Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Climate Change Skepticism vs. Denial

I wrote in the article that Climate Change Skepticism is the politically-correct term for Climate Change Denial. I provided citations, one of which was:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism

In one of the links of the Guardian's "scepticism" portal, this link appears:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

The writer uses the derogatory term "deniers" since this is a personal opinion, while the portal uses the term "scepticism".

The current Wiipedia article does not determine the difference between a skeptic who opposes the mainstream scientific opinion, and a denier who lies or uses manipulation.

Also, are the following "opposers" considered "deniers"? List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I call the editor who deleted my edit to respond. Other views are also welcome. Thanks. John Hyams (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your argument seems predicated on the idea that there are two legitimate scientific views - that maybe AGW exists and that maybe it does not exist - as well as a third camp, who know AGW exists and yet who deny that it does. So, of those who say "No AGW", you want to draw a distinction between sceptics (aka opposers) and deniers. Is that right? Well, the basic idea is wrong. There is no legitimate, mainstream, educated scientific viewpoint that leads to the valid conclusion that AGW does not exist. The science is solid, settled and established. If anyone says there is no AGW, they are denying the established verifiable facts. It doesn't matter what we call them, they are denying the existence of a worldwide, complex and unassailable scientific consensus. That some of them call themselves 'scientists', 'opposers', 'sceptics' or whatever makes no difference: They are either in the pay of Big Oil politics that wants them to say that, or they have been duped by those who are. They are either helping to solve the problems to minimise the human deaths that will follow from this global climate change, or they are perpetrating them. There are no other legitimate distinctions to draw in the text of the article. There is no third group. --Nigelj (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, I'm sorry but I sense some POV in your points. If is was a non-disputed science subject as you say, then there would have been no controversy. The list of "opposers" on Wikipedia is a list of certified scientists (they don't "call themselves" scientists), but they are not "deniers". Or are they deniers? Am I a denier? Personally I think the original data submitted to the IPCC was inaccurate, so I regard myself as a skeptic, not a denier, I want people to refer to me without using derogatory terms. John Hyams (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You think that thousands of politically motivated (or financially corrupt? or incompetent?) climate scientists wilfully submitted inaccurate data to the IPCC? And that's why some people think there is AGW going on? And that's the healthy scepticism that you want to encourage? No, that's how we all think science works. Really. No unusual POV there. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC didn't receive it from thousands of scientists, that wasn't the process. The IPCC comissioned the reports from a few selected institutions (including the University of East Anglia), not from thousands of individual scientists who spontaneously sent their papers. Also, the peer-review process included major deletions (some of it is described here: Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Debate. But that's a whole different discussion, and the issue of "skepicism" and "denial" still requires some answers. John Hyams (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a problem if we describe this as if "deniers" and "skeptics" are well defined terms in regard to the debate on climate change, with well defined boundaries. To say outright that "skepticism" is the politically correct term for "denial" is only possible if this is well accepted and uncontroversial. I see several issues with this. First, "political correctness" is a loaded term. I read you to be saying that "skepticism" is just a euphemism, but I don't believe that's correct. In Monbiot's definition, there's a qualitative difference in that someone is a "denier" only if they are paid. In general, though, particularly because the very use of this phrase is disputed, I think we should avoid trying to explain points like what is the difference between "skepticism" and "denialism," and instead offer the views of notable figures who have commented on the issue. For a comparison, consider talking in detail about the habits of a "bleeding heart liberal," or a "Bible thumper." When the term is pejorative (and if this one isn't then there shouldn't be a separate article on it), then we need to be careful to describe the use of the term without endorsing or adopting it ourselves. Mackan79 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackan79, good points, and I can understand the problematic nature of these definitions. However, since climate change skepticism does have a seaparate article, all skeptics, including sincere active skeptics, may be automatically categorized as decieving deniers. If denial and skepticism are not the same, we have to mention the difference somewhere. John Hyams (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is fundamental. As we say elsewhere, "97% of actively publishing [but mostly US] climate scientists agree" with AGW. The scientific opinion on climate change is that "since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." Yet, we allow the possibility that other people (some of whom work for the petrochemical industry, others have a BSc and so call themselves 'scientists' in print, etc) may have thought of something that disproves the whole AGW 'theory'? These, apparently, are the legitimate sceptics, that have every right to keep thinking up some new angle, not publishing it in any peer-reviewed process, but getting equal air-time with the legitimate scientists? That is not balance, it is a denial movement. They are simply playing for time, and mounting a slo-mo distributed denial-of-service attack on legitimate science as every one of their kooky ideas has to debunked in detail while they sit at home thinking up a new one. In the meantime, of course, they continue to drive their SUV, run their air-con, throw away x% of the food they buy, 'consume' every useless plastic/electronic product, and get rich in the process. --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, there is no need to have a debate on this here. That wasn't the issue I raised in this section. I was referring to the issue of "skepicism" and "denial". Your opinion is noted, thank you. John Hyams (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

" The science is solid, settled and established. If anyone says there is no AGW, they are denying the established verifiable facts. It doesn't matter what we call them, they are denying the existence of a worldwide, complex and unassailable scientific consensus. " Good God. And I thought Creationists were pedantic. Renaming article Climate Change Skepticism would be a help - except that the entire metre of the article seems to be directed to show that there is some big -ahem- fat cat conspiracy which fuels a manipulative campaign which is colloquially known as 'climate change denial'. So it would equally logical to call it 'Popular lies propagated about climate change'. Not that the article is not without merit - but it should be framed in a logical manner, imprisoned within tight societal and economic interrogation - not isolated as a soapbox.

Hmm.. looking at the moralistic overtones that accompany climate change discussion is an interesting aspect which should probably be looked into - albeit not in this particular article.

Is there any article which covers the scientific consensus on Earth becoming a global snowball (the theory is not terribly fashionable nowadays, but such an article does have merit) --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We are here to describe climate change denial, as reliable sources describe it. And as far as i can see no reliable source is saying that "climate sceptics" (CS) are the same as "climate change deniers" (CCD). What they do say though is that CCD is a subset of CS, specifically a subset that is defined by either A) a refusal to accept scientific reality B) bad-faith campaigns to undermine scientific results. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my own thoughts - there may or may not be RS that support this view: Sceptics, by definition, would change their view if presented with empirical (scientific) evidence that countered their particular objection, and appreciate such evidence. Deniers, by definition, are blinkered to the evidence, and choose (for whatever personal conscious or sub-conscious motivation) to disregard same. A denier (to me) is not a sceptic. Sceptics say 'show me your evidence', deniers say 'don't believe your evidence'. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that there is this third group of people (the sceptics) who haven't heard of all the evidence yet, and when they see it, they will believe it (like 97% of US CC scientists and 100% of scientific organisations already do)? Of course they have seen or heard of all the evidence, but they still refuse to stop spreading FUD against it. That is why there really are only two groups - those who accept the science, and those who deny it. Saying "I haven't seen all the evidence yet" is just another form of denial argument. This is fundamental to this article: excusing this third group as being only 'sceptics' (who are waiting for some more evidence) leaves this article discussing not very much at all (e.g. only self-professed deniers, who are few). --Nigelj (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are rational sceptics out there... Henrik Svensmark, Richard Lindzen or John Christy to give a few examples. You seem to be confusing issues, while there are no rational sceptics (that i know of) who doubt that CO2 will have a warming effect, there are sceptics who have doubts about for instance how high Climate sensitivity is, or whether feedbacks will be generically positive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Per K.D.P, Science is rarely united. Yes, the third group exists. One might argue that they are naive, perhaps, or whether the group is of any real scientific significance, or numbers more than a handful. But naive is not the same as 'in denial' - and respect for science and the scientific method requires that honest scepticism itself be respected. By highlighting, and respecting the distinction, the false label of 'sceptic' is, erm, denied, to those who are in truth deniers. The question "what would convince you?" is both potent and revealing. (NB: your 100% is false - we list several (7?) non-committal (geologists, /facepalm) organisations over at SOoCC). Seriously though, there are many geologists, good scientists, who perceive, based on their science, that the biosphere only ever changes slowly - they are honest sceptics. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[cut per WP:TPG - stay focused please, while we may digress at times, this is not the place to discuss general issues with climate change (moved to AAOU42's talkpage) Kim D. Petersen (talk)] --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if that is the consensus here - that some kinds of AGW scepticism are rational, but that other kinds are not and so are actually denial - then do we need two articles climate change denial and climate change skepticism? (I see that the latter exists as a redirect.) Then, would we be able to pick out and discuss the (hopefully finite number of) areas where rational, legitimate, scientific doubt exists wrt AGW in the scepticism article (e.g. solar activity, Iris hypothesis, low climate sensitivity, whatever) and leave all the other kinds of AGW denial for this article? --Nigelj (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate skepticism isn't terribly interesting. It's part of the normal scientific process. It's part of the back-and-forth by which science progresses. "Climate change skepticism" is a subset of environmental skepticism. The line between that and "climate change denialism" or "contrarianism" is muddy - and, of course, it's intentionally muddied, with the "skeptics" claiming people like von Storch as their own, and, of course, by the choice of a name. ("I'm a skeptic. All scientists should be skeptics". Which is akin to the language used by the intelligent design crowd - another group of so-called "skeptics".) Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But we aren't just talking about active research scientists who are actively sceptical in their work here, we are talking about, what is it? 65% of the population of the US, and a higher proportion of Australians, I think I read somewhere, etc etc. The vast majority worldwide of those whose votes are preventing global action on CC identify themselves as 'sceptical'. If this is a realistic and rational position for non-scientists to take, then we have to discuss it. I have been told above that I mustn't call them 'deniers', and now you say that we can't discuss them directly because they're so dull. But they are the whole problem driving AGW onwards from COP15 to COP16 and beyond, at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the most appropriate article for that is Global warming controversy. And this article is not about who's who, but what reliable sources describe climate change denial as being. What the public thinks belongs in Public opinion on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, I think this might be important. If we have an article that lists and discusses the finite number of legitimate scientific sceptical positions that exist in the current research: Kim listed Henrik Svensmark, Richard Lindzen and John Christy. I made up 'solar activity, Iris hypothesis, low climate sensitivity'. Then when someone says, "Oh I'm a climate change sceptic", anyone can say, "Which kind?" If the answer is, "Oh, none of them, I just think the whole thing's crap because it doesn't fit my lifestyle", it's easier to say, "Ah, you're not a sceptic then, you're a climate change denier". Job done. (I remember a similar process being used by a bunch of stuck-up musicians to weed out who really was and who wasn't a jazz musician in their terms: "Who do you listen to?") --Nigelj (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

May be an interesting excercise for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. We rely 100% on what reliable sources tell us, and such a separation of people would be WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting separating people but the issues of legitimate scepticism. We have all the sources here in existing articles, there is no WP:OR involved: I'm suggesting a new overview article, so WP:NOTABILITY judgements would be necessary. In the music analogy, the jazz article lists and discusses each major school (bebop, dixieland, etc) with links out to the main articles on each style and notable proponents. I'm suggesting a climate change skepticism article with sections and links out to each legitimate sceptical scientific viewpoint that currently is notable in the literature. Building such an article would mean that each sceptical viewpoint that is proposed has to be judged alongside the others, and the kooky ones rejected, by normal WP:N procedures. The extent of the 'threat' of each viewpoint to the central AGW thesis can be discussed too - if true, this means that A but not B or C is likely. I'm imagining a short article - maybe four to six such sections - that will get shorter as time goes by and sceptical theories are withdrawn or disproved by the scientific process (but I might be wrong on both counts, if AGW is shaky and crumbles). --Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Get shorter over time? Have you seen objections to evolution? They keep adding new ones, while no amount of evidence really takes the shine off the old ones. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The key isn't what people believe, it's about what they do. Denialism is about tactics as much as it is about belief. Calling people "denialists" can be problematic. Classifying their techniques as denialism, OTOH, is easier to do, and easier to source reliably. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided an additional example in the Jesse Ventura section below. According to the article, his show may be automatically defined as a "denial campaign" (some may say it's the worst kind of denial), while in reality it may only be a skepticism/questioning campaign. John Hyams (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please name me a person who denies that climate change happens. No one denies that climate changes, what people are skeptical of are the if a) Whether temperatures have risen, b) If (a) is true, whether or not the results are even worth caring about and c) if (a) and (b) are true, if humans are even a major cause of it for if they weren't theres nothing they could do about it. This title is entirely POV and is trying to prove a point. It does create a very stark image though. If you can give me one major "climate skeptic" in the news who "denies that climate changes", please present it. If not, the title is misleading

Carowinds (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Page structure

At the top level, there seem to be three aspects to 'climate change denial' that should be covered on the page, perhaps as the upper level section headings

1. The term 'climate change denial' - it's varied usage, interpretation and meaning
2. Organised 'climate change denial' - the "denial industry", media, political and business
3. Psychology of 'climate change denial' - reasons why so many people deny climate change

‒ Jaymax✍ 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Of interest? Why Psychiatrists Should Go Green By H. Steven Moffic, MD January 6, 2010. For reference see [1] from alexa. 99.88.228.140 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)