Talk:Climate Hustle

Production credits

Rhododendrites: Where are you seeing that Christopher Rogers was the producer? I don't see that in any of the current sources, but I wasn't sure what to change it to because they all say something slightly different. The NBC source says, "...Marc Morano, one of the film's producers...". Variety says, "The screening of the documentary, produced by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Marc Morano’s ClimateDepot.com..." And USA Today says, "David Rothbard, the film's executive producer..." (Dissent dwindles on climate change By: Kim Hjelmgaard, USA Today, 2 Dec 2015). PermStrump(talk) 07:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I saw some competing bits of information in the secondary sources, too, so pulled it from the movie's website. Indeed forgot to add it as a ref. In there now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Speaking of not finding things in the sources... :) I don't see anything in that NYT source that says it premiered in Paris? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites: Oops I copied the wrong link somehow. Fixed it. There are a few other sources that talked about the Paris release in December, but didn't give a specific date. The NYT one says, "Mr. Morano said he planned to go on as planned with the premiere of his new film, “Climate Hustle,” at 7:30 p.m. on Monday at the historic Cinéma du Panthéon."[1] I admit there's a bit of WP:SYNTH involved in giving the date as 7 December 2015, because the date on this article is 7 December 2015, so I looked at a calendar of December 2015 to see when the next Monday was. It turned out that Dec 7 was a Monday, but I figured out it wasn't the following Monday (Dec 14), because this source is dated Dec 12 and it refers to the Paris premiere in the past tense. The USA Today source I mentioned above is dated Dec 2 and mentions the upcoming premiere without a date. Here's a link to the full text of that USA Today article. IDK what press reader is, but I found the full article in my library's database first and then the pressreader link when I googled the title. Idk why USA Today doesn't have that article online on their own website. Maybe it's too old? I'm really not sure, so I just wanted to mention it b/c idk if using the pressreader link in a citation would be a copyright violation. PermStrump(talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Premiere is kind of a strong word (for any of the showings, including DC). They are all more like screenings. As far as I can tell, they screened it during the Paris summit in December. Then they had the big screening with the panel in DC on Apr 14. Apparently they screened it in Paris again on April 22[2] when the climate agreement was signed. And then there was a one-day nationwide screening on May 2. I'm about 99% positive about all of that. A lot of the sources are vague about dates and only one of them specifically said May 2 was a one day only screening. "The documentary created by the conservative think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, will also be screened nationwide in a one-night engagement in select cinemas on May 2..."[3] WaPo said, "The answer is that they still draw significant attention — “Climate Hustle,” according to its producers, is slated to air at a large number of theaters across the U.S. on May 2."[4]. Per variety, "plans for showings at nearly 400 theaters on May 2,"[5] which is a little vague. PermStrump(talk) 15:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Christian Science Monitor source also says May 2 was a one day event, "The two-hour long film is only showing on May 2."[6] I don't really care what wording the article uses, "premiere" versus "screening." So tbh, I'm not exactly sure what my point is. :) PermStrump(talk) 15:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

The usage of "denialist" is not non POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.183.187 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There must be some mistake, I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be unbiased. When I noticed this page contained only the negative reviews, I added some positive ones as well. I also modified some of the wording to sound more neutral and less pro-Global Warming. The DVD release date was also absent from the page so I added it. I took the time to make sure my citations were acurate and to get references for each. I even took the time to make sure the new citations were in uniform formatting with the orignal body of the article (such as what is capitalized and what is italicized, etc.) I even noticed that there was no description of the film from the producers themselves (which to me sounds like writing a biography without actually interviewing the person), so I copied it from the film's website and added it - again being sure I had added a reference. In all I spent several hours on that revision only to have it all taken away four hours later with a revert. The version history comment stated violation of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy - after all the effort I put in to balancing the view and expanding the reference base I get accused of trying to make the article one-sided.

But I will be the first to admit I do not know everything and that I might have overlooked something so I read the policy from the link provided in the revision history comment. I was expecting to find some obscure rule I was violating but instead found I was actually in line with the policy which defines itself in part as "...a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias...", and "...a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article". And as for Due and Undue weight, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" - I even included the names of many of the scientists and what universities they work in. And as far as FRINGE goes, I did not present any theories or concepts or scientific terminology - I simply added the positive citations made about the movie and corrected a few sentences that contained "loaded words"(Wikipedia:Words to watch) - although in fairness, I did make the mistake of using the words "claim" and "accused" which means in my attempt to correct the tone, I made the same mistake as the original author. But that is not grounds to revert the entire revision, as I will explain in a moment.

So like any amature, I immitated the behavior of the previous editor by restoring the revision on the grounds that whitewashing all my work to balance the article was in itself a vilation of NPOV since it is removing all the citations and references from the other side. I have since learned that the whitewashing (reverting) was also in violation of a few more Wikipedia policies. After the second whitewash of my contribution, the revision history comments cited links to WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. So I read those too and was surprised to find "Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors." and my contributions were reverted first thing both times. The policy even states in bold lettering "BRD is never a reason for reverting." I could be wrong, but the impression I am getting is that there is a preferred version of the article and no one is being allowed to alter it without express permission; more like a personal blog site than community contributions.

Then I noticed the next reversion later on from several minor edits -- you even reverted his spelling and grammer corrections! I hope I am wrong about this, but what I have seen gives the appearance of favoratism and censoring. While I admit I had to look up all the rules, I assumed the principle editors would have known better, especially the "Reversions should be a last choice" part. I figure it would be reasonable to assume experienced editors would follow their own rules. I sincerely hope this is all just a big mistake, because I would not want to have to wonder what else is being censored on Wikipedia. But at any rate, have fun with the editing gig, as my attention is needed elsewhere. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.39.22 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be unbiased - Wikipedia reflects the consensus among reliable sources. When those reliable sources take a particular perspective on something, Wikipedia reflects that perspective. "Neutral" in WP:NPOV is about accurately conveying how reliable sources cover a subject.

only the negative reviews - It contains reviews from reliable sources. You're welcome to contest particular sources you believe to be reliable (as covered in the policies about reliable sources, fringe topics, and neutral point of view). You added Breitbart, Natural News, Morano's/CFACT's own sites, and New American. These are not reliable sources for climate change information, as has been discussed ad nauseum on multiple pages on Wikipedia. There's a noticeboard, however, WP:RSN to ask about such sources, though (basically questions like "Is source X a reliable source for subject Y and/or claim Z?").

modified some of the wording to sound more neutral - This is a "false balance". We don't need to present views with equal weight if they're not equally given in the body of reliable sources on the subject. If reliable sources known for fact-checking and accuracy have expressed other views, I don't think you'll get many objections to including them, but none of these sources are that. I know that's going to sound like a bunch of biased nonsense, but the fact of the matter is, for evaluations of scientific claims, Wikipedia sides with the overwhelming scientific consensus and doesn't give others equal weight (this extends to films about contentious scientific topics and coverage of the films in publications not known for scientific accuracy in their coverage of the subject).

Something I will concede this article is lacking is a statement about the positive press among conservative sources like Breitbart. I'm not quite sure the best way to do that without violating WP:FRINGE by making it seem like there's a "debate" over the accuracy of the film, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Rhododendrites. This isn't valid (according to the scientific consensus), so we should not present it as such. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

/* NPOV concerns */ This is quite a disturbing page in that it shows strong bias in favour of the claimed "consensus" POV. Wikipedia cannot be seen as akin to an encyclopedia if it persists in such slanted articles and removes edits that try to balance the negativity so evident in this one. "False balance" is a false concept as being applied here. There are many scientists with strong qualifications to comment who reject the alarmist claims, and they should not be dismissed as is done here. It's reasonable to see the Greenhouse Gas Theory as a fringe theory, since it was debunked a century ago.

If those responsible for keeping this article biased are sold on the idea that "Wikipedia sides with the overwhelming scientific consensus and doesn't give others equal weight" (stated below), then they have sold out to those willing to disregard the highest principles of science, which looks for knowledge rather than consensus. If this is what Wikipedia is becoming, I'm sorry I ever contributed time and money. Is this article really in line with Jimmy Wales vision? Regarding "reliable sources" (which can't possibly be anything labelled "conservative"?), have a look at this Wikipedia item: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#15_Times_Major_Media_Outlets_Used_a_Statistic_about_Plastic_Straws_Based_on_Research_by_a_9-Year-Old Ddwieland (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We regularly get pretty much the same contribution in every Talk page to other pseudosciences: "the article is biased", "people with degrees disagree", and so on. It has never worked because that is not how Wikipedia works. We reflect what the reliable sources say.

So, you are attacking your problem from the wrong side. You should, first, do solid research on the subject. Then, when the results confirm your opinion, publish your research in peer-reviewed publications. Then wait until the consensus has shifted and your work is quoted in reliable secondary sources as the last word on the subject. Then, with time, all the Wikipedia articles on your favorite pseudoscience (what was it? oh yes, climate change denial) will change over time and finally reflect your opinion.

This may sound a bit slow to you, but it is the right way to tackle your problem. The shortcut you are using now does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling stated: "You should, first, do solid research on the subject. Then, when the results confirm your opinion, publish your research in peer-reviewed publications." You mean like this: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) so they are not confused with the counted papers.

What argument are you going to use now? That poptech isn't a 'reliable source' (because you refuse to review the actual peer-reviewed papers), that the list itself isn't peer-reviewed (the list is a bibliographic resource not a scholarly paper, meta-analysis or systematic review), or any of the hundreds of excuses alarmists use to sustain their alarmist stance? Because they're all addressed in the link above. Perhaps you'll simply remove this comment... that seems to be a popular option when you have no other recourse. --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.32.5 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes

(The film offers "a fast-paced, uninterrupted delivery of superficial and false claims about climate science".)

I deleted this sentence from the lede for three reasons: because criticism of a documentary does not belong there, even valid criticism, the point is made a number of more times in the article with this very quote being used again, and a one paragraph sentence is an ugly way to write. Basically this line reads like reverse ad copy not like an encyclopedia. I will not revert it again. Collectionof Letters (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a documentary, it's a propaganda film. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of ideologically motivated delusions, so we have no problem with calling denialist claptrap what it is. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your strong stand but I am not denying that it is a propaganda film. I don't doubt the existence of man-made global warming so we are on the same page there. Still a bunch of subjective descriptive words like fast-paced, superficial still don't belong there. A reasonable compromise might be to put it in the body of the paragraph so it at least does not look like a cover blurb. Collectionof Letters (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IP user reversions

I invite the IP user to discuss their concerns here, instead of edit warring. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The article presents strong bias on global warming and negative respect for the film Climate Hustle and has much devalued the Wiki article on that film. You have gone against Wiki's own guidelines. If you do not desist from editing in extreme bias (one e.g. right at the start you include 'denier') then I will have to take this higher and revoke your privilages. Apart from the general Wiki guide to be objective and balanced, informative and neutral, you have reported your bias and are thus expressing it though Wikipedia article 'Climate Hustle' Why do you do this. Do you not understand 'unbiased', objective, etc. I have watched the movie/documentary. The Ars comment included in the opening paragraph is totally inaccurate. It does not matter what I believe about Global warming, being man made or what-not, I felt the film/doc gave good, thought provoking arguments. It wasn't the best presentation I'll concede, but much of the comment included in the Wiki article is extreme bias & does not belong in an article such as this, yet you keep editing it all in - for what and why? You want to promote man made global warming then go to sites designed for that debate. I do not consult WP for this kind of propaganda/belief system promotion of one side of the debate. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.169.238 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Bias" does not simply mean information that you disagree with or that is critical of this film. If there is information in a reliable source criticizing this production, it is valid content for this article. You are welcome to suggest properly cited information giving the other point of view. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

How to present positive reviews among sites that praise anything playing into the "climate alarmism/hoax" narrative

This came up in a section above, but I see someone added a line from The National Review: "Climate Hustle exposes the industry of climate alarmism through an impressive sequence of interviews and news clips revealing the politicized narrative pushed onto the public". National Review is obviously not a reliable source for information about climate science, and this quote could've been lifted from any number of other articles in such publications (i.e. it's applause for an iteration of this "climate alarmism" narrative rather than praise for a documentary as a film). That said, and as I mentioned above, it does seem like there's enough coverage from similar publications that it merits a line somewhere about how it was well received among those who share its politics (if not by scientists or film critics). Not sure how to do that, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)