Talk:Global warming skepticism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:28, 13 August 2010

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.

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)[reply]

Can you add or ues this? Peter Wood writing in Academic Questions has said scepticism over AGW has become respectable since the Climategate controversy. ^[1]

Resources

Jay Richards (March 16, 2010). "When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'". Journal of American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 13 August 2010. (1) When different claims get bundled together, (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate, (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line, (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish, (5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent, (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented, (7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists, (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus, (9) When "scientists say" or "science says" is a common locution, (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies, (11) When the "consensus" is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible, (12) When we keep being told that there's a scientific consensus
Template:Cite article
Template:Cite article

Will continue to add resources. Minor4th 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Woods, Peter (10 February 2010). Academic Questions. 23. Springer Science+Business Media,: 1. doi:DOI: 10.1007/s12129-009-9150-6 http://www.springerlink.com/content/j641v84113pm62m5/. The release onto the web by a hacker or whistleblower of emails and 15,000 lines of computer code from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has changed the debate over global warming. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

[Peter_Woods-1] Woods, Peter (10 February 2010). Academic Questions. 23. Springer Science+Business Media,: 1. doi:DOI: 10.1007/s12129-009-9150-6 http://www.springerlink.com/content/j641v84113pm62m5/. The release onto the web by a hacker or whistleblower of emails and 15,000 lines of computer code from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has changed the debate over global warming. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

[1]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 #{{cite journal|title=When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’|url=http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus|author=Jay Richards|work=Journal of American Enterprise Institute|date=March 16, 2010|accessdate=13 August 2010|quote=''(1) When different claims get bundled together, (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate, (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line, (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish,  (5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent,  (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented,  (7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists,  (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus,  (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution,  (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies,  (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible,  (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus''}}
 #{{cite article|title=Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus|url=http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/03/23/inhofe-climategate-shows-theres-no-global-warming-consensus.html|work=U.S. News and World Report:Politics & Policy|author=James Inhofe|date=March 23, 2010|accessdate=13 August 2010|quote=''...there is no consensus—except agreement there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system.''}}
+#{{cite article|title=
+Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions|work=The Guardian|author=Juliette Jowit|date=June 22, 2008|accessdate=13 August 2010|quote=''The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.''}}
+Will continue to add resources.
+<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)