Talk:Global warming skeptic

Note that clicking on at least the first 5 scientists listed shows that they have either been discredited or abandoned their position.

overlap?[edit]

Theres a lot of overlap between this and List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. Only the other article is rather better... William M. Connolley 18:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are an overwhelming number of scientists that are in agreement that global warming is mostly attributable to humans. Researching the large list of scientists in agreement would dwarf this list of skeptics by comparison.

I agree. I see no earthly reason to have two separate entries for this. We may as well combine this entry, I feel, with the "Global Warming Controversy" article--otherwise, every new piece of information and citation on these "skeptics" which is put into one article must be put into both. This is ridiculous.

Further, the title of this entry is not good. The word "Skeptic" suggests independent thought and has a positive connotation, whereas many of the people listed in this entry have a long history of being connected to oil and coal money and of distorting, fabricating, and misrepresenting data. Given the scienfic consensus, I suggest changing the entry title to "Global Warming Denialists" or "Global Warming Contrarians" and reducing the whole entry to one link to the "Global Warming Controversy" page. Who's with me? Dicksonlaprade 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging the page into the "Opponents of the global warming theory" section in Global warming controversy. --Nethgirb 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

I changed the redirect from Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming to Global warming controversy. The former isn't really appropriate since not all GW skeptics are scientists. The latter is appropriate since it addresses global warming skepticism in general. --Nethgirb 10:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned this redirect to Global warming controversy, as before. Inappropriate to equate skeptics to deniers, a a pejorative political term. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate to pretend that those promoting climate change denial are skeptics, a misleading political tactic discussed by high quality sources at that article. . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, your POV is showing, both here and at Climate change denial. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Pete, I'm complying with giving due weight to mainstream pov; in contrast, your fringe POV pushing is getting disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first revert was "no explanation given", and your second revert is a vague pointer to NPOV. What, exactly, is the rationale for redirecting to an article which doesn't discuss this subject by name even once? — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Tillman didn't say "no explanation given", and the controversy article says "skeptic*" about 40 times. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Peter Gulutzan, you're the editor who summarised your revert reason as No explanation given. The controversy article uses the word without explanation or definition, in various contradictory ways: for example, it says "the Senate's most vocal global warming skeptic, Jim Inhofe" but also has a good source saying this label for him is a misuse of "skeptic" to refer to deniers. On that basis, I'll restore the redirect to climate change denial, you're welcome to present sources supporting your position at Talk:Climate change skeptic as requested . dave souza, talk 14:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it seems I misspoke. I meant "the first", not "your first". Of course Global warming controversy uses the word "skeptic", almost exclusively when discussing individual people. It does not discuss the phenomena of "climate change skepticism", or define what a "global warming skeptic" is. Climate change denial, on the other hand, does. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centralise discussion..[edit]

The substantial discussion of the "Redirect skeptic to denier" question is (currently) at Talk:Climate change skeptic, and one other? It's confusing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you and Peter G seem to trying to maximise confusion, no doubt inadvertently. Centralised discussion is preferable. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, Dave. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on this redirect, and others[edit]

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 ♥ 16:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]