Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Suggestion for new text

Stefan Rahmstorf (PIK) uses an interesting approach to classify denial: "We distinguish three main types. First, the “trend sceptics” who deny that there is any climate change. Second, the “attribution sceptics”, who accept that there is global warming but deny that humans cause it. Third, the “impact sceptics” who accept there is human-caused global warming but claim it is harmless." Taken from an interview with him on Allianz Knowledge: http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/global_warming_basics/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics.html The concept is described more in detail here: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.18 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Add this somewhere? Buzz Aldrin and Jack Schmitt article: "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." MOONWALKERS DEFY AL GORE'S CLAIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithsoni0201 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

gallop poll

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated” this could be somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithsoni0201 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has no place here, since it isn't related to the topic at hand. Public scepticism != CCD - please read the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone gets around to compiling a list of polls for global warming controversy, then that would be the place to put it. I unfortunately don't care enough to initiate it. Awickert (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This article could become neutral

To achieve this editorial changes are necessary. My suggestions are :

- The first paragraph should say on what area the term is used.

(for example: 'CCD is a term used by some publicists to decribe efforts(...)"

- Then the article needs a section on how/when/where the term originated and how it evolved.

-Finally, I see no “Criticism” section. Most Wikipedia articles on controversial topics has such a section.

(for example: the term uses stigmatizing parallel to holocaust denial or...

the term works as a thought terminating cliche http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/05/science-blog-awards-and-bad-logic/ or...

the term polarizes public opinion and is, by its nature, used inadequately for most of the time http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/11/appearance_on_pribbc_the_world.php or

The distinction between CCDenial and CCskepticism, created to justify existence of the first, excludes from a disscussion anyone who doubts "all or part" of the IPCC approved theory without being climatologist while it favors those believing entirely in man-madeCC but aren't scientists themselves.)78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

• Area - sure, what area is it used in?
• Etymology sounds decent.
• Adding some more info on criticism of the term sounds appropriate; news sources are better than blogs, FYI. However, criticsm sections are generally discouraged on Wiki articles: fears of thngs ballooning out of control.
• I get what you're saying in the last sentence but I have no idea where you're going with it other than to express your opinion. Just so you know, these talk pages can become very heated, so it's best to be as straightforward and mild-mannered as possible. But everything you wrote above sounds pretty good.

Awickert (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"'CCD is a term used by some publicists to decribe efforts" would be weasel wording, and should not be used. A history of CCD would be proper, and should include mentions of early CCD advocates. Criticism should follow WP:CRITS. A discussion on the term CCD, as compared to the synonyms, is definitly good.

Be sure to properly source everything that you change. Treedel (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's best to make a few small changes, then wait for a while to see how other editors react, before making further changes. Drastically rewriting an article all at once will often lead to disputes. --Teratornis (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

Please retain this notice for at least 2 weeks to allow interested parties time to see it. I feel that editors who are interested in Global Warming or Climate Change related articles may also be interested in participating in the following RfC: RfC: How should this page be disambiguated? --GoRight (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)