Wikipedia

User:Joepnl/Vault/Talk:Climate change exaggeration

< User:Joepnl | Vault

Anxiety in Kids

edit

I like the Anxiety in children section. I personally hear a lot of it these days concerning global warming... everything from kids saying they are dehydrated from global warming, there's no water because of global warming. Granted they are 3rd-6th graders but their fear is real to them. I'd like to see this section expanded with sources. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've actually removed it. I'm sure global warming creates anxiety in children, but that is something that could be covered in an article like Cultural effects of the global warming debate, which actually might be useful. The article used to source the section was about how global warming scared some kids and stirred them to action, but it said nothing at all about "Climate change exaggeration" (actually it seemed to take for granted that climate change was very real and very serious) which is the only thing this article is discussing. The section was completely inappropriate for this article, particularly as the lead sentence blatantly misrepresented the source in a manner I'd characterize as deeply irresponsible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote on the other page I disagree with you. The exaggeration seemed quite clear to me in the sourced article and it is a quite valid subset of this article's title. It seems to me it would have been better for you to rewrite the paragraph in a lexicon more suitable to you and allow some give and take exchange instead of eliminating it instantly out of hand. I find that the trouble with wikipedia as a whole, the global warming articles in particular, and certainly the US Congress.. is too much black and white not enough grey. Too much I win you lose edit wars where the reader gets the worst of both worlds. It'll probably happen here in this article like the rest and the researcher or teacher will have to google some other unsourced website for their information that is written by some right or left fringe group. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The exaggeration might have "seemed quite clear to you," but to be honest that's neither here nor there. The WaPo article simply did not claim that "climate change exaggeration" affected these kids. It said they were worried about climate change, not an "exaggerated" sense of it. What you or anyone else reads into an article does not go into a Wikipedia entry as that is original research, rather we stick to what sources say. If there are reliable sources (i.e. not a blog entry or an editorial or a Wiki editor's own beliefs) that talk about how "climate change exaggeration" (not just "climate change") is making kids anxious then maybe there could be a section on that. I don't think those sources are out there, and until they are produced deletion was necessary (I'm all for compromise, but that's not an option when one of our articles misrepresents the source wildly). I reiterate that an article like Cultural effects of the global warming debate (or something similar) would be a place to discuss the issues you bring up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The article cited The Washington Post quoting a 9 year old boy describing his drawing of the earth as saying, "That's the Earth now... and then... it's just starting to fade away... In 20 years... there's no oxygen." How can you say that that is not an exaggeration of global warming? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Grundle, this has been explained to you dozens of times before. It's not for you or I to "say" that what that kid said is an exaggeration, it's for the source to say, and it doesn't say that. Also, and at a more basic level, you do realize that the person exaggerating is, well, a child? Children do sometimes get facts wildly wrong you know. There are no scientists saying that the earth is going to run out of oxygen in 20 years, this is just a kid's misunderstanding and hardly notable for Wikipedia or for anyone. Obviously you do not want this article to be about the fact that kids exaggerate global warming just as they do most everything, right? Defending this passage shows you still have not internalized basic policies of Wikipedia, and that you are not even sure what the article is about when you seriously think it should include the opinions of minors as examples of "climate change exaggeration." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I see Grundle has completely ignored the concerns expressed above and re-added the section, somewhat altered. This is: A) Original research; B) A gross misuse of the source, as the WaPo article says nothing about "Exaggerations made by children," much less "climate change exaggeration." While this entire article is absurd, this section is blatantly misleading (and trivial) beyond all belief. I won't remove it again but someone else should. On the other hand it's so ridiculous (kids exaggerate things! no way dude!) that it's more likely to cause people to support deletion of the article. So go ahead and ignore the legitimate objections and Wikipedia content policies if you want Grundle. Maybe this will be the beginning of a new trend where every Wikipedia article about science will discuss the fact that kids don't know what they are talking about. For example we can add some info to Sun that some kids think it is "a million bazillion bazillion" years from earth. Really the absurdity of this is astounding, and about as far away from writing an encyclopedia as one can possibly be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little value in making contributions to and article that doesn't have a prayer at passing an AfD, but that section was so over-the-top, it had to go. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. The consensus is against the inclusion of that material. I respect that. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

edit

Grundle spammed this blatant POV fork to a variety of articles (before the canvassing a pile of, ahem, entirely neutral editors). I've de-spammed it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

At least please put it back in the "see also" section of Climate change denial. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If Inhofe's exaggerations are included and other so called sceptics' exaggerations are included then a see also there might be appropriate. But then it'd just grow into a copy of that article - no? Vsmith (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Grundle hacked out Inhofe for no clear reason; I've restored it. Also, Grundle seems to think that he is the controller of the meaning of this article [1]. He is incorrect. Hopefully all this is moot because this obvious POV fork will die; but in the meantime, it should try to become NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to be honest. I think this article is a bit hopeless. I've also reverted and left warnings for users who made similar edits on other pages WMC. Fight it in the AFD but don't make things worse.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
My comment for removing the Inhofe information was "Removing unsourced claim about a living person." Wikipedia:BLP is very clear about this policy. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. But the information is indeed sourced. Not in this article - which would have allowed you to add a ref if you wanted - but within wiki William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Inhofe

edit

The information about Inhofe should be in Climate change denial, not Climate change exaggeration. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, is Inhofe not guilty of exaggerating? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
An exaggeration is when someone overstates something. Inhofe understates, not overstates, the effects of global warming. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No, Inhofe is not exaggerating the extent and effects of climate change. TMLutas (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to article

edit

The introduction should say, "In discussions about climate change, various statements have been made which exaggerated the effects of climate change."

William M. Connolley believes that it should say, "Climate change exaggeration is a neologism with no clear meaning."

He is mistaken, because the article is not about the phrase "climate change exaggeration." Instead, the article is about statements that exaggerate the effects of climate change.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should it say this? This is an article called "Climate change exaggeration". Was there some reason you got appointed to determine its content? I can see that *you* want a one-sided article that asserts, in a POV way, that exaggeration only occurs on the "warmist" side, if we might phrase it that way. But since most of the exaggeration actually occurs on the skeptic side, I think your conception for this article is misguided William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I created this article to counterbalance Climate change denial. Exaggerations from the skeptics' side should go in that article, not in this one. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
"I created this article to counterbalance..." is a confession that this is a POV fork and an argument for deletion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much. Also undoubtedly true that the article creator does not have permanent purview over an article's scope, as this is a wiki and all that. If you want an article called "climate change exaggeration," don't get frustrated when all sorts of "exaggerations" are included (and understand I still want this to be deleted).
The current intro sentence is a bit hilarious ("Climate change exaggeration is what occurs when people speaking about climate change overstate or embellish what is known or unknown about the subject") though I understand the attempt to make this NPOV. Presumably given that framing we could have articles about Sexual exploit exaggeration, Fishing success exaggeration, and the like. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
@WMC - Not really. It could just as easily be framed as a recognition that things are currently unbalanced and in need of correction, which is an argument for being kept and expanded. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What "things" ? We do not create articles to provide a counterbalance against others articles that we dislike. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denial if nothing else. There's probably more. "We do not create articles to provide a counterbalance against others articles that we dislike." - No, but we do create articles to promote NPOV within the encyclopedia when coverage is otherwise unbalanced. The spirit of WP:NPOV transcends individual articles and is pervasive across the entire project in much the same way that WP:BLP does. You may also find the second paragraph found here to be pertinent to this discussion. Regardless, NPOV is not the ONLY reason for creating the article. The topic is notable enough on its own to warrant an article. --GoRight (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A recent merge discussion for Climate change denial apparently did not gain consensus, but I suggest you put it up for AfD if you have a problem with it. It's been a year and a half since it was last nominated and maybe consensus would be different now (either for deletion or at least a merge), particularly in light of the discussion about this article. If one is concerned about balance, the solution is not to basically invent a term (which is what is happening here) and write a horribly WP:OR article about it. Try to deal with the other article you find problematic, or propose a more neutral article that can cover different aspects of the debate beyond what is already covered in existing articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide perfect balance between the views of two warring camps of editors by making sure every article on "one side" is balanced by one on the other, it is to write an encyclopedia, and there is nothing encyclopedic about this article. Indeed it's mere existence sucks energy away from more productive tasks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So, a recent merge discussion ended in no consensus. There have apparently also been AfD(s?), no surprise there, and Climate change denial apparently survived with either keep or no consensus. Why would I think that a new AfD would yield a different result? I don't. But more importantly I would actually be voting KEEP in the new AfD as well so it's not a matter of my having a problem with Climate change denial on any sort of fundamental grounds. But it's continued survival is a testament to the fact that such articles are viewed as having merit. I see no reason why, therefore, the other side of that coin should inherently lack merit. I happen to believe that there are many things related to GW which have been exaggerated. Having an article to help point them out, at least the most egregious ones, would seem to be a benefit to our readers as much as pointing out that so called "denialists" exist does. YMMV, of course which is perfectly OK. If the consensus on deleting this thing comes to pass, so be it, but I happen to believe that it provides value to our readers and so I am doing something to help improve it. --GoRight (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

List of possible sources

edit

I cannot contribute on the main page of the article but I thought I might start digging up potential sources that could be used in one form or another to expand the article based on it's primary topic. I am not advocating, in this section at least, for any particular perspective or addition. I am just gathering what should be appropriate WP:RS that address the topic at hand. Feel free to add others as you find them. This should also help to establish the notability of the topic in general. --GoRight (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change exaggeration

edit
A fairly neutral piece with some pointers to additional resources. --GoRight (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This seems also fairly neutral and has an analytical feel to it. I only skimmed through it but it seems to address both sides of the issue. It's intent is clearly to promote and AGW POV but it still contains a lot of material for both sides of the issues. --GoRight (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A quick review suggests a dry presentation of the interaction between media coverage and public perceptions in the area of Climate Change with a discussion of how things get framed in the media. --GoRight (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
"Simple analysis shows that the claims of the press release are almost entirely without foundation. The battle against the severe threat from climate change is impeded, not helped, by government departments issuing alarmist and exaggerated alerts based on poor science."
--GoRight (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Forget about sources here for a moment, you are missing a basic point, as are most who are supporting this article. As with almost anything on earth, climate change discussions have of course been subject to "exaggeration." People and groups exaggerate a lot about a lot of things, do they not? So why do we have an article on this subject? Why not media exaggeration, or political exaggeration, or age exaggeration? Media exaggeration has 185 hits on Google Scholar, which is 185 more than "Climate change exaggeration," yet we've collectively had the good sense not to create that article. A search of Wikipedia suggests that this is literally the only article with the title "something something exaggeration" (excepting vertical exaggeration which is a rather different matter). Do you honestly want us to have an article about every type of "exaggeration" that has ever existed and about which someone has commented? Put aside the Wiki (and real world) politics behind this that are causing many editors to automatically line up behind one side or the other and really think about that. Climate change "exaggeration" is not more notable (indeed it's less so) than any number of exaggerations out there. Why does it warrant it's own article, and why can't the very minimal discussion needed not happen in an existing article? Again think of the good of the encyclopedia, not the good of one side or perspective in the Great Global Warming Wiki Wars. Those are boring and only do harm to the project, with this entire discussion being a good example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight - thank you for those links. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

edit
"You also get to see how the "settled" science behind climate change alarmism was arrived at -- not by scientific consensus, but rather by manipulation, misrepresentation and strong-arming."
--GoRight (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Just in case the cold temperature encourages the British public to assume a degree of scepticism towards climate change alarmism, Shukman reassuringly informs us that the big freeze is not inconsistent with theories of global warming."
--GoRight (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"The new century has cooled the case for climate alarmism. Global warming has stalled — not accelerated as expected. Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, but temperatures have been flat for the last eight years and have slightly fallen since 1998's El Nino-driven temperature spike."
About the author: "Bradley, chairman and founder of the pro-free-market Institute for Energy Research in Houston, is author of "Climate Alarmism Reconsidered" and, most recently, "Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy.""
--GoRight (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Clearly the political risks of giving first priority to the carbon agenda are on the rise. Australia's Senate just voted down that country's proposed cap and trade scheme. The Western center-right, once intimidated by the well-financed greens and their media claque, has become bolder in challenging climate change alarmism."
--GoRight (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Let us begin today with full disclosure: For those who don't know my position on global warming alarmism and its insidious uses, it is that this phenomenon is the greatest hoax in modern times and is being used to achieve things - bad things - quite apart from its ostensible goal of "saving the planet.""
--GoRight (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Henk Tennekes, Three Essays on Climate Models The advantages of accepting a dogma or paradigm are only too clear. One no longer has to query the foundations of one's convictions, one enjoys the many advantages of belonging to a group that enjoys political power, one can participate in the benefits that the group provides, and one can delegate questions of responsibility and accountability to the leadership. In brief, the moment one accepts a dogma, one stops being an independent scientist. Tennekes is retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.Joepnl (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Delusion

edit

Can someone remove the pointless see-also to the pointless climate change delusion which has switfly met its well-deserved fate but lingers here? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I am even less able than you to effect such a change on the main article. Still, how is it that the other article has met with a fate? Please don't try to misrepresent that state of the other article. Doing so only sows the seeds of discontent. It appears that a single partisan editor has redirected the other page but that hardly signifies that it has "met its well-deserved fate". I suspect others may yet have an opinion on that matter. --GoRight (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Its gone. Creating it was a waste of time. Talking about it is a waste of time. It just needs to be expunged and then quietly forgotten. I'd AFD it but its not worth the effort William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The condition was reported on by a medical journal as being real. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
One article by one physician does not a syndrome make. If it gets into DSM-V, then maybe. It's not as if there's a deadline or anything. PhGustaf (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, is this standard that it must be in the DSM before it's in wikipedia supported by any rule, policy, or anything other than your personal POV? It passes WP:FRINGE so what's the rationale for excluding it? TMLutas (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Something to ponder on climate change delusion, global warming suicide pacts. Does anybody still care to defend the notion that crazy people aren't fixating on global warming? TMLutas (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Crazy people fixate on a lot of things, from Jodie Foster to hoarding tin cans. Let's ease up on the antagonism and discuss matters about the article itself. Tarc (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier if there wasn't an AfD going on with people simultaneously editing to 'improve' the article while also !voting to delete it. The problem of private standards being elevated to deletion criteria is also evident on this topic. The drumbeat of global warming propaganda seems to be setting off some of the crazy people in new and frightening ways. By the normal standards of wikipedia that should be included. There's been a scholarly article that some are trying to exclude using reasons that have no basis in actual wiki rules and now a new, horrific case in the news. There's no reason not to include this except to strengthen the pro-delete side of the AfD. I am open to honest discussion of how to include it. TMLutas (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty normal for an article to be worked on as it is up for AfD, including by people who want it deleted (though I know that there was at least one edit that was incredibly pointy and not at all constructive). Most of those supporting deletion say nothing about "private standards" but rather say why the article does not belong given our policies and guidelines. Given your comment above I think you need to work on assuming good faith a bit more of those supporting deletion, avoiding POV references to things like "the drumbeat of global warming propaganda," and being a bit more willing to engage in collaborative editing than the sentences "There's no reason not to include this...I am open to honest discussion of how to include it" would suggest. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Grundle blocked

edit

Note that the creator of this article has been blocked for [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: the Inhofe material clearly doesn't fit and has been deleted successfully. TMLutas (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong title

edit

I just checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand. For the search term "Global warming exaggeration" or "Climate Change exaggeration" Infotrac produced 48 hits and NewsStand 177 hits. The search terms "Global warming alarmism" and "Climate change alarmism" garnered 136 hits in Infotrac and 299 in NewsStand. "Alarmism" appears to be a better title for an article such as this, but I'm not sure at this point if the term deserves its own article or not. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll copy this comment over to the AfD discussion since I originally brought this up over there. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm very open to moving this to global warming alarmism. I believe that has 12 hits in google scholar as well. TMLutas (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Joepnl/Vault/Talk:Climate_change_exaggeration&oldid=347569223"