Talk:Climate change denial

Merge with Global warming controversy article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was keep. -- ► RATEL ◄ 05:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

---

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Global warming controversy. I support this sugguestion. this page would do well to be included as a component of the Global warming controversy.--Zeeboid (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Zeeboid, could you please present your rationale for the merge? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree There can be no rationale, the Global warming controversy page is 122 kilobytes long and this page is 41 kilobytes long. One page is about the history of some attempts to disprove the scientific basis of AGW over the years (which have now amounted to very little), this one is about political lobbying, big business and legal matters. One is about a scientific controversy that eventually reached consensus, the other about corruption and politicking. Two different subjects. The practice in WP for big and growing issues is to split off detailed articles on sub-topics, not merge them into 160 kilobyte behemoths. --Nigelj (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead there should be a page spicific to political lobbying, big business, legal matters, corruption and politicking in reguards to the AGW believers. Climate Change Fraud for example--Zeeboid (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead, and see what you can come up with. --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ClimateGate? Although, it should be pointed out that the estimated global warming through 2100 hasn't changed significantly this decade, and it was clear to any rational observer that, as of 2001, the data and climate models did not support significant global warming. I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But i'm not surprised that you haven't got a science source for that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did, but it's been retracted, apparently not for legitimate reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. You are too quick to lable discenting opinion as "deniers" -likening them to holocaust denial. There are also some factual errors in thie page; beginning with the premise that the hypothesis (and that is ALL it is) has the support of every major scientific body with NO DISCENTING view ever being given. Wrong. THE IPCC report has been disavowed by numerous climate scientists. I suggest you start your research by looking up James Hogan's "kicking the sacred cow" and then moving into science. Especially given the leaked CRU data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.9.215 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge — This is a significant and terrifically important subject all on its own, and should never be downgraded through merging with any other topic. Dreadful idea. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Grumble. Bad faith claims of global warming or global cooling should be separated from legitimate disputes. However, not all the entities named here may fit. (I just corrected the merge templates. I didn't necessarily consider it a good idea.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. No rationale given other than "i don't like it" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Note that Global warming skeptics is a redirect to Global warming controversy. This one is not... because... well, there is no logical reason why it is not treated the same as Global warming skeptics. Since there is no logical reason, there must be an illogical one, and that reason is to push a POV. This article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Wikipedia's voice, supported by supporters of that POV. • Ling.Nut 04:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "This article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Wikipedia's voice, supported by supporters of that POV." - Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be merged to anything, shouldn't it be upmerged to its parent article, denialism? After all, this simply discusses a specific case of that larger phenomenon. The whole "global warming skeptics" seems like a bit of a red herring - that phenomenon isn't a subset of skepticism, it's a brand name that unites denialist with contratrians and curmudgeons. One could write an article about that, but it would lack focus and coherence. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2009

• The point of this article is to say potty words about people who are skeptical about AGW. basically the article quotes many folks who likewise say potty words about skeptics. Where's the beef? No substance, just blah blah blah you're a denialist. OTOH, the confirmation of wrongdoing on the part of CRU is pretty much all out there. This whole article can be blanked and replaced with "Bush Lied People Died" or somesuch, and it wouldn't really reduce the article's factual content. • Ling.Nut 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You really should (a) familiarise yourself with the topic (I take it you're unfamiliar with the phenomenon of denialism?) and (b) stop engaging in attacks against living people, in violation of our BLP policy. In addition, you seem to be imputing ill motive to your fellow editors - you seem to be skirting very close to violating our policy on personal attacks. You're usually a responsible editor, and I'm quite taken aback at this. Have you considered the possibility that you're too personally worked up about this issue? Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• YES, POV problems, now & forever. Dodgy sources, especially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece, cited 9(!!)) times. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "[E]specially the notoriously POV Newseeek piece". Um, Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW, are you sure you posted in the right section? "POV problems" ≠ merge. Not normally. Guettarda (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this would be a POV renaming. This name is used by world leaders, the popular press, and the scientific press. Changing the name would be pandering to a fringe group. This is an interesting subject in its own right (denial, rather than disagreement). Verbal chat 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• The whole article is POV. Not kinda POV. Very POV. Forex, the quote about the Supreme Court "rebuking" the Bush administration. Sure, it's a word-for-word WaPo (liberal publication) quote. But it is presented as unadorned fact. I think it's not uncommon for the SCOTUS to disagree with Administration policy; to call that a "rebuke" is editorialism. The quote should be completely removed. I would do it, but y'all would revert me. Let's not pretend you wouldn't. You would say the quote is sourced, which it is, but you would neglect the fact that the quote is not literally true. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone. Meanwhile, we have Monbiot and Mother Jones listed as reliable sources. Mother Jones? While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill? And the Private Sector section lists AEI funding as denialism. That whole paragraph is one more thing that should be deleted, since all it establishes is that someone disagrees with your POV, and is willing to fund research to probe the relevant issues... is that denialism? Only from your POV. You see denialism, I see someone offering to fund legitimate research. Who says it's denialism? Aside from Monbiot and Mother Jones.. well.. you say it is. But the fact that you and Monbiot and Mother Jones all agree with one another doesn't establish any kind of wrongdoing. Forex, you also have a cite that shows that many AEI folks were Bush administrations folks. And... so... what? Essentially, you're saying, "Look, look, they're Bushies!!! BusHitlerExxon! That Effing Proves that they are denialists!" What is this? Is this evidence of wrongdoing? is this evidence of anything at all? No. And that is a key point. As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications accusing folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None. That's why this article is POV. Deny that. • Ling.Nut 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, let's see. "[Y]ou would neglect the fact that the quote is not literally true. SCOTUS did not rebuke anyone". So you are arguing that your analysis should replace reporting of the Washington Post? And that's consistent with our content policies in what way? Mother Jones is a reliable source. You have any evidence to the contrary? Certainly it's more reliable than the Weekly Standard, which you recently quoted as a reliable source. "While we're at it, where's Ward Churchill?" Much like the Weekly Standard, I don't think he's the sort of source we'd want in this article. Reliable sources are much better. "[Y]ou have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing". Hmmm...I seem to recall something about Wikipedia being about verifiability, not truth. "No proof. None." Yep, just like there's "no proof" that Obama is an American citizen.

    We have notable, verifiable information. About a well-known, notable topic that's documented by reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with a topic, the onus is on you to educate yourself about it before expressing an opinion. Guettarda (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Merge, this article is very POV, as much as the leftist editors do not want to admit it. I opposed this article a year ago, and am shocked to see it is still here. Even the title "Climate Change Denial" implies that it is some sort of disease or something, and that it goes against scientific consensus. WIKIPEEDIO 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Which it does (denial of the facts does go against overwhelming scientific consensus). Just read the lede to Scientific consensus on global warming. There's nothing 'leftist' about this. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. This article should not be merged into Global warming controversy, as too many issues would be conflated, and this would not help us improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand the point of view concerns about this article need to be addressed, even if they are overstated, and the POV tag should not be removed while concerns are ongoing. At the moment, this article wears a point of view on its sleeve, and even its title may need further thought. The best service articles like this can do for Wikipedia—and the climate change issue—is to be scrupulous in their impartiality, to describe and not engage in disputes, and to trust the reader to come to their own informed judgment. This article does not achieve this goal at present and I am willing to comment further on where it fails and how to improve it in due course. Geometry guy 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - IDONTLIKEIT is not a merge rationale. Nor are long (or short) rants against 'liberals' and 'leftists'. And verifiability, not TRUTH, is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The POV stuff is in the right section, or the merge stuff could be in the POV section as well. That is, if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged. And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial. You know as well as I do that presenting it unadorned (as it is) creates the impression that SCOTUS actually and literally scolded someone. You know as well as I do this is dishonest and POV. Does WP:NPOV mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of WP:5P • Ling.Nut 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You do, I hope, realise that there have been other attempts to delete or merge this article in the past, and they failed. One is reminded of Don Quixote. ► RATEL ◄ 00:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Piffle. Let's rmv all the POV. Then we can merge the remaining two paragraphs.
• This article takes as its starting premise the presumption that AGW is TRUTH^TM, then says, "...and anyone who disagrees is engaging in denialism". Its very premise is POV. From there, its structure looks like a melange of half-truths, circular reasoning, guilt by association and other examples of fatally flawed logic. We'll have to go through it sentence by sentence and rmv all the nil content. Then we can merge.
• I have listed a few starting concerns above. Please address them. Note that I have already stated that WP:NPOV trumps the rather lame "Wikipedia is about verifiability" associated with the SCOTUS quote. I will delete that quote about two hours from now... • Ling.Nut 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a scientific consensus in the world that AGW is occurring, no matter what you may think. Therefore, people who disagree with the concept are ipso facto deniers of AGW, and fall into much the same category as deniers of evolution. See wp:FRINGE. ► RATEL ◄ 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote a friend of mine, "Bzzt. try again." There may be a consensus that global warming is occurring.. though even that is crumbling... but there is not a consensus that it is anthropogenic. I listed a few starting concerns above. 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Nut, perhaps it would help if you knew what you were talking about. A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. ► RATEL ◄ 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I really don't think Ling.Nut is seriously making a classic climate change denialist argument to argue against climate change denialism. His whole argument here has obviously been poking fun at the denialists. Good one, Ling.Nut. You had me fooled. Seriously though - this is a bit POINTy, don't you think? Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "if this article were stripped of its circular logic, guilt by association, and other nil content, and boiled down to meaningful content, the remainder would be approx. two paragraphs long. It could then quite easily be merged." Your hyperbole aside, {{cleanup}} isn't a merge rationale. Nor is {{expand}}.

  "And as for "verifiability, not truth" -- for shame! You know as well as I do that the WaPo quote is purely editorial." You appear to be conflating these two. Not sure why. You wrote: "As I have said repeatedly: You have liberal publications accusing folks of denialism; you have absolutely no stinking proof of wrongdoing. No proof. None." You're using truth claims (or rather, TRUTH claims) as the basis for your argument. But, as you well know, we work on a standard of "verifiability, not truth" specifically because of TRUTH claims like yours, which, it would appear, are predicated on the assertion that anything coming out of "liberal publications" cannot be "true". It saddens me to see you argue against WP:V.

  But you save the best for last, don't you? "Does WP:NPOV mean nothing at all? I thought it was one of WP:5P". And that after you have argued against the first line of WP:V. Though they aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I am tempted by terms such as "broken irony meter" and "lulz". Thanks for the laughs, Ling.Nut. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let's cut to the chase. Aside from simple distortion/misrepresentation of facts (as in the quote I just rmv'd), what this article does is present an extremely excellent job of verifying that the media and other biased commentators have repeatedly accused folks of denialism. What it does not do is show that denialism has taken place, after providing a meaningful definition of denialism. Moreover, what this thread does not do is... you know.. actually look at the text of the article. Wouldn't that be like a good idea, in theory? • Ling.Nut 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Come on, Ling.Nut. You good as admitted your position is a parody in response to Ratel. I admitted you had me fooled. It was a good joke, but now you're taking it too far. You're not Stephen Colbert. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Given previous (failed) efforts, this all seems rather POINTy. I did get a good laugh from "I don't have a source for that, but it really was clear at the time", though. --PLUMBAGO 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the laugh too. You looking to get another fish in the face? 99.54.138.153 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. See WP:Summary and the article length. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This topic is notable separately from Global Warming Controversy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not parodying anything. You can't keep the SCOTUS quote, because WP:V doesn't warrant taking a purely editorial assertion and framing it as an unadorned assertion of fact, using Wikipedia's voice. Please do not abuse WP:V to support your POV. You can't keep the AEI stuff because, basically, it uses fallacious logic. It states: AEI funds research that runs counter to the AGW POV. Former Bush administration folks work for AEI. Boxer says there's a denialist conspiracy of some sort. BEHOLD: connect the dots, all Bushies are denialists, all AEI folks are part of a denialist conspiracy, etc. Really, THERE IS NO CONNECTION between the statements you have strung together and the conclusions they leave unstated. • Ling.Nut 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose merge Very bad idea. That article is for the generic discussion of issues related to global warming, this article is for the discussion of very specific incident. Not enough overlap to justify a merge.Sorry, misread the proposal, will try again.--SPhilbrickT 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge This article purports to be about those who deny reality dishonestly, while the global warming article covers a much broader range of issues, including those who honestly question some aspects of the issue. Whether this article should be in W is a separate question, but the other article belongs, so this article should not be used to poison that one.--SPhilbrickT 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Merge Note that Global warming skeptics is a redirect to Global warming controversy. There is no logical reason why it is not treated the same as Global warming skeptics. I agree that this article is, quite simply, a POV position taken using Wikipedia's voice, supported by supporters of that POV. = Brittainia (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This is a valid article which stands on its own merits. If anything, Global warming controversy should be moved or renamed. StuartH (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge. Climate change denial is a valid part of the conroversy between global warming is real/no, it's fake. I support the merge wholeheartedly.

I made a username! Aren't I smart? 05:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge This article currently is a splendid example of a single-sided POV article in esse. Collect (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The terms in question have an established basis in literature and usage. Also see discussion about merging huge articles.Airborne84 (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge or create an article entitled "Climate change hoax" to balance if you seriously think being this POV is alright. --π! 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Global warming controversy is a very long article, and climate change denial is only one small part of the topic. It's a separate issue, and certainly notable enough to deserve its own article. 'Climate change denial' is a neutral term, being widely used in both the scientific literature and the general media. Robofish (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge on the basis that the "denialist" term is a derogatory term used by the climate change "believers" or "warmists". Both are not neutral POV. Alternatively, create a counterbalanced article on "warmists". Note that "skeptic" is a term happily owned by those who are skeptical and is more neutral than "denialist". Alternatively then, rename the denialist article as "skeptic" --Blouis79 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge Essentially for the reasons given by Blouis79 above. Climate change denial is a intentionally derogatory term used to discredit skeptics and liken them to 'holocaust deniers' or ' evolution deniers'. Unlike to two aforementioned subjects there is an ongoing debate involving many respectable climate scientists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge if Climate change scepticism is to redirect, then certainly Climate change denial should also redirect. To do otherwise would be a clear and blatant WP:NPOV violation.jheiv (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

bold;">π!]] 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The article, as is, demonstrates a NPOV. The merge would alter this for the worse.

98.216.186.55 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge It takes little review of the media and recent books to establish that "climate change denialism" has become a common and notable concept and term; this is true whether one believes it's a "fair and honest" characterization or a "negative smear" - those judgements are not for our editors to make, we are only reporting the documented aspects of the culture, not "correcting" or "endorsing" the fairness or accuracy of such naming. However the article could be retitled to something about "non-scientific biases to climate change science" (with redirections from both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax"), and could seek a more objective reporting of the charges of bias from both sides. To achieve a NPOV it needs to stand outside that debate, and only report the documented cultural phenomenon, not try to "win" the framing fight for either side. If this article is broadened in that way, it will justify being a separate article from the science based ones - the (alleged and often believed) non-scientific part of the climate change controversy. The terminology part is not unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - we can only report the framings that have in fact achieved cultural impact and notablity, not decide which terms *should* be used or suppressed as accurate or inaccurate. In that context, both "climate change denialism" and "climate change hoax" have become widespread and influential terms and concepts, both alleging non-scientific biases are distorting the truth. The perjorative adjective and the opinion that that term "intends" to analogize to holocaust denialism should also be changed to an attributable assertion of some of the contending parties, not stated as a simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph93 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Both articles have enough content for standalone article. Both articles are notable topics. Both articles are on a specific topic, although there is some overlap (as there is with every single article on WP). Climate change denial is about denial of climate change and it is the process of the denail that is part of the Global warming controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Propose to close as "no consensus" - this has been under discussion for a month now, and without getting into the merits of all the arguments (a judgment call that many would no doubt disagree with) there just doesn't seem to be a consensus developing either way. My own two cents is that this should be a distinct article given its notability and considerable importance in contemporary politics, but it would be a WP:WEIGHT problem to add it all to the main climate change article. I haven't read it thoroughly so I don't have an opinion as to whether it is POV, but if it is the place to fix that is here. Moving the material elsewhere won't reduce any problems with POV or editing disagreements, it will probably make them worse. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge and believe this discussion should be closed. A consensus has been reached by the majority: Oppose. I would however not be opposed to this being renamed "Climate Change Truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.3.50 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge for reasons adequately stated above. Airborne84 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I believe this article should be merged to Climate change consensus instead. The Global warming controversy article is mainly about the science whereas climate change consensus is about the bodies fighting over the consensus on the science with very little actual science involved, and that is what this article is about mainly as far as I can see. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge climate change denial is a specific subject in its own right. It is distinguished from scepticism/controversy as denialism rejects facts and logical arguments, but scepticism/controversy does not. As a subject, climate change denialism is sufficiently important to merit a separate article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge This article should not be merged into Global warming controversy. There are enough notable contexts in which the term "climate change denial" have been used that seem unique to that term, and this nuance would be lost by merging it. In other words, the term itself is notable separate from Global warming controversy. Zoomwsu (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesse Ventura

Is former governor Jesse Ventura a "denier" or a "skeptic"? Here's an example of why the term "denier" is problematic:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YCR9tClX8I

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3arkEld7I

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3arkEld7I

According to this TV show episode, oil companies even encourage Cap and Trade and other financial instruments that were invented to support the climate change financial agenda (which a bit contradics the ExxonMobil argument). John Hyams (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above 4 videos most likely belong in Global warming conspiracy theory, since that is just about the most describing term for them. I especially enjoyed the section on the scientist gone underground.... Who anyone with a bit of interest in sceptics, would immediately recognize as Tim Ball - who most definitively isn't "underground". Has nothing to do here (or really at GWCT), unless secondary reliable sources call Ventura a "denier" (or a gwct). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but is there a difference between climate change conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers? Is Tim Ball a denier? Or is he a scientist who just opposes the mainstream view? Is Jesse Ventura's show considered a denial campaign? That's my point. It's very difficult to define what a denier is, which leads me to question whether the definition of a denier is accurate. It's very easy to tag people as deniers, when in effect they raise doubts or claim for fruad/neglegence/agenda with regards to the IPCC (which is a political body, not a scientific body). John Hyams (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to define who is or isn't a denier, that is something that we leave to secondary reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not up to us regarding who but it is up to the article to define what a climate change denier is (as discussed above). John Hyams (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) Responding to some points above:

• "contradics the ExxonMobil argument" - ExxonMobil is a vast corporation. Even individuals can behave inconsistently or hypocritically, e.g. Tiger Woods marketing his wholesome image while indulging in multiple affairs. How much more, then, might a large corporation employing tens of thousands of people around the world have different units pursuing conflicting strategies. In some cases, the apparent conflict might be a hedging strategy - back every horse so the eventual winner owes you something. ExxonMobil might also have changed its strategy over time, as more people in the company began to realize the science was not coming down on their side. If global warming is real, might as well try to profit in the new environment. The oil industry has long experience with difficult business environments.
• "difference between climate change conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers" - climatology is a complex science, and there are many separate details of the current IPCC position which a person might reject. As far as I can see, virtually no serious climatologists question the basic physics of the Greenhouse effect, nor the fact that humans are adding to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's very hard to find a qualified scientist who denies that humans are currently changing the climate. The relatively few qualified scientists who disagree substantially with the IPCC (Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc.) all seem to acknowledge humans are changing the climate by burning fossil fuels and chopping down forests. They differ with the IPCC on the direction and magnitude of climate feedbacks, i.e. the Climate sensitivity. This is in contrast to the legion of scientifically illiterate people who flood the Internet with complete nonsense on climate change. My personal working definition for "climate change denier" is someone who says there is no greenhouse effect. That is a scientific error on par with geocentrism. By that measure, Richard Lindzen is not a climate change denier. Of course, my personal definition has no bearing on Wikipedia's definition (WP:NOR).
• "the IPCC ... is ... not a scientific body" - what is the source for this claim? The first sentence in our Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article says:
  • "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity."
• "not up to us to define who is or isn't a denier" - the Global warming controversy is much newer than the Creation–evolution controversy, so the scientific and journalistic establishments haven't had as much time to document and label all the various flavors of organized and spontaneous opposition to the mainstream science position. In the creation-evolution controversy, scientists have found it is not sufficient merely to construct a position and present the evidence for it. They must also respond specifically to the arguments against the scientific position. In the creation-evolution controversy, scientists have often appeared to lose public debates with creationists, as the latter are skilled at constructing subtly fallacious arguments that sway audiences who haven't been trained to think critically, and the tricky arguments may be difficult for scientists to refute convincingly on first hearing. It is relatively easy for a skilled rhetorician to raise doubts about a complex topic in the minds of laypeople. So there has emerged a separate class of scientists who confront creationsts, and journalists who document and categorize all the players. The global warming controversy is much earlier in this process. The IPCC presents the evidence, but hasn't gone around playing Whac-a-Mole against the legitimate and specious counter-arguments that spring up. Thus on Wikipedia we may have to wait a bit, until climate change gets more people who function analogously to people like Eugenie Scott and Kenneth R. Miller in the evolution debate. There is also the possibility that dissenting scientists and politicians will change their minds as evidence for global warming accumulates. If the IPCC turns out to be substantially correct, then eventually there will be no almost no climate change deniers. I suspect an important psychological barrier will be broken during the first ice-free summer in the Arctic Ocean. Almost certainly by then people will have much better data for quantifying climate sensitivity.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious passage

WP:NOTFORUM - 2/0 (cont.) 09:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This cracks me up every time I read it: "Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate" LOL ! Six million people vs,. the entire human race (and perhaps the planet itself), who's being inappropriate?! That being said at least the author of this clearly has an ironic- if dry and cynical- sense of humour. 64.222.125.69 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) You should visit a doctor soon Joepnl (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Would Antisocial personality disorder be related to this denialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.186.68 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How is the link Climate change exaggeration "blatant"? Please explain more before deletion.

How is the link Climate change exaggeration "blatant"? Please explain more before deletion. 99.27.175.140 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is Climate change denial, did you mean to put it under climate change exaggeration? Dmcq (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think want that anon is wondering is about relates to the article "POV fork" edit by William M. Connolley, right? 99.52.150.17 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge to climate change consensus

I believe this article should be merged into Climate change consensus. Neither article is about the actual science, they are about the public perception of climate change and its manipulation. This would result in an article with a more clearly defined topic an the result would be of an acceptable size I believe. The actual public opinion and the scientific opinion in different countries can then be documented properly in Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change and the science and its criticism covered in Climate change, Global warming and Global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read both articles again I'm withdrawing this. They don't fit as well as I thought they might. It is a bit peculiar that climate change consensus mentions denial in the leader but skirts around it otherwise, I'm wondering how to put a bit more on the business of propaganda about climate change in that article. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind your language

Scepticism, according to Diderot, is "the first step on the road to philosophy". With due respect to the Express's scientific rigour, is it appropriate, do you think, to dignify such claptrap as climate change scepticism? Or dare I use the D-word? I'm talking about D for denier, as in one who denies (to those looking for fashionable hosiery who have been directed here by typing "denier" into a search engine: you are in the wrong place).

We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics".

David Marsh Mind your language - Guardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.140.64 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

change of article title

The title "Climate Change Denial" should be changed to "Climate Change Skepticism" or some other politically neutral title. "Climate Change Denial" is an inherently politically left-leaning term as the word "denial" has a negative context as it is typically associated with things like the addiction to illegal drugs ("He's an addict living in denial".......).

Calling Climate Change Skeptics "deniers" is akin to calling believers fanatics. Not everyone who is skeptical of climate change/global warming/whatever it will be called in 5 years denies that it exists. One can be skeptical of something but still believe it does exist in some way and/or to some extent(A good example of this is religion. I, for example, believe in God, but I am not a biblical literalist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about skeptics, it's about the denial campaign by oil companies and suchlike. That's not based on skepticism about the science, it's based on sectional interests. The articles Climate change consensus and public opinion on climate change are probably more what you want about seeing the extent of skepticism in the general public. Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK...fair enough!  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, could there at least be a disclaimer at the top of the page saying that denial refers to the opposition from oil companies? That way, there would be no doubting the article's POV. --82.46.154.63 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think something like that might be reasonable looking at the leader which describes various ways the term might be used rather than the particular way it seems to be used in the rest of the article. It might as well emphasise what the topic of the article is! Like to give it a try? Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think adding a disclaimer like that goes beyond the sourcing. Take, for example, Monbiot's denialist deck of cards - much of this is probably linked to corporate funding, but calling people "corporate shills" without better sourcing is asking for trouble. Not to mention that much of this effort has moved beyond oil companies to think tanks and the US Chamber of Commerce. Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should extend the article to start labeling straightforward skeptics as deniers though, that really would be very POV. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also we wouldn't be calling them corporate shills, we would be reporting generally reliable sources as saying that. Dmcq (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I've tried putting in the topic better into the leader. I moved most of the previous leader to the overview. Leaders shouldn't be burdened overmuch or at all with citations, they should mainly define the topic and summarize the article rather than containing the end content. Dmcq (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the definition in the lead

I think the recent changes in the lead are problematic without changing the title, so one or the other probably should be changed. Here's what the lead now says:

Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Some writers apply the term to all climate change skeptics. Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term.

In addition to making it a bit more confusing to discuss this at the current AfD for the article, it makes it difficult to either prune out irrelevant, WP:UNDUE passages or add other passages. For example, an article about "Climate change denial" overall, as a subject about a point of view, would be improved with sourcing about current public opinion and we would prune, as UNDUE, the 2/3 of the article (or so) devoted to special-interest machinations and things like the Alaska lawsuit, which is worth a short paragraph (if that -- the lawsuit was dismissed), or the very long section going into too much detail about the tobacco lobby (I'd prune it back and put a bit of it in another section). If the article really is about campaigning against climate change by special interests, then that should be reflected in the article title, perhaps Special-interest politicking on climate change? I don't like that name, but it would conform to the lead paragraph. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AEI

The Guardian story on AEI was extensively refuted and shown to be misleading. Why isn't that mentioned? THF (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the "AEI"? 99.102.176.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

Probably the American Enterprise Institute, a NoThink Tank. THF, any sources for your claim? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil in your discussions. Just because you disagree with an organization doesn't make it thoughtless. THF (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the claim that my remark was uncivil to be much more so. "Think tanks" typically don't think, they collect supporting material for predetermined positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CHAT. Your personal fictional opinion about think tanks is irrelevant, and insults editors who do serious academic work in think tanks. Can you explain why you reverted the refutation of the fictional Guardian account and restored the BLP violation to the article? THF (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on them it doesn't sound like they are deniers but I'll be interested to see what THF means. Dmcq (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See the sources in American_Enterprise_Institute#Payment_controversy, which completely refutes the Guardian's hit piece.[1][2][3][4] It's a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and plain accuracy to include the paragraph in this article. At a minimum, the refutation would need to be included, at which point there's a substantial WP:WEIGHT violation. THF (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh that letter from AEI and that Newsweek reply Samuelson certainly are cause for thought. I hadn't quite realized how ingrained the american idea was of burn burn the planet or the Chinese will burn it before us, and helping is unamerican wishy washy. I was wondering again if perhaps AEI were straight deniers but I'm coming to the conclusion that they're red necks and that's just how they think and view the world. You can see in some of their studies things like mitigation which show a bit of reality rather than them just straight taking the money and writing the piece. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm - i see no consensus for removal. Sorry but AEI's own comments (while interesting and certainly notable) are not "proof" or "refutal". They are AEI's point of view. Btw. don't you have a bit of a COI here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek are not "AEI", and conclusively demonstrate that the Guardian's reporting is not reliable on the subject. THF (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

These are all opinion sources - right? And most/all of the information comes from the AEI - right? Of course the AEI will dispute it - whether correct or not. And of course political opinion writers will have an opinion depending on where they stand with regards to the AEI, whether it is correct or not. I'm sorry - they do not refute - they present another view. Had the Guardian retracted or corrected the story - then that would have been entirely different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All the Guardian's information comes from the opinion source at Greenpeace. It's not reporting, and the article violently violates NPOV as well as basic accuracy and BLP. THF (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think my opinion that they are just thoughtless rednecks really should not count, it is how they have been reported that counts and they pretty definitely have been reported as deniers of the ideological or financial sort. It is reasonable to summarize and cite their refutation though and for that it doesn't matter whether they have a conflict of interest or are unreliable or whatever, all that matters is they are the target of an attack and the statement is theirs. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your comment Dmcq --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's move it from debating the issue to discussing it as sourcing, OK? The Guardian piece has been criticized quite a bit, but from what brief searching I've been able to do, I haven't seen another news article really debunking it. If we had that, then we could discuss whether or not the Guardian article would be a bad source, right? If we can't find that, then let's simply cover what the Guardian said and find the most cogent defense of AEI, either from the organization itself or a third party, and include that. I personally like David Frum's blog post [5] because he's with AEI and isn't an AGW skeptic or "denialist" so he seems even more convincing, but probably AEI's response as well. Fair? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) From what THF added (since reverted) this seemed very cogent and brief: the ExxonMobil funding was spread out over a ten-year period and totaled less than 1% of AEI's budget. The Wall Street Journal editorial stated: "AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon." any objections? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This subject has just been raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Climate_change_denial. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the lead

I have just replaced some of the material that was in the lead, but had been removed. Per WP:Lead, we should be going for 3-4 paragraphs that summarize the article in full. But especially on a controversial topic, I don't see how we can just weasel the entire lead without any mention of controversy or criticism. We should be providing a quick, full summary of the topic in the lead that reflects the rest of the article. Mackan79 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite all you've done, you've also removed the language in the lead that limited the scope of the article. This is the former lead section:

Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Some writers apply the term to all climate change skeptics. Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term.

That's a significant change. I've got this thing up for deletion at AfD, and I'd appreciate it if editors could work out just what the heck the article is supposed to be about. If it's about the segment of the spectrum of opinion about climate change that denies the consensus of scientists (which would be consistent with the current title, "Climate change denial"), that's one article. If it's only about "those they allege attempt to undermine [it] ... due to financial or sectional interests" then we've really got another article entirely. I opened up a discussion above about that. Mackan79, you should address the difference. I've got objections to the article on either count, and if we decide the article's focus is on the one or the other, it makes a difference as to what baggy, non-policy-conforming parts of this article should be deleted. For instance, I would edit the "Tobacco" section one way under your version, another way with the restrictions of the other version. It makes a difference. Please justify your version of the lead in relation to that. I'm a bit at a loss as to whether this should be discussed here or in the section a little bit above here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I apologize that this is interfering with the AfD. My concern is that I worked pretty closely on the article a few weeks ago, and then I saw the AfD, and then I saw that much of the material attempting to contextualize the lead had been removed. As far as limiting the scope, well, I guess I have become a little skeptical about such statements unless they are used to disambiguate from another specific article. If this article is about "Climate change denial," then probably it should discuss whatever source material out there discusses that in detail. If some use the term one way and others another way, then I would think we should try to discuss differences in the way the term is used, or lay out the different ways it is used. Does that make sense? The point is basically that I'm not sure how or why we would create a distinction with which we would cover this use but not that. A different section could cover each. If there is no substantial coverage of one use or another, then we shouldn't cover it simply for that reason, but then a clarification in the lead seems superfluous. Regardless of whether there is a clarification in the lead, I think any material that is included should be evaluated on whether the sources discuss climate change denial, and almost certainly should focus on the concept of "denial." I'm not sure if this helps.... Mackan79 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that for some people who are strongly word oriented it might. I think though of a topic as a concept rather than as a title. If you change it to cover all uses of the term then I will view the article's topic as being about the various ways the term has been used and discussion about that. I would view much of the stuff about financial interests as too detailed and too far removed from the topic of the article, only the main headline uses would be relevant. Basically you would change the article to a list of ways the term was used and expanding the financial ones to the size currently in this article would be WP:undue. Dmcq (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be about the term, but in my view a topic of this nature does need to maintain some boundaries in order not to be a POV fork, among other issues. One of the other main issues is the lack of standard otherwise for deciding what's relevant. You could guess that the most likely way it would be expanded is to start including material critical of climate change skepticism, but then should it also include "the case" for climate change denial, as in the evidence which skeptics produce? Rationally it would be easy to explain why we should include information that supports skepticism, even though it does not specifically discuss "denial." Sticking to sources that specifically discuss denial is a good way to keep us honest, so to speak. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And sorry JohnWBarber, I'd been doing meat life things and forgotten about that AfD and missed your comment above. I guess I viewed the AfD as pretty unlikely to succeed and irrelevant but it might have some good ideas in the comments. Dmcq (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I also point out that a leader should be about the article, it should not really be the article. The reference to writers about deniaism should be within the article and a quick summary in the leader. This is the other part of what I was trying to do as well as well as summarizing what the article is about. The revert removed what the article as written is about so I'll revert once. Dmcq (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree that shortening and generalizing the lead like that is an improvement. The lead is, as laid out in WP:LEAD, intended to be a concise overview of the entire article that is capable of standing alone. Certainly I have not seen the idea that we need to generalize the lead simply for the sake of doing so, and even at the expense of precision. One thing you have removed entirely is any criticism of this term, despite the fact that such criticism is prominent and discussed in the article, a result of which we are now left solely with a generalized definition. This generalization is also problematic in that it overlooks the significant viewpoint that opposes the use of the phrase. The lead needs to be expanded, not reduced. The generalized statements are also unsourced, and I don't believe they are supported by the article. Lastly, I don't believe we can say that the article "uses" the single definition that it lays out; rather, it discusses the term, the claims, the responses to the claims, and other commentary on the claims. These are problems under WP:LEAD but also WP:NPOV in that it presents one viewpoint to the exclusion of other notable viewpoints. Incidentally, I did try to expand it as written. We could add, for instance, that "The term is criticized as an attempt to delegitimize skepticism," but I'm hard pressed to see how this kind of writing is an improvement over something more specific and more closely supported. Mackan79 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The leader should describe what the article is about and your leader doesn't do that, it describes what you think it should be about which is a quite different matter. All your stuff about discusssing the term itself occupies most of even the short form under that it is pejorative and different writers use it for different things. The leader does not need citations. It is a summary of the article. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion, but the additional material in the previous lead seen here does not add discussion about differences in terminology. It explains the meaning, that they believe this is "denialism," and it discusses opposition to the term. It is also more specific about who uses the term in certain ways, since we do not have any reliable secondary sources that otherwise define the usage of the term. In any case, please explain how else you would like to see the lead expanded in keeping with WP:LEAD if you do not agree with how it was previously done. The current three sentences do not make any effort to summarize the article in full; rather they provide only a definition that is not supported by reliable sources. Mackan79 (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep on saying WP:LEAD but what you say seems to have very little to do with what that says as far as I can see. The lead is summarized as "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". You are concentrating on the words of the title rather than what is in the article. The term and references to it use is an important aspect of the article but it only occupies a small part of the whole. Emphasizing even more the term and various authors about the term and removing what the article is mainly about completely distorts the lead. The article is mainly about the restrictive use of the term, you just have to read through the whole article to see that the term itself is a minor part and the main article is about one particular usage of the term. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying I removed. The version you have reverted to includes four sentences that speak solely to the different uses of the term. You acknowledge here that this covers virtually nothing in the article. I have addressed more than once the additional material that you have removed and what it covers. Again, I would also like to see sources for the statements you have added which are not sourced; you say that we do not need references in the lead, but certainly the area does not provide a free pass for original research. Besides that there are many articles that discuss specific authors in the lead in order to explain an idea, rather than presenting a generalized concept via weasel words and original research. If you would like to expand it further please do so, but right now you have removed material, and yet you're saying that I have not covered enough of the article. I don't know where to take that. I also find it frustrating that you still have not even addressed the fact that you removed all criticism of the term from the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed the last sentence which says what most of the article is about. Including all the other stuff about meanings of the term and references to the meaning is fine in the article but when it is put into the lead it gives an undue prominence to only a fraction of the whole article. And it wasn't discussed in the article. Now it actually is in the article and summarized in the lead in the first three sentences. Please read again what WP:LEAD says The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead is not the content of the article. The article is supported with cited sources. The lead summarizes the article. About the only thing which one might want a citation within the lead of an article is for notability and even there if a sentence asserts a notability and that is supported in the article that is good enough. It should not be filled with citations for other things because they should be in the article. The lead is not the article. Original research only applies to it if it says things which are not in the article.

Perhaps what you are concerned about is [[WP:NOTE}}. That certainly can apply to the lead and there is nothing much in the leader as I put it in of the notability of the interpretation used even though there is citation for it later on. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a good way of thinking about it is that the lead has two functions: it should establish notability, and it is a small article about the main body of the article and its sources are the main body of the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, you are continuing to speak in generalities without addressing the specific points that I have raised. Let me try numbers. 1.) You still do not address the fact that you have reduced the lead to something that only discusses the use of the term, and does not discuss any other aspect of the article. See WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." You have done only the first, and nothing else. 2.) You still have not addressed the fact that you have removed all criticism of the term from the lead. 3.) You still have not provided the sources that support your statements in the lead; your claim that we can violate WP:SYNTH and WP:WEASEL so long as it is in the lead is unsupported. If you cannot provide the sources that support this then I will change and attribute the statements simply for that reason. Please consider also that an article on a term that has not been clearly defined by reliable sources will necessarily be different from an article on a term that has. George Monbiot, for instance, is quite clear in defining how he uses the term, but not in claiming to define how it is used by others. Please address each of these, and please provide the above sources so that we can move forward rather than continuing to go in circles. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to misconstrue the language that I included. "Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[3] and Ellen Goodman,[4] among others,[5][6] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[1][7]" This statement, that you removed, is probably the most significant point to have in the lead, since it is the whole basis of the article: People who deny global warming aren't just denying it, but are engaging in "denialism." Without that we are not doing anything to explain why these three words mean what we are saying they mean in this context. "In favoring the term the environmentalist writer and activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests." This is one of the only clear statements we have about the meaning of the term, in which Monbiot clearly state how he uses it. As a definition, this is the best I have found. You have generalized this into "some writers," but we do not have any source for that point, and for that matter I am not aware of any other writers who have made this distinction. "Monbiot often refers to a 'denial industry.'" This has directly to do with the large part of this article, and the fact that he as a major proponent of this phrase considers this to involve an "industry." "However, writers have described others as climate change "deniers," including politicians and writers not claimed to be funded by industry groups." This you have basically kept except that in your case you say "all climate skeptics," which again is unsupported. "As a pejorative, other commentators have criticized the term as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change." This is the criticism of the term that you have removed entirely. In any case, to say that this is all about terminology is simply incorrect, rather what has been removed is everything that is not about terminology, for reasons that remain unclear. Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I like having the longer lead. I'm not sure right now what that implies about the scope of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You talk here about Monbiot's usage of denialism but you removed saying that the article was about that rather than the term in general. People reading the longer lead got the wrong impression about the topic of the article. That is a very big failure. Also you include Monbiot in the lead and not later in the article - that's simply wrong. The shorter lead summarizes what Monbiot and others said about the term and what they said is later in the article. Using the bit of WP:LEAD you quote: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." the long lead did not define the topic, it confused the context, it did not say why the subject was interesting or notable, and it contained nothing whatsoever about the rest of the article. By putting what was in the long lead later in the article at least the short lead summarized something in the article and it also established the topic. There are problems but nothing like the confusion and irrelevance of the longer lead. The long lead is nice as a bit of the topic but it is not a WP:LEAD. Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As to JohnWBarber, what is it that you prefer about the longer lead? I get the impression from your earlier complaint that you considered it as changing the topic of the article which was in the AfD. Do you believe the article as written is about all usages of the term including climate change skepticism in general or mainly about the specific use for financial or political interest overriding any scientific considerations? And what is your opinion the article should be about if anything? And are they different from what you thought you were proposing for deletion? Dmcq (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, that isn't correct. The text said, in the first paragraph: "Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism." In what way does this fail to define the topic? If you believe other sources clarify that this is not the topic, then please provide them. Also this text does set out why the topic is notable by noting the journalists who have used the term, as it explains why the topic is interesting in noting that they call this "denialism," and that they allege a "denial industry", and it sets out the notable controversies without going into excessive detail.

As far as your statement that this article is about one use of "climate change denial" and not another, please also explain then your basis for saying we should exclude some material from the article. I certainly don't agree with excluding material simply because it does not fit an unsupported conception of what the topic should be. If I try very hard to read into your comments I can presume you only want the article to cover the topic of "denialism" as pertains to the public debate on climate change, e.g., you would like this to be an article on a phenomenon that we would then grant not just to be alleged, but to exist as the basis for our article. The problem is that this is a pejorative, and as such any application of the term is disputed, while there is no consensus among reliable sources that this phenomenon exists. Really it amounts to your picking out a meaning that you consider significant, and saying that the article should focus on that meaning. This doesn't help the article. The topic is set by our definition in the first sentence. Our discussion, in turn, includes everything that focuses in depth on claims of climate change denial. If writers say that all skepticism is "denial," then that is a position that we would cover in this article. If by that they do not intend it as a pejorative we would need to clarify as much, but if they do mean it as a pejorative then certainly we would cover it in the article. When people criticize the term, we have no way to say they are only criticizing some narrow definition. If someone only uses the term in passing then clearly that we would not cover, but if they discuss "denial" of climate change, then that is what we cover. We also have no way of determining that all of the sources intend your specific meaning since many of them do not clarify. Ultimately the distinction is only supported by original research, besides that it does not serve any purpose but to inaccurately frame the rest of the article. If I'm wrong, present the reliable sources that define this topic in the way that you would like to define it. Please also don't just say it is what is in the article; besides the several problems with that interpretation that I've just mentioned it still would not be a reason to start listing things we don't cover. See also notes 7-14 which we specifically present as not fitting the limitation you have set out. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see what you are basically saying is that you want the article to be about the different meanings of "climate change denial" because you have found different people using it in different ways. What I am saying is that the article is in the main about the restricted form of denialism. You ask me for citation for my restriction. My citation is the body of the article. The lead should summarize the article. The article is the source for a lead. The lead should not, I repeat again, it should not contain a lot of references. The obvious way of developing the long lead is to stick in more people who have used the term in slightly different ways and stick in yet more citations for them. That would distance the lead even further from the text. The reference for a lead should in the main be in the article itself. There a section can be developed with lots of people and their definitions. The article has survived AfD four times with the contents leaning towards the restricted form of the term. Monbiot provides a citation for a restricted form of usage. There are lots of articles where a term means one thing even though it could also mean others. Personally I don't think there is call for an article on climate change denial referring to all skeptics, a short section in this one discussing the usage of the term in general is quite enough. It does not need to occupy the whole lead to the exclusion of anything else. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I am saying that, in the absence of reliable sources clearly delineating some issue relating to climate change denial which we then intend to divide from other articles covering other aspects of climate change denial, this article covers all material relating to climate change denial. You say Monbiot points to a more restricted usage. Monbiot says in one instance that he prefers to use the term in a more restricted sense. As I have just noted, at least notes 7-14 do not observe this distinction and are presented as violating it, none of the material criticizing the term meets this distinction, and in general you do not seem to have any basis for saying that the article makes the distinction other than a general perception of what you have seen in the article (a perception which is incorrect). You must see that in one instance George Monbiot saying "I use the term in this way" does not support our deciding to restrict an article solely to that meaning -- or if it does that we need to be very clear that we are writing an article on George Monbiot's meaning. To say you don't think "there is call for an article on climate change denial referring to all skeptics" does not address my point, which is that this article should cover the material that reliable sources discuss when they discuss climate change denial. I don't think that would be an article about "all skeptics," though if it were, then that is the article we would have. In any case we don't decide to cover it just as a real life phenomenon, or just as a political pejorative, or just as a term, but we cover all of these aspects to the extent reliable sources discuss them. Honestly I don't see how there can be any question that this is the case. The obvious way to expand the lead further, incidentally, would not be to include more writers using the term with slightly different meanings (though it would be interesting to have this), but to provide additional coverage from the article. You also continue to misconstrue text attributing a statement to a writer as text that is just about one writer's definition. I am attributing statements because that is our responsibility when we do not have secondary sources providing general definitions. If it is just Monbiot that presents a (personal) definition, then we should attribute it to Monbiot; it is still our effort to define the topic, but simply an accurate and responsible way of doing so that better informs the reader than reducing it into generalities that only we have deduced.Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just expanded the previous version of the lead into something that includes more of the article. Please let me know if there are any problems with the version below:

Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described a public campaign against the scientific consensus on climate change that, they argue, amounts to a form of denialism.[5][6]

In favoring the term the environmentalist writer and activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who are driven by financial interests. Monbiot has referred to a "denial industry," while others have detailed financial ties between industry lobbying groups and commentators who publicly dispute the scientific consensus on global warming. The relationships between industry funding and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of second hand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. However, journalists have described others as climate change "deniers," including politicians and writers not claimed to be funded by industry groups.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

Some commentators have criticized the phrase, as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views with misplaced comparisons, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.[14][15] Some of those accused have contended that funding does not affect their views or the nature of the scientific research, and have contended that financial incentives exist on both sides of the public debate on climate change.

This is attributed, but attempts to cover the various aspects of the article in more detail as laid out in WP:LEAD. Mackan79 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems much better to me, fine by me. I just had a look at those notes 7-14 you mentioned and a couple of them seem to only talk about skeptics rather than denialism, we probably should be careful to restrict the references to those that are definitely talking about something like denial rather than just inferring it I think, skeptic is just a little to far from denial I believe. The ones I'd remove are:

[9] ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism Guradian.co.uk - Climate change scepticism portal

[10] ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 The Business Insider - The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics

I couldn't find the newsweek one [7] Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'm fine removing those two. I will try to get to this in a bit then, to organize the references and put it together a little more neatly. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Add link regarding http://www.skepticalscience.com/ "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" by John Cook Chicago Tribune

Add link regarding http://www.skepticalscience.com/ [6] "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" by John Cook Chicago Tribune 99.155.148.45 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more relevant to global warming controversy or climate change consensus? It says that somepeople grab at any evidence they can that global warming is untrue but it neither says that is denialism nor is it a strong form where they get paid for doing so or have other such motives. Dmcq (talk)

Removing sources

I'm not happy with these edits. Several independent sources are removed, and the whole story is left sourced solely to the NY Times piece by Cushman, the main player in the discovery. I think it is better also to have references to the original memorandum (the primary source), as well as to other authors and to Cox's book, a clear secondary source. Do others agree? --Nigelj (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain. The entire passage was ultimately sourced to the New York Times article. One website simply reprinted the article, and I thought linking directly to the New York Times was better than that. Also, the book happened to mention the article, so we were mentioning the book mentioning the article rather than simply reporting on what the article said. By doing that, I thought we made the attribution stronger. Also, no need to mention a journalists name for a news report: The New York Times stands behind its news articles with all its authority, something different for opinion pieces, where we want to mention authors to make sure readers understand that the opinions they're reading come from the authors.

I didn't see a value in linking to a book that simply mentioned what the New York Times had written. What's the value of that source to this article? One source saying that another source said something -- that could be said for a lot of our sources, but of what use is it to the article? If there's a use, or if its helpful to the readers to know about the book, I'm fine with it. Is there anything else from the book that is worth using in that passage or elsewhere? Do you know if this book would be helpful for our readers? Have you seen it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there was also this: [7] It's supposedly a copy of the leaked memo, posted by Greenpeace on the Web. We're using a partisan source, giving us WP:RS problems, with a primary source. Since Greenpeace is a partisan group, how can we reliably know that this is a true copy of the actual memo? If there were third-party, reliable sources saying, "Greenpeace posted the memo and, yes, that's the memo", then it's something we should link to. WP:RS says Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. This is working as a "statement of fact", and it would need attribution in the text of the article. Could you please see if it's on the web anywhere else? I'm uncomfortable with it, but not absolutely opposed. I think over at the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident they prohibited copies of the leaked emails on "copyright" grounds. I don't think those are good grounds to oppose. It does seem useful to the readers. The reliability issue is what makes me uncomfortable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you should not say removing citations is a minor clean up. Secondly you should have a check to correct problems. The appropriate check for your qualms here is to do a quick google search of 'http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/leaked-api-comms-plan-1998' for the greenpeace memos and look at the first page of results, where you will find it mentioned in a book and a journal amongst the first four returns, both interestingly on the subject of denial. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the book because I was happy to see that we could actually support the notability of this incident with multiple references. Putting it in the text tells the reader that this was actually picked up by someone or another, and not just some random thing that we decided to include. It's certainly useful for us as editors to know that. Given that this is Wikiepdia I do think we may as well put it in the text as well, as something that may benefit a reader. Mackan79 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have Dmcq in favour of the primary document and Mackan in favour of mentioning the book. I'm in favour of using both, and I don't see a problem with either. --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Nigelj -- I looked into it and I'm convinced, sorry this is a bit long, but here are suggestions on how:

@Dmcq -- I'd never done a web search for a web address before and never thought of that. I'll remember that. I'm seeing books that look reliable using that Greenpeace web posting as a source. That's reliable enough for me. Let's add it back, but why not just mention it somewhere, rather than as a kind of "blind" link. We could do something like "(posted online by Greenpeace)" and stick the footnote to the end of that, possibly even with mention in the footnote that it was a source for some books. I think if something reliable is worth including, we should do it with more than a footnote.

@Mackan79 -- It's an interesting point, but I'd rather see it be done in a more natural way in the course of giving the reader more information. An important article will naturally get follow up and other sources will tend to get important information that we could add. Here's the way the text read before I changed it:

In his book, Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, Robert Cox states that an early effort by industry "to influence public perception of environmental science" was uncovered in 1998 by John Cushman of the New York Times, who reported [...]

It seems to me that if we can get a more interesting bit of information from the book it would work better -- the information itself should be in the spotlight, and you'd achieve the same thing in terms of telling the reader that it wasn't just the NY Times reporting on it. I think opening the section with mention of the book looks bad because the reader is going to wonder (I did), "why is the article mentioning this book?" This seems to be the passage in Google Books [8] Actually, how 'bout this: "One of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change" then just footnote it to the book and go on to the article. A footnote accomplishes the same thing you wanted to do with naming the book, I think. If you look at the next page, the book states "Other sources noted" other information. We could take something from there, although I think the idea that this was one of the earliest efforts in this area is probably the most important bit, and this book would seem to be an authoritative source for that, since it covers a broader subject.

When I did that neat search trick Dmcq referred to, I found this other book (published in late 2009) that also cites it, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by James Hoggan, "co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com," and Richard Littlemore. (Google Books has some of it [9]) This Christian Science Monitor article [10] interviews Hoggan, making me think it's reliable enough for certain purposes, and we might use that, too (that CSM article is also making me rethink how important the Tobacco section is).

What about a "For further reading" section where we put the Hoggan book? (I'm not sure the Cox book covers this subject enough to make it worthwhile.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone see the value of this paragraph? It's a tangent

In the Climate change denial#Connections to the tobacco lobby section, this whole paragraph focuses on research funded by a tobacco company. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article:

One figure associated with tobacco lobbying and global warming skepticism was former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned approximately US$585,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. During that time R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others at Rockefeller University. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, and Seitz defended his independence, saying "We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent", Hertsgaard writes that the tobacco industry frequently cited these grants as showing its commitment to science, while claiming that scientific views on the health effects of smoking were mixed.

Let's remove it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing is on this topic, isn't that the test? I generally go on the assumption that we include the types of context that reliable sources include when discussing the topic at hand. Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We aren't bound to present all the context that the source did, and we always pick and choose. I'm wondering what the use to the reader is with this particular paragraph. When I read it, I felt I was being distracted from the article subject for too long. Wouldn't we fulfill the purpose of this whole paragraph by saying, "Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned approximately US$585,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company [...]" and then go on from there? It's also a bit historic, since Seitz died in 2008. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true, at least the latter parts. Mackan79 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph should probably be removed as-is, or rewritten to give a context which has to do with the main subkect of the article. If there are evidences that he lobby for petrolium compagnies, the tobacco lobbying become relevant showing he is known to lobby for pressure groups. -RobertMel (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. [11] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative

I see the word 'pejorative' in the lede has become an issue again. From what I can see, this was added without much discussion by TMLucas about two years ago.[12] According to his edit summary, I wonder if s/he really grasped the meaning of the term: "If deniers, by definition, are not acting in good faith, the term is pejorative". This seems to say that denial is a bad-faith act, so naming it, or calling it out, is pejorative. That's not so, a pejorative is defined as a term "expressing the contempt or distaste of the speaker", not describing the motivation behind an act itself. A few people have tried to remove the term since, including myself[13][14] or tone it down as Jaymax tried to do[15][16]. More recently it has been removed by Stephan Schultz[17] and by Ratel.[18] In each case (except the last) it has been instantly restored by others without much discussion.This is not necessarily a thorough survey, I may have missed other notable insertions or removals of the term.

It seems clear that this prominent use in the lede is uncited and does not summarise any cited section of the article. It also seems to me that its importance to those who instantly restore it is as a kind of ad hominem counter-attack before the article starts presenting the evidence - to imply that anyone who would use such a hateful term are clearly spiteful and maliciously motivated themselves. Looking at the main article on denial, of which this is a sub-article, gives a whole different perspective, and is the one that this article should try to maintain. As for those who get upset by this - if the cap fits... Why not learn more about the science, find the bit you have evidence to disprove and become a useful sceptic? In the meantime, the word should go from this usage. --Nigelj (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back for reasons that have nothing to do with my position on global warming. For some time now, I've said I simply believe in global warming. I'm not even a skeptic. This is not an article about the science of global warming. Under some versions of the lead, this is not even an article about the actual "denialism" position itself. This article implies that anyone who takes the denialist position is either the dupe of the oil companies and other industry conspirators or is on their payroll (if I'm wrong, please point out to me where we contradict that idea -- I can point out plenty of spots where we imply it). The fact is, on numerous occasions, people who are skeptics and people who are denialists have objected to the use of the word because they find it pejorative. I don't think, other than Newsweek that it is a term much used without quotes by major newspapers and news organizations. There is very good sourcing that calls the word pejorative.

• Here: [19]

Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust. [...] This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system.

• Here: [20]

Why do people become climate change deniers?

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 – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers.

• Ellen Goodman, from the article we link to: [21]

would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

• Similar commentary comparing climate change "denial" with "holocaust denial" or objecting to it: in the Guardian, [22] and a commentator in The Age is very explicit about the pejorative nature of it [23], and there's this [24] and this [25] and this [26]

• When I look at this Google News search [27] I do find the phrase "climate change deniers" but it seems to be used by commentators, not news reports. Compare with "global warmism" [28] and "'climate change' + warmist" [29] There are terms that are used by commentators and avoided by people trying to be fair.

It is definitely a term that has been used pejoratively quite often, and I think all this proves it. I wouldn't say it's always used pejoratively, because sometimes it simply seems to be a shorter way of saying "people who do not believe in global warming" or "people who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming", but it can easily imply something is morally wrong with them, and in the links above, you can see some commentators doing it and others who say it's beyond the pale to simply attack people you disagree with. And when the lead said "generally pejorative" there was reason to say so. The term seems to crop up most prominently when severe criticism is underway. We say in the article that it's been associated with holocost denial by some and that association has been objected to by others, a closely related point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Those links include a lot of blogs and op-ed pieces, many of which only exist to put forward a biassed point of view. How can someone in the 21st century not "believe in" scientific facts, and expect that not to be mentioned using a normal word? That's why I said there is a different term for those who have studied the science, and think they may have found a flaw in the data or the logic (sceptic). Not engaging with it, but simply not "believing in" it is a form of denial, just like not believing in other major events in our history, or in other aspects of science like HIV/AIDS. That's what the term 'denial' means. It's not a pejorative, but when correctly used is a word that describes a fact about some people's stance. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to decide this on blogs and op-eds, then here is just one that says that successful climate change denial could have the result that "hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change". --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, I can agree with you (and with TS below) to a point. But the issue isn't whether or not it's a good name to call them. As I've said, it isn't always used in a disparaging way. The issue is whether it's generally pejorative. It's simply the case that often it is. The diffs show it. Comparing anyone to Holocaust deniers -- and as the diffs show, this has been done very prominently and caused a stir when it was done -- is meant not only to describe but very obviously to hurt and disparage. And yet I think the term has also been used as simple description. I think, looking at the evidence, we can agree on all of that, can't we? It would be honest and fair to mention this briefly in the lead, very prominently, very close to the top. If "generally pejorative" is not acceptable, why not suggest different phrasing? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

JWB, then if you contend it is sometimes used in a pej. way, e.g. when comparing to Holocaust deniers, then say that somewhere in the body of the article. However, because the juxtaposition of AGW denial and Holocaust denial is a rare thing (when it's done it "causes a stir" as you say), giving this relatively uncommon event lede status is quite wrong. ► RATEL ◄ 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The term has previously been supported by people of quite some different viewpoints. I strongly support using the term, as I think it's clear this is widely used as a pejorative, and failing to say so gives a reader an inaccurate picture of how the term is used (not by those to whom it is implied, unless to be ironic). I don't see how anyone familiar with the commentary on this can deny that it's a pejorative; I previously provided numerous other sources that went to this point. (Those sources are here; I notice that there is a January archive that doesn't show up in the list, if anyone knows how to fix that.) Of course this article is almost entirely based on journalistic sources, so it isn't surprising that they would be the ones to explain that this is usually pejorative. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone fucked up the archiving system, but now it's repaired plus you can search the archives from the top of this page. ► RATEL ◄ 04:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the question of whether it's pejorative matter? I deny creationism. I'm a creationism denier. I'm a god denier (not to mention a God denier), I deny the phlogiston theory of combustion, the notion of a flat earth and the notion that vaccination causes autism. Are you going to pejorate my ass, or are we going to agree that denial is a two-way street? --TS 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may not matter, if this were an article on general disbelief that global warming is a serious issue (that would create some other problems, of course, and would probably just be Global warming skepticism). As we have it, the article is on the negative characterization that this is a form of "denialism," and assembled around that negative characterization. "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining," as they say. Mackan79 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pejorative should not be used. That is how people who are sympathetic to denialism want it to be seen. It is a factual statement, and some denialists are even proud of the tag (there is a book, by a well known denialist Lawrence Solomon, proudly titled The Deniers). ► RATEL ◄ 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC

Regarding your reversion, Ratel, please see that there is an extended discussion in the section above here in which the expanded lead was proposed and discussed with another editor's approval. You comment that I have created a long "content" section, when in fact the section summarizes the article exactly as is laid out in WP:LEAD. Considering that you have reverted twice and did not participate on talk I'd like to request that you undo your revert and discuss changes that you would like to see on the talk page. The statement that a pejorative is simply how sympathizers want the term to be seen, also, is not relevant or accurate (you even note that some embrace it, although it's obvious that this is ironic). George Monbiot states that he reserves the term for those with illicit financial motives. Numerous sources are provided above and also here. See also the discussion in The Deniers here, with Solomon's statement, "To that end, as you read through this book, judge for yourself the credibility of those who dismiss these scientists as cranks or crooks, and call them The Deniers." I request again that you undo your revert and discuss what concerns you have here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this was discussed and proposed over several days, and that pretty clearly Ratel should not have simply reverted it after already having reverted another editor today, and facing the options of waiting around to see if he comes back or reporting this for enforcement, I'm simply going to put the expanded lead back for now. I will leave out the fact that this is generally a pejorative for the time being, even though it is strongly supported and should also be replaced. Naturally I would welcome other views and certainly any discussion about any changes that should be made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I would just like to add that it is quite absurd not to note that this is generally a pejorative as we are discussing it, when all we present is accusations, without anything about any actual "denialist" or "pro-denialist" position. It needs to be added back, but I suppose I can wait it out.... Mackan79 (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Doubt is our Product" — New material for this article

I am too busy, but I encourage other editors to listen to this podcast called "Doubt is our Product" featuring interview with Clive Hamilton about his book and TV series covering the topic of this article, and interview with Stanford's famous climate scientist, Stephen H. Schneider. His latest book has been frozen out by major media. His teaching has been harried by attacks from climate deniers.

More data can be mined from NANCY ORESKES: MERCHANTS OF DOUBT. Podcast of her speech ► RATEL ◄ 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)