Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 4

message: ===Proposal 1===
We could change the sentence to read: "Newsweek and others in the media describe those that engage in climate change denial as denialists." That would arguably be more accurate, as the word denialist is being used more often than denialism. Those who are arguing that the exact word denialism isn't used in those sources should be pleased since the word denialist is being used. Those who are arguing that denialist implies denialism should be pleased because we're using a word that implies the word they want to include. I realize that no optimism is warranted in trying to make peace here, but can those who agree or disagree with this compromise please state where they fall and why?
#Agree — For the reasons I gave above. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The term 'denialism' is clearly used in Newsweek, The Truth About Denial: "Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."" Look again. Odd nature 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, where "clearly used in Newsweek" actually means "clearly used in a quote found in Newsweek" --Childhood's End 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking one example. Exactly how is Newsweek, The Truth About Denial: "Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."" "extremely weak"? Odd nature 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to bold face your comments - i can read. You are using the article to quote a single persons view. Its not the Newsweek article that you are relying on - its the opinion of Manik Roy. An opinion of a single person is extremely weak as a reference. --Kim D. Petersen 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that this opinion is "extremely weak as a reference". Since Manik Roy is the Director of Congressional Affairs of the Pew Center on Climate Change, Roy's opinion is significant and notable by necessity. Amazing. This viewpoint has long met Wikipedia's standards for verifiablity. What possible objection to mentioning it in the article could you have? Odd nature 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had he been the leader of the world bank - it would have been just as weak a reference. It is a single persons view - that the person has credentials do not make it more than one person. --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ...from an article article entitled "Climate denial has had its day", published in a major national newspaper could possibly be construed as not supporting the phrase: "Media sources and others have descibed it as a form of denialism". Very, very curious indeed. ornis (t) 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use that reference to say "John Quiggin has described it as denialism". Its the viewpoint of JQ - not the viewpoint of "media sources or others". Why the views of JQ should be specifically interesting is something that eludes me. (but the funny thing here is that i quite agree with JQ on the viewpoint itself, but am sufficiently interested in encyclopaedic content, that i also know that discussion is about presenting things out of proportion and according to POV - something which i do disagree about.). --Kim D. Petersen 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, John Quiggin is a fellow Wikipedian, although y'all might have already known that. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to confuse matters, I decided a little after writing this piece to switch to the term "delusionism" .JQ 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Such votes are not binding. Decisions must be taken on merit, not on the number of votes, and support for this proposal has no ground whatsoever except ILIKEIT. --Childhood's End 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my presonal experience with WP to date, the use of the words "not a vote" by a minority seeking to overtake a majority view is only exceeded in its predictability by Godwin's law. ... Kenosis 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I agree. Although I disagree with the majority, it really isn't that important of an issue. Could we at least spell "describe" right, though? It's been bothering me ever since this page was locked. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and just to be picky (because I'm that kind of guy), it's actually at least 6 (7, if you include William) who oppose it. I base this on the votes for proposal 3 which is in direct conflict with proposal 2. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt at compromise 

message: We could change the sentence to read: "Newsweek and others in the media describe those that engage in climate change denial as denialists." That would arguably be more accurate, as the word denialist is being used more often than denialism. Those who are arguing that the exact word denialism isn't used in those sources should be pleased since the word denialist is being used. Those who are arguing that denialist implies denialism should be pleased because we're using a word that implies the word they want to include. I realize that no optimism is warranted in trying to make peace here, but can those who agree or disagree with this compromise please state where they fall and why?
#Agree — For the reasons I gave above. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The term 'denialism' is clearly used in Newsweek, The Truth About Denial: "Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."" Look again. Odd nature 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, where "clearly used in Newsweek" actually means "clearly used in a quote found in Newsweek" --Childhood's End 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking one example. Exactly how is Newsweek, The Truth About Denial: "Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."" "extremely weak"? Odd nature 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to bold face your comments - i can read. You are using the article to quote a single persons view. Its not the Newsweek article that you are relying on - its the opinion of Manik Roy. An opinion of a single person is extremely weak as a reference. --Kim D. Petersen 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that this opinion is "extremely weak as a reference". Since Manik Roy is the Director of Congressional Affairs of the Pew Center on Climate Change, Roy's opinion is significant and notable by necessity. Amazing. This viewpoint has long met Wikipedia's standards for verifiablity. What possible objection to mentioning it in the article could you have? Odd nature 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had he been the leader of the world bank - it would have been just as weak a reference. It is a single persons view - that the person has credentials do not make it more than one person. --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1

message: We have no shortage of sources from the media, politicians, scientists and consumer advocates now that see climate change denialism as a form of denialism. So I suggest:
 
Using these supporting sources:
*Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day
*Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The Media
*Newsweek, The Truth About Denial
*The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth
*Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort
#First choice. Odd nature 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...from an article article entitled "Climate denial has had its day", published in a major national newspaper could possibly be construed as not supporting the phrase: "Media sources and others have descibed it as a form of denialism". Very, very curious indeed. ornis (t) 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use that reference to say "John Quiggin has described it as denialism". Its the viewpoint of JQ - not the viewpoint of "media sources or others". Why the views of JQ should be specifically interesting is something that eludes me. (but the funny thing here is that i quite agree with JQ on the viewpoint itself, but am sufficiently interested in encyclopaedic content, that i also know that discussion is about presenting things out of proportion and according to POV - something which i do disagree about.). --Kim D. Petersen 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, John Quiggin is a fellow Wikipedian, although y'all might have already known that. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to confuse matters, I decided a little after writing this piece to switch to the term "delusionism" .JQ 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Such votes are not binding. Decisions must be taken on merit, not on the number of votes, and support for this proposal has no ground whatsoever except ILIKEIT. --Childhood's End 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my presonal experience with WP to date, the use of the words "not a vote" by a minority seeking to overtake a majority view is only exceeded in its predictability by Godwin's law. ... Kenosis 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I agree. Although I disagree with the majority, it really isn't that important of an issue. Could we at least spell "describe" right, though? It's been bothering me ever since this page was locked. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and just to be picky (because I'm that kind of guy), it's actually at least 6 (7, if you include William) who oppose it. I base this on the votes for proposal 3 which is in direct conflict with proposal 2. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: Remove the sentence altogether. Although there are a couple who will argue about whether or not climate change denial is a form of denialism, many of us see that statement as a truism that has no place in the article — proposal 1 is inaccurate (as stated by many), and proposal 2 is also slightly inaccurate (I'm not sure exactly which media sources state it instead of just reporting that others have stated it) and vague ("others"?). In all, although many have argued why it's true, no one (that I can tell) has argued why it's helpful.
#Support — for the reasons I gave above. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3