climate Change Denial

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33: 90 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?

A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence. Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable."

Q2: Is this article a POVFORK?

A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion."

Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers?

A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust.

Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?

A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this.

Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along?

A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:

1. Because a "consensus" indicates that scientists with expertise in the relevant fields are in general agreement about some topic, such that they often refer to it as a "fact" (though technically nothing in science is ever proven with the 100% level of certainty necessary for it to be considered a fact). There is, for example, a consensus that smoking causes cancer, which is widely considered a fact.
2. No; in fact, it is essential to the progress of science, since scientific discoveries are made based on what the consensus of scientists established before them.
3. This argument is a form of the association fallacy often called the "Galileo Gambit." The best debunking of this argument may have been provided by Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

References

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 28, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 4, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 10, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 13, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 9, 2012	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 29, 2014	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version
March 16, 2016	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wiki: Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWiki: WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wiki English. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWiki: WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWiki: WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wiki English. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWiki: WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes

Section size for Climate change denial (43 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	13,180	13,180
Terminology	12,740	12,740
Categories and tactics	8,161	56,776
Discussing specific aspects of climate change science	8,964	25,239
Playing up the potential non-human causes	546	546
Playing up flawed studies	2,213	2,213
Disputing IPCC reports and processes	4,935	4,935
Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes	8,581	8,581
Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical"	1,469	1,469
Pushing for adaptation only	5,857	5,857
Delaying climate change mitigation measures	9,375	9,375
Promoting conspiracy theories	6,675	6,675
Psychology	149	149
Connections to other debates	35	16,903
Links with other environmental issues	2,295	2,295
Links with nationalism and right-wing groups	6,632	6,632
Conservative views	7,941	7,941
History	12,158	31,351
Similarities with tobacco industry tactics	3,519	3,519
Republican Party in the United States	15,674	15,674
Denial networks	934	18,467
Conservative and libertarian think tanks	4,974	4,974
Publishers, websites and networks	4,473	12,559
Publications for school children	8,086	8,086
Notable people who deny climate change	46	13,746
Politicians	9,614	9,614
Scientists	4,086	4,086
Lobbying and related activities	2,494	24,030
Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors	5,911	5,993
ExxonMobil	82	82
Attacks and threats towards scientists	3,554	3,554
Funding for deniers	11,989	11,989
Effects on public opinion	11,375	22,421
United States	8,482	8,482
Europe	2,564	2,564
Responses to denialism	1,544	23,010
The role of emotions and persuasive argument	6,177	6,177
Following people who have changed their position	8,334	8,334
Effective approaches to dialogue	4,144	4,144
Approaches with farmers	1,972	1,972
Statements of well known people calling for climate action	839	839
See also	632	632
References	349	349
Total	233,754	233,754

Merged content from climate change conspiracy theory

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've just carried out the merger from climate change conspiracy theory to here. More work is required to condense this part and remove repetition. Regarding the current structure, I am wondering if "climate change conspiracy theories" should remain as a main level heading or if it should be moved to be within "categories"? (which is how it was before I carried out the merger). Is "conspiracy theories" simply a type of denial on par with the other types that are listed under "categories"? EMsmile (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a sub-category. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think so too but I am unsure how to set it up in the current structure: if "conspiracy theories" became a Level-1 heading (instead of a main heading) then it would be a lot bigger than the other sub-sections. So maybe some of the content that is currently under "conspiracy theories" would have to be moved to other sub-sections to create a better balance. Either way, we will have to condense this article as it's too big now (79 kB (12282 words) "readable prose size"). EMsmile (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I've condensed the section on conspiracy theories now. EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of "unwarranted" doubt in the lead

Latest comment: 2 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I previously reverted the use of "unwarranted" in the opening sentence, due to the fact that it seems unnecessary with the use of "pseudoscientific" as a descriptor immediately before. To avoid edit warring and per WP:BRD, I have reverted my restoration of this preferred revision, and am instead opening up discussion here to see what other editors think. Do you believe "unwarranted" belongs in the lead, or would you say it is unnecessary? I think I have stated quite clearly that I fall in the latter category, but what does everyone else think? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Hob Gadling: and @DVdm: per discussion at User talk:Hob Gadling. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I.m.o. the qualifier belongs in the lead, as it is backed by the content in the article body. I agree with Hob Gadlin's reasoning as expressed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Doubt is paramount to science. As CC denial flatly contradicts the scientific consensus, the doubt is inherently unwarranted. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That is completely correct. My issue is this, though -- it seems like a somewhat unnecessary adjective, given the description of the dismissal and doubt as pseudoscientific immediately before. I'm not arguing against your point: the doubt is very much inherently unwarranted. For me this isn't a question of validity, it's a question of sufficiency -- does unwarranted really belong, when the description of it as pseudoscientific could probably get the job done on its own? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and think that "unwarranted" can go; also in the interest of readability, for non-native speakers. EMsmile (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. This was resolved already, it was stable for three weeks, and now this [1].

Can somebody please explain how warranted doubt constitutes denial? When the data were still viewed as inconclusive, maybe in the 1960s, was that already denial, or was it normal science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think for the purposes of the first sentence of the lead, it is better to use a simple sentence. Whether doubts are warranted or not could be discussed later in the article. (in fact it already is). Also the first sentence actually says "doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change" which means it is per se unwarranted. This is not the doubt & discussions within the scientific community about some nuances of the processes, e.g. how much methane the thawing permafrost will release and so forth.

Also as is explained later in the article, the deniers purposefully use the word "doubt" and have spread doubt on purpose to sow confusion. So perhaps the term "doubt" is rather loaded. Thinking about it further, perhaps it's not even the ideal word to use in the first sentence at all.

Let's compare with the first sentence in the corresponding German Wikipedia article (translated here with Deepl): Climate change denial (sometimes also referred to as climate denial, climate science denial or denial of man-made global warming) is a form of science denial characterised by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing or fighting the scientific consensus of climate research on current global warming. (the term "doubt" does not appear). EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now changed the first sentence accordingly. This removes the need for further discussions on "doubts (warranted/unwarranted)". I've also taken out the emphasis on pseudoscience as I don't think this is key. Rather, I have linked to science denial which I think is better. Pseudoscience is still mentioned later but does not need to be in the first sentence. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

which means it is per se unwarranted Now I get it. Thanks. Also, I agree that the new version is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree the need version is better, but the third sentence has "Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is ...", which could be clearer as "unwarrented doubts". Taking on board readability for non-native speakers, I'll try "includes unreasonable doubts". . diff . . dave souza, talk 07:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing over to long ref style and removing quotes

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am changing over to long ref style because it's just easier for when text is transcribed with excerpts. Also, it's easier to see if one publication is used multiple times. In the process, I have also removed those long quotes from the references. They could be put back in but I would argue that they are not needed and that they make the ref list unnecessarily long and unwieldy. If people want to read up on the details they can just go to the publication in question (unless it's behind a paywall, I guess). EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I plan to continue along these lines but I should probably wait a few days in case someone objects that I am taking out the quotes from the ref list? In my opinion, those quotes are not needed and don't help the reader much. I don't think they are "standard practice" (anymore (?)). The only argument for keeping them that I can think of is when the source is behind a paywall. But even then, just those few quoted sentences don't help the reader so much either as they cannot verify the context unless they have access to what is behind the paywall. Overall, I think it makes the reference list more manageable without those long quotes. Pinging User:dave souza because I think you might have been an editor who added those quotes in the first place (?). EMsmile (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, seems like there are no objections to this, so I'll continue along the same lines. EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've completed this process now. It's all in long ref style now and without those quotes. EMsmile (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the context of discussions has changed and that looks reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 08:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sentence on "false flags"

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am not really happy with this sentence that was added earlier this month. What is meant with "false flags" and does it really work for us to have one statement with six references? Should it be broken up into more specific statements rather than all lumped together? I mean this sentence:

False flags and controlling the weather: Extreme weather events, including wildfires and floods, have been attributed by conspiracy theorists to laser beams, deliberate actions by government or the antifa movement, and weather engineering such as cloud seeding. EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

climate Change Denial

Merged content from climate change conspiracy theory

Use of "unwarranted" doubt in the lead

Changing over to long ref style and removing quotes

Sentence on "false flags"

Content about climate change denial scientists based on the memoirs of Kevin Trenberth

Moving some content of psychology of climate change denial to here

Looking for ways to condense this article

Michael Mann wins $1 million judgement against professional deniers - LA Times

Doubt as pseudoscientific?

Tags:

🔥 Trending searches on Wiki English: