Talk:Global warming skepticism

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 article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Global warming controversy.

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

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.

Ref name="Peter Woods">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)</ref>

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
Template:Cite article
Richard S. Lindzen (Spring 1992). "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus". Regulation. v.15, No. 2. Retrieved 13 August 2010. It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates.

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

Linked to Global warming controversy

Global warming controversy is the appropriate redirect. It is inappropriate to equate skeptics to "deniers", a pejorative political term. It's well established that the historic origin of "climate change denial" is by explicit analogy to Holocaust denial. See (forex) Climate_change_denial#Meanings_of_the_term --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial very explicitly discusses "climate change skepticism", right within the lead. Why would that not be the appropriate target, since it is where this term is expressly discussed? — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, but goes on to explain that they're not the same. And to call someone a climate change denier is definitely pejorative: see the para there on the history of the term, with Ellen Goodman making the explicit analogy to Holocaust denial. So that's really not an acceptable redirect. Global warming controversy is a less fraught choice, and is also a better and more neutral article (imo).

We used to have a Global warming skepticism page (ims), but it was merged into the controversy page some years back (assuming my recollection is accurate).

Hope you find this a helpful (and persuasive) argument. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute: because a journalist draws an analogy between this and a different form of denialism, you want us to ignore published scholarly sources? Looks like concern trolling. . . dave souza, talk 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I never said anything about calling anyone a climate change denier. The fact that climate change denial discusses "climate change skepticism" in detail, and goes on to explain they aren't the same, is precisely why we should be linking there instead of an unrelated page that never mentions climate change skepticism at all. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Climate change denial#Terminology, and note in particular that Spencer R. Weart and the National Center for Science Education have adopted this as the most explanatory term, with no derogatory intent. . . dave souza, talk 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on this redirect, and others

I posted an RfC on this redirect at: Talk:Climate change denial#Redirects to this page. Please feel free to provide your input. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]