Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive11

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <9>, (new)(back)

New rank to Hierarchy of global warming denial proposal[edit]

"Gobal warming is a good thing so we should encourage it". It is true that global warming does have some benefits, like the opening of the north west passage, which would help over seas trading. Of course the reality is that these benefits are far outweighed by the bad things global warming does. Should we add it? If so I think it should go on the top of the list. If you agree we should add it, where do you think it belongs on the Hierarchy? If we add it, we might need to expand the what we define as global warming denialism at the top of the page. Corpse in the bed (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Behavioral/Social Science[edit]

I haven't noticed much emphasis on what behavioral/social science is telling us is going on. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about: [1]

Also a university is offering a free online class on this and how to deal with climate change deniers. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/21/university-offering-free-online-course-to-demolish-climate-denial.Corpse in the bed (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Claim of not significant?[edit]

If you have to include the claim of "not significant" into the denialism definition/claims, perhaps it would be necessary to establish, through links to other articles or text, what is being significant. Or would such a question ("What does the article mean by significant?") constitute denialism already? K61824[Talk needed] 00:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)