Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Unreferenced sections

The sections on Climate Fail Files and climatereferencenetwork.org, added just before full protection by TMLutas ([1]) have no sources at all and appear to serve to advance an agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia's purpose: TMLutas has established over a long period that he is a climate change denier, which is fine, but out of line with the reality-based focus of Wikipedia. We need reliable independent sources establishing their significance and showing their reception by the reality-based community, otherwise they need to go per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bill Nye video in question (here) was an illustrated experiment showing the effects of CO2. In other words, the gentleman in the video is not a genuine scientist; rather, he is simply a member of the production team, wearing a white laboratory coat in order to pose as one. Anthony Watts blogged to absurd length to expose the video as "fake" and "fraudulent", and generally used the opportunity to poke fun at people who think increasing concentrations are a real and growing problem. The incident, once again, demonstrates how deeply irrational Anthony Watts is. But as acts of stupidity go, Watts' blog post on the topic isn't particularly notable, and should not be conflated with his other projects (which at least have some value, though not as he intended) and therefore should be removed when page protection expires. — TPX 10:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspected as much. If we are not presented with reliable independent sources demonstrating the significance of the video, and detailing the reaction of the reality-based media, the section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The final edit prior to protection, [2], introduced two completely unsourced sections. Since this text is not only unsourced but also controversial (see above), this single edit should be reverted.

I obviously can't do this myself because although the reversion of unsourced content is not controversial, it is a substantive change to content (unlike fixing minor spelling and grammatical errors). Guy (Help!) 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The larger problem is the many poorly sourced and controversial changes made or remade by (among others) Guy. Removing all recent edits would be acceptable, in fact I believe it may be the only neutral solution. Removing "this single edit" would be supporting one side. Please ignore this request. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Of the recent changes, this is the only one that is unsourced. Your suggestion that we keep in one bad edit to balance other "bad edits" is obviously not how wikipedia operates. If you want to suggest other edits be reverted, you should discuss that in a new section.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose specific changes and see if they have consensus. Meanwhile, this unsourced text needs to go. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done I've undone the unsourced edit. What is and isn't a neutral course of action is debatable, but whatever your position is, Wikipedia:Verifiability is pretty clear that unsourced content that has been challenged should be removed from articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is absurd. You have a projects section in the Wikipedia article for the website. There is a projects page on the website itself. It lists three projects. The wikipedia section entitled "projects" (note the plural) only covers one of the three. I added minor coverage of the other two so that there wouldn't be a WP:UNDUE issue. I request that the edit be restored as the source obviously the website which is reliable about itself. We can work up a cite if you really want to but it should be unnecessary. It might be interesting to cover past projects, like the stevenson screen project and the UHI transect project but because those are no longer on the current version of the website, it's reasonable to cite them (the citation would be to archive.org archived versions of the site containing the information). If we're going to cover projects at all, let's cover the projects. Picking and choosing them is a manifestation of bias and another NPOV issue. TMLutas (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What sort of expert could be an authority on denialism?

I think it's worth asking just what sort of expert is qualified to associate the label "denialist" with a person or a collection of writings or a website.

I don't think citing experts in climate is enough. Experts in climate know climate. They're not experts in human psychology or behavior.

It seems to me that only psychologists or anthropologists are qualified to make such a judgement. Others are acting outside their area of expertise. Mc6809e (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Any expert in a field where there is robust consensus, including climate change, is qualified to judge whether contrarian statements amount to legitimate scientific skepticism or denialism. It's a lot like the pseudoscience demarcation issue. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mc6809e. Denialism is, according to the Wikipedia article, is more than just contrarian statements it is associated with paid flackery and ideological motivations. How is a climate expert to judge the base motivations of dissenters to judge whether someone is skeptical or a "denialist"? Capitalismojo (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Denialism does not imply paid flackery (though WUWT passes that bar, with its obscure funding and documented handouts from the Koch-funded Heartland Institute). Denialism is wilful denial of the evidence. And WUWT does just that. Science judges new facts according to how well they fit the data, denialism judges them by how well they fit the narrative. You could more accurately characterise it as pseudoscience, but denialism is more widely used in this context. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick trawl of Google finds that the idea of WUWT being a denialist blog is pretty widespread, and Scientific American don't seemt o have a problem with this characterisation:

Rather, the big problem was that the poll was skewed by visitors who clicked over from the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That? Run by Anthony Watts, the site created a web page urging users to take the poll.

— Do 80 percent of Scientific American subscribers deny global warming? Hardly

Naturally, the “stupid” — which are most likely those considered “climate deniers” — have a response. A well-known “climate denier” Anthony Watts posted on his blog Watt’s Up With That this response:

— This Is Bloomberg Businessweek’s Hurricane Sandy Cover

Michael Burgess (R-TX), cited an online public opinion poll (in and of itself an unscientific way of sampling opinion data) as reason for rejecting the science of global warming. Making matters worse, it turns out the particular poll was targeted by well-known climate science denial website Watt’s Up With That in a campaign to skew the results.

— House Energy and Commerce Committee Votes for Science Denial

The blogging heart of climate change denial, Watt’s Up With That is calling for their army of winged monkeys to descend on the local theatre company’s contact page.

— Global climate denial industry turns its sights on Joy Burch

The blog features the fringe views of climate misinformers like Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors and conservative media have previously seized on its misleading content.

— Meet The Climate Denial Machine

Before the numbers were even in, the science denialist blog Watts Up With That began downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects — and even death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan — a ferocious storm that may have claimed as many as 10,000 lives.

— Skeptical climate blog shamefully downplays Super Typhoon Haiyan

Watts and McIntyre characterize themselves as skeptical on some climate change issues, and Muller agrees that they are skeptics not deniers. Unfortunately, the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog,

— Science Denial and the Science Classroom

Watts Up With That is one of the more civil and well-read of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. It does not disclose its funding sources. Anthony Watts, its proprietor, has worked as a broadcast weatherman for years but has no degree.

— Denier blogs

The best of them — and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the web site Watts Up With That — have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp.

— Denying global warmign despite no actual expertise

This is not exactly a controversial view, other than among climate deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mc6809e and Capitalismojo: Excellent point. As I'm sure you know, Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright are sociologists, while John Cook is working on a PhD in psychology. That's a strong argument in favour of "denial" rather than "skepticism", since it's being made by the most relevant experts. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mc6809e: I brought up that question in relation to climatologist Michael Mann in an earlier thread but the majority decided he's not a poor source. That does leave, however, the objection that Mann represents a minority view and should not be a star featured source. I say "minority" based on reliable sources acceptable in Wikipedia on the topic, Guy doesn't seem to have made an effort to filter those. Guettarda correctly notes that Dunlap + McCright are sociologists, but re John Cook: he has a BSc in Physics from the University of Queensland, and if he someday gets a higher degree that won't show that he was an "expert" when writing for a book published in 2013. His claim to fame is the blog Skeptical_Science which trades barbs with WUWT frequently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we really using Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, the Blaze, a Bill McKibben opinion piece, the io9 sciencefiction site, and the Blaze? No, that doesn't wash. I note that the nbci.nml.nih.gov ref actually cuts against the argument, using "skeptic". Judith Curry's blog post also cuts against the argument as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is correct, of course, that these sources are by and large not high quality. The NIH and scientific american are ok, salon and theblaze are not, particularly considering we have significantly better sources to use in their place. This list, however, is on par with the "skeptic" sources provided in a section above, and it's a good example of why we shouldn't be cherry picking blogs and newspapers to settle a dispute when we have recognized expert opinion on the topic instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by and large not high quality. The NIH actually runs counter to the argument being made and the Scientific American is explicitly an "Opinion" blog piece. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article is tagged as if neutrality of the entire thing is disputed. The only actual dispute I can see (other than from the ignorable fringes) is precisely how we cover the issue of denialism, specifically, how we contextualise the fact that Watts claims to be a skeptic while the reality-based community frequently characterises this as a denialist blog, and climate change "skepticism" more generally is also generally understood to be denialism. On that basis I think the NPOV tag should go and we should simply RfC which of a small number of potential alternative forms of words we should use. Give off-wiki canvassing I think a franchise requirement would eb prudent in any RfC. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And you don't see any bias in your choice of the words "reality-based community"? Your comment alone is evidence of the need for great caution in ensuring that we stay within our policies on NPOV. The tag should stay until that issue is clearly resolved. Rossami (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

since I'm the editor who placed the tag up, I find bias on the following issues:

1. Overemphasis of hostile sources

2. The use of inflammatory/propaganda terms (denier/denial/denialism/denialist)

3. Not a particularly fair treatment of surfacestations.org

4. Minimizing Watts' multi-year role in watchdogging the temperature records in the "Temperature records" section

This does not include some of the other problems in the article such as the climategate coverage which is arguably also an NPOV problem. While the denialism issue is certainly part of the problem, it is not the whole problem or even the majority of the problem. TMLutas (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

TMLutas, your justifications are contrary to specific provisions of NPOV policy: please re-examine WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL for a start. Also note that denial and denialism are terms used in the scholarly literature on this topic area, not "inflammatory/propaganda terms". You might remember that WP:NOTCENSORED. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You might consider reading the policies you are referring to instead of just referring to them. From WP:NOTCENSORED "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States will also be removed." This, of course, begs the question of whether or not there's an actual NPOV violation. WP:WEIGHT violations are what I'm asserting, that the use of hostile sources is overdone. We can discuss it but there very much certainly is not consensus on this point. Since the surfacestations.org effort produced an actual peer reviewed paper, accusations that it is pseudoscience seem a bit odd without backing. The use of a term in scholarly literature does not mean that it is not inflammatory or a propaganda term or that it could not be used differently based on context. As an example, there are scholarly studies out there that use the term idiot, imbecile, and moron (they originated as psychological classifications) but calling another editor such things is quite definitely inflammatory and should not be done. TMLutas (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The blog is not a living person, so WP:BLP does not apply. We have abundant sources showing that this is a climate denial blog, even if it were a WP:BLP issue, that policy does not mandate that we sugar coat the facts. When someone sells out to people who are determined to put profit before the future of humanity, they tend to get a rough ride in the reliable sources. This isn't our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say in this section that WP:BLP applied. I came up with 4 issues justifying the NPOV tag on the entire article when it was erroneously claimed that the only problem was denier/denialist/denialism. Up to this point, I didn't want to open up all the cans of worms at once because that tends to get messy. I think the resulting discussion justified my (unfortunately failed) attempt to do these one at a time.

All your reasons require one to first assume that WUWT adopts a scientifically defensible approach. WUWT's approach, as noted by numerous authorities, is scientifically indefensible and driven by a pre-defined agenda that is primarily political. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

TML has a history of abusing NPOV tags in GW related articles William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

William Connolley has a history of abuse in GW related articles and come under sanction for it. Nice to see you too WMC. There is personal animosity here between Watts and Connolley that would make this editor a particularly poor participant in editing this particular page. TMLutas (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I support TM Lutas's attempt to clean up the NPOV and (likely) BLP problems with this article. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete, you seem to be promoting fringe views again. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As is explicitly clear from the article and Watts' publications, he's opposed to the overwhelming majority view in climate science and is an obvious minority in this topic area. "n articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." WP:PSCI also applies to fringe views. As for the terms, they have to be used properly, not censored because you don't like the sociological and psychologcial research into this topic area. The surfacestations.org effort didn't produce an actual peer reviewed paper, it produced data which others analysed (with Watts as co-author on the second paper) and confounded Watts' expectations, which he still clings to. . . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to what he opposes that is the overwhelming majority view? My understanding is that his biggest beef with climate science is that a particular number (the CO2 feedback number) is not currently the right number. My understanding is that between the AR4 and AR5, the IPCC actually moved closer to his position and lowered their own estimates. That's not the stuff that fringe science is made of. TMLutas (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

He's noted in reliable sources for promoting denial that the world has warmed measurably since 1900, by making unwarranted assertions about the temperature record. Your understanding looks rather flawed, sensitivity is a complex area, but delighted if he's backing a number more in line with mainstream views. . . . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to slap an NPOV tag on the entire climate science literature, not this article. This article reflects the reality-based perspective, if reality is not to your liking, it's not really our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that this article is just a proxy fight for warmists vs skeptics? That wouldn't be policy compliant. You know what, I think you're right on that point that this page isn't being edited honestly. TMLutas (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The word warmists is the end of this conversation. It is a pejorative used by those who do not want to believe the science. The climate is changing, we are largely responsible, the science is absolutely clear and if anything understated via IPCC due to the political influence of deniers.

This blog exists to undermine the science. You clearly don't like either the science or the implications of the fact that this is a science and climate denial blog, which is your prerogative, but your views as stated are inconsistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV and we are entitled to discount them. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as the Koch brothers would wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not wish to have a productive conversation as I'd have been perfectly happy to switch to a neutral label you were more comfortable with. On abortion, I use pro-life and pro-choice, for example, when it became clear that these are preferred labels but I won't use "reality based community" because it's got an implied insult in for its opponents. TMLutas (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

TMLutas, you are right, and from other comments on this talk page I gather that several more editors share your concerns, or have further reasons to disapprove of what's been done to this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bluntly unable to deal with controversy. This is why Wikipedia is regarded an unreliable for anything other than the blandest information. This article is blatantly and laughably slanted. It is completely worthless! 68.116.52.99 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals very well with controversy. The problem here is that there is no controversy about climate change: there's science, and there are people who, for usually political or financial reasons, do not want to believe it. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE tone down your incendiary language. Please read WP:CIVIL and follow appropriately. You treat everyone that disagrees with you with such disdain it is all but impossible to have an adult discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I respect people, not ideas. As I say above, people are entitled to hold incorrect views. They are not entitled to assert them as fact on Wikipedia. Climate change deniers are often charming people, but any attempt to assert that their beliefs are empirically valid, must and will be firmly rejected. Pretending otherwise is rude: it gives false hope and prolongs the agony. And attempting to rewrite Wikipedia articles to reflect a view which people know perfectly well is rejected by the relevant professional community, is equally rude. Wikipedia policy on this is abundantly clear: we portray these topics from the reality-based standpoint, as defined by the scientific consensus. Same applies for creationism, homeopathy, everything. I am well aware that some people are so deeply vested in their belief that they are unable to unpick criticism of their beliefs from criticism of them personally, this is unfortunate but not our problem. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't even listen to the idea, thus you show no respect. So long as the climate models are unable to accurately predict temperatures, there will be people highly skeptical of the actual modeling process. As someone that has done a lot of predictive analysis, I know how difficult it is to do so with any degree of accuracy. To call people like me a denier because I don't agree with the prediction models, which don't predict, is not a sign of respect. These continued claims of scientific consensus are nothing of the type. Science is empirical not consensual. Several years ago I was told that not enough time had passed to accurately asses the AR4 models and that a minimum of 15 years were required. Those 15 years have passed and as was true then those models have been unable to accurately reflect the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since then the models have been updated and excuses have been made to explain the discrepancies, fine, only now those that claim the science is settled need to show some evidence (in about 15 years) that their models are correct. I grew up being told that the world was going to freeze, so the hysterics that the end of the world is at hand don't sell very well. You should look in a mirror and read your last sentence to yourself. While I agree with you that certain things (like creationism) have no scientific evidence to back up their claim, I don't treat those people like morons because you never know when Random error will come along and smack you upside the head. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather has put this page on full protection until June 8. This is unfortunate since it freezes in place the recent changes by editors insisting on "denial" etc. despite the lack of consensus. Perhaps on June 8 we should revert to an article version as of prior to when those changes began, and then allow only changes which clearly have consensus, as commonly happens under WP:NOCONSENSUS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate principally because it enforces two unreferenced sections of no obvious merit (see below). Perhaps Watts should have held back on his attempts to astroturf, since that has brought increased scrutiny on the flummery promoted by his followers in this article. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that it freezes in place a recent, highly controversial addition. However, I disagree that we should simply plan, on 8 June to revert to an earlier version. What we should do if debate how the lead should be written, reach a consensus, and if we reach it before 8 June, we can get it changed via an edit request. I'm trying to contribute, I asked for a list of sources supporting each term, and so far the list is overwhelmingly in support of skeptic. There may be enough support for denial to include a minority position, but that debate has not run its course.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On this, at least, we agree (up to the point where you started begging the question, at least). You have to remember that no denialist self-describes as such, and it is only recently that the mainstream have started to describe this particular non-agricultural manual earth-turning implement as the spade it always was. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If it really is only recently that the term is being used, then please review Wikipedia:Recentism. We can then label WUWT as a denialist site when reliable sources actually do so. Until that time, you are well aware that WP deliberately want to follow sources, not be at the forefront.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite obviously, "climate change denial" has been around significantly long, and attracted significant enough coverage in that time, to not meet the conditions of that essay. Dunlap was published in 2011, for instance, earlier than all but one of the sources you provided above. So, where shall we shift the goalposts next?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we be clear that your comment is addressed to Guy, rather than to me. I don't think it is a recent term, I was responding to Guy's assertion that the description is recent.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• @ Guy, deniers have self-described as such: see Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE. As for timing, the 1997 book The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan says "some individuals do not want the public to know the immediacy and extent of the climate threat. They have been waging a persistent campaign of denial and suppression that has been lamentably successful". . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Source cleanup

While looking at some of the sources, I note that source 1 and 6 appear to be identical, with the first tagged as:

<ref name=hockey> and the second tagged as <ref name="hockeystick">.

Is there any reason not to combine these to be the same citation?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. I think they might have intended to be referring to different page numbers, but investigating the source I was only able to find one page worth citing (72, I believe); page 222 and 172 don't substantively mention Watts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, you left some stray markup at the end of the lead (you added a closing ref tag, but didn't remove the citation in it). Could you fix that, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Projects section subject matter

Could we have consensus that the Projects section should cover the WUWT's listed projects, both those listed now and those listed in the past? Apparently this needs discussion due to deletions in this section. TMLutas (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that was the problem. I think the wording choice and lack of sources were the problem. If we can fix that, we should be fine to include WUWT's projects in the article, of course! If you'd like to make a draft version while the article is protected, that might be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Where will you fond RS's for this stuff? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As above. The only projects we should list, are ones considered notable by reliable sources. — TPX 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability applies to the (subject of an) entire article not to every item mentioned in an article. If we were to adopt the latter as a policy, my guess is we have to excise half the encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence. jps (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That essay would only apply if the entire article were at AFD. This thread is a discussion about appropriate content in an article after the general topic has passed the Notability hurdle. As S Philbrick explained notability does not apply to content of an article once notability for the topic has been established. I think we all agree that the general topic about this blog is notable.

Since that hurdle has been passed, there's only one question here, and it's the the one WMC already asked -- Where are the RSs regarding WUWT's projects?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you read the essay, which basically reiterates what you just wrote. We're talking about the prominence of the content not the notability of the article. jps (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rats, you're right. I assumed it was about notability (right) but I did not slow down enough to realize it was contrasting that concept to applicable content policies. My apologies.

Getting back to the issue, though, what RSs exist discussing WUWT's projects?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This one got some play about five years ago. jps (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the one that's covered briefly under projects, the main article is Anthony Watts (blogger)#Surface Stations project and the summary here needs improvement. Also, suggest merging it into #Temperature records as they're both the same topic. . dave souza, talk 17:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What are "deniers" supposed to be denying

I think I am in the "lukewarm" camp; agreeing that CO2 impacts climate; that increasing concentration of CO2 is largely manmade and therefore some component of recent warming is also man-made. But I am far from convinced that this is either a) alarming or b) likely to be catastrophic. Moreover, I do not think that Western energy policy will make a discernible difference to climate or temperature, but it is having a devastating effect on economies and jobs.

But given the lack of warming over the past 18+ years, just what are denialists supposed to be denying. Surely before promulgating such petty name calling, there ought to be some discussion about what the alleged "consensus" is, and whether said "consensus" is actually tenable as a proposition.

See image linked below that shows the discrepancy between predicted warming by the models and actual warming measured by satellites and balloons.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

Rex Forcer (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's another denialist talking point. Without a credible suggestion for a content change, it makes no odds either way. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Lack of warming over the past 18+ years" ? I'm not a supporter of the current RfC and you can also call me a warmist if pleases you. I've witnessed twisters in Germany ( not that one ) and other such funnies - wind columns, standing lightnings - now give me the historical data showing that's standard climate for the area, I'll subscribe WUWT at once I need entertainment. --Askedonty (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Even the climate scientist have said that there is no connection to current weather events. However, you could use the lack of Hurricanes, the low number of tornados in the US over the past few years, and numerous other weather events to make the opposite conclusion. Also Tornadoes are not uncommon in Germany or other parts of Europe for that matter. Over the past 60 years the number of tornadoes in my town have decreased very slightly, beyond the ability of the human mind to quantify. Arzel (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There are the so-called "tornado alleys" identified at the bottom of the Alps in Austria: Local topographic conditions are held responsible for the formation of "tornado alleys". Nonetheless in 1999 scholars in the Karlsruhe Universitat (de) already did not know how to not complaining about the weather anymore. In List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks the comparison between the 20th and 21th centuries is not revealing any statistical inertia, if trusting the 20th century meteorological data. --Askedonty (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Arzel, you appear to be badly misinformed. For a current example, "This year's deadly heat wave in India was made much more probable by the fact that Earth is experiencing its hottest temperatures on record--the past twelve months were the warmest twelve-month period in recorded history, and so was the January - April 2015 period. According to the India Meteorological Department, a warming climate increased heat waves in India by a third between 1961 to 2010. As the planet continues to warm..." by the reputable Jeff Masters, with links to relevant scientific papers. . . . dave souza, talk 07:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no statistically significant warming since about 1998. This is acknowledged in AR5. It's also acknowledged that these are natural weather cycles. Master's can get his blog peer reviewed but so far there is no link to the minute amount of warming we have seen. It's no more significant than the record cold winters in the U.S. IPCC is geared towards stopping much larger changes by 2100, not the miniscule changes that cannot be extracted from the noise of natural variation or the variations that occur geographically through natural phenomena like El Nino. The issue today is that the climate models are supposed to have sub-decadal accuracy but they obviously do not. Incidentally, Watts' comments on climate put him clearly in the "97%" camp based on the criteria used. --DHeyward (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The noise of natural variation is why climate is classically defined over a 30 year period, not a cherry-picked calculation from the strong El Nino year of 1988. See global warming hiatus. Watts' comments in the context of a lot of interesting weather lately don't seem to include any discussion of India, but on 22 March he did headline a comment So far, 2015 seems to be a bad year for the ‘severe weather caused by climate change” meme. And, oddly enough, he seemed to be solely interested in the short term prevalence of U.S. tornadoes, where there's not so much consensus about changing patterns. Think he'll get around to noticing recent flooding and heatwave events? . . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

WP is actually not a reliable source. No credible scientist will claim a warm year or cool year (or even more so, a cold region or warm region) is climate change. When weather patterns such as tornadoes start to reach decadal scales, they become much more interesting for climate but even 30 or 60 year cycles have variations that are larger than AGW. Stratospheric ozone production, for example, varies by 50% over a 22 year cycle and that's just the average. There is variation on top of that average. --DHeyward (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No reputable scientist would claim a cherry-picked period demonstrates a statistically significant deviation from the continued warming trend: see AR5, which covers these various topics. WP isn't a reliable source, articles cite published sources but tend not to be up to date. And so, goodbye. . dave souza, talk 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is the SRM's are sub-decadal accurate. They don't match. There's a reason why there are so many theories (competing, not complementary) as to the reason. CO2 has not abated while surface temperature has. That's a fundamental forcing disconnect that becomes more significant with passage of time. AR5 revised it's 2100 forecast down for a reason and it wasn't because AGW continues at its pre-AR5 levels. The cherry pick appears to be the spike in warming, not the flat parts. There's a big difference between 0.12C/dec and 0.02C/dec. --DHeyward (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

But given the lack of warming over the past 18+ years - there's your denialism. See for example https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/ William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

He should publish in peer review and add to the list. So far all the papers explaining it have not been widely accepted. Whether it's reformulating arctic temps, or trade winds, or deep ocean warming or stratospheric water vapor or stadium wves or microvolcanoes or ENSO - they haven't gained traction. And let's not lose perspective as to why those theories are even researched and published: it's because of the pause. Without it, there is no need or interest. --DHeyward (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Foster, G.; Rahmstorf, S. (2011). "Global temperature evolution 1979–2010". Environmental Research Letters. 6 (4): 044022. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.. However, your continued denial is getting rather offtopic. . . dave souza, talk 13:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, this page isn't for debating the topic of climate change. Your opinions appear to conflict with the mainstream scientific assessment. Like Watts, you are welcome to those opinions, but per our policies, we cannot represent them in the article without explicitly detailing the scientific view.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann jess says "our policies" and links to WP:FRINGE, but there is no such thing as a WP:FRINGE policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the 3rd paragraph of WP:FRINGE, please; it is a summary of how our policies apply to fringe topics. No, we cannot just ignore it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The deniers are denying the scientific consensus on AGW.

We don't break that down here and perform WP:OR analysis and reach our own WP:SYNTH conclusions, nor do we admit any halfway maneuvers into gray zones by deniers attempting to rhetorically situate between recognizing and not recognizing the scientific consensus, as if that weren't denial.

And WP:PSCI applies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop the WP:SOAPBOXing and off point discussions. This is supposed to be about the biography article not diatribes about AGW. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Despite my disagreements with some aspects of climate science, I do not agree it is pseudoscience. Not even close.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, climatology is not pseudoscience. However, some portions of the anti-AGW community do engage in pseudoscience, which is undoubtedly what Ubikwit was referencing. Watts' claims are certainly fringe, so that portion of NPOV applies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded. Those are not my opinions. Rather there are editors arguing there is no pause or hiatus (this is not a forum for that) and that opinion is contradicted by the vast amount of research being done to explain the pause/hiatus. I find ironic that editors would make such attacks and link to global warming hiatus while not even bothering to read the attribution for the prominent graphs. Nice show. Please stop soap boxing and join the reality brigade. Scientists investigate the pause because it exists and those scientists are not sceptics. --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Scientists investigate all the data about climate as it's obtained, and seek explanations. These scientists are skeptics: for example Michael E. Mann is a skeptic, and publishes papers questioning climate science. His publications include investigation of what he, quite reasonably, calls the "faux pause". On the other hand, deniers commonly claim that this so-called pause is an end of global warming, conveniently forgetting that it relates to surface temps and warming of oceans continues apace..... dave souza, talk 22:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Now you've just joined the "denialists" if you are claiming surface temps have stopped/slowed rising as your citation takes issue with it. There are varied views from reputable scientists about the pause, including Mann's and they are far from monolithic. This is why the "pause" is an awful topic to base the word "denialist" on. That is undeniable. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Read [3] and [4]. Both theories made Nature. It's part of scientific process. Neither author is a "denier." --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts' claims are certainly fringe? For example?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If the word "denial" is used at all, it seems only fair that the article state specifically what it is that is being denied. e.g. "wuwt is a blog which denies many of the findings of the IPCC", etc. Use the word "denial" alone (especially in the very first sentence of the article) is vague, denigrating and obviously lacks neutrality. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Will add more well sourced info as time permits: essentially Watts has promoted denial that surface temps have measurably increased. "We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher. The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. . . . Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable." Of course since Menne et al. and Fall et al. he's had to back down a bit, but has he really recanted? . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

He said recently " it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable." Do you disagree with his observation that some gaps in data records were filled from nearby sites? Do you disagree that NOAA and NASA make adjustments to the raw data, the result of which is to increase the trend? (This is wading into the weeds, if you have an example of fringe conclusions, please identify something substantive, not just esoteric rounding issues.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in Menne (2010) and Fall et al., and his falsehoods led to fringe conclusions identified as climate change denial in reliable sources currently being provided. Only question is, how much is Surface Stations connected to WUWT? Since there's a section about it, these points should be covered summary style. More later. . . dave souza, talk 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Our sources cover several of Watts claims which the scientific community strongly rejects. Among them: carbon dioxide plays a small part in global warming; solar irradiance, solar wind and the sun's magnetic field are major influences on climate change; humans are not responsible for current warming trends; climate change will have significantly fewer consequences than predicted, and so on. The net effect of these claims is to suggest the climate may be warming, but not too much, and it's not our fault, and there's nothing we can do about it, which is in direct contradiction to the mainstream scientific view and the evidence. Monckton, and other guest contributors, make even more stark claims. If you're interested in investigating this further, the sources we've added recently discuss them in some depth. Yes, we should expand that coverage; feel free to help do so.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Then there is no reason not to accept "WUWT is a blog which promotes skepticism towards the mainstream scientific view on climate change." This would be a fair, neutral and accurate assessment which would also not contradict your sources. "Denial" has several different meanings. One of which, in the field of psychology, is "failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism." Is this really what you want the lede to say? As I asked a week ago, are we on Wikipedia? Or is this highschool? Can we finally, please, cut through all the false pretenses and get to what this debate is really all about, which is a blatant attempt to smear Anthony Watts and his blog? 24.9.166.120 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I trust our readers will understand that this article is not about psychology, and so will not have in mind the definition that the IP editor just quoted. In fact, I trust that our editors understand that this article is not about psychology, and so they also understand that using the definition that the IP just suggested is insincere. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jess, can you pick a claim, any one will do and identify the specific source which supports your statement? You've got quite a laundry list, and some of those are simple, some are more nuanced.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to debate every one of Watts' views on the talk page. He is characterized as one of the foremost advocates of climate change denial by academic sources. Several editors were asking for examples, so I gave a few, but per WP:NOTFORUM, we need to be focused on article improvement, not debating the subject.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Jess, it doesn't work that way. A claim was made that some of Watts' claims are fringe. That claim is either supportable or it should be removed. You provided a laundry list of accusations, I ask you to provide specific cites so we can see if they are supported. BLP applies, you cannot make such claims, even on a talk page, if they are not supportable.

Your call - provide a specific cite or revert. You said the sources were added recently, so they should be easy to find.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And you should stop repeating the false talking point. He is not characterized as one of the foremost advocates of climate change denial by academic sources.. There is one source making this claim that I recall. Two others were alleged, but did not stand up. There are hundreds if not thousands of relevant academic studies, if you cannot come yup with more than a handful of claims, you do not get to made the broad statement. It was merely wrong when first written. If repeated after being demonstrated false, it becomes mendacious.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of agreement, I totally agree that we should not debate every one of Watts' views on the talk page. It is highly inapproriate, for more than one reason. However, it is unfair to him to post a claim about his view in a public place, then decide no one should be allowed to debate it. I'm sure you will agree. So we either need to find support for the claims that have been made, or remove them. Frankly, I lean toward removal, as this is not likely to be a place for useful debate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert what? You're the one that asked for examples. It's not as if I've put a bunch of examples into the article and not provided sources. The question of examples is off-topic to begin with, I was just answering your question honestly. Your contention is that we shouldn't represent something that a reliable source has explicitly said unless we can find examples to back up what it's saying, but that's not how sourcing and verifiability work. Regarding the fringe claim, are you suggesting Mann, Manne, Dunlap and Farmer/Cook do not suggest Watts Up With That promotes fringe views? IIRC, nearly all of the 40+ sources provided thus far suggest Watts and his blog do, whatever language they may choose in doing so.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jess, I agree with you that this is not a forum, so debating climate science points is fruitless, but I asked for examples, simply because you said his claims are fringe. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of fringe. It isn't as simple as holding a minority viewpoint. If you want to cite Dunlap, we've been over that Dunlap give zero examples of denialism. That isn't the point of the Dunlap chapter cited in the article, or the one cited upthread. He wasn't trying to prove, in the scientific sense of the word, that anyone was pushing denialist views, he was mainly tying all the actors together, and then asserting they were all denialists. That apparently is a legitimate academic endeavor, but nothing in the survey articles demonstrated any actual denialism (FTR, some of those actors are denialists, but they didn't demonstrate it.) You seem to be under the impression that disagreeing with the IPCC constitutes a fringe view. That may be a necessary, but it is not a sufficient condition.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to have the same conversation over and over. We have sources that say "X", and so have written "X" in the article. Your complaint that our sources haven't given examples to show why they said X wouldn't invalidate them, even if it were true (it's not, our sources do give examples). If you dispute that our sources verify the content, or wish to provide sources that dispute our content, Id' be delighted to discuss that. In the meantime, I'm not going to violate WP:NOTFORUM. Enjoy your night.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You should read the Talk page of the Anthony Watts BLP, as many specifics are cited there, with sources. For example, the Berkeley study of the results from surface stations reached the opposite conclusion from Watts, and even though Watts had agreed to respect the results, he denied them anyway, claiming the methodology was errant.

You should also check this section of the climate change denial article regarding the pseudoscience characterization, and here is another source as an example[5]. I don't think calling someone a pseudoscience pundit under the circumstances is a BLP violation. Furthermore, he is funded by the infamous Heartland Institute, at least indirectly.

Here, for example, is a piece from a scientific journal that uses the term "climate-consensus-scoffing pundits" and characterizes Watts as one of the leading scoffers: Physics Today, Steven T. Corneliussen, 24 March 2015

And here is yet another recent source describing Watts as a denialist and apparently as a pundit as well (because he is not a "scientist") Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists, Inside Climate News, 3-2015 Note that the piece also provides a quote expressing the above-described point (Berkeley study) of his denialism. And here is a NYT piece that does the same Skeptic Talking Point Melts Away as an Inconvenient Physicist Confirms Warming
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement that some aspects of climate change denial are properly characterized as pseudoscience, which is exactly why I object so strongly to the attempts to smear Watts as a denialist. The classic second law of thermodynamics crowd comes to mind. They deserve derision, but those who don't hold crackpot ideas don't deserve to be lumped in with them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you're trying to say.

Numerous academic and scientific sources characterize Watts and his blog as promoting denialism, disinformation, etc. The "second law of thermodynamics" and "crackpot ideas" have nothing to do with that.

Every editor opposing that scientific RS characterization appears to be engaged in some sort of WP:OR or attempting to game various policies/guidelines.

Strictly speaking, any statement that denies AGW in a manner inconsistent with scientific skepticism is FRINGE, and many encompass pseudoscience. A so-called "minority view" would have to meet the criteria for qualifying as a view based on "scientific skepticism".

Climate change denial, on the other hand, is a form of environmental skepticism, which is irrational, and often encompasses pseudoscience. "Crackpot ideas" are not a prerequisite, denying the scientific consensus (which is the mainstream view) in an irrational, unscientific manner in and of itself supports the characterization of media pundits (including bloggers) and scientists as "climate change denialists".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The second law states that "heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse". That may be not obvious intuitively to everybody, but if someone contradicts this while claiming they've got the answer, you can be assured they deserve the label "FRINGE". The same may also sometimes appear obvious ( how could the cold dispense what it does not own ), yet when focusing on other mechanisms that involve heat only in a second role it's not so difficult to get oneself in contradiction with one's own certainties at some given point. --Askedonty (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watt's doesn't deny AGW in a manner inconsistent with scientific skepticism. Quite the opposite and he is well within the so-called "97%" crowd. He's not fringe even if comentators on his blog are. --DHeyward (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

More like a 1%er, as those motorcycle chappies say. "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."[6] and [jointly] "The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant 'global warming' at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of 'global warming."[7] . . dave souza, talk 07:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Like these guys [8]? They trash HadCRUT data. Just as fringe? --DHeyward (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the abstract doesn't seem to show Cowtan and Way accusing HadCRUT of "policy driven deception" and "astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration", or any claim that "leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net 'global warming' in the 20th century." On the contrary, they're discussing the openly stated HadCRUT methodology, and other methods of dealing with areas lacking measurements. But perhaps it's in the paywalled text: could you quote any examples? . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dave That document was written in 2010. At the time, he was concerned about siting issues (a legitimate concern) and reached some conclusions that siting issues along with some other issues meant that one could not say, with scientific confidence, that the planet warmed in the last century. Then came BEST, and Watts' view (I can't speak to D'Aleo's views) have moderated, so Watts recently wrote:

...it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable

@Ubikwit: Thanks for linking to the Revkin piece. It is old; I probably read it at the time, but can't say I recall it. As many know, Revkin is one of the leading journalists in this area. In full disclosure, he and I have traded emails. I can add this source to the list of sources using skeptic over denialist. I understand that wasn't the point you wished to make, but the article largely recounts the BEST study, which did disagree with Watts' earlier conclusions, and I have noted on this page more than once.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Your welcome. Note that the point is made in that article that initially there was some legitimate cause for doubt giving rise to skepticism regarding the measurement results, thus the study. But after the results of the study were released, Watts attacked the methodology in an unsubstantiated manner. Here is a piece that mentions that, which is posted on the BLP talk page.
"Anthony Watts was originally a semi-skeptic about the reliability of our temperature records, but as he has continued questioning them even as more data on their reliability came in, he's moved into the denialism camp." Skeptics, deniers, and contrarians: The climate science label game, Ars Technica
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I see a solution to one small part of the confusion, and I thank Ubikwit for pointing it out. The climate change denial page asserts that some denialists are engaging in pseudoscience.

I agree.

We have one source conceding that there is a continuum of belief, ranging from denialism to skepticism, but the author doesn't want to use the term skepticism, so decides to call all denialists.

So those accusing Watts of engaging in pseudo science or fringe theories are using the syllogism:

1. Some sources label Watts a denier
2. Some deniers promote pseudo science or fringe beliefs
3. Therefore, Watts promotes pseudo science or fringe beliefs

I trust readers here understand logic well enough to see the problem (without even challenging the assumptions)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The characterization is not limited to that, but takes into account some of the positions that Watts has taken that are not considered to fall within scientific skepticism but which rely on quasi-scientific methodologies or approaches. He attempts to assume the mantle of science in denying the scientific consensus, and in doing so promotes pseudoscience. That is my understanding, at any rate.

The specific topics include his reaction to the Berkeley study of surface stations, and the various solar effects, etc., detailed in the lead paragraph here. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fallacious reasoning posted, there is the fact that Watts Up With That? does promote pseudoscience and fringe beliefs. They may not be Anthony Watts' beliefs (he is sufficiently coy on that point), but they're not too difficult to find. Why, you can search this very talkpage for many examples. jps (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Denial / Definition of Skepticism

Denial: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=denial&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLS_enUS617US617&q=denial+definition&gs_l=hp..1.0l5j41.0.0.0.7690...........0.8DcodmX95j0

Skepticism: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=skeptisism&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLS_enUS617US617&q=skepticism&gs_l=hp...0i10l5.0.0.0.2236...........0.Wc-I8U8s31k

If there's really a question about which word to use, a grammar school teacher would suggest replacing the proposed word with it's definition to see if the sentence still makes sense.....

Which of the following statements makes sense and is appropriate for the lede of a Wikipedia article?

DENIAL
"WUWT is a blog dedicated to declaring that climate change is not true."
"WUWT is a blog dedicated to refusing a climate change request."
"WUWT is a blog dedicated to stating that climate change is not true."
"WUWT is a blog dedicated to failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion about climate change or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism"
"WUWT is a blog dedicated to disavowal of the leader of climate change."

SKEPTICISM
"WUWT is a blog dedicated to a skeptical attitude towards climate change."

24.9.166.120 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you're being pedantic about grammar, see greengrocer's apostrophe. . . dave souza, talk 10:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See Climate change denial#Terminology, and note that multiple academics disagree with your original research, in particular Spencer R. Weart and the National Center for Science Education. Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry don't think much of your argument, either. . dave souza, talk 10:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how climate science academics become experts in language and are thus able to redefine the meaning of a word. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Spencer R. Weart is a historian, the National Center for Science Education is an educational body. They're using the word in a long-established meaning. . . 08:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I think you might have misunderstood. Those are just basic English definitions. You can find them via google (or Merriam-Webster, if you prefer). Not sure where you're getting "original research" out of that. I think most of us learned in grade school, when trying to figure out the right word to use, a good place to start is the dictionary. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about the bare word denial. We're talking about the phrase "climate change denial". is that in your dictionary? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It is not. Are you suggesting that the word "denial" has a different meaning when placed after the words "climate change", than what it says in my dictionary? 24.9.166.120 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

dave souza and William M. Connolley are exactly right. This repeated complaint, that "climate change denial" must literally mean that someone is denying that climate changes, is exceedingly lame. There are countless examples of words who accepted current usage doesn't fully track with the original meaning of the word, or, in the case of compounds, the "implied" meaning based upon the separate definitions. This supposed "point" was made upthread, and it is getting tiresome. Please stop. (Perhaps we need a FAQ, with this as an entry, so we can excise future lameness.) 24.9.166.120, there is a serious debate in progress about a serious subject. You are not contributing in a useful way. You've made your point, as you are permitted to do. Anyone with any sense will ignore it, please do not repeat it on the false assumption that it just needs repeating and someone will see the light. There is no light. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear what the AGW'ers are trying to do with the use of the word denier, and frankly it is quite Orwellian. These "scientists" have gone about and defined anything skeptical that does not fit their pro-AGW view of AGW to be denial-ism. If anything this argument shows that the word is clearly meant to denigrate if it truly has been defined. These ideas of false or pseudo-skeptics versus true skeptics is what it truly tiresome and dangerous to real science. I have provided this point in the past to the same disdain. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Riight, so the anon Arzel supposedly knows more about defining "skeptic" than the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Some very distinguished names on that list, perhaps Arzel would care to publish that original research in response? . . dave souza, talk 15:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That link talks about Inhofe not about Watts. Watts does engage in their method. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration. Watts, by their definition, is a skeptic. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Watts does engage in Inhofe's method, if to a lesser degree: Watts makes unfounded and inaccurate accusations that, for example, NOAA had made adjustments to "cause recent temperatures to look even higher", then when his claim collapsed, returned to claiming that rises had been "spuriously doubled". Rather short on objective consideration, strong on promoting climate change denial. . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And apparently that point has not sunk in. Perhaps you do need an FAQ to go with the article so that those of us who can't read minds can figure out exactly what it is you are trying to say. Or you could just use a word that matches it's meaning in common English, like skepticism, which would have the added bonus of not being offensive.24.9.166.120 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with the NCSE, Weart and the various sociologists and psychologists who've published on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 15:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't need no FAQ, because we have climate change denial William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't so much looking for an affirmative definition, but a canned response, something like "If you came here to point out that climate change denial literally means a denial that climate changes, then go away, because you are wrong." Perhaps worded a little nicer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As a quick paraphrase, climate change denial involves denying the extent, cause and/or effects of climate change, and is a form of denialism as defined in psychology and social science. Climate skepticism covers the same topic and is a preferred self-description by activists, but use of this phrase is deprecated as it is readily confused with scientific skepticism but lacks essential elements of scientific method. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering Watts regarding his policies, not his scientific pretenses or methods, they relate rather to finger pointing, or whistle blowing. Thus he can perhaps rightly argue he's not a denialist ( as his object is elsewhere), but it is not like being "skeptical", which is about a distant and passive disapprobation, or otherwise a reluctant collaborative prudence like the Fellows, who are refusing him the umbrella. --Askedonty (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And all that is unfortunate because "climate skepticism" is indeed clean as an expression. --Askedonty (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dave souza's argument (two comments up) highlight exactly why this has to remain a disputed characterization. There is no substantiation for that characterization of "skepticism" as lacking any elements of scientific method other than in the pejorative comments of their opponents. The entire comment is almost a case study in original research that has no basis in the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Rossami, my paraphrase two comments up is a summary, not an argument. For full sourcing see Climate change denial#Terminology, in particular Spencer R. Weart and the National Center for Science Education, plus for the characterization of "skepticism" see the statement from Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. This repeats points made earlier in the thread. Please check discussions properly before making unwarranted accusations about OR, and if your views differ plesae provide reliable sources. . .. dave souza, talk 02:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: In case you haven't read it yet, you may want to consider this source as well.The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism, Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, Mark Freeman--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Does anyone else feel they've fallen thru the rabbit-hole into "Alice in Wonderland" here? Very bizarre.... Pete Tillman (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That pretty much defines the entire Wikipedia enterprise, doesn't it? The minute there's any real controversy about a topic, Wikipedia falls apart and becomes wholly unreliable. This is just one more example of it, and a good example. The idea that an encyclopedia worthy of that label would apply a politically charged, literally inaccurate, and highly tendentious label to a subject tells you that Wikipedia is many things, but not an "encyclopedia." This article is pathetic, and the "discussion" here even more so. At this point, it really doesn't matter what Wikipedia says about "Whats Up With That." This article is worthless propaganda, produced by a website that cannot keep it from happening. And which in fact does not want to keep it from happening. 71.227.188.49 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. Wiki in fact manages to cover many very controversial topics surprisingly well. This one, and global warming, included. Note that "covering the topic well" isn't the same thing as "giving it the spin you'd like" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)