Talk:Climate change conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Too much claiming

There are a few places where claim is used and instead the facts are well established by reliable scholarly sources.

In criticism 'claiming scientific consensus about humans having some effect on climate is universal', the can just agree that rather than claiming it.

Counterclaims of conspiracy seems misnamed as many of the claims are well established facts. In particular 'Investigators claim to have uncovered denialist campaigns to negate the science and the threat of global warming' implies they might be wrong.

I'm also a little concerned about terminology in that section. It is true that others remain non-committal or are stuck in outright denial. However climate change denial deals with the explicit campaigns to obfusticate the issues, environmental skepticism probably covers the straight denialism better. Dmcq (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims section

How are half these claims notable? They're just random people saying stuff, unbalanced, and unnotable. 86.** IP (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic guide is to follow notability in setting up articles and due weight with reliable sources in their contents and to write them up with a neutral point of view. WP:5P is a basic toplevel on Wikipedia's policies. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Need context section right under the table of contents

IMO, this article should be set in the context of the mainstream scientific assessment of AGW, drawing on text from lead in [{Global warming]] and Scientific opinion on climate change. Such a paragraph should appear right below the table of contents.

The current section talking about funding for the conspiracy theorists (formerly called counter conspiracy, but recently changed to section heading "climate change denial") should be restored to its original title and position in the article.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea of the section is fine. However sticking in definitions is I think wrong and using them is original research, we should just stick to sources which are fairly close to the topic. I've had so much trouble with people saying something is a hate group because they satisfy the definition of a hate group according to some law and it is all their own interpretation. We need to stick to sources on the subject. Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The current para you've added looks fine. I think it needs to be brief (as it is) and just point off to GW etc William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Need to bring some back

A pile of stuff has been removed [1] with "LEt's start by trying to cut back some of the non-notable one-off, non-republished/rebroadcast complaints. The section is entitled "claims" not "random people attacking global warming". This included the British Channel 4 broadcast The Greenhouse Conspiracy which was widely publicised and seen by millions, plus the contributions by James Delingpole and Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley who are very notable by their pushing of this stuff. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was 86**'s doing (who, btw, is now blocked). With regards to Judith, Williamm, Dmcq, and NAEG (who have since made changes), could we revert to just prior to 86**'s changes (that would be wherre I removed the POV tag), and carry on from there? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of 86's cuts were OK, some not. Anyone who cares to try to work through the mess of restoring them into overlaying text will be doing a good job 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it would be easier if you do a manual revert for the 1-3 things you think are most important. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer restoring it all and then moving forward. Q Science (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming Scandal is notable, so mention of it should be re-added, but this time from secondary sources. Same for Delingpole and Monckton. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it was The Greenhouse Conspiracy, which is on the margins of notability. No secondary sources in our article. By the way when Kim nominated it for delete/merge in 2007 it was closed no consensus, which I don't think it would be now, as everyone voted delete or merge, except for one person who said keep but also that it could be merged. Are we allowed just to merge it? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not having been around back then, I got lost in the pronouns. Is there a question or proposal on the floor? Please re- state it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of reverting those removals. I've just been looking at The Greenhouse Conspiracy and there's a problem there in that it certainly passes notability in the normal sense the books that discuss it in any detail all seem to be ones promoting the 'skeptic' viewpoint so I don't see how to straightforward put in "An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" as per NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add a mention of The Greenhouse Conspiracy using a scholarly source, please go ahead. So long as it is just a mention and does not include any further commentary. Even the most scholarly texts from the on environmental science debates are now superseded by later research. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mixing this up with skepticism. We're not dealing with stuff that the global warming controversy article deals with. That one is science in the main. This one only need have reliable sources about conspiracy theories. There's no need for scholarly sources about allegations like this. This article just needs to pass WP:NPOV, it is not about science. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's about public controversy about global warming and there's a literature on that. But any recent independent source should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is about conspiracy theories, climate change is just the MacGuffin of this particular lot. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Both are political science topics anyway, so look in political science academic books and journals. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this will eventually be going to WP:RSN or WT:V. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do go to RSN as soon as you like. To clarify my position. This is a political science topic. (Whether the merger goes ahead or not: both articles are political science topics.) It should ideally be written up from political science sources, broadly defined. But it will be a great improvement if it is written from any reliable independent secondary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw you already went to FTN so best to keep the discussion there. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Scholarly sources for conspiracy theories since Itsmejudith seem to depend on that for so much of their support for what they do. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a comment to add, but first I would like to request that the two of you decide which talk page is going to host the rest of this discussion. Could we please have a collaborative decision so I can post my comment in the main thread where you would like to discuss this further? Judith's comments appear to go in an infinite loop between the two. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll nominate the fringe noticeboard for the discussion so the result stays around and is noticed there. Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

definition of "conspiracy" deleted from new "Background" section

I disagree with D's removal of the definition of "conspiracy".

D some questions. Please answer Yes/no and then provide any elaboration.

(A) Does providing a dictionary definition violate NPOV?

(B) Does providing a dictionary definition constitute original research?

(C) Where does the article claim that any given action does or does not meet the dictionary definition of conspiracy?

If your answers were NO-N0-NOWHERE, then please revert this edit. IMO, our article should say what conspiracies are because it is quite likely, IMO, most readers know the word but are not 100% sure of its meaning. Giving the definition ensures they know it. We then go on to report the unproven allegations of conspiracy being made by people. It is not up to us to argue whether a conspiracy exists or does not exist. Rather, that is the task of courts and other formalized quasi-legal proceedings. Our article should say no such proceeding has found a conspiracy - in the legal defintion - exists. Our article should help readers make their own evaluation of the statements of conspiracy being made by the proponents of the conspiracy theory. Leaving the dictionary definition out hampers that goal. I feel so strongly that this definition is essential context for this article, that without it and without a reason to change my mind, my might be inclined to vote delete in the next AFD.

Sidebar: Are you following Michael Mann's legal pushback (seeking libel damages) against fraud claims by retired Canadian prof Timothy Ball? The legal nonsense of these types of allegations is the only thing that makes the subject notable, IMO!!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(A) No it doesn't violate NPOV

(B) Yes it violates original research. Topics are not defined by dictionary definitions of constituent words. Dictionaries do not even provide special notability for words, see WP:NOTDICT.

(C) It doesn't Topics are defined by WP:Notability with specific sources.

Topics are not defined by following dictionaries, they are defined by reliable sources talking about topics. References within an article should be closely related to the topic.

In fact I'm fairly easy about articles sometimes using a dictionary even though it does not specifically relate to the topic but the idea of relating things with an article to a dictionary rather than the topic is completely wrong. Dmcq (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Broadly agree with D. Two little caveats. 1) ensure that we link conspiracy for the benefit of readers who want more information about conspiracy in general; 2) check that our article isn't out of kilter with the mainstream definitions of conspiracy. That's enough to comply with NPOV, NOR and NOTDICT. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are not really related in their informal definition. The word "conspiracy theory" has such a artificial connotation to its official meaning that the label in itself is capable of making you get a very different picture of this article when everything else stays the same. I fail to see how defining the word "conspiracy" is related to this article's application of the label "conspiracy theory," an unrelated word. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 07:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Claims of counter conspiracy" renamed

User:NewsAndEventsGuy's renaming of the section "Claims of counter conspiracy" to "Claims of corporate campaign to undercut public's faith in climate science and thereby stall political action" seems POV and unencyclopædic to me, but I can't revert it because I already reverted a similar change by an IP, and I don't want to break 1RR. PT 23:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of pointing the POV finger, and before reverting, please supply an RS that calls the actions in this subsection a "conspiracy". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you supply a RS that calls the allegations of endemic corruption in climatology a "conspiracy theory"? The article doesn't seem to have any, and I've never heard it called the "Global warming conspiracy theory" anywhere else but Wikipedia, and yet that's the article title. Either endemic politicisation of science constitutes conspiracy or it doesn't; either claims thereof constitute conspiracy theories or they don't; you can't have it both ways. Besides, the section title you used is painful purely on stylistic grounds - it reads more like a lede than a title, and a poor one at that. PT 00:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't bothe rlooking through the article it was simpler to just do a google books for climate change conspiracy and the first few I got back which seemed relevant were:

Paranoia within reason: a casebook on conspiracy as explanation - Page 111 george E Marcus 1999

Encyclopedia of global warming, Volume 1 page 272 Steven E Dutch 2009

The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories - Page 136 James McConnachie, Robin Tudge 200

Global climate change: national security implications - Page 219 Carolyn Wilson Pumphrey 2008

The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society - Page 262 John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg 2011

There seem to be lots of other books too just looked at the first page back. Dmcq (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Point conceded on the article title. On the main issue of the section title, though, I've found this:

The Mindful Society: Economics and Ethics After the Fall, p130 "ExxonMobil, Koch Industries ... News Corporation ... have conspired to spread unscientific nonsense about climate change".

Now, I think the author is talking through his hat, but he is definitely claiming a conspiracy by "Big Oil".

You could also read this actual article (from the "Criticism" section):

Harold Evans [suggested that] "if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming.

Then there's another line from the section whose title is disputed:

It's an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts -- Diane Rehm Show, Bruce Babbitt, WAMU-FM

The "Big Oil is driving climate scepticism" theory is, clearly, a conspiracy theory, which the article itself acknowledges in the text. If you're happy to have an article called "Global warming conspiracy theory", you clearly don't think that using words with negative connotations is inherently POV, nor that calling something a 'conspiracy theory' is a claim that that theory is false (after all, it's not as if there's any way WP could Verify that no such conspiracy exists, problem of proving negatives and all that); if you're happy to have a section called "Claims of corporate campaign to undercut public's faith in climate science and thereby stall political action" (what a mouthful!) then you are viewing this matter through a twisted filter. PT 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Great finds, including the one I overlooked from the criticism section. If you edit the article to include these in this section I can live with restoration of the former title with "conspiracy" in it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "edit the article to include these in this section" - one of them is already in the section, another is in the article elsewhere (and it would be silly to include the same quote twice in the same article), and there's no obvious place to <ref> the third. You presumably know what you're asking for, so why don't you make the edit? PT 03:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, editorialising much? "These unproven conspiracy allegations have been harshly criticized"? And two excessively verbose section titles now? I'm afraid it looks to me like you're trying to rewrite this article to satisfy your own POV. However, since I (like most people) have a point of view on this issue, and since my own point of view differs radically from the one you appear to me to be pushing, I think a third opinion is necessary; I've left a note on User talk:Dmcq to request further input from him. PT 17:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd have been around anyway. I've separated the counterclaims and the criticisms sections. I removed the whole bit about uncited claims harshly because that sor tof thing would need a source summarizing the criticism to say it, anyway it didn't fit in the counterclaims section. I think I'll just everse those two sections now and put the counterclaims bit last. The y could be either way but might as well have the criticisms straight after what they refer to. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Gents, I wrote glue for the section intro. Let's break down what I wrote. Are there allegations? TRUE. Is "conspiracy" a legal concept? YES, see Conspiracy (civil) and Conspiracy (criminal). Have the allegations been proven in a legal proceeding? NO, and there is no evidence to prove this negative so burden of proof is on you to produce an example if you disagree. Have the allegations been criticized? YES, just read our article. That leaves us with one final question and that is whether the criticism can be described as "harsh"? Set aside whether you agree with the criticism. Were the things said warm and fuzzy criticism or biting stinging bashing..... harsh? It could be harsh and flat out wrong, or harsh and right on the money, or harsh and inbetween. But harsh. So see WP:SKYISBLUE. However I do admit that characterizing the criticism as "harsh" is subjective. PT, caution reading added meaning to black and white text on screen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy is not only a legal term, it also has a non-jargon meaning ([2] gives The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations as its first definition). Besides, what matters is not whether the alleged behaviour is conspiracy, but whether reliable sources have called it conspiracy, which (as demonstrated above) they have. That covers the word 'conspiracy'.

As for this 'harsh' business, have reliable sources described the criticism as harsh? If so, please provide these sources, because I haven't seen them cited. WP:NOTBLUE, WP:SYN, etc.; the whole point of WP's V and RS policies is that we shouldn't make subjective statements, only objectively quote subjective statements in the literature. I'm not reading anything into the text that an average reader wouldn't; I'm just applying policy. PT 21:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy is great. Let's try to be friendlier by applying assume good faith. I write "harsh" and you run to recruit D to do battle about it instead of just talking direct to me yourself? Sheesh. You were correct in your comment on D's page about you having a short trigger, apparently. Calm down, please, and be patient enough (a few days anyway) for the conversation to go back and forth. If you don't like something I wrote let's just talk about it... with patience. A good trick if you're feeling hot is to write back the next day. See also WP:ENEMY NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I was assuming good faith; I never called your edits and statements malicious, merely wrong. Acting in good faith does not exempt you from policy. I didn't "recruit" Dmcq; as I said on his talk page: [Dmcq had] already posted in the talk thread. [Had he not done so] I'd have gone to WP:3O, but 3O isn't supposed to be used when there are already three parties present (or so, at least, I understand it). Moreover, I had been talking directly to you; by the time I left the note on Dmcq's talk page we were already past the first dedent. My "trigger" hasn't, in fact, fired yet; I'm still calm. That doesn't stop me dealing ruthlessly with edits that violate policy. I would be just as ruthless in expunging unsourced editorialising that I agreed with. PT 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the headers at the top of this page and ask yourself, is this really the best place for you to practice your 'ruthless' editing and reverting? I'd suggest less bold text, less shouting, and less ruthlessness around here, myself. On the substance of the issue, I doubt that we're only here to 'objectively quote subjective statements in the literature'. What we do is summarise the positions put forward by various sources. Now, what do the relevant sources say, and is harsh a realistic summary of what they say? --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as "harsh" is concerned, I have already agreed to remove it. PT, you could have asked me about it in 10 words or less instead of two screens of text. Chill, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were trying to argue that it should stay in. PT 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record in case anyone else likes "harsh", I agreed to its going away without abandoning WP:skyisblue arguments that it should stay in. I'm just willing to compromise (via its removal at least for now) so we can move on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail says GW only lasted a few decades

I see that MarkOfBondi (talk · contribs) is edit warring with several people over a piece of nonsense that the Daily Mail seem to publish from David Rose just about once a year.[3][4][5][6] I'm not going to revert anything on a WP:ARBCC article, as I know that you can be instantly blocked for doing that, with no discussion and no comeback. I just hope some brave admin wants to do something about it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a 3RR report. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything much, most certainly not for scientific statements of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraph in Sample claim section

Re section Sample claims that global warming is a global conspiracy and hoax. On 4 June 2009 user 83.251.166.84 added a paragraph which after revision looked like this:

A 2007 Minority Report of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in 2009) originally cited support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and has grown to 700 dissenting scientists. The report challenges man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.[16] According to Steven Dutch in the department of Natural and Applied Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay in a paper titled, "650 Climate Skeptics?" over 58% of the names listed had no climate related qualifications whatsoever and so lacked the knowledge to effectively judge the results. Less than 16% were qualified in climate science to even voice an opinion on the matter and many of those had quibbles over minor matters which did not contradict the global warming theory. At least one of these scientists publicly complained that his name was included against his knowledge and wishes and in contradiction to his own opinion. [17]

The paragraph didn't mention or allude to or hint about conspiracies/hoaxes/etc. so I removed it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence of the "Motives" section

First off, I know very well that human-caused global warming is a completely real and serious problem that we have to fight. I have no respect for claims that it is any kind of "hoax". However, I thought that opening sentence sounded a little too opinionated, even if it is basically true: "Conspiracy theorists have given a number of different, and sometimes contradictory reasons why they think global warming has been promoted". I feel that if a Wikipedia article seems like it's trying to insult certain people, it won't seem neutral and may not be taken as seriously by everyone. I think the article should discuss the factual evidence that global warming is indeed real, but making jabs about who is contradictory seems too much like espousing on opinion. Therefore, I removed "and sometimes contradictory" from the sentence to make it look more neutral; however, the edit was reverted with a description that I didn't exactly understand. What do others think about this? GranChi (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not an opinion but a background statement that calling people "conspiracy theorists" has been discussed before on this talk page. See in section "Tags" above: Complaint: "It's improper synthesis for us to call people or societies conspiracy theorists if we have no sources to back ourselves up. ... UBeR 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Reply: "Wikipedia is not calling any of these people conspiracy theorists either. Where did you get that idea? ... Nethgirb 06:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC). That was before somebody put this sentence in saying "Conspiracy theorists" etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That the claims of some kind of conspiracy are sometimes contradictory reflects on their credibility (or lack of). To not mention that would be a failure to inform our readers of an important fact. Why you should take that to be insulting is deeper than I can fathom, other than perhaps you've been listening to too much talk radio. I point out that scientific theories often have contradictory elements, and resolving such matters is a main driver of scientific advance. Also, we don't trim the truth to fit people's comfort level, which is what you are implicitly urging. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the facts about these conspiracy theories shouldn't be whitewashed, of course - they're denying one of the most serious problems facing our planet today, and that's wrong. But I feel like the way it was stated, with "and sometimes contradictory" inserted like that, looked like it was written by someone making an effort to portray the conspiracy theorists a certain negative way. It's more about Wikipedia's reputation for having a neutral tone than it's about people's comfort level. I feel that it reflects more on the theories' credibility to talk about the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming than to target the theorists for being unintelligent.

In any case, I rephrased the sentence to "Conspiracy theorists have given a number of different reasons why they think global warming has been promoted, some of which contradict each other". I hope we can all agree on this, although I still think the article's point of view might seem more trustworthy without the observation of them being contradictory. GranChi (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree your change was pointless fiddling, so I've reverted it. There is so much useful real work to be done at wiki, why not do that instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  Your views that mentioning a contradiction is insulting or non-neutral seem to reflect a partisan sensitivity. That these conspiracy theorists may come across negatively is not because we portray them so, that derives from the absurdity of their views. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lewandowsky Papers

Task for the future: we really should report the findings of Stephan Lewandowsky, Winthrop Professor, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, on motivated rejection of science and the followup paper Frontiers | Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation | Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences (in press). . . dave souza, talk 10:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? So we can trumpet another report that throws up the Red Herring that the basis of the anti-Man Made Global Warming crowd is that they are "anti-science"? Come on... This is BEYOND demeaning and just furthers the anti-Man-Made Global Warming crowds thought that those people who are "pro-" are elitists who think of the other side of discussion as knuckle-dragging Troglodytes (and the large part of that crowd who are Christians as Bible-thumping morons). This article is clearly nothing more than liberal college professors looking to find "evidence" to support their own biased POV's. Throwing out the completely absurd claim linking those people who disagree with Man-Made Global Warming to the fools who think that AIDS is a Gov't-made disease simply by following responses on a blog just furthers my point. Connecting any kind of blog/chat room communications with actual, succinct thought of the overall community is beyond stupid as it completely ignores the common knowledge of what type of people frequent those spaces. It's like looking at a group of teenage girls who are glued to their phones and extrapolating from this that EVERYONE on Earth, no matter age or whatever, spends 75% of their waking day talking about "nothing" on the phone. That's not science... Ckruschke (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Who said any thing about "trumpeting"? Or, for that matter, "Bible-thumping morons"? The bombasticity of your comments (e.g., "language with a theatricality or staginess of style far too powerful or declamatory for the meaning or sentiment being expressed") disinclines me towards giving them any further consideration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Amazing how those "experts" who just know that climatology is a giant hoax suddenly became experts on psychology and think they represent the whole community! It's a peer reviewed study on the topic, and should be shown as such. By the way, Liberals are conservatives in Oz. . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. One of the article's reviewers is not a peer in the field, she's billed as a journalism graduate student (http://uts.academia.edu/ElaineMcKewon) (https://twitter.com/ElaineMcKewon). Googling for site:wikipedia.org "www.frontiersin.org" yields nothing for the Personality Science journal in the Frontiers series, making me believe that no Wikipedia article has ever cited anything in it. I see that the home page of the parent http://www.frontiersin.org/ advertises "fast, open-access publication" and a "Frontiers Review System that has revolutionized academic publishing by overcoming the restrictions posed by traditional journals" which suggests that this isn't peer review in the traditional sense. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have no experience with the "Frontier" journals, but the original article (the non-recursive version) is published by the APS journal Psychological Science. That is an impeccable journal. Lewandowsky has also published in many other venues, and his work is widely referenced. So is the work of his co-authors Klaus Oberauer and Gilles Gignac. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

All - I recant my previous comments. All I can say is I was having a bad day. The article should obviously rise or fall on it's own merits. Ckruschke (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Stuff happens. Hopefully today is better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz: dave souza cited only the Frontiers article, so I think that's the appropriate focus. I see no evidence that it's a version of an article in Psychological Science. Perhaps you use the word "version" as a synonym for "followup paper"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about this fulltext online paper, or this one, or something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about Frontiers | Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation | Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What about you guys, Dave and Stephan ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dave suggested "the findings of Stephan Lewandowsky[...] on motivated rejection of science and the followup paper". Note the "and". I take the first part to refer to Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E., "NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science", Psychological Science, (in press), a preprint of which is available here. As I pointed out, that one is being published by an impecable journal, and by authors which have written extensively on this and related fields, with significant impact as demonstrated by the references in Google Scholar. I don't know about the quality of the journal in which the follow-up paper is being published, but it is a serious, peer-reviewed venue, many of the Frontiers journals are well received, and, again, at least two authors are fairly heavyweight, with H-Indices in the 30s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a topic I've examined in depth, but these expert papers directly identify global warming conspiracy theories and show them in an academic context of preceding papers which will be worth examining, if not already covered. They're also relevant to climate change denial, if anyone is editing in that area. Looks pretty useful. . dave souza, talk 09:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're clear now that the Frontiers article is independent of, not a version of, any [Psychological Science (journal)] article. But since people bring up Psychological Science, maybe they can tell me about it: (1): Does it commission journalism students as peer reviewers for its research articles? (2): Does it advertise that its review system overcomes "traditional" journal restrictions? (3): Does it have approximately zero citations from elsewhere in Wikipedia? (4): Does it require authors of articles like this to pay a 770-euro fee? For Frontiers in Personality, the answers are "yes" "yes" "yes" "yes". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are clear about it now - most of the rest of us seems to have been clear all along ;-). From the above, I take it that you accept the original Psychological Science article as a good RS, but have doubts about the Frontiers follow-up article? There is little question that Frontiers is not on the same level as Psychological Science (or, at least, not yet). But it is a serious academic journal - as I pointed out, several of the sister journals with the same publication model already have decent impact factors in the ISI Web of Science. Most journals keep reviewer names private, but it is absolutely normal to have PhD students among the reviewers. I wrote several reviews before I got my PhD, and, when acting as an editor, I also commission reviews from competent PhD students. Most Open Access journals charge publication fees - this does not affect their reliability. Also, of course, the paper gains serious credibility independent of the publication venue by the qualification of the primary authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As these two references have not yet been published "for real" (since they are merely in press) this discussion strikes me as mootly premature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, consider it a heads-up. Task for the future, as I said at the outset. I've little knowledge about social science journals, but these two do seem to have much better standards than Energy & Environment. Which brings me back to the conspiracy theories I'm currently dealing with. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a valid point. The original paper has garnered a lively reaction from the "sceptic" blogosphere before it was even formally published, but that does no mean that we have to follow that example of hyperactivity... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, till later. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove Menzies's quote of Stewart

The Motives section says: "Statements made or allegedly made by various supporters of climate change policies have been quoted as giving support to the idea that anthropogenic global warming may be used primarily for political purposes. According to a critical editorial written by Peter Menzies in the Calgary Herald, Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister for the Liberal Party of Canada, said in 1998 that 'No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.[23]'" No. Menzies does not say anything about what he thinks of Stewart's statement. He just says he's leaving the last word to her, then he quotes her, and that's the end of the newspaper column. So I have removed the sentence about Menzies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fictional representations (Michael Crichton)

On 21 December 2011 User 86.** removed the Fictional representations section which contained a description of Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear (he/she later added a see-also). I believe that was unjustified because (1) the inclusion such a section is common (popular culture) and has been done before for a Crichton novel (Dinosaurs); (2) there is reference to a criticism of "Crichton's conspiracy theory" elsewhere in this article which begs a description of what is being criticized. I restored the Crichton description and moved the criticism reference to follow it. I changed zero words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Funding

The section labelled "Funding" begins: "There is evidence that some of those alleging such conspiracies are part of well-funded misinformation campaigns" etc. But the sources for the section only mention "deniers" and "the denial industry" and "skeptics" and I don't see where they say that the folks in question are alleging conspiracies. Plus, 6 of the 9 sources are either blog posts or web sites that don't automatically qualify as reliable (health practitioner's guide, exxonsecrets.org, zmescience.com, carbonbrief.org, greenpeace.org, cei.org). Perhaps the section could be fixed by changing to what I think it was originally intended to be about: people who think that the deniers/skeptics are a conspiracy, with a clear statement that the sources are just opinions and without any claim that the section addresses the article's subject. Or, the section could be removed. Does anyone have a third option? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Most importantly, I reject your suggestion that the scope of this article is necessarily restricted to claims by just one side against the other, instead of a discussion of claims by either side against the other. The version history consistently includes text reporting on claims that the fossil fuel industry has funded a misinformation campaign, at least as far back as a particular 2007 version (I did not search any further back).

Second, if you want to challenge whether particular sources meet RS, that's great.... but don't just make a [{WP:VAGUEWAVE]]. If you articulate a full thought, with specific arguments based on comprehensible and specific policy citations, I'll consider it, and hope everyone else watching this page will too. There's always the RS noticeboard too.

Third, have you read this source in Index on Censorship?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the article had to be about only one side's claims, I just acknowledged what the article's lead paragraph says the article is about. As for reliable sources: I specified the six URLs that I think fit WP:SPS, and we could discuss which ones you think do not fit -- if there's a rejection of the suggested fix to make the section about a theory that deniers/skeptics are conspirators. (If it was, then the sources are only evidence about their own opinions and not statements of fact about third parties.) As for whether I've read a certain sagepub.com article, no, and it's behind a pay wall. Have you read the sources cited within the Funding section and found where they say that the folks who are receiving funds are alleging such conspiracies? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the article states that the conspiracy theory is that "the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted". There are tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists involved in climate science. For the vast majority of them to be falsifying data, consistently eschewing the "real" data, and always and only publishing results and theoretical work based on the falsified data would take a worldwide conspiracy of "professional and criminal misconduct" on an astonishing scale. The section about funding says that the "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry [that] has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change", was funded to allege that this is precisely what happened. You can't run a well-funded "denial campaign" without alleging that all these scientists are lying consistently in some well-organised and agreed way. That is the conspiracy theory that the article is about.

I think you'll find that the references we have used have a good reputation for checking the facts, and considerable editorial oversight in what they publish. Making allegations such as the ones we quote and ascribe to them, without careful fact-checking and without legal advice over the wording used, would have surely led by now to them being sued, having withdrawn their statements, of having been shut down by the powerful individuals and organisations that they have made the allegations against. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'You can't run a well-funded "denial campaign" without alleging that all these scientists are lying consistently in some well-organised and agreed way'? I don't have the funds or the inclination to try that out, but I have access to Wikipedia, which says that Climate change denial and Global warming conspiracy theory are different. So a source which says "denier/skeptic X got funds from Y" is not evidence that "a conspiracy theorist got funds from Y". The contention would require a reliable source saying both "denier/skeptic X got funds from Y" and "X is a conspiracy theorist". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is self-evidently true that accusing thousands of scientists of spreading the same lie, is per se a conspiracy theory. Every source I find supports that. I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with a reference to a quote of some very clever lawyer-words if you want to argue that accusing all the world's mainstream scientists of agreeing on a hoax or lie, and then sticking to it for 30 years or more, is anything other than an accusation of a massive conspiracy.

• "Climate denial rests on the assumption that 97% of climate scientists who believe climate change is caused by human behaviour are wrong, and, remarkably, a small group of mostly journalists, politicians, business people, and general non-scientists - many with strong links to the fossil fuel industry - have managed to disprove the link between human behaviour and climate change, and in doing so unearthed a global science conspiracy."[7]
• From our own well-referenced denial article: "According to Stephan Faris, a writer for The Atlantic, the Kivalina suit accuses ExxonMobil et al. of "... conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking — by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus."[8]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs)

I have read the sources for the Funding section. For all but three, I can say with some confidence that they do not say that a funded-by-nogoodniks person or organization says the non-skeptics/non-deniers are in a conspiracy, or a hoax, or some fairly close synonym implying conspiracies/hoaxes according to Wikipedia's broad definition. Of the remaining three ... The first (Fifth Estate) refers to a recorded broadcast and there may be a reference somewhere in that, but the text description doesn't suggest so. The second (Monbiot in The Guardian) indeed says that according to exxonsecrets.org some organisations which received Exxon funding "take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics" and that TASSC financed a website which "equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists". The third (Begley in Newsweek) says that Fred Singer is a conspiracy theorist according to the Wikipedia definition (she says that he said a cabal was silencing good scientists). But (a) Begley's story is referring to a piece that Singer wrote in The Washington Times which does not say "cabal" or some equivalent word; (b) Begley's column is not a source for a claim that Singer received funds; (c) if Begley's column in Newsweek is a reliable source, then so is Samuelson's column in Newsweek the following week: 'NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" [i.e. what Begley wrote] is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability.' http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/15/greenhouse-simplicities.html. So, as far as I can tell, the only "evidence" is Monbiot, and all he did was use the word "liars" among other terms. So I believe that none of the sources cited in this section can back up the bold claim of its first sentence. And I do not believe that the blog of Dom Aversano ("Musician and Composer") would be acceptable as an additional source. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that two people opposed the change suggestion and zero supported it, I'm dropping it for now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I would like to request that we include material from this source, which is written from a denialist point of view and which describes the conspiracy they believe is taking place. I was scared of adding this material myself in case someone reverted it, so I came here to ask if you guys think it's a good idea. Jinkinson (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a 2007 opinion column by the author, who appears to be linked with Heartland Institute. Not very impressive for an RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Background Section "unequivocal" and "more than 90% certain"

The first paragraph of this section reads:

The current warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.

This is a representation of a limited group of studies. There are many reputable studies which contradict these statements, and they should not be overlooked. If you look throughout this talk page, particularly "24 The consensus question" and "25 Percent of climate scientists agreeing with AGW theory," you will find that there is certainly nothing close to a community consensus that these statements are true and unbiased. As a result of this, it is not appropriate for them to be in a Wikipedia article. I made a couple changes. I removed "unequivocal" and "90%" and replaced it with "most scientists," because this is something people can actually agree on. I did not remove any other information, and included some recent reputable studies simply to point out that there is scientific controversy. There clearly is controversy, and to deny this is to deny neutrality in this article. Here were my changes:

Most scientists agree that the climate system is currently warming and argue that greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels cause this warming. These findings are recognized by national science academies in major industrialized countries. There is much controversy among both the scientific and political communities regarding this issue, despite its representation in the media.

I also removed "Despite the broad international scientific consensus" from the first sentence of the next paragraph. As you can see, I did not remove that most scientists are in this agreement, I simply enlightened readers to the very real controversy and provided numerous reputable sources while maintaining there is a majority agreement. If the Wikipedia community really deems it necessary, there would be nothing wrong with including that there are studies which suggest a 90% majority, but then it should also be mentioned there are studies which suggest marginal majorities as well as minorities. Currently my changes have been reverted, but the Wikipedia community's lack of consensus does not support the current state of this page. I think it is absurd to remove this valuable scientific information and I challenge you to put together a reasonable argument as to why it should not be included in the article. There is no excuse to exclude major scientific findings simply because other scientific findings are in disagreement. AN | Talk 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) Heartland is not an WP:RS

(B) A survey of TV/Radio weather reporters is not a survey of scientists

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments First, if we are just talking research scientist who producing the research, then the percentage is over 90%. I don't think, however, that percentages matter at all. What matters is the published research and that is overwhelming. Second, I don't think any of what I just said matters for this article. This article is about global warming conspiracy theories and so the background should be about them and not global climate change, which has its own article. So, I think if this article is to stand as an article, it should start with the background to conspiracy theories with a link to the global climate change article for more background. Third, global warming conspiracy theory is a type of climate change denial so wouldn't it be easier to write this as a major section in the climate change denial article? If so, this article should be deleted and the relevant information from this article merged into the climate change denial article.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A fourth "nomination for deletion" is perhaps a topic for another day. With regard to the proposed wording changes, I'd only agree with removing "Despite the broad international scientific consensus,". It's not demonstrable that allegations are being made "despite" a consensus, since one could make the same allegations "because of" a consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) Agree with Peter; drop the phrase "despite..." Come to think of it, I don't agree. When this article talks about the blogosphere denialism (as opposed to debate in the peer reviewed professional science literature) it needs to comply with WP:FRINGE, which requires contrasting minority view points to the mainstream perspective. This phrase "despite that consensus" provides this compliance. I disagree with Peter's statement that one might honestly say "Because of this consensus allegations have been made that the nerds are all in cahoots". That is an ambiguous expression that does not explain the way the mere existence of consensus translates into the spin that they're all a bunch of crooks. Rather, this is a mental construct in the minds of outside observers. It is more accurate to say that because of fossil-fuel funded misinformation and because of certain neurological functions on the part of the consumers of that misinformation the mere existence of this consensus has triggered a knee jerk response of allegations of misconduct. Keep the phrase "despite" to comply with WP:FRINGE.

(B) The OP sounds confused about what 90% means. It is not a percentage of the total number of researchers. It means something else entirely (read the sources to understand what that is)

(C) @I-am-one-of-many; I welcome thoughtful proposals to radically change article structure thru merges, AFDs, etc. However, "thoughtful" means doing your homework. There is no article called "global climate change". That redirects to "climate change". But even "climate change" is not the article you wanted to reference. The context very strongly suggests you meant to reference global warming. Before proposing and AFD/merge be sure to read all the arguments from the prior times we debated the same proposal and please refrain unless you can put forth something genuinely new to talk about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to worry, I'm not even thinking about sending to AFD. Even though I think it would be better merged, that is not going to happen based on previous results. I had no idea how many little articles there were connected with climate change and global warming. The background section of this article is not too bad as it is. It could use a couple of links to relevant articles such as global warming and Scientific opinion on climate change. I do realize that it is hard to improve this article because these conspiracy theories are a bit fuzzy and incoherent.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I made what I hope are some clarifying edits to the background section. Please change them or even revert them if you don't think they meet consensus.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed your edit in May. Upon review, I did not see that they improved anything,and just changed it back. It kinda looked like, as stated in another thread, that the edits were an effort to get some links into the text, but those articles are linked elsewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk needs archiving

Would someone who already knows how to set up archiving please do that here? Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I'm no expert, but I've added something that should make a start. We can tweak the parameters when we see how it goes. --Nigelj (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nigelj! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Although the talk page history says we are happily up to Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 6, the {{archives}} template is not showing the listing. I've looked at the documentation, and I can't whatever silly thing it was that I've done wrong. I told you I was no expert in this! --Nigelj (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remember right, that's the same thing that happened to me months ago on a different article, before I gave up trying to learn how to do it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason for starting the bot's counter at five with this edit? (instead of one) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see the exact problem either. I've made a couple minor modifications to the template calls to add a couple of features (which are working), I've also made a couple of changes to the archiving bots commands (that won't be processed until tomorrow). You can either wait and see if they show up tomorrow with my changes, or you can go ask on User talk:MiszaBot and perhaps there really is something I'm just not seeing. Technical 13 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  Possible clue? I just installed the Talk header template, which defaults to showing the archives, and it doesn't. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  Also, there are no archives 1 thru 4, only /Archive 5 and /Archive 6 have been created. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

It appears that the bot was begun with the counter set to five instead of one. Since there are no archives 1 thru 4, this might be why things are not showing the way they should. Archives 5 and 6 may have to be moved to archives 1 and 2 respectively and the counter reset to three two. Then blank the Archive 5 and 6 pages and tag them with an appropriate speedy deletion template and rationale. An admin will delete them by the time the bot needs to recreate them. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well done guys and thanks very much. It was my silly fault and Paine Ellsworth got it in one: I copied the top template from another page, thinking that that would ensure it was all set up correctly, but I didn't read it or the documentation carefully enough to see that the bot alters the counter parameter while it works. --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, don't kick yourself too hard or too long, because some of the things I've learned over the years were learned "the hard way". A lot of contributors have made the same or similar mistake when first installing an archiver bot. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• /Archive 5 has been moved to /Archive 1 and tagged for WP:CSD#R3 (implausible typo)
• /Archive 6 has been moved to /Archive 2 and tagged for WP:CSD#R3 (implausible typo)
• MiszaBot settings on this page have been changed to archive to /Archive 2
• (edit conflict) That may help as well as my other modifications. I'm watching this page now, no need for it to be tagged with {{Help me}} again for this issue. Technical 13 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• It's been almost a month now, so I'm un-watching this page. Feel free to {{Ping|Technical 13}} me if further assistance is needed. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous section title Motives, changing to Claimed Motives

The section about the motives that the conspiracy theory ascribes to the "conspirators" is currently simply called Motives. When seeing this heading in the table of contents of the article on the conspiracy theory, it reads as if it were about the motives for that theory itself (leading to puzzlement when starting to read the section). To move the perspective from WP:INUNIVERSE to WP:Real world, I am going to change the section title to Claimed Motives. --SpecMade (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that makes any difference at all in the way you say. Why would you not read it as claimed motives of the theory itself if you read motives as that? Also a person can read the first sentence in the section and see what it is about. 21:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs work

This article is terrible. The first paragraph instead of mentioning our own Global Warming Controversy article for context says "warming is unequivocal... " to make sure that only one perspective is even allowed on the page. Conspiracy theories exist on both size of the argument, and here they're stuffed in the large Funding section (linked of course to the "denialism" article). Apparently completely unaware of the irony of it, we're told that "There is EVIDENCE" that some of those alleging conspiracyies are in fact.. members of a conspiracy themselves. Scandalous ! Funny that by Wikiepdia's standards of notability those in the "Sample" section should be just about as notable as those in the "Funding" "Evidence" section, a US senator and a hurricane researcher vs an enviroementalist group and a secretary of interior. But somehow one is conspiracy and one is evidence at the wiki's editor whim. To be a decent article this should at least mention the conspiracy theories on the left that link skepticism with big oil and evil capitalists and such.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helixdq (talk • contribs)

See WP:RS about the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Scientific evidence in peer reviewed sources is considered as far superior to blogs set up on the web to promote people's own crank ideas. Dmcq (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with the substance of my comment. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in the extremely biased Funding section and it's conspiracy speculations (and there is no scientific field that covers "conspiracies" to begin with, the authority in such matters is at most the system of justice, with evidence respecting the standards required in a court of law). That was kinda my point. Helixdq (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving the article. It is not a soapbox. To change the article you need reliable sources for the changes you want to make. Do you see the citations in the article for the various bits in it. That's the sort of thing you need or else you need to dispute one of those or show the text doesn't represent it properly. As to the difference between this and the denial article the scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and it is extremely likely that humans are a major cause of the warming. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I posted my comment based on the fact that i was looking for information on the conspiracy theories going around regarding who is behind global warming skeptics and found this article, that should by it's title at least be the one discussing the subject and attempt neutrality. I've already shown that the sources in the Conspiracy Sample sections and Funding sections are roughly of equal credibility, notoriety and expertise on the subject by Wikipedia's standards (the subject of this article is again if there is a conspiracy on the left or right respectively regarding climate change and NOT if global warming is real and i do not care if you believe that to be true or not). It is patently obvious that while the text may not misquote the sources it treats them very differently without obvious reason except the editor's support for one conspiracy theory over the other, and who ever wrote that Funding sections engaged in quite a bit of journalism. The sources in the Funding section make claims, they not provide evidence.Helixdq (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: rename article "Global warming conspiracy theories", separate article in two sections, "Claims of a conspiracy behind supporters of the scientific consensus" "Claim of a conspiracy behind global warming skeptics". Move everything in the Funding sections in the second and allow the citations and rebbutals to speak for themselves. Clean up the Background section and link to the controversy article instead of trying to settle the global warming debate by yourself. If you don't do that at least dump the whole Funding section because it's just bad. Helixdq (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a single topic. Sources don't treat them as a single thing. Go back to tobacco smoking, were the tobacco companies conspiring? Were the doctors conspiring? Do we have a single topic of conspiracy theories of both doctors and tobacco companies? Wikipedia is not some television programme where they try to 'balance' everything. For all we know it may one day be proven that tobacco smoking is good for you just like there may actually be some global conspiracy between thousands of climate scientists worldwide but Wikipedia is a tertiary source and reports on things as they are reported in reliable sources. If they said the world was flat we'd say the world is flat. Dmcq (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed back in July that the Funding section beginning "There is evidence ..." is not backed up by relevant references from reliable sources, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#Funding. But there's disagreement, so a major change or removal just wouldn't get sufficient support at this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You dropped it because two people opposed the change. If you want to restart the subject then start a new section rather than just appending to some random section. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was addressing Helixdq who raised that subject, among others.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Second sentence in lede failed verification.

This sentence: "Proponents of such allegations refer to the scientific consensus as a "global warming hoax".[9] " failed verification. The link does not address what "proponents allege" it is an example of one conspiracy proponent's arguments. This is a non-RS primary source of conspiracy theory not a secondary RS addressing the theory. This sentence is in fact original research. We may not use it. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It does look like a WP:BLOG alright. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Motives

To the motives section could someone please add something about the biodiesel [sp ?] industry. According to several websites that were online some years ago Biodiesel [sp?] seems to have a notiably greater NOX (a series of Nitrogen Oxygen compounds known for killing fish melting building fascades and damadging marble statues and tombstones) output than the average fossil fuels. The idea that CO2 is actually a poisen is a way to make the total output of poisens from Biodiesel [sp?] acceptible in comparison to fossil fuels, many of which otherwise have a lower output of poisenous fumes than Biodiesel [sp?]. Whether this assertion is true or not the motive is still there. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Rumors are not the same as reliable sources. Give us something specific and tangible, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Purged sources from former "motives" section

A review of each asserted RS in the former "motives" section revealed several citations to references that did not actually say the science is fraudulent. Such sources, lacking a direct assertion to fraud, only make assertions about what makes some people tick. But those sources don't say the ticking people are shysters (which is the subject of this article). Therefore, each fraud-free/conspirac-free source from the former section was tucked in here via improper WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. I have purged those lines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See what you think about the Inhofe quotes in that context. This looks like normal political posturing/hot air to me. Not a conspiracy theory.

Also looks like the two Bill Gray bits should be merged. But the WaPo article we use for those "conspiracy" quotes also has this:

"The most vocal partisans in the climate change debate often describe their opponents as part of a conspiracy, of sorts. Both sides think the other side has a monetary or political incentive to skew the data." This is the para before our "Gray has his own conspiracy theory." quote and puts a different light on it, I think. Article is well-worth reading. We need to give this "Sample claim" a careful look, IB. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WaPo might say "both sides think" but I'm more interested in substantive sources, such as the recent press about the $1 billion/year denial industry.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Back to my original post, I'm interested in any sources that describe the process of advancing a conspiracy theory through innuendo. Each of the sources I deleted certainly gave off the conspiracy theory vibe, even if they lacked clear logic to connect the dots of the sort we need to avoid SYNTH and OR.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why on should expect logic, the usual tactic is innuendo as that avoids having to say something that can be checked and refuted. All we need are reliable sources about people asserting there is a fraud and giving an alleged perpetrator. Anyway here's a recent one giving as motive a desire to increase government power

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/

There's loads of stuff like that. I would guess the real problem is we need third part sources commenting on them, is that correct? Or what exactly is the problem? Dmcq (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by your confusion so can't really answer the last question. As for the Forbes piece, do we consider writing from their "contributors" to be RS? It's always struck me as a collection of blogs and editorials. The Forbes thingie demonstrates one way to approach this article, i.e., where a source explicitly says the science (from this international array of players) is fraudulent. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy pointed to sciencedaily.com. The actual article in climatic change has a paywall. The sciencedaily.com site mentions: "Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle [the author] notes." Oh. In other words it might be $1 billion, or $0, or any number in between. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, good point; On other hand, the groups in question are involved in the bulk of the denial movement's activities so it's probably a bit more than zero. Don't think this thread is going anywhere much, either.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

"The $1 billion/year denial industry"

Discussion moved to Talk:Climate_change_denial#Robert_J._Brulle_paper "The $1 billion/year denial industry"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: "the $1 billion/year denial industry",NewsAndEventsGuy. OK, this is the second or third time you/ve posted this, so I guess I should debunk it. Broken out as a subhead, because this topic belongs over at Climate change denial. Drexel press release re Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic) paper the actual paper at Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 Brulle has another paper at The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011) 195–202 © 2011 Midwest Sociological Society: THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF POLITICS: Climate Change Denial and Political Polarization. This one, however, had little impact. Brulle entry at Climate_change_denial article: ...The money funded a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a 'wedge issue' that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg." (sourced to "Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks" at The Guardian. It appears that Brulle counted all the money raised by 91 conservative political groups, for whatever purpose. At the Guardian, he said: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’ [Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change] at the Guardian -- and here's what he wrote to Revkin at the NYT: I have written to the [Guardian] newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities... Email, Brulle to Revkin So he doesn't really know how much was spent by these groups on what he calls the "Climate Change Counter-Movement" (CCCM). Which rather deflates the argument to "91 conservative groups fundraise around $1 billion per year." Not quite as snappy a headline, that. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Funny you should say that: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/21/conservative-groups-spend-up-to-1bn-a-year-to-fight-action-on-climate-change/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) This was a response to NAEG's title, and a common misconception online. I went ahead and put a version of this up over at Talk:Climate change denial, where's it's actually topical. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Here is the pinpoint link to Pete's thread; it is also topical here, but I agree that's a better place since more people watch that page . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)