This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 33Auto-archiving period: 90 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions (FAQ) To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. 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] See also: Scientific consensus on climate change and Talk:Global warming/FAQ § Q1 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: 1. Because a "consensus" indicates that scientists with expertise in the relevant fields are in general agreement about some topic, such that they often refer to it as a "fact" (though technically nothing in science is ever proven with the 100% level of certainty necessary for it to be considered a fact). There is, for example, a consensus that smoking causes cancer, which is widely considered a fact.[7] 2. No; in fact, it is essential to the progress of science, since scientific discoveries are made based on what the consensus of scientists established before them.[8] 3. This argument is a form of the association fallacy often called the "Galileo Gambit." The best debunking of this argument may have been provided by Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."[9] References ^ Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872. ^ a b Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ^ Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010. ^ Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014. ^ AFD Diff, 7 August 2007. ^ Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap ^ Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010. ^ On Scientific Consensus ^ Broca's Brain, p. 64

Article milestones Date Process Result August 8, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept March 28, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept September 4, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept March 10, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept March 13, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept January 9, 2012 Articles for deletion Kept November 29, 2014 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version March 16, 2016 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Alternative Views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for Climate change denial (43 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 13,146 13,146 Terminology 12,740 12,740 Categories and tactics 8,161 56,776 Discussing specific aspects of climate change science 8,964 25,239 Playing up the potential non-human causes 546 546 Playing up flawed studies 2,213 2,213 Disputing IPCC reports and processes 4,935 4,935 Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes 8,581 8,581 Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical" 1,469 1,469 Pushing for adaptation only 5,857 5,857 Delaying climate change mitigation measures 9,375 9,375 Promoting conspiracy theories 6,675 6,675 Psychology 149 149 Connections to other debates 35 16,903 Links with other environmental issues 2,295 2,295 Links with nationalism and right-wing groups 6,632 6,632 Conservative views 7,941 7,941 History 12,158 31,351 Similarities with tobacco industry tactics 3,519 3,519 Republican Party in the United States 15,674 15,674 Denial networks 934 18,467 Conservative and libertarian think tanks 4,974 4,974 Publishers, websites and networks 4,473 12,559 Publications for school children 8,086 8,086 Notable people who deny climate change 46 13,773 Politicians 9,614 9,614 Climate scientists and meteorologists 4,113 4,113 Lobbying and related activities 2,494 24,030 Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors 5,911 5,993 ExxonMobil 82 82 Attacks and threats towards scientists 3,554 3,554 Funding for deniers 11,989 11,989 Effects on public opinion 11,375 22,421 United States 8,482 8,482 Europe 2,564 2,564 Responses to denialism 1,544 23,010 The role of emotions and persuasive argument 6,177 6,177 Following people who have changed their position 8,334 8,334 Effective approaches to dialogue 4,144 4,144 Approaches with farmers 1,972 1,972 Statements of well known people calling for climate action 839 839 See also 632 632 References 379 379 Total 233,777 233,777

I've just carried out the merger from climate change conspiracy theory to here. More work is required to condense this part and remove repetition. Regarding the current structure, I am wondering if "climate change conspiracy theories" should remain as a main level heading or if it should be moved to be within "categories"? (which is how it was before I carried out the merger). Is "conspiracy theories" simply a type of denial on par with the other types that are listed under "categories"? EMsmile (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a sub-category. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too but I am unsure how to set it up in the current structure: if "conspiracy theories" became a Level-1 heading (instead of a main heading) then it would be a lot bigger than the other sub-sections. So maybe some of the content that is currently under "conspiracy theories" would have to be moved to other sub-sections to create a better balance. Either way, we will have to condense this article as it's too big now (79 kB (12282 words) "readable prose size"). EMsmile (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've condensed the section on conspiracy theories now. EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I previously reverted the use of "unwarranted" in the opening sentence, due to the fact that it seems unnecessary with the use of "pseudoscientific" as a descriptor immediately before. To avoid edit warring and per WP:BRD, I have reverted my restoration of this preferred revision, and am instead opening up discussion here to see what other editors think. Do you believe "unwarranted" belongs in the lead, or would you say it is unnecessary? I think I have stated quite clearly that I fall in the latter category, but what does everyone else think? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Hob Gadling: and @DVdm: per discussion at User talk:Hob Gadling. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I.m.o. the qualifier belongs in the lead, as it is backed by the content in the article body. I agree with Hob Gadlin's reasoning as expressed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Doubt is paramount to science. As CC denial flatly contradicts the scientific consensus, the doubt is inherently unwarranted. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely correct. My issue is this, though -- it seems like a somewhat unnecessary adjective, given the description of the dismissal and doubt as pseudoscientific immediately before. I'm not arguing against your point: the doubt is very much inherently unwarranted. For me this isn't a question of validity, it's a question of sufficiency -- does unwarranted really belong, when the description of it as pseudoscientific could probably get the job done on its own? JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and think that "unwarranted" can go; also in the interest of readability, for non-native speakers. EMsmile (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This was resolved already, it was stable for three weeks, and now this [1].

Can somebody please explain how warranted doubt constitutes denial? When the data were still viewed as inconclusive, maybe in the 1960s, was that already denial, or was it normal science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the purposes of the first sentence of the lead, it is better to use a simple sentence. Whether doubts are warranted or not could be discussed later in the article. (in fact it already is). Also the first sentence actually says "doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change" which means it is per se unwarranted. This is not the doubt & discussions within the scientific community about some nuances of the processes, e.g. how much methane the thawing permafrost will release and so forth.

Also as is explained later in the article, the deniers purposefully use the word "doubt" and have spread doubt on purpose to sow confusion. So perhaps the term "doubt" is rather loaded. Thinking about it further, perhaps it's not even the ideal word to use in the first sentence at all.

Let's compare with the first sentence in the corresponding German Wikipedia article (translated here with Deepl): Climate change denial (sometimes also referred to as climate denial, climate science denial or denial of man-made global warming) is a form of science denial characterised by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing or fighting the scientific consensus of climate research on current global warming. (the term "doubt" does not appear). EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed the first sentence accordingly. This removes the need for further discussions on "doubts (warranted/unwarranted)". I've also taken out the emphasis on pseudoscience as I don't think this is key. Rather, I have linked to science denial which I think is better. Pseudoscience is still mentioned later but does not need to be in the first sentence. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which means it is per se unwarranted Now I get it. Thanks. Also, I agree that the new version is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the need version is better, but the third sentence has "Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is ...", which could be clearer as "unwarrented doubts". Taking on board readability for non-native speakers, I'll try "includes unreasonable doubts". . diff . . dave souza, talk 07:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this recent edit as I think the current version of the caption is not as clear to a global audience as my version was. My proposal was brought a snowball to the U.S. Senate floor in 2015 in the middle of winter to "provide a real life example that the globe is not warming". User:RCraig09 changed it to (how it was previously): displayed a snowball on the U.S. Senate floor, explaining, "so it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable". It was February in Washington, D.C.. My thinking:

• "Brought" is a simpler word than "displayed" but OK, could live with "displayed".
• That statement about "very cold" is very unclear for anyone who is not into U.S. politics. What was he trying to say? What is the sentence "it was February" meant to say? This is not winter everywhere in the world but middle of summer in the Southern hemisphere.
• Note that the same image is also used for the lead of Psychology of climate change denial. There my proposed caption was brought a snowball to the U.S. Senate floor in 2015 in the middle of winter to "provide a real life example that the globe is not warming". He seemed to imply with this action that the continued existence of snow in the United States could be used to disprove that climate change is real.
• By the way, I don't think it's good practice that both articles use the same lead image. EMsmile (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Directly quoting the denier is more effective than an oblique reference. Separately, mentioning both February and Washington, D.C. makes it crystal clear that it was winter. We disagree about how intelligent our audience is. Separately, "He seemed to imply..." is blatant editorial commentary. Separately, an image may well be appropriate for use in multiple articles; I'd be interested to see established Wikipedia policies or guidelines that say it's not "good practice", or just another subjective editorial opinion. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expected you to disagree with me (as you were the one who chose the image and caption in the first place if I remember right). That statement "so it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable" is very unclear. I guess it was sarcastic but this doesn't come out clearly. Remember we are writing for the general public. I only figured out what he meant AFTER reading that CNN article. I don't think we should repeat this statement in the caption for the climate change denial and also for Psychology of climate change denial.

Why do you insist on saying "it was February", why not simply "it was in winter"? Not all readers would know either if snow in winter is typical for that location in the U.S. or not.

Come to think of it, I think it's basically not a suitable photo for either article. Let's brainstorm and come up with a better one.

Regarding the lead image in general, it is meant to tell the reader that they have arrived at the right place. For that reason, in most cases, the lead image is unique to the article title. Show me any featured article where two featured articles use the same lead image? I would argue this is not good practice.

How is this image suitable for Psychology of climate change denial, in which sense does it convey any of the psychology aspects? If it does then why isn't it explained in the caption?

I am curious to also hear from others about this image and caption. EMsmile (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't know that this is the best image to have in this article, but the point of this anecdote is that Inhofe (a fairly commonly quoted denier in a very public space) has no idea what he's talking about. He was somehow trying to show that because there was snow, there is no global warming. He was not being sarcastic, he was (by all accounts and by impressions based on what he's said elsewhere) totally sincere; he's just an idiot. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this doesn't come out clearly in the caption for someone who is not familiar with US politics. They think here is a senator and here is the U.S. senate so this must be serious/true/sincere. I thought my proposed caption was better but it was reverted as being too editorial: brought a snowball to the U.S. Senate floor in 2015 in the middle of winter to "provide a real life example that the globe is not warming". He seemed to imply with this action that the continued existence of snow in the United States could be used to disprove that climate change is real.. How can we explain to readers who know little about the topic why he brought the snowball and what he was trying to say and how idiotic that was (without being "editorial"?) EMsmile (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could totally just remove the image: it's a funny and sad anecdote about a prominent denier, but as you say, it rather falls flat for people who don't know who Inhofe is or who don't follow US politics. Having this picture at the top of this article says "here's an example of stupid stuff deniers do", but I don't know that we really need that. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you are having fun with this, at least he didn't make the following ludicrous claim in 2000 According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. "Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. That is the level of stupidity we are dealing with. Greglocock (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since "denial" is an abstraction, it is difficult to find an image of something physical that would represent "denial". But a picture that says "here's an example of stupid stuff deniers do" is exactly what this article needs. The Inhofe picture is the perfect vision of the righteous-but-ignorant denier. Within a few hours, I'll add to the caption a reliable source's response to Inhofe's stunt that should further explain the obvious. (I reverted the earlier caption because it was a Wikipedia editor's explanation, and not a reliable source's explanation.) —RCraig09 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new image caption is better than before although I do worry that it got rather long now. If we need this many words to explain what the image is showing then this might mean it's not the right image to use. I'd like to brainstorm to find a better one. But in the meantime, I would like to propose to make the caption clearer still. This is because the quote "very unseasonable" is just so confusing. He was meant to be ironic, right? How about like this (in bold the main differences): American Senator Jim Inhofe, a well-known climate change denier, displayed a snowball on the U.S. Senate floor in winter 2015, in a town where snow in winter is normal, saying "it’s very, very cold out"[1] as if to mock predictions of global warming. He also ignored the fact that local weather in a single location is different from global climate change.[2] (with the two refs still to be put back in).

Mentioning that the year 2015 was warmer than previous years is not necessary; because even if that year wasn't a new temperature record, the whole snowball stunt would have still been equally silly.

I think my wording is not "editorial" but it explains what happens to the readers, and is no different to what the CNN article said or implied. EMsmile (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inhofe did not mean it ironically; he was serious in his belief that cold weather refuted global warming. We did not "need" the caption to be longer in the first place, so a longer caption in no way implies that it's the "~wrong image"! Your also-lengthy proposal arguably violates WP:SYNTH by adding wiki-editorial commentary—unnecessarily—to what the present caption makes painfully clear to the reader using reliable sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unable to put yourself into someone else's shoes: What you find "painfully clear" is not clear to me, and possibly others. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt? Also, I am not the only one to suggest that the snowball image is sub-optimal (e.g. scroll up to see the comment by User:Parejkoj). The wording of "very unseasonable" is not clear. And how can you be sure that he was not being ironic/sarcastic? When I read the CNN article I see there "He then resumed his speech with a smile on his face that indicated he was quite pleased with his demonstration." (I don't doubt that he is serious about climate change denial). Anyhow, the information from the CNN article is too short to really know what was going on.

The CNN article also said "as a real life example that the globe is not warming." I think this sentence would be worth quoting and this is what I meant with "as if to mock predictions of global warming" - which I don't think is editorial but saying the same thing as the CNN article but with other words. But if in doubt, then why not quote that sentence word for word? Could be like this: ...displayed a snowball on the U.S. Senate floor in winter 2015, in a town where snow in winter is normal, saying "it’s very, very cold out"[1] which was probably meant to be "a real life example that the globe is not warming." EMsmile (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this image was not the lead image until 10 December which is when I moved it there, something which I now regret. At that time, the caption was this which in my opinion was very unclear: Republican U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe holds a snowball on the U.S. Senate floor to show that "it's very, very cold out. Very unseasonable." It was February 26.. The new caption is indeed better. The exact same image is also at Psychology of climate change denial so the caption there also needs to be improved in the end. (have changed that now) EMsmile (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inhofe is a non-scientist. His audience was non-scientists. His message was sarcastic, no ironic, and—putting ourselves in the shoes of a those non-scientists—needed no further explanation.

The image here actually needed no further explanation, especially a wiki-editorial explanation.

The sentence re 2015 being the warmest year globally, puts Inhofe's stunt in perspective: the lead image's caption could show Inhofe was dead wrong. The image is perfect for showing the righteous ignorance of deniers. 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, the Imhofe image also appears in the German Wikipedia article about this topic (but not in the lead). There, the caption is quite simple and rather good, I would say (except it misses out the explanation on who Imhofe is): Jim Inhofe in 2015 during a Senate speech where he used a snowball to argue against the existence of global warming. (translated with Deepl). EMsmile (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data has been cherry picked from short periods to falsely assert that global temperatures are not rising. Blue trendlines show short periods that mask longer-term warming trends (red trendlines). Blue dots show the so-called global warming hiatus.

A cartoon to describe the different stages and behaviours of climate change denial from "what is climate change?" to "nothing is proven!" to "even if it exists...it's a huge opportunity for business!".

For comparison: the main climate change article uses this image for the section on denial: EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison as well: this is the image I have now added to psychology of climate change denial - I think it fits really well there: EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cherry-picking image shows one tiny aspect of denial, less suitable for denial as a whole, and is technical in nature.

The cartoon shows broader, non-techy reasoning. However, it has WP:PRIMARY sourcing issues because the sourcing is essentially a caricaturist (Mester)'s representation and not a climate analyst's reliable description of denial. It leaves open the question of how the caption could source the cartoon's content, without resorting to wiki-editorializing.

The Inhofe image is iconic, and should be retained somewhere in this article if not in the lead.

Wherever used, the cartoon's caption should not merely regurgitate the image's content verbatim. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the cartoon's caption at psychology of climate change denial now and also above. Compare also with the caption that is used for this cartoon at the German Wikipedia article: "Cartoon by Gerhard Mester on the different stages of climate change denial" (translated by Deepl) EMsmile (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing over to long ref style because it's just easier for when text is transcribed with excerpts. Also, it's easier to see if one publication is used multiple times. In the process, I have also removed those long quotes from the references. They could be put back in but I would argue that they are not needed and that they make the ref list unnecessarily long and unwieldy. If people want to read up on the details they can just go to the publication in question (unless it's behind a paywall, I guess). EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to continue along these lines but I should probably wait a few days in case someone objects that I am taking out the quotes from the ref list? In my opinion, those quotes are not needed and don't help the reader much. I don't think they are "standard practice" (anymore (?)). The only argument for keeping them that I can think of is when the source is behind a paywall. But even then, just those few quoted sentences don't help the reader so much either as they cannot verify the context unless they have access to what is behind the paywall. Overall, I think it makes the reference list more manageable without those long quotes. Pinging User:dave souza because I think you might have been an editor who added those quotes in the first place (?). EMsmile (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems like there are no objections to this, so I'll continue along the same lines. EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed this process now. It's all in long ref style now and without those quotes. EMsmile (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the context of discussions has changed and that looks reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 08:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really happy with this sentence that was added earlier this month. What is meant with "false flags" and does it really work for us to have one statement with six references? Should it be broken up into more specific statements rather than all lumped together? I mean this sentence:

False flags and controlling the weather: Extreme weather events, including wildfires and floods, have been attributed by conspiracy theorists to laser beams, deliberate actions by government or the antifa movement, and weather engineering such as cloud seeding.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with false flags, which is about actions by humans blamed on other humans. Laser beams and so on is about naturally caused events (on which humans in general have an influence via climate change) blamed on specific humans. The title sounds like WP:OR. The first source connects the claims to politically motivated activists seeking to downplay the potential impact of climate change, so it is not WP:SYNTH to add it here. (I cannot access the second, and the third makes it difficult for me, so I stopped checking.) That does not mean it is relevant enough to include. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've deleted that section now because it's unclear and messy; would take too long to tidy up; likely repetitive with what's there already. EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add a bit of content about climate change denial scientists based on the memoirs of Kevin Trenberth. Link to his memoirs here (well worth a read): http://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7sf3160, see e.g. page 95. This is what Kevin wrote to me by e-mail: "I have a section in my memoir on deniers of climate change: see attached. These are the main ones I encountered although there is much more in memoir about problems when the Denver Post wrote an editorial about me and I was subject of numerous talk-back shows. - The current section on deniers seems much too long. The web site https://skepticalscience.com/ should probably be featured more prominently."

Regarding that website, we currently only have it under "See also" (Skeptical Science). I am trying to think of ways to give the website skepticalscience.com more limelight. What I’d need is a publication about it that talks about its impacts, I guess. I wonder if the title of the website is a bit problematic now: when I see “skeptical”, I equate that with “climate change denier”. But his website is to fight back against climate change denial. Wondering if they've ever thought about changing their name. EMsmile (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the denialists that should change their moniker from "skeptics" to "denialists". Scientific skeptics have complained about science deniers stealing their word, quite a while ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, probably too late though. I think the climate change deniers have done a thorough job of hijacking that term for themselves. We'll probably have to accept that and find a different term to what used to be called "scientific skeptics". Maybe "investigators of science" or "curious scientists" or whatever. EMsmile (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Won't fly. It's the accepted name since the 1980s. There have been falied attempts to rename them ("Pseudoskeptics" from opponents, "Brights" from proponents). But this is too far away from improving the article, so, let's stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. :-)

If we want to add some statements about the skepticalscience website and work, we could perhaps use these publications (John Cook is a key author and was founder of skepticalscience long ago).

• Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., Albarracín, D., Amazeen, M. A., Kendeou, P., Lombardi, D., Newman, E. J., Pennycook, G., Porter, E. Rand, D. G., Rapp, D. N., Reifler, J., Roozenbeek, J., Schmid, P., Seifert, C. M., Sinatra, G. M., Swire-Thompson, B., van der Linden, S., Vraga, E. K., Wood, T. J., Zaragoza, M. S. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://sks.to/db2020. DOI:10.17910/b7.1182
• Cook, J. (2020). Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. New York, NY: Citadel Press. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that content now from Kevin's memoirs where he listed names of well-known climate change scientists who can be labelled as deniers. I think this is useful information. (their climate change denial views are mostly visible in their Wikipedia articles if people click through to that) EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this article is already too long, and I plan to look for ways of condensing and culling in the next week or so. But in the meantime, I've looked at psychology of climate change denial more closely, trying to strip that one back to the pure psychology content. There are two sections where I feel we have a lot of overlap to here and that maybe some of that should be moved to here: the content in this section (conspiracies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_climate_change_denial#Conspiratorial_beliefs and this one (which is about terminology and "soft climate change denial" (used to be a separate article but was merged)): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_climate_change_denial#Soft_climate_change_denial . Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've brought across some content from the psychology of climate change denial and reworked that one a bit. I think that's probably all that I'd bring over from that article for now. EMsmile (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at 72 kB readable prose length. I think we should aim to bring it down to less than 60 kB, maybe aim for 55 kB. Which areas do you think should be condensed? I think the section on conspiracy theories is currently too big and probably a bit repetitive. The section on history is also rather long and detailed but only deals with the situation in the US, really. Some US specific content could be cut or condensed to make space for including more content from other parts of the world (although I don't have publications for that at my fingertips). - Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Too scattered and newsy, with the usual load of references to conspiracies. Lots of duplications with other articles. It is the typical stage of a collage with some structure which needs to evolve towards a good quality encyclopedic entry with improved structure and focus and better balance. Cutting duplications and news may be a starting strategy. Tytire (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've condensed the section on conspiracy theories now. Next, I (or someone else) could tackle the history section and remove some of that outdated news-y type content where I regard it as too US-specific and too outdated by now. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.yahoo.com/column-climate-scientist-just-won-110027843.html

The case found you can have opinions and express them, but you can't attack people with known lies and misinformation represented as facts. First Alex Jones, now this.

I post this here in hopes it might be worked into this article. For example a subsection in "Responses to denialism" called "Legal consequences of denialism". -- GreenC 14:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Implemented in this edit. Other editors can move it to another section if desired. Thank you for your suggestion. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nature and Science are better sources for this, have clarified that "fraudulent" was contrary to numerous investigations that had already cleared Mann of any misconduct and supported the validity of his research.. .. 11:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. But it looks like the two bullets above that needs some cleanups; they're very credulous to the denier claims. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Parejkoj. Unfortunately, it would be a huge effort for Wikipedia editors to research and explain why each and every denialist claim is wrong. Fortunately, the article's lead is clear that denial is contrary to reality, and as a practical matter, we can hope readers see the false claims in context. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the Seitz claim is shown at IPCC Second Assessment Report#Chapter 8: Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, and we don't need a long quote from a denier linked to a paywalled source. . .dave souza, talk 11:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Have linked conspiracy theories to clarify earlier sections. . .dave souza, talk 12:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]