Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle

Merge assertions and reception sections

I was annoyed by this article, because after reading about an assertion made by the program I had to hunt through "Reactions from scientists" to see if there had been a response to it. It would be far more effective to group the claims and explanations together: if nothing else it would prevent readers from lazily assuming that everything claimed was false! --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Is anyone going to object if I delete all the External Links except the first three? As far as I can see none of the ones which are already cited inline should be in, according to WP:EL. I was considering keeping the reference to the 176 page critique, but it's already cited inline in the appropriate place, and it is at least debatable whether it's sufficiently neutral to provide lots of background (which is apparently one of the main uses for External Links). I imagine sceptics would argue that it isn't neutral. --Merlinme (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I support their deletion since the section is not supposed to be a link farm; external links should supplement references already used in the article. Erik (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do object to deletion of the external links. The content at the links is supplementing the references used in the article. Starchild (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Milloy and ExxonMobil funding

Beniaster (talk · contribs) has twice deleted the bolded section of this quotation: "Steven Milloy, who runs the Web site Junkscience.com, and has close financial and organizational ties to ExxonMobil". The source is a Mother Jones article claiming that forty public policy groups working to undermine global warning are funded by ExxonMobil. How is this not relevant to the article? The relevant quotation from the source article is: "Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil. Between 2000 and 2003, the company gave $40,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which is registered to Milloy’s home address in Potomac, Maryland, according to IRS documents. ExxonMobil gave another $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute—also registered to Milloy’s residence." —C.Fred (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree with the deletion. Even if Mother Jones were a reliable source, that ExxonMobil gives (actually, gave; they're no longer contributing to any environmental organizations, pro- or con-) money to organizations that he runs does not show that he has "close financial or organizational ties to ExxonMobil". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Steven Milloy's financial ties to ExxonMobil are explicitly described in various outlets besides Mother Jones. See, for example, The Guardian 2006 and the St. Petersburg Times 2006. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you're misquoting your source. The St. Petersburg Times, for instance, says "sources affiliated with Milloy have received" funding from Exxon. That's a wholly different matter. As for the Monbiot blog, it says that ten years ago a company that helped fund JunkScience.com received $30K from Exxon. That is far from a "close financial and organizational tie" directly to Milloy himself. Furthermore, even if the claim were correct (which it apparently isn't) its not relevant. Do you include funding data for all those critical of this film? Many have and still do receive funding from organizations which stand to benefit from discrediting skeptical material. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I find it rather ironic that this is a considerably more blatant misrepresentation of a source than the one you voted to sanction me for. Does this mean you'll be sanctioning yourself? Fell Gleaming^talk 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a misrepresentation. The Times flat-out names Milloy as one of a group of "Writers with ties to ExxonMobil", which doesn't seem open to debate or spin except by the most hardened of soup-spitters. The Guardian notes that two organizations run from Milloy's home address have received substantial payments from ExxonMobil. I think most reasonable people would consider that a "financial tie". The Guardian also states that "Even after Fox News was told about the money he [Milloy] had been receiving from Philip Morris and Exxon..." Which clearly indicates that Milloy has a financial tie to ExxonMobil.

If you feel that my behavior here is sanction-worthy, then please feel free to pursue the appropriate avenues, with which you are familiar. I would be surprised if providing links to two reliable sources addressing a disputed point is sanctionable, but you never know. In beams-and-motes terms, you might want to correct your claim about a Monbiot "blog". I'm not sure where you came up with "blog" - the Guardian piece is an excerpt from his book, edited for publication. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See also

I question the relevance of the following links in the "See also" section:

• Climate change denial
• Merchants of Doubt
• Politics of global warming

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1. It's not an example of climate change denial, so the association is potentially libelous unless sourced.
2. Merchants of Doubt might be relevant, but only if this film is mentioned in that book, (or the book is mentioned in the film). Otherwise, the relevance is questionable.
3. Politics of global warming doesn't seem appropriate. If it is, it should be added to all polemic books and films about global warming, even if they don't discuss political action. I'm not entirely sure, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of the first two links is clearly POV-pushing. I don't see an issue with the third. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. GregJackP Boomer! 12:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed again, as part of a multi-part (partial) reversion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Organizations?

The lede makes the uncited claim that "scientific organizations" criticized the work. I see nothing to support this in the article body. The closest I can find is that a single organization (The Royal Society) did so. Are there others or is this more overstatement? Fell Gleaming^talk 11:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I count three definitely: British Antarctic Survey, Royal Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; plus three where significant members of a named society have criticised the programme, i.e. IPCC, UK Natural Environment Research Council, (James Cook University) Australian Research Council ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. --Merlinme (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info User:Merlinme; hope you don't mind I added wikilinks to your comments. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to basics

After reading just the introduction to this article it was painfully clear why the ensuing combativeness. The article should be allowed to stand on the substantive content of the film itself without nuanced verbiage- which also persists throughout the article. Any Wikipedia article should be descriptive in nature. In this case the film is consequentially undermined with the language and presentation of the article in general, hence the dispute. It should be of no contest that scientists, by definition of privilege, determine the path of scientific pursuit of knowledge. The film’s very point is that in the case of climate change research, this privilege has been corrupted by ideology, research funding, and politics with negative global implications. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the implications put forth in the film is not the point. Usage of terms and concepts such as polemical, scientific opinion, scientific consensus, and excessive use of quotes undermines the substantive content of the film’s description. In effect, the language of the article and its content gives undue credence to the film’s opposition argument by drawing forth particulars that are issues of dispute and not adhering firming to the description. These particulars are the source of the contention and need not be in the article. I hope this is of some help. Dispelling37 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you read the first reference? There were hundreds of complaints to Ofcom for the misleading claims in the programme. Channel 4's excuse was that it was an "authored polemic", and as such not the kind of programme where viewers would expect to get accurate, impartial information. They said rather clearly that this 'documentary' did not have to be accurate or unbiased – but that programmes that "challenge current orthodoxy" are allowed to distort and lie by omission as much as they want, and that this particular programme made use of this liberty.

Well, that's Ofcom's view, and they seem to have a very unrealistic model of the general public. The programme is clearly designed to mislead about its topic and about its own purpose, and that's a key fact about it which this article must not hide. Hans Adler 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's certainly not written with NPOV in mind. The "attitude" in this reply from "hans adler" says it all 212.69.38.4 (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Suggest" in lede

The film suggests ways in which scientific consensus can be influenced, whether or not the film is accurate. In fact, it doesn't matter the ways are actually done, or even possible to be done. I think the lede should include that the film mentions specifics, whether or not the film justifies them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the film does more than just suggest ways influence could happen, it asserts that influence is happening. So, the current lede is more accurate: "...suggests that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced by funding and political factors..."--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and dispute

• dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming

What is in dispute? Are they saying that there is no consensus among scientists about AGW? Or is it a fact that there is a consensus, and are they saying that they disagree with it? Let's be clear. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That is covered more than adequately in the very next sentence. You can't fit everything into one long sentence, and we have to assume that at least some readers have enough attention span to make it through to the end of the second paragraph of the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The article would then seem to be saying that the Anthropogenic global warming theory is a "consensus", and yet that the documentarians disagree with the theory. Sorry to belabor the obvious, but I'm looking for a clear answer for a reason.

Is that what the sentence means, then? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed a little ambiguous, but if one disputes that there is a consensus (scientific consensus is actually an oxymoron) among the paid academic, one would say so. The point is that a claim is made and that a louder group of paid academics supports this claim. --105.0.0.150 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Denialist" in article

The repeated use of the the term "denialist" belies the inherent bias of this coverage. Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis supported by data, not a metaphysical truth or a legal conclusion. Denial is a pejorative most often used to liken those with dissenting opinions as being similar in moral character to those who deny the existence of a European holocaust. Science is the process of using data to analyze and describe how things work or how they might work by constructing hypotheses, theories and forecasts. Science is advanced by more data and more debate, not by attempting to stifle dissent.70.75.25.133 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Denialist is used four times in the article. "Sceptical" would be the obvious alternative, however given the polemical nature of the programme (and its pretty awful use of scientific data) I'm not sure that's reasonable. The lead to the Climate change denial article says: "change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3]", which sounds about right. You could argue about "commercial or ideological reasons", but Martin Durkin is a professional controversialist, and he always seems to be looking for an angle to get his films made. For example, his most recent film was about Margaret Thatcher, in which he described her as a "working class revolutionary": [1] I can't imagine the film would have been made if it had been called "The Great Global Warming Debate: More or less as reported, although we need more data and there are significant uncertainties in predicting the future." His films are slickly made and can be quite entertaining, but an impartial reporter he is not. --Merlinme (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether 70.75.25.133 really means 'belies' in his/her first sentence. OED: "belie: fail to give a true impression of (something): his lively, alert manner belied his years". So, "The repeated use of the the [sic] term "denialist" [fails to give a true impression of] the inherent bias of this coverage" - which, if any meaning can be taken out of it, would seem to be at odds with the rest of his/her contribution. Puzzling. -- Jmc (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit that removed one of the occurrences of the term, saying, 'Removed first sentence which used biased term "denier".' This article need not take any position of false balance over the matter. The facts of global warming are well known, and this film expressed an extreme WP:FRINGE stance. It would be wrong to make the views expressed by the film appear any more widely accepted than they are, by scholars in its field. --Nigelj (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The facts of global warming do not appear to be well known. This is from a climate scientist quoted in a December 2022 article in the Washington Post:

"...the research inspired a flurry of follow-up studies that Swain expects will eventually clarify a link between climate change and cold-weather outbreaks."

“We’re 10 years into this conversation and there’s still a lot of mixed feelings in the scientific community..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/23/climate-change-impact-cold-weather Starchild (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That article is not about climate change itself, or about its cause, it is about the link between climate change and cold-weather outbreaks.

Also, this has nothing to do with denialists vs. "skeptics", so it does not belong in this nine-year-old section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "climate change" is a substitute for what the topic of the debate was originally called, "global warming". In other words, the article is saying scientists think there's a link between global warming and cold weather coming down from the Arctic. That's obviously counter-intuitive; cold sweeps and warming trends don't normally come together. Earth's climate remains poorly understood, and this article calling those who question how much we know about the causes of warming or cooling changes "denialists" is inappropriate. Starchild (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Earth's climate remains poorly understood Wrong. Parts of it remain poorly understood. Denialists pretend that all of it is, but the poor understanding is theirsand theirs alone.

Independent of that, this is your own train of thought. You conclude from that Washington Post article that the word "denialist" is inappropriate. This is called original research and Wikipedia does not do it. Instead, we use reliable sources. If you want this to affect the article, you need to publish your thoughts in a reliable source. That is the minimum requirement. Unless you do that, there is no point in talking about it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't think the Washington Post quoting a climate scientist is a reliable source. I think others would disagree. But this article is just one example of evidence that this is an ongoing scientific debate. There are many others. Why the attachment to using the polemical word "denialist", which is a political, not a scientific term? Starchild (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is very obviously not a reliable source for not using the term "denialist" because it talks about something totally different. Only when the article is processed through your brain, the result is that we should not use the word "denialist". As I explained above, this is original research.

this article is just one example of evidence that this is an ongoing scientific debate There are lots of ongoing scientific debates, but the long-settled question whether climate change deniers are deniers or skeptics is not one of them. The article is not related to that question either. And the question is not a political one. Deniers are deniers because their claims are clearly false, and that is a scientific fact.

Can you please stop trying to WP:FALSEBALANCE this article about a dishonest propaganda flick? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You write that, "Deniers are deniers because their claims are clearly false, and that is a scientific fact."

No, that is YOUR OPINION. Many others, including "The Great Global Warming Swindle" filmmakers and scientists interviewed in the documentary, clearly disagree.

If virtually everyone agreed the film's claims were false, there would be no point in using a pejorative term like "denier" to try to make one side of that debate look bad. Let's use neutral language and address the scientific claims of people on each side in a fair and unbiased manner. Starchild (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Facts are not defined by everyone agreeing on it, and they do not magically turn into opinions by some morons disagreeing with them.

Here are two facts for you:

• This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article. If you want to do something other than that, do it somewhere else.
• In Wikipedia, articles are based on reliable sources. Your opinion that scientific facts are not scientific facts but only my opinion does not matter. Your other opinions do not matter either. If you do not have any reliable sources that agree with you, the article will stay as it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My comments here are directly related to improving the article by discussing the need to remove biased and pejorative language. If you want to do something other than improving the article, follow your own advice and do it somewhere else.

Here are two facts for you:

• Calling people "morons" is inappropriate for Wikipedia editing.

• Your OPINION that something is a scientific fact does not necessarily make it so. Starchild (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You are still trying to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE, and you are still not giving reliable sources for your outsider opinion.

"Denialist" is not "pejorative" but the usual and accurate wording for people who attack the climate science consensus that has existed for several decades now, because their reasoning has long been debunked. They have the same scientific standing as young-earth creationists and homeopaths. The "denialist" wording is used by the reliable sources, and it is the correct wording.

Go read Scientific consensus on climate change and Climate change denial. Go read the reliable sources quoted there. Your alternative facts have no traction on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reference number 28 to key article is not correct !!!

The hyperlink on reference 28 to :

Jones D; Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M (2007). ""The Great Global Warming Swindle": a critique.". Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Retrieved 2009-03-20

IS NOT WORKING (for me at least) !!!

This is sad as this would help to understand what is true not true in the arguments presented in the movie.

Brgds Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.98.68.196 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect criticism and judgment of an expert in article

In the criticism section of the article one can read

" In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

   All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.

"

I would like to stress that this is not correct . The Movies on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLTDscToOo&index=50&list=WL from 22:39 onwards show two important slides.I do not presume if their content is correct or not, but the fact is that data are up to 2000 and the expert judgment in the article and reproduced above is not fair as not "ALL the graphs stop "around 1980"" as the expert says in its critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.98.68.196 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole point is that the original programme claimed that the graph went to 2000 (in other words, they labelled the x-axis as ending in 2000), however this was false. The actual data used ended in 1980. This was acknowledged by the programme maker, Durkin, after the original transmission. He corrected the x-axis label in later transmissions.

If the data to 2000 had been included the graph would not have shown what the programme claimed it showed. --Merlinme (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Good science goes always in both directions, and Lockwood is a great scientist. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like" applies to both sides, while the graphs got cut off as said, Lockwood clearly indicates now that we're facing a new Maunder minimum - and the role of the sun should not be underepresentated. In so far the filmmaker simplified the evidence but got a point nevertheless. THats not stated properlay and the quotations of Lockwood are misleading. I ask to correct them. Serten (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Lockwood

Lockwood is used with various quotes, namely that global warming does not directly correlate to solar activity. I assume this is a biased quotation. Lockwood, inspired by the Swindle Film, did a study and stated 2007 that he wondered why no cooling took place as soon as then. According the study in question and the interview on the new scientist, all solar factors that should affect climate had performed an "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid eighties and pointed towards cooling. Lockwood has now (2013) been quoted recently (on Paul Hudsons blog) that a new Maunder minimum is on the way. His research must in so far not be misused as Turn state's evidence against any correlation between solar activity and climate. To the contrary, solar influence on climate (change) is just his field of research;).Serten (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Please don't assume; please provide reliable sources which we can judge rather than your opinion.
2. What exactly are you asking to change in the article? I don't see the relevance of what Lockwood did or didn't say in 2013 to what he said in 2007, in immediate response to the programme. The article is about The Great Global Warming Swindle, not Lockwood. If you can provide a reliable source where Lockwood says something like "I was wrong about The Great Global Warming Swindle, actually that Durkin guy had it right all along", then there might be something to change in the article. Otherwise, not.
3. You haven't provided a proper reference for the quote in Paul Hudson's blog (I have no idea who Paul Hudson is, for that matter), but in any case, a quote in a third party's blog without editorial control is in no way a reliable source. --Merlinme (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1. With regard to opinion, its not very helpful when hand picked opinions of a scientist with regard to a certain issue are being quoted in the list and relevant changes in its underlying scientific assumptions are not being included. Lockwood has been quoted then with statements like "the sun should play a larger (coling) role but doesnt, so the role of the sun is overestimated (in general and by the film)" but as we now face this (regional) cooling based on the U-turn already found in his study, we still keep up with outdated quotes. Compare quoting a DNA scientist past assumptions about suspects in a specific case like the mrder of Michèle Kiesewetter case but not to include that the DNA in question later was an artifact added in the production of the cotton swabs produced (compare [[Phantom of Heilbronn).
2. I see some bias with the the way Lockwood is being quoted here and I would prefer to have more differentiated picture. I did some changes now. That said, if we want an good article The Great Global Warming Swindle, we should be careful with claims that are not longer fully valid. You ask to provide a reliable source where Lockwood says something like "I was wrong about The Great Global Warming Swindle, why so? Its a fact that Lockwoods immediate response to the programme and his current findings are not in line with each other - 2003 (corr.2007) he asked for cooling, since the sun did an u-turn in the mid eighties, but didnt find cooling, 2013 we face regional cooling in the UK and Lockwood confirms an increased (regional) role of the solar flux. We dont need to ask for a scientist to repent anything he says about a certain detail (like claims in a documentary), but we should take into account when he starts changing his general opinion on the scientific points (e.g. ) underlying his previous statement .
3. Paul Hudson is a full-time member of BBC staff, not the Meteorological Office, acting as an environmental and climate change expert. Lockwood had some issues with Hudson, you can see the complete picture from Lockwoods recent entry on the Carbon brief blog and Rebecca Morelles (the BBC science correspondent) article on the issue. I inserted the sources in question in the article about Lockwood but I remain with the valididity of the points raised here. Serten (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If Lockwood published a result in 2003 only to come a more nuanced opinion in 2013, then this hardly seems relevant to a movie that came out in 2007. Did Lockwood comment on the movie in 2013? Let us please keep things germane. My opinion. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the year, its been 2007 - the last change [2] is an enhancement to the version before. in so far communication took place ;) Serten (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of the term "scientific consensus" should be removed

There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus." It is an oxymoron. It goes against the idea and the spirit of the scientific method. (If you doubt this then go look at the wiki page around the theory of the atom.) It should never be used in regards to anything scientific. It's use hints that the only argument one has is one of authority and not in the value of postulate and value of the evidence. A lot of scientists backing an incorrect theory doesn't make the theory correct. And how many times has that happened in the history of science? Too many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.32.50 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Forumshop much? See [3].

Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This language is condescending and inappropriate. Starchild (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Argumentum ab auctoritate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.33.171 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. Read Argumentum ad verecundiam#Appeal to false authority to find out when quoting an authority is wrong: quoting someone who is an authority on something else, such as Ivar Giaever or Fred Singer or Frederick Seitz.

Independent of that, Wikipedia has a policy that says articles are based on reliable sources and not on the badly informed opinion of ignorant people who happen to access the internet.

There are other sites where you can upload bullshit disinformation, such as Conservapedia. You should go there, they do not have guidelines like WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hob is right, but also, yes, an encyclopedia that attempts to be mainstream and accurate, rather than reflecting the voice of crackpots, must rely on sources that are considered reliable (WP:RS). It's a tertiary source, not a paper (WP:NOT). If you really have good science that you believe can affect the scientific consensus, you should get those published in reputable climatology journals. —PaleoNeonate – 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Referring to other people's contributions as "bullshit disinformation" also seems highly inappropriate. I would ask the editor to withdraw the remark and endeavor to be civil when discussing articles. Starchild (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It is typical behavior for pseudoscience proponents to ignore that actual content of the refutation of their reasoning and complain about the tone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you some kind of expert on what is pseudoscience? I might well consider some of YOUR beliefs to be pseudoscience. How is what you consider to be pseudoscience relevant? Each of us has opinions. "Refutation" is your opinion again, not undisputed fact. Starchild (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter who I am. Go read what I told you to read. That matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It matters who you are, because you keep stating your opinion as fact, as if you have some special authority on the matter. If you claim to have any more expertise than I do, it would behoove you to state the nature of that claimed expertise.

Telling someone to "Go read what I told you to read" as if you had some special authority to give orders around here is also off-putting. Starchild (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, and my specialty is articles on pseudoscience. Climate change denial is one of those, and we handle it the same way as other pseudosciences - we use good relaible scientific sources published in scientific journals, and we do not use unreliable pseudoscientific sources published in journalistic outlets. You would know that if you had read the rules (WP:RS) as I told you to do. If you refuse to inform yourself, that is not my problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but being an "experienced Wikipedia editor" does not mean you have any scientific expertise!

Starchild (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That is the reason why I said It does not matter who I am. It only matters that the article is based on reliable sources. That is why PaleoNeonate and I linked WP:RS, several times now. You should really read it. You should also read WP:OR. Its gist is that your reasoning on this Talk page does not matter. Can you please stop using this page for purposes it does not have? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Climate Change Denier" language

The current language of the article inaccurately refers to "climate change deniers". Acknowledging the existence of climate change but attributing it to a different cause is obviously NOT denying climate change, regardless of what convoluted rationale someone may have come up with to support using the pejorative "denier" term. It may be denying that humans are having a major impact on the climate, but if that's what skeptics are denying, the nature of the denial should be specified, rather than just inaccurately accusing people of "denying climate change". It's like a Christian accusing someone of "denying Jesus" who didn't deny the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but merely denied that he was God or performed any supernatural miracles, which is quite different. Starchild (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You have been disinformed. Go read climate change denial#Taxonomy of climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn't address the point I raised, but merely confirms that Wikipedia has a bias problem in the area of this topic. Starchild (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn't address the point I raised Yes it does. What part exactly denialist deny does not matter to them. The essential point is that the result must be that the market is not regulated. They always choose the specific lie leading to that goal depending on what they expect the recipient will believe. If the recipient has no clue at all, they can tell him that the Earth is not warming at all; if the recipient knows that is false, they tell him that humans did not cause the warming and so on. The flavor of denialism is a minor detail.

Wikipedia has a bias problem No, Wikipedia just follows the science and you do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You say the essential point of skeptics of anthropogenic global warming theory is that the market should not be regulated. Naturally, if you do not a believe a problem is accurately diagnosed, you will not support taking harmful steps based on that false diagnosis!

You claim, without basis, that this is not following the science. As if this somehow excuses bias in how Wikipedia addresses scientific controversies. It does not. Starchild (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See above. Read WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems I have to actually quote climate change denial#Taxonomy of climate change denial:

six stages of denial", a ladder model whereby deniers have over time conceded acceptance of points, while retreating to a position which still rejects the mainstream consensus:

[..]

3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

So, yes, attributing it to a different cause does count as climate change denial. Are we finished here? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)