After being fixed to agree with that additional source, moving it to "Private sector denial" (with Exxon included there) does make sense to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the section titles and moved the paragraph over. I'll wait a bit before editing the paragraph itself to make sure that there are no objections. Do you think the CEI commercials are notable enough to mentioned on this page? Revolutionaryluddite 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How many would you expect to work for the Bush administration if it were unbiased? Even if AEI is completely unbiased or has a anti-Bush bias, I would still expect to see that several of their employees work for the administration. It's a matter of personal convinction. If the President's associates asked me to help them audit Office of Management and Budget data or calculate EPA emmissions requlation specs or so on, I would try to help becuase I would see it as my duty as an American citizen to my President. I would say the same thing if Hillary Clinton was President. Of course, this all just my POV and I wouldn't put-it-in/imply-it in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Even if AEI is completely unbiased or has an anti-Bush bias, I would still expect to see that several of their employees work for the administration." I guess you haven't been following the news about loyal "Bushies", then? ;) Still, I agree it is all POV. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what's known as the politicization of science. It's notable, it's sourced and it's staying. FeloniousMonk 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. What's the context? It's 20 out of... what? Revolutionaryluddite 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, do you think the CEI commercials are notable enough to mentioned on this page? Revolutionaryluddite 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Like I typed earlier, this is a small minority viewpoint. Assuming for the sake of arguement that the recent court decision was pertinent to this article, it was a 5-4 decision on technical legal grounds. It may be a "rebuke" of the administration in the eyes of the Post, but other websites [5] [6] recognize the limited approach and application of the verdict. Revolutionaryluddite 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm surprised you would think it was a minority view point. I can't say I've heard any other view point. In addition to the so-called Clear Skies Initiative, you could also take note of the so-called Healthy Forests Initiative, the weakening of the Clean Water Act (by redefining waterways), and the endorsement of the so-called Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (there's no Wikipedia article for that yet?). Luckily, that last one never became law. This was not just a one-off with the Bush administration. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By "small minority viewpoint", I was referring specifically to the Post's coverage of the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency decision and not to their general coverage of the Bush Administration's evironmental record. Revolutionaryluddite 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll edit the AEI section with appropriate balance and context. Revolutionaryluddite 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is the protection indefinate, or is it only for a specific period of time? Revolutionaryluddite 02:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (This is an honest question, not a sarcastic one. Personal attacks will be ignored.)

Protection expired a short while ago. Vsmith 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

expired a short while ago When, exactly? Also, doesn't the protection tag go away when the effect expires? Revolutionaryluddite 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At 02:12, 3 September. And, no it doesn't - would indeed be nice if it did. Vsmith 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

i don't know the mechanics of archiving talk pages, so i figured i'd just toss out there that perhaps it's time for someone in-the-know to do so. this page is unweildy in its length. time to roll it over? Anastrophe 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a template for MiszaBot to auto-archive (which it does about once a day). If someone objects, they can remove that template (set for 15 days) before MiszaBot gets around to doing its thing. On a side note, it is interesting to read some of those early comments. Perhaps some people *cough* will realize that I don't actually tend to agree with you and Childhood's End on a regular basis. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ben that agreeing with me from time to time is being used against you whenever you happen not to join the denial/denialism garden party :/ Says much about some people here, imo. But hey... William has agreed with me above, so perhaps he'll be tagged too. Oh, and I would suggest 30 days for the bot. --Childhood's End 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I would not normally visit a page like this, because it is an area I know a lot about, and I normally avoid such pages. However, I think there is a lot of unnecessary confusion here.

English changes all the time. Words get added. Words disappear. Denialism is clearly a popular new word that will soon be in many dictionaries. It is easy to find it with google. It can be found in newspapers and magazines aplenty. It is common in people's speech. Perhaps numerous definitions will be assigned to it, when formal dictionary definitions are written. To me, denialism and denial are obviously closely related. Denialist and denier are closely related, in my mind. I reject all the hair splitting and other nonsense I have seen associated with this over the last few weeks on this and other pages (only political action, someone with a financial interest involved, etc). This is all sort of speculation and OR, as near as I can tell at this point. And just ways to create a huge fight over nothing.

In the case of global climate change, a lot of the jury is still out scientifically. However, both sides of this debate are sometimes using similar tactics, particularly in the public sphere and political sphere in the media. There is selective quoting of data and statistics. There is selective quoting of science. There are "denials" of confusing facts. There is an attempt to turn the topic into a series of sound bites to use as political slogans by people who know nothing about the topic. There is denialism on both sides, but believe me, there is plenty of denialism involved. I have watched the Gore movie and the BBC rebuttal "Global Warming Swindle" (available on the internet) and they were both just vacuous.

Denialism lives. On both sides of this debate. The tactics that are employed by the environmentalists and the commercial interests and those who are suspicioius of global climate change are both reminiscent of other denialists; the holocaust deniers, the AIDs denialists and others. So this frenzied pitched battle here is just pure nonsense.

And you can take this from someone who has often been quoted in the RS literature on the subject. This is the biggest stupidest tempest in a teapot conducted by ignoramuses I have seen in a long time.--Filll 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. Thank you. Odd nature 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for sharing your low opinion of your fellow editors. i happen to be the pre-eminent scientist worldwide investigating climate change - there is nobody more well informed than i am. it's true. i just said it's true, so therefore, you should take it at face value that i am who i say i am, and that my opinion is more important than yours. Anastrophe 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Useless comment that should be ignored. Or, to be passive aggressive, whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

no more or less useless than your own commentary, or that of user Filll. on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Anastrophe 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And yours. Reasonable and responsibile editors consider and weigh each comment on its' merits and act accordingly, thus Filll's observations are a reflection of what he's seen here. Odd nature 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just have to ask, why? Do any of these naked personal attacks improve the article? Do they really accomplish anything? Do they really matter? Revolutionaryluddite 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one side of this arguement regularly uses personal attacks, assumes bad faith, and completely disregards civilty-- while the other side does not-- says something clear about whether or not that first side is right. Revolutionaryluddite 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother responding to me with more personal attacks, I won't read them. Revolutionaryluddite 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Which side would that be? I seem to remember you making a blatant personal attack against Felonious Monk [7] when he tried help you. Pot, meet Kettle. Odd nature 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this dustup obscures the facts:

The earth is warmer than it was 120 years ago or so
Most of the CO2 introduced into the air since the 1950s was from combustion of fossil fuels
We do not know for sure if human activity has affected the climate, although some suspect it might have
Our "proof" or statistical evidence of anthropogenic climatic influence from fossil fuel consumption and other human activities is lacking at present.
Both sides in this debate deny some of the important facts, and engage in denialism/denial style tactics.
Denialism is a useful term for describing this activity of denying facts in this kind of debate and one that is gaining huge currency.
No matter how you slice it, whether you personally believe that humans have effected the earth's climate or not, it is clear that both sides have elements in them which deny important information. Therefore, denialism/denial in this context exists. What is the problem?--Filll 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I could go through the Gore movie and the BBC Swindle movie and find 100 examples of denialism in each. They are both replete with denialism. Depending on which side of the debate you are on personally, you might call the other side denialists. That is what makes this a more complicated issue than many others; the science still is not firm.--Filll 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

This is the pretty close to insanity. What on earth are we arguing about? About an emerging new word or set of words in English? This is ludicrous. Worrying about whether denialist is more of a common word than denialism? Whether denialism has anything to do with denial? About whether a denialist is a denier? This is beyond crazy.

My understanding, as an outside observer, is that for decades the most common word was "denier", especially as used in "Holocaust denier", being someone who was engaged in "Holocaust denial". Then AIDS came along, and someone decided (??? why???) that AIDS denier and AIDS denial sounded weird, so they would use AIDS denialist and AIDS denialism. Perhaps this was created by someone whose first language was not English. Perhaps it just sounded better to someone. Anyway, it took off. And is spreading. And might very well consign "denial" and "denier" to the dustbin of linguistic history. So what?

Why fight about this? This is completely stupid.--Filll 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I've pointed out above the sentence is something like saying "media sources and others describe African elephants as being elphantine." I doubt anyone would object to removing such a sentence from the African elephants article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One purpose of this arguing is not to give encyclopedic support to a claim that some media describe something in a fashion that is inaccurate. Obviously, the media have made comparisons to denial/denying concepts, but since 'denialism' lacks any clear verifiable meaning, and without direct references to the word, it would necessarily be wrong to claim that they describe something as 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of denialism Filll. That climate change denial is a form of denialism is a fact that is only rejected, denied if you will, by climate change denialists and their ideological allies largely. Now a dedicated cadre of denialism deniers here have resisted mentioning denialism at all in this article, strenuously denying each and every of the two dozen or so sources provided. You know who you are, that this is going on and who is responsible is obvious to anyone reading this page. Regardless, there's an abundance of sources given on this page showing that the viewpoint which holds that climate change denial is a form of denialism is verifiable per WP:V. And since WP:NPOV calls articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and in proportion to the prominence of each, this viewpoint is simply not just going to be brushed under the rug as some would like to do here. This viewpoint is simply not going to go away by ignoring, dismissing, discrediting or even misrepresenting the sources. So either we work to together to craft an accurate and complete coverage of it or they can continue as they have until they exhaust the community's patience. Either way, that a large number see climate change denial as a form of denialism cannot be denied. Odd nature 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Then there are those who wonder why we would bother saying the equivalent of "media sources and others describe African elephants as being elephantine" when such a thing is obvious from reading the rest of the article and when it is difficult to find sources that actually describe those elephants as being elephantine and not merely elephants. (That said, I agree that the Newsweek source is a good one for the denialism quote, but Newsweek or other media sources aren't saying it, they're reporting that X or Y said it, right?) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

False analogy. These semantic contortionist tricks got boring a long time ago. I suggest you all think very carefully about how far you're willing to push the communities patience. ornis (t) 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that, but then you give no specifics. You sound like you're just giving empty threats as what you're saying is empty of anything meaningful, whereas I am actually trying to explain specifically why I don't think this sentence is necessary. Can you explain specifically why it is? (Please try it without any implied threats.) Odd nature himself argued (vehemently) that these words were just cognates. Why can't we delete this sentence? What does it contribute to the article? These are specific questions that get answered by talking about "semantic contortionist tricks". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am losing patience with this nonsense.--Filll 22:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much lost any I might have had by this point. I think it's about time we stopped feeding them frankly. ornis (t) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Or by implications of being a troll. You know you just might shut me up if you tried actually answering the question instead of accusing/threatening me. How does that sound as a bribe? :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...--Filll 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection re: denialism

Latest comment: 16 years ago42 comments8 people in discussion

I see that OddNature reverted again the deletion of the OR mention of denialism in the intro, what prompted JoshuaZ to protect the article again. This is a most obvious instance of OR as there is no connexion made towards "denialism" made in any of the supporting sources. I am happy that JoshuaZ monitors this, but as it is, the sentence remains protected. If JoshuaZ is not ready to settle this issue by deleting it, I will seek to bring this before the appropriate review process.
As a sidenote, it seems to me that only OddNature (and perhaps FeloniousMonk?) support the inclusion of this sentence, so I dont get why community judgment does not prevail here. --Childhood's End 12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't really understand OR do you? It's just an acronym you throw about willy-nilly hoping against hope that you'll hit something eventually if you use it enough. There are plenty of sources that clearly and unequivocally describe this phenomenon as a form of denialism. Clearly.. unequivocally... there's no need for SYNTH, or OR, there's no need to hold the page up to the light and go cross eyed to see the hidden message, they say it right out. I'm mystified that you don't see that. ornis (t) 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am myself mystified by both your own lack of understanding and your quasi-religious belief in the idea that the sources "describe this phenomenom as a form of denialism". First, "denialism" is defined only in Wikipedia (which already tells books) and therefore is not an English word. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, it thus involoves that what is exactly "denialism" is essentially up in the air to everyone's own idea. So since these sources do not even use the buzzword "denialism", not only is it WP:SYNT (and thus OR) to say that they describe this 'phenomenom' as such, it is also OR beforehand to claim that what these sources describe as 'denial' is 'denialism'. Like FeloniousMonk above, you have not yet realized that there is a difference between denial and what you call 'denialism'...

Now please, help yourself by not erroneoulsy attempting to ridicule someone else with such a clear admission of your misunderstanding. --Childhood's End 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of other places that use the word denialism in the context of climate change. However, it doesn't appear that we are citing any of them, which is a problem. As I don't really see why denialism is any better than simply denial, I'd prefer to go with simply using denial in lieu of denialism. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wheeee.... round and round and round you go. Got anything to say that isn't completely specious? I didn't think so. ornis (t) 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to be more specific and/or constructive? What exactly was specious about what I said? Are you disputing any of it, or do you not think it's relevant that despite the claim in the article, none of the sources we reference actually use the word denialism. Do you see anything wrong with my compromise that we simply replace the word with the more widely used denial? Please be specific and civil. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I took a quick look at this google search and if anything, it seems to confirm that "denialism" is a blog/web buzzword to which reliable sources have not made the connexion with "climate change denial". --Childhood's End 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a quick look would give you that idea since it's at least 10:1 blog/reliable sources (depending on how you define "reliable sources" it could be more like 40:1). That doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's one from New Scientist. Of course, that source is really just reporting that ExxonMobil has been accused of "climate science denialism", and is not actually describing "it as a form of denialism". Presuming I could find a reliable source that does and that you'd be willing to accept as reliable (e.g., not TreeHugger.com) — and I really think I could if I were willing to spend more time on it — WP:WEIGHT seems to lean towards using the more obvious word denial over denialism. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stay tuned. But as of now, the sentence ought to be deleted. --Childhood's End 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, would you be amenable to editing it to remove the "ism"? I.e., "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial." Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually would be, but I find it would be an empty statement (or that it would go without saying). Let's say I would object less... ;) --Childhood's End 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, read WP:ATT, contentious viewpoints need to be attributed. And the only reason the view is contentious here is because of three editors here who continually dismiss, ignore and misrepresent RS and V sources. Odd nature 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do need to be attributed. I'm glad you agree. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the sources: Newsweek, The Boston Globe, The Guardian. There's obviously a significant viewpoint out there in the media and in the scientific community that climate change denial is a form of denialism, period. There's no shortage of sources that show this to be the case. Stop denying esaily verifiable facts. And there's a lot more people watching this article now who recognize that the view is signicant enough to warrant mention with proper attribution in the intro, many of them admins, thanks to the disruptive edit warring and ignoring and misrepresnting sources of the denialism deniers here. Keep misrepresenting sources, edit warring and ignoring community input and I'll personally walk you through the steps at WP:DE. Odd nature 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, please tell me exactly which source says that, because I cannot find one that we've used that even contains the word denialism anywhere, let alone states "that climate change denial is a form of denialism". If no such source exists (i.e., one that actually uses the word "denialism"), then what is wrong with us using the same terminology that they're using? (This is a serious question, please don't dismiss it as "specious".) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, please. Read FM's analysis of the sources above. And read cognate while you're at it. The authors of the sources clearly are referring to denialism, regardless of whether they use the exact word 'denialism', and they are clearly using cognates of it, 'denial,' 'deniers', etc.

Prove me wrong. If Denialism is "the position of governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly", then explain to us how "Since the late 1980s, 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. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."" ... "Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered."" (From: Newsweek's The Truth About Denial) is not about "the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly". I got about a dozen other equally significant sources for you to explain away when you're done with that one. Odd nature 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, FM does not realize that there is a difference between 'denial' and 'denialism', and his "analysis" can be dismissed. And as I also said, using Wikipedia to define a word (denialism here) is not acceptable with regard to WP policies. --Childhood's End 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there is a difference between denial and denialism, no one has said there isn't. But you've failed to show that the sources given are not referring to denialism, which they clearly are reading them and their use of denialism cognates. Dismiss FM's analysis at your own risk. And no one has suggested using a Wikipedia as a source in the article, BTW. Odd nature 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a little headstrong arent you? I dont have to prove that the sources given are not refering to denialism - you have to prove it if you want the article to claim that the sources refer to it. And since you admit that you need to interpret what the sources say rather than take them for their words, no matter how clear you think your interpretation is, the veil is lifted and there is your POV, which relies on the definition of 'denialism' made in the WP article of the same name. Thanks for stopping this time-wasting, provocative and useless argument. --Childhood's End 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are just as many editors here who accept the sources, maybe more, than do not. One one side we have those that accept them, of which two are admins who likely know quite a bit more about WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV than do those who do not. One has provided a compelling analysis showing that the sources are indeed referring to denialism. On the other side we have a lot of arm waving about the sources not being about denialism, but not a single shred of evidence or source to the contrary. You have the burden of discrediting the evidence already provided. Either do so or move along. Odd nature 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be either omitting or misrepresenting another set of opinions: the sources appear to refer to denialism, but they definitely do refer to denial. Therefore, denial is a better word to use. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that climate change denial is a form of denialism. I'm denying that the referenced articles make that specific claim. However, if denialism is just a cognate of denial, then what is wrong with using the word denial instead of denialism? I notice that's one question that keeps getting avoided. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then either prove it or drop it. Simply repeatedly claiming that the sources are not referring to denialism but rather denial is a waste of time and the community's patience. Odd nature 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proven it — and you appear to have acknowledged it with your claim that they're cognates. What is wasting our time is insisting that we use the less frequently used word denialism over the more commonly used word denial — especially when (a) I've seen no argument made for why denialism is a better word than denial and (b) denial is the word actually used in the sources! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're simply playing a shell game with semantics. But Newsweek's The Truth About Denial seems to be clearly referring to denialism, and you've still failed to prove it's not. Your ability to deny the obvious is astounding. Odd nature 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you can still claim this. Let me get your non-shell game straight:

Denial and denialism have two different meanings.
Newsweek uses the word denial, but they're referring to denialism.
There's no synthesis or original research involved in this assertion whatsoever.

Is that what you're asserting, or have I misrepresented something somewhere? (If so, tell me which of those things you're not claiming.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Its rather simple: There is no source that says "denialism" - therefore no attribution. Stating that Newsweek "seems" to refer - is WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So you say. Others here, among them admins, do not agree with your take on policy. So point us to the exact passage of policy or guideline that says the exact term and not cognates thereof must be used for a source to satisfy WP:V. Odd nature 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ben has just shattered your glass house. Please move on, or address the point. --Childhood's End 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you would. The fact remains that others and I have asked the denialism deniers here to explain what the authors of the sources are talking about if not denialism and no one has been able to. We're still waiting. Odd nature 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Feels like I wont say where. Ok, they are talking about cli-mate-change-de-ni-al. Not de-ni-al-ism. Free cookie if you dont ask this again. --Childhood's End 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your still dodging the issue: Show us how the authors of the sources are not talking about denialism. And denial is a necessary condition of denialism that must be satisfied for the condition of denialism to be true. Odd nature 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature - you are reversing the burden of proof. Its the person who wants to retain or expand an article with content, who has the burden of proof. Not the other way around. Please go and read the very first paragraph of WP:V. You have to convince us that the actual meaning is denialism (and if my count is not completely off - we seem to have a consensus that you need to convince us that your interpretation of the references is correct). --Kim D. Petersen 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Read FM analysis again and tell us how these sources are not talking about denialism. Clearly FM thinks so, and I agree as does Guettarda, Filll, Orangemarlin and a number of others. So, again, there are just as many editors here who accept the sources as supporting the content, maybe more, than do not. of those at least two are admins who likely know more about WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV than you or I. FM has provided an analysis showing that he believes the sources are indeed referring to denialism. I agree. We've made our case, you have still to make yours. Read Newsweek's article The Truth About Denial then show us how thay the authors of the sources are not talking about denialism and I'll move along. Odd nature 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been studiously ignoring this debate, but someone asked my opinion. Having read this-n-that, I think I'm obliged to weigh in on CE's side and say that the use of denialism isn't supported by the newsweek source (or, presumably, the other ones, otherwise ON would have said so). "Show us how the authors of the sources are not talking about denialism" is, obviously, the wrong way round: its up to ON to find sources that *do* say denialism William M. Connolley 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this one? "In the climate change debate, denialists claimed that we did not have enough historical information to make determinations about global temperatures. In 1998, Michael Mann's research allowed scientists to view 1,000 years of temperature data. That wasn't enough for the denialists. New advances enable a far deeper knowledge of global temperature, but with each new advance, denialists say it does not go far enough." Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts, Chris Jay Hoofnagle. Like I said, I've got at least a dozen other sources that support the content, many using the exact term 'denialist', since some here are going to ridiculous levels of hairsplitting. We've got sources showing this a notable and significant viewpoint that is a defining feature of the article's topic and we'll go over each and every one if we have to. Now lets all give it a rest and accept the that this is a notable viewpoint central to the article. Odd nature 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ON, I'm afraid that you're probably going to have to list them, looking at the way this nonsense is going, and even then the denialists will cry foul. Anyway, I've created a section at the bottom of the page, if you'd like to list anything you can turn up there. ornis (t) 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it seems there's an implication that William, Kim, and I are denialists. Is that what you're suggesting? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denial / Denier are well-known words that appear in dictionaries. Denialism/Denialist are poorly known terms that appear in no dictionary. That alone should be enough reason to prefer sentences that use the former rather than the latter, provided you can construct sentences that carry the same meaning either way. 169.229.142.180 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So very wrong. Check the section at the bottom of the page. Denialist/ism have a great deal of currency. ornis (t) 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature: If you look at the beginning of this conversation, you'll note that I gave two objections: (1) the sources we were listing to support that claim weren't actually supporting that claim, and (2) most sources discussing this issue were using the word denial and not denialism. It seems like you're ready to accede to my first objection, and I'm not the stickler for WP:WEIGHT that others are, so I don't care too much about my second objection, although I'm sure others will. Anyways, as far as I'm concerned if you just address my first objection (which it seems you're now agreeing to do), I'll be satisfied, whether or not others are. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I support BH, KDP, CE and WMC on this issue. It's very simple: the cited sources do not use the term "denialism", therefore it's incorrect to say "Newsweek and others in the media descibe it as a form of denialism." Better is "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denial," but now you run into the issue of whether the sentence is necessary in the first place. After all, it should be obvious to any reader that "climate change denial" is a form of denial, although I'm willing to consider arguments that support inclusion of the modified sentence. Zoomwsu 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism references

Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Just so everything is crystal clear, let's list here all the WP:RS's that can be found on the topic, divided into those that use the term denialism/ist and those that use its synonyms. ornis (t) 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism/ist

Denial/Denier

Sub categories

'Cause Ornis rudely reverted my work, here it is again. 136.152.153.36 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism

Denialist (but not "Denialism")

Do you not realise how completely inane that is? No? Let me spell it out for you...

An atheist, engages in atheism.
A feminist, engages in feminism.
A theist, engages in theism.
A humanist, engages in humanism.
An islamist, engages in islamism.
A communist, engages in communism,
A capitalist, engages in capitalism.

I mean I could go on, but honestly if you don't get it by this point then you never will. A denialist is someone who engages in denialism. ornis (t) 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking most of those are more "believes in/supports" than "engages in" (i.e. you can be capitalist even if not currently able to practice capitalism). But the more relevant point is whether the equality holds consistently. X-ist (literally X-person) implies X-ism (literally X-belief) is not a universal. For example, there are many examples where an -ist is a common word and the -ism doesn't exist, e.g. bassist, biologist, florist. A biologist believes in biology, a jurist believes in the law, a purist believes in purity, etc. A denialist could believe in denial, without needing to invoke "denialism". Since both "denialism" and "denialist" have the neologistic quality of not appearing in dictionaries, establishing that they are well-defined and recognizable words, really requires considering them each individually. If, hypothetically, denialist were much more common than denialism, then it may make sense to use one and not the other. 136.152.153.36 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous. You're just dancing around the issue, moving the goal posts and setting up a false dichotomy between the terms. It's obvious that the terms all refer to the same thing, we have provided references to their use in mainstream media, by industry groups, by scientists and by government officials for christ's sake. Just give it up, I find this embarrassing on your behalf. ornis (t) 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And I find your affection for perjorative neologisms to be ridiculous and embarrassing when "climate change denial" is more common and mainstream than "climate change denialism", etc. 136.152.153.36 03:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Er... I guess you don't let facts get in the way do you. No one ever said it wasn't, merely that it is another notable term for the same phenomenon. ornis (t) 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

<undelete>Your objections, anon, are clearly ludicrous. Denialism is a common word that is becoming more common. You might not like it, but languages change. Deal with it.--Filll 11:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism in Newspapers/Magazines

Per Talk:Denialism#Denialism_in_LexisNexis, the specific word "denialism" in reference to climate change was never used in any newspaper/magazine searchable in LexisNexis prior to 2006, and only twice in the year 2006. The majority of "denialism" uses in searchable works published during 2006 or earlier were in reference to HIV/AIDS denialism. 136.152.153.36 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And that has what precisely to do with the price of rice in china? ornis (t) 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply on the grounds of clear writing, common terms like "denier"/"denial" should be preferred over uncommon terms. I am arguing that "Denialism" is an uncommon term, especially in relation to climate change. 136.152.153.36 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you're wrong. Look at the section above you. Also denialism gets around 497,000 ghits, and denialist around 128,000. Denier and denial obviously get a lot more, but so what? They're much more general words. ornis (t) 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: LexisNexis gives 311 hits for the phrase "climate change denier", 136 hits for "climate change denial", 11 for "climate change denialist" and 1 for "climate change denialism". Google results are 18800 for "climate change denier", 51200 for "climate change denial", 1180 for "climate change denialist" and 2420 for "climate change denialism". 136.152.153.36 03:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I don't really give a shit what LexisNexis has to say about anything. ornis (t) 03:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know that the habits of mainstream publishers won't get in the way of advancing your POV. 136.152.153.36 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Or evidence yours. Fifteen sources have been provided using "denialism" or "denialist". Just give me an idea how many more you need before you accept the fact that a climate change denial being denialism is a notable POV so we can just cut to the chase. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually try to read the sources/references FeloniousMonk - since they really aren't convincing. (for instance: 5 of them are objections to usage, and 3 are non-WP:RS). --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the campaign of wilfull dissembling continues apace. Fifteen significant sources using "denialism" or "denialist" are on the screen right in front of you. More than sufficient evidence for inclusion in the article as a defining POV within the topic. Time to stop ignoring them and move along, this is becoming disruptive. I suggest our anon friend's dismissal and misrepresentions of sources be userfied or given a subpage here if they continue in order to free up the page. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree this has gone way beyond ridiculous. He might prefer another word. I might prefer another word. However, languages change. Languages are in flux. This new word, "denialism" has clearly emerged in the last few years and is gaining currency. And the mechanisms and tactics associated with AIDS denialism are clearly operating in many other spheres, including the Climate Change debate.--Filll 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous and surreal. Odd nature 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk. Have you actually taken a look at the references - or did the sheer number impress you? I've just done so - and i'm even less convinced now than before. All of these references are extremely weak, as to the usage of denialism as both a concept and a word. Please check them out. --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that FeloniousMonk started the article about denialism... --Childhood's End 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cult of Man Made Global Warming

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The very title of this article unavoidably screams out a particular point of view, and it ought to be regarded as illegitimate. The entire article is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on anyone critical of the anthopogenic global warming cult. Which brings me to ask, how about an article in Wikipedia titled "The Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult" which goes into the quasi-religious nature of man made global warming activism? It would be every bit as legitimate as this one is, and I have no doubt about being able to find ample sourcing. I'm tired of political activists who try to cloak their activism behind a facade of pseudoscience, and that's all this article amounts to.RFabian 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I think you are confused. Perhaps you should read the discussion below.--Filll 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I read the discussion I find that "global warming/climate change denier" is used as a pejorative term all through it. Q.E.D. RFabian 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"If you read" ?? I see. Well, why don't you put that hypothesis to the test.--Filll 15:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Critique of the references

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Lets do a critique of your references:

<Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day ~~WP:SPS.~~ [corrected: its a reprint of an Op-Ed: Single person view].
~~Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The Media~~ Objects to usage of the word.
~~Newsweek, The Truth About Denial~~ Single mention of the word (in a quote). Non attributable - or only as a single person view.
The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth - Op-Ed - single person view.
~~Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort~~ Non-WP:RS, unpublished (WP:SPS - and intended as humor - read the abstract)

All in all - not a good collection for support. --Kim D. Petersen 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And just to put a line under something: Only one of the references describe it as a "form of denialism" (the cards one does - but is WP:SPS - so in effect, there are no references to the comparison). --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I find the entire sentence unnecessary, since clearly climate change denial is a form of denialism. It seems sort of like saying that "media sources and others have described African elephants as being elephantine". Seeing as how these are just cognates (as someone pointed out earlier), what does this sentence add that the category Category:Denialism does not? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, as for myself, I dont know what is denialism. Wikipedia suggests something in an article that barely survived a deletion review, but this is no reliable source to attribute a proper meaning to the term, and the term does not exist in dictionnaries. Outside Wikipedia, my feeling is that most of those sparse (mostly non-notable) authors who have used the term essentially meant 'denial' or 'denier' so to me, there is no way to determine that these media sources have really referred to 'denialism' as it is understood by the WP article about this. --Childhood's End 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the sources do not show the viewpoint, climate change denial is a form of denialism, is verifiable per WP:V? Or are you claiming that the sources are not reliable per WP:RS? WP:NPOV calls for articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Clearly the viewpoint exists and is verifiable. Look at all the sources provided. Do you intend to dismiss them all so blithely? This viewpoint is not so small that it will be brushed under the rug, it is central to understanding the topic. Ignoring, dismissing, discrediting and even misrepresenting the sources will never succeed in making the viewpoint go away. Odd nature 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You have just described your own behavior with regard to the reasons that have been explained over and over to you as to why your 'sources' do not meet encyclopedic standards and to why it cannot be verified that Newsweek or other notable sources have actually referred to what you understand as 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you may think you've explained away these sources, but in reality you haven't. But please, carry on as you have, you're helping me make my case. Odd nature 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In reality i've cut the sources down to 2[corrected: 3]. ~~Both~~[corrected:All] of which are presenting the views of individuals - so what we have are 2[corrected: 3] personal views to support the statement. Rather weak dont'cha'think? --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes i'm saying that the sources do not show that viewpoint, one even argues against it. And yes, one of these isn't WP:RS - none of them indicate that this viewpoint is "significant" - we have 2[corrected: 3] views of individuals left, which definitively doesn't make the view such. I'm neither "ignoring, discrediting or misrepresenting" the sources - and frankly i find that accusation very uncivil and very far from WP:AGF. This viewpoint might be significant, it might be correct, it might be supported by several reliable sources - but these sources are not even close to showing this. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's 3: Richard C. J. Somerville (San Diego Union Trib), John Quiggin (Australian Financial Review), and Manik Roy (Pew Center on Climate Change). Maybe you're not counting Somerville because he used the word "denialist"? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, its 3. (i forgot my own comment to the strikeout of Newsweek and M. Roy) - corrected in the above comments. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in reality, it is your position that is shockingly weak. So weak, that I wonder about those taking your side.--Filll 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll could you try not attacking the editor - but instead react to the content? (please see: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). What is weak in my criticism? What exactly does "my side" have to do with this? --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I attacked you somehow or other editors here? I am afraid I missed that. If I did attack you or offend you, my apologies.--Filll 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)