Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change denial. 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
"Climate change denial" as a cudgel-word
(I'm not native English speaker so please excuse possible errors)
The purpouse of this article is to create a cudgel-word in public discourse. It's a sociotechnic method described in literature. Here's how it works. A political lobby creates a term to describe views they don't agree with, give them a negative association (in this case holocaust denial) and repeats it as frequently as possible. Once a cudgel-word is established it's much easier to spread preconceived opinions and dismiss an adversary without the need of giving arguments. It's because more people submits to collective beliefs rather than make an effort to investigate each and every subject themselves. A cugel-word is a tool of political correctness. Even if a particular person has 'incorrect' opinion on certain topic, he/she will be afraid to defend it and thus become stigmatised (possibly ostracized too). In contrast, disputants with 'correct' views are put in comfortable sitution as they're not required to back their statements in extensive and informed way.
In conclusion, this article is just a play on words and emotions. A political attempt to 'steal the language'. That's why I think it does not fit the Wikipedia and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may be interested in Thought-terminating cliché. More relevantly, as long as our reliable sources use this term to describe this concept as notable, we should have an article to reflect that fact. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Political slogans and pejorative labels are only necessary because the vast majority of people don't have time, inclination, or training to study a technical issue in depth. If they did, the vast majority of people would probably end up agreeing with the vast majority of scientists, because what the vast majority of scientists believe at any given time is invariably what makes the most sense in light of the available evidence. In any case, what the climate change deniers miss (or deliberately ignore) is the risk management aspect of anthropogenic global warning. Scientists cannot predict with absolute certainty that your house will burn down, they can only calculate a probability that it might. However, the prudent homeowner takes out insurance on the house, and the probability of loss times the value of the home sets a floor on the insurance premium. With AGW, if there is even a 10% chance that burning the earth's fossil fuels will render the planet uninhabitable by humans, that is a reasonable argument for accelerating the switch to renewable energy sources which we have to do in any case because fossil fuels are 100% certain to run out eventually. Thus the response to AGW is no different than what humans have to do anyway. The only question is whether we are going to stop burning fossil fuels before nature forces us to stop. --Teratornis (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Political slogans and pejorative labels are only necessary(...)" - maybe they are, but surely not on Wikipedia. This place is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a collection of propagandist essays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk • contribs)
- What is described in the article is the fact that several reliable sources describe this subject, and they do whether we like it or not. The references used in the article, is significantly more broad than "a collection of propagandist essays", had it only been sources like that, then you might have had a point. Wikipedia doesn't take a stand, we report what reliable sources are saying, in accordance with the weight of the various arguments. Thats the reason that we have an article on Flat Earth, Orgone and numerous other things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand Your point. This article could become neutral if it was SELF-DISTANCED. To achieve this editorial changes are necessary. My suggestions are :
- - The first paragraph should say on what area the term is used.
- - Then the article needs a section on how/when/where the term originated and how it evolved.
- -Finally, I see no “Criticism” section. Most Wikipedia articles on controversial topics has such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Search Wikipedia with Google for: criticism of global warming. We have several articles that document the criticism of the mainstream scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. --Teratornis (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Political slogans and pejorative labels most certainly do belong on Wikipedia. For an example of the former, see Drill Here. Drill Now.. For the latter, see our article about the highly offensive "N" word. Wikipedia has articles about people who make truth claims that the vast majority of Wikipedians reject, for example the aforementioned Flat Earth, and I might also mention Westboro Baptist Church and Xenu. A properly-written Wikipedia article can state the facts about who believes what without necessarily choosing a side. By the way, I am a flat earth
denierskeptic and I wouldn't be particularly troubled if someone called me that. People who are confident that the evidence is on their side generally only have to wait for reality to vindicate them. Scientists have made a number of highly testable claims about global warming, and we'll find out if they are correct in due course. If it turns out we didn't really need to build all those wind turbines, then our grandchildren will get to enjoy a few years to burn up the last of the fossil fuels that we will have left for them. If we burn up all the fossil fuels now, then our grandchildren will have to build the wind turbines. So it's either us or them. --Teratornis (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- What is described in the article is the fact that several reliable sources describe this subject, and they do whether we like it or not. The references used in the article, is significantly more broad than "a collection of propagandist essays", had it only been sources like that, then you might have had a point. Wikipedia doesn't take a stand, we report what reliable sources are saying, in accordance with the weight of the various arguments. Thats the reason that we have an article on Flat Earth, Orgone and numerous other things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Political slogans and pejorative labels are only necessary(...)" - maybe they are, but surely not on Wikipedia. This place is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a collection of propagandist essays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk • contribs)
- Political slogans and pejorative labels are only necessary because the vast majority of people don't have time, inclination, or training to study a technical issue in depth. If they did, the vast majority of people would probably end up agreeing with the vast majority of scientists, because what the vast majority of scientists believe at any given time is invariably what makes the most sense in light of the available evidence. In any case, what the climate change deniers miss (or deliberately ignore) is the risk management aspect of anthropogenic global warning. Scientists cannot predict with absolute certainty that your house will burn down, they can only calculate a probability that it might. However, the prudent homeowner takes out insurance on the house, and the probability of loss times the value of the home sets a floor on the insurance premium. With AGW, if there is even a 10% chance that burning the earth's fossil fuels will render the planet uninhabitable by humans, that is a reasonable argument for accelerating the switch to renewable energy sources which we have to do in any case because fossil fuels are 100% certain to run out eventually. Thus the response to AGW is no different than what humans have to do anyway. The only question is whether we are going to stop burning fossil fuels before nature forces us to stop. --Teratornis (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Currently, the term Denialism is the phrase used in the real world to refer to the process of dismissing scientific consensus. Until the time the language changes and a new term emerges, 'denial' it is and 'denial' it will remain. Odd nature (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)