This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCanada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory,conspiracy theories, andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
The following Wikipediacontributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may includeconflict of interest,autobiography, andneutral point of view.
This article, like most politically tinged articles on Wikipedia, is biased, and needs to be fixed. Whoever you people are who tolerate this bias are doing the world a radical disservice.— Precedingunsigned comment added by47.150.170.65 (talk)16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing science with politics. Climate change denial is not just a political opinion, it is a pseudoscience motivated by a political opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk)04:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change "denial" is an attempt to impose guilt by association on climate skeptics by comparing them to Holocaust deniers. This is unacceptable in an NPOV article. I changed "Denial" to "Skepticism".75.25.160.162 (talk)04:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Larry Siegel[reply]
Agree. But weassume good faith here. They don't realise the consequences of their actions. (Or maybe we are wrong ourselves.)
But the best way to address this is to create an account and start contributing. Don't do that to express your ownPOV here, that's counterproductive. Instead learn our policies etc (which are not perfect but the best we have, and normally when they fail it's because they are not followed rather than because they are) and then improve Wikipedia. Drop me a line on my talk page if I can help.Andrewa (talk)18:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HiPeter Gulutzan. The section of Snopes that I thought was relevant comes at the end:"As Moore states, it is true that CO2 is a crucial building block of life that provides the raw material for plants to grow. This, in turn, provides animals with food and oxygen. However, such an observation, which you can find described in any middle-school science textbook, does not infringe upon the fundamental, physical truth that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet." Is that not relevant to the sentence in the article?Firefangledfeathers18:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your editadded a cite to Alex Kasprak at snopes.com at the end of this sentence: "He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." That passage which you're quoting is not saying that he made such a claim, and not attempting to refute it. So I don't agree that is relevant.Peter Gulutzan (talk)18:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change."The sentence should read: "He has claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." There is also improper use of the reference attached to that statement as "proof" of this wrongness. I don't know how to edit it, but perhaps someone else can.118.211.231.92 (talk)05:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no mention inDavid Icke's article that his claim the world is run by shape-shifting lizard people is false. This article is no different. When you say an obviously false claim is false, you ironically give it more credibility.TFD (talk)05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Icke is different because very few people would even consider his ideas to be true. For climate change, that is not the case: the disinformation campaign of people like Moore has been successful. The IP who started this thread obviously agrees with Moore's false claim and thinks that removing the "false" would be desireable because it would give his claims more credibility. Indeed, the word "false" makes it more clear that it is false. You say the opposite, so you actually do not "agree". --Hob Gadling (talk)06:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonably informed rational people do not doubt the reality of climate change. OTOH they don't appreciate being lectured to and told what to believe. While the polemical style is unlikely to make them doubt the reality of global warming, it will make them doubt the veracity of claims made about Moore, sensing that the authors have a clear bias against him.
The relevant policy isWikipedia:TONE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliablesecondary sources have published." I don't think that most reputable sources would use the current phrasing.TFD (talk)15:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the authors have a clear bias against him That is not something reasonably informed rational people would think. It is something disinformed people who already agree with Moore would think, or people who adhere to the dogma that one should never express a standpoint. Both are unlikely to learn anything, regardless of what we write, so their reaction does not matter much.Reasonably informed rational people think instead "yes, obviously that claim is false. I know that." They are aware that lots of information they get is redundant to their own knowledge, and that it is intended to inform less reasonably informed, less rational people. --Hob Gadling (talk)10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that most people don't know that climate change is supported by scientific evidence and think that every article that mentions it is a good place to lecture readers. Sounds pretty polemical to me. It sounds more like what an opposition PAC would write than a serious article.TFD (talk)11:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was an episode of Judge Judy where a litigant said "She's lying your honor!" And Judge Judy asked, "Can't you just say she's wrong?" A better tone doesn't change the meaning, it just makes it less emotional.TFD (talk)12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you think that most people don't know that climate change is supported by scientific evidence I have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic.
Do I really have to explain why the "lying" - "wrong" difference has no implications for the current case? It seems to me you are grasping at straws. --Hob Gadling (talk)12:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think most people know that climate change is supported by evidence then you are being condescending to them.
The example from Judge Judy shows that words that have the same meaning can have different connotations.
I notice that the tone of the articleElizabeth Holmes is neutral, although she made false claims about medical devices she was selling. And unlike this article, a reasonably informed reader would not know they were ineffective unless they were told about them. It still conveys her effectively even if it doesn't contain lots of hyperbole.TFD (talk)13:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think most people know that climate change is supported by evidence then you are being condescending to them. I already said that I never said I think that:I have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic. I made not even one statement about how popular those positions are. So, enough with thestrawman arguments already. But even if I had said that, the logic that followed your strawman is twice invalid: there is no reason why opinions about popularity of opinions are "condescending", and even if they were, opinions are (or should be) based on good reasoning and not on considerations about whether people will think them "condescending".
Since you crammed three easily-spotted mistakes into one sentence, any discussion with you is necessarily fruitless, and I do not need to read the rest of your incoherent rambling. --Hob Gadling (talk)14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "falsely" is biased language, and also omniscient language, and therefore not encyclopedic. If a real encyclopedia were reporting on the flat-earth society, for instance, it would merely report facts, that is, that this organization has this opinion, or holds this position, which is that the earth is flat. No encyclopedia would say,"the flat-earth societyfalsely claims that the earth is flat." This is not because the reader might mistakenly think that the earth is flat, or that using "falsely" would give it either more or less credibility, but rather that the role of an encyclopedia is to report on what is, and in that case, the what-is is, that the flat-earth society thinks that the earth is flat, and here are the arguments they present. Then there might be a cross-reference to an article which suggests a different point of view, or a comment that this goes against the mainstream scientific opinion, but to use the world "falsely" puts the writer in the position of the omniscient observer, as they say in high-school English class, which is not the language of an encyclopedia. The same is true of the sentence that starts with, "These views are contradicted by the scientific consensus..." The word "contradicted" is also a word that puts the author in the position of claiming omniscience, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.Contraverse (talk)17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not blindly throw text at random positions. It looked as is if TFD had responded to your contribution. I moved it to the correct place.
That wording was mentioned in an earlierthread but was not the main subject. It's worse than that. The cite is ofClimate Feedback. That group-blog post starts with a quote of Mr Moore's statement and a link to Instagram but when I followed the link I didn't see that statement, so context if any is unknown. And don't be misled by the site's list of reviewers -- its "scientists' feedback" sections are prefaced by "[Comment from a previous evaluation of a similar claim.]" i.e.those are not responses to Mr Moore's statement -- only the editor's comments are a response. In any case the quote, if valid, is about lack of proof that CO2 causes, not lack of evidence that CO2 contributes. So better to remove the whole sentence.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Update: I realize now that the Instagram comment might be somewhere on an accompanying video which won't play on my machine.Peter Gulutzan (talk)13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've seen his Instagram video withsubtitles, so I know the Wikipedia statement is unsupported. Unless somebody comes up with a valid source, I intend to remove the statement soon.Peter Gulutzan (talk)18:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thought process is that it is false that the Climate Feedback source has ever supported the line, as explained above. So all that was left was the Instagram video that I wasn't above to hear, and now that the subtitles are there I can read instead, and it also does not support the line.Peter Gulutzan (talk)19:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you disagree with the way the line summarizes Moore's statement. I would be fine with quoting it directly, likeHe has falsely claimed that the "scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm".Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously better, though I'd still prefer "said" instead of "falsely claimed" perMOS:CLAIM. Still, if nobody else pipes up with something else, I'll say yes go with that. Let's wait a week or so.Peter Gulutzan (talk)20:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CLAIM does not say we should not use the word "claim", it only says what the word means and implies. Climate change deniers have never been able to show that there was anything wrong with what climate scientists are doing. Climate change deniers like Moore are outside the scientific community, and their ramblings are unconnected to any truth. False claims are their bread and butter.
In this case: If you expect science to "prove" things in the mathematical sense, you are doing it wrong, and the demand that climate science do something no science will ever be able to do is a silly thing only a scientifically illiterate person will say and mean seriously. If you use "prove" in a weaker sense, "scientific method has not been applied" is false. "False claim" is the right wording. --Hob Gadling (talk)06:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say: -Climate change deniers have never been able to show that there was anything wrong with what climate scientists are doing. I disagree.
All the evidence is - and the entire science of thermodynamics - shows that the temperature gradient inany planetary atmosphere (if there is one!) is a function of (local) pressure.
I saylocal because atmospheric pressure is a function of altitude, witnessed by the widespread use of pressure measurement byaneroid altimeters in aircraft.
So, not only is atmospheric pressure a function of altitude, (local) atmospheric temperature is also.
But local atmospheric temperature is not alinear function of altitude, e.g. the more-or-less (negative) lineartemperature lapse rate in the troposphere changes sign (reverses!) to become positive (the temperature increases with altitude) in the stratosphere.
This temperature rise is caused by oxygen (O2) absorbing ultraviolet (UV) in sunlight and becomingphotolysed i.e. ionised by light - O2 is changed to 2 x O1, calledmonatomic oxygen. It is the energy from UV absorption that does this, at the same time raising the temperature of all the atmospheric gases at any location where oxygen is found.
To summarise, the elevated temperature at the surface of any planet's atmosphere is a function of atmosphericpressure. It is completely independent of the composition of the atmosphere. This is well illustrated on Venus where the surface pressure has been measured to be 93 bar (1,350 psi), thus 93 times that on Earth. The atmosphere on Venus is 96.5% carbon dioxide and 3.5% nitrogen, thus it is easy to see that there is no connection between surface temperature and atmospheric composition.Damorbel (talk)08:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go publish that in a scientific journal, then get it accepted by a significant number of scientists, and we may be able to use it. Until then, my statement stands. Climate change deniers have never been able to show us anything beyond cherrypicking, fantasies, lies, misunderstandings, false rumors, and distortions, as explained in our well-sourced articleClimate change denial. "False" and "claim" are correct words here, just as with other pseudosciences. You people have lost in the scientific arena, and you will not overturn that on Wikipedia because Wikipedia will keep following reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk)20:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I havereplaced the sentence with the words suggested by Firefangledfeathers. I'd still prefer "said" but for the moment, as I conceded earlier, this is obviously better than what was there before.Peter Gulutzan (talk)17:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to explain your reasoning here? I've read through the 2019 thread; I don't get it. Surely, it must be possible to describe his PhD field of study in some way that will satisfy all engaged editors!sbelknap (talk)03:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sort of comments that some participants made, I am sure there is nothing that will satisfy us all and so we had to settle on: nothing. I suppose you could ping those who engaged before and/or start an RfC. Be ready for being accused of misconduct.Peter Gulutzan (talk)12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
