Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial

Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy, poorly referenced and relying entirely on "big oil" conspiracy theory Iceage77 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This alleged connection is not made in the article. "Denial" is part of standard English vocabulary. No comment (so far) on the other point. --Stephan Schulz 09:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly the inference. It's presupposing that there is no debate about this subject and that anyone who doesn't buy into the whole man made global warming idea is insane or of an extreme political viewpoint. Nick mallory 09:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the only one who has made that inference is Tim PattersonTimothy Ball. And indeed, there is no serious debate about the core issue anywhere but in US politics. --Stephan Schulz 10:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stephan, you know full well that is not true. The scientific debate is ongoing as the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and Global warming controversy pages show. Some of the best climate scientists are skeptics who have never taken money from big oil.RonCram 15:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although his vote was for Delete, Nick mallory has made an excellent argument for Keep, IMO. This is an excellent chance to document those places where those who "pretend that skepticism about man made global warming is similar to denying the existence of the Nazi holocaust", as I am not aware of any such places, but have heard many times of them (from those who object to the use of the word "denial"). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article--of which I am the primary author--documents an organized effort to promote controversy over climate change. The bulk of citations come from major periodicals The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, and Mother Jones. These sources chiefly refer to their subject as "denial." If these periodicals' allegations of funding a denial effort are false or otherwise contestable, I think it would be preferable for both sides of the present debate to answer them within the framework of the article. If the allegations are totally baseless, then of course the article should be deleted. If the allegations are defensible, then I think the article should stand. I don't think it would be right to delete the article on the basis of the above "conspiracy" accusations or the below "propaganda" accusations until the accusing parties have successfully argued that the article is not factual, verifiable, or encyclopedic. I am mystified by what seems to be general and tacit agreement that the central claims of the article are valid. If, for example, last year the Royal Society did send ExxonMobil the letter described in "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial", then why shouldn't Wikipedia have an article about the "climate change denial" Britain's "premier science academy" has accused ExxonMobil of funding? Cyrusc 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So Wikipedia is supposed to have an article on every political accusation that is made? I don't think so. Besides the issue is outdated. Big oil is not funding climate research anymore because no climate scientist will take their money anymore. Reputations have been ruined just over the accusation they were biased. The leading climate skeptics now have never taken money from "big oil."RonCram 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should go without saying that nowhere does the article mention or impute such a connection. Allow me to suggest that the strong emotional reaction against "denial" terminology has more to do with the shame and dishonesty of what "denial" describes than with the hypothetical motives of people who say "denial." Cyrusc 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs to be brought up to date, maybe a split for 'critisism of climate change denial', as has been done with holocaust denial and critisism of holocaust denial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SemperFideliS81 (talk • contribs).
  • Simple propoganda, should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.153.239 (talk)
  • Merge with global warming controversy.Keep -- I understand the distinction from the controversy article better now. RandomCritic 13:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is new and could use some work in both alleviating POV concerns and in fleshing out references, but it is a valuable contribution. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a valid topic per the abundant refs. Will likely be contentious as the deniers will deny it :-) Vsmith 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion.

    I can understand very well why the skeptical editors don't like this article. It will mention (well sourced) things that cannot be mentioned in great detail on the other pages. But then these things do exist in the real world and are notable, and can therefore be incuded in wikipedia. Questioning the motives of creating this article is not a valid argument for deletion.

    Similarly, some of the editors who voted (or will vote) for deletion of this article created the article on the Climate of Fear and The Great Global Warming Swindle documentaries may have had POV motives when they did so. However, no one put those articles on AFD because of those suspicions. Anyone can edit these articles, so the POV problems, if any, can be dealt with by editing these articles. Count Iblis 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well supported article on a well-known topic. Raul654 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, but leaning toward Keep. The term is in common use, including the mainstream press.[1][2]. In the U.S., the closely-related term "global warming denial" is used.[3][4] (For some reason the term "global warming" tends to be prevalent in the U.S. while "climate change" has the same meaning in other English-speaking countries.) The concept thus is notable and is not a neologism; my concern is that the relevant information may be getting fragmented across too many articles. Raymond Arritt 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern, but I think there's a trade-off between keeping information together and having an unwieldy article size. Also, there appears to be enough common editors (on all "sides" of the issue) in the various pages to help keep the fragmentation to a minimum. Unfortunately, some repetition will always be required where multiple articles have commonalities. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles Denialism and Global warming controversy cover the topic in an encyclopedic fashion (note that the former references Global warming controversy under the text "global warming denial"). This article is little more than a litany of 'offenses' by one industry regarding one topic. There are countless businesses that have created or supported advocacy for their particular industry. This is not notable in a one-off fashion. Better might be an article that generally describe the 'denial industry'. Anastrophe 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Anastrophe. Article also attempts at Wikipedia's reputation by insinuating that climate change is an absolute certainty which ought not be denied and especially by subtly linking those denying climate change with those denying the Holocaust. This article is an endorsement of all the worst witch hunts in history and should be condemned. --Childhood's End 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB I am primary author of this article. Cyrusc 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-referenced and informative article. Dealing with controversial material is never an appropriate reason to delete an article, or even nominate it for deletion. Envirocorrector 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is completely encyclopedic--not a single source has been challenged by those who advocate deletion, and the subject deserves elaboration in a separate article, not only because of its importance, but also in order to keep the other entries of a manageable length.Benzocane 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources may accurately reflect the opinions of the speakers but they are not NPOV. The article contains a number of errors. The distinction between "denial" and "skepticism" is not accurate. Certain scientists have denied the alarmism of AGW and never taken money from "big oil." How can they be a part of the "denial industry?" Do you realize no research papers critical of AGW and funded by big oil have been published for more than a year? How is it the number of skeptical scientists continues to grow? How can the article discuss the "denial industry" without also discussing the "alarmism industry?" You do realize that climate scientists have to scare people so governments will fund more research, don't you? You do realize that RealClimate is a website owned by a public relations firm that has paying clients? Do you know about the work being done at SurfaceStations.org? [5] Do you not realize that if the "science was settled," scientists would not be doing this kind of work? RonCram 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Benzocane's argument above is as i see it extremely valid. The Talk page is full of people trying to dispute the article based upon WP:POINT. I personally think that there is a bit too much finger-pointing in it currently (ie. Exxon) - but i'm certain that the widely varied opinions of the editors, and the people voting here, will ensure a thoroughly neutral article on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A POV mess that doesn't belong on wikipedia--Southern Texas 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable and the article is reasonably well sourced. It also is distinct from global warming controversy, which describes the political and public debate about global warming, while this is a meta-discussion about one of the sides in that debate. The original version made me somewhat uneasy because it was not quite NPOV, but this calls for a better article, not for deleting it. And it has already improved quite a lot.--Stephan Schulz 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has nothing to do with Holocaust Denial, simply shares a term. The article discusses a separate claim, complete denial of any climate change influenced by the industry, and specifically nonscientific denial, differing in this from internal scientific controversy. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article records the facts. That some editors don't like those facts doesn't make it POV. What's POV is the effort to delete an article of a high quality because you find it unsettling. This article never should have come up for possible deletion in the first place. Who challenges its sources? Varlet8 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with a hopelessly POV title for the article there is no chance there can be a NPOV article written. This subject is already covered elsewhere in a more NPOV manner. Mathmo Talk 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the delete votes are predicated on the supposed POV nature of the article's title and I'd like to respond to that assertion. The term "denial" comes directly from mainstream international media sources, not original research, and none of those sources have been challenged. Denial would only be POV if it were an inaccurate term, just as nobody challenges scandal in Watergate Scandal because nobody contests the accuracy of the noun. So prior to the POV question is the question of the term's accuracy. And no editor has challenged the sources listed in the entry to my knowledge. Benzocane 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Denial would only be POV if it were an inaccurate term[...]". Demonstrably false. i've never heard such a claim that Point-of-view only applies to inaccurate terms. can you provide a citation for such a remarkable claim?? Anastrophe 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try another example, as Watergate didn't work. Describing, say, good police work as "police abuse" is POV if it's inaccurate, whereas calling documented police abuse by that phrase is NPOV if the evidence proves abuse did in fact take place. If all terms with positive or negative connotations were banned from the encyclopedia on POV grounds independent of their accuracy, we'd have to delete a million sound entries. So the question is: is denial an accurate term for the phenomenon covered by the article. It is according to NYTimes, The Guardian, etc.--the only POV issue would be trying to ban that information from the encyclopedia.Benzocane 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: well, it was accurately documented, sourced, and cited in the article that a very widely published columnist compared global warming denial to holocaust denial, but that's been striken from the article as being given 'undue weight' and not NPOV, yet it falls well within the outline you've just provided as justification for inclusion in the article. it seems what's sauce for the goose is not, in this instance, sauce for the gander.Anastrophe 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was explaining why accuracy has to precede a POV evaluation of a term; that has nothing to do with the relevance of information to the article. I don't dispute the accuracy of the phrase "holocaust denial"; I dispute the notability of the analogy between that denial and a corporate misinformation campaign.Benzocane 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and as i have pointed out numerous times: you insist that the article is about a corporate misinformation campaign; 'the denial industry'. which further goes to the argument that the article is misleadingly entitled; 'global warming denial'/'climate change denial' is used, pejoratively, routinely in discourse (just see the talk page for the article), and has been used in widely published articles by proponents of AGW; yet the article does not note that in any manner. when challenged because it does not note that, we're told the article is about a corporate misinformation campaign. then why is the article entitled "climate change denial" rather than the more accurate "the denial industry" or some such - which would more honestly and accurately describe what constitutes about 90% of the content of the article? Anastrophe 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article comes directly from the citations. "Climate change denial" is the phrase used in the international media to describe the misinformation campaigns. "Industry" in the title of the article would fail to include the public sector denial that forms an important part of the entry, sources that, despite all of this back and forth, have not been challenged or improved upon.Benzocane 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
patently false. the sources have been challenged indirectly, by attempting to include actual usage of the term by AGW proponents to describe individuals who don't agree with AGW. this has been repeatedly rejected, with the claim that it is "POV" to include them, which is an abuse of the spirit of NPOV. the article is written explicitly from the POV that 'climate change denial' is an uncontroversial term applied only to the 'misinformation campaigns', which is - demonstrably and in practice - false, as again proven by the monbiot and goodman published articles. this refusal to admit examples of usage from reliable sources, properly cited, is dissembling. you've created a self-sealing argument for the explicit POV of the article. Anastrophe 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can be in denial. If you don't believe that something exists, then you are in denial of the existence of that thing. That is true whether or not that thing actually exists or not. Arguing that there exists no such thing as climate change denial amounts to "climate change denial denial"  :) Count Iblis 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you are misconstruing the term "in denial". "in denial" is not the same as "to deny". I don't believe I can flap my arms and fly. I'm not "in denial" about my ability to fly.Anastrophe 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native speaker, but for me "climate change denial" refers to the act of denying (usually implicitly anthropogenic) climate change, not to the state of being in denial about climate change. --Stephan Schulz 08:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of this title is absurd. Merriam webster online defines "deny" as "1)to declare untrue; 2) to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW; 3) to give a negative answer to, to refuse to grant, to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires; 4) archaic : DECLINE; 5) to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of" Note particularly that uses 1,2 and 5 make it abundantly clear that this verb is a perfect description of the phenomenon described by the article, in addition to being the most commonly used phrase by mainstream press (please don't "deny" that the New York Times is mainstream). The point is, this is the most appropriate title for the article, and quibling with it wouldn't be grounds for deletion anyway. Envirocorrector 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People don't like the name because they think it's referring to No. 2, which is negative - that a person is "refusing to admit or acknowledge" [the truth] - rather than "to declare untrue". I think it's a horrible title for the article. -81.178.104.145 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's interesting how a number of people say, in essence: "But I want to deny this! You can't call it denial!". And in this light, it's a good thing that this does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia policy. Digwuren 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond Arritt 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really do not mind that Wikipedia talks about the fact "big oil" funded some early research on climate change and that this became a political issue. These are facts that should not be censored, but the information belongs in Politics of global warming. The article is framed in a way that assumes the scientific certainty of AGW. This means there is no way for the article to ever become NPOV. Here are some facts voters should know: 1. Many quality research papers critical or damaging to the AGW view have been published in the last few years, but none of these papers have any connection to "big oil." 2. No research papers critical of AGW and funded by big oil have been published for at least a year or two. 3. It is a strange oddity that now the Bush Administration has finally bought into AGW, the scientific underpinnings for AGW are falling away and the number of skeptical scientists is growing. RonCram 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments by Raul654 and Cyrusc Ben Hocking Vsmith Count Iblis Envirocorrector crandles 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article gives convincing argument that denial differs from mere skeptisicism (i.e. global warming controversy). Number 57 11:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The article is out of date in that it pretends "big oil" and "big coal" are still funding climate research. All of the large firms, stopped funding research a year or two ago. The article is hopelessly POV in that the climate changes all the time. What is currently being denied by some scientists is that the current alarmism is justified or that the recent warming is predominantly the fault of anthropogenic CO2. These scientists include Roger A. Pielke, John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, George Kukla. These guys have never taken money from "big oil" or "big coal." This article is attempting to ridicule a valid scientific position held by some of the most respected and prolific climate researchers on the planet, including professors of climate science at Ivy League schools. Supporters of the article have evidently bought into the idea that "the science is settled." Nothing could be further from the truth. The more science that comes out the more we realize that this whole idea has been overblown. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, even according to Phil Jones. The PDO has switched to a cooler mode and South America is currently suffering through the coldest winter it has had in 90 years. And it turns out that a good many of the weather stations in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) are poorly sited due to land use/land cover changes resulting in an artificial warming bias in the temperature record. See www.surfacestations.org to see some of the pictures for yourself. Earlier studies indicate more than 12% of weather stations are poorly sited and subject to an artificial warming bias of more than 3 degrees.[6] If this is accurate and averaged over the globe, more than half of the perceived warming the IPCC talks about is an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. Again, this article is ridiculing some of the leading climate scientists for a valid scientific position. It should be speedy deleted. RonCram 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ron, I suggest that you read WP:CSD and reconsider your vote. Apart from the technical issue, the truth about global warming is completely irrelevant for the existence and notability of climate change denial. --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huh? The fact that an article assumes that global warming is an absolute truth seems pretty much related to me with the fact that this article makes a living out of the fact that some people deny global warming... All those voting for Keep should read about scientism and its counterpart, epistemology. --Childhood's End 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Do you collect your premises on the street? You certainly don't seem to refer to my comment... I can deny things that a true just as well as I can deny things that are false. Moreover, I can even deny things that I believe to be true just as well as those I believe to be false. The different cases may have different implication for my morality and my knowledge, but that is a rather different issues. --Stephan Schulz 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can deny whatever you want. You're totally entitled to do it and I did not deny it. But that would not necessarily be correct to publish an article on Wikipedia about partisan publications making a living out of conspiracy theories about your beliefs. As a sidenote, I did refer to your previous comment to the extent that you suggested that "the truth about global warming is completely irrelevant for the existence and notability of climate change denial". You should ackowledge that the latter would not be notable if it was not for the former being assumed. --Childhood's End 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "out of date" being used so frequently as a reason for deletion? If it's so obviously out of date, provide more recent citations. As for your "surface stations" argument, read the Wikipedia article on them and how they correlate with satellite temperature measurements. It seems that the "surface stations" argument is the latest in the campaign of disinformation (of which I think you are a victim and not an initiator). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, the article assumes the accuracy of the global warming faith. I am simply pointing out that the entire foundation of the article is wrong. If the author of the article thinks people need to know that "big oil" funding some early research, that should be in the Global warming controversy article. I do not want to censor the information but this article is misleading. Benhocking, I am fully aware of Satellite temperature measurements. Unfortunately, I am not able to correct all of the misinformation on Wikipedia. However, you should know that two of the biggest AGW deniers are John Christy and Roy Spencer who keep their own satellite temperature record and are skeptics for that reason.RonCram 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It falls into the category for "speedy delete" because it is an attack page on all scientists who disagree with AGW. RonCram 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you too, are in denial of this denial. Burntsauce 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to global warming controversy. The well-documented attempts to manipulate science, and the funding and background of the "denial" movement described in this article, are clearly notable and should be covered in depth, but I would prefer to see that coverage in the "global warming controversy" article rather than here. I'm concerned that this is a bit of POV fork from that parent article, and that its controversial title will overshadow the content. Even AIDS denialism redirects to AIDS reappraisal, although in that case denialism is both the more appropriate and more widespread term. MastCell Talk 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to global warming controversy. This material would help to balance the excess weight currently given to the anti-science side in that article. BTW, I personally prefer "delusionism", as a rhetorical term, to describe the wishful thinking of people who want the physical world to conform to their political opinions or financial interest. However, it's definitely a neologism :-).JQ 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' Come on John. Questionning scientific theories is anti-scientific? Karl Popper probably no longer rests in peace with the current mindset of our world nowadays... Also, by "people who want the physical world to conform to their political opinions or financial interest", you certainly speak of climate modellers? --Childhood's End 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, when the "questioner" doesn't really want answers. This is the difference between a denialist and a skeptic: a skeptic expresses concerns, and has true interest in whether and how they get answered; a denier may masquerade his polemics in "I'm just questioning", but his opinion is predetermined and he's only interested in polemics. Digwuren 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'I understand and respect MastCell and John's position regarding merging, but feel that collapsing this into the controversy entry is problematic. What Exxon et al funded in their misinformation campaign was precisely the redescription of scientific consensus as controversy. Also, this article is not about global warming--it's primarily about a corporate misinformation campaign. I think the separate entry therefore helps us distinguish between a clandestine and manipulative effort to turn public discourse and the content of that discourse itself.Benzocane 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The corporate misinformation campaign is really an inextricable part of the "global warming controversy", and I think more effectively dealt with in that article. Cf. passive smoking and the scientific "controversy" funded by the tobacco industry. MastCell Talk 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have a second, could you explain how the term presupposes the validity of a particular position? If Exxon et al sponsored the denial of scientific consensus -- and those facts have not been challenged -- then doesn't it describe a historical phenomenon, not a partial POV? Or is your position that the British Royal Society, the UCS, etc., made all of this up? And if that's your position, are there sources to support it? Thanks!Benzocane 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it did not need explanations. If you make a story out of something being denied, it necessarily presuposes that this something exists and that doubts about it are hopelessly without any merit. There is no article about Big Bang denial because the world can accept the expression of doubts towards this generally accepted theory. Reason is that there is little politics involved in the Big Bang issue. --Childhood's End 12:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And once more. "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. Had "big bang denial" been a notable concept that gave more than 30 hits on Google - it would have been a valid article. This subject on the other hand notable, and is covered by reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I emphatically deny those allegations of yours! You can quote me on that. Digwuren 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break

Oh are we to understand that the Keep votes are cast by editors with clean hands who do not necessarily believe in global warming? --Childhood's End 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not; what matters is: is there credible evidence of the corporate funded misrepresentation of the scientific consensus. Since that evidence is both abundant and remains uncontested, it is, indeed, POV to try to delete the article -- an attempt to hide the facts.Benzocane 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have currently two climate change articles on AfD: Climate change denial and Global warming analogies. Several days into the discussions, five editors have commented on both. Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other – what they didn't agree on is which article is a hopeless POV fork and which one provides valuable information on a clearly notable concept. Not that amazing maybe, but still quite remarkable. – I found both articles interesting and mostly well sourced. Documenting various aspects and details of one of the defining controversies of the early 21st century is not POV pushing; trying to exclude well documented, notable POVs from Wikipedia just because we happen to disagree with them, on the other hand, is. Unfortunately, global warming controversy weighs in at over 100 KB already and it's bound to grow, so rather than bickering about alleged POV forks, maybe we should think about a sensible way to split that article instead. Rl 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uses reliable sources to document a notable and coherent set of actions. Too long to merge into another article. --Dr.enh 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prevent global warming by keeping this article! (And turning off your computer, etc.). Delete arguments here are just pathetic, well referenced, appropriate, notable article. Last time I checked, we keep for a lot less then this. Giggy Talk | Review 07:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - its well enough ref'd, and it doesn't rely entirely on big oil, so 2/3 of the nom is wrong. I don't think its a POV fork either, its a separate subject (and could do with some more work) William M. Connolley 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have several problems with the article. The first stems from arbitrary differentiation of a climate change skeptic and a climate change denier. The premise that a skeptic is one who scientifically questions global warming and that a denier is one who is doing so because they're being paid to do so (particularly from the "energy lobby") is based off one quote from a journalist. Second, I feel the main portion of the articles relies too heavily on what the tobacco industry did. I've also inquired in the talk page about the bit on both Cheney and the NEPDG, which the article seems to make very little or no connection between their actions and climate change denial as it is defined therein. I've also questioned how the article will be able to differentiate between those who spread "disinformation" because they don't know better and those who do so because they're being paid to do so. Lastly, there may be problems with synthesis where the article makes the argument that a individual or corporation received funds from an energy company and the same individual or corporation questions parts of the IPCC conclusion, so they are therefore doing so because they're paid by the energy company, without any concrete evidence or at least reliable source. ~ UBeR 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be a real "denial industry" working to refute climate scientists and I feel that some of the people supporting deletion might represent the denier group. Let the deniers set up there own page. If balance is required then both pages could refer to each other in the links section --Neilrieck 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, what's notable or worthy of a story about "working to refute climate scientists" if you do not presuppose the irrefutability of their theory? Isnt it the usual process of scientific advancement to work to refute theories? Even the IPCC allows for a margin of uncertainty of about 10% (which is large in science, something that is still overlooked) so this presupposition is not even grounded on the science but rather on some left-wing activist press. --Childhood's End 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CE, you really need an answer to the question "what's notable about oil companies misrepresenting scientific consensus if a small minority departs from the mainstream position"? BTW, even if you don't see the notability, The British Royal Society, the UCS, and major news periodicals across the world do -- and that's what's relevant to a Wikipedia entry.Benzocane 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the sources of this article and what you call major news periodicals accross the world are all left-wing papers/websites. Give us a break. --Childhood's End 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep forgetting that the British Royal Society, the UCS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, etc., are somehow "left-wing papers" that can just be dismissed out of hand! Is your position, oh arbitrary arbiter of legitimacy, that such venues are not "major news periodicals"? You might want to alert the Wikipedia community to that fact, as these sources are quoted hundreds of thousands of times across the encyclopedia. And as for the other more outspokenly political sources, don't you have to deny the content they report, not just note their supposed political affiliation? BTW, I'm not even a Democrat! But any reasonable person, from any point on the political continuum, is obliged to respond to this sophistry. Anyway, I've responded. I'll move on...Benzocane 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're really good at avoiding the point, but I wont let you. Out of 17 references, 14 are from The Guardian, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, The Age, New York Times, Vaity Fair, Union of Concerned Scientists, and ClimateScienceWatch. If you did not know that the NYT is a liberal publication, you may want to read this internal audit : [9]. And if you think that the UCS is not partisan about the issue at hand, you may want to read their mission statement :[10] (funny, they speak of "effective citizen advocacy"). But hey... there's a quote from the Washington Post, so let's forget about the rest and pretend we have a balanced article about a subject covered in every major publication around the world. --Childhood's End 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the NYT page you refer to is an editorial, not an "internal audit" as you claim. Also, it appears to be written from an American POV making it somewhat irrelevant in the scheme of things. The fact that the NYT may or may not be a "liberal publication" from an American POV does not affect whether it is a liberal publication. Such a claim is of course largely irrelevant and unfactual since it depends on your POV. What is clear is that NYT is clearly a reliable source. Nil Einne 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article was the NYT's ombudsman, so you might have missed a material piece of the context. You may also want to read this : [11], and notably the part which says "In part because the Times’s editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic. Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds" or this "We must be yet stricter about anonymous sources. We must reduce the garden-variety factual errors that corrode our believability."
Also, not sure where you're going with your POV story. The newspaper itself tells you it is POVed, so that you may pretend that it is not remains your own POV, not the actual reality. --Childhood's End 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't feel that NYtimes is an unencylopedic source, nor do I feel that The Royal Society, Vanity Fair, or UCS, etc., can be dismissed out of hand as "partisan." BTW, neither does Wikipedia, as these sources are consistently vetted by the community. And I believe that the content of Mother Jones, for instance, no matter its political reception, still has to be evaluated, not just rejected. I'm not willing to accept the Childhoodsend's opinion is what determines reliability, or that disagreeing with Childhoodsend is what constitutes partisanship. Another thing: have you disputed the facts -- Exxon et al. paid misinformation campaigns? Exxon's involvement in the Cheney Energy Task Force?Benzocane 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who thinks that UCS, The Guardian or Mother Jones are good sources that should be quoted all around is inevitably part of the explanation of why Jimmy Wales had to admit that Wikipedia is biaised towards the left, and part of the reason (along with this article) why Wikipedia wont last much longer as a credible encyclopedia. --Childhood's End 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CE - then please take it up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of arguing here. Show us that you are right - and we are wrong in considering these reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do -- it would be helpful to have clarity on this point. Raymond Arritt 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume good faith and that this suggestion had an honest purpose, even coming from Raymond Arritt. At first sight, I thought it could be a good idea, but the issue that I raised was not about the sources' reliability, but rather with the subject of the article existing almost exclusively in partisan sources. There was a long standing principle in WP:NOTE that said that a subject is not notable enough if the information about it is not from unbiaised sources, but it was somehow deleted recently for no given reason [12]. This rule made a lot of sense since it is only true for all subjects that if a subject cannot get beyond partisan sources, this is indicative of its non-notability as well as of its POV character. Now, you can argue that this rule is no longer part of the policy, but I think that this does not necessarily means that we should reject it out of hand.
Note that by the subject of this article, I point at the concept of climate change denial seen as something supposedly different from climate change skepticism, making it worthy of a separate article. --Childhood's End 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that this article relies "almost exclusively" on "partisan sources" is false, unless you can prove the unreliability of the following sources: UCS, Royal Society, Nytimes, Washington Post, Newsweek in addition to ClimateScienceWatch, Catylst, MotherJones, etc. And proving unreliability is not the same thing as just calling the sources partisan. If somebody quotes Fox News about an historical event, I can't just move to have the citation deleted, despite its controversial reputation, without contesting its content with alternative sources. You have not contested the accuracy of a single claim within this article! This is my last post on this thread, and I agree with the others that you should take your arguments against these widely respected periodicals to another page.Benzocane 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have read my posts, you might have noticed that I have just explained that I do not object to these sources' reliability, but rather to the notability of the article's subject. Take a look at the meaning of non sequitur before your next post. --Childhood's End 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O CE! English lessons from you keep drawing me back into this thread. Did you or did you not say "the subject of the article" exists "almost exclusively in partisan sources?" And wasn't that largely your claim against notability? So isn't my point about their not being partisan sources germane to your argument? OK, really, last post in response to your spinning in your ruts. Best of luck! Benzocane 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite amusing. I'll just assume that you now realize that in your previous post, you totally confused the partisan issue with the question of reliability, and that you aint got much to say about the fact that out of 17 sources, 14 are openly admitted partisan publications. Thanks for holding to your word now, unless you're ready to revisit some of your sayings. --Childhood's End 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I admittedly haven't read it in detail, but it seems to be adequately sourced. — Alan✉
    • People really count these types of votes? ~ UBeR 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just trying to be honest about the basis of my opinion, and I hope the closing admin doesn't just count "votes" anyway. My point is that the links I followed from the references seemed to point to a number of relevant media articles verifying the overall notability of the theme, which is relevant because the nominator feels that it is poorly referenced, but as I say I haven't looked at the detail. — Alan✉ 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the sources: cover story in current Newsweek, Science, Guardian, Harpers, Nytimes, Greenpeace, Vanity Fair, Washington Post, Catalyst, ClimateScienceWatch, British Royal Society, Union of Concerned Scientists. Now, even assuming one can dismiss The Guardian out of hand (which I think is ludicrous), and ignore Greenpeace, don't you feel some need to explain your claim that the article is "primarily from partisan sources"? And once you're done explaining it, could you support that position with some nonpartisan sources of your own? And furthermore, don't you feel the need to contest the content of those sources in order to argue for deletion?Benzocane 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Iceage77 will consider something to be properly referenced if it is reported on FOX NEWS and on right wing blogs :) Count Iblis 22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that's a really egregious personal attack. the response is typically "did you miss the smiley?". and that's crap. it's just a way of ducking responsibility for making inappropriate comments. please stop. Anastrophe 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iceage77 clearly said that he considers the article to be "poorly referenced because they are primarily from partisan sources". We can all see what the sources are. Benzocane repeated that in his reply to him, but I don't think that was necessary. I simply take iceage77 serious and I don't assume that iceage77 is unaware of the sources this article is based on. My comment about FOX news and right wing blogs more or less follows from my assumptions about Iceage77.
So, I don't think I did anything wrong to suggest to others where iceage77 is coming from. There is nothing wrong about someone who has the position that Iceage77 has (I mean apart from being wrong on the issue), so I don't see how pointing that out can be regarded as a personal attack. Quite the opposite. I take Iceage77 serious, although I disagree with him. But you would probably have contempt for someone who would first want to see something reported on FOX NEWS and right wing blogs before taking it serious. Why else would consider my comment to be a personal attack? So, your comment, not mine, is actually an "egregious personal attack" on Iceage77  :) Count Iblis 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Skepticism and denial are quite different concepts. Digwuren 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, they're so different that this article hardly makes a difference between skeptics and deniers, essentially calling "denier" any organization guilty of funding skeptical scientists. --Childhood's End 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who finds it a little odd when someone says "Not to WP:GOOGLE..." and in the very same sentence WP:GOOGLEs? Raymond Arritt 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep resonable article on a noteable subject. Also, I don't get why people keep saying "it's outdated". If climate denial is really dead (and I'm not saying it is) there is still no justification for deleting the article, instead we just properly present it as a noteable historical thing. Edit also a lot of editors seem to be getting distracted. Climate change denial is not about 'big oil funding scientists'. It is about a large number of organisations and people with financial and other reasons using a large variety of tactics including selective using any work which presents some doubt to misrepresent the current level of knowledge and support re: climate change. Whether or not the work of all or any of the scientists used is funded by 'big oil' is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps editors who keep complaining should try reading the article rather then commentin on what they think it is about Nil Einne 09:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... Nil Einne 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_change_denial