Talk:Global warming skeptics (detail)

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion of title and references

Bjorn Lomborg - Mis-described as a sceptic. I think it should be noted that at no point has Bjorn Lomborg said that global warming hasn't existed, he merely pointed to the lower end of the IPCC warming projections. To suggest therefore that he's sceptical on the subject is incorrect.

--Rleather 17:16, 02 April 2012 (GMT+1)

Neoconned, why the rollback??
--Maynard 22:30, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

Hi Maynard,

"Antiponent" is not an english word... you can easily check this in,,, etc....

I also think that the commentary you have added to the article, as second level bullet items, constitutes editorialising, and is therefore inappropriate for a SourceWatch article.

--Neoconned 22:33, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

Please see my earlier response to Diane at the bottom of my Talk page. There is no antonym for proponent. The renaming of "global warming" to "climate change" is wrong. It is a mis-behavior the likes of which SourceWatch is established to expose, not to support and endorse.
--Maynard 22:48, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

Isn't "opponent" an antonym for "proponent"? As for "global warming" vs. "climate change," I think there has been some discussion of this on Wikipedia. I haven't followed all the ins and outs of it, but I get the impression that "climate change" refers to "changes in the Earth's global climate or regional climates," which may include global warming but are not limited to global warming. (In past historical epochs, for example, there were periods of global cooling.) "Global warming," on the other hand, refers specifically to a subset of climate change -- and usually to the warming trend that has been occurring recently and that is attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. I see Maynard's point that "climate change" can be used as a vague euphemism for "global warming," but is that the only usage of the term? --Sheldon Rampton 23:03, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

As a general point of principle, I don't think we can use made-up words in SourceWatch ! I'm not too bothered about "climate change" vs "global warming", but I am bothered about the running commentary that Maynard has added to the article. The language added to the article is inappropriate for SW (phrases such as "which is ridiculous...", "Oh, so it's really about...", etc, etc). --Neoconned 23:20, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

Wow. How could I, or, have missed "opponent"?? Thanks, Sheldon. Neoconned, I'm in strong agreement with your views on the running commentary. They were inserted as a reaction to utterly ridiculous assertions posed in the article; and I very much wanted to make that point clearly; as well as raise the awareness that the article is based upon opposition to an unreferenced "consensus view of IPCC assessments". As soon as I read that statement in the first sentence, noting that it wasn't linked to any foundational reference, I nearly deleted the article all together as being nothing more than a baseless rant.

Those spinmeisters who rewrite language and fact in order to promote their ideololgy above truth, and then promulgate it via the echo chamber, almost always get caught up in looking patently ridiculous; and this is an excellent example. When they write, and advertise, that "there is no conclusive evidence that climate change is happening" what they really mean is that human intervention in any possible current global warming is not desirable for their special interests. The basic undisputable facts are that there is always global change happening, and that there is plenty of evidence of that fact. There's also plenty of solid evidence for current global warming as a subset of climate change, and good evidence, conclusive evidence for most scientists and researchers who don't have any special conflicts of interest, that there is a significant component of human industrial contribution to the current global warming; but that is also a consideration separate from the patently ridiculous assertion that "there is no conclusive evidence that climate change is happening".

Whoever is writing this article is misquoting the talking points, and totally not understanding the science or the global environment, clearly evidenced by using "THE natural cycle", again unreferenced.

I suggest that if anybody wants to keep this article in the Disinfopedia, that it be restarted, not just moved, to Global Warming Theory Challenges, which I'll be happy to do, and remove my remarks to the Talk section, if there is no opposition to this plan.

Thank you. Maynard 07:24, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)

I don't have strong feelings about what the best name is for this article on its own, but when possible, I think it's a good idea to try to give a SourceWatch article the same name as a corresponding article on Wikipedia. This makes it a little easier to crosslink and crosspollinate between the two articles. At present, Wikipedia doesn't have an article titled "climate change skeptics," but it does have "global warming skepticism," which redirects to global warming controversy. I would suggest therefore using "global warming controversy" as the title for this article. --Sheldon Rampton 10:00, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)
Hi Maynard, I agree with you about the lack of references in the original article. I'll leave you to get on with rewriting it, but in the meantime I hope you don't mind me moving your commentary to the talk page. I think it's important that overt editorialising and commentary doesn't remain in the article until it's rewritten. Cheers, --Neoconned 11:09, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)

OK, Gents. If we rename/move the article to Global Warming Controversy, then my comments would be appropriate, in as much as a controversy includes a dialog or debate of different perspectives. Alternatively, we could move/rename it to Global Warming Skepticism, in which case my remarks would be inappropriate within the article body. Whichever you prefer is fine with me; please proceed.

I have no intention of rewriting the article to clarify a position with which I do not agree. I think however that until my concerns are addressed, then perhaps the entire article should be moved to talk; specifically :

  • details about or linkage to whatever is "the consensus view of the IPCC assessments on climate change" needs to be available to readers;
    • the identify of the IPCC needs to be available to readers;
    • their assessments need to be available to readers;
    • "the consensus view" should be defined or demonstrated;
  • the IPCC acknowledgement of the phrase "climate change" needs to be demonstrated;
  • "advocates of action on climate change" should be identified;
  • "the natural cycle" should be identified.

Without these fundamental definitions and underpinnings explained to, or available to, the reader, the article is nothing more than a rant without context, and eligible for editorial rejection on that basis.

--Maynard 12:01, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)

I selected the controversy format, since that is the only option which would leave any content in the article body. --Maynard 07:32, 21 Dec 2005 (EST)

On re-reading this page, the article just didn't work. A couple of reasons: a) it didn't accurately reflect the range of the sceptics arguments; b) I don't think the interleaving of dismissive or sarcastic comments works or is appropriate. Better to have a summary par dealing subsequently with their arguments;

This page needs more work and I agree with some of Maynards comments above. I'll return later when I've had a chance to think what's going to work better. --Bob Burton 01:41, 1 Jun 2006 (EDT)

In fact, nobody is really skeptical about the fact of climate change. This term is really a Restating of "Global Warming" as "Climate Change", conceived and promulgated by special ideological interests as an anti-advocacy or anti-proponency of global warming as specifically induced by human activities.

Those who are engaged in denying global warming or climate change are really arguing against doing anything about it, not against the event taking place. Their postitionn is that man should not interfere at this point, because the currently changing climate and global warming are not caused by human interference, as if the cause had some bearing on whether or not action is appropriate.

Those in favor of taking action sometimes site the precautionary principle as an exercise of sound decision making.

    • (which is ridiculous because climate change is always happening; furthermore hard evidence of current global warming is abundant and conclusive.)
    • (there certainly is no single "THE natural cycle" in such an intricate inter-connected evolving system)
    • (Oh, so it's really about global warming rather than "climate change" after all)
    • (and continued deification of the capitalist market exploitation ideology)

Edit Note

I reverted the edits of LeftistSD:

  • the addition Christoper Landsea on the basis that he is a "very prominent hurricane researcher who does believe global warming contributes to catastrophic weather"; I haven't researched the views of Landsea but on that description he doesn't fit into what we have outlined at the top of the page are the characteristics of the sceptics; Unless there is something I am missing, an article on Landsea would be better linked to off the "Other SourceWatch Resources" section of the Global warming page.
  • there is no need to add "not a climate scientist" about Gelbspan as the text already clearly identifies him as an author and journalist. --Bob Burton 22:07, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

moving opinion, unreferenced assertions here

In other words, "when you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth. It is a planet where global warming isn't happening -- or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt." [1]
Scientific skeptics agree that sweeping rejection should only follow honest investigation.

more unreferenced text

Moving unreferenced text contributed by Emerald here. Information may be moved back to the main article page, after references are added. Thanks.

An example of skeptics winning on future rainfall calculations

In 1995, at the height of the so-called Yorkshire Drought, as standpipes were being installed in city streets, the local environmental grouping, Ilkley friends of the Earth, published an advertisement in the Yorkshire Post saying that the 'drought' was not a drought at all, far less a consequence of 'global warming' but merely reflected bad management practises at the newly privaties water comapny.

The group, co-ordinated by the controversial philosopher, Martin Cohen, pointed out that in fact there was substantial rainfall in Yorkshire, but the company had avested inadequately in resvoirs and pipelines. The environmental group, Friends of the Earth, in London, however wanted to use the affair to illustrate the exceptional changes Global Warming supposedly hearalded, and so instructed all campaigners - even as the rain continued to pour in Yorkshire! - to use the water shortage as evidence of global warming. This was a decision taken contrary to the evidence and reflected a political rather than a scientific calculation. The Ilkley local group (which Martin Cohen co-ordianted) was one told to cease campaigning against Yorkshire Water for poor management practises - or to disaffiliate. Ilkley chose to publicise the scientific evidence and disaffiliated. Who was right? The rain has scarcely ceased to fall in Yorkshire. In due course, the head of Yorkshire Water resigned after these was shown to be responsible for the water shortages.

Critics of those who are skeptical of the "skeptics"

I note with amusement this article. Lets appeal to some common sense here just for a moment. Doesn't it follow that a person that doesn't toe the global warming party line would be pursued by companies that could benefit? For example, Richard Lindzen, I mean, the man's credentials are impeccable, but oh noes! Someone said he took money from an oil company! Now his degrees, his papers, and the fact that he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a contributor to the IPCC Climate Change paper (in 1995) is just fodder for the gristmill.

This is a smear campaign. I think we are clearly forgetting the government money (to the tune of four *billion* dollars) that is being pumped into climate research each year, an area that certainly has a vested interest in keeping the money flowing. Why isn't anyone here listing sources of organizations that are raking in millions of dollars a year in government and foundation grants to keep the global warming polemic churning?

Clearly this isn't "source watch" but "corp watch". This is sad, because money is money, folks. Doesn't matter whether it comes from big oil, or little solar, if someone is getting their money from *only* one source, as many of the global warming shrillists do, then THAT should be a cause for sourcewatching and not someone that has gotten a *bit* of money from some oil interest somewhere.

I'd like to see the comments on this. Why aren't we listing the sources of money for scientists that are toeing the global warming party line? ClimateMan 11:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Agreed. This page is not objective at all, particularly in light of the scientific fraud exposed by the climategate leak. May I politely suggest scrapping the entire thing and starting over from the beginning? -- Sue B 04:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because if you start on this page, you might end up having to scrap the whole site! Emerald 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this site is intended to help inform people with information that is fair, accurate and documented, not whitewashed a la Fox News' so-called "objectivity" or purported "fair and balanced" rhetoric. If you doubt the ice caps are melting, Emerald, perhaps you should consider checking with an optometrist rather than carping about websites you don't like. Lisa

Edit note

I have relocated an unreferenced addition below from the article page which was originally posted by User:Educator4242.--Bob Burton 21:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

The "50-1 odds" quote is incorrect. This quote was twisted by the reporting media. The truth is that when asked whether it would be cooler 20 years from now, Lindzen stated "it's 50/50". Somehow that was twisted into "he would only accept the bet if he had 50:1 odds.

Seems to have 'died; this page - maybe because it was so ill-informed and prejudiced - against the skeptics? Anyway, no harm to correct at least the opening bit now. Gross misrepresentation fo the what is a 'skeptic' plus plain factual error on who writes the IPCC reports. IN fact, every line is edited by a ctte of government representives and special interest groups. The lead authors can write what they like (and do) once they have been chosen - by the represntatives of the funding governments.Emerald 22:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics or contrarians ?

Hi, most of us seem to be breaking down those preventing action into "skeptics" or "deniers" but isn't there a third position that also encompasses the other two? I speak of "contrarians". At present the debate in the mass media is largely (when it appears at all) suggestive of a scientific dispute as to the verity of the science (which I hope we all agree is a fake argument), but it has to move on to a more value (dare I say , moral) based debate and it would be useful IMHO to point out that not all the advocates for the oil companys are relying on denying or being skeptical of the science. Lomborg's recent appearance on British television was indicative of this. I'm not versed enough in the recent history of the AGW debate to make such edits myself without the support of others but I'd like to ask whether this distinction has been considered?

I've been googling the term contrarian and come up with this link which might guide our thinking.

Incidentally Dr Jonathon Porritt, the eminent British environmentalist has been using the term contrarian for some time, and Bickmore does too. User:Hengistmcstone

30th July 2010 I've removed Roger Pielke Jr because he clearly says "Climate change is real and worthy of our attention."

I suggest a different page is added called Climate Change Contrarians Pielke would be clearly on that list . Just to be clear ALL climate change deniers and skeptics are contrarians but NOT ALL climate change contrarians are skeptics or deniers.



I restored Pielke's name to this page because he has been widely described as a skeptic and has opposed several efforts of others to respond to climate changes underway. Another list "contrarians" could be created but there is not one yet fleshed out. It's true that not all skeptics but this page is to highlight skeptics and critics of climate change and responses. Lisa