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 subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 34Auto-archiving period: 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] See also: Scientific consensus on climate change and Talk:Global warming/FAQ § Q1 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. 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

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 (46 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 13,705 13,705 451 451 Terminology 12,677 12,677 675 675 Categories and tactics 9,124 58,401 312 2,616 Discussing specific aspects of climate change science 9,476 25,499 282 1,168 Playing up the potential non-human causes 546 546 62 62 Playing up flawed studies 2,211 2,211 121 121 Disputing IPCC reports and processes 4,833 4,833 253 253 Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes 8,433 8,433 450 450 Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical" 1,817 1,817 172 172 Pushing for adaptation only 6,005 6,005 383 383 Delaying climate change mitigation measures 9,399 9,399 390 390 Promoting conspiracy theories 6,557 6,557 191 191 Psychology 1,028 1,028 48 48 Connections to other debates 35 16,432 0 846 Links with other environmental issues 2,295 2,295 103 103 Links with nationalism and right-wing groups 6,091 6,091 344 344 Conservative views 8,011 8,011 399 399 History 12,118 31,720 804 1,498 Similarities with tobacco industry tactics 3,517 3,517 330 330 Republican Party in the United States 16,085 16,085 364 364 Denial networks 934 18,533 0 681 Conservative and libertarian think tanks 4,974 4,974 185 185 Publishers, websites and networks 4,477 12,625 143 496 Publications for school children 8,148 8,148 353 353 Notable people who deny climate change 46 24,118 0 1,241 Politicians 19,977 19,977 864 864 Scientists 4,095 4,095 377 377 Lobbying and related activities 2,494 25,657 76 1,434 Government 1,178 1,178 74 74 Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors 6,344 6,426 369 369 ExxonMobil 82 82 0 0 Attacks and threats towards scientists 3,598 3,598 212 212 Funding for deniers 11,961 11,961 703 703 Effects on public opinion 8,934 23,204 518 889 United States 11,060 11,060 251 251 Europe 3,210 3,210 120 120 Responses to denialism 59 24,827 0 986 The role of emotions and persuasive argument 7,731 7,731 121 121 Following people who have changed their position 8,300 8,300 494 494 Effective approaches to dialogue 4,144 4,144 99 99 Approaches with farmers 1,972 1,972 136 136 Statements of well known people calling for climate action 865 865 62 62 Legal response 1,756 1,756 74 74 See also 685 685 0 0 References 30 30 0 0 Further reading 1,844 1,844 0 0 Total 252,861 252,861 11,365 11,365

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]

How many words do you want. I could do a whole article. Xan747 (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for what came next Climate Scientists response to DOE report. RealClimate 2 Sep 2025. Not sure this article is the place for a decent treatment of what's going on here. Xan747 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave souza: here's your summary. Probably needs paring down and certainly other ce. I've no idea where to put this. If there's an article, or section of an article elsewhere dedicated to the Trump administration's continued dismantling of all things climate science, please point me to it. The DOE report, and consensus response to it lead by Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp most certainly need to be added somewhere, and I am willing to do it. Xan747 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Requested summary of articles. Use as desired. Xan747 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2025, Steven Koonin, John Christy and Roy Spencer were given positions in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). According to CNN, unspecified agency sources familiar with the hirings described their roles as "special government employee", "expert" and "consultant" respectively. All three have doctoral degrees in the physical sciences, with Christy and Spencer having specific expertise in climate research, and all three have a history of promoting views that are contrary to the consensus view that humans are the primary cause of climate change. Climate scientist Michael Mann told the New York Times that the hirings are an indication that "the administration has no respect for the actual science", citing the administration's recent firings of "hundred" of actual climate experts, replacing them with "a small number of reliable foot soldiers." Climate scientist Andrew Dessler expressed concern about the possibility the three would be tasked with helping the administration's ongoing efforts to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 endangerment finding, which is used as the basis for the government's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He described the move as "a thread running through this administration," and that, "They don’t seek out legitimate expert opinion; instead, they find people to give them the answer they want." Dessler criticized all three as being well-known for "cherry picking data" and expressing unscientific such as being personally "unconvinced" by the consensus view. Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said that while Koonin and Christy are "among the most reasonable climate contrarians", their views only represent a "tiny minority view", and that "specifically seeking out and elevating fringe views [...] is deeply problematic." According to the Times, it was unclear what the three would be working on, or whether the positions were paid. However, Christy responded to the Times saying that he was not receiving a salary, and was not working on the administration's effort to overturn the endangerment finding.[1][2] Nick Carter, an opinion-writer for Sky News, defended the three scientists' credentials and expertise, saying that Koonin's physics background made him particularly suitable to critique the performance of climate models. Carter quoted Koonin's 2021 book, Unsettled, which said, "We don't understand features of the climate to anywhere near the level of specificity required." Carter also cited a 2014 workshop Koonin led, consisting of leading climate scientists, with the goal of "stress-testing" the consensus view. He wrote that Koonin "came away unsettled", and that "the distinction between human influences and natural variation was far from clear". Koonin pointed to disagreements between climate models, saying that they were "insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effects our actions will have on it." Carter wrote that Koonin "has been the target of denunciation, not debate", and that consensus scientists have " surrounded themselves with a rhetorical fortress in which disagreement is cast as denial, and skepticism is treated as a threat". Carter concluded by writing that the Trump administration was "determined to decriminalize dissent" and that if climate science were "truly settled, it should be able to withstand challenge," and that "it recoils from scrutiny tells us almost everything we need to know."[3] References Friedman, Lisa; Mulkey, Sachi Kitajima (September 2, 2025). "Scientists Denounce Trump Administration's Climate Report". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 3, 2025. Retrieved September 6, 2025. Freedman, Andrew; Nilsen, Ella (July 8, 2025). "The Trump admin just hired 3 outspoken climate contrarians. Scientists are worried what comes next". CNN. Archived from the original on August 30, 2025. Retrieved September 6, 2025. Carter, Nick (July 12, 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". Sky News Australia. Retrieved September 6, 2025.

Why do we need a huge paragraph on some journalist's opinion? --Hob Gadling (talk)

I assume you're talking about Sky News opinionator, Nick Cater. Firstly, that article was provided by dave souza in his request for a summary--as are the NYT and CNN sources I also used. Secondly, this article is about arguments that climate deniers make, and the quotes from Koonin and Cater would fill up that bingo card, thus perfectly illustrating the topic of this article. As for size, I clearly indicated it could use some paring down and other copy editing. Perhaps you could do those edits yourself, or offer some other form of constructive feedback? Xan747 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave out that whole paragraph. It just shows that denialists who have scientific credentials are able to hoodwink clueless laymen such as Carter into believing they have good points, and it lists some of their bad reasoning without pointing out how bad it is.

For instance, the point about climate models being "insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades" is a common denialist talking point that is not only plain wrong but also misleading even if it were true: it is like telling the driver of a car heading to a crash, "Don't brake, you don't know the exact trajectory between here and the crash". The "rhetorical fortress in which disagreement is cast as denial" is also false. Scientific skeptics, who are familiar with debunking pseudoscience, reject denialists' pretense to just be "skeptics". Denialists misrepresent the science, and their reasoning consists of half-truths, lies, fallacies, and rhetorical tricks. They have nothing. And to present their case without debunking it immediately would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir, Hob. Remember, I'm not arguing for inclusion of all of this in the article. Dave asked for a summary of those three sources and I gave on that happens to be a balance of all three. Clearly we do not want to run a bunch of denialist tropes without rebuttal. But it may be useful to show that such tropes are alive and well and unchanged in at least 30 years. Maybe. I didn't know how Dave wanted to use this stuff, but he's made a suggestion below. Please take any further disagreements up with him. Xan747 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hob Gadling: the suggested content is far too long and overly detailed. It would be best to distill the most notable facts so that the content is about 25% as long as it is now. I don't have a link, but there is a Wikipedia guideline that content should still be of pertinent interest to readers ten or more years in the future. We're writing an encyclopedia article, and not an essay or a newspaper article. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my initial message "Probably needs paring down". Dave asked for a summary. I delivered one. It's up to him or whomever to use it how they will. Xan747 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the hatnote to "Requested summary of articles. Use as desired." so that it is abundantly clear the entire wall of text is not meant for inclusion in this article. Xan747 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for producing the summary, which is useful in bringing out the main points. The situation was rather speculative, and while a couple of sentences will be needed, it's now introductory to the US government's contrarian "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate" issued in draft, RealClimate has links to the "review" and the response by scientists. [1] . . Will add pointers in a new section, this affects several articles. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave souza, I've found two article where this might deserve more content than here:

Climate change policy of the United States#Second Donald Trump administration, 2025

Science policy of the second Trump administration, which seems to be the more neutrally-named analog of:

Political interference with science agencies by the first Trump administration

Here are all the reliable secondary sources I could dig up with rebuttals of the DOE report by consensus scientists: Wired, Time, LA Times, Politico Pro (paywalled), AP, Axios, and The Guardian

I went ahead and created Draft:A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate with a lede paragraph and these sources pasted into it, with the thought that we can develop material there before merging into other articles as appropriate. I also expect this to warrant its own article eventually, so this seems an appropriate approach. Xan747 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's very useful, but there's more than one prong to the attack on science, as mentioned below. For this article, it will be useful to note sources that explicitly call the actions climate change denial or contrarian. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've already begun mentioning that the report comes in the context of the much broader ongoing dismantling of scientific research and science-based policy. I'm going to stay focused on this report in "my" draft because I do think it may warrant its own article at some point. But even if it doesn't I hope there will be plenty of useful content to pull into related articles. Xan747 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act

The main discussion of this is currently at Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act#Proposal by Second Trump Administration to Rescind the Endangerment Finding, 2025, where I've included some information from the above draft. Will try to add more souces. This may expand and merit an article, but it's split across more than one government agency and the title isn't currently obvious. dave souza, talk 18:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll follow along over there as well. Xan747 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian material about climate refugees

Sorry, the guardian stuff is not about climate change denial, it is almost the opposite, ie wishing to protect the existing environment. Prove me wrong. Greglocock (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this sound like climate change denial ? "This wrapping of ecological disaster with fears of rampant immigration is a narrative that has flourished in far-right fringe movements in Europe and the US and is now spilling into the discourse of mainstream politics. Whatever his intent, Johnson was following a current of rightwing thought that has shifted from outright dismissal of climate change to using its impacts to fortify ideological, and often racist, battle lines. " Prove me wrong Greglocock (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly, the Guardian content shows evolution of climate change denial, which has often been based on a convenient conflation of local environment versus global climate change. This convenient "misunderstanding" permeates some right-wing theories. That is why the content is essential to the evolution of climate change denial. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denial is often found in what people don't say. In this case the quiet part is that blocking immigration of climate refugees will have a negligible effect on mitigating GHG emissions. It's a pernicious form of burden-shifting the main driver of climate change onto people who are the least responsible for it, all while appearing have finally stopped denying the mechanism itself. Unfortunately, the tactic seems to be working—all the more reason it needs to be mentioned in this article. Xan747 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xan747's post. Also: This material is undeniably relevant in its section, "Links with nationalism and right-wing groups". —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why, though, do you consider this climate denial? It's literally acknowledgement of the need for climate action (albeit in a disturbing and ineffective way). Are you arguing that this is a part of climate denial because it's a way of deflecting from real solutions? Be-Plants (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again: it is part of the evolution of climate change denial that is particularly pertinent to the section, "Links with nationalism and right-wing groups". Climate change denial is no longer only the outright denial that Earth is warming or arguing against climate change mitigation. It does relate to climate change adaptation, and is related to Xan747's astute observation that it is burden-shifting. You're right, on its face it is also part of a partisan deflection away from genuine mitigation and adaptation solutions. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so A=!A. Can't argue with that logic. Anyway I suppose I should support including this irrelevant non sequitur into this article, it only makes it more ridiculous. Greglocock (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of climate change denial is to prevent action against climate change. Its core is "lying to prevent action". The exact lie varies depending on who the liars are talking to and when. Those who used the typical denialist lies are now using other lies. That is relevant here. It's like an article about a former president naming the president's successor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "You can lead people to data, but you can’t make them think"

There's a new article touching on climate change denial by New Zealand scientist Kevin Trenberth, whom I admire deeply for all of his efforts to bring the scientific understanding to the public. Perhaps there's something in here that could be used in the article (although I guess Newsroom (website) maybe not be seen as a very reliable source (?): You can lead people to data, but you can't make them think - Newsroom EMsmile (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]