209.255.78.138 (talk) →Two different addition discussions: ISBN 978-1401323264 Fortune (magazine) hope you don't mind, thought this was interesting. Thanx for the reference, looks interesting! |
A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
: I'm not cnovinced by the first block, but the Skeptical Inquirer stuff looks useable [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
: I'm not cnovinced by the first block, but the Skeptical Inquirer stuff looks useable [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
: Having looked again at our article, I'm not really sure we ''need'' any of those new refs. What exactly is missing from this article taht those refs would provide? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
: Having looked again at our article, I'm not really sure we ''need'' any of those new refs. What exactly is missing from this article taht those refs would provide? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Merger proposal== |
|||
Recommend merging [[The Gore Effect]] article into this article. Since that article is about the views of climate change deniars, it makes sense to merge. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. The articles are not forks of each other. The other article is long enough to stand on its own. There doesn't seem to be any very strong denial component in the Gore effect, I'm not at all sure even finding it amusing is correlated with climate change denial. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 07:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - This suggestion was debated at length and rejected by the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect|AfD determination]] which found that it satisfied Wikipedia criteria for independent treatment in its own article. This is an attempt to end-run that finding and should be dispatched quickly. [[User:JakeInJoisey|JakeInJoisey]] ([[User talk:JakeInJoisey|talk]]) 11:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per jake. The Gore Effect has nought to do with with this article, it is a joke not a weird accusation bandied about by alarmist types [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per jake. [[User:Polentario|Polentario]] ([[User talk:Polentario|talk]]) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Dmcq. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 6 August 2010
Environment: Climate change C‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Template:Community article probation
Alternative Views B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Deliberately slanted Citation?
As far as i can tell, i can't edit this article, so i'm posting this here. There's a badly cited reference i take issue with that gives rise to a somewhat slanted presentation right within the article. The reference is #51, cited just under "Effects of Climate Change Denial". The cited source reads:
"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."
And the wiki article has:
"Recent polls regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" show that 59% of Americans believe it "at least somewhat likely" and 35% believe it is "very likely"."
From the source we can see 59 + 35 + 26 = 120%, so it's unlikely that the 35% is not included in the 59%. It's far more likely that the breakdown is 35% strongly believe, 24% somewhat believe, 26% believe unlikely or not likely at all and the remaining 15% "undecided" (though this last one is a guess, since the citation doesn't say). Yet this article is clearly written in a way to obfuscate the fact that the 59% includes the 35%. Not really something i'd expect from a Wikipedia article. If this poll is going to be kept as part of the article, a more accurate breakdown would be preferred (35% very likely, 24% somewhat likely, 26% unlikely or not likely at all, 15% undecided). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.105.131 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is usual to assume good faith on Wikipedia unless there is a strong reason otherwise. I've put in the first figures from that article which are the ones actually given in their survey. I'm not sure where the higher figures later on in the article came from, perhaps they got garbled somehow when the article was written. It is unlikely one figure is included in another otherwise it wouldn't add up to such an even number. Dmcq (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the article is still protected. For a while there were a lot of unregistered editors vandalizing everything to do with global warming but the topic seems to have quietened down a bit so I think it should be safe to unprotect it again. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found the actual statistics and have rephrased to try and avoid the confusion. The 59% was the sum of two figures. Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Point of View
This article is not neutral. Global warming is not positively true, yet this article makes it seems like it is. It makes the people who beilve diffrently look bad. the name alone disrupts the neturality of the article. this whole article is junk and might as well be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.87.159 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC) and by the way yes i do not beilieve in global warming but that is not from any conflict of intrests. I am a democrat and everyone in my family beilives in it. i just dont think its true.24.45.87.159 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article isn't about skeptics or environmental skeptics. It is about pressure groups working for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to have something to do with science, maybe Scientific opinion on climate change should be added though? 99.54.141.75 (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is about pressure groups working for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
- You mean like Siemens, who paid pro-GW researchers grant money while they negotiated contracts for carbon trading schemes?
- If this article is to malign those on the issue whose motivations had profiteering behind them, maybe wiki needs an article on climate change research conspiracies that is equally balanced? Batvette (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you want stuff to 'balance' this article and 'malign' scientists instead then perhaps climate change consensus or climate change alarmism would be more to your taste. The last in particular is very scrappy and could do with some reliable sources and coopyediting. This talk page is about improving this article, it is not a general discussion forum of other topics. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Pressure" comes from all directions, not just two ... skepticism is what builds good science. With a robust rigorous Scientific method, the science will stand on its own. Since the Earth is finite, thus resources are finite, and money represents the IOU of resources, "pressure" vectors sums to the ark of human history, i.e. Hubris. In other words, so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.185.99 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Had misplaced reply here, moved it up under Batvette's contrbution. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please rephrase, and help me understand about who and what you are writing. 99.39.186.1 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have put my comment after Batvette's contribution. I didn't see where what you wrote was going. I'll move my stuff up. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- This talk page is about improving this article, it is not a general discussion forum of other topics
- Ah, and what topic do you believe is being discussed? The POV bias of this article, which is just glaring in the lede, with this statement-
- Climate change denial is a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for financial or other sectional interests.
- and continues on to feign NPOV tone by hiding behind the disingenuous term of science- i.e; it's science so the people involved could never have personal agenda, either profit or ideology, involved. or it's science and anyone standing in the way of it must be an ignorant fundie with the cognizent skills of a neanderthal and shouldn't dare look at the issues and declare the emporer's clothes are awful.
- It's absurd to think we can talk about improving the article without discussing what the article is about, and I've seen this repeatedly come up and every time I come back to this article the lede has been changed back to this highly POV tone.
- The fact is it's not "nearly unanimous", and even if it were you have to face the fact that climate change research is not a field of career anyone is getting into unless they believe the climate is changing due to man's abuse of the environment. The few that wandered in and found out otherwise early on were drummed out of their ranks as it threatened their ideology, and witness the grandfather of Global Warming himself,Roger_Revelle when he co-authored a legitimate paper before his death stating The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time..... The scientific base for greenhouse warming (GHW) includes some facts, lots of uncertainty and just plain lack of knowledge requiring more observations, better theories and more extensive calculations.What To Do about Greenhouse Warming:Look before you leap had his opinions marginalized by those who'd spent decades promoting them. Any dissent was actively suppressed and this is not science at all.
- Just as there are many on this issue in the general public hiding behind the term science to marginalize dissent, there are editors attempting to silence any opposition on AGW on this and unless other editors periodically speak up about it it's going to go on unchecked. Although this discussion is not and should not be about other editors, failure to recognize POV slant in the article as presented in the lede only forces commentary to turn that direction.Batvette (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is your "sepp.org" link, this group: Science & Environmental Policy Project? Maybe you REALLY should look at Scientific opinion on climate change ... remove the blinders and expand your sources, if want to have an open discussion, that is resilient science. 99.60.125.105 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please this is not a blog of peoples personal ideas or a forum. If someone has a reliable source on aomething relevant or a particular point about this article that they have some ideas about changing then please discuss them. There is zero relevant in any of the above as far as this article is concerned. This article is not about whether climate change is true or not, there's other articles about that. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It would appear the previous point is "sepp.org" Science & Environmental Policy Project is not a reliable source or link to suggest. 99.190.91.2 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It could well be a reliable source about something. It isn't a reliable source about denial though, it's just an example of it so one couldn't use it here directly except perhaps bits which are mentioned in a document about climate change denial or their official refutations of such documents talking about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What of Gilbert Plass as a "grandfather of global warming", what ever that means? Or further back, Joseph Fourier? 99.27.174.48 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/ William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. what to say about THAT. I will state as a skeptic not really of climate change but of its cause and the dubious methods for mitigating it and thus anyone involved with the mess, but NOT as a political conservative:
- Does this mean if I was a "conservative" whatever that means, that my skepticism of AGW should hinge on whether or not it advanced the "conservative cause"? That once I saw the light of this jackass and his column, I should think "oh, I didn't realize I was hurting the CAUSE, I better get with the MAINSTREAM here so I don't obstruct our AGENDA." Note I'm not blasting you William, (yet) because I do realize there are idiots out there who think like that- and at least as often on the liberal side as conservative. This is why I cannot consider L or C or D or R as labels for myself. I'm just not seeing the relevance here.
- How about this for an opposing view article title- "failing to get on the AGW bandwagon hurts our liberal platform of environmentalism-forget analyzing the science because doing something, ANYthing, can only be good- and the bonus is we're bringing up the billions of little brown people too!". Batvette (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Two different addition discussions
Add "The Climate War" (ISBN 978-1401323264) by Eric Pooley, deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek and former managing editor of Fortune (magazine), on Politics of global warming (United States) & Category:Climate change policy ... example: Man Up, Climate Skeptics, or Miss Out on the Money: Eric Pooley Jun 16, 2009 or Excerpt ‘The Climate War’ Chapter One: "We Haven't Done a Damned Thing" or Warming Is Real. Now What? by Michiko Kakutani of the NYT published: August 2, 2010; http://www.amazon.com/Climate-War-Believers-Power-Brokers/dp/140132326X 99.190.90.117 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Add Skeptical Inquirer, currently Vol. 34 Issue 4 Authors Reply (page 54-56 (in print)), such as "Critics Exhibit Conditional Skepticism vs. Scientific Skepticism" Mark Boslough (vs. Robert Sheaffer), David Morrison (disambiguation) "The Refusal to Accept Scientific Evidence", John R. Mashey "The Twenty-Year Effort to Create Doubt about Climate Change" ... regarding Vol.34 Issue 2: Mann Bites Dog: Why 'Climategate' Was Newsworthy (page 14 print ed.), "Disinformation about Global Warming: Most arguments from global warming disputers don't make scientific sense or are based on distorted or obsolete information. Here are short answers to ten of these 'red-flag' arguments.", and "American Physical Society Rejects Climate Anti-Science" (page 15); also on page 23 "Climate Denialism" by Massimo Pigliucci. 99.24.250.79 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and be bold and make whatever changes you think would be good. If someone objects, they'll revert the change and we can start discussion. 05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- The article is semi'd... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. Then, short of creating an account, the the appropriate thing to do is post a very specific change request here (such as "In the history section, after the last paragraph, add this text..."), and add the {{editsemiprotected}} template above the request. 02:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
See View History tab to see how these Discussions have been altered from their original presentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&action=history 99.37.86.181 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not cnovinced by the first block, but the Skeptical Inquirer stuff looks useable William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Having looked again at our article, I'm not really sure we need any of those new refs. What exactly is missing from this article taht those refs would provide? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Recommend merging The Gore Effect article into this article. Since that article is about the views of climate change deniars, it makes sense to merge. TFD (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The articles are not forks of each other. The other article is long enough to stand on its own. There doesn't seem to be any very strong denial component in the Gore effect, I'm not at all sure even finding it amusing is correlated with climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - This suggestion was debated at length and rejected by the AfD determination which found that it satisfied Wikipedia criteria for independent treatment in its own article. This is an attempt to end-run that finding and should be dispatched quickly. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per jake. The Gore Effect has nought to do with with this article, it is a joke not a weird accusation bandied about by alarmist types mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per jake. Polentario (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dmcq. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)