Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change denial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Changes to lead
I have again edited the lead by removing part of the first sentence. It is unencyclopedic to have two bites of the same cherry in the very same paragraph. The opening sentence ended with "when those involved are believed to be acting out of vested interests rather than an unbiased evaluation". That is virtually repeated in the next sentence which says (paraphrasing) "climate change denial ....promoted .... by groups ....misrepresenting scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby." The bit that I removed was also inaccurate, because it said all deniers have a vested interest. That can not be substantiated. It is blatant POV. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it can be substantiated, that the topic that this article (and the sources) are about the particular segment of deniers who are acting out of vested interests. Since that is what the references are about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- You make my point for me. I specified "it said all deniers have a vested interest.". You say "particular segment of deniers". Thanks. It is true that many deniers are influenced by propaganda from vested interests, but not all of them are and it is dishonest of Wikipedia to suggest so. Those who are not yet convinced, including many scientists, are being insulted by Wikipedia which posits that climate change deniers are motivated by vested interests rather than unbiased evaluation. In fact, scientists who genuinely formed opinions without influence from vested interests might even consider the slur to be actionable. The lead desperately needs a rewrite. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- And you've apparently misunderstood the focus of the article. It is about the subset of deniers (note: deniers not sceptics) that fit the description. Please read the references. This distinction must be made - otherwise we are going far beyond what our reliable sources are saying. And your argument about scientists is rather moot - since we do specifically exclude these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- As a sidenote here: You are entering original research area with your comments - or are influenced by your personal assessment. Neither is acceptable in a wikipedia context. We go by what the parity of reliable sources say about the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Depends on if there is considered to be a difference between "skeptic" and "denier". In this article at present there is, although WMC appears not to agree. Thus "all deniers have a vested interest" is valid because if there is no vested interest the "denier" is instead a good faith "skeptic". Jaimaster (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- The context of vested interest in the article is quite deliberately and obviously directed at nasties who fund misinformation. You draw a long bow indeed.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Depends on if there is considered to be a difference between "skeptic" and "denier". In this article at present there is, although WMC appears not to agree. Thus "all deniers have a vested interest" is valid because if there is no vested interest the "denier" is instead a good faith "skeptic". Jaimaster (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Long bow? I disagree. If person x, an otherwise intelligent person is given bad information by denialists and bases their opinion on said information, does that make person x a denialist? I dont think so. You are welcome to call them misinformed or question their intelligence, but denialists is simply inaccurate. It is statistically likely that there are products of the Iranian education system who are quite certain the holocaust is Jewish propaganda yet are otherwise more intelligent than anyone responding on this talk page. To deny is really to refuse to acknowlege something you otherwise know is a fact... I dont see how that is compatible with acting in good faith. Jaimaster (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Long bow? I disagree. If person x, an otherwise intelligent person is given bad information by denialists and bases their opinion on said information, does that make person x a denialist? I dont think so. You are welcome to call them misinformed or question their intelligence, but denialists is simply inaccurate. It is statistically likely that there are products of the Iranian education system who are quite certain the holocaust is Jewish propaganda yet are otherwise more intelligent than anyone responding on this talk page. To deny is really to refuse to acknowlege something you otherwise know is a fact... I dont see how that is compatible with acting in good faith. Jaimaster (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
if holocaust denial is anti-semetic???
then what is Climate Change Denial? anti-??????, i cant think of a word.Valliant1967 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- anti-deindustrialisation? Jaimaster (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- science? Verbal chat 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying Climate Change Denial is "science"? Or "anti-science"? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- science? Verbal chat 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Shilling for the energy industry. Raul654 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Greenpeace link = rofltastic Jaimaster (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)