Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Smear Tactics

"The term “denial” is, of course, usually associated with “holocaust denial”―the view that the Nazi destruction of millions of Jews in Europe was exaggerated or did not even occur." --Newsweek Burns Truth in Global Warming Story, by Roger Aronoff, Aug 10, 2007. Could the Title be changed to "Climate change dissent" or "Climate change Skepticism" please? The Enlightened Democrat (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Denial is a normal English word. We use the term since it is used by reliable sources to describe a particular segment of the spectrum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

These "reliable sources" (scare quotes! ;-)) are busy trying to label their opponents. They are busy fighting a PR war. But at least the story towards the top shows that the term is in dispute. TCO (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is a highly interesting op ed and peice of original research

It is well written and does a good job of arguing a point. But it is non-encyclopedic. I mean what if I create a page on climate change alarmism and build up the concept by citing the poor behavior and now repudiated politicized science of pacifist Carl Sagan in nuclear winter? TCO (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. What about the large number of reliable sources, from the Guardian and Newsweek to the Royal Society? I fail to see the OR aspects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I read it a little more. There are some parts of the article (in particular the paragraph on denialist versus skeptic) that really report on the argued labelled phenomon from other sources. Other parts of the article are as I say, synthesis and creation of the argument itself using cited sources to create an op ed. TCO (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also some of that egregious passive voice, "people say" construction that I find so often on the more POV liberal articles, where you could just as easily substitute "I" for the unnamed actors, with I being the POV liberal writing the little Web 2.0 Wiki article and thinking how he has helped the world (rather than a more NPOV scholarly attitude of documenting truth.) TCO (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Substance please, instead of rhetoric (like "POV liberal articles", "little Web 2.0 Wiki article"...), . There is no "people say" in the article, the sentence isn't used even once. Point out precisely where you have objections, and where there is synthesis or "creation of the argument itself using cited sources to create an op ed.". Your assumption of bad faith by the editors of this article, isn't really helping here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I don't have the energy to be specific. What set me off the most was the "several journalists" followed by a single cite and "the Gaurdian reports" when the refernce is not to a news article but book excerpts from an opinion columnist. TCO (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as you can find reliable sources that support the text in your proposed climate change alarmism, then i fail to see your point. Is Sagan really referred to as "repudiated" in reliable sources and is nuclear winter considered politicized science?

Yeah, he is. There were people even on his side who said so. I'm not interested in that sort of synthesis. It was more a point of how it could be done. TCO (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should AGF. but I think you think you are G. But are not G. What I see is you trying to use this collaborative website to categorize your opponents as hottentots. Even if you think you're not being POV. You really are. and the whole thing is a social phenomenon more than one of scholarship. TCO (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly have the Khoikhoi to do with anything? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you could follow an inference. That you were classifying and labeling your opponents as if they were a tribe. Capisce? TCO (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh...and I get banned a lot. Please don't say I'm not AGF (even if I'm not). Since the admins have decided I deserve no more slack (granted I used a lot up.) TCO (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

problem with ancillary info re cheney

if the subject of this article is climate change denial, should its scope include general disregard for the environment, or should it be confined specifically to allegations of denial of climate change? i ask in re this text:

The Washington Post reported in June 2007 that Vice President Dick Cheney "has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests." The article also alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" and "deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy" influenced a Bush administration "pro-business drive to ease regulations".

i don't dispute those allegations, surely - but the problem is that they're not explicitly directed to climate change denial; rather, they're merely a representation of alleged disdain for the environment. i question whether they fall within this article's scope. Anastrophe (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

hello? discussion on the above, and my concerns below, would be welcome. Anastrophe (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay by me to delete that paragraph, although subsequent ones should stay.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

characterization of quote

the following text seems to conflate the actions of an undersecretary, with a corporation being "personally thanked" by the white house (which is an odd grammatical construct in the first place). this seems to be stretching it a bit. the text:

Exxon was also personally thanked by the White House for advising President Bush on the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: "In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’"

this is clearly not 'the white house thanked exxon', it's the undersecretary of global affairs thanking a group of lobbyists, which included an exxon lobbyist. it seems to me to mischaracterize the quoted material. Anastrophe (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at editing the characterization. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Character assassination and misrepresentation of fact

There is no denial that climate change occurs, however this article seems to take a rather fatalistic stance on naturally-occuring climate change, equating it with some sort of global warming apocalypse. The author cites the so-called "scientific consensus" without providing any real data, which is a logical fallacy. Incindentally, the aforementioned "scientific consensus" included politicians, journalists and other people who were not qualified to provide an expert opinion about the subject matter. This article is clearly not unbiased and should be edited to appear as unbiased as possible, rather than completely deleted. For good measure, here is a quote from the article:

While the term 'climate skeptic' generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, 'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)