Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Scientific consensus"

My recent edit here is essential in making our article on the film The Great Global Warming Swindle conform to Wikipeida's laudable "neutral point of view" policy. While the claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming is widely reported by many sources, it is not universally accepted. It is not Wikipedia's business to decide on behalf of readers which theories and opinions are right and which ones are wrong. To illustrate the distinction I am making, I urge editors to consider the example of the article on scientific consensus on global warming. In contrast to the article we are editing, the article "scientific consensus on global warming" appropriately reports specificially which individuals and which groups claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming; it does not make the claim itself. (For instance, the article states the "IPCC Third Assessment Report ... issued a joint statement ... [declaring the] IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science." Again, the Wikipedia article itself does not declare the theory of man-made global warming the "scientific consensus; it merely reports the views of certain groups that have done so.) The Noosphere (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been over the "controversial" bit endlessly. You were probably part of the discussion :-). If appeals to stop wasting other peoples time won't work, perhaps the suggestion not to waste your own time might? In the meantime, you can rely on your edit being quickly reverted, for all the obvious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reread my post above. (And by the way I was not a part of that discussion. I am sure an IP analysis can prove that.) I am not concerned so much with the use of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. My post above pertains to the question of specifically who is making the claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on man-made global warming. The article can report the IPPC states that there is a scientific consensus. The article should not be making claim itself in the interests of both neutrality and the attribution of particular claims. The Noosphere (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's multiply attested by academies of science, reputable news sources, and so on. Even Benny Peiser grudgingly admits it now. Your persistent argument to the contrary, in the face of evidence you acknowledge having seen in the linked article, is unhelpful and tendentious. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether or not I grudgingly admit it is irrelevant here. I have not published anything on the subject. I am not a notable individual. So we can just forget about me and my stupid ideas here. My relevant concern here involves Wikipedia editorial policies. Every editor is responsible for ensuring these polices are applied in all articles. Even people with stupid ideas like me can speak out on Wikipedia editorial policy violations. That being said, please reexamine the the very minor edits in question that have been reverted. There is no problem with Wikipedia reporting, for instance, that the IPPC states that there is a scientific consensus. Wikipedia can even quote William M. Connolley saying there is a consensus, as he is a 'well-known expert'. I am merely changing the language where the assertion is made by the Wikipedia article itself. Such an assertion by a Wikipedia article means that Wikipedia implicitly made an endorsement on a particular question of public discourse. The "neutral point of view" policy, however, forbids doing so. The Noosphere (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an awful lot of point in arguing about this until we've established that you're a good faith editor. All I would restrict myself to saying at the moment is that you're in a minority of approaching one on this. Even the current US Bush administration now acknowledges the existence of global warming. I think we're applying WP:WEIGHT correctly. --Merlinme (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets say the Bush administration did admit it, lets say 90% of the world admitted it, would that be a consensus...no it wouldn't. A consenus would be that the sky is blue. But if people are writing documentaries to the contrary of a topic, I'd say that there isnt a consensus quite yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmac1009 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see scientific consensus. Or, if you'd like a non Wikipedia reference (from Merriam-Webster):

1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey>

b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

I'd suggest 1b) is the closest to the meaning which it's being used in, in this context. It doesn't require unanimity. And in any case, if I made a documentary saying that all of quantum mechanics is wrong, that doesn't break the scientific consenus that it's right (or at least, the current best description of the observed data). --Merlinme (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased and I to made an edit to make it more neutral. This edit was immediately reverted however by one of the many liberal persons of wikipedia that ensure neutrality is never maintained for long. And when people speak of a global warming consensus, they usually leave out what exactly they're claiming the consensus is. There IS a consensus that the world average temperature has warmed by as much as half a degree, but there ISN'T a consensus that humans caused this. And if there was a consensus that doesn't make it reliable information (30 years ago there was a 'consensus' on human caused global cooling.), nor does that mean you exclude other views on the topic. Anyway, I believe man made global warming will soon be abandoned by the liberal environmentalists in pursuit of something else to frighten public, in the same manner that acid rain, the ozone hole and global cooling were abandoned in favor of the scarier human caused global warming. Supra guy (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of a scientific question, neutrality refers to the representation of scientific viewpoints in proportion to WP:WEIGHT, not in terms of their political appeal. In this case, the overwhelming view of scientists is that the film is a pernicious load of tripe. The article reflects this, as a Wikipedia article should. However, given that you see the issue as one between liberals and conservatives, I suggest that your contributions would be more useful at Conservapedia, which shares this view.JQ (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also slightly mystified by the idea that acid rain and the ozone hole were "abandoned" by environmentalists. The ozone hole led directly to the banning of CFCs; acid rain led directly to tougher air pollution laws. The reason we don't hear much about them is because the problems were largely solved (in the developed world, anyway), not because they were imaginary problems. --Merlinme (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not abandoned entirely by some environmentalists, but abandoned by the media and the majority of environmentalists. The media; which proclaimed that acid rain and the ozone hole posed serious danger to man kind. You think something that serious would be mentioned occasionally, if not just for the sole purpose of gloating about human kinds' triumph over such danger.

And I disagree with the wikipedia policy 'weight' to a point. While I do believe that wikipedia should convey the generally excepted scientific viewpoint, it should also convey other scientific opinions, since throughout history the general scientific believe or 'consensus' has been proven wrong in many widespread cases. To name a few of these cases: The majority of scientists once said heavier than air flying machines would never become a reality, the majority of scientists once said the human body could not physically cope with traveling at speeds above 60 miles per hour, the majority of scientists once said that if you fell out of an airplane that it wasn't hitting the ground that killed you; it was the acceleration, the majority of scientists once said that an airplane would never be physically able to fly faster than the speed of sound and the majority of scientists once said that human caused global cooling was responsible for terrible tornadoes, crop loss and if not stopped immediately would result in the world plunging into another ice age. While only the final case has to do with climate, it demonstrates that the 'majority of scientists' or those who have a 'consensus' often turn out to be . So this is why, opinions, even those of the minority, should be represented in a fair, equal, and non derogatory manner. Considering the, at best debatable ‘science’ and ‘facts’ of human caused global warming I would say such a representation of opposing view points is very fair. Supra guy (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, an article full of unsourced, utterly spurious, factoids about how "the majority of scientists are completely, embarrassingly, utterly WRONG" while those guided by the gut instincts of conservatism get it right would be just the ticket at Conservapedia. Why don't you write it up, and add to the list they have there on how Wikipedia is biased because such factoids don't get a look int? JQ (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not regular editor of this Wiki mutation, but...

• Main article is massively biased to "Man-made Global Warming Exist" movement - that is fact.
• Global warming is something still "live", discussed and consensus doesn't exist (and never existed)
  • • point of view is building upon that "in newspapers was written" - Man-made Global Warming(or Cooling few decades back) Theory is proposed by newspapers and politicians and often rejected by climatologist and geologists
      • maybe it sounds weird, but geology is most important in counter-GWT as it is often questioning validity of data used by GWT-supporters
    • argumenting that "Even the current US Bush administration now acknowledges the existence of global warming." is senseless...
      So some group of politicians and byrocrats accepted popular theory...
      They're not scientists and they need mainly to charm ppl who vote for them - they will accept theory, that Earth is flat if it could give them enought voters for victory
      (and this is ok - that i what it is about)
  • "Scientific concensus" is not the same thing as "public consensus" so they shouldn't be mixed...

So - i would advise GWT-supporters to fall back (or use citations), re-type article as "neutral"... Or just keep disambiguation template i just added...
(As I'm looking on discussion and wishdom proved in it, seems to me, that Supra Guy should make it neutral... Surely not "newspaper readers" John Quiggin or Merlinme - no offense pals, but it's clear you know nothing) C.W.F. (CZ) 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Problems

To quote Raul: "Raul's Razor - An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." Any reasonable person can see that this article is written primarily to dismantle the film, rather than provide neutral information on it. Many of the counterpoints/points operate on assumptions that are presented as facts, which are easily debatable by both sides, and/or uncited. It is in serious need of neutrality editing (not to mention some spelling). If this is not allowable to the Admins, it at the very least, needs to be clearly marked with an NPOV Dispute Notice. SGriffy (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Take some time to read through this talk page and the archives. NPOV does not mean a neutral description as seen from the subject. But a description that reflects the balance of the reliable sources, so as not to generate undue weight to a minority point of view. But of course you are welcome to specify some of your concerns - so that we can address them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already read it, thanks. To quote: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias". For example, the use of the phrase "scientific consensus". It has no citation, the consensus it is referring to is? There is 'consensus' on both sides of the debate. There is a notable lack of balance in this article. It is clearly written with bias, in favor of one side of the debate. SGriffy (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there is a scientific consensus on climate change - try following the link - there are ample references there. Presenting it otherwise is not NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that consensus only represents the pro-global-warming part of the scientific community. It does not represent the entire scientific community, or even a 'majority' of it. It presumes that part of the scientific community is the correct one, beyond scrutiny, and that any debate that contradicts that segment is invalid by default. Presenting it in this way is not NPOV. SGriffy (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite even one scientific organization that supports your point of view? (hint: all major scientific bodies say there is a consensus) That there are a minority of scientists who disagree is not disputed. To present a minority view as more than it is... is once more not NPOV. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nb. if you can find a scientific organization/body who disputes the consensus - you are more than welcome to add it to Scientific opinion on climate change. Since the lack of such a beast, isn't by choice ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please dont make this personal. This isnt about 'my point of view', I'm only seeking to making this article appropriately neutral. To answer your question - Please reference the Wiki article "Global Warming Controversy", notably the section regarding 'Petitions', that will get you started (hint: all major scientific bodies that are pro-global-warming say there is a consensus, and among themselves, that is true). The fact that the 'consensus' itself is disputed in many quarters is evident, and that the 'scientific consensus' as it is portrayed in this article, is without argument, in dispute. SGriffy (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read the petitions. They are (to say it mildly) rather suspect, they are btw. also covered in the Scientific opinion on climate change (SOCC) article. But a petition such as the Oregon Petition is not a reliable source. But you are dodging the issue ... the claim was that SOCC only represented the "pro-global-warming part of the scientific community", unless you can back that statement up with some "anti-global-warming" scientific bodies - we can consider that claim bunk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I just mention that, when an allegedly new contributor appears and their first contribution is to wikilawyer on a controversial issue, I always take my shoes off to make sure I haven't lost anything. Can I suggest you establish a track record of useful contributions before laying down the law.JQ (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It never ceases to amaze me how new users are so au fait with such abbreviations as "NPOV" and the sayings of fellow Wikipedians. I think JQ and KDP have answered your points well, but to answer one specific (and slightly annoying) point: I assume by saying it needs "some editing for spelling", you're referring to the fact that it uses British English. Amazing as it may be to some people, not everyone spells things the same way! Colour, sceptic, travelled are all perfectly correct spellings. The Wikipedia style manual does not prefer one spelling style over another, as long as it's consistent, and in general, articles written about a British programme (do you see what I did there?) can expect to be spelt using British spellings. If instead you're referring to genuine spelling mistakes and typos- please correct them. --Merlinme (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This really should carry an NPOV tag - who are you people kidding? I can think of few articles on Wiki that are as closely policed as this one. I do wonder if some of the regular contributors have a real job such is the amount of time and effort they put into keeping this 'green' (JQ and Merlinme??). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.44 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep 'em coming, guys. My sock drawer is still half-empty.JQ (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you SockPuppeted some poor unsuspecting sucker who just happened to be using AOL at the same time as me??? You should go an apologise. It kind of reinforces my point above - this article is so closely policed by global warming sympathisers that it's tough for anyone with an opposing view to get a fair chance. People get stuff reverted when their comments are fair and reasonable. This article needs an NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.172 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is a scientific consensus that global warming exists and is manmade, and like most people I'm going to defer to the scientific consensus on areas where I am not an expert myself. It's also clear that deniers/skeptics are looking increasingly shrill and motivated by politics or some other nonscientific reason. Having said all that, this article is so biased it's offensive. I don't need some anonymous internet retard to tell me what to think. An entire talk page full of the same complaints should be a clue to you people. Going along with what 99.9% of scientists believe doesn't actually make you smart; trying to force their claims down the throats of others makes you an ass. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Up to you, 75.5.100.86, to edit the article if you think there are NPOV problems with it, rather than use the Talk page to anonymously attack "some anonymous internet retard". -- Jmc (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that I came to this page precisely because I don't know anything about it's subject. But I do have sufficient common sense to spot a bias, so that is my contribution. Which I'll share via this anonymous bitching tactic. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ofcom

We need to be careful not to give the impression that the Ofcom verdict has already been published or that its findings are confirmed. Evidently someone's leaked its key findings, but we will have to wait until it's published to see how accurate the leaks are. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ofcom verdict has been published now - you can find it here. I'm reading it right now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My quick summary:

• Group complaint:

• Part 1-4 was clearly polemic showing a minority scientific view (and clearly marked as such) thus - not in breach of Rule 2.2.
• Part 5 of the film was in breach of Rules 5.11 and 5.12

• Complaint by Sir David King upheld he has been treated unfairly. (misquoted and misrepresented) Found in breach of Rule 7.1 - C4 ordered to broadcast a summary of this judgement on C4 and MoreE4.

• Complaint by the IPCC partly upheld: Found in breach of Rule 7.1. IPCC was not given appropriate or timely opportunity to respond. C4 ordered to broadcast a summary of this judgement on C4 and MoreE4.

• Complaint by Wunsch partly upheld:

  Failed to inform Wunsch about the polemic nature of the film (ie. failed to inform about the nature and likely content of the programme) and the claims/position of it. Misrepresented Wunsch's views by making the impression that he agreed with the premise of the program, and that it cut away parts of the interview where Wunsch stated that he agreed with the mainstream view. Found in breach of Rule 7.1 of Ofcom’s the Code. C4 ordered to broadcast a summary of this judgement on C4 and MoreE4.

We will probably have to wait for a detailed analysis from secondary sources for an indepth description - but the breaches and the orders should probably be in the article now, as a notice that C4 has been ordered to broadcast summaries and which rules the film was held in breach of. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting side-note here is that C4 clearly says that the film was a polemic (and clearly marked as thus), and that it was made specifically to present the viewpoint of a "minority of scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide" (on page 9-10) . That should put the marked as controversial (or not) debate to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 11:45, July 21, 2008

I agree. At this point the article should use the original polemic instead of controversial.  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE for KDP: Check the timestamps of my edit above with that of my edit of the lead. I HAD checked here first. Also, you should review the past discussions on the controversial vs. polemic as you will find I participated therein and am well aware of the controversy surrounding "controversial" in the title. As my comment clearly indicates, we now have a reason to prefer "polemic" over "controversial" since Channel 4 who boradcast the should intended it as such. This coupled with the prior discussion that the producers also called it polemical seems to break the tie, does it not? It seems the situation has changed in preference to polemic. Do you not agree given your comment above? Why would the observation that "C4 clearly says that the film was a polemic (and clearly marked as thus)" cause you to prefer the term "controversial"? --GoRight (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, i do not care that you made a comment here first. Since you where part of the previous consensus, then you know perfectly well that we all agreed (with the comprimise) not to change that part the lead - without prior discussions (and one small note a discussion does not make). That particular wording has started several edit-wars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

George Monbiot

Room for one more voice? [1] — eon, 21:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Although to be honest I think the article needs editing down more than anything else, it's grown massive. It's a bit hard to see the wood for the trees at times. I might have a go at copyediting again some time, if I can find the time. --Merlinme (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree it needs to be edited down - I might have a go if it's not better next week, once it isn't so high profile any more and the edit storm has died down. I think it might be worth adding info about the Rive, Jackson, Rado, et al complaint if it's not there already (I didn't see it) too - it's by far the most comprehensive complaint. Adacore (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Google listing

Typing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in google would, until yesterday, make this page appear as the second search result, the official Channel 4 documentary site would appear on top. But as of today, this page appears on top. Has this anything to do with the ofcom ruling? Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely it's the result of an increase in links to the article (in blogs, comments on news websites etc) in response to the ruling. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ofcom ruling and Rule 7.1

So how is it that my clarification in the lead inaccurate? All of the rulings were upheld on the grounds that they had not been given an opportunity to respond, right? --GoRight (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all "narrow technical grounds" is distinct POV. Second Wunch had a complain of unfair treatment upheld. (the only one i checked). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sir David King:

In the circumstances the Committee found that the failure to give Sir David King an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the comment made by Professor Singer resulted in unfairness to the complainant in the programme as broadcast.

Accordingly the Committee upheld Sir David King’s complaint of unfair treatment in the programme as broadcast.

Channel 4 was found in breach of Rule 7.1 of the Code.

IPCC

In summary, the Committee found the programme broadcast a number of significant allegations which called into question the IPCC’s scientific credibility and that the IPCC had not been offered an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to these. This resulted in unfairness in the programme as broadcast.

The Committee therefore partly upheld the IPCC’s complaint of unfair treatment.

Channel 4 was found in breach of Rule 7.1 of the Code.

Wunsch

I stand corrected on Wunsch. The decision did not rest on his being given an opportunity to respond but rather on other factors.

--GoRight (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To specify all that in the Ofcom lead paragraph is going to overblow it. AIT contains no reference in its lead to the findings of the Dimmock case, why is the Ofcom investigation a lead item in TGGWS? Suggest removal of entire lead paragraph and addressing the entire issue in the relevant sectionJaimaster (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AIT was exonerated in the Dimmock, which found that everything said in the movie is accurate and that the only "errors" were of omission. Ofcom found that the TGGWS was effectively a one-side propaganda film and made numerous errors. Raul654 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be laboring under the false impression that something I have said here contradicts that observation. Although your characterization of "many errors" is likewise false. As for being one-sided it was billed as a polemic so this should be unsurprising. AIT, on the other hand, was every bit as one-sided from a political perspective which is clear in the Dimmock ruling (i.e. Gore used the science in furtherance of his political agenda). --GoRight (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead section for An Inconvenient Truth is woefully inadequate as an article summary. The Ofcom summary is required in this lead setcion because it is an investigation by the regulator whose code they are supposed to be following when making the program. I doubt American films are required to be made in such a way they are suitable for English schools, it's the same, but different. (oh, and please don't use acronyms like AIT, I had to think hard as to what you were on about) MickMacNee (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who you were directing this at, but AIT is in common usage on these pages. It is unlikely that this will change. --GoRight (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's considered bad ettiquette. Clearly not everyone should need to know what AIT means before being able to post on this page, and we really shouldn't have to ask the residents either. MickMacNee (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Take it up with all the other editors as well. Just follow the chain up this very thread to see who is and isn't using this.  :) I'm not arguing with you, only stating the reality you face. --GoRight (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Point fairly taken, will use full name if I need to reference it again, but have to say I agree with GoRight otherwise Jaimaster (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a polite reminder is all. There are enough AFD/OR/POV/CSD's running around for the newbies to deal with, without confusing the regulars too. The hilarious thing is I can't find/remember the acronym for the essay that says it's not polite to keep using acronyms on talk pages. GF (go figure). MickMacNee (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nothing in the ofcom ruling addressed the validity of the science on either side. In fact they explicitly avoided it. I did find the following bit interesting though:

"The Committee acknowledged that while there is a declared consensus amongst scientists, governments and the public that global warming is directly related to anthropogenic causes, this is still a topic of debate. There continues to be discussion about the different methods of measuring change in the climate, the best way these changes should be analysed and what predictions, if any, can be made from the data. Indeed such discussion and debate are essential for the formulation of robust, scientifically sound, theories, projections and conclusions. Global warming is clearly a legitimate and important subject for programme makers and it is not Ofcom’s role to adjudicate on whether global warming is man-made or on the validity of particular scientific views."

Emphasis mine. :) --GoRight (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would disagree with the bit that you bolded. That's not the same as saying that there's no scientific consensus on the issue, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is correct. However the GW proponents typically act like they are one and the same as evidenced by labeling anything not part of the declared consensus view as being WP:FRINGE which is disingenuous on their part, IMHO. If there is still a debate even the minority views are supposed to have a voice on these pages. --GoRight (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact the only reason Ofcom didn't consider parts 1-4 a matter of public interest (and worth ruling on balance and accuracy) was that the consensus had already been established by the time the programme was broadcast; it was assumed that the viewer must know the established, consensus scientific version. Which strikes me as rather evading their responsibility on matters of public interest. Admittedly they were put in a very difficult position between freedom of speech and downright misinformation. If Durkin had made a programme which had a serious debate about the likely consequences of global warming, and what, if anything, should be (can be) done about it, TGGWS would have been a far better programme. To muddy the waters of whether it's even happening, using bad science, took the "discussion and debate" backwards, not forwards. --Merlinme (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Small quibble. The ofcom said "declared" not "established" consensus. The nuance is significant. --GoRight (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Even smaller quibble - the OfCom refers to consensus quite a few times in the document - only when (adding and) referring to government and the public does it use "declared". Ie. every single time it refers to science alone - it states that there is a consensus without declared. (thats 2 instances of "declared" out of 34). It even specifically states that this consensus (in science) was strongly established before March 2007. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

An even smaller, smaller quibble - in all of those "other" references did they ever explicitly state "established", as they have with "declared"? --GoRight (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ofcom quite deliberately refused to have an opinion on whether the consensus was correct, so I can't get particularly exercised by the quibble. --Merlinme (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for any particular action here, I am just noting that they recognize that the consensus is merely "declared" as opposed to "established" which is precisely why they avoid taking any position. Please note that the two places where they DID mention "declared" is in the operative text describing their decisions where they are most likely to be particularly precise and accurate in their terminology. --GoRight (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No sorry. They specifically notice that because there is a consensus, they can be lenient towards minority views - because everyone understands that its a minority view per default. Had there not been such a consensus, they wouldn't have jumped light and elephantly over the problems in section 1-4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) - this is explained on section on page 20 named: "Parts One to Four of the programme". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)

Stop it, the irony here is killing me.  :) Here you are pointing to a section that (1) relies on the Stern Review as its basis ... which we just established on my talk page that you disagree with, and (2) it is specifically arguing that there is a political consensus, not a scientific one! For example:

"In assessing these first four parts of the programme, Ofcom also had regard to the fact that, both domestically and on a worldwide level, the political debate had largely moved on from questioning the causes of climate change to attempting to find solutions to deal with it. Therefore, in the political arena at least, there was a very broad consensus of opinion which accepted the scientific theory of man-made global warming.

...

This view of human activity as the major cause of global warming does not appear to be challenged by any of the established political parties or other significant domestic or international institutions.

...

Therefore, in this case, Ofcom considers that the subject matter of Parts One to Four of the programme (i.e. the scientific theory of man-made global warming) was not a matter political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy."

Do you have any examples where they actually discuss an "established scientific consensus"? --GoRight (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We're nitpicking. Ofcom refused to have an opinion on the science- they quite specifically said that it was not their role to rule on matters of scientific fact. They successfully avoided their responsibility to make a judgement on matters of public interest by saying that the consensus arguments were so well known that TGGWS didn't need to be balanced. Given that they refused to have an opinion on the science- why do we care what they said about the science? --Merlinme (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess this has just dissolved into a meaningless ping pong game with the ofcom position as the ball. This section started because of my edit which incorrectly stated that in all three cases the ofcom decision was based on narrow technical grounds of not having given the complainant's and opportunity to respond. While that was true for two of the cases, it was not true for Wunsch. Given that there is no way to concisely explain this nuance I have abandoned my original edit.

I will point out that even your statement above, i.e. that the consensus argument were so well known, does not even support the view that the consensus exists ... only that people were aware of the positions because of the arguing over it.  :) Anyway, you are correct, it is probably time to move on to other things. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless edit break

"narrow technical grounds" is still POV - sorry. The law specifically states that opposing view must get representation - TGGWS didn't. Thats not a narrown ground - its a direct violation of the rules. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"direct violation of the rules" is NOT incompatible with "narrow technical grounds". In fact, most examples of "narrow technical grounds" ARE "direct violations of the rules". That's what makes them technical grounds.

The ofcom rulings, at least in the first two cases, directly stated that the only reason there was a violation was because the complainants weren't given an "appropriate and timely opportunity to respond". The ofcom did not say that the complainants were "right" and that Channel 4 was "wrong" on the points under consideration. The ofcom only stated some of the statements which were aired met the criteria for which the complainants should be given an opportunity to respond (so that both sides the the story are presented), and since the complainants had not been given such an opportunity it is only on that technical point that the rules had been violated. Again, this says nothing about which side is "right" or which side is "wrong" on the content of the points in question. --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no rules against saying something that is wrong in a documentary. (thats one of the very first things that OfCom states) So to expect that OfCom would rule that, is going beyond what the broadcast rules demand. On the other hand it is forbidden to make statements (right or wrong) without providing the opposite view. (except of course where the opposite view is consensus and every one knows about it). Your WP:OR that its "narrow" is distinct POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and offer as an example the Wunsch ruling. In the Wunsch ruling ofcom actually ruled that his statements had been materially misrepresented. This is why I have backed down on that point. In the case of King they made no such ruling. They only ruled that the program had made critical statements about King and thus he was entitled to respond. These are substantively different types of rulings. Consider the following from the Wunsch ruling:

"The Committee did not consider that the editing of the programme presented Professor Wunsch as denying that global warming is taking place. However it noted that the programme included his edited interview in the context of a range of scientists who denied the scientific consensus about the anthropogenic causes of global warming. In the Committee’s view Professor Wunsch made clear in his full unedited interview that he largely accepted this consensus and the seriousness of the threat of global warming (albeit with caveats about proof) and therefore found that the presentation of Professor Wunsch’s views, within the wider context of the programme, resulted in unfairness to him."

This statement clearly rules on the substance of what the program presented and affirmed that it was incorrect and as a result unfair to Wunsch. No comparable ruling on the substance of the allegations was made in the King case with respect to the "most" vs. "only" wording dispute. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The first problem is that the people in question were misrepresented by TGGWS. As a comparison, check Ofcom's treatment of another Channel 4 polemic, The Root of all Evil?. [2] There they have a clear finding stating that "The programmes reflected on a range of views, including those of the Bishop of Oxford, and did not mislead by presenting extreme views as moderate views." Of course, Dawkins is what Durkin isn't - a scientist, competent, and honest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Ofcom ruling for WP:OR

Unless you can point to a place in the Ofcom ruling where they claim that they "confirmed" any part of Wunsch's complaint, your assertion is WP:OR and should be reverted. The Ofcom only used the terminology that they partially upheld the complaint, as far as I am aware. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Edit warring = bad. Please use the talk page. --GoRight (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

By upholding it, they confirmed it. Really, this is beyond tendentious at this point. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just use the freakin word that they use: upheld, or even "partially upheld", if that is exactly what they said. What's the big deal? II | (t - c) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this asserted equivalence is your own conclusion and, as such, it is WP:OR and not to be used. Provide a WP:RS that is WP:V for this and I will accept it. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree (with BD), this is stonewalling. We can do better than this. Verbal chat 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not stonewalling. This is wikipedia policy, no WP:OR allowed. The burden of proof is on those who wish to include the material. Find a source that says "confirmed" and I'll back down. Fail to provide a source and this is by definition WP:OR and we should use the verbiage provided by the source itself. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to BD's comment on uphold/confirm: They confirmed the editing that Wunsch complained about, in this context, in the transcript of the unedited interview on page 78 in the OfCom ruling. (or b.i). This directly contradicts Durkin's claim that Wunsch had backed down afterwards from being a sceptic (he implied that it was peer-pressure). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Point me to the place in the Wunsch section where they assert that they "confirmed" something and I'll back down. I see no such assertion.

On the other hand, if you want to take the position that "upheld = confirmed Wunsch was right" can I similarly take the position that "not upheld = confirmed the program was right"? For example, will you likewise include an assertion that the ofcom "confirmed" that the program had NOT "misrepresented Professor Wunsch’s views in relation to the oceans and CO2?" --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you deliberately being disruptive? Upheld and confirm are synonymous [3]. And no: Lack of confirmation is not the same as confirmation of the opposite. (that should be basic logic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be arguing that they are NOT synonymous since you claim that "confirm" is "more accurate" (see you edit summary). If they are the same in your mind then let us use the phrase preferred by the ofcom.

By not upholding Wunsch's claims the ofcom is clearly upholding the position of Channel 4 and the program. This is not mere lack of confirmation, they explicitly reviewed the evidence and explicitly ruled that Channel 4 had not misrepresented Wunsch's position with respect to the science. How selective of you to try and read things that way. So I should be just as justified in claiming that they "confirmed" that the science he presented had not been misrepresented. --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't. That's a terrible argument. See the logical fallacies page (to help avoid them) Verbal chat 21:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See the direct quote from the ofcom ruling. --GoRight (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that "not treated unfairly" isn't the same as "not misrepresented". (the hint in the OfCom ruling that Durkin had the right to put it where he wanted - should be a clue). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no except, here. The ofcom clearly states in their ruling that ""the programme had provided a fair representation of Professor Wunsch’s unedited contribution about the relationship between the CO2 in the ocean and temperature." (The hint here is that the words "not treated unfairly" do not appear in this quote.) --GoRight (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you all object to the direct quote I appended to KDP's addition, I will be satisfied with this a being WP:NPOV and we can end this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well - i do object. The OfCom rulings are already covered in the article in detail. What was added here, was a small part related to the context, which if the reader was interested could be expanded by looking a the indepth section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha, that's funny actually. There is nothing to suggest that your addition is more appropriate context wise than mine. They are both discussing Wunsch's complaint. Clarifying which are was upheld and which part was not (as I did) does not affect the applicability of either portion under context. You selectivity and insistence on the use of "confirm" over the ofcom usage "upheld" only serves to illustrate that you purpose here is to bias the reader with a POV push.

Your original edit summary that "We now know who was right." likewise telegraphs your intent. Why do you oppose presenting the unvarnished truth? --GoRight (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The context is here, that Durkin claimed Wunsch just backed out because of peer-pressure. But we can see accurately in the OfCom transcript of the unedited interview, that Wunsch indeed backed the consensus on climate change - and didn't just bow under pressure. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the ofcom ruled on whether Wunsch had succumbed to peer pressure, or not. Can you point me to where they stated that he had not? Otherwise this smells like WP:OR. Even so, in the references provided Durkin also claims that he had not misrepresented Wunsch. So we should include that bit in the write up for context and then assert that the ofcom had likewise partially confirmed his statement, agreed? --GoRight (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly misrepresenting the facts in the references?

After having reviewed the two primary references for the section you have added your bit to:

"ABC board 'pushed' over climate doco". The Australian. 2007-05-24. Retrieved 2007-07-01.

"Lateline - 12/07/2007: My words were twisted in global warming documentary: expert". Retrieved 2007-07-13.

it is quite obvious that this section is completely misrepresenting the facts. In these two references Wunsch is specifically complaining about how they represented his views on the relationship between CO2, the oceans, and rising temperatures:

"There are a number of issues. There's one point in the film where I was attempting to explain that the ocean contains a very large amount of carbon dioxide that is there naturally. It's one of the great reservoirs of carbon dioxide in the world. And what I was trying to explain was that if you make the ocean warmer, as one likely would do under a global warming scenario, that much of that carbon dioxide now resident in the ocean could be released into the atmosphere with very serious effects.

It was put into the film in such a way, in the context that it was put to have me saying that, "Well, carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the ocean and so whatever is going on is all natural," which in some sense turned my point on its head. Or if you like, completely removing the main point, which is while the carbon dioxide in the ocean is primarily there naturally, having it expelled through warming is not necessarily natural.

All that was lost in the film as broadcast."

Note that this is the very portion of his complaint where the ofcom ruled in favor of Channel 4 and explicitly stated:

""the programme had provided a fair representation of Professor Wunsch’s unedited contribution about the relationship between the CO2 in the ocean and temperature."

Your edit is clearly misleading the reader into thinking that the ofcom had actually confirmed that Durkin had edited Wunsch's content regarding these relationships to make them say the exact opposite. Clearly the ofcom ruling made not such confirmation of that position. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the text in the article. The text i added was in that context - not in the context of what you are placing here. I misrepresented exactly nothing - and indeed included the "partially confirmed" so that the curious reader could go indepth. But do as you want - i'm finished discussing this with you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words. Describing it thus is misrepresentation by omission. Jaimaster (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the OfCom source - the partial part is directly from it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict @ Kim D. Petersen above)

Hmmm. Perhaps the misunderstanding here is that I had assumed that when you wrote "Wunsch's statement about editing ..." was actually referring to the text immediately preceding it (i.e. "accused Durkin of editing his words to give an impression ...") as opposed to text even further up (i.e. "he denied claims by Durkin that he had 'backed down' under pressure"). Perhaps you can understand my, and therefore other reader's, confusion on this point? Even so, you assertion then comes down to being WP:OR since the ofcom never ruled on the backing down issue. --GoRight (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Exposé"

If Nelson stole five dollars, and I wrote about it, it would be an exposé. Similarly, if Nelson stole five dollars, and blamed it on Milhouse, and I wrote about the truth, it would be an exposé. However, it is not an exposé if I merely write an article regarding the missing five dollars, nor is speculation the same as an exposé. Since the truth regarding global warming is either completely counter to the conclusion of this piece, or still undecided, depending on whom you believe, there is no possibility of "exposing" anything. Hence, I removed said category. --Badger Drink (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets say the sky is blue, but we all live underground and have never seen it. I tell everyone "the sky is definantly blue" based on research into light wavelengths that says "90% probability", and go on to claim that everyone agrees with me. Durkin creates a documentary sourcing people that dont agree with me and using other research that is the reason for the actual "90%" estimate, shows a competing theory. I have been exposed lying about a blanket consensus and lying that my theory is absolutely infallible. Your analogy here is about as rediculous and irrelevant as your attempt to portray scientific research that undermines the theory of anthropogenic causation as "flat earthism". I question your good faith regarding WP:NPOV on this subject. Jaimaster (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus amongst the scientific community. If you see otherwise, then that is the result of either a liberal interpretation of the term "scientific community" or a failure to understand the language in which the scientific community phrases itself. --Badger Drink (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Badger Drink here - it's well-established that there's a scientific consensus surrounding global warming. That the film demonstrates that there are individual scientists that do not agree with this consensus does not make it an exposé, as I don't believe anybody's ever claimed unanimity of scientists in favour of global warming. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that the "exposé" tag is supposed to refer to the title of the film itself - that it "exposes" global warming itself as a "swindle", at least in Durkin's mind. I do wonder, though, whether we are being even-handed here with this and the "denialism" category tag. If Durkin characterises the film as an "exposé" and his critics characterise it as "denialism", why are we keeping one tag and removing the other? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with ChrisO on this. Let both sides put down the pointy sticks, please. I don't think this film belongs in either category. --GoRight (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If Durkin characterises the film as an "exposé" and his critics characterise it as "denialism", why are we keeping one tag and removing the other? For the same reason that we don't put the Bible (or Koran, or Battlefield Earth) in Category: One True Word of God. It's a no-brainer that the creator is going to call it an exposé. That doesn't de facto make it an exposé any more than my calling That Very Notable Magnum Opus That Badger Drink Wrote That Is Highly Notable "a very notable work of quantum mechanics" would make said work fit for Category: Quantum Mechanics or even encyclopedic inclusion in the first place. To be blunt, what matters in matters of science is the opinion of the scientific community, first and foremost, and the overall "common opinion" of the masses, pop culture, the media, and et cetera, second. The opinion of the film-maker counts little when deciding what categories a work falls under, as do the opinions of a very small (and disproportionately vocal) minority. See also: 9/11 not being in Category: Conspiracy Theories. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But in this case it's not just the film-maker who holds that opinion, it would appear that "exposé" categorisation is how one side pegs it, while the other side pegs it as "denialism". I'm just uneasy about being selective here. We should either include both categories or delete both. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To say it's a matter of sides is schoolyard logic at its worst. To say it's a matter of two sides is even worse. There are those who would view this film as as a screwball comedy (akin to Reefer Madness, another film which only the most literal-minded of folk would label an "exposé", despite the proclamations of those responsible for the film), there are those who would view it as something akin to pornography, those who would view it as a drama, a reality show, a work of dada, and no doubt all sorts of additional viewpoints in between, with the possibility of overlap as well (those who view it as an exposé-turned-drama, those who view it as propaganda and a screwball comedy, etc). To give undue weight to one minority viewpoint (and let's be clear about this - while I hope not to sound too harsh, this is a minority viewpoint, no matter how it sometimes feels on talk pages in this field or when reading Michael Crichton's tangential bestseller du jour) is to open the floodgates for all minority viewpoints, and by trying to please everyone, the entire point of categorization is lost. Once again, unless we're going to argue that the aforementioned Reefer Madness is an exposé, along with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Taxil hoax, and other such factually-suspect works, then we should respect consensus reached through the scientific fact-finding method, and not those reached through tea-leaves, palm creases, phrenology, astrology or other such cosmic debris, or any other method of advanced superstition. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So the best option is to delete both denialism and exposé, correct? --GoRight (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, see, as it actually is denialism. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion Jaimaster (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Such is the mindset of those who have made up their minds even more surely than the scientists they quote. "To say it's a matter of two sides is even worse". I dont only question your good faith now, I post here and say it - you are a bad faith editor on this subject Badger Drink. Jaimaster (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it isn't a good idea to castigate other users in edit comments[4] for breaking editing guidelines (right or wrong doesn't matter), immediately after breaking one yourself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) Can we cool things down a bit here, please? Let's deal with the article categorisation rather than insulting each other. Is there a significant body of opinion which specifically categorises TGGWS as "denialism" and an "exposé" respectively? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure both catagories were attached via WP:OR and as such are both invalid Jaimaster (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but let's at least work out what those categorisations are based on. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the 'denialism' and 'exposé" categorizations are held by a significant number of people. As long as they are not "fringe" views, they should both be allowed. There is no requirement that the categorizations be 'true'. Then again, I remember that the Wikipedia category page Wikipedia:Categorization says that categories should be 'uncontroversial' - therefore we should drop them both. ^rossnixon 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lordy be. Expose seems ridiculous (what is being exposed, exactly?) Denialism is debatable, and I would prefer to see a clear source, as has been previously suggested.

What I would most like is for people to discuss it here until they reach some resolution (tedious, long drawn out and protracted though achieving consensus may be), rather than reverting each other all the time. Anyone who finds two people to support them and then say they have achieved consensus clearly doesn't understand what the word means. --Merlinme (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Ross, I'm glad you mentioned WP:CAT - it's something I've been concerned about, because to put it bluntly, it simply doesn't work. Categories can be used or omitted to push a POV. A case in point is an edit war that was occurring some time ago on Srebrenica massacre about including Category:Genocide. Some Serbian editors (basically denialists) were repeatedly deleting the category, while everyone else was in favour of including it since the affair was widely categorised as such by reliable sources including the courts. In the end, the majority POV won out and the category was retained. However, there's no doubt that under the strict terms of WP:CAT, it was "controversial" and therefore should not have been included, even though the "controversy" was essentially limited to a group of denialists. The omission of the category was in itself a POV act, quite consciously so. A strict "controversial" criterion therefore doesn't really work. I'll bring this up on Wikipedia talk:Categorization in due course - feel free to join in. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In the end alot of this is going to be pushed by one side as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE vs WP:NPOV by the other. Catagorising this as Denial creates a situation where AGW must be fact and doubting it is WP:FRINGE, and including the views of people that doubt it is then WP:UNDUE. I am quite happy to show that while doubting AGW is a minority view it is a significant minority view. To quote from WP:UNDUE, which in turn quotes Jimbo Wales -

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

It is very easy to name prominent adherents to the view that the recent global warming is not mostly attributable to anthropogenic causes, ergo doubting agw is a significant minority viewpoint, in my interpretation. Thus labelling it as "denialism", per the other documents catagorised thus (flat earth, holocaust) is inappropriate. Jaimaster (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a deduction. A->B is not the same as B->A. And "prominent adherents" implicitly is qualified by "among qualifies scientists". Nancy Reagan believed in astrology, but that does not make it a valid scientific viewpoint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Qualified scientists does not exclude scientists you believe are not reliable per your own personal judgement. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels are not unqualified first ladies believing in voodoo. Jaimaster (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the straw poll showed you all split exactly down the middle on whether to add "expose'" or "denialism". The answer is simple, add both or neither. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to add the expose' category, and it was red linked. Why would you want to add a category that doesn't exist? Cla68 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't an exposé anyway, but it clearly airs the views of what are called AGW-denialists, and it denies the mainstream hypothesis... Verbal chat 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics =/ denialists. Jaimaster (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This category still fits this documentary. Verbal chat 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point actually. How can it be a both documentary and denialism? One implies fact, the other implies not... Jaimaster (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, we have OfCom's ruling that states that documentary != fact. Which btw. should be obvious, and if i'm not mistaken there's a documentary about how the Moon landings where a hoax. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a category being added to advance a POV agenda. I oppose it. See Talk:Neutral point of view#Templates and Categories. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That link seems a bit-off topic and unconvincing. Verbal chat 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Polemical

I hesitate to open this can of worms again, but we now have two sources for using "polemical" about the programme, i.e. Channel 4 and Ofcom. I counted "polemic" 7 times in the Ofcom judgement, including e.g. "the programme was clearly polemical in nature". What do people think about the lead being something like: 'The Great Global Warming Swindle is a //delete controversial here// documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations". It has been described by both its original broadcaster and the British regulator Ofcom as "polemical" //give references//. '

(Merlin will now retire to his bunker to wait for the dust to settle.) --Merlinme (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Polemic should be added as the program makers and regulators, and many other commentators, define it thus. However, it is still a controversial programme, n'est pas? Verbal chat 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Merlinme's proposed edit. 'Controversial' has always been, well, controversial and will, I'm certain, continue to be the object of edit battles. I believe that 'polemical' makes the same point and, being solidly referenced, is likely to be less controversial. -- Jmc (talk)

Just to make clear, this film is still controversial. Adding polemical is clearly well sourced, but there is no good reason to remove controversial. How about simply adding this fact, with the phrase "This film has been described as polemical by Channel 4, the commissioners of the film, Ofcom, the British television regulator, and other commentators." with appropriate referencing. Verbal chat 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The past edit wars and huge discussion are reason enough to choose one or the other. Obviously, since I had already made the edit to polemical based on the existence of a new source that also calls it such, I think it should say polemical and not controversial. --GoRight (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I don't see why it has to be one or the other; they're both correct. Verbal chat 06:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have supported "controversial" since we settled on that form of wording. In fact I may even have suggested it myself, I can't remember. However, while objectively true, and also a reasonable compromise in how to describe this particular documentary (opinions tend to be very polarised), it's always had the problem that it can't really be attributed to a particular source. Plenty of newspaper articles describe the programme as controversial, but it's difficult to say one of them is definitive on this; you tend to be relying on weight of evidence as much as anything.

I've always thought "polemical" was actually more descriptive, in that it makes the point that the programme is one-sided, but deliberately so, which gives more information than just "controversial". The problem with "polemical" however is that the only source for it was a Channel 4 spokesman, and it's debatable whether that was authoritative enough for using such a specific word. (Quotes given by a media spokesman to the press on one particular day may or may not reflect the "official" line.) However now that Channel 4 has explicitly used the fact that the programme is polemical in its defence against complaints to the regulator, and the regulator has explicitly accepted that the programme is polemical in making its judgement, I would argue that we do have a good source for replacing "controversial" with the more descriptive and well sourced) "polemical". Given the article which follows, I'm sure the reader will quickly realise the programme was/ is controversial.

I haven't seen any strong objections to this. The only real objection is to whether we should keep "controversial". With that in mind, I'm going to make the edit based on my original suggestion (losing the word controversial). Happy to discuss further if people have very strong feelings on this though. --Merlinme (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Category:Denialism

This page has descended into edit warring over the inclusion or exclusion of Category:Denialism. The proponents of including this category have argued that it belongs because questioning climate change is equivalent to denial of the Holocaust, Flat Earth, etc. The opponents of the category argue that it is non-neutral, unsourced, and contrary to the definition at climate change denial (bad faith isn't demonstrated or alleged)

• Support inclusion "Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists." This seems to fit the bill, no matter whether the thesis of this film is true or false, it denies the current scientific consensus. There are many sources which claim this film and it's thesis are AGW-denialism. The comparison to the Holocaust (by the nominator in his reason, which is currently not visible unless you edit the page) is silly, and seems to be a straw-man and bad faith on the part of the nominator. If an admin or the nominator could change the language of the RFC to be neutral, that would be great. Verbal chat 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The comparison to the Holocaust is silly, and seems to be a straw-man and bad faith on the part of the nominator." - Straw man, eh? Apis above: "Doesn't that bring it down there among Holocaust Denial, Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, Flat Earth Society and things like that?" Badger Drink above: "it's about as idiotic and pointless as getting sucked into a debate on whether the Earth is round or flat". These are two of the three editors in that section who actually attempted to present a reason why the category should be included. I tried to find the justification for inclusion by anyone in the above discussion section, and all I see are these comparisons and arguments about the soundness of climate science in general (not even mentioning the film". There was no bad faith; tell me, based on the points raised in the discussion above, how I was to summarize the "pro-inclusion" position neutrally without mentioning these comparisons. Oren0 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Reading it over again ... yeah, I should have stuck with my original thoughts. Sorta iffy, but only on annoyingly technical, not reasonable, grounds. Based on the points raised below; cats should not be controversial, and sources categorizing this as "denialism" are not that great. Let's just get over this and move on to something constructive. Cats are just navigation tools. Suppport inclusion For good or bad, denying something endorsed by every scientific organization in the world is denialism, and has been categorized as such by scientists and scientific organizations. Maybe these scientific organizations are wrong (it wouldn't surprise me). Readers can be trusted to judge each form of denialism independently; obviously they will vary. II | (t - c) 08:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reject inclusion The catagory is pejorative and inappropriate. The catagory otherwise contains denial of past-tense facts - most notably "flat earthism" and holocaust denial. Equating skepticism of a scientific causation theory with denial of the holocaust or believing in a flat earth is little more than derogatory. Further, per WP:CAT, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Catagorisation of AGW skepticism with Flat Earthism and Holocaust denial is very much controversial, IMO - see the polarised edit war it has sparked. Jaimaster (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is equating AGW-denial to Holocaust-denial? They are clearly different things and not comparable. That isn't a good reason to not add this appropriate category. The definition of denialism fits this documentary and it's subject, and it is not a pejorative - it is a descriptive category which is of itself neutral. Verbal chat 13:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you doubt that this is a widely asserted comparison, I offer to you the following google search, [5], which clearly illustrates that the intent is precisely to equate AGW deniers with Holocaust deniers. Couple that with the fact the James Hansen, a very prominent AGW proponent, has compared coal trains to the death trains in Nazi Germany and called for fossil fuel related CEOs to be tried for crimes against humanity and nature and I think that the comparison is quite obvious. So if you truly believe that such a comparison is inappropriate you should actually switch your vote to oppose the use of this category as a means of not propagating the comparison. Will you switch? --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Other pages catagorised under Denial - Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theories critical_Analysis_of_Evolution Flat Earth Society Genocide denial Holocaust denial Intelligent Design True-believer syndrome

That list about speaks for itself. Denialism on wiki is not per the dictionary definition of the word. Here it implies support for a demonstratably wrong fact and has nothing at all to do with "scientific consensus". Further, the lead sentence in the Denialism article is apparently unsourced OR (no inline citation) and could thus currently be legitimately challanged and removed. In any case thats a discussion for a different time... Jaimaster (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's change that by adding things which fit the dictionary definition, and are defined as such by verifiable and reliable sources, to the category. The category is not restricted to the definition you give, nor should it be. This would be a correct addition. Verbal chat 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomorow ill see if i cant get some time and gather some WP:RS of notable AGW causation proponents specifically equating doubting AGW to holocaust denial and flat earthism to support the con-argument here. Jaimaster (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if people are doing that off-wiki, that's not what we're doing here. We're adding a category which this program fits. Verbal chat 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fits according to whom? Where are the sources? Climate change denial has a very specific definition requiring bad faith. Do we have sources alleging bad faith for this film? Would you support adding this category to every individual under Category:Global warming skeptics? Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say: Yes, there is bad faith in this film: Directly wrong statements, graphs faked, misrepresentations, claims on science that is directly in opposition to the science (all sourced in the article). And - No, that doesn't mean that all (or even any) of the individuals are deniers - we know by now that a scientist (Wunsch) was misrepresented in the film, and that at least one other claims (Friis-Christensen) so. (also sourced in the article) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd say, but would reliable sources? Films about science will always contain mistakes. What reliable sources are there contending this film as bad faith denial (in re your link below, as I've seen you say dozens of times, op-eds are not reliable sources)? Oren0 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - reliable sources are saying so. We have referenced a lot of these in the article. And reliable sources are saying that the film is an example of denial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, per Jaimaster's list. This "documentary" belongs right there with the Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists. Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per Peter Christoff in a reliable source [6], and per above arguments. I've kept out of this so far - because of the apparent lack of a clear RS on this, since the category rules clearly state that categories must be supported by references in the text. Here is at least one. And several parts of this film is clearly a concious denial of scientific evidence. (volcanoes, CO2 from Oceans etc.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion since apparently everyone who's commented above feels the need to comment here at well. Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, RfCs aren't a vote. Verbal chat 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion because as Oren0 points out the regulars are all signing even though the RfC should generally be left to the outside opinions. Inclusion is decidedly being done to make a WP:POINT. Equating AGW deniers with Holocaust deniers is simply wrong on many levels, but most importantly it diminishes the significance and the impact and the suffering caused by the Holocaust itself. --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a new editor here. Only the bringer of the RfC has made this equivalence, and I've asked him to drop it. Verbal chat

As Oren0 provides examples above, I respectfully disagree with this assertion. --GoRight (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Apis above made the Holocaust example, and Badger made the Flat Earth one. I was not the first, and these comparisons are the primary pro-inclusion argument in the discussion above. Oren0 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion as a basically uninvolved party, per my statement earlier on the talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't come off as badgering (and with a name like mine, we can never be too sure of that), but I was curious as to your rationale? Is it something that lends itself to words? Your previous statement seems to be, summarized, "I usually take the pro-science side, but in this case I oppose inclusion". Thanks, and sorry for coming off like a badgerer - --Badger Drink (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I'd included a better rationale in my first comment, but evidently not: basically, I view this sort of contextless assertion of denialism to be a WP:NPOV violation. I have no doubt that the scientific establishment as a whole would consider this to be "denialism", but it's a subjective term, and when there's that sort of controversy I think it best to refrain from categorization. The article can cover allegations of denialism, and if there's a scientific consensus that that's what this is (which I assume there is), the discussion of the allegations should be so-weighted. But categories are absolute things that don't allow for context or representation of minority views, so I'd say leave it out. And that wasn't badgering at all; let's go for a drink sometime. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The catty and dishonest presentation of the RfC ("those who wish to include the category liken it to the Holocaust, and we are curious as to whether several of those who support inclusion have stopped beating their wives at the present time") is a good representation of the catty and dishonest behavior we've seen from certain participants on this talk page. No convincing argument has been made for exclusion, the excluders' case seems to be built on outrageous strawmen, their own personal love for anti-global warming theories, and tendentious wiki-lawyering (see, for instance, essays such as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:SOFIXIT. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Undecided I'm an uninvolved party and I read the arguments. I was going to oppose inclusion per this quote from Denialism...

Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

But then I read this by Kim D.Petersen:

Yes, there is bad faith in this film: Directly wrong statements, graphs faked, misrepresentations, claims on science that is directly in opposition to the science (all sourced in the article).

I don't want to go in circles, but I'd like to hear more about the inaccuracies in the film or misrepresentations because it seems to me that if it can be established the film does not put forth a legitimate argument it satisifies the condition I quoted here. AzureFury (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the article then. They started with a graph of dubious origin (from the Oregon petition) then photo-shopped it to accentuate certain features and changed the dates on the time axis. In Wunsch's case, they edited one comment he made so that he appeared to be saying exactly the opposite of what he actually did say. And the list goes on and on. And what's more, it's not the first time Martin Durkin has used these techniques to make a "documentary" that cons its viewers. Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

when in actuality there is none" - To say that there is no debate remaining regarding climate change is questionable, I'd say false. That, in a nutshell, is why the category doesn't belong. Oren0 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few shills paid directly or indirectly by ExxonMobile to create an impression that there remains scientific debate but all the reputable scientists and their organizations have long since joined the consensus represented by the IPCC. Hence the need for a denalism tag. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is, of course, your personal opinion and hyperbolic statement. There is no credible evidence to support this assertion. --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." - [7] Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And why should anyone accept this source a "credible" when speaking on the subject of what all scientists world-wide believe? What position does this individual hold that justifies such an assertion? Also, note that this is an OPINION piece and, as per WP:RS, it should only be considered accurate as to this individual's opinion. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you inventing a strawman here? Christoff doesn't speek about "all scientists". (but on your strawman - the OfCom actually supports him, and that is a reliable source) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a direct refutation to Raul's claim that "all the reputable scientists and their organizations have long since joined the consensus represented by the IPCC." If you consider that to be a strawman and off-topic then I suggest you take the matter up with Raul. To make the claim that there is a consensus and that no legitimate scientists exist who disagree with the IPCC requires the author to have detailed knowledge of the views and opinions of all scientists. This is a direct implication of the assertion. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing things. Its quite possible to disagree with the IPCC on some things - and still be in agreement on the broad views. The consensus is not on the details - its on the overall issues. There is a minority who disputes the overall consensus, but whether it is those presented in this film is another question entirely. Btw. "no legitimate" is your invention. Its quite possible to be legitimate and but not reputable. Its also possible to be both a legitimate scientist and a climate change sceptic and still not challenge the underlying theory. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But don't take my word for it - take ExxonMobile's: in 2008 we will distcontinue' [sic] contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner." [8] Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A red herring argument. The issue isn't whether ExxonMobil paid money to certain groups, the question is whether there is still legitimate debate. The growing list of scientists who are coming out and publishing papers calling the IPCC conclusions into question is proof enough that such a debate still exists. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"growing list of scientists", "coming out and publishing" - is that correct? And what exactly does it have to do with this film? Or are you saying that those scientists support whats in this film? Really? Can you cite any of them? (or did you just invent a new strawman?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am merely arguing against Raul's assertion that there is no legitimate debate. [[9]] suggests otherwise. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it suggest that there is a minority who quibble over some things in the science. Does a minority of scientists who disagree imply that there is legitimate debate over the specifics? Can you mention even one hypothesis that is generally agreed upon by a significant subset of that list? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes debate? Is the debate over on the general aspects? Yes. Is there still alot of quibbling on details? Yes.

What we have here is not a representation of the scientific debate, let me quote "views expressed in the programme went against the scientific consensus about the causes of global warming and were only espoused by a small minority" (OfCom p18). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) @AzureFury

Please note that any production of this size will contain small errors of fact. As these have been identified the producers have made the appropriate corrections. There are no examples of wholesale fabrication of information. All of the science presented is based on legitimate climate research and publications. A mislabeled graph where the error does not affect the substance of the point being made is not a "fabrication" as some might have you believe. Claims made by one expert that contradict the claims made by another expert are not examples of "claims on science that is directly in opposition to the science" as some might have you believe. The only substantive complaint was that made by Wunsch, which the Ofcom only partially upheld, and as I stated above the producers responded by removing Wunsch's material from subsequent releases. This is exactly what an honest producer would do. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Small" errors? How is faking graphs a "small" error? (and yes - it was more than one - temp graph, and sun-spots graphs). How is the directly false "CO2 comes from the Oceans" a small error? How about the volcanoes produce more CO2 than man? What about the troposphere warming less? Why is it that they now stop their graphs in 1980? (instead of showing the updated graphs - which directly contradict their point?) Most of the warming was before WWII? etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the substantive portions of the graphs presented were faked in any way. The corrected graphs still support the claims made. The ofcom "confirmed" that the program had not misrepesented the science presented by Wunsch related to CO2 and the oceans which forms the basis for the claims. Ice core data clearly shows an 800 year lag between warming and CO2 levels, where did that CO2 come from if not the oceans? The volcano claim was acknowledged as a mistake that didn't affect the argument being made. The troposphere data is still inconclusive. The Sun Spot graph had a small section from 1610-1710 filled in which Durkin acknowledged as a mistake and corrected it, noted that it didn't affect the argument, and the author of the paper stated "the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates", even though the narration doesn't acknowledge the possibility of an AGW component. The complaints about the temperature graph were attribution and mislabeling of the axis, both of which were corrected. So yea, these are small errors in the over-all argument being made.

I will also note that the High Court in the UK ruled that "An Inconvenient Truth" likewise contained at least nine "errors". Does this justify in your mind and accusation of an intent to deceive on the part of that film's producers? Also, I am unaware of any attempt on the part of that film to correct any of these "errors". --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to stick to the subject at hand - and not mix unrelated movies into the subject. And No. The OfCom did not say that CO2/Ocean link that the film used was correct (or even misrepresented) - they only took notice of the part that Wunsch was involved in. The films message is not Wunsch's (which is historically correct) - but rather that its what happens now. Is it a correct statement (about current conditions) "The increase in CO2 comes from the Oceans"?

No matter how you slice and dice it: The film faked the graphs. Mislabeled the axis on one - put in invented data on the other. (btw. can you point me at a NASA graph (historic or new) that looks like the one in the film?)

Of course Durkin corrected the things where he was taken with his pants down in the media - and of course he denies that it was on purpose... What exactly did you expect? That he'd say: It's a fair cop, guv. You caught me fair and square.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough said on the mistakes, corrections thereof, and the lack thereof as the case may be. Your latter argument is no argument at all. You are, for all intents and purposes, purporting to be clairvoyant enough to discern the intentions of someone else. There is no evidence that these are anything other than the same types of "errors" as were made in An Inconvenient Truth. So, let us likewise stick to the point and leave your Tarot Cards and Tea Leaves out of the discussion as well. --GoRight (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that my "tea leaves" are supported in the reliable sources to this article. Sorry, it has nothing to do with clairvoyance. (but it was a nice red-herring). And it doesn't matter what was said about An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) - since this isn't that movie! Stick to the subject. Perhaps AIT was bad ugly and shock-full of mistakes - but that doesn't concern us here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources or op-eds published in otherwise reliable MSM sources that you happen to agree with? There is a clear distinction. If I start quoting Solomon, Booker, Blair and Bolt's opinions as "reliable sources supporting my opinion" you would quite rightly rip shreds off me. Opinion =/ RS Jaimaster (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This is a pretty clear example of denialism and belongs in that category. Kbs666 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clear according to whom?? The fact that it seems that way to editors is irrelevant. I'm still yet to see one reliable source (read: not blogs and opinion columns) that calls this denial. The category is plain OR. Oren0 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I also agree that it is going to rest on whether this program set out to intentionally misled or not. I think talking about the holocaust and evolution is irrelevant. "Climate change denial" is already (currently) in Category:Denialism, and to quote its opening para, "Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation of the scientific data" ... whereas climate skeptic is used to describe good faith efforts to refute any or all parts of the global warming theory. So there you have it, that's the debate that needs to happen for this category to be included or not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support inclusion As per the arguments used above. G-Man ^? 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the absence of reliable sources. I don't doubt that the programme is a denialist work - Durkin's agenda is obvious. But where is our source for calling it denialist? All I see here is editors saying "it's denialist" on the basis of their own views. Come on, people, we can do better than this: we don't engage in blatant original research, especially not on a topic this important. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Here is one[10]. (this btw was also my reason for not speaking up before - ie. while correct, we needed at least one source to make the direct link). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC) A few more [11], [12], [13]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC) One from Nature [14]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Kim, I've heard from you more than any other editor: "op-eds are not reliable sources." The fact that everything you just posted is either an opinion column, editorial, or blog indicates that you have been unable to find any real sources. No sources, no category. Oren0 (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Having just had a look at those sources, the only one which actually describes the programme as denialist is the first one: "The documentary is a clear case of climate change denial." The others talk about it in the context of denialism (i.e. it's being discributed by denialists, etc) but don't specifically characterise it as a denialist work, as far as I can see. Oren0 makes a valid point - it seems distinctly dodgy to describe it as "denialist" on the basis of one line in an op-ed, particularly as WP:RS#News organizations prohibits us from using op-eds as sources for statements of fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  As said in the above - i believe its already clear that TGGWS is climate change denial. But that we couldn't describe it as such (WP:OR) without at least one source to back it up. Yep - the first one is an Op-ed (from an expert on the subject) and it should be described as such in the article. Ie. "According to Peter Christoff, a teacher in climate change policy at the University of Melbourne, the film can be described as climate change denial...... discuss via other sources.

  What i believe we have here is a case of technicality. We have sources that describe the errors, the context (minority opinion), the scientific problems etc. All showing denial - but none saying it explicit, which we now have. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  (nb. it was about time that WP:RS took a specific stand on Op-Ed's. Very very good.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Argh - and its been there since late May... could've voided quite a few discussions - oh well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  If you want the article to say that Christoff says it's denial, that's a different conversation. Have a look at WP:CAT: "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Clearly the fact that this film would be classified as denial is questionable at best (totally unsourced at worst). Adding the category implies that the denial is a matter of fact rather than a matter of opinion. There is no way to argue that this is denial as a matter of fact since you still haven't pointed to one real source making this claim. Oren0 (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Frankly i believe that it is self-evident. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Oren0, can you find us a reliable source that would state that categorizing this as "denialism" would actually be controversial, as per the policy you quoted? Thanks. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting. I'm expected to provide a reliable source that it isn't denialism when there hasn't been one reliable source presented stated that it is denialism? I think that your burden of proof is a tad backwards. I'm not sure why you removed the cat unsourced template either; do you see a source for denialism on the page currently? I sure don't. Feel free to add a source that meets WP:RS and then remove that template. That's what cleanup templates are for. Oren0 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  @ Badger Drink: Unless I am mistaken, WP:V clearly indicates that the burden of proof is on those who want to include things, not those who want to exclude them, see WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. Would you not agree, Oren0? --GoRight (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Badger, why do you continue to remove the unsourced category template? There is no source on the page, that's what the template means. Nor is there a source here that meets WP:RS. Oren0 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reject inclusion Wikipedia:Categorization says that categories should be 'uncontroversial'. ^rossnixon 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Actually thats not whats said there.... For it to be controversial you need reliable sources that say so. Have you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting point that the category is only controversial if a reliable source says so. However it's in the context: "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included" (emphasis added). The implication is that you should only include categories which are self-evident, and not even those if a reliable source disputes it. I'm not sure it's "self-evident" that TGGWS is an example of denialism. Self-evident more or less implies that no sensible person would disagree. You may wish to question their common sense, but clearly, quite a few people do disagree with the category. --Merlinme (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  At the risk of having my own common sense called into question, but I completely agree with this assessment. Oren0 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's the correct assessment. That section is intended to prevent categories from becoming part of the POV warrior's arsenal. When in doubt, don't add the category. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Cautious oppose. Regarding KDP's sources, they're nearly all opinion pieces, and in a couple (notably the Nature piece) it's implicit rather than explicit that TGGWS was an example of denialism. Regarding the Independent article. I like the Independent, but Mike McCarthy, the Independent's environment editor, has consistently opposed the programme; it's not a "neutral" source.

Above all, while I think the programme essentially is an example of denialism, I think it's hard to argue that such a categorisation is "uncontroversial". --Merlinme (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say there's no reliable source calling this denialism; "It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement." ~Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT. Also, "Never mind a bit of irresponsible film-making. Go and fuck yourself." ~Martin Durkin. It seems to me that's almost an admission of deliberate misrepresentation and fabrication, etc. My heart really wants to support inclusion here, but I agree with Merlinme, it is too controversial to state as fact. AzureFury (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion per rossnixon, and also because inclusion appears to be Original Research. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Suppport inclusion. Yes, one can argue on the basis of wiki law that KDP's arguments and sources to back it up are not 100% watertight. But let's be reasonable here. I'm no stranger to watching documentaries. I often see inaccuracies in even the best documentaries. But, you can't explain the inaccuracies in TGGWS as being just random errors or just errors made when oversimplifying things too much. The bottom line is that most aspects of climate science that were disputed in the film are not disputed in the scientific community. The documentary also created a false perception of a scientific dispute. In this respect the denialism went even further than what many many Holocaust deniers do (they don't claim that there isn't a consensus among historians about the Holocaust). Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Denialism is for holocaust deniers and the like, not for scientists who doubt a theory or a prediction. Paul Studier (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There do exist at least a few scientists who deny the holocaust. In case of denialism we are talking about denying a well established theory or fact. Count Iblis (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Suppport inclusion. There is scientific consensus that global warming is real. To deny it is Denialism. Saying it shouldn't be added because of controversy is a red herring. Its very nature is controversial. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Putting the theory of man-made global warming into a set of truths for which any disagreement is termed 'denialism' is the heart of the problem. It is clear that the program denies that AGW exists; what is not clear is that this denial should be described by WP as Denialism. The article on Denialism itself is weak and defines the term too broadly: any subject on which a scholarly or scientific consensus exists. I would contend that the theory of AGW is not in the same class as the Holocaust, Aids or Evolution. The reason it is not in the same class is that a consensus exists not just amongst some group of experts, but across society as a whole. This consensus exists because the proof of the Holocaust, Aids and Evolution (not to mention the Round Earth and the death of Elvis) is right in front of our eyes - Belsen, suffering individuals, Galapagos finches and marine iguanas, the Apollo 17 pictures, Graceland. The same does not apply to AGW, probably because of the complexity of the link between fossil fuel emissions and rising sea levels and the like; there remain other possible causes (not the case for Belson and so on); the whole debate is harder to carry out except on an expert level. The scientific consensus on man-made global warming has not yet reached this breadth of non-expert support and until it has should not be something for which all denial is Denialism. We might like that to be the case. We may be doomed unless it becomes the case pretty soon. That does not mean that we can simply assert Denialism and leave it at that. PolScribe (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• support - TGGWS is denialism if anything is; their disagreement is not honest scientific debate but deliberate propaganda William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder for Tally for the RfC on Category:Denialism

Support Inclusion:

Oppose Inclusion:

Since there are multiple editors who feel an on-going tally maybe inappropriate, I will remove the totals for now. I am leaving the section because of the discussion that has occurred here. --GoRight (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I missed someone or put them in the wrong group please fix it. --GoRight (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is a pretty bad idea - RfC's are not votes, but instead an instrument for discussion and consensus-building. I suggest that you remove it, so that the discussion is not influenced by tallying. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully reject your request. The purpose of the RfC was to garner outside opinions. It has done so. As far as consensus building is concerned this is a measure of where that consensus stands. Thus far it stands at decidedly less that 50% in favor of inclusion, so by any reasonable measure of consensus I would say that is far short of a consensus in favor of inclusion. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are treating it as a vote? Perhaps you should let the discussion run instead - since its only has been 2 days? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, we should exclude the denialism. Regardless of whether it is being treated as a vote or not, consensus does entail the general agreement of people. There is clearly no consensus here, with long-term editors in good standing disagreeing, and further, policies back up the exclusion of the category in this case, since categories should be uncontroversial. We'll let it run and if the include people provide some better sources and/or a lot more support, we can always add the cat back in. But really, this is trivial. I'd wager new WP users don't even use cats much, and having the cat in does not make a real difference in the content of the article. II | (t - c) 07:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, a key point in the policy you mention has been neglected - paraphrased, if reliable sources can show that the category is controversial, then and only then should it be excluded on these grounds. Eight voices on a Wikipedia talk page do not a reliable source make. Outside the extremely insular "global warming skeptic" minority community, this is a cut-and-dried obvious issue (which, if I may digress, may be part of why there aren't a lot of sources to be found - it goes without saying that wearing socks on your ears makes you look silly, but try finding a source that comes out and says that, rather than merely insinuates that - a source that did, in fact, would probably be bad writing, tell-before-show and all that). And, of course, this RfC has little merit to begin with, given the poisoned well in the summary. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no WP:RS for the including the catagory either, which is the point. Opeds are not reliable sources for the purpose. Jaimaster (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RfCs are not votes. I used a vote on this page, once, essentially as a tool to achieve consensus. User:Go Right has demonstrated that we clearly don't have consensus, but I'm not sure the tally is helpful beyond that. It may even cause people to become more set in into their respective 'sides'.

Badger Drink, I assume you missed my point that in full the quote is: "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"? It seems quite hard to argue that the category is "self-evident" when we're split about half and half. --Merlinme (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus is against the inclusion, but that isn't my point. The point is that consensus is based on the weight of the arguments, not on the numbers - which only (imho) serve to split people into two groups. The major issue as i see it from the above discussion, is based on the lack of sources with controversial being the secondary one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

KDP's point on this topic seems to change to however it suits his purpose. I once conducted what was essentially a straw poll (although I had naively used the word "vote") to gauge consensus, [15], his response was that we shouldn't use straw polls but rather should assess the discussion to discern the consensus, [16], wherein he indicated "The next logical step would be to assess the above discussion, and try to see where opinions lie. And that isn't very difficult. I count a majority ..." When I applied that suggestion in a different context, [17], he complained, [18], and asserted that such a tally was "subjective" (i.e. suggesting that I had skewed the results with my biases), [19], and suggested a straw poll instead.

In this article I have done both, we had a straw poll which clearly demonstrates a lack of consensus for inclusion and now an objective (i.e. since people have explicitly stated their positions) assessment of the discussion from the RfC which, again, clearly demonstrates a lack of consensus for inclusion and yet the page has to be protected because of edit warring wherein the clear minority continues to add the offending category to the article. And, ironically, I am the one labeled as being disruptive. (By a number of the people in the minority on this issue.)

I fail to see how more discussion is going to change minds, although we do have one example of a switched vote ... towards opposing inclusion. Even so, there is currently a clear lack of consensus for inclusion so can we at least agree to leave the category off until such a consensus for inclusion has actually been obtained? If so then I do not object to your talking until you are blue in the face on the topic if that is how you wish to spend your time. --GoRight (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to address the issue - instead of the editor? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have, actually. Twice. Both times using techniques that you have personally advocated in the past. Which do you prefer now so that I might focus my attention on the preference du jour? Or are you now advocating that we should ignore any clear and quantifiable assessment of the level of consensus so that things remain ill-defined and malleable? --GoRight (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd actually tried to understand the comments i've made, you'd fare better? A strawpoll or an RfC are good ways to establish consensus, and to gauge the opinions. But they are still not votes, and are rather futile in a situation where people already know what the others opinion is. In the above discussion progress has been made, and we've established a reasonable rationale for what is needed (or lacking) for the inclusion of the category tag... And that so far is the result (and hopefully also the goal) of the above discussion - not the establishing of lines or blocks of opinion. A polarization is never (imho) a good idea. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the one that asked for page protection. I am completely against the catagory inclusion. GoRight, if admins continue to make edits that are against talk consensus we should record them with views to creating an RfC on their poor form, and not respond with edit warring in turn. Let their actions speak for themselves. Meanwhile let the RfC here have a couple of days and see if a few outsiders dont agree with our arguments against the catagorisation. As it stands the only substantial arguments left for inclusion appear to be WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and "RfCs are not a vote", which is probably favourable for the move to exclude if we have to proceed to RfM. Jaimaster (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and the weight of the arguments, based on the established guideline at WP:CAT, opposes inclusion. I haven't seen many people engage that argument, and Badger Drink seems intent upon ignoring it. The cat is controversial because the sources are weak and the category is not quite self-evident to enough people. Also, if the oppose arguments were not reasonable, I think we could discount them, but they have a very reasonable interpretation of wiki practice. Personally, I'd love to add the category even with this many sources if so many people weren't opposed. But at this point it is best compromise, pay your condolences to the loss of the nav tool, wipe the tears away, and maybe work on improving the article. Or maybe read a book, or smoke a bowl. Whatever "writes your article". II | (t - c) 09:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise re Denialism

The RfC has so far generated another standoff pretty much with equal numbers on both sides. The edit warring is continuing (from both collective parties) and is not really helping anyone.

Proposal - remove the catagory per unsourced pejorative tagging. Include OP-ED citation based denialism references in the lead. Re-include controversial in the lead and note criticism. Fix the overblown size of the lead. Give critism a fairly heavy prominence in the lead, as the majority of WP:RS are critical of the film.

My proposed lead -

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus attributing global warming to mostly anthropogenic activities. It has been described by both its original broadcaster Channel 4 and the British regulator Ofcom as "a polemic"[2], and drawn significant criticism from the broader scientific community (shouldnt really have to cite that re below citations?)

The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."[3]

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations, media figures and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors.[7][8]) The film's scientific critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] The film's media critics further labelled it a case of denialism (insert OPED citations, change wording to be more dramatic per quotes, equate to flat earthism / apollo hoax if quotes support it).

End lead.

Notice the removal of -

• original title paragraph
• UK premier info
• admission of errors, addressing of errors, allegations of persistant errors
• OFCOM

which IMO is currently bloating the lead beyond reasonable proportions and can all be presented quite easily in other parts of the page.

I hope that editors on both sides can put down the revert-spears and consider finding a middle ground (even if its something no one is really thrilled with rather than pleasing half of the audience and irritating the rest). Black or white consensus appears unlikely. While I have undoubtably made the lead more hostile to the movie, for me this is acceptable as it presents criticism (such as denialism) as criticism instead of recording it on Wiki as fact. Jaimaster (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You simply cannot leave the complaints to Ofcom and their judgement out of the lead, per WP:LEAD and because this was a british film that is supposed to be made according to the Ofcom code. It is bloated because of the arguments, but way back when I added it, it was much shorter, but leaving it out completely is not on. Actually, according to WP:LEAD, it should be 4 summary paragraphs, with no citations. These edit wars over cited sentences belong in the main part, not the lead. MickMacNee (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is a guideline and leaving citations out of the lead in a charged topic like this is merely asking new users to come arrive and challange the lead. ILC makes it harder to "quibble", as WMC would put it. If WP:LEAD says 4 paragraphs though, OFCOM is the obvious one to re-insert, though it would need to be trimmed back to a paragraph instead of the book it grew to as both sides fought over misrepresentative weasel words to the point that the entire ruling was cited in the lead... Jaimaster (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems (at least from the article) that there has been more reporting on the criticisms than the content of the film. I think your version of the lead weights this proportionately. I think we have a situation of "not guilty, but not innocent" here regarding whether or not it is Denialism. For this reason, I don't think we can safely include the Denialism category, but it should definitely be mentioned in the lead. AzureFury (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Straight from WP:CAT: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. Can you, or anybody else for that matter, show me a reliable source that establishes that categorizing this work as "denialism" is actually controversial? --Badger Drink (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a piece that is at least as reliable as anything provided on your side: The garden of good and evil, by Simon Castles:

"CLIMATE change denial is something we'll hear plenty about in the coming months. Leading up to the election, Kevin Rudd will repeat ad nauseam his claim that John Howard is a rolled-gold climate change denier. And next month, the ABC broadcasts the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which will lead to further charges that the film-makers, the film's talking heads and the ABC board are in denial.

Whatever your views on global warming, the term "climate change denial", and the speed with which it has become part of everyday language, shouldn't be welcomed. The term is reductive, as well as offensive in its connotations.

It encapsulates the way the environmental movement, for all its good intentions, is increasingly adopting the sanctimonious, hectoring and stifling attributes of organised religion. To question climate change today is to be cast as a denier of an absolute truth."

Ironically this comes from the same media outlet as one of the favored articles from your side so I assume we can dispense with the whole but that's not a reliable source business. --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Badger, I assume good faith as much as anyone but it's getting tougher and tougher with you. There has still not been one source shown meeting WP:RS claiming that this is denialism, and yet you still keep asking for sources that it isn't? I feel like a broken record here. How about I add this page to Category:Jupiter's moons, unless of course you can show me reliable sources that categorizing this page as a moon of Jupiter would be controversial. Oren0 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats not correct, but i'll assume that you are exaggerating to prove a point, but thats not really a good thing to do on a discussion.... We have several sources that meet WP:RS to show this, both explicit and implicit. Thats not the question - the question is whether those sources are sufficient to show that the tag should be there (ie. provide enough weight). And the consensus at the moment in the discussion is: No its not enough. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed it, but every source I've seen to date claiming this is denialism has been an op-ed, blog, or other non-WP:RS. But I'm not too keen on discussing this anymore if people are willing to live with the consensus and keep this category off. Oren0 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Badger Drink please justify your reversion of properly sourced material.

I would draw your attention to the following ArbCom ruling: Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive.

My additions were clearly neutral in their wording and referenced sources already utilized in that section. The first part documented that Durkin had denied misrepresenting Wunsch, and the second part referenced the part of the ofcom ruling where they clearly ruled that Durkin had not misrepresented Wunsch's discussion of the relationships between CO2, the oceans, and rising temperatures. I have provided direct quotes to that effect from the ofcom's decision.

So why are you removing these facts from the article and being unWP:CIV in the process (see your edit summaries)? --GoRight (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is always helpful to link the diff ... I'm guessing it is this one? What's Badger's justification? II | (t - c) 23:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. My bad, thanks for filling in the blank. --GoRight (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings do not set precedents. As I have already explained my rationale time and time again on this page, I invite you to take a moment to actually read what is being said, rather than continue on in this cycle of back-patting and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The sum total of your justification for these edits seems to be two edit summaries which I include here for easier reference:

1. "GoRight's edit should not have been reverted as "vandalism", though at this point, one wonders...)"
2. "removed outright idiocy (the ruling "confirms" he made a denial, stop peac)"

The first does not actually provide any justification, and the second appears unintelligible. Can you please clarify the following:

1. Did Durkin deny having misrepresented Wunsch?
   • Durkin states: "If you look at the, the full transcript of the interview with Carl Wunsch, we represent perfectly honestly and properly what he said."
   • "Martin Durkin interviewed by Tony Jones, July 2007" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-07-21.
2. Did the ofcom partially confirm (KDP and your preferred word) Durkin's statement?
   • "The Committee viewed a recording of Professor Wunsch’s unedited interview and, in its opinion, the programme had provided a fair representation of Professor Wunsch’s unedited contribution about the relationship between the CO2 in the ocean and temperature."
   • [20]

I would be very happy indeed if we can legitimately claim, as you suggest, that ArbCom rulings do not set precedents. Raul and Count Iblis have often claimed the reverse as they continually cite an ArbCom ruling on pseudo-science as the rationale for requiring peer-reviewed sources in science articles even though the official wikipedia policies make no such requirement. Interesting. I shall solicit their opinions on this matter so that we can all agree. --GoRight (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While you are bandying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Badger, this is WP:RS regarding citing opinion columns - Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. . The denial sources given by KDP were opinion articles. The article linked by Raul is stored on The Age website under "Opinion". Jaimaster (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well ArbCom rulings do set precedents. That link that Badger Drink provided says that, "Former decisions will not be binding on the Committee - rather, they intend to learn from experience", with the not binding part lining to WP:CCC. This basically means that the ArbCom rulings set a precedent for Wikipedia, but such precedents can change, so long as there is consensus for that change. I see no such consensus here for that, so until consensus changes, we follow the ArbCom's ruling. This means that right now, I can't see anything wrong with that edit, so I think Badger Drink is unjustified in removing it.

"Raul and Count Iblis have often claimed the reverse as they continually cite an ArbCom ruling on pseudo-science as the rationale for requiring peer-reviewed sources in science articles even though the official wikipedia policies make no such requirement." Well, although the ArbCom ruling was the first mention of pseudoscience I believe, because of that ruling, statements about pseudoscience are now part of Wikipedia policy. We also have the guideline WP:FRINGE. Both are clear that peer reviewed literature is best. Deamon138 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Both are clear that peer reviewed literature is best." - I agree they are "best", but neither WP:RS nor WP:V strictly require only peer-reviewed sources even for science articles, whereas Raul and Count Iblis claim that only such articles are acceptable and they cite the ArbCom ruling as justification. --GoRight (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble here is that GoRight isn't telling the whole story, this particular sentence and its inclusion have been discussed in a section higher up (Use of the Ofcom ruling for WP:OR). In my opinion the edit that GoRight inserted is not neutral - but instead is an attempt to whitewash. I'm not going to defend that statement, which you can take as my POV alone - since i've already given up on having a rational discussion on that particular topic. (see above section) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You present one side of the story and are explicitly censoring the other. How is that neutral? I present both sides of the story in a directly comparable fashion, how is that NOT neutral? Do you dispute the facts presented above as accurate? Your claim seems absurd to me. --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - one last time before i click off. Just so that others can understand it:

The statement from Durkin about the full transcript is false. Durkin edited away statements from Wunsch that presented his opinion on Consensus, and got a slap over the fingers from OfCom for this (ruling b(i) page 77-78 [21]) Violation of 7.1 of the broadcast rule:

• In the Committee’s view Professor Wunsch made clear in his full unedited interview that he largely accepted this consensus and the seriousness of the threat of global warming (albeit with caveats about proof) and therefore found that the presentation of Professor Wunsch’s views, within the wider context of the programme, resulted in unfairness to him.

Now you can come with a long description of how Durkin really meant only the CO2/temp issue b(ii) [which strangely is the only one you cite in your #2], and nothing else - but that isn't what Durkin is saying. End of my last comment to you on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to come up with any long discussion about how Durkin meant only the CO2/Temp issue because I am not making any such claim. Clearly Durkin's statement included both the "Wunsch is a Denier" aspect and the "CO2/Temp" aspect just an Wunsch's complaint included both the "Wunsch is a Denier" aspect and the "CO2/Temp" aspect. But just like you can now claim "partial confirmation" for Wunsch because the ofcom upheld his position on the "Wunsch is a Denier" aspect, so too can I claim "partial confirmation" for Durkin because the ofcom upheld his position on the "CO2/Temp" aspect. I see no reason that Wunsch should get claim "partial confirmation" and Durkin not when both claims are equally valid. Do you? I was not trying to claim anything more than "partial confirmation" for Durkin, if this is a misunderstanding I apologize.

"The statement from Durkin about the full transcript is false." - This is not strictly correct. The statement is only partially false, and therefore is partially true. The part that is partially true is the part about his not having misrepresented the "CO2/Temp" portion of the transcript, which is obviously included in his statement. The ofcom ruling clearly upheld Durkin's statement in this respect, so his claim was partially confirmed (to use the same language as KDP wants to use for Wunsch). --GoRight (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of that edit, it seems okay, if a little weasel perhaps, though Kim seems to know what he's talking about on these sorts of pages usually, so I won't judge lol.

"I agree they are "best", but neither WP:RS nor WP:V strictly require only peer-reviewed sources even for science articles" I never mentioned WP:RS or WP:V, I mentioned WP:PSCI which is part of a policy, and WP:FRINGE, a guideline. WP:PSCI out-trumps WP:RS every time, because the former is policy while the latter is only a guideline. And since WP:PSCI came from an ArbCom ruling, then an ArbCom ruling trumps the RS guideline. Deamon138 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"I mentioned WP:PSCI which is part of a policy, and WP:FRINGE, a guideline." - First of all, let me point out that I am not "arguing with you". My intent is merely to explore the relevant policies and guidelines. I note that WP:PSCI merely discusses different categories of pseudo-science and does not mention peer-reviewed sources at all. Do you agree? WP:FRINGE does mention peer-reviewed sources but does not make any edict that only peer-reviewed sources are acceptable, in fact it explicitly discusses the applicability of using non-peer-reviewed sources in certain circumstances. Do you agree?

"WP:PSCI out-trumps WP:RS every time, because the former is policy while the latter is only a guideline." - I would agree, but again WP:PSCI does not discuss the use of peer-reviewed sources at all. WP:FRINGE and WP:RS are both guidelines as you point out so they would seem to have equal footing from the respect, but WP:RS is by far the more fundamental and widely referenced the of the two in addition to the fact that it's explicit purpose is to discuss exactly what is, and is not, a reliable source. Do you agree? So in this context I would say that WP:RS has a slight edge over WP:FRINGE. Do you agree? Either way neither one of these sources demands only peer-reviewed sources in science related articles. Do you agree?

I am not trying to be pushy with all of these "Do you agrees?", merely trying to get to the point where we have a clear understanding of each other's positions. --GoRight (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom rulings do not set a precedent for the arbcom - that is to say, they do not bind the arbcom to decide future cases in a manner consistent with previous cases. On the other hand, arbom decisions are binding on the Wikipedia community. So yes, the pseudoscience finding is quite applicable here. Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The section of WP:PSCI which applies to this case is the one on Alternative theoretical formulations. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So, it would seem then, that the following ArbCom ruling should likewise be considered a precedent for the community: Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. And likewise User:Badger Drink's removal of my sourced and neutral edit should be considered disruptive. Agreed?

Given this, I would propose that my addition (or some more precisely worded version thereof) be restored to the article once the protection is lifted. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what removal you are referring to. Please provide a diff. Raul654 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The one cited above as the topic of this section, specifically this one. For the short version of the discussion thus far simply read this section from the beginning. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in like this, but I must reply to those "Do you agrees" from above by GoRight. I worked hard on this offline, then I came online only to see a bunch of new comments lol. Sod's Law I guess.

"I note that WP:PSCI merely discusses different categories of pseudo-science and does not mention peer-reviewed sources at all. Do you agree?" Yes and no. Technically, in the section WP:PSCI there is no mention of peer reviewed anything. But WP:PSCI contains quotes from the ArbCom case, and links to the ArbCom case. It seems obvious to me therefore, that WP:PSCI is a condensed version of the ArbCom case i.e. editors should use WP:PSCI, but if they want more detail, they should look at the ArbCom case.

"WP:FRINGE does mention peer-reviewed sources but does not make any edict that only peer-reviewed sources are acceptable, in fact it explicitly discusses the applicability of using non-peer-reviewed sources in certain circumstances. Do you agree?" In part. In certain circumstances, non-peer reviewed sources are said to be acceptable according to WP:FRINGE, yes. But WP:FRINGE goes on to say, "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." But any possible fringe science (remember that is what this discussion is about) is usually produced by scientists themselves, who obviously aren't amateurs, so that exception doesn't really apply. A notable exception to this reasoning would be Time Cube, which is barely mentioned by scientists at all as far as I'm aware. But then there, there is a lack of peer-reviewed sources (for the obvious reason I would say lol) for it, so other sources would have to be allowed.

"I would agree, but again WP:PSCI does not discuss the use of peer-reviewed sources at all." Well as I said above, technically it doesn't, but the ArbCom case does. Nevertheless, whether it discusses peer-reviewed literature or not, it is still a policy, and WP:RS is still a guideline, so this shouldn't affect the fact that WP:PSCI out-trumps WP:RS.

"WP:FRINGE and WP:RS are both guidelines as you point out so they would seem to have equal footing from the respect, but WP:RS is by far the more fundamental and widely referenced the of the two in addition to the fact that it's explicit purpose is to discuss exactly what is, and is not, a reliable source. Do you agree?" Again, yes and no. WP:RS is more widely referenced and widely quoted across Wikipedia, but that it is because it is so wide ranging. It covers sources in general. WP:FRINGE is specifically about fringe theories. It is not so wide ranging. But it is more detailed. It is more applicable to this subject. Looking at WP:RS, it says, "Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory. When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view." But it doesn't detail what it means by "reliable mainstream sources" are on the subject of fringe theories, which is where WP:FRINGE comes in. So when discussing the right subject (i.e. fringe theories), WP:FRINGE does out-trump WP:RS. I cannot be more clear though, that it only out-trumps it "'here"'. In other subject areas, WP:FRINGE is not so useful, whereas WP:RS is ever-useful.

(Incidentally, WP:V does say that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" which is then gone into more detail at WP:FRINGE. So while WP:V out-trumps WP:FRINGE since the former is policy, WP:V contains the heart of WP:FRINGE anyway. So WP:V is the "launchpad" if you will, for WP:FRINGE.)

"So in this context I would say that WP:RS has a slight edge over WP:FRINGE. Do you agree?" No, see above.

"Either way neither one of these sources demands only peer-reviewed sources in science related articles. Do you agree?" Not quite. Again, technically yes, WP:PSCI doesn't mention them, WP:RS obviously doesn't, and WP:FRINGE does have "exceptions". But WP:PSCI is policy whereas WP:FRINGE is only guideline. So in scientific fringe theory areas, the order of importance goes:

WP:PSCI>WP:FRINGE>WP:RS

But I showed above that WP:PSCI is based on the ArbCom case. In fact, it has the effect of being enforced by the ArbCom case, because that is where the consensus for WP:PSCI originally came from. To quote the ArbCom case on "Appropriate sources" then:

"Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such."

Therefore, ArbCom makes it clear that WP:V and WP:RS go into less detail, only really providing the generalities, and for a specific topic, more detail is needed. Hence the existence of WP:PSCI. And hence the need for peer-reviewed sources.

Now onto the more general (original) claim that, "ArbCom rulings do not set precedents". Well, this ruling clearly shows that an ArbCom ruling went into a policy. In fact, ArbCom rulings and policies are both important, and do set precedents (for that is what policy is). Remember that consensus can change. This means that these policies, rulings, guidelines etc can all change with the will of the community. But so long as consensus hasn't changed (and it certainly hasn't with regard to ArbCom rulings) then there is no need to ignore the precedent. It is also important to realise the raison d'etre of the ArbCom. Wikipedia came into being through Jimbo Wales (and that other guy), so Jimbo originally had a lot of power with regard to Wikipedia. He then devolved a fair chunk of that power with the creation of ArbCom. So ArbCom wields more power than it's constituent editors would of had Jimbo not devolved some power. Now of course, Jimbo is a lot like the British Monarchy here. He technically has the ability to dissolve ArbCom on any whim, but obviously he doesn't, just like the Queen doesn't use her powers to dissolve Parliament. (On the Foundation level, he doesn't have quite such power, but at this wiki he does). But this is the point: ArbCom rulings as precedents can only be overturned by community consensus, or by Mr Wales himself. See WP:CONEXCEPT for more details. This effectively means that WP:CONSENSUS (along with WP:LIBEL) is possibly the most important page on the English Wikipedia. Deamon138 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for your thoughtful replies. I may call upon you in the future if similar questions arise if that would be OK?

Now, back to the original topic of this section. Given everything you have said above, where do you stand on the applicability of this ArbCom ruling, Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive, as it applies to this edit, [22], and the force of the ruling as a precedent in this case? --GoRight (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

OK, given the discussion above, the ArbCom ruling that Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive, and the additional ArbCom ruling that All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee, I would propose that rather than simply revert the original edit we make the following more precisely worded addition immediately after KDP's edit claiming partial confirmation of Wunsch's statement:

Durkin has stated "we represent perfectly honestly and properly what [Wunsch] said"(cite [23]), and the ofcom partially confirmed this statement with respect to "Professor Wunsch’s unedited contribution about the relationship between the CO2 in the ocean and temperature."(cite [24])

Comments? --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you feel, as I do, that this is unduly verbose then please suggest a more concise wording which still makes the fundamental point. I have tried to do so but I am unable to find a more concise phrasing that won't be open to mischaracterization or attacks from those who wish to censor this point. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well its incorrect - OfCom did not partially confirm that statement. Its not a statement that can be partially confirmed, its an absolute statement .. Either Durkin did edit it "honestly and properly", or he didn't.... And we have OfCom's b.i ruling to confirm that he didn't. That he also edited something else without misrepresenting is irrelevant. (b.ii) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. OfCom's b.i ruling only confirms that Durkin's statement is false in some specific respects and its b.ii ruling confirms that Durkin's statement is true in some other respects. The editing is the editing, you can't artificially cherry pick the portions you prefer just to suit Wunsch. So if the OfCom ruling only partially confirms Wunsch it must also partially confirm Durkin since their positions are diametrically opposed.

Is this the relevant portion of the interview the article replies upon (see [25]) wherein Wunsch specifically addresses how his comments were edited to be out of context?

”LEIGH SALES: So what specifically was taken out of context? What was the point?

CARL WUNSCH: There are a number of issues. There's one point in the film where I was attempting to explain that the ocean contains a very large amount of carbon dioxide that is there naturally. It's one of the great reservoirs of carbon dioxide in the world. And what I was trying to explain was that if you make the ocean warmer, as one likely would do under a global warming scenario, that much of that carbon dioxide now resident in the ocean could be released into the atmosphere with very serious effects.

It was put into the film in such a way, in the context that it was put to have me saying that, "Well, carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the ocean and so whatever is going on is all natural," which in some sense turned my point on its head. Or if you like, completely removing the main point, which is while the carbon dioxide in the ocean is primarily there naturally, having it expelled through warming is not necessarily natural.

All that was lost in the film as broadcast.”

And is not the OfCom's b.ii portion of their ruling where they specifically address this exact subject matter and where they state "The Committee viewed a recording of Professor Wunsch’s unedited interview and, in its opinion, the programme had provided a fair representation of Professor Wunsch’s unedited contribution about the relationship between the CO2 in the ocean and temperature." Emphasis mine. I assert that "a fair representation of" is essentially the same as "represent[ed] perfectly honestly and properly", at least in the opinion of the OfCom who reviewed the material. Presumably if the edits had contained anything that could be considered "dishonest" or "improper" the committee would not have ruled them to be "fair". --GoRight (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"OfCom's b.i ruling only confirms that Durkin's statement is false in some specific respects" <-- i'll let that one stand for a bit ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I have never claimed otherwise. You seem to be evading a rather direct point, however, and your selective editing clearly demonstrates the problem at hand with the text of the article as it now stands. I only seek a fair statement that accurately reflects the reality of both sides of the dispute. Without such your current text is a clear POV push and a fine example of WP:IDHT. --GoRight (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, of course its me who is pushing a POV ;) The trouble you have is still that Durkin's statement is an absolute. Its either true or false. It can't be both. Either he was telling the truth the whole truth ... or he was telling a fib. And per OfCom (b.i), we can see that he fibbed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And this assertion that Durkin's statement is either true or false is complete poppycock as the OfCom ruling illustrates, that's why we even have a split ruling. I went back and read the b.i section of the ruling again. The ruling only states that Wunsch's "edited interview" had been juxtaposed with that of other presenters who did deny AGW, which resulted in unfairness to Wunsch. With respect to "the editing" of Wunsch's interview, however, they clearly stated that "The Committee did not consider that the editing of the programme presented Professor Wunsch as denying that global warming is taking place." which is in direct contradiction of the statement you currently have on the page, i.e. "Wunsch's statement about editing was later partially confirmed in the OfCom ruling." Do you deny that they made this statement as part of their ruling or that it directly contradicts yours? And please stop evading my point above. --GoRight (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight's assertion that "a fair representation of" is essentially the same as "represent[ed] perfectly honestly and properly" is flatly contradicted by the Ofcom's statement that they do not referee the factual accuracy of the issue. More to the point, his proposed edit is patently false. Raul654 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul's assertion is irrelevant because neither parts b.i nor b.ii attempt to address factual accuaracy, nor does Durkin's statement imply any. The factual accuracy is not even part of this discussion. As for being patently false, b.ii clearly rules the exact opposite of that, thus making Durkin's statement partially confirmed (at least in the exact same sense that Wunsch's complaint can be said to have been partially confirmed). --GoRight (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution #2

Well, if my reference to Durkin's statement is a stumbling block, perhaps we have another alternative that will bring the existing language into being WP:NPOV:

Wunsch's statement about editing was later partially confirmed in the OfCom ruling, however they directly state that "the Committee did not consider that the editing of the programme presented Professor Wunsch as denying that global warming is taking place" and that "the programme had provided a fair representation of Professor Wunsch’s unedited contribution about the relationship between the CO2 in the ocean and temperature." (cite [26])

Comments? --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, why do we even need to add this? All of this is already gone over in the article right now. Also, to the Durkin stuff above, where he said, "we represent perfectly honestly and properly what he said." So either they did or they didn't represent him honestly and properly. If there is a single case of Durkin not representing Wunsch, then it is false. There can be no "partly" about it. A person that tells one lie is not honest. End of. So did Durkin misrepresent Wunsch? Yes, according to Ofcom: "The Committee did not consider that the editing of the programme presented Professor Wunsch as denying that global warming is taking place. However it is noted that the programme included his edited interview in the context of a range of scientists who denied the scientific consensus about the anthropogenic causes of global warming. In the Committee's view Professor Wunsch made clear in his full unedited interview that he largely accepted this consensus and the seriousness of the threat of global warming and therefore found that the presentation of of Professor Wunsch's views, within the wider context of the programme resulted in unfairness to him." The current wording in the article is fine. Why does anything need to be changed? Deamon138 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be changed because it is biased in its current form and only represents 1/2 of the decision. Do you agree or not (i.e. that the current wording only presents 1/2 of the story, noting of course that section a. does not apply here, only sections b.i and b.ii do)? It is biased by omission.

By the "it's already been discussed elsewhere" rationale, why does this need to be rehashed here in a non-WP:NPOV way? Why not simply delete KDP's version which I also would find acceptable but I don't feel entitled to do per the ArbCom ruling mentioned above. --GoRight (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"There can be no "partly" about it." - Did the Ofcom decision specifically rule that the program had made a fair representation of Wunsch's unedited commentary on the relationship between CO2 in the ocean and temperature, or not? Its that simple. That part of the ruling, b.ii, clearly upholds Durkin's and Channel 4's position, this seems undeniable to me given the text of the decision, and as such it should be positively asserted wherever the other part of the decision, b.i, is positively asserted so that WP:NPOV is maintained. --GoRight (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else care here?

I note the lack of other editors arguing for my side of this issue. Given this, I ask the question of whether others agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, or not. If there is no additional support for my views here I will simply drop it. --GoRight (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just one of many places weasel words are being used to POV push on these pages - I support you completely in chasing this one down. Misrepresentation by omission is still misrepresentation. Its much like if I stole your pen and you accused me of stealing your pen then stabbing you with it, then told everyone your complaint was "partially upheld" without full details.

Its obvious however that the entire Wunsch portion of the article is currently blown out of all reasonable proportions. Rather than needing to be expanded to convey every-single-little-thing that either side or OFCOM ever said it needs to be trimmed. This article is supposed to be about the documentary, not arguing over Carl Wunsch's opinion on climate change. Jaimaster (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I most heartily agree the current level of coverage of the Wunsch case is WP:UNDUE, but that is another battle discussion to reach consensus. --GoRight (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I support you completely in your efforts to try to bring WP:NPOV into this article. All of the Global Warming articles are in desperate need of these efforts. The sitution is so bad in this area that it is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. The article "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming" on the CBS News website best highlights this specific problem. [27] I wish you the best of luck, although I have my doubts about whether it can be done. ~~ Rameses (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that "Wikipropaganda" article does a whole lot of assuming bad faith. Do you stand by those comments about certain editors mentioned there? Do you also believe that Wikipedia is POV towards assuming there is a scientific consensus on AGW when in reality there isn't such consensus? If you believe those things and were deceived by that article, then you are wrong. No offense, but if you look into the AGW independently of Wikipedia, you get the same truth: that there is a scientific consensus. Try looking at other websites and weighing the arguments like I've done. I've seen plenty of denier websites, and I (currently a scientific layman, awaiting my A Level results tomorrow) have been able to refute most of the deniers arguments. Their arguments usually stem from misunderstanding basic science, or cherry picking data points. Deamon138 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are just finishing high school but are comfortable claiming qualified scientists, some of which have been involved in the field for 50 years or more, dont understand basic science? Thats a pretty amazing call. Jaimaster (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not high school, I am awaiting A level results. High school ends at 16. A levels end at 18. And yes I am question most of the denialist stuff because a fair chunk of it is basic stuff that they are getting wrong. Besides, isn't this the point of this encyclopaedia? To make the information available on all topics understandable to non-experts. If the majority of AGW the arguments for and against AGW (or any topic) aren't able to be understood by an 18 year old, then what is the point of making this damn encyclopaedia? Wikipedia is designed for everyone, especially people like me who aren't experts. There would be no point to us being here if the majority of the subject isn't understandable to non-experts. Deamon138 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange, afaik the Australian system is built on the English system and we still call form 6 high school. To cut off an otherwise completely offtrack, pointless discussion, your opinion that deniers arguments can be refuted because they "dont understand basic science" falls under original research, where the Wikipropaganda article meets WP:RS as an oped. Jaimaster (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am basing my POV that there is consensus for AGW in science on all the reliable sources out there, of which there are far more than ones like the Wikipropaganda one. Both sides to this are opinion, i.e. mine, and Rameses' that there is a weighting issue on the global warming articles that means that the pro-AGW gets undue weight. I dispute that there is a weighting issue, and the onus is on anyone who claims that the reliable sources don't show scientific consensus (WP:BURDEN). One source from CBS news is not enough to show that the scientific consensus doesn't exist. Deamon138 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus may well prove to be one of the greatest strawmen of all time. It is used to support not the actual consensus fact that, per basic physics, increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some degree of warming, but used instead to support alarmist claims that it will cause catastrophic warming, kick off theorised positive feedback cycles and doom the evil industrialised world. I think you will find the common sceptic's position is actually, theoretically at least, in line with consensus - CO2 effects climate, humans pump CO2, thus humans affect climate. Skeptics just regard it as mostly negligable. Jaimaster (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lacking any significant level of support (three editors is insufficient to claim a consensus here), any attempts to make changes on this point are only likely to turn into yet another edit war. So, given the apathy of other editors to such matters I guess that this bias shall be allowed to stand. At least until more support for the changes appears. --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a week- attempting to catch up, I rather got lost in all the convoluted language arguments. I don't like either of the "Proposed Resolutions", which would almost certainly confuse rather than enlighten a reader who doesn't already understand the subject. I've tried an edit of my own. --Merlinme (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I agree that your edit is much more clear and it accurately reflects the true nature of the ruling which is all I wanted. Thank you for your assistance. --GoRight (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ofcom's decision is basically a legal decision and is definitely not a minor matter when it comes to a UK documentary Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the ofcom is not part of the judiciary and as such it does not render legal decisions or opinions. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they aren't part of the judiciary, but they are a regulatory organization that can set/enforce rules. Deamon138 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Which of course is an administrative duty and not a judicial one. So as I said, the ofcom does not render legal decisions or opinions. --GoRight (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative law is still law, and decisions made by government agencies are often legal. II | (t - c) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrative law creates the administrative agencies, but the regulations those agencies create are regulations, not legislation, and as such they are not laws. Likewise the rulings that they render are administrative, not judicial, and as such they are not legal decisions. The administrative branch can neither create law nor render decisions regarding the legality of anything. --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The important point is surely whether rulings are enforceable. As far as I'm aware OfCom's rulings are binding because they are the UK's licencing authority; if their rulings are not complied with, that makes the broadcaster in breach of its licence. OfCom may not make laws as such, but they have plenty of power to enforce their decisions, as given to them through the relevant legislation. It would require a judicial review or similar to overrule them. --Merlinme (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul's edit

An Age opinion article is not going to hold up as WP:RS for inclusion of the category... taking my proposed compromise and implementing one part of it is bad form Jaimaster (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)