Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Scientific Consensus?

I have seen much evidence that there is not a consensus in favor of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), but that the case is far from closed. The Great Global Warming Swindle makes that a point, and so I would propose that the opening sentence be changed from "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is..." to something like "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the existence of a scientific consensus that global warming is..." And perhaps add at the end of the paragraph, "The reasons for the doubt of many scientists are given through the documentary," or something along those lines. If you want to look into the body of scientists who dissent from AGW, take a look at pages 10-241 of the PDF at [[1]] David Nemati (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been exhaustively canvassed over the past three years, and the existence of the consensus accepted. See the Talk Archives. -- Jmc (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your are absolutely right Jmc. Been there, done that, flogging a dead horse, etc.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how is that productive, Curtis? Supporters of Global Warming as a man made event never waste a chance to insult those who do not support it. But I'm sure my comment will be removed while your comment will be allowed to remain. Wikipedia's Global Warming community is a joke. Also, the scientific consensus, another joke. 10 years from now, you will look back at the money wasted on this non existent problem and shake your heads in shame. RTShadow (talk)

Agree, there is not much of consensus, but unfortunatelly nothing or very few of the discussion is shown on wikipedia. I post here a link to an article from Steve Goddard <<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/to_a_geologist_the_past_is_key_to_the_future.pdf>> It is a good article showing that the controversy exist. Concluding with: <<The widespread belief that the poles are rapidly melting down is incorrect, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. 2. Arctic temperatures are cyclical. Much of the Arctic has been warmer during the last 100 years. 3. The satellite record from 1979-2010 coincided with the warm phase of the PDO. It covers less than one half of an Arctic temperature cycle. Given this cyclical behavior, it makes little scientific sense to extrapolate linearly based on a time period which is too short. Until satellites record at least one entire Arctic cycle, the extrapolations are misleading. 4. There is little (if any) evidence linking recent changes in the Arctic to CO2. At this point there is no solid reason to believe we are seeing anything other than natural Arctic cycles. Greenland temperatures are cooler than 70 years ago.>> Lars B R (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the text at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". I very nearly deleted your entire post, because its relationship to the article is tangential, to say the least. Please remember that this page is not a soapbox for you to tell us what your theories on global warming are. However, assuming good faith, I will assume that you believe that the current wording in the article which reports a scientific consensus is wrong. Although you can try to change our minds on how this is currently worded, as noted above this has been discussed exhaustively. The quotes you've provided are not going to change people's minds on this (we are aware that there are a few scientists who disagree with the consensus). I would suggest that your time might be more usefully spent suggesting other areas in which the article text can be improved; constructive edits are of course always welcomed. Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Climategate vindicates The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Climategate is the vindication of this documentary and those that took part in it. Thus it is necessary to completely rewrite this article.--83.108.20.77 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Are you pretending that if we went trawling through the private emails of oil executives we wouldn't find any dirt where they deliberately play down evidence of global warming? Especially if we took quotes out of context? "Climategate" is certainly embarrassing, and does not reflect well on the people involved. However it doesn't destroy the mountain of evidence for climate change accumulated from other sources. To the best of my knowledge TGGWS doesn't mention these researchers at all, and neither do the programme's attackers. If there is a reference it must be pretty tangential. When Durkin makes a new programme which uses "Climategate" as evidence (which he quite probably will), then it will be relevant to the article on that programme; but it's essentially irrelevant to this article on this programme. --Merlinme (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

83.108.20.77-What are your specific proposals for this rewrite?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably just replacing it with "Algore is fat" or something similarly erudite. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello ChrisO, please be civil!
Hello Merlinme, surely you understand that private oil companies are supposed to be biased for their stockholders, and private enterprise is always assumed to be operating in their self interest. On the opposite end of the spectrum, academics, who usually receive taxpayer funded grants and work within tax free institutions, should be held to the highest standards of honesty and impartiality. They are generally assumed to be unbiased. When smoking gun eMails showing dishonesty or organized efforts to mislead the public are uncovered within oil companies, or wall street banks, it's not that big a deal or surprise in comparison. ClimateGate has not only eMails, but allegedly problematic source code and data, and is potentially a really big deal, IMHO.
Hello Anonymous [User talk:83.108.20.77], please register with wikipedia. It's easy, free, and the best way to contribute. It helps you stay informed and allows other editors to communicate with you. You might want to review the ClimateGate article on Wiki. A direct criticism of Wikipedia's handling of Global Warming related articles appears in this article [2]. It is too early to tell how Wikipedia will weather this storm (By the way the East Coast of the U.S. is having another record cold spell, pun intended). But the contributions of volunteers such as yourself could go a long way towards ensuring the vitality, longevity, and civil atmosphere of wikipedia.--Knowsetfree (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please reserve this space for discussion of improvements to the associated article. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst preserving the comment by 2/0, I have reverted his edit which hid this entire discussion. 2/0's stated purpose in hiding the discussion is valid: that a talk page be used for discussing improvements to the article. However, I strongly object to his hiding the discussion and reverted it. First, we have a new editor who attempted to contribute. CurtisSwain and I reached out to have this anon to contribute in a positive way, and there was a suggestion for him to register. Surely, we all were beginners on wiki at one point, and we should all encourage new editors to contribute as best as possible, not hide such suggestions. This was a very new discussion, there is no need to archive or hide it. I'm sure that 2/0 and I are in agreement that ChrisO was not participating appropriately. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Hide the whole discussion, some of it totally benefiting wikipedia, for the failings of one editor.2/0, upon second thought don't you think a more direct comment by you to ChrisO either here on his talk page would have been more appropriate? --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. If you have any queries about this decision, please comment at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation - replies to this talk page message will not be read. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I've reverted another of MN's errors William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again it is not an error, your penchant for using blogs and unreliable sources is troubling, i am going to revert you, please do not use such unreliable sources again or it may lead to a block mark nutley (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed "medialens" as it also is not wp:rs, read their about us Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests. The costs incurred as a result of this propaganda, in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation, are incalculable This is a self published adcovcacy site and noway meets the criteria for wp:rs I intend to go through the rest later and remove any others which fail wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And i have reverted your changes. Sourcing is not black/white - for instance the removal of this [3] is a removal of a very reliable source. (the new location is here[4]) - it is published in Bull. Aust. Meteor. Ocean. Soc., 20(3) 63-72. Another removal is this [5] by the British Antarctic Survey - certainly a reliable source. Just to mention a few. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You have reinserted mutlipile blog ref`s. Please self revert. If a link is dead or has a wp:rs then add it. I removed no text, just added tags mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If a link is broken - you either search for the link and change it to the new one - or you place after it (so that others have a hint as to where to find the correct ref). Your removal of blogs was indiscriminate and removed content that is reliable. Not all blogs are equal, and not all unreliable sources are unreliable in context. Take them one by one - and discuss if they are appropriate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw. Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science and as such he is indeed talking within his area of expertise, and btw. is also an integral part in the controversy on this particular subject (as can be seen in the Guardian here[6])--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As for Medialens - it seems that the editors (or at least some of them) are indeed exceptions to the SPS rule. [7] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Medialens is not a wp:rs Please note the following blogs you have reinserted.

• http://www.desmogblog.com not wp:rs
• http://www.medialens.org not wp:rs
• http://climateofdenial.net/ not wp:rs yet linked to several times
• http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820 not wp:rs
• http://flet.org/node/20 not wp:rs mot wp:rs
• http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net not wp:rs yet linked to several times

Please remove these blogs that you reinserted, thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Context please. You are rather broad in your claim that the sources aren't RS's. Take them one by one - with context, thank you. Your claim for instance that medialens isn't a reliable source in this particular context is spurious, considering that the main editor of the site is both a journalist and an Oceanographer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No kim, look at medialens about us Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests. The costs incurred as a result of this propaganda, in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation, are incalculable does that actually look like a wp:rs to you? And i did take the blog refs out one at a time look at the article history. Now please remove those refs as i do not really want to have tp spend ages taking them out again mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes all very interesting, is there a problem with that mission statement? And as you've noticed, i've stated that one of the authors is an exception under WP:SPS. WP:RS is not a black/white policy - in some cases blogs and other self-published sources are acceptable - in others they are not. Now try to argue within the context of the text that you are objecting to the reference being used for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you don`t get it. Only one of them falls under wp:sps the others do not. Hence linking to the site fails wp:rs Either link to one article or none. I have brought this site up on the reliable sources notice board btw, and it is agreed on there by tony sidaway and glumboot agree it is not wp:rs may we move on to the other blogs you reinserted now? mark nutley (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So lets take the context, which is the section ("Other reactions") - since you seem to be unwilling:

In March 2007, media watchdog website Medialens published a refutation of Durkin's film describing the work as "Pure Propaganda

The text is attributed as opinion (which it is), in the same way that we would attribute an op-ed. It doesn't give undue weight (in context), and Medialens seems to be a reasonably well regarded organization. The writers are journalists - one of them is an Oceanographer. Seems to be good in context. Next? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Medialens is not a well regarded group, were did you get that from? simple fact of the matter is rs noticeboard says it is not reliable so it`s not. Lets move on to desmogblog shall we? mark nutley (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Medialens is not a well regarded group, were did you get that from?...It isn't? Hmmm check the article, amongst others Peter Barron seems to like them... Did you notice how it is quoted as an opinion btw.? But that aside, what thread on WP:RS/N are you talking about, that states that Medialens isn't a reliable source in this context (or any other for that matter). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rs notice board [8] Check these articles for how other think about them The Observer Media Lens email missives are received by 14,000 people each week, not a huge number but significant nonetheless. The resulting emails then sent to journalists and editors, sometimes in their hundreds, have been heavily criticised and mocked so no, not really highly thought of at all. Now how about desmogblog? mark nutley (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough the few comments on the RS/N thread doesn't support your contention. They notice that it is reliable to the opinions of the authors - which is exactly what is quoted here. ("According to Medialens ...."). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? so tony has not written I dismiss medialens as a usable source in the first sentence? If you want the media lens junk to be in wikipedia then put it in their article. Otherwise it`s a no. Now how about desmogblog? mark nutley (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most media sources have been widely criticised and mocked. Opinion pieces, wherever published, are reliable as indicators of opinion, and not as statements of fact.JQ (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if in a relialbe source john. I`m afraid that wp:rs is not the only issue with medialens, it also breachs wp:blp Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph Accuses an living person of faking data. This is the article you have linked to in this article kim. In fact a lot of their articles break the wp:blp policy mark nutley (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That particular "faking" can be sourced to a multitude of reliable sources Mark (and is in the article). There is no red flags being raised there. (in fact that particular section of TGGWS has been removed from the current version - exactly because it was manipulated and didn't correspond to reality). Sorry, that is not a BLP violation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If it can be reliably sourced then why is an unreliable source being touted? Kim, you have not removed a single blog ref which is ridiculous. Either you remove the ones you reinserted or i will. Medialens is not wp:rs as it has no editorial control, it is not covered by wp:sps as you have guys writing about stuff outside of their area of expertise, it fails wp:blp as it makes accusations against identifiable living people. It is quite simply not reliable so give it up, now move onto the next one please desmogblog or i will have no choice but to remove those links again mark nutley (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, try to stick to the issue at hand. The Medialens reference is not being used (or touted) that way. It is being cited as a one-line opinion (and properly attributed as such), Medialens is certainly a reliable source to their own opinion, and the reference does not fail BLP, since it doesn't make claims that are unsupported/innuendo or otherwise problematic. (hint: RS/BLP is the wrong tool here, WEIGHT on the other hand may be a player).

I would not suggest that you revert my change - unless you first try to gain a consensus for the individual removals, since that would be edit-warring. I am perfectly willing to discuss each reference that you do not like, within the context of the text, where said reference is used. RS is not a black&white concept, it depends on the context in which a reference is used, and for what information that is cited. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle is discussed by the editors of Media Lens in Newspeak, pages 70-74, if this information is of any help. They say the film's claim that solar activity is responsible for recent global warming is, and I quote, "without credibility". Wikispan (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We`ll come back to it later, move along to desmogblog please mark nutley (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Present the context, and explain why you think the reference shouldn't be used. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not intend to argue this with you it fails wp:rs and wp:blp in each and every way, the opinions of a pr guy are not reliable, remove the links or i will mark nutley (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, but expect to be reverted for editing against consensus.JQ (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are labouring under the impression that a bunch of friends agreeing trumps policy, it does not. I removed unreliable sources per policy, thus per policy as kim wishs to use them the onus is on him to prove they are reliable. As stated desmogblog violates wp:rs and wp:blp and has to go, as do the others mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My, hasn't there been a lot of activity over the weekend. Hi Mark. Nice to meet you, but you appear to have waded in all guns blazing to quite a controversial article. As someone who tries to stay relatively objective on these topics, I've not been incredibly impressed by your edits or your arguments. You are presumably aware that you should generally seek consensus for edits to controversial articles first? Regarding your edits, there may well be individual references which should go, but you should argue for them on a case by case basis (as Kim has been trying to get you to do), and unless the information is patently wrong, you shouldn't be deleting half-a-dozen references without discussion. One of my particular bugbears is removing references to dead links, as people have an amazing tendency to do this to remove links they don't like, despite the fact that the reference was clearly valid once. The correct approach is to find a live link, or if you can't, flag it up so someone else has a chance to find a live link. And this: "No, I do not intend to argue this with you it fails wp:rs and wp:blp in each and every way, the opinions of a pr guy are not reliable, remove the links or i will" is not an argument. It's an emotive statement, which basically relies on us accepting your opinion as correct. By all means let's have a discussion on why a particular source is unreliable in a particular context; but while you continue to use "hand-wavy" arguments, and even more when you explicitly say "I do not intend to argue this with you", please consider me part of the consensus which will revert your edits. --Merlinme (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to argue it, policy dictates that the onus is on kim to prove these are wp:rs desmogblog is not reliable, go look at it. I also brought it up on the rs noticeboard [9] and here [10] As i said the onus is on kim to prove these are wp:rs and do not violate wp:blp as you know blp rules state that violations of them must be removed mark nutley (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you do not intend to argue, I'm unsure how you intend to change the current consensus, which appears to be your goal. --Merlinme (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand me, it is for those who want these unreliable sources to remain which must argue their case, not for me to argue there removal. Consensus on a talk page does not overide wp:blp nor wp:rs I have yet to see a reason why the ref`s i removed do actually meet the projects guidelines, would you care to actually give a reason for the use of the links posted above? mark nutley (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, you stating that something is not a reliable source and violates BLP does not necessarily make it so. Humour us. Present arguments that attempt to persuade. You appeared to be starting to do this for demosblog and medialens, above. I would suggest that you continue with that approach, rather than reverting to "everyone else is wrong and I'm right". --Merlinme (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why these sources are not reliable nor needed

• desmogblog reliable notices board This site is clearly not suitable as a wp:rs as it is run by a pr guy who says his purpose is Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam Self published no editorial control, from the latest post on the front page of this site While hundreds of thousands of people were in the streets being tear-gassed and arrested So when exactly were hundreds of thousands of people arrested and gassed at COP15? Clear breach of wp:blp Is AccuWeatherGuy Joe Bastardi Stupid or Dishonest?

• climate of denial

Single purpose site set up to slam The Great Global Warming Swindle There is no about us, no contact us noting in fact but the sites owners views of this film and the resulting controversy. As we have no idea who wrote this it is not wp:rs In fact there are already links to ofcom in the article which cover this so this site is not even needed.

• Campaign against climate change This is actually a forum not even a blog, the link leads to the outraged "jo", who is jo? why is her opinion on a public forum wp:rs? It`s not is it.

• flet blog A blog by "Mark" again mark who? why are marks opinions wp:rs Again not wp:rs

• ofcomswindle Another single purpose site set up for the sole purpose of "This website contains details of the most comprehensive of the complaints to the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) regarding Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle" However there is no contact info, we do not know who set this up or if everything is accurate, in fact from the website credits Many people on various internet newsgroups and forums, who (mostly anonymously) gave their time and expertise without charge. In particular, Dave Rado would like to thank “Ben C”, “dorayme”, “Kiwi Brian”, Paul Hirsch, and “Deathshadow”. And again, this info is linked in from ofcom, there is no need for this link here. mark nutley (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This just posted on the RS Noticeboard [11]ofcomswindle is not wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, we are aware that these sites aren't generally reliable - but you will have to address them in the context of where and how they are used in this article. (for instance the desmogblog ref is a convenience link to a transcript of an Australian ABC lateline interview) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And you know this for sure do you? That it is an exact transcript? I`m sure you can`t use unreliable sources just because it is convenient for you, use the abc one. Linking to an unreliable site which is replete with blp violations is just not on, the guy has an agenda so there is no way to prove he has not messed with the .pdf in that link. mark nutley (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of fact [12] Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves You admit these are not reliable sources so they can`t be used here full stop ca nthey mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mark. I am certain. But just for your convenience, i've just sat down with the transcript, and watched the interview again - checking it word-by-word, line-by-line, sentence for sentence. And it matches (with a few exceptions of "ahems" and other onomatopoeia). You can find the interview on Youtube (which we cannot link, since that would be a copyvio). The reliable source here is Lateline not desmogblog (which is a convenience link) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim, i`m not interested it your wp:or wp:rs clearly states that questionable sources can`t be used as a source for anything other than themselves. Either get a link to lateline or lose that section. Next on the list please mark nutley (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, we now have a clearly stated argument to agree or disagree with. Re: desmogblog, and your entry on the RS Noticeboard, you didn't ask whether using desmogblog's transcript was appropriate. Context matters; the Noticeboard page suggests including "The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting". Try that, and at least we'll have a relevant, independent opinion as to whether its appropriate to include the link (as opposed to the general point that desmogblog is unreliable). For what it's worth, I certainly agree that an ABC source would be better (if one can be found). I'll look at the arguments regarding the other links in a bit, when I have time. --Merlinme (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Re DeSmogBlog, the outcome on "Reliable Sources" (when you asked for a more specific verdict) was that it may be appropriate to use, depending on context, and that a Wiki page for it should be created, which makes it clear that it's a campaigning blog; but that it has won awards and been cited in print media. This has now been done. The suggestion was that references to it should then be along the lines of "According to DeSmogBlog..."; on that basis the reference in this article should be "according to a transcript on DeSmogBlog..." The original source is actually the programme itself though, and transcripturl doesn't allow this sort of qualification. An ABC transcript would be a better source than DeSmogBlog, but if this is the only one availabe, I think this is an allowable transcript source (because of the reputation for reliability which DeSmogBlog has; also a reader can investigate the DeSmogBlog website from the transcript url, if they wish).
• Re climateofdenial, I don't currently have access to that site, I'll try and have a look at it at lunchtime.
• Re campaigncc, yes it's a bad source. However I happen to know that it reflects a genuine piece by Houghton. There used to be a better link, which I think got broken. I'll update the link to a better one I've found.

I'll have a look at the others later. --Merlinme (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Re ofcomswindleswindlecomplaint.net, it is a one issue website, essentially setup to attack the programme, and should therefore be used with a great deal of caution. So how is it actually used? (context matters, as has been previously said). It's used four times: 1) to provide details of the 176 page formal critique/ complaint regarding the programme made by a group of scientists. (This complaint to Ofcom is a matter of record, easily confirmed in any number of Reliable Sources.) The website was created by the same person who organised the complaint; it would generally therefore be considered a Reliable Source regarding this complaint. 2) It's used as a reference for "Not Materially Misleading". The website discusses the issue at some length, however it's clearly a one sided account, and there's already another reference which links directly to the Ofcome ruling, so I can therefore see a case for removing this reference. 3) It's used as a reference for Ofcom's "Summary of Adjudication". There may well be better sources for this, however the url given gives the summary with almost no comment. There's no suggestion that the Summary is incorrect; I would suggest that the reference should stand, although if someone can find a link to the summary that from a more Reliable Source, that would be preferable. 4) It's used as an External Link for the text of the 176 page complaint. I'm a bit dubious about this; I would suggest that it would be better practice to link directly to the text of the complaint (which is relevant to the Ofcom ruling), not to the ofcomswindleswindlecomplaint home page, which includes emotive statements like "littered with factual errors".

So, in summary, I think the first reference should stay, the second reference should go, the third reference should stay (if no better reference can be found), and the External Link should be changed to: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/

Does anyone else wish to comment? --Merlinme (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just link to ofcom? The complaint is there, why even use an unreliable site? mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a reliable source for the complaint, and the background for the complaint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Re: the "flet" reference, there's no particular reason to believe that the complaint was not raised in the way described; however it's clearly not a Reliable Source, and as far as I am aware there is no external corroboration of the details of this complaint (unlike the 176 page critique, or the 37 scientist reaction to the DVD release). Therefore I think it should go.
• Re: climateofdenial, this is quite similar to ofcomswindle; it's an attack website, but can be considered reliable when reporting its own complaint (which is a matter of record). There are four references to this website; the first links directly to the complaint which is a matter of record; the second reports the complaint, but links to the main website; and the website also appears twice in the external links. I don't think it's appropriate to have it in the External Links, as it cannot be considered a Reliable (neutral) Source, and it's already linked directly (where relevant) in the main text. I therefore propose that the first link stands, the second link is amended so that it's the same as the first link, and the two "External Link" references are removed.

Does anyone have any comments on flet or climateofdenial? --Merlinme (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In general if there is an internal link, then we should have an external link (or a see also). That seems to be a reasonably basic editorial policy.

If the flet complaint isn't referenced anywhere else (does OfCom have a list of complainants?) then we shouldn't link it. I agree that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of it - it seems to play the same cards as the others. But without verification of an actual complaint - we shouldn't link.

The climateofdenial site is a rather different animal from the others. While it is a single purpose site - it is written by an expert on the topic: Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science[13] - so it actually matches the WP:SPS exceptions (expert writing on topic of expertise). The open-letter[14] is certainly notable so should be linked.

As for ofcomswindlecomplaint.net - that should be linked as well (at least the complaint), since it has a rather impressive list of scientists underwriting it[15] - again (at least the complaint) matches WP:SPS exceptions.

Good work Merlinme. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kim. Not sure if I fully agree with you on climateofdenial and ofcomswindlecomplaint, though. Is Bob Ward an expert, in the sense that an exception should be allowed to Self Published Sources? He's a communications director, not a professional scientist. On that basis, a self published source by Alastair Campbell on the government of Tony Blair would be considered a Reliable Source. However, I still think it's correct to link the text (as opposed to the main website) of the two large, well documented complaints against the programme.

On the specific issue of External Links, I'm not generally a Wiki policy expert, however I'm not sure it's correct to say "In general if there is an internal link, then we should have an external link". A quick look at WP:External links suggests rather the opposite; External links should be kept to a minimum; citations should be inline if possible; external links should generally be restricted to official websites, and: "Sites that contain neutral (my italics) and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." No-one would ever pretend that climateofdenial is neutral, and it's already cited inline where relevant, so I would suggest it should be removed from External Links. --Merlinme (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Merlinme, being under the clause of exception from SPS, is not the same as notable or relevant (a mistake often made), weight is always an issue. But in this case it is moot, the complaint is clearly relevant and notable in and by itself. I should have written "inline" instead of "internal". So i agree that the external links should be removed. (caveat for you: Neutral there is in the wikipedia sense...ie NPOV which is quite a different animal from "neutral" in the common-speak version :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bud Ward is an expert. He's one of the top people in the world of science communication/science journalism on the topic of climate change. He's an expert writing in his area of expertise. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As there didn't seem to be any strong objections, I've edited the article links along the lines I suggested. Re: the External Links, as far as I can see according to WP:External Links, all of them except the first three links (to the TV websites) should go. Links should be made inline (which they are); external links should be kept to a minimum, with the onus on the person suggesting the External Link. Large websites, especially those which give neutral background and aren't directly referenced in the article can go in, but I'm not sure the non-tv links qualify (with a possible exception for the 176 page complaint, mainly because of its size and its importance to the debate on the programme). --Merlinme (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose Deletion of asserted facts which are not sourced

Under the title "Reception and criticism" the conclusory sentence

Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields.[9][25]

purports to be demonstrated by two footnotes, numbered at the time of this comment 9, and 25. I attempted to read both citations and nothing supported the sentence. In one case, the link was dead, in another case, the link did not point to content which would established the sentence in the article. Thus, I'm starting this talk discussion. If there are verifiable trusted sources which establish the sentence it could stay. If not, it should be removed. --Knowsetfree (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've fixed #25 (BAMOS), and will work on #9 later tonight, unless somebody else takes care of it first. I believe this is the document.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that mess is finally cleaned up. Ref #9 was used 4 times, but only 3 were actually supported by the PDF. The 4th, the quotes from John Houghton, were from a different source. But, I took care of it. Again, thanks for catching that.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Duplicated Content Removed, remaining material moved to Criticism

The text in question is in the article's intro between these lines:

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics...
...
...though it will not face sanctions.[13]

This does not belong in the intro, and is duplicative of text later in the article. There is a (very large) section on criticism and the details of the British Public Television issues are repeated needlessly. I suggest that this text be deleted. Any unique content could be added to the appropriate section of the article, subject to the normal wiki debate, NPOV, and reliable references. --Knowsetfree (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD the lead section should report "summarize the body of the article [...] including any notable controversies". See also WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, two important parts of WP:NPOV. Gabbe (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly. And the problem now is that we don't have a summary in the lead, we have an entire section. The lead could include something like "A number of criticisms of the film ...". And the section on "Criticisms" could detail content that adhered to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It has previously been commented that the lead for this article is too long. I tend to agree. Certainly WP:LEAD says that the text should be no more than four paragraphs. On that basis we could lose a paragraph. I have not recently had the time or energy to undertake this task. If you do, please go ahead; please be aware however that the current text version was arrived at after months of wrangling and compromises. Which is not to say that it couldn't be improved, it definitely can. It's just to say, please be careful of sensitivities. For example, editing down examples which broadly say the same thing may be appropriate; removing every example of a particular point would probably change the balance of the lead, however.

You may well also think the balance of the lead is wrong, but I'd recommend keeping issues of length and balance separate as much as possible. In general, as with all climate change topics, please be aware of people's strong views on the issues. Getting people's agreement first on changes of substance may be appropriate to avoid edit wars. --Merlinme (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited down the lead somewhat and reduced it to four paragraphs. You may have views on additional improvements. --Merlinme (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating Ofcom sub-section

I removed the detail in the intro dealing with complaints received by Ofcom to a new sub-section under "Reception and Criticism". Jprw (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pipe text?

Jmc reverted [16] without feeling any need to discuss it on talk. I've looked but don't see this issue discussed here. Could someone point me to the "consensus" on this? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume Jmc means in the sense that we've argued endlessly about the lead and found a form of words we can all agree on. However, I don't see a great deal of difference between "Scientific opinion on climate change" and "scientific consensus". I think scientific consensus may date from when that was the actual name of the linked article. I don't see anything wrong with using the current correct name of the linked article (which I assume was settled on after endless arguing, as with other global warming articles). Others may disagree, though. --Merlinme (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "scientific consensus", since "scientific opinion" does not make it clear that there is, in fact, a scientific consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why I reverted (and will again, unless there is a well-argued case against it). William M. Connolley asks to be pointed to the (seemingly) interminable previous discussions about this. I'd direct him to the archives. Jmc (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to hide the page name. And anyone following that page will find out soon enough. I don't like using "scientific consensus" when not necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not necessary? I genuinely don't follow your reasoning here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. "Opinion" seems a little too watered down to me, reducing the consensus position to something that almost sounds like an editorial piece. StuartH (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think we have a clear majority in favour of using "scientific consensus", which is the wording that's been used for a long time on this article (as Merlinme notes) - I've therefore restored that wording. I think it's important to use in this particular context - TGGWS is not simply arguing against "scientific opinion" but opposes a strong consensus view. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC overruled by a global warming believing majority? That must be a first. Anyway, the fact that there are such different perceptions about the wordings suggests that both texts are fairly neutral. If people want to go with the long standing version, that's fine by me. --Merlinme (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking in the Lede

I think some editors have forgotten this is an entry about a documentary. By what possible justifcation does the lede of the entry begin with a quote from the IPCC that is not from or about the film itself? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what "coat racking" is, could you explain, please? --Merlinme (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COAT:

• A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

I don't fully agree with the criticism, but I think the lede sentence is now a WP:SYN violation, unless the film primarily criticized that IPCC finding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your SYN violation is spurious, since the film indeed does that William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But we haven't provided evidence for it in the article. Perhaps it belongs here, but it needs to be sourced somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Coatracking issue is rather clear. The IPCC quote is not about the film; it's included not to inform the reader about the about film itself, but about the IPCC's conclusions on global warming. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, where we are told that even in articles about minority views (such as this one) the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are misapplying policy. This is not an article about a minority viewpoint-- that would be the article on global warming skepticism. This is an article about a film. You don't begin the lede of an article with a quote that doesn't even apply to subject of the article. In a section that details the views of the film, it is appropriate to counter that with a majority viewpoint. But the article lede hasn't even presented those views yet. (And no, the two words "arguing against" is not a presentation of the film's viewpoint). Fell Gleaming^talk 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SYN violation hasn't been addressed either, as the film isn't strictly about challenging the view of anthropogenic warming. Some of those interviewed hold to that view, but merely believe the effects are being overstated, and/or will be beneficial, not harmful. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell is right, this article is about the film, not about global warming skepticism. It is coatracking and syn to include material that makes a statement on anything not directly related to this film. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Cla68's premature and arbitrary modification of the lede. This section has been the subject of much past discussion (see archives) and proposed new modifications need to be thoroughly discussed here, before sufficient agreement for change is obtained. -- Jmc (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

JMC you reverted a reliable source which actually described what the film was about, to a source which does not even mention the film. That is a violation of SYN. Also, you reverted without saying why you personally don't agree with it. You need to give a reason other than, "it needs to be discussed first" and then not trying to discuss it. So, please give a reason why you think the version you reverted to is more in line with policy. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wild about the current opening paragraph, but I'm not sure your replacement was an improvement (and in general I think with such a controversial article it would be sensible to get consensus here before making changes to the lead.) I don't like that we use a long quote in the lead which is not specifically to do with the film, but the film is essentially defined by what it argues against, so we need to define the scientific consensus, and there are very few forms of words which everyone accepts for defining the scientific consensus. We could perhaps combine with part of the second paragraph, e.g. "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemic documentary film that argues that the scientific consensus that global warming is very likely caused by human activities is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times.". --Merlinme (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Like Merlinme, I'm not averse to modifying the lede, but the onus is on anyone who proposes modification to first offer here, in Discussion, a well-argued rationale for that modification. -- Jmc (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting the problem. The statement you're proposing is still WP:SYN and just as factually inaccurate as the earlier version. Several of the people interviewed in the film do not disagree with the belief that CO2 is leading to warming, but simply that the warming will be minimal and/or beneficial, or that the warming will be harmful, but the best way to address it is through mitigation efforts rather than emission caps. The article is intentionally misleading readers -- and violating WP policy as well. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's being addressed in the preceding comment. Not me, since I'm not the one proposing any new statement. The lede has existed in its present form for a long time (and been much discussed here), and, as I say, the onus falls on anyone who now comes proposing modification of it. They should first offer here the text of the new lede that they propose, together with a well-argued rationale for it - if for no other reason than consideration for their fellow editors. -- Jmc (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When a statement is shown to be in violation of policy or factually incorrect, there is no onus to "find a new source". It is simply removed. And for the record, I was responding to Merlinme, who did offer alternative text -- but one that contains the same SYN and factual accuracy errors. 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead is, by definition, a summary. Later on the content is divided into: Evidential issues in the theory of man-made global warming; Political issues in climate research (which have promoted the consensus view on global warming); Disputing that the consensus exists; and development being held back by those promoting the theory of man-made global warming. I don't see why The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemic documentary film that argues that the scientific consensus that global warming is very likely caused by human activities is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times" is an unfair summary of that content. It uses direct quotes from the publicity material. It does not say that "everyone interviewed in the film disagrees that global warming is happening", nor does it exclude the possibility that some of the people interviewed in the film are sceptical of the consensus for different reasons. The detail is provided later on in the article, as would be expected.--Merlinme (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version has two problems. First, it states what the film viewpoint is not before it cites what it is. The film should have its viewpoint described, then a majority view can be expressed to balance it. Secondly, the text is an improper synthesis of what the film is about, and an incorrect one at that. The film is not about 'disproving the IPCC consensus'. It's much more accurate to say its about stating the case for catastrophic warming is being overstated, and that, whether or not the IPCC is correct, that emissions reductions are not the best solution. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think the current version can be improved. I agree that it should not open with a large statement of what the programme is not. However this is complicated by the fact the programme is essentially defined negatively; it attacks "the Swindle", i.e. what it would argue is the global warming "industry". My alternative wording uses text already in the lead, from a reputable source; the full text is: In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media." Alternatively, look at the TGGWS website: How has a theory which demonstrably lacks really solid supporting evidence become an indisputable fact? What of the impressive, much talked about scientific ‘consensus’ which is used to forestall any awkward questions about the evidence?...But the scare over man made global warming may prove to be the first great example in the modern Western world, when science was betrayed by scientists themselves. That is how the programme is viewed by its makers. I would say that it is pretty clear that it attacks the consensus; so it doesn't seem unfair to me to briefly but accurately describe the consensus which is being attacked. My suggested version is briefer than the current version and uses more text from the programme makers, less from the majority view. If you can suggest improvements, please do. --Merlinme (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue of course is that a large portion of the film (and any of the people interviewed therein) are not arguing the science aspect at all. They'are arguing the politics and/or economics of it. One of the primary arguments of the film is that, even if the "science" is correct, the best response is mitigation, not emissions caps. This is a very important point to capture. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It was mostly about the science. What makes you say that "One of the primary arguments of the film is..." William M. Connolley (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the article or, better yet, watch the film. It will help you to write accurately about its contents. Do you think Lawson, or economist James Shikwati are talking about the science when they're interviewed? Fell Gleaming^talk 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, seen the film. Or indeed, you could even look at its website [17]. See the navigation sidebar? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the eight-section bar, only one of which mentions the IPCC and scientific consensus? Along with links about the health effects of warming? Further, had you actually read the site, you would see it is intended to provide additional information. It is considerably different than the film itself. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, as a proposal:

• The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and its political and economic consequences.

Or, perhaps, we can argue among the non-WP:COATRACKed proposals for the lede sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I go for Merlinme's earlier proposal (which retains text that has been much-discussed and long-accepted before the recent toing and froing): "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemic documentary film that argues that the scientific consensus that global warming is very likely caused by human activities is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times"."

I'm open to persuasion that coat-racking is at issue here, but please let's have cogent arguments presented on this page, rather than have constant drive-by hacking of the article itself.

-- Jmc (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that version has a severe grammatical error (hint: 'polemic' is a noun, not an adjective). And using "polemical" is not only POV in my opinion, its clumsy and obscure to the average reader. It adds nothing and appears design to simply knock the film right "out of the gate". The second issue is the heavy-handed emphasis on invoking consensus right in the article's very first sentence. You want to state the majority view- fine. Its done to excessive detail elsewhere in the article. The first thing a lede should do is tell us what the subject is -- not what it is not. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Fell Gleaming: "... that version has a severe grammatical error (hint: 'polemic' is a noun, not an adjective)".

From http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=polemic : "(adj) polemic, polemical (of or involving dispute or controversy)", and my trusty (printed) Collins English Dictionary: "polemic adj. also polemical. 1. of or involving dispute or controversy."

-- Jmc (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Fell Gleaming: "['polemic'] adds nothing and appears design to simply knock the film right 'out of the gate'." Two points here:

1) 'Polemic' is Channel 4's own description, therefore NPOV.

2) It's useful information for readers, indicating that this is not just a run-of-the-mill documentary but is deliberately intended to feed controversy.

Pending resolution of the current revision proposals, I've restored the status quo in respect of the lead par, in order to, in the interim, retain its wording prior to the present disputed modifications.

-- Jmc (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's inappropriate. There seems consensus that the first sentence is false (it attacks statements about global warming other than the IPCC report), and the second sentence is WP:COATRACK. Reverted to my version, although any of the recent versions without the IPCC quote would be satisfactory, while the discussion is occurring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's take this step by step. I presented reasons above for the restoration of 'polemic' and there's been no subsequent dispute - on the contrary, William M. Connolley did himself restore 'polemic', before he very civilly self-reverted. So 'polemic' goes back, in the interest of readers. -- Jmc (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Several editors have removed and/or spoken out against the word "polemic" just in the last few days alone. Please don't start the debate all over again. The word has no business there, plain and simple. It's clumsy, adds no real information for the reader, and appears to be promoting a negative POV. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming makes no attempt to respond rationally to my points above in favour of the retention of 'polemic'. But I guess he's just sore because I turned the tables on him and pointed out his own severe grammatical error. -- Jmc (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in favor of restoring "polemic". But I've also probably reverted enough today. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't personalize the debate. The fact remains that polemic is typically used as a noun. And if you believe the definition of polemic is to "feed controversy", you didn't read it well enough.. Further, I have no issue with the word itself. Use it properly and clearly, and not in the opening sentence, before we've even established to the reader what we're talking about. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been away, as you've probably gathered. Polemic (or polemical) has been in the lead since the documentary was described as such by both Channel 4 and Ofcom. I would prefer that it stays. I've not yet seen a convincing argument why it should go. I would prefer "polemical documentary" because while "polemic documentary" is not incorrect, it would make many readers think there is an error in the first sentence, which is distracting. Using the more common form would be less distracting. --Merlinme (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Working with the current text, my suggested version would be: "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical documentary film that argues against the occurrence of anthropogenic global warming, and whether warming would necessarily have negative consequences." The current text implies that the film argues against warming having political consequences, which seems nonsensical to me. My version keeps what I assume is the intended sense of the current text. --Merlinme (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to state that the film argues against anthropogenic global warning, and the political and economic response. But your version is more clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now that the dust is settling after all the toing and froing (not to mention argy-bargy), and having had acceptance by the grammatically-challenged that 'polemic' is a legitimate adjective, Merlinme's version, and rationale for it, strike me as sensible and fit for incorporation. -- Jmc (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed to the text I've suggested, but reading Arthuer Rubin's explanation I wonder if I may have actually slightly misinterpreted. The programme does question whether warming would necessarily be bad (reference the Medieval Warm Period), but this is a relatively minor argument compared to the amount of material suggesting that the scientific consensus has been influenced by political and funding factors, which is I believe what Arthur was trying to get at. With that in mind, how about: "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemical documentary film that questions the existence of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and suggests that the consensus has been influenced by funding and political factors." Or something like that, improvements welcomed. The second sentence would probably need to be re-worked as well to avoid repetition. --Merlinme (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is novel- a change made to TGGWS which doesn't generate 20 comments in two hours? In the absence of objections (and considering consensus for my previous change to the opening sentence) I'll have a go at making an edit and people can modify as they see fit. --Merlinme (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:FellGleaming received a 72 hour ban, and is currently under consideration for a community ban (!) for edit warring. This would explain why the talk page has been quiet. I can understand sanctions and a serious warning, especially given that the behaviour is apparently long-term. However to jump straight to a community ban seems rather over the top, I think the article's better in the end for having a critical fresh look at it. I've contributed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_Ban; you may or may not have a view. --Merlinme (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reworking of the lede, Merlinme. I'm comfortable with it. I think User:FellGleaming's ban was occasioned by more than his editing of this article. -- Jmc (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Theory

I'm a little confused by these edits [18] which claim the word "theory" is somehow being misused. This is clearly false. All scientific theories are theories. The repetitive substitution of "consensus" appears to be promoting the POV of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. The article already gives an extraordinary amount of material to detailing the responses of climate scientists who disagree. Finally, I note this article is not a forum for [[WP:SOAP|soapboxing\\ in global warming arguments. It's an encyclopedia entry about a film. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also not a place to promote conspiracy theories or exploit the ever-popular "it's just a theory!" rhetorical trick. Hans Adler 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the article saying "its just a theory!. The fact remains that it is a theory. Gravity is a theory too -- should we change the article "History of Gravity Theory" to "History of Gravity Occurrence " ? An encyclopedia should use language properly. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Theory" has two very different meanings that are easily confused. Best to avoid the word in favor of clearer alternatives. I've left it in where it was part of a direct quote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your belief that "theory" has an alternate meaning that misleads the reader? And how specifically do you believe the reader is being misled? And if the word is so problematic, why is it used ubiquitously in high-profile science articles? Fell Gleaming^talk 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that you have missed the creationist ("ID") nonsense that has been going on in the US, so I am not taking your first question very seriously. However, please note that we don't need reliable sources for making editorial decisions. And of course this is not the only article where we need to be careful to use this word only in ways that cannot be misunderstood. Another such article is that on evolution, another topic which is under an attack that has some similarities with the attack on scientific climate research. Hans Adler 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't hold up. Even with all the creationist nonsense (a term I fully agree with) the article on evolution still uses the word "theory" a total of 41 times. There is a large difference between the proper phrase "the theory of evolution" and the statement, "evolution is just a theory! It's probably not right!". And while you are correct that supporting facts are not a strict requirement for talk page discussions, they go a long way towards making the argument compelling. So far you've simply pointed out that creationists misuse the term, but not sufficiently enough to remove its use from the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving examples of the two different meanings of "theory." I take it we agree now? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you misread my post? It's a single usage: a deduction used to explain a body of scientific evidence. And if it's good enough for the Evolution article, it's certainly good enough for a "polemic" film. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're arguing that "theory" in "theory of evolution" and the expression "just a theory" mean the same thing, i.e., "a single usage." That's an interesting perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're making it very difficult to AGF with these continued distortions of plain English. In both phrases, the meaning of the word "theory" is unchanged, though each phrase itself does have a very different meaning. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So, Boris, you're arguing that because the word is used stupidly by idiots that we should abandon it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd characterize everyone who uses vague language as an "idiot." Better to use clearer wording when possible, and it's almost always possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IOW, yes. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The clearest phrase to express the theory of global warming is...the theory of global warming. Clumsy, unclear constructs such as "the current scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change" are not only less clear, they're promoting a POV Fell Gleaming^talk 20:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Any construct that takes a field of study and turns it into "the theory of X" is a bad construct. "The theory of ecology", for example, is obviously a poor construct. Global warming is an observation, it is a field of study, but it's not a theory. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The explanation of why the earth has warmed over the last 150 years is the theory of anthropogenic global warming. A theory is an explanation for a body of evidence. Leave off the word theory, and you're simply talking about the observation that the earth has warmed ... which of course the film isn't arguing against at all. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just gone through the SBH's diff, and it appears to me that most if not all instances of "theory" which he replaced by other wording were much more likely to be understood as theory (1) rather than theory (3, 4). In other words, this article about a scandalously bad documentary that disparaged scientific research was using language that also tended to be understood as disparaging that research. Not good. Hans Adler 23:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Ward

An editor just made a blink revert to restore a lengthy comment from Bob Ward on the film. I don't see the relevance here. Ward is a "policy and communications director". Further, the article claims this is a reaction to the DVD release, when he in fact made that statement before the DVD was even released. What gives? Fell Gleaming^talk 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if it belongs somewhere, it certainly doesn't belong between two of Durkin's comments related to the same criticism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure whether making it in bold makes it any better. For the moment, I've put it back, pending finding the right place (if indeed it does need to move). Also I've re-restored the lede; AR's assertions about other peoples opinions are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm baffled. The reason the Ward quote is there, is because it is in the same piece as the Durkin reply about the DVD [19]. FG has some mystical way of knowing that "he in fact made that statement before the DVD was even released", perhaps he could sahre it with us. And indeed, how he knows that Ward didn't say the same thing about the DVD release. So I think that AR is certainly wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I have a concern about your editing of this article but I'll take it up on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

William that source was published before the DVD was released. It can't be a reaction to the release. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation Error

The statement "Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting some errors in subsequent releases." is not backed up by the source. Anyone want to defend this before I remove it? Fell Gleaming^talk 10:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Have you made any effort to find alternative sources? Off the top of my head, later versions of film correct at least two errors. Quotes from Durkin can be found to that effect. Please do not remove material because you don't like it, using the excuse that the reference could be better. Find a better reference. --Merlinme (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How do I find an "alternative source" for a factual error? The company did not "accept some of the criticism". In fact, every source I've seen said the exact opposite; that the producers say the investigation results exonerated them, and that, while a few minor errors may have existed, they did not affect the conclusions or the content in any significant way. The current text appears designed to intentionally mislead the reader into believing they agreed with at least some of the criticisms. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So be more specific in your criticisms, and suggest an alternative wording. For example: "Durkin accepted that there had been n errors in the film as originally broadcast, and corrected x and y in later versions, but said that he did not think that the errors affected the film's conclusions".--Merlinme (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies the above? Fell Gleaming^talk 11:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How about: [20] "Thank you for highlighting the error on the 400-year graph...It doesn't alter our argument"...Mr Durkin has already apologised for an error in another graph used in the film which had to be corrected before the film's second transmission on the digital channel More 4. That's probably the best single reference, although there are a couple of others which say much the same thing about individual errors. --Merlinme (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The source concludes with the remainder of the email from Durkin: “In the course of translating complex data to a stylised television graphic, an inadvertent error occurred in the short sequence of data of solar activity between 1625 and 1700. This point of detail has been rectified for future transmissions. It does not affect the argument of the film.” Wouldn't you agree that what the sources say is signficantly short of what the current article text is trying to claim? Fell Gleaming^talk 11:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, yes. Which is why I suggested an alternative wording which included the words: "he did not think that the errors affected the film's conclusions". Why don't you suggest an appropriate wording. --Merlinme (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "Errors in two graphs shown in the film were corrected in subsequent showings. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has stated the errors were minor and did not affect the film's conclusions". Fell Gleaming^talk

I think you need something like "in his view the errors were minor and did not affect the film's conclusions", as others disagree that the errors were minor. But otherwise, fine. --Merlinme (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The "in his view" is implicit in that we identify it as his statement. There are statements from other scientists and organizations throughout the article, none of which are prefaced with the wordy and clumsy "in his view" or "in their view". Should we add that throughout the article? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when it's something that's so disputed, then yes, I think it should be highlighted that it's his view. I don't consider adding three small words to a fairly short sentence to be either wordy or clumsy. If you have specific other examples where you think it should also be added, please give them. --Merlinme (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Following your logic, the article should read: Carl Wunsch says that in his view the film is as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.. Or that George Monbiot accused Channel 4 of being in his opinion more interested in generating controversy than in producing credible science programmes. Or that Medialens published a refutation of Durkin's film describing the work as Pure Propaganda in their viewpoint. Do you truly believe that any reader could possibly not realize this is Durkin's viewpoint, when the text specifically states it is something he said? Fell Gleaming^talk 13:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to change the Wunsch, feel free. "Accused" makes it pretty obvious that it's Monbiot's view. I'm not familiar with the medialens publication, but it should probably be "what they described as a refutation". In general, I'm wary of individual statements which give the impression of authority on something which is disputed.--Merlinme (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's no possibility for confusion. If you prefer, we can replace "said" with the somewhat stronger word "asserted", i.e. "Durkin asserted the errors were minor...." But tacking on horrendously clumsy constructions as "in his viewpoint", "in their opinion", everywhere is really unwarranted. The sole objective here is to avoid misleading the reader. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use asserted, i.e. "Errors in two graphs shown in the film were corrected in subsequent showings. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has asserted that the errors were minor and did not affect the film's conclusions", ok, although I'm not sure it's less clumsy than "in his view". The other problem is that editors tend to replace "asserted" with "said" or "stated", precisely because they think "asserted" is weaker or non-neutral. --Merlinme (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with "and removed a claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans"? The claim was removed, I believe in the second broadcast; the error was highlighted by critics; the fact that it was removed is supported by a reference. The original text was "accepted some of the criticism, correcting some errors in subsequent releases". Why is it incorrect to detail the errors which were corrected? --Merlinme (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your source doesn't claim what you say it does. Read it again: [21]. It simply says Bob Ward claims the volcano statement is incorrect, not that it was acknowledged and/or corrected. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is unclear about: "Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists — including the claim about volcanic emissions — but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release."? --Merlinme (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes but isn't that one of the two errors we're already referring to, e.g. the graph of volcanic emissions is one of the two graphs that the sentence already refers to? The source says two errors were corrected, but you phrase it as suggesting there were three errors. In any case, it's getting a bit overlong for the lede. I certainly have no objection to spelling this out at length in the article itself, but its already raising UNDUE issues in the lede. After all, the film raises hundreds of other points, arguments, graphs, etc that weren't in need of correction, none of which are mentioned in the lede itself. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not the same as either the error about adding in data which didn't exist on one graph, or incorrectly labelling the time axis on another graph. You'll have to forgive me if I show a certain amount of scepticism that you are arguing the case on its merits, when you don't seem to fully understand the subject, and the edits you are making seem to be pushing a particular point of view. If you wish, we can make it closer to the original, i.e. "Following criticism of the original film, three errors were corrected in subsequent releases. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has asserted that the errors were minor and did not affect the film's conclusions." and give both references. --Merlinme (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Source (1) says "Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists, including the claim about volcanos". Source (2) says Durkin acknowledged an error in a graph, and had previously acknowledged a second graph error. What source are you using that claims there were 3 errors? Further, I remind to you AGF, as I could very well level the same accusations against you, which I have avoided doing. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless."... "Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000"... Neither of those has anything to do with volcanoes. The first graph is to do with "Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years". The second graph is to do with temperature data 1880-1980ish (or 1880-2000 in the original). "Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists — including the claim about volcanic emissions" was before Friis-Christensen and Rive had highlighted the error in "Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years". So that's three errors. Regarding AGF, it is quite difficult when you appear to be reverting my edits without carefully considering the diffs; even edits which make corrections to references; even edits which appear to be removing unsubstantiated claims opposing your point of view. --Merlinme (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. When JMC blanket reverted a half-dozen of my changes -- some of which you later wound up restoring in fact -- you supported him on the grounds they hadn't "been sufficiently discussed enough". Now you're failing to assume AGF because reverted a much smaller set on the same grounds? Further, I didn't even remove the volcano claim from the article....it was simply moved out of the lede.

Regarding the graphs, you may well be correct that they are separate. I don't have a problem with the lede stating 3 section detailing the specifics of those errors, but it needs to be done outside the lede on the grounds I mentioned earlier. The lede should simply state there were 3 errors and Durkin's response. Otherwise balance will require the lede to mention some of the other claims which weren't in error, as well as giving the reader enough additional data about the corrections for them to judge for themselves whether they materially affect the conclusions or not. Fell Gleaming^talk 01:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I lost my temper somewhat, but you clearly hadn't actually looked carefully at the changes I'd made, or you would have realised that one edit was to correct a reference, and one edit was to remove unsupported anti TGGWS wording. Please read the diffs before doing a blanket revert. I don't see why correcting a reference or removing the unsupported claim that x refuted something requires discussion.

Yes, I am correct that there were three acknowledged errors, two for different graphs, and one for the claim that volcanic CO2 emissions are greater than human. The current lead may actually be factually wrong, I believe it was the volcanic emissions claim and the graph to 2000 which were immediately criticised and then corrected in the second broadcast, i.e. only one graph error. To realise there was a second graph error required a detailed knowledge of Friis-Christensen's research, so this only became clear when Rive published their response, so this was somewhat later; I believe Durkin says that the error would be corrected in the DVD release. I would therefore suggest changing the lead to say something like: "Later broadcasts corrected three errors which had been found in the original film. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has asserted that the errors were minor and did not affect the film's conclusions." and then give the two references. --Merlinme (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the awards in the lede

It appears to be normal practice to mention in the lede if a film has won any awards. This film appears to have been nominated for three and won two. There are two ways we can do this: (1) add "award winning" to the first sentence, or (2) mention the awards it has won in greater detail later in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Award-winning" is a bit vague, I'd prefer the latter approach. --Merlinme (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FG appears to have tried to move it into the lede [22] but if that was his intent, he failed. I've added cn because I don't know where the plural of awards comes from William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking Oscars or Sundance here. The specific awards are very small potatoes: one "short list" and two minor regional film festivals. They're barely worth mentioning in the article itself, much less in the lede. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There is an "awards" section in the article, it also lists: "Best Documentary at the Io Isabella Film Festival held in Southern Italy." However the ref is broken. With some difficulty I've found a link which works. It is indeed somewhat debatable whether these are prestigious enough awards to go in the lead; it's noticeable, for example, that TGGWS website does not seem to mention them. --Merlinme (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the other awards, but for a science film, I don't know of a more prestigious award than CAID's International Science Film Festival. After all, the Oscar's aren't voted on by scientists. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell us please, on what evidence do you base this evaluation? For such a prestigious scientific film festival it's odd that the BBC has never heard of it.[23] Nor has the New York Times.[24] Nor has The Guardian.[25] Well then, let's try something in this prestigious festival's backyard, the Athens News. Oh dear.[26] One can only conclude that it's so prestigious that almost no one has heard of it. So once again, tell us please, on what criteria do you base your evaluation of CAID's festival? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the dangers of random Googling. Try the same search for any science film festival, and see if you can find the NYT or the BBC reporting on any of them. Science films aren't sexy enough to get much press. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you did not answer my question. Perhaps I was unclear, so let me restate it: On what criteria do you base your evaluation of CAID's festival? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You have things in reverse. You made the claim the award was minor and not notable; a claim that has yet to be backed up. Fell Gleaming^talk 01:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The current main website is here: [27]. The title of the festival in the logo is "International Science Film Festival in Athens by CAID", although the "in Athens" part seems to be usually missed out when the title is written down, presumably because the title is already a bit of a mouthful. CAID is the "Centre of Applied Industrial Design", a small non-profit organization active in education and training. The festival is the only scientific film institution in Greece, based in Athens. It's targeted at journalists at least as much as scientists: Whether you're a producer, a broadcaster, a distributor, a scientist, an editor, a student, a professor, a journalist or one of any number of suppliers to the industry, you'll want to be there - you NEED to be there! The jury which awarded Durkin the "special mention" consisted of a Professor "of the Faculty of Communication, Media and Culture (Greece)" as president, "Executive Director of Techfilm" from "Czech Technical University in Prague", "Science Communication Consultant for LABTOMEDIA (Brussels)", a "Physicist, Film Director", the "President of IAMS (International Association for Media in Science)", and the "First Deputy Mayor of Sheville". So while there are a few people who might be scientists there, the jury actually mainly consists of people who are science communication consultants, rather than those active in research.

I have no objection to it being in the article somewhere, but it's going to be difficult to argue that it's a particularly prestigious competition, and TGGWS only got a "special mention" anyway. --Merlinme (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You see, SBHB, you should take a lesson from Merlinme. Through research and logical argument -- rather than stonewalling and obfuscation -- he's created consensus. I am convinced; this award does not belong in the lede. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to do with the current sentence: "The film won best documentary at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week and got a Jury's Special Mention for courageous contribution to the scientific dialogue and for the quality of cinematography in the 3rd International Science Film Festival Awards 2008"? Delete the whole thing? They are pretty minor regional awards, and the detail is already given later in the article. Or would you prefer to keep the Io Isabella part of the sentence? --Merlinme (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Contributors"

I see no support for the statement that two scientists who "contributed" to the film were critical. One of the scientists was interviewed in the film (and should be identified as such), whereas the other simply had his research mentioned. Neither of them were formal contributors. The section should read "was criticized by scientists (including one who was interviewed in the fim)" Fell Gleaming^talk 12:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "was criticised by one scientist (Carl Wunsch) who was interviewed in the film, and one scientist (Friis-Christensen) whose research was used to support the film's claims"? --Merlinme (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly better, though I would suggest the more succinct version of: "was criticised by one scientist interviewed in the film, and a second whose research was used", especially since both those scientists and the respective situations are covered in lengthy detail in the article itself. We don't need to fully reiterate everything in the lede, but merely sum it up. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)