Talk:Climate change denial

Are Skepticism and Denial interchangeable

This is being discussed at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Input welcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No - they are by definition different entities, they are not even used interchangeably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.12.134 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They're clearly not interchangeable. Skepticism is respectable. "Skepticism" and pseudo-skepticism are the same thing, and aren't respectable. Denial is obviously not respectable, and probably somewhat different from "D" or P-S; certainly, people object to D rather more forcefully, in my experience William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In carefully attentive academic writing, sure. But that thread is asking about mass media and casual writing/speech, which is something different. My heading here should have read whether there are sources saying the terms are often used interchangeably? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I was only giving my perspective really :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on Wikipedia being used for a discussion forum. This sort of thing leads to cliques who discuss articles away from the article - this used to be a particular problem with the Fringe Theories Noticeboard though they have improved considerably since they brought in a directive at the top to notify editors if they talk about them. I see they are now discussing this same editor at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anthony_Watts_.28blogger.29. Perhaps they are made for each other. And by the way as far as what is discussed there 'environmental skepticism' is not the same as just sticking the two words with their normal meaning together, together they form a specific phase with its own meaning and it refers in the main to deniers rather than skeptics. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rebranding initiative

In the news is what appears to be an orchestrated attempt to rebrand climate denialism as intellectually more honest-sounding climate skepticism"

• Heartland's own site "we are not climate deniers"
• ALEC threatens to sue for being called a climate denial group
• Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

Shouldn't we have a section on the rebranding effort? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We need a dedicated article (or subsection) that describes how climate skepticism differs from the standard definition. Climate Skepticism has been a redirect page for too long. Let's address the issue head on. Editors may be less hesitant to describe notable individuals as "skeptics" if visitors have a clear and well sourced understanding of exactly what that means. — TPX 18:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Casual observation, impression I get from various academic papers is that former deniers are saying they are skeptics because they now admit things are warming. They just deny, errrr I mean "profess skepticism" that we are responsible and/or that the result demands regulatory action on an international scale. If I'm skeptical about anything, its over setting out to create this section with such resounding RSs and text that we nail this semantic jello to the wall. Seems to me the real story is the appropriation of language depending on viewpoint, and the constant need to do one's own critical thinking to apply the genuine definitions on a case-by-case basis. But that's so much work, there's no wonder the denialists, errrr I mean skeptics get to make so much hay out of their rhetoric. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm think you are conflating two different actions that deserve two different responses.

As background, one of the challenges of this discussion is that denialist and skeptic are not binary, they are two different, and not very well defined ranges on a continuum. For the present discussion, I'll assume there is a continuum running from 0 to 100, where 0 is a full-fledged denialist, leaning on the second law of thermodynamics trope and other nonsense, while 100 means complete buy-in to the latest IPCC report. The values were deliberately chosen to allow negatives, and values above 100 (short term Greenland collapse scenarios). We can debate where to put the ranges, but I'll say negative values and up to 20 is a denialist, 21-80 is a skeptic, we don't have a great term for those who largely accept the IPCC (I assume warmist is not an option), nor for those well above 100.

But if, for the moment, you'll accept the broad concept of a scale, I can discuss the two ideas in your post.

If a person holds views that haven't changed over time, and they would be "scored" as a 15 on my scale, so essentially a denialist, they might have the presence to realize that being called a denialist is not a good thing, and they might engage in rebranding to have the media label themselves as a skeptic rather than a deniers. In math terms, they were a 15, they still are a 15, but they like to move the hurdle between denier and skeptic down to, say 10.

That's worth exposing, if it is happening.

In contrast, you talked about "former deniers are saying they are skeptics because they now admit things are warming". If they were denying that warming has occurred, they probably scored close to 0, maybe even negative, but if they now concede that warming has occurred, their score is higher. Is this the desired goal? That those who believed something in the face of contrary evidence, now concede they were wrong and believe something else? They are saying they were a 15 are still a 15, but want to be called something else, they are saying they were a 0 are now a 25, so ought to be properly labeled. That sort of movement should be encouraged, not castigated. Do you agree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Em, most aren't; the say "we admit things are warming, but it's not anthropogenic" and so on. The terms are contested for tactical reasons, but generally refer to the same concepts. Having another article may be possible, but risks a pov fork and would need well sourced clarification of the similarities and [if any] differences. . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The theory of "denialism" is based on the premise that climate change is true. Climate change in the sense of "global warming due to human behavior" is theory, not proven fact. Therefore there cannot be "denialism" except in the case of someone denying the existence of the theory of Global Warming. Referring to skepticism as more "honest-sounding" clearly illustrates that the name "denier" is being used as a pseudo appropriate form of liar.

A "denier" is not a "skeptic"

One is a liar - if he/she knows that what they are denying is true. A skeptic is someone that disagrees with part or all of a theory or opinion. True denial includes a lack of awareness of the truth. They are completely separate things - not two things on a continuum. Definitions cannot be revised to validate personal attacks.

Are liars the same as skeptics? Clearly - No, they different entities.

However the dicussion should be directed towards the behavior or act rather than the individual, but the language of the discussion clarifies the intent and objectiveness of the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.12.134 (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi 207.191.12.13207.191.12.134, your first para is wrong: Only A Theory is a misconception. Read the article, denial is a psychological term for what "climate skeptics" are doing, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily liars. Like creationists, they commonly promote misinformation but may well believe it themselves. Also, non-sceptics about global warming can be in denial about the implications, see the article. . dave souza, talk 08:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The way things are developing, a section on how deniers rebrand themselves as skeptics might be a possibility, I'd also like to see more information about any "climate skeptics" who aren't what mainstream science would describe as "climate change deniers". Sources needed for the second point, which could open the way to a separate article. . dave souza, talk 08:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Claim in lead: $120 million over eight years

According to this article in Scientific American,

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

The results of the study should be added to the article body and the lead should be corrected. — goethean 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

When this news broke we debated it here and there. If memory serves, these outfits are not exclusively climate denial ones. They do other stuff too. A criticism was raised that there wasn't a way to tell whether the donated funds were to the groups' general fund, or their climate budget, so NPOV requires treading carefully.... that is, we can't just assume 100% of this money was to fund climate denial. Honestly, if we had access to every scrap of financial data, I bet it would show the total earmarked for climate denial specifically is even more than the 558M total that was uncovered via FOIA. But that's my own speculation, and no more RS for our articles than the assumption all 558M was so ear marked. Sadly, the records that were obtained just didn't go that far. I'm going on memory here. If something I said is not correct, please tell me! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the study in Climatic Change journal referenced by Scientific American seems like it would be a good source for this article. — goethean 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, it sounds like it was excluded because of personal opinions and original research then. It absolutely belongs in this article. To not have it is a serious POV violation. In the lede though? Might be too much. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a product of Scientific American, as the page says: "This article originally appeared on The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company." NewsandEvents is correct, there was public pushback on this story. Every conservative think tank, whether they were supportive of global warming policy or not, were lumped in as "climate denial" organizations. As I recall, they added up the entire budgets of all the organizations and didn't try to determine how much (if any) was spent on environmental policy vs tax/foreign policy/economy/health/education/transportation/defence etc... Capitalismojo (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the info is verified in the SciAm article linked above. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the original paper.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So "climate change counter movement" got trumped up into outright "denial" by SciAm? --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the original paper clearly says it is about "the nature of efforts to deny and/or distort climate science" by the "well-organized climate change counter-movement (CCCM)". It goes on in the abstract to talk about "the organizational dynamics of the denial campaign" and "the organized effort to deny climate change and thus the need to deal with it". We're definitely using the right word, and so are they. Undeniably.--Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I need to find the time to read the references and past discussions. Are there past discussions specific to this research?

Both the SciAm ref and the research belong in the article. If any of the history identified in the research is missing, it belongs in the article as well. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: Good question. It certainly seems so. By my count, the actual peer-reviewed academic journal uses the term "climate change counter-movement (CCCM)" 11 times and "denier" only 3 times. The complete omission of "climate change counter-movement" and frequent used of "denier" by this article in Scientific American appears to be spin introduced by the popular press but not found in academic literature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A much more plausible hypothesis might be that the original article uses more formal language than SciAm (which usually passes for RS on its own). The original article clearly speaks of denial and denying - no added spin is needed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As the quotes I gave above should show, in the terminology of the paper, the climate change counter-movement makes efforts to deny the science. The movement does denying; that's the relationship between the two terms. The abstract goes on to say they do other things too - "a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science" - but it clearly says that the movement does denial of the science, distortion of the science, a denial campaign, denial of climate change "and thus the need to deal with it". So I don't think this is a fruitful line of argument. We'd be better off talking about the money involved. This is a side-issue that's appeared out of nowhere, that is temporarily keeping us from discussing the original topic of this section. We wouldn't want to let a fruitless and pointless side issue derail a sensible discussion that might actually lead somewhere, would we? What kind of people would ever allow such a thing to happen? --Nigelj (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: I've never heard of that, but if what you say is true, that may be good news. One of the problems we've encountered at Wikipedia is that we're not supposed to use the term "denier" unless widely used by reliable sources. If the more formal term is "climate change counter-movement", do you think we should we should use that term instead? This may address lots of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Brulle's "climate change counter-movement" is not a widely used term, much less the academic standard for what is commonly termed "denier", "skeptic", or "contrarian." Most of the usages I've found have been by Brulle himself or when discussing his work. See WP:NOTNEO. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned CCCM Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Sources_supporting_CCCM_to_characterize_WUWT\here, but in Analysis_of_sources, reached pretty much the same conclusion as Short Brigade Harvester Boris. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

President Obama's Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial

Will there be any description of the degree to which the term "climate change denial" is used? One possibility might be something like the following. --109.147.228.14 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, accused President Barack Obama of catastrophic climate change denial in the New York Times after Shell was allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic, saying "This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground."- ref: Obama's Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial, NYT op-ed, May 12, 2015

The quote above is an unusual use of the term; a usage that is relevant to that op-ed but one that may never be repeated in that form. I don't think that makes it very interesting in an encyclopedia article (unless that op-ed itself becomes famous, and oft-quoted and discussed in other media - we'll have to wait and see about that). On the other hand, the sentence that precedes those quoted above - "This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real" - is another example of the usage that most of this article is about, and may be useful somewhere. Thanks for the link. --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Even when McKibben's opinion has weight, before this can be considered for inclusion for the term, there need to be more opinions discussed in the context (books, more op-ed via reliable sources, maybe even studies who mention it). Because this is not a typical denial, since the decision might be influenced for political reasons. Thus, it might reflect political motivated denial (not commercial or ideological based reasoning). prokaryotes (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

At least one paper in the sci lit (the cite escapes me just now) tackles climate change denial head-on, concluding that the general term is not very useful, since there are many different nuances. The paper went on to describe science-rejection (it's not warming, it's not us, it won't be bad), as well as policy rejection (we don't really need to change horses). Continuing to explore for new fields when we already know we have to leave proven reserves in the ground certainly seems to fit within the various flavors of denial described in the few sources that really look at them head-on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Schools

"According to documents leaked in February, 2012, The Heartland Institute is developing a curriculum for use in schools which frames climate change as a scientific controversy."

True or not, all the sources to support for this claim rely on an inauthentic document (almost certainly) faked by Peter Gleick. This was "leaked" along with some genuine documents.

Is there a better source that does not rely on journalists being tricked by Gleick's fabrication?

194.81.49.250 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, the section should be removed. The Heartland Institute do have a plan along those lines as detailed on page 18 its fundraising plan [2] but no reliable source has thought to comment on it there and the source used for the citations here do seem like they could be forged. Personally I do not believe Gleick did the fabrication. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone on the embarrassing end of leaked documents wants others to think they might be untrue in some fashion. That's hardly a compelling reason to remove the otherwise referenced section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Argument after the fact?

A fundamental issue with this article is that it presupposes the existence of a property known as 'Climate change denial' and then proceeds to offer arguments made 'after the fact' of its presupposed existence. Nowhere does it clearly define what constitutes climate change denial, nor does it offer proof of its existence beyond the quoting of a series of personal opinions. (WP:OPINION would seem to apply here)

The real situation is that every single person on this planet recognises the existence of climate change. No-one is unaware of, or disputes that, the climate changes. Therefore the article subject is an oxymoron -or should it be carboxymoron?

That aside, the majority of scientists and informed people also agree that carbon dioxide has some degree of greenhouse effect. Arrhenius' equation describes this effect quantitatively, and few people would deny the accuracy of Arrhenius' principle.

The measured temperature change over the 20thC (just over 1C) fits-in moderately well with the predictions of Arrhenius. There is, indeed, almost no debate over this by anyone.

So, the ONLY real property to separate a 'Believer' from a 'Denier' would seem to be their willingness or otherwise to accept the predictions of global catastrophe should temperatures rise any further at all, as put-out by the IPCC, Al Gore, Michael Mann, etc.

When viewed in those terms, the 'Denier' label seems very much less appropriate. Sceptics of disaster scenarios for the most part do not 'deny' any part whatsoever of established classical science. They may question the predictions of IPCC computer models, but then these computer models are not, by any stretch of the imagination, part of verified classical science. The models rely on extrapolation of historical data for their predictions, and that is at best a dubious approach. Most scientific disciplines discourage the use of extrapolation where any other, better approach exists.

So, surely this comes under the heading of legitimate questioning of predictions, as opposed to denying established facts, does it not? To label a person a 'Denier' for questioning the IPCC's computer models would seem to lend an air of godlike infallibility to the IPCC. I see no justification for taking this position. --Anteaus (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the lead of this article to see what it is about? Dmcq (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The mention of Al Gore is, as always, a dead giveaway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism = denial? Appears to be NPOV violation

A new edit diff attempts to equate the two. I view this as pernicious, as it appears to be an attempt to brand skeptics as deniers. It's well established that the historic origin of "climate change denial" is by explicit analogy to Holocaust denial. Commentator Richard D. North says, in our article, that "It is deeply pejorative to call someone a 'climate change denier'. This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial ..." (cite #28 in article)

It pejorative to call someone a 'climate change denier' - particularly when it is directed at persons rather than behavior, and it is repeatedly insinuated that they are lying - rather than skeptical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.12.134 (talk • contribs)

There is a bit of a problem in that the word has a common English usage meaning that. However denial is the correct word for the psychological mechanism and the usual way it is described. Skepticism also has a straightforward meaning, and it includes being open to something perhaps being correct. When Saddam Hussein said he didn't have chemical weapons factories it would have been silly not to be skeptical. When the various searches failed to show any the probability of there being any went down - but many people said he must be much more devious and the factories must be mobile in vans or hidden underground in the desert. The lack of evidence convinced them he was more evil than they originally thought and therefore the probability they assigned to there being such factories went up. Then the country was conquered and the skeptics were convinced that there was no evidence of current production and any such program must have been very minor. However if you have a look on the web you can still see people claiming there was some big program and it was moved to Syria and that the Democratic party covered this up to discredit Republicans and lots of other silliness like that. Those people are deniers. Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between skeptics and deniers has been discussed here many times, most recently at the long RfC closed on 29 November 2014. The RfC closer recommended using common sense to differentiate between "true skeptics" and deniers. Other previous discussions are in the archives, for example in 2011, here in 2010 , etc. etc. No consensus appeared to be reached in any of these that I've seen.

So the admins are allowing a non-NPOV and attacks on the integrity of individuals to exist because the two sides could not reach consensus?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.12.134 (talk • contribs)

The article itself is conflicted about this: Peter Christoff also emphasizes the distinction between scepticism and denial, saying "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science."[cite 15, as of 05/27/15].

Incidentally, the proposing editor reverted back to his text in 1 minute! WP:BRD? --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Astoundingly, Commentator Richard D. North is writing with the full authority of a free market think tank, not an academic source. Peter Christoff was quote mined, I've corrected that. . .dave souza, talk 22:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, you're talking rubbish and directly contradicting published academic sources of good quality. The edit does distinguish between true skeptics and deniers of various shades. Note that the continuum doesn't mean that all skeptics are deniers, or even that all climate skeptics are deniers: the latter term has a history in academic publications, which I'm working to cover. Please accept that this is work in progress. You are of course welcome to propose other good quality sources. . dave souza, talk 21:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be better for you to propose major changes to long-standing consensus here first. Civility wouldn't hurt, either. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tillman that the identification between deniers and skeptics is too close and too up front with the edit. There is a section on meanings of the term and it is obvious there that identifying the two is controversial. I see no need for pushing it like that and I see it as an NPOV violation too despite thinking the terms are practically identical in current usage. We should just summarize that there is a controversy over the identification. Dmcq (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that squealing in mortal pain as soon as someone says 'denial' in one's earshot is a rhetorical tactic that need not be listened to too closely. The real distinction - wanting to read the original publication in a peer reviewed journal, rather than the press report, is true scepticism; saying that 15,000 scientists are all wrong and my mate's theory is right, is denial - needs to be made. Allowing people simply to prevent the discussion from proceeding because it pains them too much to hear the words, is not helpful, and is not necessary. --Nigelj (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah! the truth is not dependent upon the number of people that believe it! By all means, allow the discussion to continue but without personal name-calling attacks. We should improve our vocabulary and understanding of correct definitions until we can converse with civility!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.12.134 (talk • contribs)

What word would you use for denial? skeptic? and in that case what word would you use for a skeptic? Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that trying to pretend that climate change denial was in someway similar to holocaust denial was found to be a Republican Party rhetorical tactic. Wasn't that documented somewhere? I'm sure it was. Arguing something else -other than the present case - that has a name. Is it strawman or reductio ad something? Anyway, as you know, nowhere in the article does it say "Skepticism = denial". Being on a continuum together is quite different to equality. The fact is that a lot of documentation has come to light in the last few years, a lot of money has been traced back to its sources, a lot of research has been done, and some theoretical structures have now been set in place to allow thinking to proceed more logically in this area. It is about time this article was updated to reflect some of this, and I'm very happy with the changes. It's no good harking back to the 'good ole days' when a bunch of paid hackers could get into an email server, take some phrases out of context, and take everyone by surprise. People have been working hard on all this, and we need to reflect what they have found, and how they now talk about it in mainstream academic circles. --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How about following the sources instead of trying to push a point? There is a controversy, so they shouldn't be pushed together in the first like like that. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As it stands that is simply invective. Why do you say that? It is much better if people explain things rather than expecting others to understand without explanation. I have pointed out that whether climate change skeptics are the same as deniers or should be referred to as deniers is the subject of controversy and that controversy is described in the section on meanings of the term. It is therefore inappropriate to put the two together as being practically the same at the beginning. I agree the lead should mention climate change scepticism as that it is now more commonly thought as a form of denial but we are supposed to say things with the weight they are in the sources not push our own point of view. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And while you're at it perhaps you could explain your edit comment where you saw a copyright violation in [3] thanks. Dmcq (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you bothered to check the sources? Apparently not, if you didn't notice that the removed text was taken verbatim from this, p.47.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That 'book' is a copy of this Wikipedia article so there is no copyright violation in being similar to it! It would have helped if you had said that in the first place and we could have put you straight ages ago. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The author seems to be an academic.

If that is the case, I was unable to verify the statement attributed to the Guardian piece. That statement was apparently intended to make Monbiot look like he was contradicting himself.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Relationship of climate skepticism to global warming denial

I think the main problem with the lead sentence is that 'climate change skepticism' can refer to essentially two different things. It can either refer to 'climate change denial' especially when a person or organization promoting it says they are just being skeptical, or it can refer to people who are genuinely skeptical and not motivated to any great degree by denial. I do not mean as scientists with scientific scepticism but in the normal sense of the word. They see what they think of as good solid reasons to distrust the science - in fact they get a wall of it from the denial organisations whose job is to convince them. It is not denial to agree with something that is wrong because you are misinformed. The great mass of the people who agree with what the climate change deniers say like that are climate change sceptics.

This article used to be just about the denial machinery and in that context identifying the two had some justification but we avoided doing that. Now more is being added about the social dimension of people in general rather than the organization doing that. In the lead the way it is done now is simply wrong. I also believe the references stuck in for that in the lead don't support anything like that. Yes skepticism can grade into denial but the whole tone of the lead is now simply a climate change skeptic bashing exercise. A person who is a climate change skeptic in the sense of just being convinced by the misinformation coming along here would just get the idea that it is alarmist propaganda and bashing people who genuinely are curious about the question. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources? Your essay looks like original research, and is contrary both to points made in sources I've already added, and sources I'm currently working on, which point to the same machinery in both climate skepticism and global warming denial. Perhaps you'd like to prepare citations and make specific suggestions for wording to meet your concerns? . . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well how about taking the very first citation for the very first sentence which you yourself stuck in. It says there

The articles in this symposium contribute to the growing body of social science analyses of climate change denial and skepticism. There is debate over which term is most appropriate for understanding opposition to acknowledging the reality and seriousness of AGW and to climate science itself. Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves “skeptics,” and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem (Leiserowitz et al., 2012). Yet skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists (e.g., Mann, 2012; Schneider, 2009), making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics.....

It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up. Social scientists are analyzing both phenomena, ....

I think that shows they acknowledge that climate change skepticism can be applied to people who are not deniers and there is controversy over doing what is done in the first line here and that they distinguish between the terms. You have ignored the 'both phenomena' bit after they say skepticism can be considered as a continuum. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a continuum and the lead wording "mostly do not comply with scientific skepticism" reflects the source's "Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves “skeptics,” and in some cases this term is warranted" [emphasis added] while pointing to the preponderance [indicated in the part you skipped] that "there is little doubt that many individuals actively involved in the denial campaign are not skeptical of climate science but are in full denial, and no amount of evidence will convince them of the reality of AGW". Since the skeptical and denial terms appear in different studies to cover the same positions (as identified by Ramstorf) they're to an extent synonymous, and while the preponderance tips into denial, clearly some cases are better described as skeptical. Can you suggest a concise way to make this more explicit? . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And you are ignoring the 'actively' in 'most of those actively involved' when you stick it right at the start. The problem is that overall most of thos decribed as such are not because they are members of the general public. The only preponderance we have is that we normally talk about those who ar actively involved rather than the general public. Dmcq (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

But there is also the climate change denial of the average guy, who owns water front property, and then just ignores the problem. Thus, this is some kind of psychological bias, see also Just world believe. prokaryotes (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree and that is denial and it would be part of a continuum but that doesn't mean denial is an appropriate term to apply to most of those of the public who are skeptical - and this article is supposed to be about denial. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok but would you consider Inhofe as skeptical? He alleges fraud. And wouldn't you consider him a denialist, because he denies the science entirely. prokaryotes (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we've reliable sources saying he denies the science so I don't think there's much doubt there. I think we do need to talk about climate change skepticism in the lead and just distinguish between the uses a bit as having the term point to this article is probably appropriate now given the weight. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, i have made an edit to better reflect that. prokaryotes (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having a go, it lost the main point from the source that there's a continuum, and that there's an overlap rather than just one pretending to be the other. I've patched the wording to emphasise this, keeping climate skepticism in bold to avoid surprise for readers redirected to this page as the most appropriate article on that (overlapping) term, as Dmcq says. Also picked up the point about "Those actively challenging climate science", though how you inactively challenge it is unclear: perhaps just unstated distrust? Anyway, hope that points a way forward. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like a low ratio of RS:personalopinion. If anyone with access takes time to go beyond the abstracts in the professional literature, there are a fair number of sources that boil down to (A) observation that these terms are being used in multiple overlapping/conflicting ways by different people, and (B) authors' analysis/opinion of the correct way to use these terms. The only hope of resolving the debate here is to get a higher RS:personalopinion ratio, and in my opinion the best bet for that is from these journals. I have the access and interest, but sadly very little time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A number of the journal RSs are open access, and pdf's of others can be obtained from the researchers' university or institute pages. I've been trying to put some together at User:dave souza#SD, the doi tool provides formatted refs but it can be easier to put the doi into Yadkard. So, more access than time, at present! . . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all within the context that these terms are being used and the established definitions of the words. There can be no continuum between skepticism and denial or lying. There may be a continuum of opposition to the theory, and that continuum of opposition may include skeptics, people that are in denial, and liars. But those are three distinct things.

The people that continue to use derogatory labels for people that disagree with their POV must be convinced that the "Global warming due to human activitiy" THEORY is true and factual.

Someone that has honest skepticism of an obvious and well known fact, might be in denial, but that does not make him a liar.
Someone in denial of an obvious and well known fact is neither a liar or a skeptic, they aren't cognitively aware of the truth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.12.134 (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC) 

Continuum?

Is the term continuum used in the references? I think this term is a very uncommon word and excludes abrupt changes. However, in the past opinion or denial has changed abruptly, in line with sociological inertia. Please write something like Denial is often similar to skepticism (or disguised as such). prokaryotes (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Source 1: Dunlap, R. E. (2013). "Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction". American Behavioral Scientist (SAGE) 57 (6): 691–698. "It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up." Also, earlier, "the growing body of social science analyses of climate change denial and skepticism." Some of which I've linked above, and which indicate the commonality between both aspects. . dave souza, talk 17:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this continuum is, it is based on 1 author opinion, and besides this, i don't see what it adds. I rather keep it simple, words like continuum are just abstract.prokaryotes (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps continuum might be better put as "an overlapping range of views", but I think it's important that sometimes they're synonyms, in a minority of cases "climate skeptics" are genuinely open to changing their views in line with scientific skepticism. As for 1 author opinion, it's a published expert in the field reviewing the state of play, and looks consistent with the other sources I've listed on my user page, see above. . dave souza, talk 18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not question his credibility, but he gave an example when he used this term, and this might be better expressed with a less academic description. Thus, I endorse a change to "an overlapping range of views", instead of continuum. prokaryotes (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out above in that citation immediately after talking about a continuum they talk about social scientists investigating the two phenomena. Another difference is that many of those doing denying aren't on any continuum or discrete set of views. They have no view on the subject, they don't dislike the scientists they have no overt feelings towards them - it is just they are paid to do denial. The article used not to delve into people';s views - just into what they or organisations actually did. With the social aspect there is a slight clash about this and the ascribing of feelings to the actions is in some cases just an anthropomorphism. Dmcq (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You can question the research and the academic papers, but unfortunately, to make a difference to the article, you'd have to find other similar-level academics who have questioned the findings, in print. --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The 'two phenomena' compared to 'continuum' in the previous sentence in the same paper is enough to cause trouble with continuum in the lead. I was simply pointing out that we should cover the range of points of view and social scientists tend to ascribe feelings whereas much of what has been in this article is based on observable facts. In the first sentence we have 'especially for commercial or ideological reasons' and that applies mostly to the deniers pushing the business whereas the social science deals more with the sociology of the public. Those are two different areas and two different subjects that we have to cover well in the article and not have one take too much from the other. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

D, that's 122 words and 0 RSs. What's your calculation of the RS/personalopinion ratio? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? The section is about continuum. I pointed out we don't have an RS for that as being the only or even a major view since it contradicts itself. Are you disputing that we should try and cover all the major points of view rather than have it dictated by sociology papers? I believe the Dunlap paper cited at the beginning is a good one and clearly written. I just have strong reservations about some others like the two first ones mentioned below in the Disguises section which have zero cites and I would consider as having low weight compared to good newspaper articles on the subject. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm, errrr.... are you criticizing sources we have (your prior comments) or claiming we have no sources (your last comment)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I was criticizing the use of the Dunlap source for saying that denial and skepticism were on a spectrum. I said that overall I thought the paper used for the citation was good but it doesn't support this. I said that we have two things which were different which is what the immediately succeeding sentence in Dunlap said, of course that sentence can't be used to cite that either as there is a confusion or contradiction with the continuum sentence so I pointed to the article before the social science and the public aspect was added as evidence. If you could formulate your question in a way which was more specific perhaps I could address whatever it is that you are concerned about as I just get negative vibes with no information at the moment. I am not saying that denial and skepticism amongst the public aren't mostly along a spectrum, however saying it is a spectrum is something quite different. Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was clear. What do eds familiar with the RS in question think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this question was agreeably resolved when the word "continuum" was omitted, instead referring to an "overlapping range of views". . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw that edit and liked it, but something that looked like debate continued here anyway. Maybe we should ask..... Dmcq, do you agree with Dave? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly. It was just continuum written in different words.It is appropriate for society in general but there is a second topic which it doesn't cover and yet it is phrased as if it does cover, the thing the article was set up about originally. The Heartland Institute for instance is a conservative libertarian think tank. It has as the first sentence says economic or ideological motives. The science is irrelevant except insofar as they have to study it to formulate a way of opposing it. There is no indication they have any view on the science, they simply do what they think is in line with their function. That is denial okay but it is not on a continuum of views with skepticism. It is not a view that they act from, it is simply what they do. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What "second topic" do you think is being discussed, and how is the "second topic" distinct from what you think was "the thing the article was set up about originally"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's the subject discussed in the social studies papers, the skepticism grading into outright denial, this is being added to this article because climate change skepticism is very often used for that and it talks about the interactions between people and their background and how they get their views. And then there is the other topic which is more directly commercial and political which is all this article used to be about. That talked about the organisations and the people involved in the denial campaign and what they did. There was little to no talk about how they formed a view on the science.. A 'view' or anything to do with the science is practically irrelevant there. It is like some developer paying someone who knows how to steer their planning application past some ordinances. They don't really care about the reasons why their planning application is being opposed. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so you seem to think that there are 'two topics' being discussed and they are

(1) "skepticism grading into outright denial", or

(2) "the organisations and the people involved in the denial campaign and what they did."

I also heard you say that #2 is "all this article used to be about".

Any objections to my distillation so far?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes thank you that is right. For the first lot the deniers have views. For the second lot saying they have a view on the science isn't all that meaningful, concentrating on what they actually do is better. We can include what they say about the science of course, but in general they are just navigating a maze rather than expressing a view. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the heavily indented thread above the break
Next, Dmcq, I think you've been saying we should not delve into topic (1) "skepticism grading into outright denial" at all. Is that right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No I did not say that, I don't know how you got that impression. I'm saying the continuum statement is inappropriate to the organisations involved in the denial rather than the social aspect but is written as if it applies to the whole article. And by the way the first statement in the article suffers from a similar problem but in the opposite direction, in the social arena denial need not be mainly for economic or ideological reasons. The article covers two closely related topics. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You used Heartland as an example. Sounds like you think Heartland does not espouse or typify "a range of overlapping views" because, according to you, instead of actually holding any views they say what they get paid to say. In other words, you think the text does not apply to Heartland because we have no evidence they actually believe the things they say. Is that the crux of your Heartland example? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Individually they very possibly hold views but what they say is no indication of what they actually think about the science and very often contradicts other things they say. They say things for effect. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for working on getting this all clarified. If Heartland itself said "Climate blah blah blah...(but we don't actually think that way, we're just paid to say it" then I would agree with you. But instead they assert the things they say in definitive voice. It doesn't really matter whether the speech or writing is attributed to an individual speaker/writer or Heartland in general, their verbal and written statements nonetheless forcefully assert "view(s)". Anyone who cares can analyze those views for where they fall on the overlapping range of skepticism/denial. So I see no problem with the existing text. At most, if you have RSs you've made a case for how we should describe Heartland, which isn't something we should be doing in the lead of "climate change denial". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That's just a bad way of dealing with things and wrong. The main part of the article deals with this okay - it discusses what the organisations and the main deniers do. It does not try and assign them to a point on a continuum of views. We can say they wrote something or said something but going beyond that is not based on anything real. We have two topics being covered by the article now, the old topic of denial as in what the main organisations and people say and do and what sources give as their driving reasons which are in the main economic or ideological, and the social sciences study of society in general, the interactions of the various parties and why they come to form their views. The views though are statistical and may not apply in particular cases. The article should deal with both topics and their interaction, the social sciences do talk about the various actors, but they are not the same topic and we shouldn't try shoving square pegs into round holes. The sentence about continuum does not describe the main part of the article as it is at the moment - it applies the topic of the social science studies and climate change skepticism and denial in general and in particular in relation to the pubic. There is the topic of skepticism which grades into denial, and the denial machinery which implements the denial. The sentence supporting the continuum says 'It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up', and elsewhere talks about the denial machinery. This does not apply to the denial organisations. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no problem with the "overlapping range of views" text in lead para 1 currently. As this thread's topic has jumped to Talk:Climate_change_denial#Two_aspects_in_the_lead I'll save further comments for that venue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunlap 2013

I replaced a dead URL for this paper, and CEd "mostly" to "many" based on this quote:

In fact, there is little doubt that many individuals actively involved in the denial campaign

are not skeptical of climate science but are in full denial, and no amount of evidence

will convince them of the reality of AGW.

Dunlap does not appear to have a NPOV on this topic, and hence (as in many sociology articles), his CC work must be viewed skeptically for (eg) confirmation bias. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't require sources to be neutral. See WP:BIASED.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What Dunlap[4] does is speak of and from the mainstream academic standpoint. It is from this standpoint that WP:FRINGE is judged and applied. There is only one reality, and he summarises it thus:

"Climate science has now firmly established that global warming is occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming, and that current and future warming portend negative impacts on both ecological and social systems."

To dispute any of these three points is to take a markedly WP:FRINGE position. Little is changed by someone saying, "Oh, I'm not denying these, I'm skeptical about them." In terms of the continuum, he says that a skeptic may remain "open to evidence," while a denier's mind is "made up", but both present equally "“outlier voices”—skeptics, contrarians, and denialists—receiving unwarranted media visibility, and thus influence on policy debates." He says, "the mass media have enabled the outlier voices to have an excessive impact on these debates, and thus hamper our ability to have intelligent discussions" - exactly as here, per WP:FRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas." There is no way, Dunlap says, that these outlier voices represent some kind of suppressed minority that need to be given any further hearing. It is high time that, in articles like this, we stopped tip-toeing around the delicate feelings of those who have pretended to have these sensitive personal skeptical issues, and apply WP:FRINGE in the normal way. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

i agree. isn't the core issue here how the person's attitude or opinion translates into action? rather than debate whether "skepticism" equals skepticism, or a continuum forms a conundrum, or kant knew what pyrrho was talking about, it seems more productive to ask whether "skepticism" equates to "policy changes are not required," "education in the schools is not necessary," "there is nothing humans can do," "data have been falsified," and any other pseudofactual claim about climate change that can be factually answered. "skepticism" is an empty label unless it is attached to factual claims, and the factual claims stand on their own, and can be factually answered, without any recourse to philosophical categorization. indeed, to the extent that "denial" or "skepticism" equate to the same resistance to social change, it's most accurate to term these folks "climate policy obstructionists". at worst, this would push them to make policy recommendations that can be debated on the merits. Drollere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The core issue is to follow reliable sources, and you're not discussing any. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Disguise

The article is not mentioning disguise. Here is some science mentioning the term, in relation to the article: https://isaconf.confex.com/isaconf/wc2014/webprogram/Paper44688.html and http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ijah/article/view/106432, http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/01/0002764213477096.full.pdf Thus, i suggest to add a mention of it. I previously added the mention, but it was removed. Here is an older similar usage

• For our purposes, the most important of these are the Philippi Logic and Blomberg Logic, both of which are based on lectures from the early 1770s. Drawing on these transcripts, I want to defend the following general claims:
• 1. Kant distinguishes Pyrrhonian skepticism from Academic skepticism, which he tends to think of not as a form of skepticism at all but rather a disguised form of dogmatism.
• 2. He identifies Pyrrhonian skepticism with a particular form of doubt and a method used to elicit this doubt.
• 3. His attitude toward Pyrrhonian skepticism, particularly its method, is overwhelmingly positive.
• 4. He believes that the scope of Pyrrhonian skepticism is restricted to claims within theoretical philosophy and explicitly excludes mathematics, morals, and common sense claims about experience from the scope of Pyrrhonian doubt. http://philosophy.utk.edu/staff/CV/skepticism.pdf prokaryotes (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The "disguise" issue is covered in the opening para of the lead by "Those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but mostly do not comply with scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, continue to deny the validity of human caused global warming". Looks like something to develop in the body text, I was thinking of changing the "Meanings of the term" section title to "Terminology" and covering briefly the introduction of both terms, plus commentary such as Weart's article. Not sure if the meanings of skepticism would be best in a new section. . dave souza, talk 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

For disguise, maybe add "Climate denial can be expressed in disguised forms of academic climate skepticism, when overlapping methods and arguments are used but with flawed conclusions, i.e. arguments based on temperature chart which uses incomplete data sets." This could be referenced to, i.e. see the cherry picking temperature charts. prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

P, if I understood your proposal, I think it would be OR designed to utter the rather loaded word d-i-s-g-u-i-s-e-d without an RS, which we are not supposed to do. I don't suppose you could channel your energy away from BATTLE POV opinions, to help Dave pull together publications for a 30000 foot review? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Social science papers that indulge in lots of specialized verbiage tend to be of less worth than the pristine paper they were printed on. The ones that actually do have a point tend not to do that. I do wish they would get their peer review process in order rather than it being more akin to a literary review. Only the third reference by RE Dunlap and PJ Jacques seemed to have anyone citing it - which is amazing given the millions of cites they pack their papers with. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fraud Attribution

The section "Positions on global warming" should include a fourth category of dissent: "Climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud." The key justification for this position is always the Climatic Research Unit email controversy or "climategate", although other evidence can be adduced, and the claim is usually made that this fraud is perpetrated for personal reasons -- research funding, career advancement, "liberal agenda". The point is that while other positions represent themselves as alternative interpretations of accepted or at least credible scientific methods and measurable facts, the fraud attributions attack the credibility and impartiality of climate science as a discipline, drawing a moral rather than intellectual or procedural difference. Drollere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That section has been added recently so is more of a work in progress. Personally I'm not at all sure why it was stuck in or what it is supposed to show. The actual science is not very relevant so the particular things they disagree with aren't all that relevant either - that's more the sort of thing that should be in the global warming controversy article. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Two aspects in the lead

The lead paragraph as it is at the moment has sentences about two different things in it - the public climate change skepticism grading into denial, and the climate change denial machinery

Climate change denial involves denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior,

Applies to both

especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

Applies to the denial machinery

It forms an overlapping range of views with climate change skepticism, and commonly has the same characteristics, though some members of the public who simply doubt the significance of global warming can legitimately be described as skeptical in a broad sense.[1][2][3]

Applies to public climate change skepticism

In the global warming controversy, campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as the "denial machine".

Applies to the denial machinery

Those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, continue to deny the validity of human caused global warming.[1]

Applies to both.

So I propose the aspects be separated a bit better in something like:

Climate change denial involves denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Views of members of the public and some special interest groups can range from those who simply doubt the significance of global warming and can legitimately be described as skeptical in a broad sense, to those in full denial. Those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, continue to deny the validity of human caused global warming. Organizations and individuals campaigning, especially for commercial or ideological reasons, to undermine public trust in climate science have been described as part of the "denial machine".

I think this would give space for development of both threads and the relationship between them without confusing them too much. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem confused. Climate scepticism and climate change denial share the same defining characteristics, denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Both commonly campaign for commercial or ideological reasons in what has been called the "denial machine", neither requires ill intent: denial in psychology is classically unconscious. The terms are contested, and there are arguments against both. The extent of difference is that a few prefer to describe themselves as deniers rather than skeptics, and some uninvolved in campaigning may be genuinely unsure, skeptical in the scientific science, and looking for clarification rather than confirmation of their beliefs. Am struggling a bit to find the best words, hope to add to this soon. . dave souza, talk 19:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

e/c

In addition, lots of individual people are in climate denial due to ideological reasons, but aren't an active part of what you call the "denial machine". So I think your post opens with a false dichotomy or something. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you both actually read the first citation by Dunlap which is used to support the conytinuum statement and actually take notice of the way it talks about the denial machinery and the way it talks about the public ans some interest groups as having views on a continuum.You are arguing against and misusing the main source for what you are saying. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding sources. . dave souza, talk 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at for instance this statement from the first page of the article which is written in a way that doesn't ascribe views where that is unwarranted: "a significant portion of the American public remains ambivalent or unconcerned (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Hmielowski, 2012) and many policy makers (especially in the United States) deny the necessity of taking steps to reduce carbon emissions (Brownstein, 2010)." Notice that when talking about people in general it talks about their feelings about the subject but in the case of the policy makers it talks about what they do. The article is a well written one, it covers the subject reasonably without making the mistakes that the current lead exhibit, and I'm asking that our article follows a similar approach. Dmcq (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Got a link to these sources, or at least doi numbers and preferably a link to non-paywalled options if appropriate? Also, are the "ambivalent or unconcerned" public ever referred to in good sources as "climate skeptics"? . . . dave souza, talk

Multiple thinkers behind the journal paywalls are critical, or at least trying to be analytical, of the notion "climate denial" on the basis that, according to them, it could refer to a range of views. Maybe a place to focus is to bubble up out of the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article text. Is this "range of views" bit in the article text? How is it presented there? If it isn't in the article text, it shouldn't be in the lead (which goes for every article). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See Climate change denial#Arguments and positions on global warming, worth reading Rahmstorf's article. . dave souza, talk 22:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Um... Anyway if you use Google Scholar you can often find things at a different place if there isn't straightforward access. Looking at the first one by Dunlap I see there is a version you can access at [5] but I wouldn't put it in the article as doing so might break copyright. Dmcq (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd already linked to a "researchgate" pdf which looks legit. Got doi's or links to free versions of the sources you were proposing? . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was about what the current sources say. I don't know why you are are repeatedly talking about your search for new sources here. Dmcq (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorical ed behavior comments aren't that helpful NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How about 'Why are you talking about your search for new sources when the discussion is about the current wording and the current sources?" Please try and interpret what I say as being straightforward rather than an attack of some kind. You could have explained to me why they are talking about that if you know why. Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I see now what you mean now about "Also, are the "ambivalent or unconcerned" public ever referred to in good sources as "climate skeptics"?". I try to be very clear and yet I often seem to have great difficulty in getting people to understand what I say. Yes the sentence starting "Views of members of the public and some special interest groups can .." is wrong as it implies all the public would be included. No I don't think that people who haven't considered the matter are climate skeptics, never mind most scientists or people who agree with the science. I shall try an rephrase that bit to avoid that problem. I still think the phrasing in the article is bad too and applies where it shouldn't. Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Source based clarification will be welcome. Note that Rahmstorf's study p. 77 is probably the most referenced, and he identifies "a small but mixed bag of climate skeptics (or 'contrarians') who vehemently deny the need for climate protection measures."p. 77. We'd need evidence that the term climate skeptic or equivalent is applied to others. . . dave souza, talk 09:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dunlap is not referring to 'climate change skeptics' in "Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves “skeptics,” and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who..."? That the public in that sentence just refers to skeptics rather than 'climate skeptics'? Sorry yes I see below that is exactly what you are doing. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Some members of the public who simply doubt the significance of global warming can legitimately be described as skeptical in a broad sense

Sorry about tl;dr, but is this the discussion that led to the phrase above appearing in the lead? It has three complex references after it, and I would like to see here which quotation in which reference supports such a statement. My reading of the three references cited is that there is no longer a legitimate position that a well informed person can take that could be described as skeptical, i.e. having no view because there is insufficient information or evidence available to support any stance. There are those who actively deny the science (often for money), there are those who choose to believe them rather than mainstream scientists, and there may be some somewhere who didn't know there was any science. To my reading of Dunlap and Oreskes, that is the continuum. Where is the reference that establishes the existence of legitimate skepticism at the present time? --Nigelj (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding, and I'm working on it, is that uninformed members of the public who don't know the scientific consensus and are asking for information can reasonably be described as sceptical, but I've not seem them described as "climate change skeptics". Note that it's a standard denial tactic to say they're just "questioning the science" when they're actually dog-whistling. For example, "But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the temperature record?" then, after taking photos of surface sstations, jumping to the conclusion that "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And 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] Good sources describe this as denial. . dave souza, talk 09:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked again, the wording was essentially based on Dunlap's "Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves “skeptics,” and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem." That gives some leeway for those "challenging" climate science, not just asking about it, but doesn't justify using the term climate skeptic for these people. Another citation is needed for that: haven't checked ref [2], in ref [3] Klein refers to "denialists" with just a passing mention of Richard Muller as "a scientist sympathetic to the 'skeptic' position", so not the same term. . dave souza, talk 10:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of people have been badly informed - that's what the whole business of the denial machine is about. Their skepticism is legitimate in that they have made an informed decision based on the evidence presented to them. The various kinds of 'climate skeptic' in Rahmstorf have not been classed as deniers by them though I guess that's the idea. Anyway how about Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers By David Brin 'What discrete characteristics distinguish a rational, pro-science "climate skeptic" who has honest questions about the AGW consensus from members of a Denialist Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators?' Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should people in denial not have honest questions? The issue here is whether reliable sources clarify this point, and much as I like Brin's science fiction, that looks unusable as a selfpub source. . . dave souza, talk 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I took it out. It was nearly meaningless. However, what about Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate,[18][19] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming - why is that in here? Politics preventing action is just politics, not denialism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok by me, will see if we get better clarification about these legit skeptics who may or may not get called climate skeptics. The other para isn't mine, you're welcome to chop it. Don't know if the Oreskes source is worth saving, haven't tried finding online access to it. . . dave souza, talk 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you requiring a higher grade source for "Some members of the public who simply doubt the significance of global warming can legitimately be described as skeptical in a broad sense" than Dunlap? It seems a fairly unremarkable statement to me. I gave the David Brin reference because it was cited in Dunlap's work. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My objection was not the sourcing, but the words themselves. As I said, they are nearly meaningless. "some members" - 0.1%, 50%, 99.9%? "significance" - what sense of "significance" is being used - its existence? Its impact? Its role in debate? And so on William M. Connolley (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a good measure of that would be but [7] shows about 36% of people in the US as mixed belief and about half of those are concerned about global warming, and other figuresd there also show about half veering either way but not strong believers. So I would have thought somewhere about half of those or about 20% of the population could rightly be called skeptics. Whatever some 'real' figure for it is I'm pretty sure it is a very significant number. You can see the problem when you try and figure out how many of the 'concerned believers' in that survey whom I'm excluding from that should actually be called skeptics in that they believe because of the evidence rather than because of belonging to a peer group and having a certain outlook on life. Dmcq (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In the more strident literature the words 'climate skeptic' are a synonym for 'climate change denier' because that's what deniers call themselves. There is no room left for people who are actually skeptical in a reasoned way. There are some reliable sources that argue essentially that all climate skeptics are deniers and there are others that say it is quite wrong to make that identification. Wikipedia is supposed to give more weight to scholarly sources and they tend as far as I can see to make a distinction between them but we do need to acknowledge both sides in that. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, but note that this is work in progress and, for example, I've still to incorporate Deniers are not Skeptics - CSI. . dave souza, talk 09:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work. Well done and thank you, guys. Thanks for the clarity. --Nigelj (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Deniers are not Skeptics - CSI

• Deniers are not Skeptics - CSI (HT to Dave)

An interesting viewpoint re this topic was recently posted at Curry's, Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics. It's a guest post, so perhaps not a RS, but makes for interesting reading. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC) `

NPOV problem in lede, again

I recently added this qualifier to the continuum bit in the lede,

Per R.E. Dunlap and others, it forms an overlapping range of views with climate change skepticism...,

I argued that we need to make clear this is opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. WMC reverted 3 minutes later, stating "disagree."

Note that Dunlap et al are the only source cited for this formulation -- other than climate activist Naomi Klein, who is really just a source for her own opinions, and who vapors on & on in the cited piece (but I digress). Riley Dunlap is a senior Sociology professor at Oklahoma State University (where I grew up) -- but he's offering his opinion, and WP:NPOV requires us to "Avoid stating opinions as facts."

This seems unequivocal to me: "This policy is non-negotiable." --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV policy includes WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL, and states that we should not "give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." Why are you trying to negotiate away these policy provisions? You do seem to be promoting fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

People who are used to writing and assessing academic work will be able to say with more certainty than I can, but it seems to me that when a statement makes it into the introductory text to a symposium, written by a senior academic and published in a journal like the American Behavioral Scientist, then it has much more weight than a personal opinion, for example in a blog. For the benefit of others who may wish to assess the weight of the statement made by Dunlap in his Introduction, here is a slightly extended quote to give context, and to show the extent of the literature he reviews in making it:

Yet skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists (e.g., Mann, 2012; Schneider, 2009), making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics. In fact, there is little doubt that many individuals actively involved in the denial campaign are not skeptical of climate science but are in full denial, and no amount of evidence will convince them of the reality of AGW (see, e.g., Brin, 2010; Powell, 2011; Washington & Cook, 2011). This appears especially true of core actors in the denial machine, ranging from many representatives of conservative think tanks to some contrarian scientists to several bloggers and many of their followers.

It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up. Social scientists are analyzing both phenomena, conducting studies of skepticism among the public (Hobson & Niemeyer, in press; Leiserowitz et al., 2012; McCright & Dunlap, 2011; Poortinga, Spence, Whitmarsh, Capstick, & Pidgeon, 2011; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2012; Whitmarsh, 2011) as well as a rapidly growing number that focus on key elements of the denial machine: conservative think tanks (e.g., McCright & Dunlap, 2000), front groups established by the fossil fuels industry (e.g., Oreskes, 2010), contrarian scientists (e.g., Lahsen, 2008), conservative politicians (e.g., McCright & Dunlap, 2010), and conservative media—especially Fox News (e.g., Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2012), newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch (e.g., McKnight, 2010), and talk radio (e.g., Akerlof, Rowan, Fitzgerald, & Cedeno, 2012). The contributions to this symposium examine both climate change skepticism and denial.

— http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riley_Dunlap/publication/274306932_Climate_Change_Skepticism_and_Denial_An_Introduction/links/552204580cf29dcabb0d3027.pdf

--Nigelj (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

What Dunlap says is fine but what our article says isn't. When applied to individuals and some interest groups skepticism-denial can be thought of as a continuum. There is also organised denial which is termed the denial machinery. The lead makes a hash of both without saying what bits refer to what by just sticking a load of statements together with citations without making coherent sense of the way they are put together. Each is okay in its context but the context is not given for each. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Have just tried to clarify this in a way that accurately reflects the sources. I've still not found any sources stating that the climate change skeptic label is applied to anyone who is simply skeptical and not denying consensus climate science to some extent. Timmer says "there's also genuine skepticism of individual scientific claims, as we saw by the response to a recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on California's recent drought"; his linked article cites as a typical critic of that report Michael E. Mann, who would not commonly be listed as a climate change skeptic. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to say what is in the sources, not keep things in because you haven't found something satisfying your criteria for a reliable source with enough weight saying it is wrong. That is simply pushing your point of view. We don't have sources saying all climate change skeptics are deniers. Anyway are you really going to say this climate change skeptic was really a denier? [8]? Dmcq (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Muller made a number of extremely stupid statements, some of which he retracted after his own analysis showed he was wrong. The ability to (partially) change his mind based on science clearly distinguishes him from the pure denialists William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So he was a climate change skeptic but not a climate change denier? Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead attribution

• Returning to the start of this discussion:

SFAICT, the "continuum" argument has been made only by Riley Dunlap (a respected sociologist) and a coauthor.. I don't really understand the reluctance to attribute this work, so I've restored it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Dave Souza promptly reverted, commenting

false balance - see #Arguments and positions on global warming.

???? Care to unpack that, Dave? Makes no sense to me. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Try reading the #Arguments and positions on global warming section, and note that "continuum" is another way of saying "range of views". Your change gives a false impression that only Dunlap holds this view: why ignore his co-author? Have undone that change. Work in progress, hav more to add to this when time permits. .dave souza, talk 04:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Pete's "promptly" = around 8 hours, my undo was at 04:36..... dave souza, talk 04:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Restored proper attribution, per WP:Attribute. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't we been though this before? Implying, as you're desperately trying to, that these views are just one person's, is just POV pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, that's because we are citing it to one person (+ca-authors). Have you other sources? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No we're not. Check again. This idea is also discussed by Weart, Timman, Gelbspan, NCSE, and others, all of which are cited in the article. The Dunlap ref should be sufficient to cite that particular sentence, however. What he's saying is not just "his opinion"; he's summarizing the academic literature, and is, himself, a respected authority on the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Try citing them then, please . Certainly not there now, and I can assure you this is a *very* controversial topic. I plan to move this into conflict resolution soon, since it's been a run-around (imo) since the start. I think you'll find that Duncan is it for the specific language in the lede, and hence must be attributed to him per WP: V. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

...the cites are in the article now. Dunlap and Timmlan are right after that sentence. The other sources are discussed in subsequent sections covering the topic. Search the article for the names I provided and you'll see the cites.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• [outdent] "Dunlap and Timmlan are right after that sentence." Well, duh. That's what needs attributing, and that's the lynchpin of the articles "skeptics are deniers" (+/-) argument. You didn't find that language elsewhere, did you?

Restored attribution. Conflict Resolution is next.... Pete Tillman (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no "conflict resolution" under such name. There's a Dispute resolution noticeboard but that seems to be mostly people talking in circles. You'll probably want Arbitration enforcement, since this article is under sanctions following WP:ARBCC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Boris. Guess that's the next step. Do you agree that this (sfaict) sole source, for the nasty (even for here) "all skeptics are deniers" crap (aside, that is, from the prominent "progressive" poitical campaign to ostracize opponents, notably unacknowledged here, in this oh-so-PC POS article) -- needs specific attribution? Since that apears to be the self-justification of a Certain Editor's edit-warring campaign to direct all the climate-skeptic items that she can find to here? Where they are greeted with "This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change." For that warm, fuzzy NPOV feeling so common in the CC wiki-wars? </rant>

Sorry. So this complaint (suitably rephrased ;-) should be at the NPOV forum too, whatever that is, to (maybe) end this absurd kabuki-dance, aka Tyranny of the Majority. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Pete, you really shouldn't rant here, and you certainly shouldn't complain about wording that isn't in the article. As for the hatnote, both you and Peter Gulutzan have complained about it at Talk:Climate change skeptic#Is all skepticism an organized campaign? Is it unequivocally denial? as though it justified your edit warring over a redirect, you've both been invited to show sources and discuss possible changes to the hatnote on this talk page. So far you don't seem to have done that, but you're still complaining. Please provide constructive proposals if you want the hatnote changed. . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dave: the hatnote's fine. It's the article, and the twisty use of the belief that theres a "scientific" rationale for the nasty political ostracism of climate skeptics, that's the real problem, or so it seems to me. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor point: for "nasty political ostracism", with dates and places: also, do mainstream views get welcomed at The Heartland Institute's conferences? . . . dave souza, talk 23:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no 'twisty use of beliefs' in the article. Another quote from Dunlap - check the original for all his citations (this is an introductory review of the literature, not an opinion piece) - explains it nicely: "From the outset, there has been an organized “disinformation” campaign that has used the complexities of AGW and the inevitable uncertainties involved in scientific research to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW." There is only one science, which is unequivocal in the words of the IPCC, but there has been an organised campaign that has generated so-called skepticism. This article, as it says at the top, is about that campaign. Like it or lump it, that is what the academic mainstream are saying. It's not 2005 any more - the lid has been blown off and now we can all see what's been going on. --Nigelj (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking we'd have to broaden the hatnote to cover Kari Norgaard's Bygdaby research, which the NCSE emphasises is part of this topic area. Though of course the main attention is on the organised denial which pretends to be skepticism. . . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Slightly surprisingly, denier - definition of denier in English from the Oxford dictionary: 1) noun
A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
a prominent denier of global warming
a climate change denier
. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's rather interesting. Its not the OED, though. What's the status of "oxforddictionaries"? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's published by Oxford Universtiy Press, and they say, "we’ve been making dictionaries for more than 150 years" and "For us, it’s not only about defining words or charting the history of English in the OED"[9] --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OxfordDictionaries.com helps a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added it, as it seems useful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It has just made the lead even messier and not fixed any problems. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, at best that should be in the first section about the meaning of the term. The lead should be a summary. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer it in the lede, but can live with where it is. Given all the fuss elsewhere with people calling for definitions, this seemed rather a useful find, don't you think? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat unfortunately no one has objected to this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We also have WP:NOTADICTIONARY. The article is more about the topic rather than the phrase though we do have a section on terminology, and the terminology section says a lot more than that. Personally I think copying out dictionary definitions into the lead of articles is bad style and doesn't really help in explaining the topics and they are I would say tertiary rather than secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

...in climate science is associated with neoliberal free market ideology backed by industrial interests...

I'm dubious that the version we have now is correct (it might be supported by sources, I don't know, that's a different matter). "Backed by industrial interests" seems fair: there's a lot of coal money at stake; and Exxon certainly in the past. That money may or may not be flowing mainly to right-wing pols; but "free market"? Not really. Carbon taxes are entirely compatible with free markets William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but among the regulatory options available, only a few are, cap and share, carbon credit the others.

It is not the case that the recent regulation on cola burning plants encompass an exchange mechanism, however, and the opposition to regulating CO2 emissions is more centered on those types of regulations and involves private sector entities as opposed to governments.

Here's a link to the section of the Wikipedia article on neoliberal economics Neoliberalism#Neoliberal_economics. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely a link. But its not obviously of any relevance. the opposition... involves private sector entities. Yes, it does. But why would you describe coal interests as "neoliberal"? They don't seem at all liberal, or at all neo, to me. They are just straight forward old-fashioned special interests, influencing government in their favour. That's not at all neolib, and not at all free market William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. Libertarian and conservative would be about right I think but neoliberal isn't near that degree of libertarianism.. Neoliberals believe in taking notice of the possible consequences of actions. Dmcq (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The cited source for that sentence[10] calls them 'the right' and 'right-wingers' more often than anything else. Why not just say " ...in climate science is associated with right-wing ideologies backed by industrial interests..." rather than trying to WP:OR exactly which brand and sub-brand of right-wing they are? --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right either. I'm acquainted with a number of prominent deniers, of which only a very small minority (one, maybe two) are "backed by industrial interests." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nigelj: "Right-wing" would be better than "free market", without a doubt, but neoliberal is far more precise and informative, as I'm trying to present in the body. There are three main aspects that are relevant here: anti-regulation, opposition to government intervention in markets, and supply-side economics.

"Neoliberal market fundamentalism" would be another candidate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nigelj: I just noticed that the source you mentioned also includes mention of "market fundamentalism".

In addition to reversing the thirty-year privatization trend, a serious response to the climate threat involves recovering an art that has been relentlessly vilified during these decades of market fundamentalism [bolding added]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Koch brothers are the largest funders of denialism, and they are an "energy company"Climate Change ‘Denier’ Linked To Funding From Energy Companies, Including Koch whose industrial interests are at stake in the regulation of CO2 emissions. There are any sources that discuss neoliberal economic policy, etc., in this context

1. The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication
2. New Frontiers in Technological Literacy: Breaking with the Past
3. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence
4. The Earth is Too Big to Fail

   Since the 1970s, our political and financial classes have been in the grip of neoliberalism, the bedrock ideology of global laissez-faire capitalism. Neoliberals are wholly committed to mass privatization, unfettered deregulation, corporate tax cuts, trade liberalization, as well as a massive reduction in the role of government. Neoliberalism, regrettably, has become the economic orthodoxy of our time, with disastrous results.
   Our non-response to the climate crisis is attributable to the institutionalization of neoliberal values, which have seeped into our collective conscience. For decades, apostles of neoliberalism have assumed, fallaciously, that the market system is the only viable mechanism capable of regulating CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions.
   art of the problem is that public discourse surrounding climate change is fraught with misinformation. This is not an accident. The Koch brothers, fossil fuel companies, and everyone else invested in the decaying industrial economy have deliberately muddied the waters. And why wouldn't they? They pioneered this model, and they profit from our predicament; it's natural that they would resist change. Their fidelity to the status quo is total. And they've taken extraordinary measures to ensure nothing changes. They've hatched think tanks, engineered elections, purchased politicians, organized PACS, and raised whole armies of propagandists whose sole mission is to manufacture doubt and slant the science. The result: a vast and woefully efficient climate denial machine.

5. Koch company buys up more oil sands licenses in Canada

   The Koch brothers fund numerous think tanks and organizations that deny climate change and promote neoliberal economic policies.

   .
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems I'm behind the times in what I neoliberalism is about. Anyway reading the article on that I don't think it is a good term to use because it has different meanings and it has been used as a term of abuse. We should just use simpler terms as that just conveys heat without light. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What source is your opinion based on?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Of what in particular? I pointed at the Wikipedia article didn't I? Have you got a reason for wanting to stick in a misused and misunderstood term rather than just making things obvious and easy? Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have sources to counter the limited selection of those shown above, you don't have any grounds to assert your personal opinion, which is incoherent.

It doesn't matter if you don't like or understand the term, the reliable sources do.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly does matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize things and make them readable, not duplicate authors' own specialist in--clique lingo and confuse the audience. That you have found one description in a source does not change that more uses are made of other words in those sources that are simpler and describe the situation better, and in fact just looking at the first source in the article neoliberal is just used once whereas the terms I put in were used numerous times. If you really feel the urge to stick in things like that do it in the body of articles and not the lead, the lead in particular is supposed to be readable. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV instead of trying to dictate to others how to edit.

I've posted a small number of the numerous sources that use "neoliberal", and they do so because it defines a more specific set of specific principles and policy recommendations than the overly broad, general description of "free-market". Calling the term in--clique lingo and claiming I intend to confuse the audience is problematic. Making negative comments on other editors motivations is a violation of WP:NPA.

You have also misrepresented the fact that I have posted five sources above, not one, and three of them are peer-reviewed academic publications. Do not misrepresent other editors edits, as that is a violation of WP:TALK. Moreover, you have misrepresented the first source I presented, as the term "neoliberal" is used about ten times in the book. That is also a violation of WP:TALK.

Note that I have made some edits to the body of the article characterizing two think tanks as neoliberal, also based on scholarly sources, and I have added to the article on neoliberalism itself the concise summary of policies promoted by them according to the HP piece.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly sources yielded by simple google search

• The search terms are "climate change denial", neoliberal[11] (720 hits)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I searched ""climate change denial", neoliberal and got 38700 and "climate change denial", freemarket and got 57300, and climate change denial conservative" and got 96700. RS doesn't require us to quote sources using the exact same words. The lead is supposed to be readable. Just because I believe you haven't written the lead well doesn't imply I believe you are actively trying to confuse readers. I wasn't referring to the source you provided but the citation that was in the article. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read you addition to the neoliberalism article. Adding a bit does not subtract the bits that talk about it having a number of meanings and there being a debate on the usefulness of the term in the social sciences and a bit about it being an academic catchphrase used mainly by critics as a pejorative term. I see some other user has also just now removed your addition though I thought the "unfettered deregulation" was a good description of the relevant bit needed here and would work in a lead. Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you have now sprinkled neoliberal within the article.

The word 'neoliberal' does not appear in the article about Richard D. North or the Institute of Economic Affairs except in a see also for the institute nor does it appear in the ciitation for the sentence wiith those in where you stuck it.

The 'neoliberal' in the lead of the George C. Marshall Institute article has just been inserted by you. There was no mention of the word in any part of the article before you went there.

I would ask you to be a bit more careful about changing the sources and their references at the same time that way, it does not look good to push things like that. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you check the edit histories of the articles as well as their Talk pages. You are not referring to sources, and your opinions about my edits are inept and off topic, with an accusation of "pushing things" to boot. I have not referred to North as a neoliberal, but there is no question that the Marshal Institute and IEA are frequently referred to as neoliberal, so what is your point?

You are also wrong, again, about the source for IEA, as the statement "Keith Joseph, a very active and committed publicist and polemecist with strong connections to the neoliberal think-tank Institute of Economic Affairs...".

The fact that There was no mention of the word in any part of the article before I inserted it is a sign of the pathetic POV state of the article.

I'm beginning to have serious doubts about your competence.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes you just stuck in a link to something about neoliberalism at the start of that article about the Institute of Economic Affairs and somebody else again removed it. Just like what happened at the other article. Is that what what you are referring to? Have you considered that you might be wrong in sticking in a term into the lead of those articles for which the meaning is disputed and therefore not widely understood? Or that there might have been a reason they didn't use the term before you came along? Or like that I showed above it is not enough to get references shoring up ones point of view but also one should check other terms to get weight? Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You should check the other sources yourself regarding WEIGHT, if you think there is a discrepancy. Your pedantic comments here are not helpful.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I find this "pedantic" discussion very helpful, insightful, and revealing. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I got the same sort of results searching using Google Scholar, what kind of check should I be doing to quantify the results with the WEIGHT like you get? Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an exercise in source counting. Produce concrete statements from RS to support the text you propose.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Extra texts would simply extend the number of descriptions with extra words. I was not proposing to make the text more verbose. My complaint all along was about the lead and your addition has been removed from the lead so that's fine. I said putting in things like that was okay in the body and that has been done by you - fine. What I was trying to get across was the basic idea of addressing the audience and determining weight. It seemed you were searching for 'climate change denial neoliberal' rather than seeing what the climate change denial articles overall said. You never addressed the problem of the meaning of neoliberal not being clear and being in dispute and being used in a perjorative way as is documented on that page which I believe makes it a bad word for the lead here. There are enough such disputes about what denial means without adding to the problems. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of hte term is clear according to the sources. That it has and continues to be used in different ways is something that is not relevant beyond the scope it is used in this context. Likewise for the assertion that it is a "pejorative". Your personal opinion does not matter, reliably sourced statements matter. The term will be re-added to the lead after I'e finished adding it to the body, then you will have no grounds to object whatsoever. Unless you have sources, I find the haranguing line of question to be disruptive, and certainly not collaborative.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What about searching

• "climate change neofascist"?
• "climate change wiccan transgendered fiscal conservatives"?

In 20 words or less, could anyone summarize the basis for focus on "neoliberal" in this debate?

Yes that does point out a basic problem of the method used. I did a Google search of "climate change denial" fascist and it said there were 1,990,000 hits. Google Scholar even gave 133 hits.

On the point about neoliberalism being clear can I point to the article where it says with citations "Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time", "This leaves some controversy as to the precise meaning of the term and its usefulness as a descriptor in the social sciences, especially as the number of different kinds of market economies have proliferated in recent years.", " In the last two decades, according to the Boas and Gans-Morse study of 148 journal articles, neoliberalism is almost never defined but used in several senses to describe ideology, economic theory, development theory, or economic reform policy. It has largely become a term of condemnation employed by critics.", "According to Boas and Gans-Morse, neoliberalism is nowadays an academic catchphrase used mainly by critics as a pejorative term, and has outpaced the use of similar terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and "market reform" in much scholarly writing. Daniel Stedman Jones, a historian of the concept, says the term "is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises""

Doesn't that all suggest it is not a clear cut term never mind one associated with a neutral point of view? Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the question. In 20 words or less why are we still talking about it on this article's talk page? BTW, that is in not meant as sarcasm to squelch discussion. It is a face value question. Is there a proposed edit someone cares enough about? What edit? Why do they care? What's the argument against. I'd like to see a triple distillation for those of eds (like myself) who think lack of concision reflects insufficient understanding of the issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to stop neoliberal being plastered all over this and related articles. It isn't clear or neutral. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

19 words, thanks, not bad. Can you add another 20-30 neutral words stating the other side?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like he is cherry-picking sources to try and carry out his above-stated agenda of excising the word neoliberal from Wikipedia. He is violating WP:NOTFORUM and has now crossed over into obvious ACTIVISM/ADVOCACY territory with his declared agenda. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's AE stuff and beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. My question to you, Ubikwit, is "What article improvement is being discussed in this thread? In as few dispassionate words as possible... tomorrow is fine..... sleep on it.... revise it over and over to redact the personalizations..... why do you think said edit would be an improvement that meets our various policies & guidelines? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) PS.... can you get your CRUX ARGUMENT down to 30 words, not including RS? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Have you checked the edit history of the article? Just look at my related edits over the past two days. The editor above started making noise about the lead, but has since revealed his actual agenda.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When you're interested in making the sort of succinct summary of your view that would be appropriate when using the various DR tools, let me know. I'm unwilling to pick through the bitterness to try to guess what your proposal is, or the core issue in your supporting argument. If you believe it's solid, why not try a gentler WP:Dispute resolution sort of approach when a fresh ear asks for a restatement of the issue? Instead you're clobbering me for not sweating enough in the tl;dr bitterness to arrive at your conclusion that I also should join you in clobbering the other ed. I ain't gonna do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Well I'll try the opposing side as I see it. Neoliberalism is a good clear description and sources support it. This opposition can only be based on some agenda rather than following NPOV. RS policy supports my edits and I want to see the article improved. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Updated Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As I read this, it sounds like mockery. If that's an accurate interpretation, then it isn't quite what WP:OTHERSOPINION has in mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is how I read it and was not meant as mockery. I'll cut it down a bit more and perhaps it'll sound more reasonable to you then. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, I think your view is "Ubikwit wants to add 'neoliberal' to the article but has failed to identify an applicable RS or explain the term's relevance in context of the proposed edit". Is that a fair summary of your perspective? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There are reliable sources using the term, however a quick look on the first couple of pages returned from Google for "neoliberal" will confirm what our article says, it is nearly always used in a abusive rather than descriptive manner. Plus the actual meaning is unclear.Terms like free-market, right-wing, deregulation, unfettered etc are more relevant to this article and describe the background better. It doesn't need a neoliberal economics ideology for someone to want to fight against regulation when it might reduce their profits. The term is fine in small amounts but it doesn't belong in the lead as a major factor. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

-arbitrary outdent - Ubikwit, assuming Dmcq's characterization of the RSs is accurate, his reasoning certainly seems persuasive. Would you like to try to convince me he's wrong, without attacking either the ed or his motives (and conciseness helps your cause, at least with me) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

NAEG, why assume that? That is a non-starter suggestion, as it is not compliant with policy. "Neoliberal" is not a banned term; it's not even on the faulty WP:WTW list. The intricacies regarding use of the term is a borderline WP:CIR issue. I've stated above the three aspects that are relevant to discussions regarding climate change denial, right-wing think tanks, etc. There is a growing body of academic literature on the subject.

I'm not interested in wasting any more time than you, so please have a look at this one edit.

And note that I'd changed the lead to read "neoliberal economic policies" as opposed to "right-wing ideologies"[12], which I consider to be a more objective and informative as well as less inflammatory characterization, and which is a phrasing taken directly from a source. Furthermore, the use of "economic policies" constrains the scope of "neoliberal", putting the meaning in focus.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What I hear Ubikwit saying

The RSs say that the forces behind climate change denial finance have three main characteristics, and they are (1) anti-regulation, (2) opposition to government intervention in markets, and (3) supply-side economics. The RSs also say that "Neoliberal" describes the confluence of those three characteristics, so we should use "Neoliberal" when talking about the forces behind climate change denial finance.

Is that a reasonable summary, Ubikwit? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at that diff, I'd also be interested how you square those criteria with [13] - the citation at the end of the line in in the lead with neoliberal stuck in it. The one mention of neoliberal says "And this is true for the statist left as well as the neoliberal right.". Dmcq (talk)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: That's not exactly correct, but getting closer. It would be better to say that the sources related to climate change denial that refer to neoliberalism do so with reference to those three well-documented aspects, primarily, but that is not an exhaustive list of aspect of neoliberalism or all of the associated approaches. The converse of the anti-regulation, anti-intervention stance is that the approach promoted by neoliberals claiming that market mechanisms, such as a carbon credit exchange, and the like can solve the problem.

Incidentally, the pipe link was intended to narrow down the type of "right-wing" policies for clarification. It would be better to go with "market fundamentalism", but that would require some copy editing.

@Dmcq: The question related to that comment in that source is so off topic (related to consumerism and the generation of greenhouse gases causing climate change as opposed to climate change denial, etc.) that it deserves no further response: WP:NOTFORUM.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

NAEG THINKS After reading the whole thread, the sources cited, and some other sources besides, I think.... (A) The word "neoliberal" is unnecessary economic/political WP:JARGON which would interfere with many readers' comprehension of climate change denial. Instead of using the single adjective "neoliberal" we could easily use a plain English sentence or two covering the high points behind the word, assuming there is consensus that the RSs support those high points in the first place. (B) In a section on responses to climate change denial I would not object to a quote just because it happened to include the word. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's correct, of course, which is why it needs a wikilink, at any rate, but you do see it used frequently in scholarly publications on this topic, primarily because all of the denialist think-tanks aim at promoting those policies. In fact, market fundamentalism represents one move in rhetorical space to make the jargon more accessible. If you read that page, you'll see it referred to as a "the neo-liberal doctrines".

In any case, the present text isn't bad, and would be easiest to understand for the least educated members of the reading audience, and neoliberals/ism is wikilinked a couple of places in the body. It might be better to link to market fundamentalism, but it seems more difficult to use "economic policy" in such a phrasing. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, it seems you agree that to combat the jargonish nature of "neoliberal", "it needs a wikilink". However, that's exactly what we are not supposed to do. According to WP:JARGON, "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: No, no you're going to far. There is a difference between "wikiliniking" and "excessive wikilinking". The term is a historical term that serves as a common name for certain doctrines as much as jargon, as shown above regarding the quote on market fundamentalism by Nobel prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz. You should not confuse technical (i.e., science/engineering) terms with terms that are in common use in public discourse. The term is used repeatedly in relation to the topic of the article in scholarly and other RS, and is also used to describe almost every single "think tank" listed in the article, so the term belongs in the article. When I used the term "jargon" above, I used it in the sense of a kind of shorthand that stands for the three commonly associated policy positions described above. It is not so difficult that it cannot be made readily intelligible in the context of the body of the article with respect to the various positions that think tank advocates have publicly taken and the critical response thereto. There just needs to be more work done in this regard.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(A) Though the intent is appreciated, please don't Template:reply when I've obviously participating and can be assumed to have the page watchlisted. You mean well, but it just makes extra work on the other ed's end.

(B) We agree that the word is WP:JARGON; you've highlighted the word "excessively" in that guideline. Well, true, that word does exist in the guideline so a hypertechnical reading does arguably support your claim that this instance would not be one of excessive hyperlinking. In my opinion that's a hypertechnical reading that defeats the over-riding principle that we should strive for clarity by using common understandable language instead of WP:JARGON when possible.

(C) Though I could be wrong, it appears you passionately want there to be a link between this article and neoliberalism. I can live with that, but it's easily done by linking the term when it appears in a quote under the "commentary" section, instead of obfuscating the text we present in wikivoice.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your presumed reading into my comments, and it appears that you are not well read in the relevant topic area.

Just stick to the sources, and keep the pedantic comments to yourself, OK? The only hypertechnical reading of the policy is yours, not mine.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal insults don't change my opinion a whit, of course, and now I WP:DROPTHESTICK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Feeling mea culpa a bit here, as it probably originated from me trying to summarise a source which referred to free-marked ideology. I think this article should clarify the point that individuals promoting denial commonly cite (1) anti-regulation views, (2) opposition to government intervention in markets. Their financial backing is often from businesses which share these views and have a commercial incentive to stall or block any limitations on fossil fuel use and production. Something to review, will aim to contribute on that, dave souza, talk 12:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No no, take a bow! It appears to be guiding discussion to the nontechnical verbiage describing the highpoints so thanks for that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dave souza: There was nothing "wrong" with that summary, but I thought it should go further, paralleling the statements in critical sources, to clarify the negative association with right-wing economic policies and corporate oligarchs, and not inadvertently obscure that by mis-association with the more benign use of "free market" in the general sense.

It's a bit of a tangle, but nothing that can't be straightened out, as there are ample sources. You are also right that it is those two aspects of the doctrine that critics using the term "neoliberal" in this specific context are addressing. I'm going on an extended break soon, so it will be up to you and others to build it up.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Market fundamentalism conveys the idea certainly certainly but if you look at the first line of that article it starts with "Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a pejorative term applied to a strong belief in the ability of laissez-faire or free market policies to solve most economic and social problems." Really we should try just describing things rather than applying terms that are outright pejorative. Saying something like unrestricted free-market or deregulated conveys things quite well enough without name calling. More than that I think fundamentalism implies they have some sort of thought out and firm policy whereas it isn't just one thing, there is a certain consistent attitude okay but a lot of what they come up with is incoherent - denial and clear thought tend to be a bit opposite to each other. Dmcq (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a pejorative term, and that was added to the article without a source, in violation of NPOV; obviously, I have deleted it and left a note at the offending editors UT page.

You are also attempting to falsely infer that denialism is incoherent, whereas the types of policies predominately promoted by denialists are consistently anti-regulatory, pro-market, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The change was reverted by another person as well with the comment WP:EGG, you just edit war to stick in pejorative terms against opposition so I have marked it as vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I see yopu went and changed the target article to remove the bit saying it was pejorative. Could you just damn well stop changing the targets of articles at the same time as here and then claiming different about them and obscuring things like that. When your edit has had a bit of time for others to agree or disagree at the target fine but changing things that have been that way for ages and then claiming here your change is correct and immediately edit warring to stick in your change here is just being a PITA. WTF is eating you that you need to do this sort of thing, the sources have plenty of ways of describing the same thing without that sort of annoying messing around. Dmcq (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the related discussions on this page and the support for "right-wing", for example. You also failed to see that the edit summary you mentioned was related to an objection to a piped link, not the term "market fundamentalism", which you are the only editor claiming is pejorative, based on an unsourced POV statement in a Wikipedia article that has been corrected. The piped link was removed, and the statement rephrased so as to be more informative without using the term "neoliberal".

There has been a lot of discussion as to whether "denialism" is pejorative, but not "market fundamentalism".

In the edit I made, "right-wing" modifies "economic policies", and "market fundamentalism" clarifies what is meant by "right-wing". It's fairly straight forward. "conservative", meanwhile, risks drawing false associations because the term has many readings that are not related to the present context, such as "fiscal conservatism", for example.

Not only are you POV pushing to remove criticism that you don't like and replacing the related terminology with terminology that serves to obscure the meaning of the assertions made in the sources, but labeling my edit "vandalism", which is a clear misrepresentation. I suppose that you did that because you could think of no valid reason to put in the edit summary, right?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking the two you might be well served by utilizing WP:Dispute resolution or alternatively a self-imposed temporary interaction ban. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would you suggest that? An editor is ignoring Talk discussion and sources in order to push a whitewashing POV obfuscating the policies promoted by the "right-wing" (or "conservative") think tanks under criticism in the sources and the article, and mischaracterizing my edits as vandalism, etc.

That is conduct on the verge of meriting a misconduct report. The notion of an interaction ban is ludicrous, and the editor in question is not engaging in a GF content dispute. Meanwhile, you are an editor involved in the underlying content dispute.

Here, more specifically, since the piped link you'd complained about has been removed, it is obvious that the concern you raised has been met, and the text revised accordingly, and that is what one would assume you'd be commenting on in this context.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

some source for "market fundamentalism"

The following are from this list of returns for the search "climate change denial", "market fundamentalism"

1. Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, Hadyn Washington, Routledge, 2011

   "Oreskes and Connway (2010) also detail the support conservative think tanks gave these scientists and ask 'What's going on?' . The link that united the tobacco industry, conservative think tanks and scientists mentioned above is that they were implacably opposed to regulation... They felt that concern about environmental problems was questioning the ideology of laissez faire economics and free market fundamentalism."

2. This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate, Naomi Klein

   "That feat was accomplished in large part thank to the radical and aggresive vision that called for the creation of a single global economy based on the rules of free market fundamentalism, the very rules incubated by the right-wing think tanks at the forefront of climate change denial.

3. Global Political Ecology, Richard Peet、Paul Robbins、Michael Watts, Routledge, 2011

   "Lahsen (2004) has suggested that the science of climate change denial generally was more rooted in the "paranoid style" (the word is from Hofstader) of American politics: science and environmentalism were out to get market fundamentalism.

   
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Choose what you think are the main sources on climate change denial without doing these special searches for phrases attached and see what they say. That is the way to get weight - not by trying to find sources with some favored phrase in. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, the pedantic comments trying to dictate how I should edit are not welcome, and are "off-topic posts" that are not compliant with WP:TALK.

At present, you are ignoring sources because you don't like what they say. Two of the three books listed above are scholarly books published by academic presses, which represent highly reliable sources. The other is by a high-profile author. You have yet to make a single statement based on a source, it would seem.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is part of the basis WP:Neutral point of view and the second pillar in WP:5P. Searching for sources that support what one wants to stick in confers very little weight, that is simply self-justification rather than neutral assessment of the sources. If you look at the major sources on the subject itself instead you'll have a good basis for editing rather than getting into edit wars. Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What major sources are you talking about? You have produced not a single source demonstrating that the above-sourced statements are UNDUE because they lack WEIGHT.

You are being duplicitous, because you haven't referred to a single source yet in your campaign.

The text at issue has been under discussion for some time, and you are doing nothing other than disrupting that discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I'll take that a request to show how to find reliable sources on a subject and figure out what they say with due weight.

The best reliable sources are books and scholarly sources that have been out for a year or so then they can be reviewed and their weight assessed. A reasonable first step is to stick 'climate change denial' into Google books and google scholar, or just direct and find the ones that look like reliable sources in the first couple of pages of returns. A bad review isn't a killer, in fact it can sometimes indicate the source is indicative of one of the major weights on the subject. Tertiary sources surveying the literature can also be a good guide to weight. The WP:OR policy talks more about this. The WP:NPOV policy talks more on weight.

Assuming we don't have a tertiary source as guide we just take those sources and their introductions and summaries will probably give an indication of overall structure and weight. These should also give an indication of what should be in the lead. The lead should summarize an article and more sources can be used in the main body but it is very unlikely they have enough weight to support the lead.

Applying this to 'climate change denial' from Google scholar you get things like 'The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society By John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg', over 700 pages and not a mention of market fundamentalism. "Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society edited by Constance Lever-Tracy", one mention of market fundamentalism on page 250 of about 480 - and by the way that paragraph starts with 'The shared conservatism...' where you disagree with conservative being in. 'Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life By Kari Marie Norgaard', not a single mention again. Then we have one you found 'Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand By Haydn Washington' which has one mention on page 79 of 170. Hardly a convincing case it should be in the lead paragraphs of this article. Looking at 'Heads in the Sand' again, there was just the one mention because it was talking about 'Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway'. That book actually does have a section on market fundamentalism - but doesn't actually say anything about its application in this case except to the tobacco lobby though I guess there is implication by association.

So what is reasonable to say in the lead? Can I suggest that something from the big surveys - the Oxford and Rutledge ones would be good. For instance in the Oxford one there is a chapter on Organized climate change denial by Riley Dunlap Aaron and McRight. That sounds like it is precisely aimed at what all this talk is about. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You continue to engage in a pedantic metadiscourse about sourcing, without actually making suggestions for improving the article based on concrete statements.

The first two sources on the list below directly contradict one of your above statements, for example, and the others are obviously relevant.

1. Acceptance of climate change isn't about ideology

   Indeed, the historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, in their history of climate change denial Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury 2010), argue that climate change denial is rooted in “free market fundamentalism,” much as creationism is rooted in religious fundamentalism.

2. "Deniergate" spells "time's up" for anti-climate change fraudsters, Energy and Environment Management

   as well documented in 'Merchants of Doubt', the book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway which exposes how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by an over-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming and DDT.

3. HOW VESTED INTERESTS DEFEATED CLIMATE SCIENCE

   Such an interpretation probably underestimates the importance of ideology – the anti-regulatory, anti-state market fundamentalism that shapes the funding agendas of the conservative foundations.
   The corporations and the conservative foundations sought to conceal their direct involvement by funding anti–global warming organisations, such as the dozens of market fundamentalist think tanks that became a vital dimension of the American political landscape during the Reagan era and beyond, and are at the centre of the climate change denial campaign.

4. Guardian, How will everything change under climate change? (excerpt from Naomi Klein book)

   Very little, however, has been written about how market fundamentalism has, from the very first moments, systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Searching on terms that supoort your contention does not confer weight to it. Weight is in relation to the topic 'climate change denial'. What you're doing is called confirmation bias. I was trying to explain how to avoid that and get something that follows WP:Neutral point of view. I showed how to find major sources for an article, I showed a few and named a couple as being such and pointed to an example source on this point selected without using any search terms like neoliberalism market fundamentalism or whatever. If you must put in extra search terms for a more restricted part of an article put in questioning ones like basis or reasons or ones about the general area like organisation. Dmcq (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here for example is a biased search 'best holiday destination Bulgaria' and I get things like Looking for a bargain holiday? Head to Sunny Beach, Bulgaria, but forget Italy, Bulgaria is the best destination for cheap holiday - and I just chose Bulgaria at random. Dmcq (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at ANI. I have less of an aversion to WP:JARGON than some editors, because I think it exists for a legitimate reason. Many subjects develop precise wording to help the participants communicate. However, while these terms are appropriate within a body of text squarely associated with the relevant subject, the terms are less than helpful when used elsewhere. “Neoliberal” is a term well known in the context of a political discussion. “Market fundamentalism” is less well known, but is also a political term. Looking at the categories at the bottom of the page will provide insight. Both of those terms are in categories such as political terminology and political economy.

In contrast, this article is in categories such as climate change skepticism and denial. While there is undeniably some overlap between climate issue discussions and politics, the overlap is not so complete that it would justify the use of political jargon. I am not rejecting the notion that people involved with neoliberalism and market fundamentalism have an interest in climate issues, I am rejecting the notion that we serve our readership well by using those terms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; we can cover their views in NPOV fashion without using the single-word jargon terms. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. If jargon words appear in a major way in the first few sources for a topic then it might be okay for the lead but even then phrasing things to be readable by a general audience is very important there. The problem with these is one has to do a search for them and the Wikipedia articles about them said they were pejorative - being jargon that's a triple whammie for the lead I believe. Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fully agree that labels tend to go offtopic, and what's needed is a simple summary: essentially, belief that; freedom and the free market need less state intervention, the science indicates that uncontrolled exploitation of nature will cause problems, therefore the science must be wrong. Next task, review and summarise sources for discussion in the body text. Slightly offtopic, an optimistic view. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oreskes inteview

This is an interesting interview with Naomi Oreskes, author the Merchants of Doubt. IMHO, as she is a recognised expert in the field, items from this interview should be perfectly citable if they fit into the text of this article. In any event, it is worth a watch to get a feel for how mainstream thought runs in this area at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Change of topic: forum thoughts

A bit off-topic

I recently received a query from a new editor who had some thoughts. They were concerned that they might be viewed as original research and/or not a forum. I simple response was that the proffered thoughts were a violation of our prohibition on a forum. I support that prohibition on article talk pages, but I wonder if we ought to create a new namespace similar to the way we created the recent draft space, and call it forum:. That space would allow discussions which are normally a violation of original research or our forum prohibition. Why on earth what I want to encourage this you might wonder? Because we have editors who are interested in discussing issues and they often do so. With the present rules someone has to come along and slap the hands then remove or hat the discussion. If we had in space for such discussion it would be kinder and gentler to simply move those discussions into the proper space where those interested can continue the discussion and those not interested in those discussions and more narrowly interested in improving the article can stay in the talk space. So one value is in shunting off discussions which normally are difficult to stop. Second value is that discussion of issues which might normally be a violation of the form restriction might lead to some insights between parties that have disagreements. I have no illusion that it would be a panacea but it might be worth the experiment. I’m posting this in response to this entry because I thought there were a number of issues in the Oreskes interview which were worthy of further discussion, but if posted here, would be a violation of our guidelines. It might be nice if there were another place to discuss them. I do not see that such a discussion here would result in them immediate proposed edit to this article, but the discussion might have some value in mutual understanding of some of the issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC) What has that to do with the heading? Very naughty, should probably hat it but for simplicity here's a new heading. There's some leeway, and by providing their sources and at least suggesting a direction for article improvement then some discussion should be possible. Alternatively, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science might answer their questions. Was going to suggest the Village Pump, but Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Allow discussion about the topic of the article indicates we've been there before, so to speak. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC) On re-reading, slight connection so make this subhead. Surely "a number of issues in the Oreskes interview which were worthy of further discussion" could posted here, and meet policies / guidelines by getting related to article content. At least some effort would be needed to show sources of alternative views. No? . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Sphilbrick... (A) if the goal is to let willing eds forum, anyone can opt-in to a forum hosted on a willing ed's talk page, so that's not a reason. (B) if the goal is to rope in people who are browsing for such venues, there's a gazillion off wiki forum boards, so that's not a reason, especially since this would run risk of becoming a canvass/cabal incubator. (C) if the goal is to just have a place to shunt forum threads, well gee, that's what Template:Hat and TEMPLATE:Collapse top are for. In sum, you have not persuaded me that the status quo is defective in any way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Good point about user talk pages. WP:OWNTALK still requires "all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia", but think there's some leeway there for improving mutual understanding, or even sharing friendly thoughts. As my pal User talk:Bishapod does so well, though beware of her socks. Maybe an acquired taste :-( 20:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) NAEG (A) Existing guidelines explicitly discourage such discussion on editors talk pages. There are other issues even if that is relaxed. (B) Off wiki forum boards would make linking to existing Wikipedia articles and guidelines enough of a burden that it would fail. My hope is to allow discussions to be far-reaching but eventually to result in mutual education, and eventually improvement in articles, so walling them off completely doesn't work well. (C) I want to shunt off discussions but not shut off discussions. Hatting and collapsing are intended to shut down discussions I mulled over whether there was any value to this idea. A proper location for discussion is the village pump, but I thought I'd get some quick reactions here which has succeeded. I have no aversion to someone hatting this discussion now--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Naomi Klein ref in lede

We have a sentence ref'd to an opinion piece by Naomi Klein. It is about organized climate change denial. As it is an opinion piece it must be attributed. That attribution was removed. It was removed with the statement that many have stated the information. Great! We should then use one of those non-opinion pieces to support the statement. Right now it is not properly ref'd. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively we should properly attribute the opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What criterion are you using for saying it is an opinion piece and must be removed? I'm not sure what you would accept as not failing. I would guess you are perfectly aware it is quite easy to just search on Google Scholar and get a load of other people saying that so You must be meaning something more, or do you just want a big long list of citations like so many other statements - in fact there is such a list at the end of that paragraph. We shouldn't really need or use more than a few. Or do you think the statement is biased and wrong - in which case we should fix the weight in the body as the body of the article is clearly weighted that way. Dmcq (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about this edit? If so, first I would say that although we don't need any citations in the lead where it summarises well-cited material in the body of the article, in this case we have just had a lengthy discussion about this exact phrase, and having it cited in-place was very useful to clarify that discussion. Second, I don't see the point in removing a citation but leaving the article content that it referenced. Thirdly removing a citation with the comment "recapitulates polemic in her recent book, RS only for her opinion" is barely acceptable under WP:BLP. Klein has ruffled feathers with her exposures of the wickedness that follows from modern day far-right thinking, and she is a well-respected author and documentary maker worldwide, not an isolated polemicist. --Nigelj (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The NCSE cites Denialism: What Is It and How Should Scientists Respond?, a 2009 paper by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee, which includes "The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations." . . dave souza, talk 11:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Level with us here, Dave. How much is Al Gore paying you to post this stuff? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He pays for links to NCSE? Why didn't you guys tell me, I could of made a fortune by now! . . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing my saying "thanks for your careful attention, Dave" by way of ironic humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh what's eating you? As to that link I think it has been rejected before as being in a viewpoint column but being cited from NCSE would give it some weight. Dmcq (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you were talking to me, Dmcq, please see my reply to Dave. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe I indented properly to show that. But that shows the problem about misunderstandings on the web, the indentations mightn't be right. It is best to make things plain and obvious. Your remark before looked to me like a personal attack. I see your reply, I do not see what it is you think you have explained. It is far better to avoid irony or humor in anything which might be misunderstood that way. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone for getting us off track. If there's some way to possibly reduce your enmity for me, Dmcq, I'd spend time giving that a try at user talk or DR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that complaint you referenced was about another place you employed irony. I do not understand your concept of humor or irony and it would be best to avoid it on me and mark it clearly for others so I can ignore it. Dmcq (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting humor there. But whatever. So about that Naomi Klein? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oversize "Further reading" section?

I just noticed how *enormous* this thing is. And how useless to most readers -- a good portion is such items as:

• "Original "Doubt is our product..." memo". University of California, San Francisco. 21 August 1969. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
• Complaint for Damages, Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Et al. Climate Justice, Friends of the Earth International. Retrieved 2009–12–25.
• etc, etc.

These appear to be articles formerly(?) available online, that aren't anymore? What purpose could this serve?

Anyway, I'll plan to do pruning and housekeeping, eliminating all items that look like links, but are dead ends now. Comments? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles aren't for preaching to readers, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. What use isn't a relevant question, we just summarize what is out there and it hasn't become invalid because of link rot. Just mark the links as now failing as specified in WP:DEADLINK and then we can try fixing the citations. Dmcq (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of them have no links, just a "Retrieved 00 March 20xx" bit. Maybe someone was using this as a storage yard? We could put those into a Talk page section, for future work, as the thing is truly a Wall of Text now. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I just noticed you're talking about the further reading section. I was wondering what was up as there's a good web link to the doubt is our product memo in the text. Yes I agree with you the further reading section is too long and chopping out the ones that aren't books or easily found web links would be a good start at chopping it down to size. Dmcq (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. On my list, then.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, so I'll jumpin. Here is the first part of the list to examine.:

• "Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine." Newsweek Aug. 13, 2007. Retrieved 7 Aug 2007 Archived August 20, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
• "Gore takes aim at corporately funded climate research". CBC News from Associated Press. 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
• "Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. Notice of Appeal" (PDF). 2009-11-05. Retrieved 2010-10-23.
• "Original "Doubt is our product..." memo". University of California, San Francisco. 21 August 1969. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
• "Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers". Newsweek. 13 August 2007.
• Adams, David (2005-01-27). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
• Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-02.
• Associated Press. (2008–2–27). Alaska town sues over global warming. USA Today. Retrieved 2009–12–25.
• Barringer, Felicity (27 Feb 2008). "Flooded Village Files Suit, Citing Corporate Link to Climate Change." New York Times.
• Begley, Sharon (2007-08-07). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek.
• Christoff, Peter (July 9, 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 2010-03-19.
• Complaint for Damages, Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Et al. Climate Justice, Friends of the Earth International. Retrieved 2009–12–25.
• Connelly, Joel (2007-07-10). "Deniers of global warming harm us". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2009-12-25.

Is there anything worth including, and how does this comport with MOS? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like something you'd keep at a user sandbox. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the newspapers and others that seemed they would have only passing coverage of the topic. There were a lot of links to the guardian, NYT, etc. The list should still be pruned, but it's not quite as overwhelming. Here is the version of the page prior to these edits, which we can likely use for future sourcing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing sources already used in the article did the trick. We're now down to 6 bullets.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Thanks Jess. Big improvement! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Greg Laden calls Andy Revkin a denailist

soapboxing with absurd commentary

In Weighing Responses to Climate Change, Severity and Uncertainty Matter More than ‘Reality’, NY Times Dot Earth, June 25, 2015. Revkin apparently earned the label by his recent crypto-Lukewarmer writings. I do like the nicety of "denialist". Pretty much like "Nigra" for, well, the N-bomb.... Now that Pesident Obama has also been labelled a denier by [some prominent whacko activist] , who's next? Al Gore? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Pete, are you just trying to get a rise out of people? If what you want is a personal blog, go to Wordpress or the like. Otherwise follow the guideline WP:TALK, where under the heading Behavior that is unacceptable you will see Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Oh, you're probably right, but I get so tired of the prissy "progressive" CAGW religious feeling so luxuriously on display here. Thanx to VSmith for hatting. Still, the Greg Laden silliness might find a home here. As well as Pres. Obama as CC Denier. Maybe we need an Absurd Denuer subsection? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Your comment shows that you keep using the talk page for your personal opinions. prokaryotes (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC) --which, of course, you have never, ever done.... Pete Tillman (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) If you want to continue your misuse of the talk page, then i suggest we can do this at ANI. prokaryotes (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Have at it pal. Pretty sure I have a file of your best stuff. See you there! But watch out for that boomerang.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC) So-- who did call the President a denier? "Weepy Bill" McKibben? Inquiring minds want to know --- I'm more than half-serious about adding an "Absurd denier accusation" sub-sub section, to go with the political attribution stuff I'm working on (when I can control my disgust at the abundant "Climate Ugliness"....) Pete Tillman (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Obama’s Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial" by Bill McKibben, NY Times op-ed, May 12, 2015. Happy now? Pete Tillman (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See #President Obama's Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial. Looks like an informal reference to implicit denial, which we've covered with better sources. . . dave souza, talk 03:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology: skeptics aren't deniers

Tagged a citation to Painter & Ashe, Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism.... Once again, our article is conjuring up an equivalence that isn't in the source given. The paper refers throughout to "climate scepticism", many times, only mentioning "climate denial" (in the body) once. The construction given isn't supported by the paper cited. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In the opening sentence of the paper, to define its basic terms, the authors say, "'Climate scepticism' and 'climate denial' are readily used concepts, referring to a discourse that has become important in public debate since climate change was first put firmly on the policy agenda in 1988." That is, these two concepts refer to a discourse, one discourse, one thing. The rest of the paper is about that one thing. One thing with two names. They go on to say, "This discourse challenges the views of mainstream climate scientists and environmental policy advocates, contending that parts, or all, of the scientific treatment and political interpretation of climate change are unreliable." This one thing is the challenging of mainstream scientists. That is the one thing that this Wikipedia article is about: the challenging of mainstream science, the saying it is not reliable, which has two names, both of which are readily used. I don't see how that could be any clearer. I don't know on what basis you have misunderstood it.

You seem to have misunderstood WP:BRD too. When you boldly make two edits,[14][15] and someone reverts them,[16][17] that is the time to start discussion. You don't get to make two more reversions.[18][19] That is the start of edit-warring, which is not allowed under WP:ARBCC on these articles. --Nigelj (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The quote provided in the cite uses the words "climate denial". Here's the quote: [20] To be clear, are you disputing that quote backs up our wording?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Reply, mostly to Nigel:

That's a, well, remarkable piece of reasonng. Here, we have a poitical science article, actually quite a decent one, that uses the "denial" slur exactly once -- in the bit quoted. And this is evidence that skepticism = denial? Really?

What we actually have, in the paper in question, is evidence:

A) that the authors are politely avoiding, as best they can, a politically-charged slur term, which is enthusiastically embraced here, and

B) that we should have an article on actual climate change skepticism. Oh wait, we idd, until the activists decided to delete it. Wonderful, the power of political/religious belief, to twist the mental processes, no? </sarc> --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete, you need high quality sources, not your political/religious beliefs, to support what looks like an attempt to produce a POV fork. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Pete Tillman, you are completely right. There is no reason whatsoever to use such a prejudiced term as "Climate change denial" as headline to this article. See my next section down here. 1.47.135.166 (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pete, additional sources clarify the point that climate scepticism commonly means climate denialism or contrarianism. Note the assessment that "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." Some referenced detail about the former group would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I'll reply to your other sources another time. Basically, I'm unimpressed, and fear your political beliefs have affected your reasoning.... And your "evidence" that calling someone a denier is non-pejorative is.... remarkable. Well, I'll unpack that later, too. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete, what you have to unpack is good quality sources supporting your position: I'm underwhelmed about you being unimpressed. . . dave souza, talk

Dave, RS's aren't the problem. The probem is, recalcitrant, "activist" editors (not you, usu) who make any movement towards NPOV in the controversial CC articles (such as this pig-sty) so hard, that normal people with actual lives to live throw up their hands and go back to writing about seaweed, or clean the toilet, or have another beer.

What that says about me, I don't know. Too dumb to die, I guess... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Contempt from the regulars tends to do that too.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. It's discouraging. And (often) intentional. Just like in real life! Pete Tillman (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Retagged Painter & Ashe, see above. Also note the dubious use of Terlich2010 in this (apparent) ongoing climate-war campaign to equate skeptics to deniers. Nerlich writes, "I shall use 'climate sceptics' here in the sense of 'climate deniers', although there are obvious differences between scepticism and denial (see Shermer, 2010; Kemp, et al., 2010). ... (emph addd). --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See what above? Sources were provided, and you said you didn't like them. When asked to provide your own, you refused. In your criticism of Nerlich, you've overlooked that we already make it clear that "...skepticism" is not always "...denial", though the two have significant overlap and the labels are sometimes used interchangeably. This appears to be precisely what Nerlich is saying. If you'd like to expand our coverage of how the two differ, I'd be all for that. Such material would require - of course - new sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Jess: maybe you could look at the edit summaries? There for a reason, y'know.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• And you seem to be awfully hasty on your reverts. Like you are edit warring, maybe? You shouldn't be doing that. Eventually, you will spur me (or someone) to take you to ArbComm, which you won't like. Trust me. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What edit summary are you referring to? You made a change, it was opposed by several people. You were asked for sources, but refused to provide any. Today, you up and made the change again. Please discuss and establish consensus for disputed changes before making them repeatedly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you need reading lessons, or what? The "several people" are you and Nigel (2). DS posted on another topic.. I refuted both of you, and pointed out problems with the Nerlich use, which I'm attempting to fix now.

Why don't you actually address the Painter & Ashe issue, with more than the inane comment that they used "climate denial" in the article. Well, duh. Pete Tillman (talk)

Pete, your comment looks inane: they clearly equate both terms. Some of the content you're disputing is more related to the NCSE source, so my intention is to look that over when I've got more time rather than removing your tag. However, my feeling is that your tag is unjustified. . dave souza, talk 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This problem of terminology is one that will be difficult to resolve by editors, partly because our RSs are all over the lot. There is certainly something odd on the surface, when we see an article such as Painter & Ashe, which almost exclusively uses the term "scepticism", cited eleven times in this article about denialism. However, that oddity is not so odd when one looks closer. It is not the case that Painter & Ashe have limited the scope of their paper to exclude discussion of items which many would call denialism, they simply use the term "scepticism" to cover everything that disagrees with the mainstream view.

Contrast that to Dunlap, which starts out in such a promising fashion "It seems best to think of skepticism–denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW but remaining open to evidence, and others in complete denial mode, their minds made up." However, this same Dunlap is one of the coauthors of The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, which notes the existence of both skepticism and denialism, but makes the interesting decision to use the term "denial" and "denier" for both groups.

Which mean we have some sources implying that the term scepticism can be used for all, another source suggesting that the same entities ought to be all labeled deniers, and yet other sources contending that there is a difference between skeptics and deniers. I am sure that if we did a through literature search, we would find that even those authors who make a distinction are not marking a sharp demarcation that would allow any statement to be clearly assigned to one camp versus the other.

Given that the RSs have made such a hash of the terminology, we as editors cannot clean it up for them. That said, this isn't the first time that RSs have been less that fully consistent on an issue, and we have a well-developed process for addressing it. In short, something along the lines of "some RSs make a distinction between skepticism and denialism, some note the existence of the distinction while using one term or the other for the entire universe". Obviously needs a lot of work, but may be the way to go.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources show "skeptic" being used as a synonym for "denier", most obviously in the case of Inhofe. Some sources, including the NCSE and Weart, have chosen to use "denier" for the sake of clarity, others leave the meaning the same but don't set that out explicitly: Painter & Ashe indicate that both 'climate scepticism' and 'climate denial' cover the same discourse. They continue by referring to skepticism, which includes "trend sceptics (who deny the global warming trend)". Clearly skeptics of this sort are practicing denial.
There is a distinction between skepticism and denial, but in this topic area skepticism is commonly used to refer to the same thing as denial, or to denial itself. Thus "climate skepticism" commonly equates to "climate denial", and climate deniers nearly always claim to be skeptics. Showing what each source says may help to clarify that, it's an area where language is changing so care is needed. . dave souza, talk 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dave: your POV is showing here, I think, and you're just flat wrong re sources, as Phil observes. The article cites sources favoring (what I see as) "your" POV, because that;s all that's made it into the article. How about demonstrating good faith, by adding a few refs that oppose the "activist" POV? You are a good researcher, they're easy to find. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Activist POV"? Any reliable sources for that term? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Pete wants sources to meet "anti-activist" standards? . . dave souza, talk 19:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete, I actually thought Dave's statement was largely a recapitulation of what I said. I'm not onboard with one word "commonly", and I am still debating whether it is worth challenging that word given that the rest largely says, some use skeptic some use denialist, some use the terms to mean about the same thing, some don't. I think our article still is deficient, which I think is your point, but I didn't see dave's post as disagreeing with that point. Maybe I misread it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick, think we're in basic agreement. The article cites a linguist for the common use of "skeptic" to mean "climate denier", and the taxonomy section shows the list of typical (and often contradictory) "sceptic" points per Rahmstorf, S., 2004, "The climate sceptics: Weather Catastrophes and Climate Change—Is There Still Hope For Us?" (Munich: PG Verlag) pp 76–83 which has subsequently been used as for categorising both "skeptic" and "denial" publications. If there are sources giving firmer evidence of "climate change skeptic" being used for something outwith that taxonomy, thus not involving denial, that would strengthen the case for a separate article, though both articles would have to note the overlap. As discussed below. . . dave souza, talk 02:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Change the Headline of the Article

Please, change the headline this article to "Climate Change Skepticism" or "Climate Change Criticism". There is no reason at all to use such a prejudiced term as "climate change denial", especially not in an academic context such as this. Criticism of the idea that it is necessary humans who caused the climate change in question, is simply not the same as "denial". If so, you make a great part of professional meteorologists in US to "deniers", which is a disgrace -- for Wikipedia. For example, American Meteorological Society made a well-known survey among its members 2013, and recommended and explained this:

"Climate experts are not completely homogenous in their views on global warming, just as climate skeptics have been shown to have a variety of nuanced opinions (Hobson and Niemeyer 2013). Any suggestion that all those with nonmajority views simply need to be 'educated' is inaccurate and is likely to be insulting to a substantial number of AMS members. Discussion based on an understanding that views are more nuanced would be more productive." (Discussion)

"We suggest that AMS should attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold nonmajority views just need to be 'educated' about climate change; and continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community." (Abstact)

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

1.47.135.166 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

While that is an interesting source (thanks for providing it!), it rarely mentions "skepticism", and usually in contexts that would not be suitable for our content here. "Denial" is never mentioned. I don't know that we can include any of its contents without either straying off-topic or synthesizing sources. For the claim that skeptics have a variety of opinions, we already cover this in some detail. For the claim that climate experts do as well, I'd really like to see a stronger source backing up that claim, since it seems to conflict with the 97% (and similar) figures our current sources use. The discussion of meteorologists largely not subscribing to the scientific consensus is very interesting, and it might have a place here (when discussing media representation of climate change and its impact on public perception), but again, I'd like to see a more clear connection between that topic and "climate change denial" to avoid synthesis or OR, and I'd like a strong source to verify the claim. If I run into anything, I'll definitely make an effort to include it! Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There are people for whom doubt is their product; people who teach that there is controversy where there is none. This article is about the well-documented attempts to apply such principles to climate science. --Nigelj (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the IP has (in part) a good idea. But really, what we need is an article on deniers (which I could then avoid), and an article on actual skeptics, which might help alleviate the project's well-earned "black eye" on climate-war topics.Best, Pete Tillman (talk)

Hello? Still calling for a POV fork, and still no sources? . . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, status quo ante. Then, the "activists" can play in their own dreamworld, all they like, without bothering the realists/skeptics.... <G> Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. So show me your sources. . dave souza, talk 20:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

sources

FYI

• 2015 "Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• 2015 Same lead author, different topic; At a very superficial read and without looking at original papers, I think this author said somewhere in the literature there are numbers that breakdown climate denial motivations between conspiracy ideation (~4%) vs free market thinking (~60%). Thought that may interest eds devoting constructive time to these articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't yet read the second paper but I read the first one and it is an astounding paper. I literally double checked the release date to see if it was in April 1 submission. There isn't enough time to list all of the questionable claims the paper so I'll limit myself to one or two.

In section 2, the author includes this statement, "This inertia, along with the well-documented tendency to discount future losses so they seem less pertinent than immediate costs (e.g., Hardisty and Weber, 2009), further mutes people's appetite for action." I agree that it is well documented. This is fundamental economic theory. While in economics as in climate science, there are areas in which even the experts debate the facts, there is a core of statements which are agreed to by virtually all experts in the field. The time value of money, the fact that a gain or loss at a future point in time is worth less than that gain or loss at the present time is one of these truths. (Careful readers can construct artificial exceptions, but these usually illustrate the underlying truth more strongly as opposed to undermining the truth of the statement.) Are there any Wikipedia editors that seriously disagree with the concept of present value? One can certainly challenge the discount rate used and there is ample literature on open questions about the appropriate interest rate, but these are all arguments about the exact value of the interest rate, not whether the concept is fundamentally flawed.

At this point, you may be wondering why am bringing this up. The author has simply stated a well-known economic fact. I agree. However, read on to two section 3 where the author states "Scientists might think that they are not susceptible to such common errors of reasoning," (emphasis added). The author is literally labeling a fundamental economic truth as an error of reasoning. This is truly astounding.

My second point relates to uncertainty which is the core theme in this paper. As is well known, scientists often avoid making definitive statement and couch things in terms of error bars and uncertainty measures. This is often misunderstood by the public and exploited by pontificators who triumphantly but incorrectly suggest that the scientist are not certain as to their conclusions. This is a legitimate disconnect in public conversations. In my opinion the pedagogical coverage of uncertainty in the high school and even college curricula is insufficient, and many members of the public under-appreciate the role of uncertainty in science. On this general point I suspect I am in large agreement with the author who is making a similar point. Unfortunately, the author goes on to label discussions about uncertainty as “Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods” or SCAM. Science ought to be about discussions of facts and evidence; presentation of hypotheses, designs of experiments to test hypotheses and related issues. It should not be in the business of deliberately choosing value-laden terms. The choice of that acronym is not accidental and it should be excoriated in the strongest terms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, nice to know that psychological and historical analysis aligns with fundamental economic theory, perhaps you could give a link to a published source discussing this economic theory in relation to avoidance behaviour?
Re SCAM, your complaint is not against the paper under discussion, it's against William Freudenburg's "Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt, Sociological Inquiry (2008) pp. 2–38, doi 10.1.1.330.1130. Perhaps you could write to that journal complaining about the pun. . dave souza, talk 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my complaint is directed at the paper under discussion. I wasn’t under the assumption that the authors invented the term. It was quite obvious that it came from elsewhere. However, the authors are responsible for using a term which has obvious connotations. They could easily have discussed the challenges of analyzing uncertainty without reference to the term. The fact that they deliberately used it means they are either abject idiots (unlikely) or trying to make a point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your personal assessment: perhaps the authors agreed with the point[s] made in the paper they cited. I make no claim to expertise on how to write papers on social and psychological issues. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While looking for a source supporting the notion of discounting future costs and benefits, I found an article in the economist talking specifically about the issue in the context of climate change. The editorial “Is it worth it?” Specifically discusses some of the issues surrounding the well-known Stern report. As is often the case the editorial emphasizes areas where experts differ, and least unstated the implied areas where there is no difference of opinion. So, for example, it talks about the discount rate used by Stern and competing experts such as Nordhaus, Klemperer and Weitzman who would make different choices about discount rates. But that’s rather the point – not one of these experts argues that one should not discount they simply have different theories about how to choose the appropriate discount rate. (If someone really wants to get into the weeds they would argue that discounting is not the perfect solution. In fact, a better solution is utility theory but in practice no one has figured out how to satisfactorily choose utility curves, and discount rates serve as a crude but adequate surrogate in most situations. And if utility theory cannot be directly used, it lends credence to the observation made not in this article but in others that the discount rate should not be a single value but a set of values which might vary over time frames, and over scenarios.)

In fact, discounting is so basic I suspect that if the authors were explicitly asked, they’d realize that they aired in suggesting that it was an error of reasoning. They are simply wrong. I welcome anyone who can find a source supporting their position.-S Philbrick(Talk) 00:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick, think I've spotted your error. You reason that in section 2 the authors discuss a series of points, including the contributory factor of choosing a discount rate, which you describe as "a well-known economic fact", then in section 3 they say "Scientists might think that they are not susceptible to such common errors of reasoning". From that you assume that they're calling every point in section two an "error of reasoning", but that's not what they're saying: that statement refers to the summary: "In sum, uncertainty is effective as a strategy to delay action because it resonates with human tendencies towards preference for preservation of the status quo. Uncertainty arising out of perceived expert disagreement is particularly effective at generating public doubt about an issue."
Your link to The Economist highlights the point that discounting is both a well known economic technique, and a subjective decision as to the discount rate: see the point made by Ken Caldeira. The authors aren't disputing the basic technique, they refer to the subjective decision making examined in D.J. Hardisty, E.U. Weber. "Discounting future green: money versus the environment" J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 138 (2009), pp. 329–340 pdf.
In summary, your reasoning is simply wrong: they're not referring to the principle of economic discounting as a fallacy, they refer to public uncertainty exaggerated by [wrongly] perceived expert disagreement as a fallacious basis for delay, and in building their case note psychological research on the subjective choice of discount rate. Hope that's clearer. . dave souza, talk 02:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are right but I wouldn’t call it an error, I’d say I made a plausible inference and it was their inability to write clearly. As I already stated, I don’t believe the authors think that discounting is an error. However, as you noted, then made some points in one section and then a subsequent section refer to such common errors of reasoning. They could use some pointers and how to effectively write. If for example someone wrote process A coupled with fact B leads to error of reasoning C, and then refers to such an error of reasoning no one would make the mistake of thinking that fact B was being identified as an error. If however you write is they did, and say process A couple with process B leads to process C, and never use the term error in the set up, then the reference to such errors is ambiguous.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for split of climate change skepticism

I came across these pages several days ago when searching for climate change skepticism on my favourite search engine. I was surprised that there wasn't a page for it on Wikipedia since it's a big thing. Having read through this talk page, it seems like there is an ongoing debate regarding skepticism and denialism. Without going into the details of the debate which have been done to death, I think a reasonable compromise might be reached by splitting skepticism from denial. We could split the pages in the following manner:

Climate change skepticism noting that climate change skepticism is generally seen as a form of climate change denial and psuedoskepticism. It can discuss the relationship between climate skepticism and true skepticism, and how the term has been co-opted by people who wish to dismiss the science. This article would be short enough to not need sections. Any aspects of climate skepticism that are generally relevant to denialism can be confined to....

Climate change denial discussing the relationship between the various names used to describe denial, the history of denial, denial arguments, lobbying etc. (essentially most of this page).

Ongoing care would need to be take to ensure minimal information duplication on these pages (i.e. forking) and this would need to be suitably noted in the talk pages. This would have the advantage of simplifying the information on both pages, which would make it easier to manage them, and keep them clean. At the moment the denial page is quite messy, I suspect in part because it is being used to play out the denial-skeptic argument at the same time as trying to discuss denial in general.Mozzie (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned on Talk:Climate change skeptic, I don't see these terms discussed as separate entities in reliable sources. They are almost always used to refer to the same thing, and are sometimes used as synonyms. Do we have any reliable sources which show a clear distinction between the two, and give us a unique definition for each label?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have an article Global warming controversy, with two talk pages:

1. Talk:Global warming controversy
2. Talk:Climate change skeptic--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)e/c

Huh? I don't follow. The latter is a redirect, not a second talk page...   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that. But new discussions belong at the proper talk page. I added the relevant template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem I suspect is activism spilling out onto several pages. I proposed this split because I thought it would be a pragmatic way to solve differences and improve Wikipedia. Bottling several issues up in one page with strong activism, and editing based on a rule (reliable sources) just makes ugly confused pages like this one that are ongoing editor battles. Separating the issues might help to separate the issues, and minimise wasting editor time going over the same issues. Mozzie (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed Far too many RSs use the terms without specific distinguishing criteria; Still more RSs say some use the terms synonymously and other RSs say deniers try to "reframe" their views as skeptical; Those RSs that do attempt to distinguish between these terms with something akin to analyzable criteria do so as a matter of compare-and-contrast. This article should cover all of that; having done so, this article should link legitimate climate change skepticism to the article that is (or at least used to be) designated for that discussion, i.e., Global warming controversy. As for the RS coverage of illegitimate use of "skepticism", that's just another word for denial, so that belongs here also. As for which article the Climate change skepticism redir should point to, I think it should point here. Then people can read about the criteria for distinguishing between the two types of climate skepticism (the part that's true to scientific endeavor and the part that is just denial) and move on, if need be, to Global warming controversy. Alternative idea I'd be fine with changing title here to "climate change denial and skepticism", and carrying on much like we are already doing. Doing that should quell objections that the redir Climate change skepticism pointing here is intolerably biased. The objection to rename is likely to be "that suggests they are equal". No, they are not equal. Our text needs to compare-and-contrast; report RSs that provide analyzable criteria; explain that climate science skepticism is redundant (since all science is skeptical); for intellectually honest scientific skepticism, link to Global warming controversy; for the other kind of purported skepticism carry on just like we are. If the text does that, expanding the title to include both terms would be a reasonable solution, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The whole point is that there is no legitimate stance of 'skepticism' when it comes to the three basic tenets of global warming - it's happening, human activity is causing it, and it's a bad thing. Anyone saying that they have found a fault in that science either deserves a Nobel prize for finding the most amazing overlooked thing, or they are denying the existing literature. Creating a separate-reality article in which they are still right, despite all the science, makes no sense. Global warming controversy is badly named. The title seems to imply there is a controversy about global warming itself. As the article text makes clear, there is only a controversy about what to do about it, and that is mostly going on in the US where special interest groups can buy mainstream media coverage to confuse the public. Many of the references there are dated around 2006-7, so maybe it's in need of an update. The only reason this article is complicated at the moment is because a handful of people are still having trouble accepting the fact that things have moved on, and the game has been called. --Nigelj (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Global warming controversy should be replaced with a navigation list related to the open scientific questions being subjected to the most skepticism via research and professional debate. These are the open questions flagged by IPCC. All the stuff about culture and media war "debate" or "controversy" should get axed or exported to the articles about those views, i.e., Media coverage of climate change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I support Mozzie's proposal. First step would be to review & update the old page, deleted some years ago. Does anyone have a copy, or a pointer? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(@Nigekj) Your list of tenets of global warming sound as if you are trying to invoke the Ramsdorf taxonomy (trend sceptics, attribution sceptics, impact sceptics). However, it is quite possible for an individual to accept that the world is warming, agree that the cause is predominantly anthropological and agree that on balance, impacts will be negative yet still strongly disagree with some of the mitigation proposals. If you are correct that “ article text makes clear, there is only a controversy about what to do about it,” then we have some work to do because that is not close to the truth. There is substantial uncertainty about the expected temperature trend, primarily because there is substantial uncertainty regarding the climate sensitivity variable. There are quite a number of other open issues but the climate sensitivity is a big one. The reason this article is complicated is because there are many open issues in the community has not yet even agreed on the terminology for those who are questioning some aspects of climate science itself or the climate engineering proposals.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a big difference between uncertainty and controversy. Uncertainty as to whether a place will be uninhabitable in 50 or 100 years, whether 2 billion or 5 billion humans will die by a certain date, whether 100 species or 200 are going extinct per day, these may be open issues, but only the most die-hard deniers will claim that these are reasons that there is a controversy about global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion that there is no controversy about global warming is simply astounding. Have you read any of the literature? Do you need pointers to it? What is your basis for denying that a controversy exists?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to True believers. Perhaps we need a new article on "CAGW as religion" -- see forex Jerry Brown's [climate science mixes with religion]. Ah, Gov. Moonbeam.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You two should acquaint yourselves with WP:CIVIL: Someone puts up a proposal, I !vote, and straight away I am having my intelligence, my religion, and my mental stability abused by random people. Your tactics will not drive me away, or make me withdraw my !vote. Please focus on article content, and your own !votes, not on me personally. --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• oppose: There is substantial uncertainty about the expected temperature trend (and so on): indeed there is; but discussion of that belongs on the global warming page and indeed already is. So what does that leave for a "skepticism" page? All the genuine (scientific) skepticism is already covered there. All that's left over is denialism, or so it seems to me William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC) (upgrading my comment to oppose) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not fighting here over the details of "genuine (scientific) skepticism", but about the nature of it versus the fake kind that is synonymous with climate change denial. The technical distinction between these terms made by some RSs, the failure of many RSs to distinguish at all, and the way that various sides try to use the terms all should be covered in a single article.... such as this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• STRONGLY Disagree: this article has been a mess from day 1, and (sadly) survived 4 AfDs. What hope is there for an article that starts with a slur, then goes to mealy-mouth extremes to say: "No, we don't mean it. You nigras er, DENIALISTS are just too sensitive, and who cares what you Fringers think, anyway?"

OK, over the top, but not by much. But there is (IMO) No Hope that this will ever turn into a decent NPOV article. Better to leave it fester, and try again. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete vacuous venom of that sort isn't really helpful since it does not identify specific shortcomings much less any RS based logic that demonstrates existence of problems. Since you admit it's over the top, please try again? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(upgrading my comment to oppose): PT, I don't think your comments really make sense. Your disagreement with practically everyone else is over substance, not form. Splitting the article wouldn't solve the disagreement, merely smear it out, which would help no-one William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete,

Just so there’s no confusion, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we had an article on climate change skepticism and on denialism. Probably two articles, however, if a single article the title should not simply be climate change denialism.

When I said I agreed with WMC, I did, but I was agreeing with the observation that a discussion of uncertainty about the expected set temperature trend is on the global warming page and that’s an appropriate location for it. I haven’t formally weighed in on the proposal at the beginning of this section, because I see it as a hopeless task to accomplish. Some days I’m a pragmatist and some days I like to tilt at windmills but this one looks like a loser.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[convenience break in Wall of Text]

• Well, I see I touched a nerve with my "vacuous venom"....  ;-] Heh. "vacuous Vicious Vermin is sous venom:, anyone? And I still can't figure out how to turn off the idiot auto-correct! [Verminous, I say]

Comments, in no particular order: we don't need anyones permission to re-create a CC Skeptic page, just the editorial muscle to get it past the inevitable AfD. A preview of abolitionist votes available here.

Yes, there will be a fight over the content, and yes, there is some relationship between CC skepticsnd deniers. But Deniers remains primarily a political pejorative, intende to isolate and denigrate the users opponents. A moments thought will determine that the pious pronouncements that "we don't mean it to be a Bad Name" are just smoke and bullshit: see Giggle test. Disappointing (but unsurprising) that the CC Denial page has virtually nothing on the politics involved. Yes, academics have politics too, and yes, it's in their peer reviewed sociological treatises. Use a bit of common sense, folks. Don't insult the intelligence of our readers! AS the present page does.

Yes, we should recreate a "CC Alarmist" page, to balance this one. Someone else can do that. Plenty of candidates for a Wall of Shame. Unlike skeptics, these clowns kill people (by wasting resources that might otherwise save livesCites on RQ.

If no-one beats me to it, I'll dig up a copy of the old page, userify it, and post a link here to a draft page. Might have time this weekend, but I have a trip booked for early Tue. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Question do articles by climate change skeptics count as reliable sources? Mozzie (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. Reliable sources are described in WP:RS. We should follow the guidelines in selecting reliable sources. Finding sources which satisfy the criteria in WP:RS and then saying they are not reliable because we disagree with them is against WP:NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

climate change skeptics is not a well defined term, per all the endless discussion, and so your question is ill-defined. climate change "skeptics", or climate change pseudo-skeptics, are well defined terms William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Against a split. The two are too closely linked and not distinguished enough in the literature, such a split would be a WP:POVFORK. I used to think that climate change skeptic should redirect to global warming controversy on the basis that if they were actual skeptics it had the details they were looking for. I'm staying away from that now as skepticism is very close to denial nowadays so I'll leave that for others to argue. But I see no good reason to split this article up on that basis. Global warming controversy is the place for skeptics to look up the arguments against global warming. Dmcq (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

I identified some challenges a couple sections upthread. Dave souza responded, with what I read as largely a recapitulation of my observations. I was troubled by one word, but in view of the substantial agreement I initially didn’t want to dwell on a single word. However, I see that the word was taken from the lead paragraph, so I must comment on it as I think it is not the best word choice. The second sentence currently reads:

Climate skepticism commonly means climate denialism;[3] they form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change.

I see two problems, one minor one more substantive. The minor point is the awkward English (more details if anyone cares). The substantive issue is the choice of the word “commonly”. I don’t believe the literature will support that the equating of the two terms can accurately be characterized as “common”. As has been discussed above some writers do so. However, doing something on occasion does not qualify as common. Of course, if a reliable source says it is common, then we have to accept it or review enough sources to make sure the usage is appropriate.

The quote in the footnote supporting the term starts off with “"Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon”. We could discuss whether this supports the term even though it doesn’t use the term but we don’t need to. The author includes a footnote in the original article which is also included in our footnote: “ I shall use 'climate sceptics' here in the sense of 'climate deniers', although there are obvious differences between scepticism and denial”. This could hardly be clearer; while this author may use the terms interchangeably in this article she explicitly notes obvious differences which means they are not the same.

In fact, the rest of our sentence does a decent job of articulating the issues. The two terms do have an overlapping range of views. We should retain that sense and remove the opening clause which makes an inconsistent point. My suggestion follows:

Climate skepticism and climate denialism[3] form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change.

We might consider expanding and adding language suggesting that the two terms are sometimes used as if they are synonyms and sometimes not. I’m open to other that elaboration is necessary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Will review and discuss this in more detail, but initially note that you've left out part of the quote from the 2010 paper as cited inline: "However, 'climate sceptic' and 'climate scepticism' were commonly used during the 'climategate' debate as meaning 'climate denier'." Everyone agrees that skepticism is not the same as denial, the issue is that "skeptic" is misused as a euphemism for denial.
That was written while the debate continued, since then there's no evidence the usage changed: on the contrary, as Deniers are not Skeptics discusses, the NYT of 10 November 2014 described "Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent skeptic of climate change" as having "gained headlines throughout his career for asserting that the science of human-caused climate change has been falsified. He is the author of “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” " – the CSI point to a contemporary report describing Inhofe as “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress", and the NYT has since agreed with them to reconsider its terminology. . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As Lewandowski (Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial) points out, “For example, whereas the public quickly lost interest in the “climategate” imbroglio involving scientists’ stolen e-mail correspondence in 2009 (Anderegg & Goldsmith, 2014), the opposite trend has been observed in the blogosphere which has seen increasingly more “climategate”-related content since 2009 (Lewandowsky, 2014a).” So while it may be true for a short period of time, in a small subset of the universe, that doesn’t justify the broad term “commonly”.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)