Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 2

message: I'm posting the definition (Merriam Webster online www.m-w.com) of "to deny" for everyone to use as a basis for any further discussion of the title of this article.  Uses 1,2 and 5 are particularly appropriate here. 
Deny: 
#to declare untrue; 
#to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW; 
#to give a negative answer to, to refuse to grant, to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires; 
#archaic : DECLINE; 
#to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of
Envirocorrector 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And let's stop pretending that using the term denial is ipso facto analogous to holocaust denial. It cheapens the very real travesty of denying the holocaust and it distracts us from the issues at hand: the uncontested historical facts recorded in the entry.Benzocane 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm unaware of anyone ipso facto claiming it is analogous. i am aware of widely published examples of such a comparison, which were accurately cited. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. we aren't here to determine the truth. we're here to accurate publish information on a given topic. your denial that the comparison has been made - and, remarkably enough, not by partisans attempting to perform a 'double play' on the term, but by people who are in - for lack of a better term - "your camp" who do indeed believe that climate change denial is roughly equivalent to holocaust denial (because of the implicit worldwide catastrophe impending if we don't do something about AGW). oh, and if i might add: wikipedia is not a dictionary. this article is not about "denial". it is - at least ostensibly - about "climate change denial". defining only one word from a term does not illuminate the meaning of the term itself. Anastrophe 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did I deny that the comparison has been made? I've made arguments about its notability given the focus of the entry and the sources of the analogy. And I've made several responses to your claim that this analogy somehow reveals the origin of the phrase. My "camp" consists entirely of those who believe that well documented  entries should not be contested or distorted for POV purposes. The holocaust analogy is a red herring with the effect -- no matter your intention, which I'm trying not to doubt -- of deflecting attention from the still undisputed facts of the misinformation campaign onto the marginal statements of a few individuals. See the Bush/Hitler analogy above. Benzocane 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as i noted a few moments ago further above, the section was reworked, and no longer attempted any claim at origin. this article is currently written with the POV that the term is implicitly without any published controversy wrt its use; that's demonstrably false. two unrelated examples of the use of the term in comparison to holocaust denial were provided. those uses are notable for having made the comparison in widely published and read venues; that this discussion is taking place - with such extreme pushback against inclusion of cited examples of that use - further points to an implicit expectation that this article is to remain grounded in one POV on the matter. Anastrophe 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to lay off this thread for a while and let other editors consider what's to be done. I respectfully disagree about inclusion.Benzocane 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Deny 

message: User:Cyrusc asked me to have a look at this dispute, as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record Task Force.
My first thought was that this article should be kept, although I agree that it has a somewhat breathless, verging unencyclopaedic tone. Then I had a look over the Global warming controversy page. I can certainly see the argument to break down articles into smaller ones, but I would me minded to move the content of this article to the GWC page. It would also be a good idea to add some more on the "Climate Change Alarmism" issue to the GWC page, to answer POV issues raised above.
With regard to holocaust denial - I would like to see more than one or two very good references before it is compared to climate change denial. This is simply for reasons of taste and decency. Parmesan 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is here to stay so we need to address the POV issues. Firstly, this phrase is always used in a derogatory sense. All of the references are from the Guardian newspaper and other far-left sources. This is indicative of the bias inherent in the article. We need to state this explicitly. Comparison with holocaust denial has been made by numerous reliable sources and also needs to be stated. Both proponents and sceptics of AGW including The Great Global Warming Swindle have made the comparison. I suggest a separate section "Comparions with Holocaust denial". Iceage77 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the phrase is used in a derogatory sense (as it's being contrasted to skeptics). However, so far all we know is that a proponent and several "skeptics" have made the comparison. I am not aware of more than one proponent (yet) who has made the comparison. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you likely missed the last iteration of the 'Terminology' section i added before it was reverted (without having even been read by the reverter, evidenced by his edit summary). that iteration listed George Monbiot's similar published comparison to holocaust denial. I can see no objection to him as a source. Anastrophe 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see one. WP:NOTE correctly indicates that a subject is not notable if it's covered only by partisan sources. Well it happens that George Monbiot is to climate change what Karl Marx was to socialism. And for this reason, this article should really be deleted, while it is going to be maintained because of... guess what... partisan issues. --Childhood's End 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV doesn't mean 'without POV'. it's perfectly legitimate to cite partisan sources, so long as you cite them in a balanced manner. this is the basis for my interest in having the comparison noted: the article is written from the POV that "climate change denial"/"global warming denial" are terms without any controversy or opposition. the quotes by monbiot and goodman, are by partisans who are in the AGW POV. some of the commentors above have suggested that citing the comparison of "global warming denial" to "holocaust denial" by people such as rush limbaugh, who are 'anti-AGW' POV, would be legitimate - but it would not, it would only be in service to reinforcing the POV that it is *not* AGW POV proponents who make the comparison, which is false. AGW POV adherents need to accept that "their own" have made this comparison. and that the comparison is pejorative. for that reason, it would be a partisan POV addition to balance the POV of this article. (the subtextual argument that is invariably thrown out is that this article is really about the corporate disinformation campaign...which then begs us to ask, 'then why is it entitled "climate change denial"?')Anastrophe 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You dont get it... Forget about the holocaust. A subject is deemed not notable if it is only covered by partisan sources. Well, that's exactly the case of "climate change denial", a concept which you will not find outside partisan sources (The Guardian, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, etc.) except perhaps for a few exceptions. The nature of the sources creating the existence of this story should tell you that it is 1- inherently POVed and 2- non-notable outside partisan circles. --Childhood's End 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Guardian, NYtimes, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, etc.--these are consistent resources for Wikipedia. Although Mother Jones is a more politically partial source, the claim that the phrase is not found outside of "partisan sources" is innacurate. The bulk of the citations are from the sources you describe as "exceptions." I remain confused: are you disputing the factuality of the misinformation campaign? Then please provide credible sources in support of your position. We are a few days into these discussions and no such sources have been offered.Benzocane 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian and the Times may be used as resources for Wikipedia in many other areas, but on the issue of climate change, they are clearly biased.  I've referenced some criticism of the Times, in particular, above, which you may want to check out.  Regardless, while I don't necessarily oppose their inclusion in this article, it is fair to balance their POV position. Zoomwsu 15:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, the fact that you may think that The Guardian/George Monbiot is not a partisan source regarding climate change shows that you are partisan yourself. To answer your question, my position is that the story of a misinformation campaign is essentially built up by partisan sources and is a political matter. Outside propaganda, the reality is that yes, some funding organizations have a vested interest in slowing down climate public policies, but that does not mean that they are entertaining a misinformation campaign and cannot fund honest science. Skeptics do not enjoy public funding like the climate folks do and must look for private funding to pursue their scientific research. To label their findings as "misinformation" requires that you take for an absolute truth what the IPCC tells you, otherwise the skeptics' findings are simply alternative views to a generally accepted scientific theory. Science has always advanced like this, and only when political and partisan motivations are underlying do we label as "misinformation" alternative views. --Childhood's End 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is news to me that science has always advanced by multinational corporations funding PR campaigns that portray generally accepted scientific theory as if it were generally disputed in order to promote their economic interests!Benzocane 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice strawman. But I'll care to answer and point to you that the problem is that this articles puts in the same basket both the funding of PR campaigns and the funding of credible scientists with divergent views about global warming. --Childhood's End 13:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion 

message: I reverted to include "journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot".  I think it's helpful to include this reference. Zoomwsu 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's particularly helpful, as both the quote and the link make his perspective clear. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly harmful, either, so I'm really surprised this has changed back and forth multiple times. Also, I'd like to give kudos to Zoomwsu for taking it to the talk page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, what's the point in putting in the Monbiot quote? ~ UBeR 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also delete it. --Childhood's End 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please do. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose. ~ UBeR 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that Anastrophe has reverted my deletion. A, I would be curious to know how you think this quote improves the Denial vs. skepticism section. I envision this section (which certainly needs work) as a discussion of the difference between a) good-faith scientific skepticism and b) what the sources for this article make out to be a disinformation campaign. To me, the Monbiot quote doesn't seem to clarify this distinction.  Cyrusc 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Cyrusc's deletion ought to be reinstated. The Monbiot quote is neither notable nor relevant to the section in question (or the article at large, for that matter). Sea.wolf4 06:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cyrusc and Sea.wolf4: the quote is completely irrelevant to the section. I support Cyrusc's deletion.Benzocane 16:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monbiot 

message: It seems to me that the discussion taking place here is relevant to this page as well. Should we keep an NPOV tag if what the tag asserts is POV is based in uncontested fact? Wouldn't that cause the endless multiplication of such tags across the encyclopedia? In the absence of sources refuting this unusually well referenced article, why should the tag stay? Note I'm not removing the tag unilaterally, just proposing it as a topic of discussion. Thoughts?Benzocane 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the above, I have removed the tag. Raul654 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per the above, I concur that the removal of the tag is justified and appropriate. The notability and encyclopedic character of the content, as well as the plurality and reputability of the sources cited have not been persuasively contested in either discussion. Sea.wolf4 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The article lacks a criticism section that explains that calling someone a "climate change denier" is an attempt to  scare dissenters into silence, and to shut down scientific debate. I found one such article (there are bound to be more) here  which explains it well and has plenty of references. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to summarize and pick out the main points and references. If anyone wants to do this, I would be grateful. rossnixon 03:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pernicious demonization campaign 

message: The neologism "climate denier" is a back-handed referance to holocaust denial.   
The fact that the word 'holocaust' is not mentioned anywhere in the article is mystifying. Revolutionaryluddite 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revolutionaryluddite, that some have the opinion that the phrases holocaust denial and climate denial are interlinked, doesn't mean that they are. And selecting some newer Op-Ed's (and one idiotic green ministerMEP (who btw. believes she is original in this)) that says so, doesn't make it so.  The phrase climate change denial has been in use since at least 2000 . This has been discussed before, please check above. --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but that some have the opinion that funding skeptical scientists and denying climate change are interlinked means that they are and that we should build an entire article about this, right? --Childhood's End 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this! If isolated individuals--either skeptics or people in agreement with the consensus--draw an analogy between the denial of the holocaust and climate change denial, that's their problem. It has neither weight nor notability. This mainstream press has consistently used the phrase "climate change denial," as this exceptionally well-sourced article makes clear, without evoking that analogy. The attempt to give undue weight to the holocaust analogy is a distraction tactic--it deflects attention from the uncontested misinformation campaigns onto the rhetoric of a few marginal critics. CE--you know (or you've never read the article or its sources) we're not talking about just funding skeptical scientists. And you know the "some" that have the opinion about corporate funded climate change denial range from the British Royal Society to Newsweek to Science.Benzocane 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, now that's  really in line with Raul654's actions. I wanted to point you out that you were actually, again, supporting double standards but instead of making amends, you brought this there and accused me of being non-constructive. If you support that an article is built on a story that comes from opinions taken from the press, you should support that relevant "opposing" opinions (holocaust denial), also taken from the press, be added to the article as sidenotes or bonus info. There's the Boston Globe and BBC Radio there. That's all I meant with my big 2-lines oh-so-disruptive comment. --Childhood's End 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Should have been MEP - not minister. Caroline Lucas is a Green Party MEP. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I agree that the British Green Party is an unreliable source for any information whatsoever. 72.47.71.160 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The point here is more procedural than substantive: even if you dislike the phrase "climate change denial," it is--and this has not been debated-the term used in scientific and political discourse, as the citations make clear, to describe the subject of this article. There are all kinds of phrases in circulation that I find unfortunate, but my personal opinion of their merit does not justify banning them from the encyclopedia, nor trying to pretend they're used only by a radical fringe.Benzocane 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "my personal opinion of their merit does not justify banning them from the encyclopedia, nor trying to pretend they're used only by a radical fringe." That is exactly my point! I am not advocating the deletion of this article, wholesale scrubbing of its material, or renaming it. The fact of the matter is that the terms 'global warming skeptic' and 'holocaust denier' have been linked together by many people, and the article should reflect the reality. What is it about the authors of  or  that justifys calling them "radical fringe" and therefore unquoatable? The neologism "climate denier" is undisputably pejorative. Nobody would liked to be called a bigoted anti-choice wingnut Christofascist, nor a "climate denier". Revolutionaryluddite 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Many people"--many people have described George Bush as Hitler--should that be included in his entry? We are talking about thousands and thousands of instances of the phrase "climate change denial" being used in public discourse, and comparatively few instances of this analogy. But bracketing that for a moment: why do you find the analogy notable? Statistically it is not. What's at stake in giving encyclopedic weight to this analogy (which within these discussions, interestngly enough, has only been mentioned by climate change skeptics)? Benzocane 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” David Roberts at Grist Magazine.  Look, I know that the majority of people trying to educate the public about glocal climate change use phrases like "they're in denail" or "he's/she's in denial" and don't make the connection. However, I can't ignore the fact that a number of public figures have made the connection no matter how much it disgusts me personally. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an idealized version of reality. Revolutionaryluddite 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look its a question of weight. On the one hand we have serious reliable mainstream sources - that do not reflect the opinions of individuals. And on the other hand we have some individuals that have made some unfortunate comments. The question is do the individuals represent a significant enough minority to warrent mention in the article according to WP:WEIGHT? So far i haven't seen this. As i've said here a couple of times - find a mainstream non-opinion article that carries this line, and i'll consider changing my mind. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you find objectionable about the links I cited. Of course, the authors have rather disgusting socio-political views, but, statistically speaking, the connection they've made is quite common. Revolutionaryluddite 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not disputing the fact that the semi-abstract terms "in denial over climate change", "denying climate change", et cetera have no relationship to the term "holocaust denial". But saying "they're in denial of climate change" is not the same thing as labeling a specific person a "climate denier". I see what you mean about sourcing, and I'll try to find a non-Op-Ed news article on the subject. Revolutionaryluddite 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be mentioned; it's a matter of finding reliable sourcing. Revolutionaryluddite 01:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Climate_change_denial#First_Two_Sections Revolutionaryluddite 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coining of the term "Climate change denier" 

message: Given that the rest of the article is solely focused on the United States (or, arguably, the United States and Great Britian), it doesn't make much sense to bring up what the people of Japan or other countries believe about climate change. Yes, I know that the general point of the article is to detail a disinformation campaign made against the American people. Still, the politics of Japan, the culture of Japan, science and technology in Japan, and Japan's economic obligation under the Kyoto Protocol make the relevance of the poll a bit strained.
Also, shouldn't there be more American poll results in this section? Right now, only the controversial Newsweek issue is mentioned. From the point of view of a "climate change believer", it seems very pessimistic. A lot of other polls paint a different picture:
A CNN report from this May says that 20% believe that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities" and 22% believe that "Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven." A 54% majority believe that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories." ABC News ran a poll this April in which 84% think that "the world's temperature" has "been going up slowly over the past 100 years." A Gallup poll in March stated that 70% believe that "the effects of global warming" "have already begun to happen", "will start happening within a few years", or "will start happening within" their lifetimes. 72.47.71.160 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of climate change denial (1) 

message: This section appears to make four specific claims:
Corporate misinformation kept the public from understanding the evidence of global warming discovered in the late-80s and early-90s.
Corporate misinformation convinced the public to oppose the Kyoto Protocol and other environmental acts promoted by the Clinton Administration.
The majority of Americans still do not understand the current scientific consensus.
Due to corporate misinformation, the majority of American's oppose the necessary measures to reduce such as a carbon tax and carbon trading programs.
The section mixes the four claims together in a dishonest way. The first is probably true, but I'm not really familar with the subject. The third is, at best, a pessimistic overexaggeration. Given that the media's saturation coverage treats global warming as a historical event like the civil rights movement, most Americans agree that it exists and must somehow be dealt with.
The second and fourth statements are heavily disputable in their own right and, in any rate, have no place in this article. Honest, good faith disagreements between qualified economists and political scientists about the effectiveness of specific measures is in no way, shape, or form equal to "climate denial". Revolutionaryluddite 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third claim--which you describe as a pessimistic overexaggeration-is substantiated by the source you offer to counter it: "64% think scientists disagree with one another about global warming" in the face of overwhelming consensus. Why do the 2nd and 4th have no place in the article? Benzocane 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can call me an extreme literalist if you like, but if I was asked by a pollster "do scientists disagree with one another about global warming" or "do scientists all agree with each other regarding global warming"- I would respond with the former. Disagreement and verifiablity is a vital part of the scientific method and the peer review process. Suppose I were to ask you "do you support abortion" or do you "oppose it"? Time Magazine has a unfortunate record of boneheaded phrasing of their poll questions. Please look at my earlier posting about the 'Effect of climate denial' section (I forgot to log-in). Revolutionaryluddite 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the results of a recent CBS poll to give the section more balance. Revolutionaryluddite 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The section still needs a counterpoint to the first paragraph claims that the reason the American public and Washington has rejected anti-global-warming measures such as carbon taxes, emissions trading, and building more nuclear plants is because of the 'denial machine'. As the saying goes: "When you point your finger at someone else, your pointing three back at you." House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, opposes a carbon tax: "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that."  If claims 2 and 4 belong in the article, than advocates for progressive taxation and members of the anti-nuclear movement should have their views represented. It should then also be mentioned that, right now, Americans are willing to make personal sacrifices to fight global warming. For example, the CBS News poll says that 64% of Americans would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Revolutionaryluddite 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  This article says "A 2007 Newsweek poll found majorities still believed neither that scientists agree climate change is taking place, nor that scientists agree climate change is caused by human activity, nor that climate change has yet had noticeable effect." This misrepresents the actual story, which says "49 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today." I have corrected this. Revolutionaryluddite 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The section looks NPOV right now as far as the third point goes. Revolutionaryluddite 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The second and fourth points are, though heavily disputable, very relevant to the article. They section does need some criticism on those two points for balance. Revolutionaryluddite 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of climate denial 

message: The phrasing of the article gives the impression that the misinformation campaign was more or less entirely funded by ExxonMobil. What influence did/does Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and BP (which has done a fantastic job of greenwashing themselves ) have? Revolutionaryluddite 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, looking at the links, it's clear that ExxonMobil is basically on their own. Revolutionaryluddite 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focusing on ExxonMobil 

message: The article states that "Organized climate change denial efforts began to make headlines shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature in 1997" and quotes a report saying that "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began". There's a frustrating lack of dates in the article- let alone a step by step chronological flow. PBS has a detailed timeline at . This might seem like nitpiking, but I don't think that opposition to global warming during the release of the first IPCC Assessment in 1990 is really on the same page as opposing global warming now. The degree of scientific consensus has changed. Revolutionaryluddite 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the external link. Revolutionaryluddite 02:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: It has just come to my attention that an Op-Ed piece I cited as evidence that the term 'climate denier' is being used as a comparison to 'holocaust denier'- which was summarily dismissed given that Op-Ed articles are, in general, poor Wikipedia sources- is currently block quoted in the article. Dr. Peter Christoff, a former director of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific , states that Op-Ed that:
::"There are grave risks in drawing analogies with any aspect of the Holocaust. One easily oversteps the mark, losing a valid point amid counter-accusations of hysterical overstatement, of engaging in distressing, offensive and exploitative mis-association. Even so — and because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming. I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action it illustrates the immorality and potential damage".
::"The panel warns that we face a high risk that our collective behaviour will lead to the extinction of cultures as well as a significant proportion of Earth's non-human species, and the suffering and deaths of many thousands, if not millions, of humans. Given the consequences of inaction, or insufficient action, or delayed action, to trivially undermine these findings by stirring up a "faux debate" over its results and projections is a matter of desperate practical and moral seriousness."
::"It would be inconceivable for the ABC to screen a film that denied the Holocaust. This is not merely because "the facts are in", but because of the offence this would generate in trying to set aside the memories and lessons that this dark history delivered us. So why then is the ABC proposing to show this Thursday a "documentary" that denies global warming?"
Dr. Christoff says "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, 'sceptics'. But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change" in the current 'Denial vs. skepticism' section. This should be removed, and the section rewritten.Revolutionaryluddite 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is not the only example  of double standards. Mention of the Newsweek global cooling article was removed on the grounds that it's irrelevant to the issue. But we still have a section on passive smoking in the global warming controversy article. Iceage77 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the Newsweek global cooling dispute as a double standard as you are comparing apples (climate change denial) to oranges (global warming controversy). This article is specific, whereas the latter article is quite general, hence the argument that the global cooling canard has no place here. If there is a dispute in having that reference in the global warming controversy article, then your complaint is valid there. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, I want to start by mentioning that I've been "off-line" for over a week, so I've apparently missed a bit of the "excitement" with respect to this article. Now, having said that, I've re-read the article as it currently stands. The Newsweek article that you claim this article gets most of its "steam" from gets 5 lines here, as opposed to the 3 lines in the criticism. (cf the original version of this article] that doesn't mention Newsweek at all.) That said, I agree that the criticism could and should be expanded on, given the critic's closeness to the original source. Personally, I also wouldn't be against moving the original Newsweek source down closer to its criticism. As it stands now, it would be very easy to miss its criticism. OTOH, if you want an excellent example of a non-Newsweek source, check out the very last link in the External Sources section. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, you have to take another look. The Newsweek "denial" story is referred to a whooping 7 times through the article. It accounts for more than 20 lines. --Childhood's End 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I missed a lot of the other references. Personally, I'd like to see the Newsweek reference removed from the lede. It doesn't belong there, and I don't feel it adds anything to the article. If no one objects, I'll remove it in a bit. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Standard 

message: I'm not going to delete a small "criticisms" section, no matter how misplaced I feel its contents, but it still needs to meet encyclopedic standards. 1) Even if the holocaust analogy is somehow notable, the text must explain why the use of this analogy by x number of commentators is a criticism of the phrase. I, for instance, think the holocaust analogy is stupid, but I nevertheless feel the phrase "climate change denial" is appropriate. The entry must show why the isolated use of the analogy amounts to a criticism of the general term or this section should be deleted. 2) It in no way is a criticism of the corporate misinformation campaign that governments give more funding to science than Exxon. If Iceage and CE want to create a separate article showing how gov. research has been faulty or manipulative, and can find credible sources for such an entry, so be it. But trying to excuse Exxon by noting there are larger funders of research is preposterous. The larger governmental contribution has not been shown--in talk or in the body of the entry--to in any way alter the fact of the misrepresentation of scientific consensus. This is an attempt to write a failed deletion campaign into the text of the article and is POV. If these issues aren't addressed, and the content improved, these sections should be deleted.Benzocane 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the funniest bit about using gov't funding of science as a "contrast" to corporate funding of "science" is the complete blind spot about how the US government has actually treated science. It's amazing that any real research gets done at all! Ben Hocking (talk|contribs)-14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What troubles me about the claim that "ExxonMobil is vastly outspent by governments in the field of global warming research" is that, based on the evidence cited in this article, I don't feel comfortable lumping Exxon's efforts together with those of, say, the IPCC under the banner of "global warming research."  I have no doubt that Exxon does fund actual scientific research, but is that really the issue? What this article seems to be about is not Exxon et al.- funded research, but Exxon et al.- funded disinformation.   If an organization hires a PR firm to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," is that "research"?  If Exxon offers scientists $10,000 apiece not to interpret data as best they can, but to interpret it, from the start, with the express purpose of undermining IPCC findings, is that "research"? "Research" is when scientists deliver the most accurate findings their data and their consciences permit, regardless of whether those findings serve the purposes of a third party. It does not seem intellectually honest to call the denial described here a form of "research."  Cyrusc 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what you, other editors and this article overlook is that the IPCC takes the care of telling the world that even its most "certain" findings are subject to some 10% uncertainty, a margin that can be considered quite significant in science. We're far from established "facts", even without discussing the distinction that ought to be done between a theory, overwhelmingly accepted or not, and a fact. There's all the room in the world for the API to legitimately try "to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours". How can this article survive while claiming that this amounts to "disinformation" is telling books about what's going on here. --Childhood's End 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (That's not my point, but yes, good methodology provides uncertainty guidelines. The IPCC's are here. Note that the 90% certainty CE refers to corresponds to what IPCC calls "very likely." My point is that "research" and "public relations" campaigns are two very different things, and that to represent as "research" what is actually a public relations campaign to foment doubt and controversy seems intellectually dishonest. Cyrusc 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, margins of error exist in all scientific investigation, but these margins of error have not precluded the consensus we've discussed. And for the hundredth time, what's at issue here is less the fact of climate change than the fact of Exxon and public sector misinformation campaigns. Benzocane 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, CE is factually wrong. The greater net cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions in the Northern hemisphere (compared to the Southern) is described as "virtually certain", i.e. as having probability greater than 99%. And even the main result is quantified with a probability of >90%. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly only an accident that you ommitted that the probability assessment is itself subject to some uncertainty... And I was quite obviously referring to the other main IPCC conclusions as well (and not even those with a lesser level of certainty), so I dont know where you're trying to go with your "CE is factually wrong" and your blah-blah. --Childhood's End 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote you: "[...]the IPCC takes the care of telling the world that even its most "certain" findings are subject to some 10% uncertainty". You may wiggle around with the "some 10%", but this statement is still factually wrong. The IPCC does no such thing. And it assigns a >95% probability to the statement "that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750" - something that I would call a main result. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite obviously the one wiggling with my "most certain findings"... --Childhood's End 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I've removed that section, which is particularly glaring and misleading. What remains is a quote from Exxon's PR department and an unexplained mention ofthe holocaust analogy. What do people think we should do about those two subsections? They hardly seem encyclopedic.Benzocane 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that both sections can be kept, but they desperately need to be improved. A lot of references have been provided for the holocaust assertion in the past, so there's material there for anyone who wants to dig for it. This material includes both holocaust comparisons from a couple people who support the science behind AGW, as well as several critics who have cited those people (or just made vague accusations). However, IIRC, at least one of the holocaust comparers and several of the critics are notable people. I don't know how to improve/expand on the Exxon PR quote. I feel that it's relevant, but I don't have a strong argument for it being encyclopedic. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are plenty of sources that document that the holocaust assertion has been made by several commentators. But what we need is a coherent argument for the notability of that assertion, and a statement of its status as "criticism" of the phrase. A single line at the first mention of the Exxon funding that says "Exxon denies these accusations" will suffice as a statement of their position unless evidence defending that position is available. PR soundbites are not evidence.Benzocane 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the holocaust assertion is very notable among deniers themselves (playing the victim, as it were), and far less notable among those actually using the term "climate change denial". However, this is no doubt influenced by my own personal biases and selective perception. As for the PR comment, I think you nailed it - that they deny the accusations should be mentioned, but we don't actually need their PR sound-bite. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only credible criticism is about the Newsweek cover story and I've accordingly reduced the section to that material that CE has provided. The larger question is: in an article supplied with 20 some sources, does a critique of one periodical warrant its own section? I leave this up to other editors. But encyclopedic standards cannot allow a floating fragment about the holocaust denial and an Exxon PR quote. I agree with Benhocking that the relevance of the holocaust analogy is its use as a tactic of self-victimization, but I do not have sources for this claim, nor do I find it notable enough to warrant inclusion.Benzocane 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have one long attack piece on Exxon with numerous quotes saying how evil they are but they are not allowed a response? Are you serious? Iceage77 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to a statement of Exxon's response; it does not warrant it's own subsection under "criticism."Benzocane 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can you provide a basis for that? is there a wikipedia editorial guideline you can cite that suggests that their response doesn't "warrant" its own subsection? Anastrophe 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not claiming there is a Wikipedia rule that prohibits the subsection, I'm voicing my opinion. It seems to me that Iceage's recent edit makes more sense than the subsection that preceded it. The denial should be near the assertion, not floating in a "criticism" section. I support Iceage's recent edit.Benzocane 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at FairTax and other articles, I don't think it's a good idea to have a specific "Criticism" or "Self-criticism" section- the information contained in the first version of it should be spread across the article. Revolutionaryluddite 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what FairTax has to do with this, but I find that criticism sections are standard in Wikipedia. It has the downside of relegating to the bottom of the article what may be information that is just as important as the one criticized or that even refutes it, but it has the upside of separating ideas and probably making clearer articles that focus on the subject. --Childhood's End 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Varlet8 and others; Iceage and CE continue their failed deletion campaign by other means. Only the Newsweek rebuttal is at all relevant. Nice PR quote from Exxon, by the way! SlipperyN 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to make this personal, SlipperyN. My point in bringing up FairTax is that (See Talk:FairTax) highly rated wikipedia articles tend to have a logical back and-forth progression that incorporates different opinions and facts.Revolutionaryluddite 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, I did not express a preference for one style or the other; I only pointed that in my experience, a criticism section seems standard in WP. --Childhood's End 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crit section either needs to be immediately improved or deleted 

message: I suggest {I messed up the links a bit a whole lot}:
:Climate change denial describes bad faith based efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. Skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific effort to understand these changes and the terms 'climate skeptic' and 'climate contrarian' generally refers to scientists taking sincere positions on the global warming controversy. In contrast, 'climate change denial' refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby. 
< Denial vs. skepticism >
:"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement."Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. qtd. in. " A Skeptical Manifesto" (online) retrieved 10 Aug 07 Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."Memo qtd. in Mark Hertsgaard, "While Washington Slept." Vanity Fair, May 2006] The strategy was criticized as misrepresentating science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."Royal Society letter to Nick Thomas, Director, Corporate Affairs, Esso UK Limited, 4 September 2006 retrieved 10 Aug 2007. (PDF)
:The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." Newsweek published a rebuttal piece by contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson calling it "a vast oversimplification of a messy story" and "fundamentally misleading". He argues that "journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale... in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed".Greenhouse Simplicities - Robert J. Samuelson Several Op-Ed columnists have asserted that the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus. Dr. Peter Christoff, a former director of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific and current direct of Environmental Studies at the University of Melbourne, argues that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."  
:Several columnists also believe that 'climate deniers' should be compared to 'holocaust deniers'. Ellen Goodman argues that "we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." Christoff concludes that "because of its resonance with Holocaust denial — the term "denier" can be used to describe those who trivially reject the existence and threat of global warming. I use that analogy with great hesitation, but given what's at stake — the future of humankind rests on quick and uniform international action it illustrates the immorality and potential damage".  
Revolutionaryluddite 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've editied the Denial vs. skepticism section. Revolutionaryluddite 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Two Sections 

message: I've removed this sentence: Skepticism is a necessary and productive part of the scientific effort to understand these changes -- which I know is not all new -- as it amounts to a clear POV violation. Since "climate change skeptic" refers to a minority view--a decision to depart from consensus--to claim "environmental skepticism" as essential to understanding climate change gives the impression that a minority few is the consensus.Benzocane 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is poorly worded in any case and should be kept out. I removed the word "especially", replaced "often" with "usually", and swapped "good faith" with "unbiased". Sans the Newsweek quote, the introductory paragraph looks just fine. What do you think about my reworking of the 'Denial vs. skepticism' section? Revolutionaryluddite 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to second the idea that the Newsweek quote does not belong in the introductory paragraph. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened the Newsweek quote and placed it into the 'Denial vs. skepticism' section. I also added some information to and rearranged some of the current quotes in the 'Denial vs. skepticism' section.Revolutionaryluddite 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism sentence 

message: Where does the "self" in self-criticism come from with respect to the Newsweek article? The critic is a contributing editor (i.e., a free-lance writer), not a regular editor. He is not a spokesperson for Newsweek, nor is he on their editorial staff. Why is this considered "self-criticism" instead of just "criticism"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the "self" on the basis that the criticism pas published by Newsweek, and necessarily was allowed publication through the editorial process of Newsweek. Also, without the "self", it sounds as if the criticism comes from anywhere, whereas it was published by the source. But I see your point and it is surely worth discussing. --Childhood's End 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see your point about it being published by Newsweek. I don't really feel that strongly about it, but as I was confused by the term "contributing editor", I thought others might be, too. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-criticism is misleading, unencylopedic, and POV. It implies that Newsweek is retracting its position--that one editor speaks for all of Newsweek. Obviously, Newsweek decided to run the article independent of the opinions of one of its contributing editors. So the use of "self" is inaccurate. It is common practice for a periodical with several editors to also publish a minority view. It is not self criticism: it is the opinion of a minority editor. I'll let it stand until I hear from other editors.Benzocane 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an odd phrase, but I'm not that concerned about it being misleading, as it more makes me wonder "what is self-criticism" then anything else. Using the word "retraction" would definitely be misleading. I agree that it should be removed, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to contribute to any edit-war. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think "criticism" is the only term that makes sense. Self-criticism carries a lot of baggage (jiǎntǎo e.g.). In this context, it's inaccurate.  You wouldn't call a rebuttal in a presidential debate "self-criticism," despite the fact that it and the statement prompting it are being broadcast in the same medium. Cyrusc 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I edited to "Criticism" pending further discussion. Cyrusc 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut the section. This has already been integrated in the text, further up. (under denial vs. scepticism) It merits mention, but not two seperate ones. Integration of criticism in text is preferable, since you get both views immediatly when reading the article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-criticism or merely criticism? 

message: This category makes me uneasy. Holocaust denial is not yet in this category, but it is an obvious candidate. I assume I do not need to elaborate too much on why that makes me uneasy, as it feeds into a perception that certain people want to equate climate change denial and holocaust denial. I know this was not the intention, but consider this carefully. Perhaps it is appropriate, but I do think it should be discussed. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category itself is already up for deletion. Please vote. Revolutionaryluddite 20:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't vote. XfD is not a vote. Do participate in the discussion, if you have reasoned opinion. --Stephan Schulz 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is 'CfD' and 'XfD'? Revolutionaryluddite 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'CfD' is Category for Deletion, and I believe 'XfD' is a generic something for deletion. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That the category makes me uneasy doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. At this point, I'm undecided on that particular point. I'm actually leaning more towards keep than delete, but I would like to see some meaningful discussion about it. So far, I don't see any from either side on that page. I did find the Deletion review, which allowed me to find the original CfD. This does have a few cogent arguments about POV problems, but still leaves me somewhat undecided. (I did love Grutness' comment, though.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of the category denialism 

message: Given the concerns about WP:RS and the accompying anti-Op-Ed editorial consensus, I removed the quotes from Christoff and Goodman. I also removed the exploratory lines "Some Op-Ed columnists and environmental activists argue the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus" and intentionally relate 'climate deniers' to 'holocaust deniers'." Revolutionaryluddite 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Christoff and Goodman referances 

message: The leaked memos at "Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming" are grainy enough that I can't read them at all.  Revolutionaryluddite 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Denial and Deception' Referance 

message: Reference number 13 appears to no longer exist.Revolutionaryluddite 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It vanished here. --Stephan Schulz 04:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for restoring it. Revolutionaryluddite 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Referance 

message: I'm sorry, but I don't see how Iceage77's additions were any more WP:UNDUE than the section "Effect of climate change denial". He has a couple lines from Pielke (who is notable) and a few from Brendan O'Neill (who is less notable, but writing in the Guardian). Their opinions are their opinions, and are definitely indicative of quite a few deniers viewpoints. I think his comments should be added back. (Keep in mind that I am definitely not being POV here.) Is Newsweek better than the Guardian? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This terminology section is ridiculous. CE is quoting what appears to a be joke: a study described in "The Age" as "conducted by a non-partisan think tank located somewhere between the small township of Tibooburra and the NSW border, identified global warming as the current topic of choice for people who want their dinner party to finish early." See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-now-worlds-most-boring-topic/2007/07/17/1184559781053.html. I'm removing this section--it takes encyclopedic standards to a new low.Benzocane 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, this joke indicates the author's opinion. Since your view of "encyclopedic standards" is known to vary according to whether the source supports or not your POV, I'll re-insert the section but will remove the "survey joke" for the time being. --Childhood's End 15:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I missed that one. I agree that a joke has no place in this section. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, you knowingly passed off a joke editorial as a notable survey of global opinion on the holocaust analogy? Or you made a mistake?Benzocane 15:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not realize it was a joke. Doing a few other things while doing this. Good catch. --Childhood's End 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What has changed here? We got another Op-Ed, once more not from an expert, but from a political spin-doctor (Morano). As sources go, this is just about the least reliable source out there, regarding the opinion of other than Morano/Inhofe. This can under no circumstances be used as a source for Pielke (Pielke's original blog-article is more reliable). It is still undue weight, nothing has changed here - its still exactly the same problems as such a paragraph has had in the past. Its cherry picking of quotes, put into a context that noone yet has found a reliable source to support. --Kim D. Petersen 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a good question Kim, what has changed? These sources are not used to prove that "climate change denial" means "holocaust denial", but rather that commentators have argued that the former is meant to equate the latter. No OR there, and your WP:WEIGHT argument really is a blind shot since the section amounts to 3 lines and since the analogy itself has been made quite notable by both sides of the debate and should legitimately be discussed somewhere in this article. --Childhood's End 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the small problem of both articles now being included in the same category "Denialism". Iceage77 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmmm  - Flat Earth Society, AIDS reappraisal, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, Holocaust denial. Looks like a good fit for this article. Raul654 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually supports the point, imo. --Childhood's End 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry - but how are you able to determine from random quotes from individuals, that this is not a tiny minority view? If it is - then its certainly undue weight. What i've said all the time, is that you need a mainstream reliable source to show that this is more than a fringe viewpoint. When you have this - then you can include various viewpoints. WP doesn't include everything. As it is, some editors are pushing to get this into the article, but have yet to find a reliable source (one that is not a self published source or an opinion piece. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just so i'm clear, as i haven't read every policy on wikipedia: are op-ed pieces of any kind explicitly not reliable sources under any circumstances? Anastrophe 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Op-Ed's are reliable only to the opinion of the author of the op-ed. (see for instance this). --Kim D. Petersen 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: All i can see in this section, is that someone is good at using Google, to find opinions from completely unrelated sources - and collect them into their own original research about this. Find a mainstream reliable source first, and then give examples... Or are we suddenly in POV-land where we can all synthesise our own critiques? --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the information in the 'Terminology' section really belongs in the 'Denial vs. Skepticism' section. Also, "Many commentators have argued" should be  rephrased to something like 'Some Op-Ed columnists and poltical activists have argued" to emphasize that this is a significant minority, not a majority viewpoint. In the same vien, "Climate change denial (not skepticism) has in fact been associated with the Holocaust denial by some commentators, notably" should say "A few commentators have argued that the term 'Climate change denial' should refer to all of people and groups  disagreeing with the consensus, and directly associating them with 'holocaust deniers', by". Revolutionaryluddite 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To frame my trouble with this: "to emphasize that this is a significant minority" <- how do you know this? All you know about, is 9 unrelated opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most basic issue--the notability of this analogy--has never been established. Far more than 9 people have compared Bush to Hitler, or to Jesus for that matter (take your pick), and we don't include the analogy in the entry. To make it an entire section is absurd--from pure fatigue, I'd be willing to compromise with a sentence that notes that isolated commentators have made such an analogy, although even that is to give undue weight to an insignificant phenomenon.Benzocane 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the page George W. Bush Administration before, but if it does not mention that his use of Christian Fundamentalism in his domestic policies and his strong belief in the Imperial Presidency has been criticised... Well, I'll be very surprised! Revolutionaryluddite 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm having trouble figuring out what the argument above is. Here's what we have: approximately 9 commentators out of the thousands of articles on the subject of climate change and the perception thereof have asserted in op eds that denying climate change is like denying the holocaust. Nobody on talk has made a compelling case for notability. We have an entire section in the entry devoted to the analogy. The argument has been made that such focus on the issue is a POV tactic for deflecting attention from the misinformation campaign onto this relatively isolated assertion. In the absence of compelling assertions of notability and weight, this section should be deleted. Where are these arguments? Kim, myself, Cyrusc, and others have requested them repeatedly.Benzocane 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also the most inappropriately sourced section. Newsmax, Richard North--why do we have an entire section devoted to conservative op eds about how the phrase "climate change denial" makes them feel? I am removing the section until the issues about notability, weight, etc., are addressed. If CE and Iceage want a sentence that reads: "Some commentators have equated climate change denial with holocaust denial" somewhere in this entry, fine. The undue weight given to this section is completely POV.Benzocane 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , , and  might be good places to start. ~ UBeR 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's only yourself who's totally against this section, and probably Kim who's asking questions. You'll wait to get more support before deleting. --Childhood's End 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What i really want - and have asked for several times. Is a non opinion article in a reasonably mainstream reliable source that makes this comparison, preferably while at the same time commenting on the commonality of it. That way we have a rationale for giving it weight. Unfortunatly i haven't been able to find such an article - nor does it seem that any others have. --Kim D. Petersen 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Here's what we have: approximately 9 commentators out of the thousands of articles on the subject of climate change and the perception thereof have asserted in op eds that denying climate change is like denying the holocaust." Keep in mind that this article is not about climate change per se, so these 9 commentators should not be compared to the thousands of articles on the subject of climate change, but rather to the number of articles on climate change denial. If that number is merely "dozens""hundreds" instead of "thousands" (as I suspect it is), then 9 is not really such an insignificant number, especially if you consider that this 9 is merely a lower bound to the number of commentators making that comparison. Let's be careful in the comparisons we make, as we need to be fair to the "enemy" since this isn't a real war, but rather a struggle to get as close to the "truth" as is possible, where each side has a different perspective on that truth. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am being careful. And I don't consider there to be a war or enemies here. I'm referring to the quantity of articles about controversy concerning the existence or nonexistence of scientific concensus on climate change. Regardless, I await arguments for the notability of this analogy in the first place, but for the spectacular weight attributed to it in the second: an entire section? An individual quote from Richard North, who describes himself as holding "conservative prejudices"? You yourself have argued that the most notable element of this analogy is its use as a self-victimization tactic. How then can you support the section?Benzocane 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But environmentalists like Monbiot have also made the analogy (some have even called for war crimes trials). So it's got nothing to do with conservative bias. Iceage77 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's use as self-victimization tactic is the most notable element of this analogy, although I'll also admit that my bias might be contributing to that belief. I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but without going through the history, I don't know what those 9 references are. I was assuming (from the context here on the talk page) that these were 9 columnists comparing AGW denial to holocaust denial. Is this not the case? I've created a sandbox for those who are interested in shaping this without any source deleting. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, after digging through the history (of which I put the relevant excerpt on my sandbox), I find that there were 3 people comparing AGW denial to holocaust denial that were cited, and 5 people complaining about that comparison, thus somewhat supporting my notion that the self-victimization tactic is more notable than the claim itself. That said, those 3 and 5 are probably not the only ones of their kind - although I suspect you'll find far more of the latter category than the former. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Weight and notability remain the issues. If you insist on including this information, give it a sentence--"Several commentators have likened climate change denial to holocaust denial."
I'm not going to engage in an edit warwith this POV warrior. He deleted the section again on his own advice. I maintain that the Holocaust analogy is notable, as shown by all the refs discussing it, and is entirely related to the subject of this article. Thus mention should be made. --Childhood's End 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: CE - none of the concerns about this section have been addressed at any point - i've tried several times now to induce you to find a non opinion article from  mainstram reliable source that could alleviate the trouble with weight and syn. As it stood, it was a random collection of opinion. We need someone to make the link (ie. saying something like "a number of commentators/editors/whatever have..."). Otherwise it is in my opinion a synthesis of random sources into a conclusion, that hasn't been made by a secondary source. --Kim D. Petersen 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, I think I have just identified one little problem. You misunderstand what is WP:SYN. What is forbidden by WP:SYN is joining sources together to advance another position that is not advanced by any of these sources. But here, the position that climate change denial is intended to equate global warming skepticism with holocaust denial is exactly what these sources say, so there's no SYN here and thus, no OR. As for your other point, we have a professor of English language that you cannot accuse of being partisan about the issue. It's also quite strange, to say the least, that you may now require non-partisannon-opinion sources, while you kinda disregarded this aspect during the buildup of this article. --Childhood's End 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to read through my posting a couple of times - but i cannot find any requirements about "non-partisan" in "a non opinion article from  mainstram reliable source". This seems to be your own invention. (or are you saying that all mainstream reliable sources are partisan?) --Kim D. Petersen 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected my post above. I can make no material distinction in this context. A non-opinion article does not really exist, imo. --Childhood's End 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: CE, you keep saying you're done. Then you just repeat your problematic edits without responding to the substantive issues (and throwing in an insult or two).Notability and weight have not been established.Benzocane 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think I said that I was done previously, but now I am. Benzocane already accused me of POV-pushing (along with others, see discussions above), so I think my comment was fair, but anyway. I can see that I should take a break from this article, and that's what I intend to do. Sorry that you have come to see my edits as problematic, as I think I did respond to the issues. I suggest that you take a look at who's left for editing this article now. Hope we can discuss sometime else in another context. --Childhood's End 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely see an undue weight issue here and support Benzocane's edits.  A few poorly sourced op-eds can be taken as evidence one way or another and should not be given prominent billing (or billing at all, in my opinion).SlipperyN 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the assumption that CE is editing in good faith -- and with the principle of NPOV in mind -- with respect to this article, I think it just that CE take some distance. I concur with SlipperyN in supporting Benzocane's edits. This section gives undue weight to a topic the notability of which has not been persuasively argued, despite numerous and repeated good faith requests for such argument. Furthermore, it is not reputably sourced. Sea.wolf4 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sufficient references have been offered to show that several commentators have made the claim. No arguments have been offered to prove its notability, let alone the justification of an independent section. The concensus on this page is now against inclusion. If you believe a sentence like "Several commentators have likened climate change denial to holocaust denial," fine--that's already a notability/weight stretch.Benzocane 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of arguments have been made regarding notability.  Articles by nationally syndicated columnists (Goodman) and articles in prominent papers like the Guardian certainly are notable.  Just because you disagree with the arguments doesn't mean they haven't been made. Zoomwsu 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe we're still going through this. The existence of syndicated columnists does not prove notability--it has to be relevant relative to the topic. But whatever your opinion, your reverts are against the consensus established on this page--even Revolutionaryluddite, one of the primary advocates for the section, has changed his mind after further conversation. I offer this compromise: I have added the following section to the denial/skep section: 'Several commentators have argued that the "denial" terminology is intended to equate global warming scepticism with Holocaust denial.[11][12][13][14][15] [16]' -- this is already more of a compromise than the consensus's here warrants and restoring the section at this point amounts to vandalismBenzocane 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "the concensus on this page is now against inclusion" you are referring to my statement at Talk:Climate_change_denial#Holocaust_denial_analogy_.28side_note.29, I should note that I haven't completely changed my mind about its inclusion. (Again, if I am sounding sarcastic, that is not my intent) If there was a vote, I would probably vote 'neutral' or 'non-voting' or whatever. Several convincing arguements have been made that the analogy is 'notable' and the analogy was not given undue weight in it's original phrasing. What I'm stuck on is WP:SYN-- admittedly, because I do not understand the policy. You asked for reliable sourcing indicating that belief in the analogy is held by a 'significant minority' (my words) of commentators, and I can't find anything. I also can't objectively define 'significant' or 'minority'. So, I guess I'm fine with the analogy being absent from the article since "I don't like it" is not a very good arguement. Revolutionaryluddite 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's occured to me that I've been treating the words 'consensus' and 'majority' as synoymns, when they are clearly not inside Wikipedia. Revolutionaryluddite 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the current compromise is a good idea. In any rate, I do feel a sense of malaise for having argued for the 'enemy' for so long. Revolutionaryluddite 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology / Holocaust denial analogy section 

message: Kim cut the Self-criticism by Newsweek section on the basis that it was already discussed earlier in the article . Seems a fair point to me. I would although suggest, for clarity, that the mention that is included earlier in the article is cut instead and the specific section re-inserted. It has the downside of pushing to the bottom the Newsweek rebuttal, but it separates the ideas, or so I think. --Childhood's End 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Revolutionaryluddite alluded to earlier, "good articles" usually won't have a Criticism section. Specifically:In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnetThis was news to me, but the policy page seems to confirm it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I'm surprised too though. --Childhood's End 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Most WP:FAs on controversial subjects still contain 'controversy' or 'criticism' sections, so this is far from being the rule. Odd nature 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek vs Newsweek 

message: It appears to me that there is a large majority view on the talk page that this article should not be in 'Category:Denialism' (assuming the category survives deletion). Revolutionaryluddite 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not seeing that. It looks more 50/50 to me. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This comment is two things: First, its a blatant misrepresentation of the situation; there's clearly no consensus. Second, it constitutes talk page spamming in order to affect the outcome which is a banable offense. Another sly stunt like this Revolutionaryluddite and I'll personally walk your case through WP:DR. Odd nature 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please ease off on him. Sure, educate him, but don't lambaste or threaten him. He's stated many times that he's new to Wikipedia. I think the misrepresentation is merely an example of selective perception, which we can all be guilty of. If we're going to throw around WP's, my favorite is WP:AGF. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree that WP:AGF is the necessary first step, but it can only be stretched so far. Fine, I'll just let them deal with him if he keep this sort of activity (and placing his comments ahead of others out of chronological order) up. Odd nature 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not being stretched at all. Look, you're accusing him of "page spamming in order to affect the outcome". Why, then, did he "page spam" you (remember, he directed you over to here), unless he was trying to fight against himself? As for placing his comments ahead of others, I didn't realize your comment was attached to the previous one myself until you fixed it and commented on it. I am 100% sure that these were both innocent mistakes. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please calm down everyone. We can discuss this like civilized individuals. JoshuaZ 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I was being calm. I apologize if I came off differently than I intended. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, bad indenting on my part, that should have gone to Oddnature, so about one indent back would have been good. JoshuaZ 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While we're at it, please educate me. I took a look at WP:DR, and the most relevant section seemed to be WP:DR#Discuss_with_third_parties, which seems to be the exact opposite of what you're saying about the inappropriateness of "page spamming". I've heard this accusation made a lot, so I assume it's actually based on a WP, but WP:DR doesn't seem to be it. Do you have a link handy to the policy on "page spamming"? (In case this comes off as sarcastic, that is absolutely not my intent.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:SPAM has a mention. The main guideline is WP:CANVAS. JoshuaZ 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. By those guidelines, it would appear that Revolutionaryluddite's comment does not qualify, as it is a limited posting to an audience that is nonpartisan (or at least fairly evenly mixed partisan). I'll admit that the message could be considered biased, but not unduly so, and I'm certain it was unintentional. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm inclined to agree. JoshuaZ 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you feel that you need it - do it. It can get heated at times. But personally i have to say that in general your contributions have been positive ;-)  --Kim D. Petersen 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you call POV deletions and disrupting an CFD with bogus objections while not even knowing what WP:RS, WP:V and WP:ATT is (all of which nullify his objections there), positive, then sure. I disagree. Odd nature 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: noted. now, do you have any positive contributions for the article? or are you going to continue throwing around direct and indirect threats of policy intervention that in reality are highly destructive to building consensus with fellow editors? RevolutionaryLuddite has admitted his error, has disengaged, and is in all respects acting in good faith. i see no evidence of same from you. quite the contrary. your first step to resolution of this matter is to threaten banning. for pity sake. perhaps revolutionaryluddite isn't the only person here who should contemplate disengagement. hell, i could use a vacation for that matter.... Anastrophe 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would re-link denialism, given that I don't see a consensus against it in the same way there is a consensus against the holocast analogy, but I don't want to start an edit war. Revolutionaryluddite 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The introduction now has "It is considered a form of denialism-- the rejection of strong scientific or historical consensus' by groups or individuals seeking to influence public policy" and denialism is back under the 'See Also' links. Revolutionaryluddite 20:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone has restored the poorly worded "It is considered a form of denialism, the rejection of views that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence by governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes" without explanation. I'm inclined to leave this in there since any further editing by me is basically nitpicking. Revolutionaryluddite 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I removed Godwin's Law from the 'See Also' section. Revolutionaryluddite 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The article is back in Category:Denialism. I hope that this is the end of this. Revolutionaryluddite 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Denialism 

message: It has been somewhat, well, weird-feeling to fight for the enemy-- no matter how much I also believe in 'loyal opposition' for NPOV. After 'taking a step back' or whatever one would like to call it and reviewing Benzocanes', Kim D. Petersen's, and Ben Hocking's statement, I think I finally understand their essential arguement. (In all fairness, the WP:SYN article is rather confusing.)
Compare "Some Op-Ed columnists and environmental activists argue the term 'climate change denial' should apply to all people and groups in disagreement with the consensus" and intentionally relate 'climate deniers' to 'holocaust deniers'." to the less grim "Some pet owners believe that the Lhasa apso is the "cutest" and "nicest" breed of dog." (With a bunch of sources after that making the connection)
The statement is true, but it's obviously true. It's factually correct, but it's also unhelpful when mentioned in an encylopedia.
The use of the word "Some" implies that 'a significant number, but less than a majority (50%+1)' of pet owners feel this way. Is it less than 40%? Less than 25%? Less than 10%? How do I know this? The alternative wording "A few pet owners believe" or "Several pet owners" implies 'a number significantly less than than majority'. 
Since I don't know how many pet owners think this, my picking of 'some' verses 'a few' is completely arbitrary and they are blatant weasel words. 
Revolutionaryluddite 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to include this section, which strikes me as an example of a synthesis but whatever, we will need to note that it not just "Some commentators..." making the claim but its only conservative commentators or those in the backpocket of the conservatives. I've yet to see a neutral moderate or liberal making this claim. Please present your evidence if I'm wrong. Odd nature 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Monbiot and Goodman?  Zoomwsu 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have only ever heard/read the comparison between 'climate denial' and 'holcaust denial' made by hard-core left-wingers-- note my links presented in the above sections. I don't quite understand your reasoning: "I've yet to see a neutral moderate or liberal making this claim". What is it about one center-left Op-Ed columnist that makes them 'neutral' compared to another center-left Op-Ed columnist? (If I seem sarcastic, that is not my intent. See my comments at Talk:Instrumental_temperature_record#Corrections_to_the_European_temperature_record)  But this is all beside the point. Benzocane's line of arguement is that the analogy violates WP:SYN due to its methodology and use of weasel words. I can't say that I'm persuaded, but-- given the emotional resonance of the analogy-- the burden of proof rests on those arguing for its inclusion in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd nature was talking about conservatives talking about the comparison and not making the comparison themselves. Until I saw the sources previously provided, that was the only way I had heard of it as well. Of the links currently on my sandbox, 3 are from "liberals", and 5 are from "conservatives". (Using scare quotes because I think those labels themselves can be misleading.) Over the short term (a few days), I don't think it matters too much whether this section is there or not. I'm hoping my sandbox can lead to a good quality, reasonably NPOV version of this section that we can then, as a community, have an informal vote on. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial analogy (side note) 

message: "It is considered a form of denialism, the rejection of views that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence by governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes."
It doesn't really seem necessary to define denialism just because the article includes the word-- the introduction does not define 'global climate change' either. Also, why is this statement in the introduction instead of the 'Denial v. Skepticism' section? Revolutionaryluddite 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing a short summary of a term of concept being introduced is supported and called for by guidelines and the manual of style. Proper article intros are supposed to be a brief summary of the article and able to stand alone on their own according to the same guidelines, so the article is going to have to mention that it is a form of denialism amongst other things in the intro. Odd nature 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Someone has changed my edit 'Origins of the "denial machine"' back to 'Origins of the "denial industry"'. The primary source for this article is a Newsweek cover story that explicitly states "Inside the 'denial machine'" on the cover. Why can't we use their terminology? See Business action on climate change. It's misleading to use the term 'the denial industry' when many energy companies have broken ranks with Exxon and its bunker mentality. The premise of this article is not 'capitalism verses global warming'; it is 'misinformation verses sound science'. Revolutionaryluddite 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and there's another Newsweek issue, just recently published, that refers to "it" as the "denial industry".  Denial industry is more accurate than denial machine, for reasons that I don't imagine I should need to articulate.  In any event, I'm outta' here for now. Later. ... Kenosis 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. Revolutionaryluddite 05:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Denial Industry" verses the "Denial Machine" 

message: OK, if you look closely it's only partly true. Fox News has an article (Blogger Forces NASA to Tweak Climate Data) from David Byers of The Times that saysThe revelations have been pounced on by the fringe group of researchers and pundits who deny that man-made global warming is taking place. (emphasis mine) Still, interesting that Fox News has this. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no surprise. Rupert Murdoch is now a strong global warming 'believer' and will soon start pushing his network to carefully and quietly abandon it's 'many scientists disagree' line. Revolutionaryluddite 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News makes comment about denying climate change... 

message: After looking at Global Warming Controversy, I'm somewhat confused about the guidelines for having the same or similar information in different pages. Is there a WP help page for that? Revolutionaryluddite 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-Posting Information 

message: Check it out: Man-Made Global Warming Links Challenged. Thank God for Wikipedia. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting article, but it's really not that big of a deal-- some skeptics' small attempts to push back at the global warming public relations machine. Anyway, I strongly think Wikipedia has a long way to go before ordinary people will start being glad it exists. Revolutionaryluddite 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem, of course, is that Brit Hume isn't funded by the oil or energy industry. That's the problem with this article. It treats scientific skepticism with the same regard as ignorant "skepticism" so long as there is no connection with ExxonMobil et al., in which case it would be labeled "climate change denial." ~ UBeR 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brit Hume is an honest, responsible journalist; he's just reporting that some global warming skeptics, not 'deniers' as defined by this article, are doing what they can to combat the recent media blitz. I do agree that parts of this article are embarassingly POV. Revolutionaryluddite 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to get out of here for tonight, but I want to say "i love it!".  Kenosis is apparently in denial of Revolutionaryluddite's denial of Brit Hume's denail of denialsim of being denialistically accused of being in denial about responsible journalism.  Thankfully, the notion of "denial", like the notion of "pseudoscience", depends on denial of something a bit more specific than "I deny what that person said". Indeed the WP standard is a great deal more specific than the aforementioned [ (a) gobbledygook - (b) confusion - (c) revolutionary ludditism - (d) Kenosisism - (e) Brit-Humism - (f)  ______________ (enter a brief essay in the space provided or on an attached page) ] ... Kenosis 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News' Brit Hume in denial 

message: I don't see how the bit on Dick Cheney has to do with climate change denial. From the very definition within this article, "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," the idea that "'unwavering ideological positions' prioritizing economic over environmental interests" led to bad policy do not mesh.
I'm also curious how this article will differentiate between "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby," and plain misunderstanding and ignorance surrounding the topic. ~ UBeR 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are related, in that the former is designed to take advantage of and exacerbate the latter. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, are you referring to my second question, or Dick Cheney? I reckon "disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus . . ." can be used to take advantage and exacerbate misunderstanding and ignorance. But I what I was trying to get at was whether this article will argue that one who is ignorant of the subject is therefore a denier (by this articles definition), because I reckon one needs not to be paid by the oil industry to be confused. Of course, I'm still curious about Dick Cheney. ~ UBeR 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Cheney bit needs to be expanded to include information regarding his Energy Task Force and its link to Exxon et al. That will clarify the connection, I think. Benzocane 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what I get from that article is that the NEPDG met with several large energy companies, suggesting they might have influenced national energy policy. What I get from this article is that Cheney prioritizes economy over environment, which this article argues led to bad environment policy (or at least making the head of the EPA quit). What I don't see is the connection between that and climate change denial. It looks, to me, as if someone just put it in the article to make jabs. Still curious. ~ UBeR 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't speak to why the information was initially included, but assume good faith. If Cheney and/or others knowingly misrepresented scientific concensus -- that is, didn't disagree with the science per se, but misrepresented the agreement of the scientific community itself -- that would fall within the purview of the article independent of a connection to Exxon; but I think you're right, the connection should be clarified, as it exists and is well documented.Benzocane 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benzocane is right about expanding the article and clarifying the connection re: Energy Task Force.   I included mention of Cheney because of this passage from the Washington Post describing both his efforts to deregulate emissions and his portrayal of the science regarding anthropogenic carbon emissions and/or warming as remaining in a state of indecision:  "The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem." Cyrusc 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's precisely what led to my second question. How will this article differentiate between those who deceitfully spread "disinformation campaigns . . ." and those who might be confused on the issue but nonetheless espouse their ignorance. I cannot say whether or not Dick Cheney is the former or latter, but this article fails to make the connection between his prioritizing economics over economy and "climate change denial" as it is defined here. ~ UBeR 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Seems to be textbook WP:SYN. --Childhood's End 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added some information regarding the link between Cheney's environmental positions and the corporations funding disinformation. Could you explain why it makes a weaker case? Regardless, you ask an interesting question--there is a difference between dissenting from scientific consensus and misrepresenting that consensus. But what Cyrusc has made clear in the article is that Cheney's rhetoric regarding climate change science as being characterized by "conflicting viewpoints" or as existing in a state of indecision is a misrepresentation of the overwhelming consensus, no matter if he dissents from that consensus or not. That's what the article has to differentiate between -- dissent from consensus and the misrepresentation of consensus. Cyrusc does that effectively, I think, but you are right to emphasize the importance of the distinction.Benzocane 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you for your reply. I think the main argument in the NEPDG bit just recently added is that the energy industry influenced its decisions regarding the Kyoto Protocol. One problem here is that the Protocol is a political treaty that, regardless of one's view on climate change, can be dismissed as undesirable. Another problem is that I don't see Cheney making a disinformation campaign. Can one quote that he made ("Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem") really be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? Can Chaney's prioritization of economics over environment, i.e. a rational personal opinion, be considered a disinformation campaign fueled by the energy industry? This is what I'm concerned about. ~ UBeR 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are all smart questions. While this article is mainly about the corporate funded misinformation campaign, it covers any other misrepresentation of the consensus. You're right that one could oppose Kyoto on grounds that do not fall under the purview of the article, but what's relevant here is the link to Exxon. Re: misinformation vs. rational personal opinion: If Cheney were to say "the position of this administration is to dissent from the consensus," that would not be disinformation, but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public. The claim of the UCS etc. is that Cheney et al know dissenting from the consensus is not politically viable, and so they have denied it exists (which is not the same thing as dissenting from the science).Benzocane 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "but to deny the existence of the consensus is to misrepresent existing information to the public"  Are you hereby proposing that Richard Lindzen, John Christy or for that matter, all the scientists quoted in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming are misrepresenting existing information to the public? Who is the legitimate judge of what is the correct existing information regarding the existence of a consensus? --Childhood's End 13:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, the small minority of dissenting scientists admit there is general consensus, but they depart from it. They disagree with the conclusions of the majority of their peers, but they do not attempt to convince the public that majority doesn't exist.Benzocane 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, you must acknowledge that you are mistaken. Perhaps you did not know, but 'majority' and 'consensus' have different entries in every dictionnary (i.e. they're not synonyms). You may want to read  or  before claiming again that these scientists admit that there is general consensus. --Childhood's End 15:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CE, consensus doesn't mean unanimous - and the opinion of 2 or 20 doesn't budge a consensus consisting of thousands. --Kim D. Petersen 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose thousands? Got a list of names? And please dont mix up issues Kim. This article is not about the existence or not of a scientific consensus. The issue at hand is to determine whether we can legitimately call "misrepresenting existing information to the public" the fact of denying the existence of a consensus and/or of climate change. As of now, there are a few credible scientists who fall in the basket of making misrepresentations by this article, whereas this article awkwardly tries to support its existence by distinguishing the skeptical scientists' positions from some conspiring organizations' positions. --Childhood's End 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm... I have to acknowledge I'm mistaken about the existence of consensus when "the conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by...all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" (quoting Climate change controversy)? Even if -- no matter your reasons -- you want to dissent from that position, the consensus quite obviously exists. Kim is of course correct about the difference between consensus and unanimity. If the latter were the test, we couldn't speak of a consensus re: the roundness of the earth, etc.Benzocane 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand the difference between "majority" and "consensus" ? If so, please stop this non sequitur and revisit your previous post. As for quoting Wikipedia to support your view that a consensus exists, that might work here, but that would not fly too high before more serious instances. --Childhood's End 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't speak for Benzo, but I do; do you? You don't seem to... Nil Einne 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to re-read Benzocane's edit  before posting further such ridiculous rant. But I'd be curious... how do you define 'majority' and 'consensus'? --Childhood's End 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view can be mostly explained by reading Majority, Scientific consensus & Consensus. As stated, I can't speak for Benzocane. However given that you appear to deny there is a consensus when it comes to climate change, when as benzocane nearly said, even the extremely small minority of scientists who's view differs somewhat from the consensus view don't usually deny that it exists, it appears to me that you don't quite understand what a consensus is which was why I asked... It seems to me that if you are going to get all worked up about whether or not Benzocane understands the difference, you should at least understand it yourself first Nil Einne 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep ranting. As for myself, I acknowledge that you use WP articles to indicate your understanding in such matter. --Childhood's End 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Benzocane was arguing that since Cheney denied the existence of the consensus, he is guilty of misrepresenting existing information to the public. I'm trying to show him that if this is the case, Lindzen and other credible scientists would thus also be guilty of such blashpemy. The differenciation between denial and skepticism that this article attempts to make is just falling to pieces. --Childhood's End 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no reason for the Cheney section to remain in the article with the provided information.  There isn't anything there showing he allegedly denied anything, he just prioritized.  Saying he has been alleged of climate change denial when he has not (as defined) is probably a WP:BLP violation.  --Theblog 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit on Dick Cheney 

message: Since the category has survived deletion, is there an editorial consensus that 'climate change denial' should be considered 'denialism' like 'holocaust denial' and so listed? Revolutionaryluddite 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I see your point, but I'll go along with whatever the majority thinks. Revolutionaryluddite 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a majority of two is still a majority. Revolutionaryluddite 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Denialism Redux 

message: The article currently includes the quotes "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. [...] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." and "...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing." The Newsweek article that included these quotes argues that the American people oppose actions to mitgate global warming, and that the reason they do so is because of efforts by the 'denial machine'.
I included this paragraph:
::American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45% think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42% think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, even though 56% "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants".[37] A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64% would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research.[38] Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard." [39]
in response to Newsweek's claims to provide editorial balance. The paragraph may be too long, but I don't see how it can be called "irrelevant" if the Newsweek quotes are relevant. Revolutionaryluddite 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, the whole section is honestly a mess and needs a complete rewrite.  I will at least rename the section now while I think about it. --Theblog 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Newsweek article that this page is based on made the claims cited in this section. As much as I would like to have the whole section removed, these are their arguements and it makes no sense to list some of them in this page with ignoring other ones. Revolutionaryluddite 06:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Climate Change Denial (2) 

message: The section:
The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:
Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991-2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?"[28]
The source is a blog which violates WP:BLP find another source or delete it.  Additionally, the information doesn't even fit the definition of denial given in the article.  --Theblog 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Cheney' stuff has been debated earlier in the talk page. Personally, I agree with you that the section doesn't add much to the article and should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal experiance is that Wikipedians become extremely snippy when another user posts at the end of an earlier thread that's over two weeks old or so because they believe it's a underhanded trick to get the last word. Revolutionaryluddite 04:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh sorry, will repost below.  --Theblog 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Climate Science Watch a blog? It's part of GAP, it's a non-prof with institutional status, etc. How is this a violation of BLP? Revolutionaryluddite is correct--your edit strategy does risk coming across as underhanded. I AGF, but don't think this is the way to encourage that assumption.Benzocane 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a self published source, same thing according to WP:BLP.  Its pretty much in a blog format.  I also hereby notify everyone that I added a comment to the Cheney section above apparently falsely thinking that we didn't need new sections every 2 weeks.  I have since also added the comment and the Cheney quotes below for easier access and to clear up all questions of underhandedness.  Thank you both for your lessons on wikiedicate.  --Theblog 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From WP:BLP: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" --Theblog 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that it looks like "blog format" to you -- and how is this the case? You mean it's a web page? -- is hardly justification for deletion. Also, by what standard is this self-published? The regulations re: self-published materials have to do with an editor publishing a book out of his basement and citing it as a source, not an institution -- no matter what you think of its conclusions -- posting its research on a web page. Also, have you identified any inaccuracies in the quoted material?Benzocane 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its self published, the article itself doesn't list the author.  Why?  Because its one guy running the whole shebang, I quoted the relevant information from WP:BLP regarding self published sources which hold for institutions, it makes no distinction.  Regardless, in the actual article itself there is nothing that fits the definition of denial.  Perhaps you could point out where it is?  You are trying to prove he meets the following threshold: "Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data."  (Also not good is the editor trying to show this, instead of some other source saying this)  --Theblog 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing a partisan source with a self-published source. While care should be taken about information referenced to partisan sources - they are not covered under SPS. Whats your evidence for it being a "one guy runs the whole shebang" institute? As far as i can see its a legitimate think-tank/lobby group - surely partisan - but not an SPS. Why btw. are you invoking WP:BLP? This is not a biography of a living person page. (i presume you meant WP:SPS). --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If its not self published, why is there no author listed on the article?  --Theblog 05:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its important to keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to this section and we must follow it.  This section is not at all balanced, we have zero responses by the people in the article or people representing them.  --Theblog 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Talk:Climate_change_denial#Dick_Cheney. While the section is obviously unbalanced, I think that the GAP referance-- as a statement made a group of people-- should stay in the article. Wikipedia tends to use blogs quite a bit if they meet specific WP:BLP exceptions; see Real Climate. Revolutionaryluddite 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will take your word for it that the site is not self published.  I still believe there are issues with the entry as related above.  Real Climate does not meet WP:BLP in any way, but that is another issue.  --Theblog 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Real Climate does not meet WP:BLP in any way, but that is another issue." And all the air suddenly rushed out the room, and the other users slowly began to raise their heads to offer their jilted glaces at Theblog... Revolutionaryluddite 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Most institutions release statements or reports or news without primary authors. They're quoted all the time across Wikipedia and have nothing to do with BLP! Revolutionary, I share your sentiment about AGF.Benzocane 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeffrey Salmon 

message: The proposed sentence in Ben Hocking's sandbox "Several Op-Ed commentators have made the comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial,[6][7][8][9][10] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[1][2][3][4][5]" makes more sense compared to the sources than the current wording. Revolutionaryluddite 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer "Several Op-Ed commentators and environmental activists have equated 'climate denial' and 'climate denialism' with 'holocaust denial', [6][7][8][9][10] whereas others have decried those comparisons as hyperbolic and inappropriate. [1][2][3][4][5]" Revolutionaryluddite 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the section. Revolutionaryluddite 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invoking the C option 

message: I see that the recent changes to the intro removed any mention of Climate change denial being a form of denialism, which it is. In fact, it's one of the most notable forms of denialism currenty. Not only did the changes move mention of denialism out of the intro but out of the article altogether, reducing it a link in the See Also section. That simply will not do. The same changes also implied that the only climate change denialists were in industry, whereas in actuality governments and individuals are as well. Any accurate and complete article on the topic of Climate change denial is going to need to reference the aspect of denialism front and center. We've had trouble with OR and misrepresenting sources at the denialsim article from editor who made these changes to the article, so we're going to need to carefully review changes are made for accuracy and pov in the future. Odd nature 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd nature - its not white wash. Its keeping within the constraints of what the reliable sources (several) say. You may have a different opinion - and think that this is broader than this - but then you will have to come up with the equally reliable sources  that make the specific connection/widening of the subject that you think is correct (and from what i've glanced at references in denialism - that will take quite a bit of work). --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming Climate change denial is not a form of denialism? I've read the sources. Have you? Odd nature 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - i've read the sources. I've also noted that most of them are primary sources, Op-Ed's and self published sources. As a side-note: i would probably vote delete if an AfD came up about the denialism article as it currently stands, based on the article having no secondary sources to define the subject - and link the subjects. It seems to me to be WP:OR based upon a common word "denial". --Kim D. Petersen 06:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White wash attempt again 

message: Citations needed for the following two claims:
*the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy
*'climate change denial' usually refers to willful denialism
They are not supported by the four citations at the end of the intro. Iceage77 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the sources at Denialism and then read WP:NPOV Making necessary assumptions and tell us again that they are unsupported. Odd nature 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy: The section used to say "terms 'climate skeptic' and 'cimate contrarian'", and I changed it when reliable sources were presented indicating that the term 'contrarian' may have ambiguous meaning. I changed the inaccurate, POV-worded phrase "'climate change denial' usually refers to willful denialism" to "it has been accused of being a form of denialism". It has been by columists like this one  although none of the sources currently cited in the sentence right now does that. At the same time, I'm mindful of 'synthesis' and 'undue weight' here. I don't think the fact that some political activists have accused 'climate change denial' of being 'denialism just like holocaust denial' is particularly notable in the context of this article (It's important in the context of the denialism article). I think that the article as it is right now is a reasonable compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs needed 

message: This passage "Several Op-Ed commentators have argued that the 'denier' and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]" contained  7 sources allegedly supporting the intent to equate the former with the latter to its detriment. A careful reading of those source though reveals that all of the sources but two are being misused. Only one of the sources given, that of British conservative commentator Richard D. North, makes the claim on it's own that the term is intended to equate the two concepts in order to tar climate change denialists with the holocaust denial brush. Brendan O’Neill's article directly relies upon North for the issue:  Ellen Goodman makes the connection, but is mute on intent,  . While Dennis Prager's  article  is in response to Goodman's article but does not claim that "and 'denialist' terminology is intended to equate disagreement with the scientific consensus with holocaust denial." This source  added nothing new, and this one  was not even related. Again, these were inserted by the same editor we've had issues with misrepresenting sources at Denialism before, so more of the same. I've fixed the issue by attributing the views and placing them in the order they were made to preserve the statement/response relationships and removing the last two mentioned above. Odd nature 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has actually been discussed (and fixed) at least once before. I'm not sure how this version got back in there. See version C in my sandbox for a sourced version where the sentence agrees with the sources. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current content is a marked improvement over that. Your version in your sandbox fails to properly attribute the views to their holders or keep them in the order they were made to preserve the statement/response relationships and still gives undue weight to the view the term is nothing more than a smear. I can't support your version at all. Odd nature 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It attributes them in the best way possible without giving undue weight, IMO. Naming each contributor is unnecessary. Also, this was arrived at after at least a modicum of consensus. I don't think it should be removed without the same. I don't really feel that strongly about it, as I agree that most people aren't using it that way. However, our POV that the term is not meant to conjure images of the holocaust is just that — a POV, and one unsupported by any reliable sources, as far as I can tell. You also seem to be making a false attribution in your statement when you say "nothing more than a smear". To say that the term is meant to be a smear is not the same as saying it is nothing more than a smear. Do you honestly believe that the commentators who are saying that those who deny AGW are similar to those who deny the holocaust want you to believe that they're using this as only a smear?!? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attributing the views to who published them is central to understanding the notability and significance of each. In that respect alone odd nature's edits are a substantial improvement over both what was previously in the article and what you proposed for all the reasons he mentioned and one more: WP:UNDUE Your version gives undue weight to a minority view. Your version puts the partisan rhetoric of conservative radio pundit Dennis Prager on par with the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. That will never fly. FeloniousMonk 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted this again - i do not like the B/C version particularly either (see earlier discussions), but accept that there seems to be a consensus about either of those (or at least mentioning). I haven't yet in this seen an argument that addresses the WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR problems that we've discussed earlier, about such a section.  --Kim D. Petersen 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus never trumps NPOV, of which Undue Weight is a central value. Your version clearly violates Undue Weight because it give the views of conservative pundits Dennis Prager and Richard D. North more weight than that of the scientiifc community as described by pulitzer winning journalist Ellen Goodman. There. How's that? Care to rebut? FeloniousMonk 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - but Goodman is not an expert on climate change issues - and all of these are opinions of single persons. The question on WP:Undue_weight is not on who we focus, but rather whether all of these individual opinions are significant enough to get weight. What you are saying is that the opinion of Goodman is worth more than the opinion of Prager and North, which may be possible, but is serious POV. I'll state what i've said before: Unless we have a reliable secondary source that makes this connection, and expands upon it - we are in the area of original research, by taking opinions of individuals and make conclusions from it. --Kim D. Petersen 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that's a straw man you're ripping apart. Per WP:RS and WP:V Goodman doesn't need to be an "expert on climate change issues", as a journalist she only needs to accurately reflect the current scientific consensus, which she does, and which no one has offered any evidence that her article is out of step with. Odd nature 17:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And exactly how do you conclude that Goodman views on denial and holocaust accurately reflect the current scientific consensus? (Hint: the scientific consensus has nothing to do with whether or not the phrase "climate change denial" is connected to "holocaust denial"). --Kim D. Petersen 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feh. You're either intentionally ignoring the obvious point or just plum missed it altogether. In either case, the essential fact is that Goodman spends the preceding paragraph covering the level of scientific consensus for the human role in global warming.  Meaning the issue at hand is the degree to which climate change denialists ignore evidence, not that they are being tainted with guilt by association, which is the spin your little group here has been trying to make. Odd nature 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Goodman's correct information on one thing - doesn't make everything she says kosher or making her opinion worth more. You are simply applying your own opinion and POV here. Goodman's article is opinion (its an Op-Ed what did you think?). Finally - please tone down your incivility, attacking the editor is not civil. (incidentally i suspect that i'm mostly seen as being in "your little group", not in the "other little group"...). --Kim D. Petersen 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly you'd agree that the views of partisan pundits shouldn't be given the same weight as nonpartisan journalists? So, unless you have some evidence from someone other than a partisan pundit that Goodman is a partisan source, please explain to us all how is it that an opinion of a nonpartisan journalist like Goodman's that reflects the majority view (scientific consensus on cause of global warming) actually weighs the same as the minority view (naysayers of the scientific consensus on cause of global warming) such as Prager's, et al, who are partisan pundits? While your at it, please explain to us why the two views should not be attributed to their holders. Odd nature 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument fails when you call Goodman "non-partisan" - she is not acting in her capacity as a journalist here - she is acting here as an opinion writer, stating her own POV. Please read up on what an Op-Ed is and the difference between these and Journalism. --Kim D. Petersen 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am a journalist, and writing op-ed falls squarely within the bounds of traditional journalism, silly. Do you have any evidence that Goodman is partisan other than your personal opinion of what journalist do? Because without a notable and neutral source that she is as partisan as Prager, your opinion carries no water here. Odd nature 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Your version puts the partisan rhetoric of conservative radio pundit Dennis Prager on par with the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist." Yet, putting climate change denial and holocaust denial in the same category (denialism) is fine by you? My response to your assertion is the same as my response to assertions that the categorization is unfair: putting two things in the same sentence/category is not the same as saying they're "on par". (E.g., both George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler are in the category Time magazine Persons of the Year.) Just to be clear about something (that I think was lost in the previous discussion about this), I'm not thrilled with the assertion, either. We initially had version A (well, we initially had nada, but I assume you know what I mean), which satisfies your complaint about attribution (as I understand it), but results in increased weight. Then we had "B" which combined those making the comparison with those complaining about the comparison. I think version "C" has been fairly stable and uncontentious. It's a single sentence that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources. I find it hard to argue that a single sentence in a fairly large article is undue weight. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, your comment about Ellen Goodman being a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist seems at odd with your assertion that this single sentence represents undue weight. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the reasoned analysis of Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" So finally, comparing global warming deniers to holocaust deniers is a reasoned analysis. And even more reasoned I suppose is that Ellen Goodman, a non-scientist, actually asserted that global warming is impossible to deny (as if she knew for sure...). --Childhood's End 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Analysis of available credible evidence will always carry more weight than opinion. In this case that evidence being relied upon by Goodman being the consensus of the scientific community. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear — although CE might or might not believe that Goodman's POV reflects consensus, that is not at all what is currently stated in the article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version that has been added to the article still misrepresents sources, using them to support statements which they do not, and violates NPOV/Undue Weight by giving equal weight to the views of conservative pundits in relation to the consensus of the scientific community. As FM said, that will never fly. I'll have to fix it. Odd nature 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's primarily a matter of 'weight' given that the specific section is more or less a logical 'synthesis' based on several varied sources. I agree with Petersen that the sentence probably should not be in the article, but- in the spirit of compromise- the current phrasing Several commentators have made the comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial, [12][12][13][5][14][15] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[16][17][18][19][20] is best. Odd nature, do you have exact sourcing indicating that climate scientists themselves have made the 'climate denial' = 'holocaust denial' connection? Just among left-wing political activists, how many believe the connection exists and how many do not? Revolutionaryluddite 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a compromise. Unfortunately you're giving equal weight to partisan pundits like Prager and nonpartisan journalists like Goodman alike. Anything so flawed will be recognized for what it is by others and fixed eventually. Odd nature 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a compromise. Well, You Can't Always Get What You Want. Revolutionaryluddite 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you give me an example, because I'm not seeing where I've misrepresented sources. As for weight, I thought the primary claim by "our side" (once again, I'm going to point out that we're on the same side on this debate in general) was that there were actually more conservative pundits claiming that the comparison was being made than there were supporters of the scientific consensus actually making the comparison. Most of us on "our side" at least have made that claim. Do you disagree with that? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed in my first post that starts this section are the problems with the sources and how they are used, and they're still used in the article in the same manner the net effect is that nothing has changed. Odd nature 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to have to spell it out for me (us, whatever) explicitly,  article by article, why the sources do not support the statement they're linked to. I don't understand what your talking about. Your essential arguement seems to be that left-wing ideological Op-Ed columns are somewhow "non-partisan" while libertarian and/or conservative ideological Op-Ed columns are "partisan". Incidentally, I am completely "on your side" as you have put it if you consider yourself to be a 'climate change believer'. Revolutionaryluddite 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you won't find a shortage of editors willing to do that, given your record. FeloniousMonk 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respond to your post, but it has no logical connection with what I just typed. So... What exactly is your definition of 'partisanship'? Revolutionaryluddite 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Op-Ed commentators" 

message: [rm per NPA William M. Connolley 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your commitment to free speech. But anyways, you are wrong. The Goodman article is from February 9th, 2007. This Guardian article uses the term (in the headline, no less) on January 27th, 2005. Even quantum loops should not cause such a distortion of the time/space continuum. Here is another one from 2006, which references the Royal Society letter to Exxon, which also talks about "denial", although it does not use the exact term "Climate change denial". Or what about George Monbiot's 2005 comment on Bellamy?? "Climate change denial, as David Bellamy’s claims show, is based on pure hocus pocus". Several of these sources are already in the article. And, BTW, none of them suggests any analogy with Holocaust denial. It's ok to have strongly-held opinions and argue them passionately. But especially for a scientist, it is not acceptable to ignore facts. --Stephan Schulz 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The earliest reference uncovered so far is this 2001 op-ed piece by George Marshall. Whether his intent was to equate it to holocaust denial, he does essentially compare it:Firstly, we can expect widespread denial when the enormity and nature of the problem are so unprecedented that people have no cultural mechanisms for accepting them. In Beyond Judgment, Primo Levi, seeking to explain the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination, quotes an old German adage: ‘Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.’In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity. Indeed, the most powerful evidence of our denial is the failure to even recognize that there is a moral dimension with identifiable perpetrators and victims. The language of ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘human impacts’, and ‘adaptation’ are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse; they are scientific euphemisms that suggest that climate change originates in immutable natural forces rather than in a direct causal relationship with moral implications for the perpetrator. We don't necessarily know this is the earliest use of the term, and I'm quite certain that many notable people who use this term are not trying to make any such comparison, the term and the comparison appear to be about the same age. It should also be pointed out that George Marshall, in addition to being a conservationist, is also a co-founder of the American Jewish Committee. One could actually take that two different ways, depending on your bias: (1) He was merely drawing a comparison to something he was familiar with, and if he was trying to equate them he would have done so, or (2) He is very familiar with Holocaust denial and feels so strongly about Climate Change denial that he was still willing to make the comparison. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How is it that you can know her intent? FeloniousMonk 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense? --Childhood's End 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...usually isn't. --Stephan Schulz 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, troll much? Odd nature 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be fair, when she says "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers", it's not much of a stretch to say that her intent "was to put climate [denialists] on par with holocaust deniers". However, the rest of that sentence "and every single person who has used the term "denier" meant the very same thing" is patently false. (I say that as someone who has used the term and not meant the very same thing). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is meant by was "put climate [denialists] on par with holocaust deniers" would be ambiguous were it not for the fact that Goodman spend the preceding paragraph covering the level of scientific consensus for the human role in global warming.  Meaning the issue at hand is the degree to which climate change denialists ignore evidence, not that they are being tainted with guilt by association, which is the implication your group has been trying to stretch the source to fit (unsuccessfully). Odd nature 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, you mean the part where she says that "The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get." Funny how a statement that sounds to me so unscientific is brandished by global warming science supporters. Unless we should all know that there's a good 10% uncertainty with regard to gravity, evolution, AIDS and these things? Perhaps you should reconsider your view that this statement by Goodman really supports what you claim she meant instead of what Lumidek suggests... --Childhood's End 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go edit Scientific opinion on climate change and scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is what it is, or at least what the sources say it is from the Wikipedia editor perspective. Odd nature 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an Op-Ed column, not Chaucer. There's no literary meanings, interpretations. Goodman states that "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future" after reviewing the IPCC process and the consensus. She believes that 'Global warming is real', 'The fact that global warming is real is now so obvious as to impossible to deny', and 'It's so obvious that, in fact, people who dispute the IPCC's methodology and conclusions have the same kind of mental seperation with reality that holocaust deniers do'. As shown before on this talk page and in the article itself, the term 'climate change denial' has been used many times without mention of 'holocaust denial'. Of course, 'climate change denial' is still a pejorative neologism based on media allegations- allegations with substance, but still just allegations- and the article represents it as such. Revolutionaryluddite 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One man's "pejorative neologism" is another's apt description. That it's a pejorative neologism is itself a viewpoint. It comes down to attributing views and  giving them due weight based on their credibility and prominence, something the policies require and we'll need to be very careful about moving forward apparently. Odd nature 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One man's "pejorative neologism" is another's apt description. What makes you think I disagree? That it's a pejorative neologism is itself a viewpoint. I just typed that this page is based upon "media allegations- allegations with substance, but still just allegations- and the article represents it as such." I've posted repeatedly that I object to the inclusion of this section because I think that it violates (or comes close to violating) 'undue weight' and 'synthesis' policies. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (A) Odd nature, I've gone to great lengths to point out that this is not "my group". Either you're not reading what I'm writing or you don't believe me — I don't know which. I don't like the claim that the term "climate change denial" is meant to equate to "holocaust denial" any more than you do. However, I do believe in following Wikipedia policy, and I've explained how and why I am interpreting the policy the way I'm interpreting it. (B) It sounds like your complaint is one of ambiguity. How do you think the current sentence gives a false sense of what she's saying, and do you have any suggestions for improving it other than deleting it? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, I do believe in following Wikipedia policy..." As if I don't believe in following Wikipedia policy. Poison the well often? I simply do not agree with your interpretation of policy, and neither do several admins here and elsewhere, so I'm comfortable standing my ground. I've seen some clearly specious arguments and claims made around these topics, but I'm not going to force the issue. I'll continue to respect consensus, such as it is, and bide my time until the winds shift. Odd nature 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this "in my group"/"in your group" stuff come from? Most of the editors here explicitly believe in global warming. Revolutionaryluddite 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The "However" was meant as a contrast to the fact that the statements don't support my position and not as a contrast to your beliefs, Odd nature. I realize (now) that the comment could be taken the way you took it, however, and I apologize for not being more careful in choosing my words. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellen Goodman 

message: I object to the article's introduction with regard to how it introduces the idea of "denialism". No connection with "climate change denial" and "denialism" seems to be made by any source so far, and the Christoff article makes no reference to the so-concept of "denialism" (a web/newspaper buzzword).  I can easily see why some people want this article linked with the other, but WP:OR should prevail, or so I hope. --Childhood's End 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For once i agree ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. As far as the Christoff article goes, it seems to describe 'denialism' as an ideology although it never mentions the exact word 'denialism'. Assuming that, which is WP:OR or close to it, the article still has undue weight. I think that the sentence should not be included, but I also think that moving the sentence next to the 'holocuast denial' sentences (or single compound sentence, whatever) would be a reasonable compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Other than some weasel words, the intro is reasonably accurate and well sourced. Odd nature 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What weasel words? Also, the statement that 'climate change denial' has been linked to 'denialism' in the abstract sense doesn't have specific sourcing-- as I've pointed out. Revolutionaryluddite 05:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revolutionaryluddite, I see you've moved the sentence from the intro to another section. However, I still disagree that this sentence ought to be kept. As I mentioned, neither the Christoff article, nor any other source, seems to make the link between "climate change denial" and "denialism". Pending such a link is made, I think that this sentence should be removed. --Childhood's End 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sentence should be removed since there's no specific soucing, but the page as it is right now is a good compromise. Revolutionaryluddite 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can hardly be a good compromise that does not comply with WP:OR... ;)  I'll remove the sentence. --Childhood's End 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sources have been provided that explicitly link 'climate change denial' with 'denialism'. I moved the sentence back to the appropriate section after Oddnature reinstated it. While I really think the sentence should not be in the article becuase it violates or comes close to violating WP:OR, I recognize that "a good compromise leaves everybody mad". Revolutionaryluddite 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing denialism in the introduction 

message: The introduction is POV, more precisely it is composed of lies, and the sources 1,2,3,4 that are used to support the outrageous attacks against climate skeptics mentioned in the introduction are not at the level that would be tolerable by the Wikipedian standards [removed per NPA William M. Connolley 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd watch your language there Lumidek, that's not very helpful or constructive.  Regarding climate skeptics, the introduction makes a very clear distinction between them and climate denialists (i.e. they are not the same).  Are you suggesting that all ostensible "climate skeptics" really are climate skeptics, and there is no such thing as a climate denialist?  Or am I missing something?  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded William M. Connolley 10:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Plumbago and William M. Connolley. Lumidek's changes to this page have from the beginning flirted with vandalism.  See Cyrusc's very measured post above requesting encyclopedic sourcing and argumentation in the face of Lumidek's rhetoric (""it is composed of lies," etc.).Benzocane 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The introduction seems like the most concise and NPOV section of the article, especially compared to the "Alleged instances of climate change denial" section. The introduction used phrases like "when those involved are believed to", "While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions", "'climate change denial' usually refers to", and "campaigns alleged to be" to make it clear that the existence of 'climate change denial' is based on allegations made by specific reliable sources. Revolutionaryluddite 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to need to review all the sources to ensure that they support the content forward. We've already found significant issues with sources being misused to support content they do not, so I'm reading each and every one against the content its intended to support. Any that do not will be moved from the article to here for discussion. Odd nature 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not delete entire sentences and paragraphs wholesale without giving detailed explanations on the talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong sources 1,2,3,4 

message: The References section needs editing for clarity, text size, proper attribution of dates, and several other things. Revolutionaryluddite 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References