Category talk:Global warming skeptics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Category This article has been rated as Cat-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Separate category?

Do we need a separate category for organizations skeptical of man-made global warming? --GCarty 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so... anyone. I don't really think a company with vested interests (exxon) can be a rational skeptic. 02hurnella 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Who says these individuals are rational skeptics? --Nethgirb 23:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you bothered to read their arguments? They make a good case. BTW: not every global warming skeptic is on the pay roll of "big oil". --Uncle Bungle 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have read many of their arguments. I won't get into what I think of them, since it's not relevant. The point is, inclusion in this category is not predicated on the arguments being "rational" or "right". So I don't think Exxon's conflict of interests matters. --Nethgirb 06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Sceptics... --SandyDancer 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Strange skeptics

Some of these aren't skeptics at all. the Greenhouse mafia for instance.

[edit] NPOV

Isn't it NPOV to label people who dispute global warming as skeptics? The word skeptic seems to imply that they are wrong. Nobody knows for certain whether global warming is or isn't bs, so it seems pretty biased to me to imply that one group or another is wrong. 206.251.1.94 21:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism does not imply being wrong; many or most of these people even label themselves as skeptics. However the science is more settled than you imply. --Nethgirb 12:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"science is more settled than you imply"...kind of a tricky thing using that wiki article as your evidence. I have been watching the discussion there for some time and noticed that there is a real effort to make certain edits showing otherwise are removed.
Additionally, simply using the number of scientists on one side of an issue does not make the "science settled"...otherwise the science would be settled on so many issues such as the Earth being the center of the universe, being flat, etc. I find it very damaging to Wikipedia's overall credibility when I witness the deliberate effort to prevent opposing facts on the articles, treating man's role in treating global warming as fact, etc.
-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say "gobal warming skeptics" is perhaps NPOV for the exact opposite reason that you think it is: calling them skeptics implies that their dispute of global warming is based on genuine skepticism. Quite often, that's not the case. Global warming deniers usually do not come to their positions by critically examining the evidence, as a skeptic would, but rather by simply ignoring the evidence. Redxiv 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I personally think that if they cannot predict the weather correctly two days in advanced, what makes everyone think that they are going to be able to predict what the climate is going to be four years from now? Those who say that people who don't believe in global warming are just to stubborn to admit that they are wrong is a bunch of bs. Granted there are facts on both sides. For my science class we were forced to watch the movie "A inconvient truth." But our teacher never discussed the other side about global warming, he only told us that it was happening etc.. But in my personal opinion that movie is as useless as trying to catch every criminal there is. Al Gore has no right as a politicain to try and act like a scientist and present facts about a subject he has no prior knowledge to. Did it ever occcur to you that he was looking for publicity. My teacher explained to us that the recent charts have shown a constant pattern of rising up and then coming back down. But he says that recently the charts have been showing an increase and no evidnece of comong back down anytime soon. Did it ever occur that maybe we are going through a warming period???

Pretty much all modern science has an argument check out Aids denial. I think the above comment is a "rant" with no relevance. I also think the name skeptic is the widely accepted term and has positive connotations really. 02hurnella 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denialism

I am restoring that category since global warming skepticism does seem to meet the definition of Denialism and is even listed as an example on that page. Feel free to discuss more here though... --Nethgirb 12:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A page which, at the moment, seems to be more of a POV rant than an article, as has been pointed out on its talk page. Lord Patrick 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

'Denialism' on this matter goes both ways. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AS one of those named in this catalogue of heretics, I'm perfectly happy to be put on a list of this kind, believing rational scepticism to be an honourable tradition. However, the scepticism to which you refer is not over global warming. It seems pretty well-established that some sort of climate change is going on.The scepticism( or skepticism for you US English users) is over the role of humanity in this process. The title of this entry is therefore misleading. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback 10:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to clarify what is meant - the category covers both people who dispute the reality of global warming (not many left) and those who dispute human responsbility.JQ 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

This page from New Zealand is a significant source of information by various scholars and scientists such as former MetService Chief Meteorologist, Professor Augie Auer:

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition [1]

--Robocopnz 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penn and Teller

Why is there a listing for Penn and Teller when there is also a listing for Penn Jillette? So far as I know, Teller doesn't profess anything on the subject of climate change, but if he does he should get his own listing, not a joint listing with Teller, right? 65.213.31.162 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a fair assumption that just because Teller doesn't talk on the show, it doesn't mean he's not involved in the content.

[edit] Matt Stone and Trey Parker

Do we know for sure if Matt Stone and Trey Parker are skeptics? They satirize almost everything. dtfinch 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg Easterbrook

"We have no idea what component is natural and what part is artificial and no one has even the slightest clue about exactly what’s going to happen, what the degree of change will be. And you can’t even be sure it’s going to be bad—it may be that change on balance will be good." [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.235.203 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Camille Paglia

How do you edit this page?? [3]67.141.235.203 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't edit the category page. You add the tag Category:Global warming skeptics to the page for Camille Paglia. You might want to include a para or so in the article linking to the Salon piece. Give it a try! JQ 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for listing

The category page states: This category includes people and organizations that have expressed skepticism regarding the mainstream scientific view that human activity is responsible for recent global warming. Note that this does not include those who doubt that the climate is actually warming over the long term. If the skepticism is not documented in the person's article, then they should not be placed in the category. --Blainster 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"this does not include those who doubt that the climate is actually warming over the long term."—Are you highlighting the difference between "recent" and "long term" or future global warming? Or are you highlighting the difference between the existence of warming and its cause? If someone doubts that the climate has recently warmed, then the current criterion certainly includes them.
"If the skepticism is not documented in the person's article, then they should not be placed in the category."—agreed. I suspect there has been rather poor quality control on some of the people included. --Nethgirb 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


According to categorization guidelines,

. . .holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic, and should not be a criterion for categorization, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinion. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, which can be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).

So people should be listed here only if they are activists. Going on record as being skeptical is not enough. This should be clarified in the intro.--Boson 12:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Global Warming" in mainstream use has come to mean "Average global temperature rise due to man made green house gasses". I think the issues described in Global_warming_controversy give a good indication of what criteria is to be used for inclusion. --Uncle Bungle 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more sceptics

Here is another list which includes even more sceptics not included on Wikipedia. I am too unfamiliar with the english language and wikipedia to dear attempt adding theyr accounts, but I thought I could post the link if someone else wanted too give it a shot:

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics


Lebbe 09:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the names cited here are already in the list, and (contrary to the claim made at the start) are old hands. There are a couple of very obscure new guys, like Wiskel (not in the Geology dept at Alberta [4] as claimed) and Evans (blogger who claims to have worked for the Oz government).JQ 06:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Thompson

I removed him from this list. ok or not? --Tom 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for Merge

The related Category:Ozone hole skeptics has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.