Talk:Global warming skepticism

Archive 1: 2003-2004

Dispute on neutrality of article

I would have thought that along with adding a "neutrality dispute" tag on an article, reasons should be given.

Also, an article whose topic is to present the grounds on which skepticism about global warming has built or builds in the populace cannot, by its nature, be neutral towards global warming. It has to be neutral towards what is legitimate skepticism and what is not. - --Childhood's End 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute : "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."
--Childhood's End 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I had tried to make it clear on the talk page of the Talk:Global warming controversy. My concern is that the inclusion of only material which is skeptical of global warming is inherently biased. If we were to include information which counters the skepticism, it would duplicate the content of Global warming controversy. While your article does indeed show a great deal of work, I think it would be better presented in context of the global warming controversy article; here is is presented without comment.

Additionally, sentences such as "On scientific grounds, the existence of a scientific consensus on climate change is subject to some debate" tend (I think) to give undue weight to an extremely small minority. --TeaDrinker 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well of course the article can be improved and this wording could be adjusted if deemed biaised. But as for the whole article... I think an article can be neutral when it discusses about skepticism on a specific issue without being biaised against this issue, as long as the topic stays focused on skepticism itself and its sources. Global warming and related public policies have become such a debate for everyone all around the Earth, scientists and non-scientists alike, that the debate must extend to spheres outside science, and especially to philosophy imo. - --Childhood's End 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, anyone is free to add, as an example, a critic to the effect that the epistemological source of skepticism is unjustified. This would fit perfectly within the scope of this article I think. --Childhood's End 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Disaster area

This page is a disaster area. I've reverted it to a redirect.

It starts badly, fiddling around with definitions to no great purpose. Anything in there is any value is better covered by other pages. This page just appears to be childhoodsends own pet POV fork William M. Connolley 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion to Separate Articles

Per the discussion in the merge discussion, I will work on the article and get it up to standard, since skepticism and denialism are not the same. Please feel free to jump in and help. GregJackP Boomer! 03:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)