Talk:Climate change denial

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to climate change, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change denial at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why is this article not called "climate change skepticism"?

A1: Because, while climate change deniers claim to exhibit skepticism, their statements and actions indicate otherwise. The evidence for man-made global warming is compelling enough that those who have been presented with this evidence and choose to come to a different conclusion are indeed denying a well-established scientific theory, not being skeptical of it. This is why a consensus has emerged among scientists on the matter. For example, two surveys found that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of global warming.^[1]^[2] According to Peter Christoff, skepticism is, in fact, essential for good science, and "Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics"." By contrast, since the scientific debate about man-made global warming is over, those who argue that it isn't or that global warming is caused by some natural process, according to Christoff, do not use valid scientific counter-evidence.^[3] Similarly, David Robert Grimes wrote that "The nay-sayers insist loudly that they're "climate sceptics", but this is a calculated misnomer – scientific scepticism is the method of investigating whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the evidence. Climate sceptics, by contrast, persist in ignoring empirical evidence that renders their position untenable."^[4]

Q2: Is this article a POVFORK?

A2: This argument has been raised many times over the years with regard to this page. For example, in 2007 the page was nominated for deletion, and the nominator referred to the article as a "Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy." However, this argument was roundly debunked, with User:Count Iblis perhaps providing the best explanation for why: "This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion."^[5]

Q3: Does the use of "denial" in this article's title condone the comparison of global warming skeptics/deniers to Holocaust deniers?

A3: This article takes no more of a position with regard to this comparison than the Fox News Channel article does about whether Fox is biased--that is, none whatsoever. In fact, as of 25 March 2014, the article's lead states, "Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to delegitimize 'skeptical' views and portray them as immoral." Thus the "skeptics'" argument against referring to them as "deniers" is indeed included in this article. Moreover, use of the term "denier" far predates the Holocaust.^[6]

Q4: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?

A4: The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by 97% of publishing climate scientists, although there are a few who reject this.^[2]

Q5: Why does it matter whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists? Isn't "consensus" inherently unscientific? Wasn't there a scientific consensus about many other ideas that have since been disproven, such as the earth being the center of the universe until Galileo came along?

A5: The answers to the above questions follow in the same order as the questions:

1. Because a "consensus" indicates that scientists with expertise in the relevant fields are in general agreement about some topic, such that they often refer to it as a "fact" (though technically nothing in science is ever proven with the 100% level of certainty necessary for it to be considered a fact). There is, for example, a consensus that smoking causes cancer, which is widely considered a fact.^[7]
2. No; in fact, it is essential to the progress of science, since scientific discoveries are made based on what the consensus of scientists established before them.^[8]
3. This argument is a form of the association fallacy often called the "Galileo Gambit." The best debunking of this argument may have been provided by Carl Sagan: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."^[9]

References

^ Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
^ ^a ^b Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
^ Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
^ Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014.
^ AFD Diff, 7 August 2007.
^ Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap
^ Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
^ On Scientific Consensus
^ Broca's Brain, p. 64

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 28, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 4, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 10, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
March 13, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 9, 2012	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 29, 2014	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version
March 16, 2016	WikiProject approved revision	Diff to current version

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes

Section size for Climate change denial (45 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	13,663	13,663
Terminology	12,729	12,729
Categories and tactics	9,124	59,039
Discussing specific aspects of climate change science	9,556	25,892
Playing up the potential non-human causes	546	546
Playing up flawed studies	2,213	2,213
Disputing IPCC reports and processes	4,935	4,935
Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes	8,642	8,642
Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical"	1,817	1,817
Pushing for adaptation only	6,050	6,050
Delaying climate change mitigation measures	9,432	9,432
Promoting conspiracy theories	6,724	6,724
Psychology	1,028	1,028
Connections to other debates	35	17,004
Links with other environmental issues	2,295	2,295
Links with nationalism and right-wing groups	6,663	6,663
Conservative views	8,011	8,011
History	12,151	31,751
Similarities with tobacco industry tactics	3,517	3,517
Republican Party in the United States	16,083	16,083
Denial networks	934	18,529
Conservative and libertarian think tanks	4,974	4,974
Publishers, websites and networks	4,473	12,621
Publications for school children	8,148	8,148
Notable people who deny climate change	46	18,892
Politicians	14,735	14,735
Scientists	4,111	4,111
Lobbying and related activities	2,494	24,472
Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors	6,337	6,419
ExxonMobil	82	82
Attacks and threats towards scientists	3,598	3,598
Funding for deniers	11,961	11,961
Effects on public opinion	8,943	23,232
United States	11,077	11,077
Europe	3,212	3,212
Responses to denialism	59	24,865
The role of emotions and persuasive argument	7,735	7,735
Following people who have changed their position	8,334	8,334
Effective approaches to dialogue	4,144	4,144
Approaches with farmers	1,972	1,972
Statements of well known people calling for climate action	865	865
Legal response	1,756	1,756
See also	685	685
References	30	30
Further reading	1,844	1,844
Total	247,763	247,763

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tone down the partisan and cynical language. For the video caption, change "Republican Senator Jim Inhofe" to "Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe". Identifying senators by the state they represent is standard practice and avoids partisan framing. Using the word "Republican" makes the text unnecessarily partisan.

Change "Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human responsibility for climate change, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them" to "Many issues that have reached scientific consensus, such as human responsibility for climate change, continue to be debated in public discourse due to differing perspectives on policy implications and economic considerations". This framing retains the meaning while using less cynical terminology.

Change "Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject publicly. The fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on climate change." to "Some climate scientists, particularly in the United States, have reported experiencing pressure from various sources to limit discussion of their findings or modify their research focus. Certain industry groups and advocacy organizations have been identified as supporting efforts to question or challenge the scientific consensus on climate change." This is more neutral and avoids demonizing the oil industry or fossil fuel lobby.

Change "Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science." to "Various industrial, political, and ideological groups engage in activities that affect public perception of climate science."

Change "Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates, ultraconservative think tanks, and ultraconservative alternative media, often in the U.S." to "Climate change skepticism has been associated with fossil fuel companies, certain business leaders, industry representatives, conservative think tanks, and alternative media outlets, often in the U.S."

Change "Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change, and exerts a powerful influence on the politics of climate change." to "These efforts to question climate science may influence policy decisions and public attitudes toward climate action."

Change "Since then, for several decades, oil companies have been organizing a widespread and systematic climate change denial campaign to seed public disinformation, a strategy that has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking. Some of the campaigns are even carried out by the same people who previously spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda." to "In subsequent decades, some oil companies and related organizations have supported public information campaigns that emphasize uncertainties in climate science, an approach that shares similarities with historical industry responses to health concerns about tobacco smoking. Some individuals have been involved in both tobacco and climate-related advocacy efforts." 2603:7081:6D01:66ED:A0CC:2B01:4B8F:3CB7 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just picking a few of your items:

The current Republican party is known, and has been known for decades, for its anti-science, anti-education, anti-academia, anti-intellectualism, anti-honesty, anti-free-speech and anti-reality positions. Inhofe's party is highly relevant.

have supported public information campaigns is a ridiculous whitewash of the disinformation campaigns.

This is just another one of those politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny climate science. You are trying to hide the perpetrators as well as their dishonest activies, and we should not do that. We will adhere to what reliable sources say and not what Tantrump and his minions want. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-intellectualism, anti-honesty" The Republicans are anti-intellectuals, but anti-honesty? They simply practice political corruption and cronyism, following traditional political practices in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025 Central Texas floods

Move into new section: the preceding edit request coincided with this extended discussion and RFC on the quality sources needed to mention the relationship between the July 2025 Central Texas floods and climate change, and implications of climate change denial. The admisnistration has cut NOAH climate research, and cut staffing from FEMA which prepared for floods and coordinated responses. The cuts have since been reframed as letting individual states deal with such disasters. . . dave souza, talk 06:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May need some updates, Milman, Oliver (7 July 2025). "Ted Cruz ensured Trump spending bill slashed weather forecasting funding". the Guardian. Retrieved 9 July 2025. “There’s no doubt afterwards we are going to have a serious retrospective as you do after any disaster and say ‘OK what could be done differently to prevent this disaster?’” Cruz told Fox News. “The fact you have girls asleep in their cabins when flood waters are rising, something went wrong there. We’ve got to fix that and have a better system of warnings to get kids out of harm’s way.” – Lakhani, Nina; Milman, Oliver (8 July 2025). "Deadly floods could be new normal as Trump guts federal agencies, experts warn". the Guardian. Retrieved 9 July 2025. – though Solnit, Rebecca (8 July 2025). "Did National Weather Service cuts lead to the Texas flood disaster? We don't know". the Guardian. Retrieved 9 July 2025. is a sensible opinion . . dave souza, talk 00:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:dave souza, I don't understand your intervention here? Is that supposed to be under a new section heading or part of the earlier discussion on "Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2025"? Also, in which sense are those articles that you linked relevant for this Wikipedia article on climate change denial exactly? Also, let's not make this article overly focused on voices from the US. There is also climate change denial in other parts of the world (although the extent of CC denial in a large Western democracy really is quite mind boggling and very sad, and impactful). EMsmile (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the above edit request came up when I was still trying to grasp the issues with the floods. The cuts were evidently influenced by climate change denial. That's implicit in these sources;
"Environmental groups said the slashed funding was just the latest blow to federal agencies tasked with predicting and responding to disasters such as the Texas flood. ..... Cruz, who has previously cast doubt over the scientific reality of the climate crisis, said that complaints about cuts to the National Weather Service are “partisan finger pointing”, although he conceded that people should have been evacuated earlier."
"The deadly Texas floods could signal a new norm in the US, as Donald Trump and his allies dismantle crucial federal agencies that help states prepare and respond to extreme weather and other hazards, experts warn. .... But Trump said it was unlikely the staff cuts to the NWS will be reversed, even in the wake of the Texas floods. "I would think not,” the president said on Sunday about a possible reversal. “This was a thing that happened in seconds. Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it. Very talented people are there, they didn’t see it." ..... The turmoil at the federal agencies tasked with predicting and responding to disaster comes as the threat from extreme weather grows due to the human-caused climate crisis. The Texas floods occurred in a warmer, more moisture-laden atmosphere than in the past, with one analysis finding that climate change has made conditions 7% wetter and 1.5C hotter than they would’ve been otherwise. "We have added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere, and that extra carbon traps energy in the climate system," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. 'Because of this extra energy, every weather event we see now carries some influence from climate change. The only question is how big that influence is."
It seems like the NWS did its duty despite the cuts, but more are coming. Fossil Free Memo reports: "Just days before the flood, Texas Senator Ted Cruz helped pass the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, a sweeping fossil fuel giveaway that also slashed $200 million from Noaa’s weather forecasting and public alert programs. The money was meant to improve early warnings for exactly the kind of fast-moving, deadly flooding that just hit his own state....." [but] The desire to have an explanation, and the desire for that explanation to be tidy and aligned with one’s politics, easily becomes a willingness to accept what fits. .... Both the weather and the news require vigilance."
There was a lot of coverage of this event, worth checking for explicit links to climate change denial – I'll try to watch out. . . . dave souza, talk 07:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I am wondering if this kind of content should rather go into a US-specific article on climate change, perhaps climate change in the United States, or Climate change policy of the United States. I am worried that otherwise this general climate change denial article will become too dominated (even more than it is already) by the situation in the United States. Or alternatively we could create a section on "Country examples" within this article. Or a spin-off article called Climate change denial in the United States. EMsmile (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since climate change in the United States currently has no mention of Trump's second term, and climate change doesn't get a mention in 2025 United States federal mass layoffs and One Big Beautiful Bill Act, there's a lot of catching up to do. Not sure how best to arrange sub-articles, but it's an international issue – for example, in the next section "Australia's climate left won't be able to stand new Trump appointee Steven E. Koonin who dares to question the science around global warming" shows skynews promoting denial – though the US has disproportionate impact.. . . dave souza, talk 10:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koonin, Christy and Spencer

Todo: add summary of Freedman, Andrew; Nilsen, Ella (8 July 2025). "The Trump admin just hired 3 outspoken climate contrarians. Scientists are worried what comes next". CNN. Retrieved 23 July 2025. – or from a different perspective, Cater, Nick (12 July 2025). "Australia's climate left won't be able to stand new Trump appointee Steven E. Koonin who dares to question the science around global warming". skynews. Retrieved 23 July 2025. The article already mentions Koonin in the #Europe section. "RealClimate: Melange à Trois". RealClimate. 9 July 2025. Retrieved 23 July 2025. by Gavin Schmidt presents "a quick round up of our commentary on the caliber of their arguments" . . . . dave souza, talk 08:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Anderegg-1] Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.

[DZ_EOS_2009-2] Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

[Christoff-3] Christoff, Peter (9 July 2007). "Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion". Melbourne: Theage.com.au. Retrieved 19 March 2010.

[4] Denying climate change isn't scepticism – it's 'motivated reasoning', Opinion column by David Robert Grimes, The Guardian, 5 February 2014.

[5] AFD Diff, 7 August 2007.

[6] Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

[Shwed_and_Bearman_2010-7] Uri, Shwed; Bearman, Peter (December 2010). "The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation". American Sociological Review. 75 (6): 817–840. Retrieved 18 December 2010.

[8] On Scientific Consensus

[9] Broca's Brain, p. 64

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]