Talk:Climate change denial#rfc E41D481

I express doubt at the concept that expression of doubt is pseudoscientific. On the contrary science is all about doubt. NOT expressing doubt - unexamined dogmatic belief - is what is unsceintific. Science necessarily entails continuing attempts to falsify its own claims because of the dubious nature of inductive reasoning. Unexamined justifications "because science says so" are no better than "because God says so", if you are not prepared (or allowed) to question the scientific claims. 80.5.192.29 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

: Yeah, you have to chuck most of Feynman's thoughts on cargo cult science, and virtually everything Popper wrote, in the bin, if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed. But there we are. Burn the heretics. Oh and now we've got "attribution science". Just So stories for millenials. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

::Can you two burn your strawmen somewhere else? This page is for improving the article.

::@IP: Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented.

::@Greg: Burning people for disagreeing with you is a crime. If you have evidence that such a crime has happened, visit your local police station instead of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Can you two burn your straw men is judgemental, uninclusive and lazy.

:::The article should be Climate Skepticism and not Denial, a term used to link sceptics with Holocaust deniers and colour opinion. Lazy, divisive, typical of weak arguments and faiths. 109.148.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

::::There is no problem with using the same word for two gropus of people who use the same tactics to deny facts that do not fit their worldview. The article is based on what reliable sources say, as it should be, and we will not base it on your opinion instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::What straw man did I employ? Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|if you think climate science is so special that doubts and alternative rational explanations about it should be suppressed}}

::::::*Climate science is not "special". Pretty much every science has loons attacking it. Biologists have creationism, astronomy has Velikovskians, medicine has quacks, math has circle squarers, physics has perpetual motion tinkerers, and so on.

::::::*There are no "alternative rational explanations" that are consistent with the facts.

::::::*Denialists should not be "suppressed", they should be exposed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::::You're making the world a better place "Hob" - one day, perhaps, the people you don't like will all be gone. Good luck in your task. 2001:569:FC56:8A00:AEB0:188A:6FD:2EAE (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::The references you use in the summary only fit one worldview while two worldviews are prevalent: the incoming administration of the United States government includes high ranking officials whom cite scientists that disagree with the popular worldview; more egregiously, in this talk, you are openly stating you personally believe the opposite view is “incorrect”, and therefore it shouldn’t be included, rather than gatekeeping a completely unbiased or equally balanced article. You are politicizing Wikipedia. It should have both popular viewpoints expressed in the summary to remain unbiased. You are wittingly or unwittingly making a once completely fact-based website, a once important website, fit a narrative that doesn’t remain purely objective. That is unacceptable. 2600:1002:B160:38E9:4094:317D:6C20:723 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::The {{tq|incoming administration of the United States government}} is a bunch of clowns. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources (real science), not on a pathological liar and his minions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Erm my friend wikipedia is supposed to not be political. According to the policies saying this statement about the Trump Administration is not Wikipedia approved. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::We are supposed to check whether a source is reliable or not. This one is not. If you doubt that, go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and try to get a consensus on the Trump government being accepted as an RS on science while I chuckle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What a load of rubbish by the anonymous user with the IP address. Thanks Hob Gadling for even responding to this rubbish. As per WP:NOTAFORUM we should probably kill off this conversation here and now. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. EMsmile (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

:As Hob Gadling rightly stated, "Climate change denial has been called pseudoscientific by reliable sources, and for good reasons different from the bad reason you invented." IP, instead of trying to deny climate change, it would be great if every government on the planet worked together to solve the problem, without excuses. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is the third option, skepticism without denial or affirmation?

• Theists believe, Atheists deny, Agnostics are skeptical
• engaging in pseudoscience requires deliberate effort, those who don't have an opinion are not claiming to be scientists or researchers.
• there is unsubtle polarization, implying that only two positions exist, with no middle ground, or not having an opinion, You are either with us, or against us

Skullers (talk)

:They went extinct a few decades ago. Nowadays, the honest and knowledgeable people all accept climate change as real. Maybe you should inform yourself on the subject instead of spouting platitudes.

:But the real problem with your contribution is that you do not have reliable sources; it is just your opinion, and those do not count on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Hob Gadling}} "{{tq|...the honest and knowledgeable people all accept climate change as real.}}" You're 100% right; climate change is real and has accelerated over the last two hundred years or so for obvious reasons: industrial activity, deforestation, agricultural activities, and over-consumption of goods. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|reason=A lot of sealioning and circular logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:480a:3a13:8a00:1811:8717:e019:edd7 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{noping|Skibidiohiorizz123}} has been blocked indefinitely for not being here to build an encyclopedia, alongside personally attacking a user on their talk page. See also ANI thread. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}}

This article seems to be written by some liberal dude with to much time writing about climate change denial. Here's a direct quote "The terminology is debated: most of those actively rejecting the scientific consensus use the terms skeptic and climate change skepticism, and only a few have expressed preference for being described as deniers. But the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as scientific skepticism is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology. In fact, all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as part of the scientific process that demands continuing questioning. Both options are problematic, but climate change denial has become more widely used than skepticism." if wikipedia is meant to be neutral then this should be removed. There is not a shred of a natural point of view in this article and instead paints a picture of climate change deniers being heretics against science and instead you should follow the liberal narrative(which I will never do). This is the most obvious propaganda I have ever and most likely ever will see on this topic and it forces anyone writing for example an essay on climate change denial, forced to be against climate change denial when using the worlds largest encyclopedia.

For this reason I propose this article be rewritten following wikipedias official policy on neutral point of view and not a liberal publication. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps you are an American, and you think because the Republican Party of the US denies climate change that this is a left-right issue where liberals believe in climate change and conservatives do not. This is not the case. Most liberals and most conservatives world wide accept that climate change is real and manmade, as has been demonstrated by scientists working across the globe for decades. This article would not be more neutral by rewriting it to reflect the perspective of the Republican Party of the United States (which has substantial ties to the fossil fuels industry), but is instead kept neutral by reflecting the general scientific consensus on climate change being real and man-made, which is accepted by virtually every nation on Earth. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Instead of focusing so much on skepticism, you should find more on scientific consensus. YBSOne (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::So how is the scientific consensus on a theory found? Does it fall out the sky one day and everyone agrees with it? No, once a scientist proposes a theory, lots of debate and study is done before it is agreed on. Science can not exist without skepticism. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::This page is not a forum. This page is for improving the article based on reliable sources. Learn the basics of how science works by asking your questions in a chatroom or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I never wanted this to be a forum. I wanted to point out issues with the article, Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Science works by research and applying theories to scrutiny to see if they are correct. Not by finding something that works and keeping it until the rest of time. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::We all know the basics, you do not need to use this page as a forum to explain them or ask rhetorical questions about them. And you have not found any "issues" with the article, only a conflict with your own opinion. But that is your problem, not that of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Good luck. As we have established most climate science is sciency and has truthiness but does not meet the Popper and Feynman definitions of science. When was the last time you read a climate change paper that proposed alternative explanations (Feynman). Testable predictions (Popper). ? Greglocock (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:[https://skepticalscience.com/history-flicc-5-techniques-science-denial.html This] should help you on your journey through real science. YBSOne (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::I do not want to read a article on the subject, I would rather see the data the article used so I can verify it. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia editors are not your bitches. If you want to learn the basics, you need to do the work yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:And I suggest you read Cargo Cult Science (it is entertaining and relevant) and

:consider the following Testability in the context of Karl Popper's philosophy of science is the idea that a scientific hypothesis can be proven true or false through experimentation. Popper's concept of falsifiability is the idea that scientific theories should be testable and can be proven wrong. Greglocock (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::This is not a forum for you to repeat your opinion about climate science. It is for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Since you linked "scientific skepticism": the scientific skeptics unilaterally reject the misinformation spread by climate change deniers. That is because they are experts on pseudoscience and cliamte change denial is pseudoscience. See [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=skeptical+inquirer+climate+change] and [skeptic magazine climate change]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::So all I have learned from this statement is

::1 Climate change is really important and

::2 Climate change is so sacred any debate about it must be suppressed without further argument.

::If there is no argument science will never change on the subject of climate change, we should instead challenge current scientific thought to improve our knowledge, as scientists have done. for hundreds of years. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Replace climate change with germ theory and you'll realize how silly your comment sounds. The reason we don't sit around questioning whether or not germs cause disease isn't because it is "so sacred any debate about it must be suppressed without further argument", but just that it is so well supported by evidence that it is obvious to anyone who has looked at the evidence that it isn't going to be overturned. There are plenty of pseudoscientists who deny germ theory, who state that diseases are actually cause by other things like pH imbalances, and that microbes are just a symptom of the disease and not a cause, and they use similar arguments as you about how science is being dogmatic about germ theory and trying to suppress any disagreement. But they don't sound like they are coming from a place of skepticism, they just sound like they are coming from a place of ignorance. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::You failed at learning anything from what I said. Science is not happening here, it is happening in scientific institutions. We just report the results, and the results are clear to anybody who knows how to recognize motivated reasoning and pseudoscience. Please do your trolling somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::1. Make your strawmen somewhere else. 2. You are not a scientist. 3. You have not provided any facts. 4. You are not an enlighted skeptic but an uneducated person, who cannot search for reliable sources to educate yourself because it would bring you out of your echochamber of misinformation. This is not a place for your misinformation. YBSOne (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay I used Encyclopedia Britannica and found a source they used By a man named David Henderson titled "1.6% not 97% Agree that humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming" published on March 16 2014 on econlib.com. So the scientific consensus seems to be Humans don't cause Global Warming. This is what I was arguing against. Unless it has changed like it always seems to, Global Warming and thus climate change is natural.

::::So that's the facts from a survey of scientists specialized for this subject.

::::Have a great day y'all. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is just an outdated opinion of a single economist that was a chairman of a climate change denialist The Global Warming Policy Foundation. This is cherry picking you are doing. [https://imageio.forbes.com/dam/imageserve/58516e98a7ea431d601b05b3/0x0.png?cropX1=-1&cropY1=-1&cropX2=-1&cropY2=-1&quality=75&fit=&background=000000&uri=uhenergy/files/2016/12/ritchie-2_121416.png There is a majority of consensus] but it does not fit your narrative so you search for some denialists data. [https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm Also here]. [https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/ And from NASA]. [https://theconversation.com/the-97-climate-consensus-is-over-now-its-well-above-99-and-the-evidence-is-even-stronger-than-that-170370 And even more recent 99%]. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements IPCC report you should read]. YBSOne (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I mean how am I supposed to know about that one of, if not the most trusted encyclopedia was using bad sources? I was just looking to see if I could find anything against climate change considering nearly anything on the internet is not a natural opinion based off using both sides. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay found something better a peer reviewed research paper against climate change that cites it sources. It was published in 1992, so it may be a little bit outdated. It is called "Global Warming: A reduced Threat?" written by Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Stooksbury. It says in section 8 "The Northern Hemisphere, which should warm first and most, shows no statistically significant warming trend over the last half-century"

::::::If you want to read the whole paper it was on the American Meteorological Society website in the Journals section. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Out of the 88125 peer reviewed publications on climate change published since 2012 [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 over 99% of them accept that climate change is occuring due to humans]. Peer review isn't a magic process that removes every single incorrect paper. Science is an iterative process that requires others to replicate findings, and for results to be consistently observable. The causes and effects of global warming have been consistently observed by scientists across the globe for decades. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Patrick J. Michaels was a contrarian. Of all the sources on climate change, you only manage to find the ones that deny it. This is cherry picking, and it is the main weapon of denialists. We will not fall for it, and you are wasting everybody's time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:This part is literally about "climate change skeptics".

:{{tq|the bogus sceptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer". Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial and climate change denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics".}} When you link something, read it with comprehension, so it can't be used against your own argument. YBSOne (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Since when has debate against current scientific though heresy and pseudoscience? if we had this thought ever since we had science we still would have thought the earth was made of four elements water, fire, earth, and air instead of using the periodic table. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Since when has debate against current scientific though heresy and pseudoscience?

:::When that debate is fundamentally centered around rejection of experimental evidence. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::How do we know the evidence from our experiments was correct? How do we know that the experiment was formed correctly? If you can give me a few peer reviewed papers from a highly trusted scientific publication I might consider changing my mind. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::We have an entire article of high quality sources on the consensus of climate change. Just look at the lead paragraph and the sources it cites. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::They made it a forum not me. Just wanted to point out the bias in this article. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is none. YBSOne (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Very great argument indeed. I have never seen anything better. Despite all evidence this one statement has made me change my mind completely.

::::::Yes there is this article seems to be specifically made for promoting the Climate change agenda. Many topics in the talk page have talked about this for years but nobody seems to do anything. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You have just shown your bias there by using the term "Climate change agenda" There is no such thing. There is climate science, and there is climate science denial. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I understand now, there is the Scientists who know everything about the subject, and the heretics who can not speak a word about bias in the topic of climate change without them being removed from the subject and having everyone laugh at them for being dumb.

::::::::Science can not exist with this structure. Science can not have a agenda just facts, and a neutral website like this one should not show the most popular agenda, but the pure facts no matter what Wikimedia Foundations politics are, as they seem to never change this article for nearly a decade. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|Skibidiohiorizz123}} Re: {{tq|neutral website like this one should not show the most popular agenda}} The section of the Neutrality policy found at WP:GEVAL states that Wikipedia should not give equal validity to unorthodox and unpopular viewpoints. If your beliefs are considered a "heresy" in the scientific community, then they will not be handled with any sympathy in Wikipedia. And to quote the Neutrality policy, {{tq|This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.}} Geogene (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::This is a great arguement. Instead of using my peer-reviewed source that disproves global warming(at least on a large scale) and instead talk about this being an unorthodox view Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Saying "using my peer-reviewed source that disproves" proves you don't understand how science works. A singular paper published in a singular journal doesn't "prove" anything. You need many papers building off of something in order to start proving it. There's tens of thousands of papers that collectively prove climate change is real and man-made, and every nationally recognized scientific body on Earth agrees with this. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Why should I care that a national scientific body says anything? In fact I found multiple I just used the one with the most citations. If you really want to I could find plenty of other research papers. Your using a fallacy by assuming I would use every source I found. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::"Why should I care that a national scientific body says anything?"

:::::::::::::So to be clear, if every single national scientific body from every nation on Earth: India, Canada, Finland, Japan, Germany, Australia, Brazil, etc., says something, then you don't care but instead will ignore them all because you found one paper published decades ago that is skeptical of it? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Like I said I can easily find other papers. I used a website listed above to find climate change skeptics papers that were peer-reviewed. Instead of getting mad at me for not trusting government science groups(which are easily able to be bribed by solar panel companies, wind turbine companies etc). You see to not be able to see any words that challenge your worldview. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::If it's so easy to bribe them then why hasn't the massive, extremely wealthy and influential fossil fuels industry been able to bribe a single one? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The existence of the things you claim exist both do not "prove" anything, nor do they do anything in any fashion to "disprove" anything else. That you state such demonstrates your limited understanding of how science works, and perhaps more relevantly, what wikipedia requires in terms of quality sources.

:::::::::::::::"Some paper somewhere" is of limited usefulness (like next to none) in terms of science, and unless relevant, notable, and high quality sources have written about that particular publication, no usefulness for Wikipedia. Lostsandwich (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has nothing to do with the content on Wikipedia. If you read some article on social media telling you the WMF is biased and is making the articles on Wikipedia biased then consider yourself duped. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::My source was I made it up for some reason I myself forgot Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:So I found a source. using the AMS website(American Meteorological Society) I put it in parts of the thread above. If you want to you can read it. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand. Y'all are telling me to find a reliable peer reviewed source. And when I did you completely ignored it! It's like you never cared about the actual science and just want to maintain your worldview! It all makes sense now. Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::Why should we respond to a singular paper from the last century questioning climate change, when we have over 80,000 papers published since 2012 that show that climate change is real and caused by humans? Do you know how silly you sound? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Because, I want you to actually read the works of climate change skeptics instead of staying in your little echo chamber speaking "facts". you have not see to have read a paper by anyone challenging your worldview Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Have you read any of the rebuttals of these works? Or do you just cling to your tiny less than 1% of papers that support your worldview, and ignore everything that debunks them? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Skibidiohiorizz123, you've proposed as "the works of climate change skeptics" a paper; "Global Warming: A reduced Threat?" written by Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Stooksbury. "It says in section 8 "The Northern Hemisphere, which should warm first and most, shows no statistically significant warming trend over the last half-century" and you think it's a "peer-reviewed source that disproves global warming(at least on a large scale)". A scepnic would check how that compares with the global surface temperature instrumental temperature record – oh dear, Pat got it very wrong. But since he wrote a number of books and papers denying or minimising climate change, not surprising, and not support for your little echo chamber complaint. You have to show that any change you're proposing gives due weight to mainstream views, as required by Neutral Point of View policy . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up and please someone close this FORUM. This non-educatable individual should return to their echochamber and not edit well established and sourced articles. Enough is enough. YBSOne (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Okay thank you I'm tired of all of this Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Incomplete, bc it turns a blind eye to the normal fighting in science, with scientific argument within a legitimate debate, and turns this into denial.

Useless, as science denial is already tagged it shouldn't be redefined.

So I suggest:

Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial about the scientific consensus on climate change.

If however you favor some kind of more detailed definition, than the one given by the article used in ref should be used:

{{quote|employment of rhetorical [emphasis mine] arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none}} (as opposed to: employment of scientific argument within a legitimate debate), and {{quote|an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists}} (as opposed to: an approach that has the ultimate goal to acquire knowledge).

which would turn the first sentence into something like:

Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by the use of unscientific or false argument (or even no argument at all) to reject, refuse to acknowledge, dispute, or fight the scientific consensus on climate change, with no goal to acquire knowledge about climate. 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:E08B:551:8CE7:BC61 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Just for context: The current wording of the first sentence is: "{{tq|Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change.}}. I do like your proposed first sentence as it's much shorter and concise. Your second proposal is interesting but would be too long and cumbersome for a first sentence. Another option would be to break this up into two or three sentences. Which reference did you mean when you said "if however you favor some kind of more detailed definition, than the one given by the article used in ref should be use"? EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly favor current intro sentence over new suggestions: Classically, definitions start with a statement of a higher category (here, science denial) followed by what distinguishes it meaningfully from other members of the category. The first suggestion, above, is a nearly tautological distinction of CC consensus, and does not distinguish anything beyond the title of the entire article that the reader has just read. (Yes, it's shorter, but teaches almost nothing beyond "denial + ArticleTitle.) The word "rhetorical" in the second suggestion is based on the "Hoofnagle brothers" definition (questionably authoritative), which also does not add much that is meaningful. The apparent third suggestion is meandering and choppy. In contrast, the current wording is filled with meaningful content, and is concise. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Agree: Keep the more explicit wording. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a brainteaser. Readers should not be forced to collect info from several articles to find out what the basic idea is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)