Category talk:Global warming skeptics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do we need a separate category for organizations skeptical of man-made global warming? --GCarty 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sceptics... --SandyDancer 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[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)
[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)
[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).
