Talk:Climate change conspiracy theory/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

On the intro refs

I marked the phrase "The term conspiracy theory is commonly, though not always, used in a pejorative way," with a fact tag, because it was unreferenced. I noticed one editor put a lot of useless refs around other things I wasn't inquiring about. Said editor then removed the fact tag and put this link after commonly, though I don't know why because it seems out of place and the article doesn't seem to be talk about it. The excuse he gave in the edit summary says confirm in conspiracy. Perhaps said editor is unaware, but Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources. Try again. ~ UBeR 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite an authority for your view that "Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources". It doesn't appear to be stated in WP:RS and it is not consistent with the practice of other encyclopedias, which routinely use cross-references for this kind of thing. Obviously, I can go to the article and cite its sources, but this is going to get very cumbersome, very quickly.JQ 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I can. Lest you're lazy, I'll quote it for you: "Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Also, WP:OR makes this fairly clear as well. It makes sense, because otherwise we would just be arguing in circles (circular logic/begging the question). My claims are justified. Are yours? ~ UBeR 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. And although I thought that the relevant bits of the Conspiracy theory article were well-sourced, they actually are not. So, I'll find and add some sources to both.JQ 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this issue can be solved by simply changing the wording from "The term conspiracy theory is commonly, though not always, used in a pejorative way" to "The term conspiracy theory is often, though not always, used in a pejorative way." I don't think there can be much debate on that assertion. Fuzzzone 09:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done!JQ 09:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article added to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Purported pseudoscience

I just need some citations to justify inclusion in that list. Count Iblis 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" is not a scientific claim. Ergo, it cannot be a pseudoscience. Real science doesn't care why people may or may not lie. ~ UBeR 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychology certainly can care about why people may or may not lie, and is certainly a "real science". Sorry, off-topic, but that sentence kind of irked me.

Anyway, in terms of the conspiracy theory being "pseudo-science" - it depends on how specific you're being. The theory itself, that there is a conspiracy promoting the concept of AGW for self-gain, is neither scientific nor pseudo-scientific - it's investigative/journalistic.

While I'm quite convinced of AGW, having read as many scientific reports on it as I could manage to find time for, I wouldn't rule out a "conspiracy" to promote AGW for self-interest. I'm sure there are people who gain from the acceptance of AGW even if it were false, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if there were people who were unconvinced of AGW but promoted it for their self-interest anyway. If there were an organized group of such individuals, that would qualify as a conspiracy. The theory that such a group existed would then be a "Global Warming Conspiracy Theory".

And so one could engage in an investigation of whether or not such a group exists, and that would be legitimate. And even if you lied, and said you found such a group when none were found, that wouldn't be pseudo-science, it would be a lack of journalistic integrity.

But then the reality is that the only actual "investigators" of this alleged "conspiracy" are also AGW deniers, then you start getting pseudo-science. AGW-denial often relies on pseudo-science, mostly because the overwhelming majority of valid scientific evidence supports AGW. So insofar as all AGW conspiracy theorists are also AGW deniers, there's pseudo-science here. But I don't think the theory of an AGW conspiracy is, itself, necessarily and intrinsically pseudo-science - it only happens to be because the only people who believe in the theory also deny AGW.

DragoonWraith (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"the overwhelming majority of valid scientific evidence supports AGW" - Hahaha, especially after the infamous e-mails that were shown up lately...

But I understand you wrote it one year ago and you already collected enough knowledge to stop believing in rubbish like man-caused global warming... right...? 85.89.184.212 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Try Scientific opinion on climate change for more evidence on why it's all rubbish. Airborne84 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

". . . because the overwhelming majority of valid scientific evidence supports AGW" - oops, now the the big guns are coming out. Remember to focus on improving the article rather than trying to blast the other side out of the water with such powerful ripostes. Santamoly (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What should be the in the claims section

From reading this article, it appears only Crichton's State of Fear and Durkin's documentary are being labeled as conspiracy theories. The rest of the sources in "Claims" have not been labeled as conspiracy theories by any sources. ~ UBeR 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it would be better to focus on improving the structure of the article, sources and so forth, rather than trying to delete material. If you want to help on the former, that would be great. JQ 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the unbalanced, unsupported, and other material in violation of Wikipedia policy should be removed first. I will gladly work on improving the article, especially in terms of cleaning it up, etc. after that. ~ UBeR 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We just went over all this on afd. Do you want to reopen proceedings there? If not, I think you should take it that your view that material alleging frauds, hoaxes and so should be deleted does not command significant support.JQ 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced. The "Criticism" section is currently geared towards providing evidence that many notable people have described skeptics as propounding conspiracy theories. I think it should summarise the more substantive arguments that critics of the conspiracy view have made. Of necessity this will need to link back to other global warming articles on Wikipedia, to avoid too much duplication of material, because obviously many of the substantive arguments are actually arguments against what are claimed to be "scientific" arguments made by the GW-skeptics.

Furthermore, the idea that global warming could be a hoax, without being a massive and far-reaching conspiracy, is a wee bit puzzling to me, and therefore the "overheated rhetoric" section could do with an example or being deleted.

This is a point where you could certianly help, UBeR. I included this section because I thought it would be reasonably easy to find people calling AGW a hoax without invoking a conspiratorial motive of some kind, but a trawl through hundreds of ghits produced no good example. You have claimed many times that people who call AGW a hoax are not conspiracy theorists, so maybe you could provide some examples.JQ 10:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your claims about improper synthesis in the article: I want to register my disagreement with the synthesis policy - I think it's an overly bureacratic rule which needs loosening - but it's official Wikipedia policy so I'm willing to adhere to it. Having said that, what specifically do you think is still contrary to Wikipedia policy in the current version of the article? —greenrd 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am here to responding to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology. I believe it to be a violation of the spirit and guidelines of wikipedia to do original research, that is, in this case, having contributors classify various claims as conspiracy theories in the absense of one or more secondary reliable sources desiginating the claims as conspiracy theories. See No original research/Primary Sources and Attribution pages. We have a similar discussion going on at Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy. Please feel free to stop by and add your views on a very similar matter. ImprobabilityDrive 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to spell this out further? Are you claiming that it is OR to describe someone asserting the existence of a conspiracy as putting forward a conspiracy theory? And (looking quickly at the link) are you suggesting that natural science perspectives (as against the political and social perspectives of GW deniers/sceptics) are being given inappropriate weight here, as you say they are in the creation-evolution controversy article? JQ 04:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would call yourself a conspiracy theorist if you believed 13 hijackers flew a plane into a building? ~ UBeR 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" occurs only once in the article, in the context of the (directly quoted) statement "I’m not a conspiracy theorist", so your question is moot. JQ 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not moot. It's in an article named "Conspiracy theories." So your claim that "conspiracy theory" only shows up once is moot. ~ UBeR 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reread. You asked about "conspiracy theorist". If you have a question about "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", go ahead and ask it.JQ 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no question to be asked. By placing people and organizations in an article titled "conspiracy theories" you have labeled them conspiracy theorists. Besides, the RfC commentator has fully concurred with me and others. I'll give you time to remove the unsupported claims. If not, we'll bring it mediation. ~ UBeR 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to confine the article to (a) sourced citations that explicitly use the word "conspiracy" and (b) sourced criticisms that explicitly refer to "conspiracy theory". Would that suit you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

And what exactly do you mean by "sourced criticisms that explicitly refer to 'conspiracy theory'"? Criticism of the disbelievers, or criticism by the disbelievers? ~ UBeR 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Primarily, the kind of material that is in the Criticism section.JQ 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy if you did, then. ~ UBeR 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now deleted the list of people who claim hoax, lie and so on (Oregon Petition, Mel Phillips, TGGWS), trying to focus on claims that explicitly invoke conspiracy or conspiracy theory, or use conspiracy-theoretic tropes like world government, black helicopters, Bildeberg and so on.JQ 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that fulfills point a. Now what about point b? ~ UBeR 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I follow Uber here. --Childhood's End 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a precision, at least prima facie, I do not object to showing that some people believe that the global warming stuff is a conspiracy theory or a hoax or anything else, provided they did clearly said that. I would although object to anything tantamount to associating objections to aspects of the mainstream science with claims of a conspiracy theory. This article may be borderline in some regards. --Childhood's End 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that it is OR to describe someone asserting the existence of a conspiracy as putting forward a conspiracy theory? -- At the level you asked the question, yes. It is original research because the contributor is deciding: 1. That the person making the allegation of conspiracy is notable. 2. That the allegation is not being taken out of context. 3. That the allegation has not been recanted. And so on and so forth. Wikipedia is not a secondary source. This is official wikipedia policy.

On the other hand, it does get dicey when not only has a notable person repeadedly asserted that there is a conspiracy, but his or her opponents also rebutted or attempted to rebutt this assertion, and no third party commentators or researchers have made the observation. Even then this could (or should) be considered synthesis. E.g., providing three citations: ^[1] Establishes notability. ^[2]Establishes person has made the assertion by citing person's own work. ^[3]Establishes that opposing view has rebutted (or attempted to rebutt) asserter. (This would be a huge burden when an entry is disputed and no third party commentators or reserchers have made the observation that the subject is in fact alledging a conspiracy theory).

“

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions

”

Of course, these are my interpretations of wikipedia policy. I think this area is under specified, and that my interpretation is not agreed upon by (some or many) others. But the issue of compiling such lists only seems to come up in articles that pit issues dear to liberals against issues dear to conservatives. This could be solved by having a class of wikipedians who have editorial powers, but the medicine may be worse than the affliction it's meant to treat.

By the way, I am not saying whether or not any particular item in the list of global warming conspiracy theorists should remain--I am merely offering my views of wikipedia policy and guidelines as guidance on one way to decide which items should remain and which items should be removed. ImprobabilityDrive 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation would appear to preclude the use of direct quotation altogether. How, for example, can it be demonstrated that a statement has not been recanted? Apart from this impossible point, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. The persons listed in the article are nearly all notable enough to have their own entries in Wikipedia, the quotations are direct, and third-party rebuttals are quoted (more to come, by the way). JQ 05:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would question whether this piece of opinion satisfies the Wikipedia criteria:

Lord Christopher Monckton claims that the draft agreement for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change would establish a world government. This claim has been widely reported and endorsed by commentators including Janet Albrechtsen [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc richard (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Motives

"A desire by governments to distract attention from other concerns such as peak oil" was recently removed from the Motives section. The accompanying note says "citation needed for that one, please". Why would a citation be needed for this one? This motive has been claimed for a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming.Servant David (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A citation is needed to prove that it has been claimed as a motive by someone.—greenrd (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The mere existence of the claimed motive is proof it has been claimed as a motive by someone. The claimed motive obviously exists otherwise we would not be discussing it. Servant David (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Stewart Elge

Under the Motives section, there is a quote from Stewart Elge comparing emissions trading to foreign aid. However, after reading the linked article, it's clear to me that Elge does not himself have any problem with either process. Someone else might want to point to Elge's views as proof that liberal lefties are really trying to promote foreign aid when they tell us we should implement emissions trading, and might argue that foreign aid is misguided, ineffective, or motivated by some "hatred of the west." None of those are views of Elge, however. So I have a problem with this specific paragraph being included. I presume we could find many people skeptical of Kyoto and emissions trading who actually claim that the desire to promote foreign aid is the real motive behind emission trading proposals, and that there is something wrong with that. But we can't impute the latter view to Elge, as the current paragraph seems to imply. Elge is simply saying the two goals (both, to him, worthy) happen to dovetail.Birdbrainscan 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've deleted this.JQ 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article is a POV fork, and should be merged with Global warming controversy. The use of the term "conspiracy" here at Wikipedia is a pejorative, intended to discredit AGW skeptics. --Don't lose that number 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All this was debated some time ago at AFD and there was a strong majority for Keep. Read the discussion there and see if you have any new points to raise.JQ 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy merge. "Conspiracy theory" is a disgusting and vastly overused term used by people with political agendas to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. James Callahan 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Global warming controversy is a long article already, 111k. The theory of anthropogenic global warming has been characterized as a "conspiracy theory", "hoax", "fraud", or "swindle". For example:

LaRouche Movement in Germany Sets The Climate Against Global Warming Hoax[14]
Similarly, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Easter weekend edition) felt stirred up by the LaRouche Youth Movement organizing against the Climate Change hoax in the streets. In the context of reviewing a new climate conspiracy book with the title "Metan" [15]
Australian LYM Nails Gore's Global Warming Swindle [16]
Boston LYM Discovers Climate Project is a Dionysian Gaia Cult![17]
Alexander Cockburn embraces climate change "conspiracy theory".[18]
In fact, when it comes to corporate sponsorship of crackpot theories about why the world is getting warmer, the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the Greenhouser fearmongers and the nuclear industry, now largely owned by oil companies, whose prospects 20 years ago looked dark, amid headlines about the fall-out from Chernobyl, aging plants and nuclear waste dumps leaking from here to eternity. [19]

And so on. We should cover this viewpoint. "Conspiracy theory" is more neutral than "cult", "hoax" or "swindle". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that if a merge is to be seriously contemplated, it should be with New World Order (conspiracy). In fact, both articles look quite intertwined, one being a sub-subject of the other right now. --Childhood's End 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Swindle" ref

There are currently 3 references to <ref name="Swindle"> but no original reference that defines it. Does anyone know what that is supposed to point to? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with named refs. If the first citation is deleted the rest go blank. Anyway, I searched history and found that the sources is "Global warming labeled a 'scam'", Washington Times, http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm. However the link is dead. The article is problaby in an archive is someone wants to update the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. A quick search suggests that there is no free version available that is not breaking copyright. I changed it from a "cite web" to a "cite news" link and removed the url. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the reference was supposed to go to the "Great Global Warming Swindle".00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)

1997 National Review article not about global warming

The NR section misses the point entirely. You can find the text of the article here. It's a polemic against global governance and the very real people who have been fighting for its creation for quite a lot longer than global warming theory's been around.

This is really what the article is about:

And though the crises change --World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the "energy crisis" in the Seventies -- the Left's remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: "If we don't change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Apocalypse soon -- unless international bodies save us from ourselves.

You can argue about whether global governance is a good idea or not but this isn't an article about a global warming conspiracy. It's more a standard center-right polemic against international government no matter what its guise including fighting global warming. TMLutas 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is really what the article is about (agreed):

And though the crises change --World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the "energy crisis" in the Seventies -- the Left's remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: "If we don't change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Apocalypse soon -- unless international bodies save us from ourselves. (emphasis added)

Obviously it's a standard conspiracy-theoretic polemic - it's relevance here is that it focuses on global warming as the pretext for global governanceJQ 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

This movie is DEFINETLY a conspiracy theory. Where does it go? Downatball5432 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the fact that TGGWS promotes conspiracy theories is mentioned a few times in the Criticism section.JQ (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

A conspiracy being "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime." I would have to say that this article is inaccurately named. The mainstream of man-made Global Warming doubters do not believe that a crime is being committed, or that people who believe in Global Warming do so for malicious reasons. They simply believe that the theory is incorrect. This needs to be separated from things such as the 9/11 conspiracy theories and such. This is just not comparable to a conspiracy theory, by definition. It is quite misleading; and poorly written to boot. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

True but off-topic: While you're right that there are people who hold global warming to be scientifically flawed, this article isn't dealing with them. It's dealing with those who believe in a conspiracy, and those guys exist, too. What you have in mind is dealt with -- to some extent dealt -- in Global warming and references therein. --128.196.208.15 (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article you're looking for is global warming controversy. Oren0 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Point being, OTOH, that people looking for info on the global warming controversy will land here by mistake and be left with the impression that 'only nuts don't believe in AGW', patently false. I shall add a disambiguation notice at the top forthwith. PT (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead already makes it quite clear that we are talking about a specific subset of septics, and that this is about a conspiracy theory. If people end up here by mistake, with a wrong impression, then it would most likely be because the link to the article was misleading - not that the article is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputes between scientists in most fields don't become opposing camps of conspirators unless a considerable quantity of money is involved(ie global warming, AIDS, holocaust, tobacco, etc). Is there a source for how much money is at stake in this debate.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a conspiracy theory. May I do an article to wikipedia on that?;-) 73.126.13.44 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But we are not talking about conspiracy theory here, but of conspiracy, which is "a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.(Wikipedia)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc richard (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On the Title

Per my discussion above (under the topic of the page being added to the Pseudosciences category), the title of this page does not necessarily refer to what the article talks about - in theory, you could have someone who believes in an AGW conspiracy while simultaneously accepting AGW as a scientific fact. As far as I know, no one actually does believe that (or perhaps everyone who believes in AGW simply doesn't care if such a conspiracy exists since it also serves their purposes), and all of the conspiracy theorists are also AGW deniers.

Irrelevant until the time such persons surface (notably and in reliable sources). In that case it would be relevant to discuss if they should be merged into the article, or if there should be a split. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is notable because "Conspiracy Theory", as noted in the introductory paragraph, is somewhat pejorative, and as I describe above, not necessarily indicative of the beliefs of this group - they don't just believe in a conspiracy, they believe that AGW is false and being spread by a malicious/self-interested "conspiracy" that is aware AGW is false but spreading the belief nonetheless.

The entire group being discussed in the article - do believe in a conspiracy. Otherwise they do not belong there. I'm sorry that you apparently can't accept that various groupings exists that have a common idea - but with very different views and attributions. But this is what reliable sources tell us about this particular subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, under that "common name" rule (I'm not a major WP contributor, so I don't know the link off the top of my head), the current name may be best, but I think a more appropriate name might be one of the other options offered in the introductory paragraph: Global warming fraud theory, perhaps. This indicates not only that AGW is being spread by a self-interested group, but also that AGW as a whole is false. I see avoiding the potentially pejorative term "conspiracy theory" as a side-bonus, myself.

Sorry, but things such as this are considered conspiracy theories, and that is what reliable sources call it. Once the weight in reliable sources tips towards your suggested name - then such a name can be discussed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So, thoughts? I think my title is more accurate, equally appropriate, and less POV (or, less likely to be accused of being POV). --DragoonWraith (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but you seem to have misunderstood the wikipedia concept of NPOV - NPOV does not indicate a equal terms/time concept, nor does it indicate that we should present things so that some groupings can't be offended. NPOV means that we present things in a way so that it is balanced according to the prevalence that we find in reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition of an unlicensed screenshot to this article

The screenshot File:climategate.jpg, repeatedly added to the article by user:Duchamps comb, is not licensed for use on Wikipedia. An attempt has been made to justify its use here on the grounds that it is used for "identification and critical commentary". However it merely shows a TV screen containing the word Climategate. References to the Fox News website can be used freely on Wikipedia to illustrate Fox News' editorial stance on global warming, including its use of words such as Climategate, and if Fox News adhere to a conspiracy theory (which is certainly not clear from the screenshot) then textual references including links to transcripts published on the Fox News Channel website would illustrate that amply and without using unlicensed material on this website. Accordingly I do not accept that this image is used on this page in accordance with Wikipedia policies, which require a clear justification for use of unlicensed material on this free encyclopdia. --TS 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. --TS 14:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura

Just posting for info, former governor Jesse Ventura and his TV show (aired on TruTV) about the global warming conspiracy (theory?):

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

Enjoy :-) John Hyams (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence on Exxon funding of denial groups

Arthur Rubin, can you spell out your concerns a bit here? The article gives a WP:RS saying that the Exxon funding was revealed by the Exxon Secrets project. So how is it incorrect to say that "evidence was produced". Even if some other evidence existed that threw a different light on the matter, the correct response would be to cite that, not to change "produced" to "claimed" which suggests that the existence of the evidence is in doubt. In fact, AFAIK, there seems to be no doubt about the fact of the funding so the evidence produced was accurate and not misleading. But, please, explain what your problem is here. JQ (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA conspiracy

Christopher Monckton recently implied that NASA sabotaged a Taurus rocket in order to prevent the Orbiting Carbon Observatory from reaching space: "Not greatly to my surprise—indeed I predicted it—the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data".^[20] Might we consider adding something about NASA's participation in the conspiracy to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikispan (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL --Nigelj (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Monckton is the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the field and this particular nonsense is sourced to The Age. The NASA claim probably belongs in this article. --Tasty monster 13:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some 'theory' theory we need to cover here?

user:ChrisnHouston has twice edited the lede of this article, saying 'It is important to distinguish between "global warming theory conspiracy" versus "global warming conspiracy theory"'[21] and 'Reiterating the point that the word 'theory' was being used in two distinct ways: "global warming conspiracy theory" vs "global warming theory conspiracy". Deleting to avoid confusion'.[22] I don't believe that either of the edits either explained the distinction or confusion, and I have to say I am still largely in the dark as to his/her meaning. In both cases, the link to Scientific theory had to be removed from the article.

ChrisnHouston, if you have a valid point for something that needs including in this article, we need to cover it properly with reliably sourced references in the body of the article, then summarise the point in the WP:LEDE. If you want to pursue this, please explain your point and give some reliable, third-party sources we can read here, so that we can discuss its inclusion. If your idea has not achieved notability by adequate discussion in citable refs, we may not be able to give it such coverage here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't see this part of the edit as all that controversial. Here I'll try to do a better job of explaining...

OK, first you have a Global Warming Theory. This is a scientific theory.

Second, you have a Conspiracy Theory about global warming. This is the theory that people are conspiring, completely distinct from the scientific theory.

So... Since this article is titled 'Global Warming Conspiracy Theory', with the word 'Theory' being used in the second sense above, I deleted the intro link to scientific theory in that it has potential to confuse people about what kind of theory that the focus of this article is actually on. The title of the article could have been 'Global Warming Theory Conspiracy Theory', with subsequent links to both types of theories, but that would be a mess. This article would be more clean and clear if it would focus on the conspiracy aspect, and just link to 'Global Warming' where readers can learn over there about that separate kind of theory. Well, with that I am going to leave it to someone else who agrees with this to redo that edit I had made. --ChrisnHouston (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed 'theory' to 'consensus' and wikilinked that, which gets much closer to the focus of the conspiracy theories.JQ (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede as written is POV and misleading if this article is really about a conspiracy.

This line in particular-

Global warming conspiracy[1] and global warming conspiracy theory[2] are terms used to refer to the claim that the scientific consensus on global warming is incorrect, and perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons.

Seeks to marginalize anyone investigating the scientific consensus as a conspiracy theorist. If individual scientists base their whole career on investigating global warming, they obviously have a financial reason. If individuals promoting global warming do so out of conscience driven desires to save the earth, this is ideological reason. In no case would any of these inviduals be likely to, or need to, make an agreement with any other in order to pursue their goals.

In fact this article should be limited solely to providing well referenced examples of global warming doubters presenting their beliefs that similar agreements have been made by GW promotors. As it is written it seems to be a rather veiled attempt to discredit anyone questioning the scientific consensus. Batvette (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A conspiracy is necessary, because if there were no conspiracy, and dishonest climate scientists attempted to "twist their results" (as one of the theories cited in this article puts it), they would be eventually called out by a number of other climate scientists. In order for all the world's national scientific societies that have issued statements on this issue to be suppressing the truth, as is being alleged here, there would necessarily have to be a very large conspiracy. Perhaps this point could be explained better.—greenrd (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Two points about your statement are relevant to comment on. First the lede as written suggests merely questioning that the consensus is incorrect makes one a conspiracy theorist, a clearly derogatory label. Secondly your claim that there must be a conspiracy for so called scientific societies to suppress the truth may indeed be correct but that is not at all what the lede suggests. I think you misinterpret what ideological and or financial motivations could be at play here, and a scientist would not have to be necessarily dishonest or suppressing factual evidence for one to say such motivations could be involved- simple human nature is the best explanation. One often pursues a career in a certain field out of passion or belief in a subject, and throughout their studies may choose to expose themselves mainly to data that supports this belief set. (not unlike religion, and conversely it is not likely anyone whose precursory studies form a belief it is not a valid field would pursue a career in it- do we see many atheists pursuing careers as priests?) When one goes from studying this field to researching it professionally this becomes the very thing that puts food on the table for them. These are examples of both ideology and financial motivations that could result in their view being flawed and their presentation of a flawed view as objectively concluded. Make sense?Batvette (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether rejecting the scientific consensus logically entails a conspiracy theory is not addressed in the article (if there's a reliable source making the link, it could be included, but it isn't there now). The article is about people who actually have presented a conspiracy theory. The theory presented by Batvette, based on financial motivations is one example, but there are others, as noted.JQ (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it a conspiracy theory to point out that it would be financial suicide for a person to declare that there was no validity to a field he'd made a career of studying? I don't think any agreements need to be reached or even that dishonesty could be at play here- even though one can find elements of that in the East Anglia CRU emails. These scientists devoted their lives to studying something they strongly believe in and now puts food on their tables to continue the study of. It's a conspiracy of ideology where no spoken agreement need be made as all work with similar beliefs toward a common goal. You may realize this JQ, I don't think Greenrd does when he makes the statement there must be a large conspiracy or if the numbers were twisted their colleagues would call them out. Because of the very nature of ideologies and pursuit of research careers, there are very few peers within their field with dissenting views on AGW, and they all feel what they are doing- even fudging statistics- is morally acceptable for a higher purpose.Batvette (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims vs. Criticisms.

Wondering why in the section on claims when it presents the beliefs of journalist James Delingpole it includes statements by George Montbiot which appear to mock the issue but don't directly address Delingpole's claims? Montbiot's statement probably has merit on its own but this should be in the criticism section. Thought I'd run this by for discussion before making the edit. Batvette (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change you suggested.JQ (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. Batvette (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: Why

BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This was the edit [23]

A desire on the part of individuals, such as Al Gore, to promote their own agenda to secure financial benefits for themselves.<footnote>Editorial, "A Blizzard Of Lies From Al Gore" Investor's Business Daily, March 1, 2010, retrieved April 5, 2010: "Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean."</endfootnote>

This was the revert. [24] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the BLP harm in listing among the "motives" that conspiracy theorists use, "A desire on the part of individuals, such as Al Gore, to promote their own agenda to secure financial benefits for themselves."

in an article titled Global warming conspiracy theory,
- beneath a section titled "Participants", where "Al Gore" is also listed (with a footnote) as one "of those claimed to be participants in a conspiracy to promote global warming theory [who] appear prominently in other conspiracy theories"
  - in a section titled "Motives" beneath Maurice Strong and above Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl?

Are we supposed to think that conspiracy theories about global warming do not include the most famous proponent of the idea? That somehow the conspiracy theorists would have avoided mentioning his name? Anyone with the least familiarity about the AGW debate knows that Al Gore has been accused of having ulterior motives by someone. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN and WP:RS. An unsigned "editorial" in an investment "blog"? doesn't seem to qualify for RS. Vsmith (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Investor's Business Daily. And if it was just a blog, it would qualify as a source for its own opinion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could qualify as a source for its own opinion ..... but it wasn't. It was stated as a blanket fact, and that is a BLP problem. The addition problem would be one of WEIGHT, and an editorial in a investment paper is certainly not weighty enough within this topic to merit inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a blanket fact that this is an example of what the heading of the list says: A number of different, and sometimes contradictory, motives have been claimed for a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming. It requires one source to say so. Are you disputing that this claim has been made in reference to Al Gore? Kim, you did look at that section of the article, right? You saw the description of the list at the top of the section, right? And if the 200,000-circulation daily, nationwide newspaper is not prominent enough for you among the sources on conspiracy theories about global warming advocates, please describe the better sources in the field. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think a highly-partisan op-ed such as this is only reliable as a source for its own opinion, not for a statement (or implication) of 'fact', expressed in our own editorial words. Therefore, the bullet point should read something like, 'Investor's Business Daily has surmised that Al Gore may be trying to protect his "investments" in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology when he promotes environmental issues." To my mind, this is a more valuable statement overall. The same style should also be used for the other BLP points here, Strong, Thatcher, Kohl etc. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a highly partisan ~~op-ed~~ editorial. It's touting a conspiracy theory. Why the scare quotes around "investments"? The item should be worded the same as the other items in the list. We don't mention individual sources in the rest of the list. If you want to go ahead and reword the entire list, then I'm fine with it, but this item should be worded the same as the rest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, 'fact', expressed in our own editorial words -- it is a fact that this is one of the "motives [that] have been claimed for a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming". In such a list, sourcing to those who claim the motive is appropriate. Wikipedia can certainly stand behind the fact that this is a claimed motive. The sourcing proves it, even when we use it as a source for its own opinion, which is all I did. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

JWB, you have one unnamed author of a blog-style entry in a minor source speculating ("Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments") as your source? You have GOT to be kidding! This is out-and-out tendentious editing. ► RATEL ◄ 23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the thread re: "blog". Also, [25] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my scare quotes above is that the source says, "Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises..." and does not elucidate or expand on what this means. I take it that it could mean investments in time spent, stuff written, emotional investments etc as well as straightforward financial investments in corporate entities. This one sentence in an editorial such as this is not much to base a whole (report of a) conspiracy theory on. Not enough for WP:BLP, and if used, it certainly needs careful writing by us, and full in-text attribution, I maintain. --Nigelj (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

a lot of his green evaporates and enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology are referring to sinking money into businesses. I think that's clear. I think it's made clearer in this commentary article by Brett Stephens in the 2-million-circulation Wall Street Journal [26]: And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph article. [27] Gore says all of his returns have gone to charity. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

More sources: [28] [29]

[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

All of these sources are either third-party reliable sources (New York Times, The Guardian, Bloomberg News) reporting on others saying Gore is putting his mouth where his money is, or they are the conspiracy theorists themselves (reliable for their own opinions). The first source (New York Times) and some of the others, give Gore's defense, which is worth putting in the article: (a) he was advocating essentially the same things before he was invested in them; (b) all the money he made, at least as of the Congressional hearing a year ago where he said this, has not gone into his pocket but into climate-change organizations. This is worth mentioning in the article, and the sources I've found wipe out the objection that the sourcing isn't reliable enough. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, from the BLP perspective, you're going to have to put in a balanced subsection, not just a tabloid-headline bullet point. For example, "If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," he said.[39] --Nigelj (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Could be a bulleted paragraph. Not sure. I'll write something up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust Deniers

In the counterclaims section, it is asserted that "Critics have also been labeled as "holocaust deniers" by climate scientists and the main stream media." However, the cited references do not necessarily support this. In the first citation, one critic claims to have been labeled a holocaust denier. In the second citation, a reporter is asked why he fails to include climate change deniers in his reports on climate change, and he asked if, say, he were to interview a holocaust survivor, should he also interview a holocaust denier? I would suggest at least a revision to state, "Critics have been compared to "holocaust deniers." Thoughts? 204.4.70.80 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)jtb

The consensus question

These "deniers" also propagate the claim that the so-called "mainstream" view that the media keep talking about is not even a "consensus". Deniers cite polls suggesting that 20% or more of climate scientists think AGW is incorrect, or that the facts do not support it. Advocates of this point of view are using the word "consensus" to mean a supermajority of 85% or more, and the cite polls to say that there is no 85% supermajority supporting AGW.

Please help me research this, and put supporting quotes, etc. into the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but don't forget to balance what you say they say against the known facts, per WP:FRINGE. E.g. the 97-98% that is prominent in the abstract of [40]. --Nigelj (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Deniers cite polls suggesting that 20% or more of climate scientists think AGW is incorrect, or that the facts do not support it." 20%? That's ridiculous, and flies in the face of the evidence of consensus I've seen. I think that figure could only be achieved by using an incorrect definition of "climate scientist", or even just substituting "climate scientist" for "scientist". Are you sure you haven't got your facts mixed up? We can't rely on "I heard this claim in the pub one day".--greenrd (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the known facts? I just googled it for less than two minutes and found a poll of US state climatologists. [41]

Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real".

Greenrd, are you giving us your opinion, or are you citing published evidence you've read somewhere? If it's the latter, please supply it so we can add it to the article, as I requested above.

(Nigel, I don't understand your comments. I said above, "Deniers cite polls suggesting that 20% or more of climate scientists think AGW is incorrect, or that the facts do not support it." You countered with, "... don't forget to balance what you say they say against the known facts, per WP:FRINGE." What are the known facts? Are there, or are there not, polls suggesting that 20+ percent of climate scientists disagree with AGW? If there are, are you saying that the polls are wrong, or that the climate scientists are wrong?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen any such poll, and you haven't given links to any, so I really don't know what to say about them. --Nigelj (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor, you just cited a survey of a small number of officials, from 13 years ago. That is not relevant to the claim that "20% of climate scientists think AGW is incorrect", because: (a) it is not a representative sample, (b) it is about what they believed 13 years ago, not what they believe today. Also, a conservative advocacy group must be presumed to be not a reliable source on this issue. You'll need to find better evidence than that!--greenrd (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Percent of climate scientists agreeing with AGW theory

A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.” [42]

The question that "deniers" and "warmers" are disputing is whether there is a scientific consensus. Based on the poll cited above, what should our article say?

That there is no consensus (because anything less than 85% agreement is not a consensus
That there is a dispute over whether there is a consensus

I believe that Wikipedia should be neutral, so I'm willing to step back from position #1 and recognize that intelligent men of good will may disagree about what the facts are. So I suggest that we constributors agree to say that there is a dispute over whether there is a consensus.

Different sources define "consensus" differently
One (or both?) of the major sides in the dispute has repeatedly accused the other side of bias (typically greed or ideology)
Polls are open to interpretation - and it's not for Wikipedians to say which ones are trustworthy

Fair enough? Or am I missing something here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing a lot. It is possible to agree with AGW theory and still believe that T variation over the last 100 years is within the range of natural temperature fluctuation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that opinion, Dr. Connolley (of the British Antarctic Survey). May I quote you? If so, please provide a web address or other ref. I'd like to add your opinion to the article, if you yourself may be used as a source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't intended as an opinion to be quoted - but you're welcome to do so if you wish to.of I was pointing out that your basic understanding of what "agree with AGW" means is wrong, so your interpretation of the polls is flawed. As to the me-n-the-web: you're out of date - check my user page. My blog is http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ - didn't you know that? You want quotes? You can have them! Try [43] or perhaps [44]. There is plenty more :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to clarify, for our readers, what various sources mean when they assert that various groups of climate scientists "agree with" or "do not agree with" AGW theory? If so, that might help our readers interpret the polls, which in turn could help them decide whether one side or the other's understanding of the issues is closer to the truth.

I am not a source, nor have I ever been a party to the conflict, and I prefer that the article remain neutral about whether the "conspiracy theory" is valid.

If you are no longer a party to the dispute, I would never do more than quote your past published viewpoints from when you were still with the British Antarctic Survey. If you are not currently a spokesman for them, then perhaps your viewpoints could be included in the History of the Issue. (As indicated in another part of this thread, it seems that polls about scientific opinion have given significantly different results even after only a decade and a half.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed - why did you fail to quote the line "Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring" from just above the part you quoted? Did you simply not notice that line? Because that is surely a far more relevant statistic. (Due to the margin of error - not to mention other possible errors - the true figure could easily be 85%.)--greenrd (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that because I was only searching for sources which support the viewpoint that more than 20% of climate scientists disagree with (or simply don't support) the AGW viewpoint. If this is a reliable source, then we can include both points.

If it's not a reliable source, because it's tainted due to its support for a viewpoint which conservatives favor, then how shall we evaluate sources which provide support for a viewpoint which liberals favor? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read Confirmation bias. I have my personal doubts about the Harris poll, as they queried members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union - both organizations which will have vastly more non-climate scientists than climate scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand confirmation bias, and I wonder if we should mention it in the context of the article. The crux of the argument giving by the "conspiracy theorists" is that support for the AGW theory reeks of confirmation bias. Some have argued that there's a climate (no pun intended) of unthinking adherence to the theory, with funding a multi-billion-dollar annual incentive and powerful disincentives against subjecting the theory to independent review (like being called a "denier" in a manner suggestive of being a Holocaust denier). I think someone even wrote an entire book about the pressure that AGW skeptics face, something like The Deniers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think if any mainstream scientist could have been the first to publish the peer-reviewed, conclusive science that actually disproved the whole global warming 'theory', they would be world famous and amply funded for life. There's no danger that no one's thought of trying! As to the main point, if you want to relate global warming conspiracy theories and/or theorists (the topic of this article) to confirmation bias, we need some strong sources that already do so (explicitly and using those phrases), to avoid OR. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - more specifically, see WP:SYNTHESIS (a policy which I think is overbroad in general, but appropriate for this situation).--greenrd (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Man, this winter is brutal!

Man, this winter is brutal! Are we ready yet to admit that global warming is a hoax? Or do we have to wait until it hits -40C? I'm ready to admit that I've been wrong about GW - anybody else? Santamoly (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, it's even worse than I thought. It's -6C and snowing in Australia (it's summer in Australia in December). Can we now discuss the various GW Conspiracy Theories without being disparaged by the WP PC "know-it-all" crowd? Santamoly (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Global warming/FAQQ4. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of separating this discussion from the previous by adding a title - I hope everyone's OK with that. Here's my theory, which at the moment is entirely WP:OR and so no use in the article, but I wonder if anyone has seen anything similar in a respectable publication. (1) When cold Arctic air is diverted by the weather into more temperate regions, then warmer air from elsewhere has to move into the Arctic to replace it. This warmer air will cool down there, to some extent by losing heat into the colder surroundings and warming them up by some amount. (2) The cold air that has blown south will eventually warm up, and will not return (in a cold state) back to the Arctic. Being very cold it will absorb heat more readily from the surroundings and from solar radiation, than if it had stayed in the frozen north. (3) Getting snowed in more often at 40 or 50 deg north therefore seems like just a bit more global warming going on. --Nigelj (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not really the place for that discussion, but yes, getting snowed in more often is consistent with global warming. (And to the concern troll above: give it a rest.)--greenrd (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say "getting snowed in more often is consistent with global warming" you're revealing the kind of double-speak that's distressing to those of us used to normal scientific discourse. But what I'm more concerned about is the use of WP politically-correct "attack dogs" who disparage unwelcome points of view in a relentless barrage of scorn and insult. This article is an example of a topic that has been seized by opposing opinion and is now occupied by a couple of invaders tearing the topic to shreds from inside the gates. There's no longer any reason to contribute in a positive way. Any contributions on topic will be shredded and thrown from the ramparts. Santamoly (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Another article got at by the "global warming thought police". Global warming is no more real than global hummidification or global ratification or global snoring or any other ridiculous notion that a short term random variation has some "hand of god" cause ... but like all religions you can't disprove this one ... because like all religions it is set up so that nothing can happen that would force the idiots who believe it to drop their absurd notions. So let them believe it, let them follow their ridiculous religion but please don't call it science because science is one thing it definititely isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.199.245 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad that you can suspend thermodynamics, optics, and spectroscopy by sheer force of ignorance. Would you mind turning your power to constructive use and e.g. have powerplants run at, say, 98% efficiency for converting heat to power? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with global-warmists because they keep moving the goal-posts. What does "98% efficiency" have to do with "global warming conspiracy theory" (the topic of this article)? Isn't the article about conspiracy, i.e. how how the warmists conspire to keep moving the goal-posts? 209.121.202.253 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Today's Daily telegraph reports at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8248146/The-Met-Office-fries-while-the-rest-of-the-world-freezes.html that it's not really a covert conspiracy that we're seeing, but the UK Met Office is openly lying about global warming. Does that still fit into the notion of a global warming conspiracy or is this simply outright fraud? Santamoly (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "report", it's an opinion piece by well-known crank Christopher Booker, who also supports creationism and thinks asbestos is as harmless as talcum powder. They should really print his column in the "Funnies" section so people don't mistake it for journalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, obviously, Christopher Booker is the right man to be joining us in this extremely silly, Python-esque topic - unless, of course, you're taking it seriously. Say, how about this wicked winter in the Eastern USA? Will there ever be an end to all this warming? Santamoly (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags

A lot of citation tags have been placed on points that are referenced earlier in the article. By all means ensure proper citation, but a tiny bit more effort would save work for everyone.JQ (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Add Portal:Global warming?

Add Portal:Global warming? 99.181.155.158 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Style of the lede

(More examples of these claims, and of the use of the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" to describe them, are given in the body of the article.)

This had been marked as a ref, but since it doesn't go off wiki, I thought it looked better as main text (but in parentheses).

Yet it seems redundant. Wouldn't the reader ordinarily expect more examples of claims mentioned in the article's first paragraph to be supplied further down? If no one objects, I'd like to delete the sentence outright. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed it as unneeded. I presume it was previously meant as a note rather than a reference. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues -- need complete rewrite

See AfD discussion and this page (above) for discussion of some of the many problems in this article. I've noted there that

This article is incoherent, disorganized, badly written, and riddled with partisan opinions presented as fact ...

Try reading Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Counterclaims_of_conspiracy, for instance: the body has (sfaict) nothing at all to do with the title, and the content is poor rehashes from other (bad) articles. This article is an embarrassment to the project.

There are certainly people who believe that global warming is some sort of conspiracy, and probably some usable sources hidden in with all the WP:coatracked politicking -- but ordinary readers who come to this article will quickly leave, shaking their heads. Needs a complete rewrite -- which won't be an easy task. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the WP:RUBBISH argument, with plenty of bold text, and a reading list for others. Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article per WP:TPG? --Nigelj (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... the Counterclaims of conspiracy seems quite valid as it describes a documented conspiracy to deny the science. Could it be written better? undoubtedly, embarrassment to the project? don't see it. What other bad articles? Who defines them as bad? Got a ref for those ordinary readers ... shaking their heads bit? Or were you thinking they would leave aghast at the reality of the documented existence of such a conspiracy :). Vsmith (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the dispute here. This is fully sourced in Lahsen (1999). Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Pete Tillman. I've read the WP:AFD and I see a lot of assertions from you and a handul of others, overwhelmingly rejected. Just to clarify discussion, I take it that you aren't claiming the conspiracy theory is valid. For example, I assume you don't believe that the CRU hack (aka Climategate) revealed wrongdoing by the scientists concerned (a claim central to recent conspiracy-theoretic accounts, but rejected by multiple independent inquires.JQ (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I opt for deleting this wikipedia entry, because the only function for the mere existence of the page is used as an argument. There is no evidence for the alleged conspiracy. The entire page could be cut down to be included on a page about NWO conspiracy. The several independent Climategate investigations should be proof that there is no conspiracy. Gise-354x (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's pretty ridiculous. If anything, hypothetical indications of such a conspiracy would be a reason to delete or more likely rename the article. We have plenty of articles on topics that make no sense, such as ghost, transubstantiation, hollow Earth, blood libel. What counts is only whether it is notable per WP:N and (to some extent, in borderline cases) whether it is possible to write a fair and encyclopedic article about the topic. The conspiracy theory clearly exists, and in fact is still being actively pushed by some (not that this matters, since encyclopedias are also for historical topics), and has found more than enough attention in reliable sources.

At the top of this page you can find links to the two deletion discussions for this article. The first was in 2007, but the second was very recently. Hans Adler 10:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification.Gise-354x (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just added a further reading section with Myanna Lahsen's classic treatment of the subject as the sole entry. I hope that other editors will use this source to help expand the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing of Greenpeace Study

Recently user "Arthur Rubin" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin removed a study i added from Greenpeace about funds from fossil fuel Interest like Exxon from the Counterclaims of conspiracy. It seems a bit off to remove the study with claiming it is a conspiracy. Please re add my addition, the study uses reliable sources. (official Exxon reports among other reliable sources). The revert in question http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_conspiracy_theory&diff=445672207&oldid=445640257 Gise-354x (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As I noted in my second comment, it should replace or modify the first Greenpeace study. The relationship of ExxonMobil's stated changes in funding requires a reliable third party to connect it to the subject of this article, global warming conspiracy theory. In any case, it should be toward the end of the section, as the first paragraph is a reasonable summary of the section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Are Grist and CarbonBrief reliable sources? Gise-354x (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote Climate change deniers like to point out that they have scientists on their side, too. But an analysis of more than 900 papers supporting climate skepticism showed that about 20 percent of those papers came from the same 10 scientists, and nine of them, according to The Carbon Brief, have ties to ExxonMobil. Now climate change denier in turn claim that climate science is a conspiracy theory. Gise-354x (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about grist, and I'm sure "The Carbon Brief" is as reliable as Greenpeace. In any case, I've restored the material, but tagged the "ExxonMobil" statement as off-topic, as the article reports Exxon's support of organizations questioning AGW, while this subject would have to be about those organizations denying AGW. Greenpeace makes the accusation, but The Guardian article does not, except in the title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthscan

I do have doubts that Earthscan is a sufficiently unbiased publisher to be used under WP:BLP, and I do seriously doubt the credibility of the authors in that regard, but the statement now there seems adequately sourced even if Griffiths and Earthscan are not reliable, so I won't further challenge that statement. There seems to be no claim in the article Earthscan or on the Earthscan website that they adequately check for accuracy of statements made by their authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This does seem to be a very odd source to use for these claims. I am pretty sure that there are highly competent scholarly publications that can be used to verify the same claims. Once I get back to my proper computer, I may be able to help with this. Hans Adler 08:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost, here. The only pieces of text that are sourced to an Earthscan book are "Many people now accept the scientific consensus on climate change, but some doubt the seriousness or the urgency of the problems; others remain non-committal or are stuck in outright denial" and "or at least to 'manufacture controversy'". I don't see the BLP implication of either of these. Nonetheless, Hans, if you can find better sources for a similar or suitable introduction to the Counterclaims of conspiracy section, that would be marvellous.--Nigelj (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed that Arthur invoked BLP. I don't think that applies here at all. But the source seems to be very much on the applied side and not at all what I would expect for supporting an analytical statement that's bound to come under attack from deniers. Hans Adler 08:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm? I'm a bit curious about this. From a quick glance over the books published by Earthscan, and the authors of these (for instance on economics by William Nordhaus [45]), as well as the peer-reviewed journals that they publish[46].... It seems to be an academic publishing house. So what exactly is the problem? Yes, they focus on environmental sciences - but that doesn't seem to be a problem. What exactly is the problem? Do we now consider academic publishing houses "biased" because they publish books/journals on the subject that the article is interested in? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that the books title at first glance leans towards less than reliable. But after seeing the reviews and the authors credentials[47], i'm less than convinced. It's a strange book to get that particular sentence from (and probably not good as a citation for it, i certainly would've chosen a better source) - but as far as being a reliable source, i have less trouble. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that the (formerly quoted, now a little paraphrased) section is quite polemic, and (as I said) I cannot find any evidence on Earthscan's web site that the their imprint really does attempt to separate fact from fiction. Many of the praises for the imprint read "interesting" and "essential", with none of the 10 eulogies (def 2.) actually saying "accurate", although "the only books you need to read" on the subject comes close. It's OK for this quote, although I would expect a better reference could be found, but I did read the page and the Wikipedia article Earthscan, and scanned the imprint's web site for indicia of reliability, and found none. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Even the "about the editors" page at http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=74741 gives little useful information for the first editor, and information that would lead me to believe that one of the other editors had a specific bias which would effect the credibility of that specific quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also uncomfortable with the polemical language we quote, but I did look for reviews of the book (for an earlier iteration of this discussion by Nigel y'day), and I found three or more respectable positive reviews, so it seems the book was well-received by some. So the book itself seems reasonably RS. I'd suggest making this a direct quote, to sidestep the polemic/NPOV issue.--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That would make it removable as the opinion of a non-notable book/author. But it isn't. It's the expert opinion of the most qualified scholars working on the topic, and we just need to locate better sources for the claim. I don't have the necessary library access where I am at the moment, so I can't do it right now. But I am sure it's not a big problem. Hans Adler 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

This article seems to be promoting the conspiracy theory, not describing it. Even the section entitled "Criticism" (the first content in the article not given over to discussing, without any attempt to provide context or to state that the views are far, far from mainstream) - even in the criticism section, the main focus is on people who deny global warming, but say it's not a conspiracy theory. Further, claims of Climate change denial are presented, not as an accepted way to describe the sociological phenomenon, but as a "counterclaim" to the conspiracy theory.

Very little content in this article is salvageable, as it serves to promote the conspiracy theory, not to describe it. 86.** IP (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Initiating simultaneous content-redundant attacks on this article (POV tag as well as AFD) is overkill. Please consider deleting this content-redundant discussion pending the AFD process. If the result of AFD is to keep (as I suspect) then by all means please work on the article to remove the POV you believe exists. That is the constructive consensus approach. IMO, launching simultaneous content-redundant arguments in different forums is an unhelpful form of wiki lawyering. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

... You're the one who basically asked me to make a thread in an edit summary. [48]. If you object to the tag, you can say so, but please don't say that something should be done, then get upset when someone does it.

I don't see how AfD and tagging are incompatible; it seems to be the norm, not the exception. Your accusations above seem to windicate under a very strange misapprehension. Let's say the article is kept: Isn't it better to know what the issues are, and have started to discuss them, than to go ahead without? 86.** IP (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When I asked you to explain your reasons for the POV tag, I did not know what they were, so asking you to explain them was appropriate. You have now stated the same reasons you used in AFD. I did not know that before you said it. Now that you said the same thing here, IMO it is reasonable to experience annoyance when confronted with redundant processes in different forums discussing the SAME ISSUES. In fact, that I can cite you court rules from three different jurisdictions that bar this very practice, and the possibility that some wiki editors do both POV and AFD at the same time does not mean it makes sense or is appropriate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to construct a redundant process, but the tag acts as a convenient note, so that if the article's kept,l we know it needs dealt with. I also went into far more detail here than at the AfD, which you might at least recognise. 86.** IP (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making excuses and justifications. If you need a reminder, your daytimer would be a good place instead of asking every watching editor to participate in identical arguments in different forums. It is not respectful of other peoples time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're getting rather near trolling just now, by making excessive personal attacks based on what is standard Wikipedia practice. PoV tags often are on the same page as AfDs. 86.** IP (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki policy must be making personal attacks on you then too, because it calls your standard operating procedure of multiple redundant threads "disruptive". See WP:FORUMSHOP. Fact that other editors might do both POV and AFD does not make it right or respectful of consensus process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the fringe theory tag as 86.*.* IP just made it up. It is a variant of POV if anything. There is no injunction against Fringe on Wikipedia, the only problems with them are they may be non-notable or are often described with POV. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the MAIN THRUST of the conspiracy theorists is about MISCONDUCT and is not about psuedoscience or science. Hence, a tag specifically about fringe science or pseudoscience in appropriate on an article about legal and professional MISCONDUCT. See Conspiracy_(civil) and Conspiracy_(criminal) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) The AFD is sufficient warning to the reader the article may not meet Wikipedia quality standards. If the AFD passes, the point will be moot, if it fails, there will be time to reach consensus on the appropriate tages, if any. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's clear this needs a fundamental rewrite or merger: this article actively promotes the conspiracy theory it discusses. Now that the AfD is closed, there can be no legitimate argument against the inclusion of these tags. (Not that there was in the first place)

Quite simply, this is a fringe theory, but the language consistently portrays the beliefs as respected facts. No attempt to portray this as the extreme fringe view it is is done.

This is such a minor part of Climate change denial that I can't see it as a stand alone article; I suppose we could stubify it instead. 86.** IP (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No: none of this is clear. We all know you want this deleted, but you failed. How about you do something useful instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions, WP:TAGGING requires tags to be discussed before being removed. Don't do it again. 86.** IP (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As you've been told before, WP:TAGGING requires nothing, because it is an essay. What we require of you is good-faith efforts to build wiki, not pointless revenge tagging when your AFD's fail William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point responding to you, as there's a constant refusal in any of your posts to engage with the problems presented, or to atte,mpt to move forwards with discussion of problems and agreement on changes. There is npo attempt to persuade me why my views are wrong; there is no engagement, it's simply personal attacks. There are issues that should be discussed about this article; and things that need fixed about it to bring it in line with policy. What way this can be done is open, and is best discussed calmly before the action is taken. We can't have articles that fail to provide the mainstream context; merging to an article that already has this context is a simple way to fix this; or we could agree that it's better to work on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.** IP (talk • contribs)

and cannot be edited - how would you know? You never edit anything William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look at their edits and think they they made an edit [49] in October soon after getting a user name which was constructive. Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What we cannot do is claim that all articles have no problems, and cannot be edited, or have the assumptions questioned. This is meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia, WP:OWNership is forbidden. 86.** IP (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur with William M. Connolley. There are some neutral point of view problems , I identified a couple in a previous section, but there is no justification here for anything else. Please note also that there is no support on the fringe noticeboard for placing both 86.** IP's new fringe tag and POV tag on the same article. Pleae note also the steps in WP:MERGE about proposing merges and the steps required when doing them. Just saying rewrite without discussion and insisting on keeping the tag is unconstructive. Dmcq (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did follow the instructions for the proposed merger, see Talk:Climate change denial. The talk goes on the proposed DESTINATION article's talk page, not here. Since there is 1RR, please restore the mistakenly removed merge tag, as otherwise, you simply keep interested parties in participating. 86.** IP (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You put the tag on there after my reversion here. I see no reason to revert myself seeing the tagging was not done constructively. Dmcq (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag. Not that I claim no POV problems, but we don't need the tag, as everyone interested or likely to be involved is most likely already watching; it's just DE.

86**: WP:TAGGING is not policy, but if you want to rely on it for guidance please note this part: "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." And, as usual, your complaint lacks any details that we could look at and discuss, you are just waving your hands around and complaining. Note that your constant tagging of articles is tendentious. even disruptive, and multiple tags is tagbombing (also a form of disruptive editing). You are no longer a newbie here, all of these have been explained to you, so don't expect a free pass for ignorance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What does DE stand for by the way thanks? Dmcq (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive editing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)