Talk:Climate change denial

Smithsonian Institution and Koch Brothers

I don't have time to work on this, but blogger Joe Romm has been writing about what he says is the Koch Brothers' ties to the Smithsonian Institution, and a Koch-funded ancient climate change exhibit that, allegedly, is designed to impact museum-goers' unconscious assessment of current climate risk. Thought someone might want to follow up on this by (of course) first looking for supporting RSs. For background, Romm's posts are

• Smithsonian Stands By Wildly Misleading Climate Change Exhibit Paid For By Kochs
• scientists-urge-museums-drop-koch-money

I don't see anything at Smithsonian Institution or its talk page.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are Skepticism and Denial interchangeable

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

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

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

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

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

Rebranding initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's worth exposing, if it is happening.

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

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

Claim in lead: $120 million over eight years

According to this article in Scientific American,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations

Regarding this - it's called investigative journalism.

• "Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes."
• "Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organisations working to discredit climate science or block climate action. Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground."

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

President Obama's Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial

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

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

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

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

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

Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument after the fact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skepticism = denial? Appears to be NPOV violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relationship of climate skepticism to global warming denial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuum?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any objections to my distillation so far?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunlap 2013

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

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

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

will convince them of the reality of AGW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disguise

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fraud Attribution

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

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

Two aspects in the lead

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

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

Applies to both

especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

Applies to the denial machinery

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

Applies to public climate change skepticism

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

Applies to the denial machinery

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

Applies to both.

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

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

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

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

e/c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding, and I'm working on it, is that uninformed members of the public who don't know the scientific consensus and are asking for information can reasonably be described as sceptical, but I've not seem them described as "climate change skeptics". Note that it's a standard denial tactic to say they're just "questioning the science" when they're actually dog-whistling. For example, "But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the temperature record?" then, after taking photos of surface sstations, jumping to the conclusion that "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.[6] Good sources describe this as denial. . dave souza, talk 09:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deniers are not Skeptics - CSI

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

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

NPOV problem in lede, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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