Talk:Climate change denial
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Greglocock in topic The global cooling consensus rebuttal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?
A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming.[1][2] According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence.[3] Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable."[4] Q2: Is this article a POVFORK?
A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "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."[5] Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers?
A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust.[6] Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?
A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this.[2] Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along?
A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:
References
|
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kary mullis - nobel prize winner
editsomehow he got left off the list of notable "deniers", which should probably be its own page really. 2601:2C5:4900:4FE4:34AE:2421:9BB6:799B (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, he got Nobel disease. But that is not relevant here.
- Such a page would just be a list of famous people who believe so strongly in market fundamentalism that it overrides their desire to have correct opinions. It would be a pointless piece of propaganda directed at people who believe that argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam are valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- The NYT thought it notable enough to call him out on it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Political parties
editI noticed that Category:Climate change denial lists a number of discussions that decided that the category should not include specific people. However, it does include several political parties and organizations that, although they may deny climate change, it is not their main reason to exist, and perhaps even ancillary to its actual core ideas. Should we remove them, for the same reasons we removed biographies? The category should have just articles about topics related to climate change denial, or works specifically about it (such as Not Evil Just Wrong). Cambalachero (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Climate change denial is an essential component of extreme market fundamentalism. When an organization is adhering to it, that shows that its dedication to the free-market idea is so absolute that it is prepared to deny reality to defend its world view. Being that deranged is an important property of organizations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is strictly true: there is no inconsistency between accepting climate change and adopting free market approaches to its management (albeit that, by a curious coincidence, every proposal to date has been put forward by climate change deniers and predicated on making no substantive change to fossil fuel use).
- However, it is fair to say that it is a core tenet of the quasi-religious belief system of the modern right. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
no inconsistency between accepting climate change and adopting free market approaches to its management
That is why I said "extreme market fundamentalism". --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The global cooling consensus rebuttal
editBit of a straw man, I can find very few online references to this 'consensus' that aren't inspired by the referenced paper itself. Invent a bogeyman, prove it isn't real. Publish. Profit!!! well probably not. Anyway I think this stuff is WP:UNDUE. Greglocock (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the American Meteorological Society source cited in support of this image, then be assured that I have read countless examples of denialist commentators say we can't trust climate scientists because they had supposedly reversed their position since the 1970s. Oilman favorite Ted Cruz is one example of this misinformation spreader, as described in this fact-check. It's not undue. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am specifically referring to the phrase 'global cooling consensus'. I am aware of the general line of argument, but specifically referring to consensus seems very rare. Greglocock (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Greglocock: I don't see where this article mentions "global cooling consensus"—it's indirectly ~insinuated by some denialists, but I don't see how this article misleads in that regard (if that's what you're saying). I was careful in my image caption to say global warming was dominating the literature per the AMS reference's wording. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, yes, I wandered off into the red herring territory of the reference, the wiki article is fine. Thank you ~~~ Greglocock (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Greglocock: I don't see where this article mentions "global cooling consensus"—it's indirectly ~insinuated by some denialists, but I don't see how this article misleads in that regard (if that's what you're saying). I was careful in my image caption to say global warming was dominating the literature per the AMS reference's wording. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am specifically referring to the phrase 'global cooling consensus'. I am aware of the general line of argument, but specifically referring to consensus seems very rare. Greglocock (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)