Talk:Sallie Baliunas

Untitled

" However, her viewpoint — that solar variation accounts for most of the recent climate change — is not widely accepted among climate scientists" removed for NPOV policy: Wikipedia should neither endorse nor condemn any view, cause or person., it is irrelevant how many people "accept" the conclusion or not (consensus). If there is a specific peer reviewed paper that scientifically refutes this view, cite that, otherwise it's just opinions (often political) and not science.

--- (William M. Connolley 08:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I'm not sure why Ed is shouting at me - I haven't cut anything out of this article (up to now). So, why did I chop what I chopped? Firstly, Ed provides no links to what he is talking about so we have to guess. So I'm guessing this is all part of the svensmark/friis-christensen type stuff. In which case the proposed mechanism is solaroutput/solarwind/cosmicrays/cloud/albedo/t. *Not* a brighter sun shining more sunlight down. But if you provide a link to their research, I suppose we could find out.

Sorry if I shouted. I hope the echoes have died down by now. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

Cut from article:

• They believe that solar variability is more strongly correlated with variations with air temperature than any other factor, even carbon dioxide levels.

• Baliunas is a strong disbeliever in a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying:

• : But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case. [1]

• However, her main argument for this is ...measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This was either untrue or misleading (see [2]) at the time, and is even less true now.

• Baliunas earlier adopted a sceptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer, which earned its originators, Rowland and Molina, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue, presented to Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement), were broadly similar in form to those she presented at the same time, and has maintained subsequently.

This section on "arguments against" needs a rewrite to make it neutral. Right now, it reads as if Wikipedia is endorsing the view that Baliunas is wrong. This is against the NPOV policy: Wikipedia should neither endorse nor condemn any view, cause or person. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If B is wrong, it is quite in line for wiki to say so. In this case, B is quite definitely wrong and misleading. I've restored the cut, but reworded it mildly ("even more wrong now" might be considered a bit unfair).

Actually, that is incorrect. It is definitely NOT in line for the Wikipedia to say that a party to a controversy is wrong. It would be perfectly okay to say that a certain AUTHORITY considered that party to be wrong. Like another scientist, or a scientific body. Or a survey of scientists might show that a certain percentage disagree.

Note that Wikipedia does not say that evolution is a fact, only that 95% of scientists agree with it (and 99.8% of biologists). --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If someone said "water is denser than lead" & the quote got onto a wiki page it would be quite in order to point out that this is wrong. I dispute your interpretation of NPOV. Facts are facts. In this case, the balloon record, which S is purporting to comment on, and the S+C version of the MSU record, both show that S is wrong. The records aren't in dispute (in this sense).

No, if it's as obvious a mistake as "water is denser than lead", then there is no need for Wikipedia to brand that statement a "mistake". It's common knowledge that lead (even more so than most metals) sinks in water. All of this was discussed in the first few years of Wikipedia's existence, and I'm not "interpreting" NPOV policy, but telling you what it is. Perhaps you would like to discuss this on the mailing list? (If so, let me know, because I'm currently unsubscribed; but you someone as esteemed as YOU, I would re-subscribe.)

About the balloon and satellite record, the dates of the statements are significant. If I recall correctly, SEPP, Daly, Christy, Lindzen, Baliunas, et al., began critiquing IPCC conclusions in 1996-1999. During that period Christy had reported a flat or slightly negative trend in atmospheric temperatures (with an error of +/- 0.05 per decade, or a half degree per century -- Centigrade, of course) -- as opposed to the IPCC predictions of a 2 degree per century rise (or higher) based on the enhanced greenhouse effect theory.

I wish someone would write an article, comprehensible to laymen, on the mechanisms which (the GCM's predict) lead CO2 emissions to cause higher atmospheric temperatures. The current global warming article is so long and convoluted that I can't make sense of it.

Baliunas says that hot and cold air on earth correlates better with sunspots than with CO2 emissions. If she's wrong, it should be easy to cite SOME AUTHORITY who (a) says so and (b) explains WHY she's wrong.

You're a very affable chap, and it's an honor to have a real scientist contributing to Wikipedia, but I wish you'd agree to conform your contributions to NPOV policy. We writers all must describe scientific disputes NOT as "he says so, but he's wrong" -- rather as "he says so, but another says not". Then describe the evidence and reasoning each gives, and let the reader decide.

Wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed journal submissions. There's a different refereeing process. The question here is never, "Does this article pass scientific muster?" but "Does this article present all points of view (POV) accurately?" ----user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

2004/12/01 iteration

(William M. Connolley 16:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've rv'd Eds version. For the same reason as before: the failure to distinguish facts from opinions. *no-one* (who knows anything about it) doubts that the satellite record shows warming. Even Spencer and Christie (owners of the record with the lowest T trend) admit it. Even Balliunas would admit that the record shows warming, if pressed. The point is that skeptics have a tendency to slip from "small warming" or even "insignificant warming" (which IMHO are dodgy, but could be justifiable) to "no warming", which is indefensible. Ed, you wrote: "but when corrected the trends still show much less warming than predicted by IPCC climate models" which I considered dodgy, but shows that even you accept they show warming [3].

In controversial matters, Wikipedia is not supposed to take a position endorsing one view as a "fact" and dismissing another view as "opinion". Please add to the article the NAME of a scientist who disagrees with Baliunas.

Spencer and Christie disagree. Its in their data record. You don't seem to appreciate that this is a matter of the data in the record, not opinion.

It would also be helpful to provide a timeline. When did Baliunas say "no warming has been found"? Was this five years ago, before the recent (and possibly temporary) upswing which S&C reported? (Around 5 years ago, there were 5 fewer years of satellite data, and S&C reported a flat or negative trend.)

(William M. Connolley 21:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Realising that there was little chance of you actually reading the reference provided to find out, I did so my self. The answer is, june 2001. The S+C trends were:

  1998    0.0702235
  1999    0.0579218
  2000    0.0466267
  2001    0.0551461

We should also mention the accuracy of measurements. Are these measurements exact to the hundredth of a degree? Or are the "trends" smaller than the error bars? (And who says so?) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Wooo, suddenly you're all interested in the accuracy! Splendid. You'd better start reading them up. Shall we put in a comment criticising SB for making sweeping broadbrush comments and failing to mention error bars?

Are the figures above in degrees Centigrade per decade? And how do they compare to IPCC climate model predictions? (0.2 to 0.8 degrees per decade)

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Ed, please. Get off your bum and do some fact finding yourself. They're on the sat t rec page, of course. Because I put them there. You're being grossly lazy. And do tell where you got the 0.8 from.

I'd like to see the article (and other related articles) focus on three distinct quantities:

1. Predicted warming
2. Observed warming
3. Margin of error

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Which article? The climate model article already points out that GCMs correctly hindcast the observed warming, and the GW article probably does too.

Also let's clarify some ideas: when researchers speak of "observed warming trends" or "essentially no warming occured", how does that compare to the margin of error?

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) If you were in teh habit of reading IPCC rather than SEPP, you would know.

For example, if scientist A says that his climate model predicts 3.0 Centigrade warming per century, plus or minus 0.5 degrees, that translates to 0.3 degrees per decade +/- 0.05 degrees (i.e., between 0.25 degrees and 0.35 degrees per decade).

If the observed trend is 0.20 degrees +/- 0.1 degrees (0.1 to 0.3 degrees per decade), then what does that tell us? In other words, how probable is it (statistically) that the observations confirm or contradict the hypothesis?

What about 0.057 +/- 0.1 degrees per decade or 0.057 +/- 0.05 degrees per decade, the trend observed as of 1999? Compare that to the prediction of 0.3 degrees per decade. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Give me a ref for the 0.3 and I'll comment.

Rv: why

I just reverted 3 anon edits [4], because:

• saying the satellite record shows slight warming is the sure sign of a skeptic who hasn't read the sat t rec page :-)
• This view is accepted by a group of [[list of scientists opposing global warming consensus|scientists, who disagree with the common belief]] is wrong - that group is disparate, not unified under the Baliunas banner

I also took out and in IPCC reports [5] (the actual ref occurs here [6]) because the IPCC cites lots of stuff - you can't try to imply support for B's position from this

William M. Connolley 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with this woman - has she done any research that isn't horribly flawed? If not, how's she still in a job - slept with the boss? Colour me curious. (not sure how to sign my name, but i'm not her boss, honest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That's uncalled-for. She's an astronomer; by all accounts, a very good astronomer. But on the climate stuff she makes the sort of mistakes that are common for anyone operating far outside their field of expertise. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is complete nonsense. "In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years." Whatever one might think of their paper, it certainly did not say this! Paul Matthews 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. From memory, the paper claimed that todays climate was non-exceptional in the last 2000 years. It was junk, of course William M. Connolley 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pruning

I cut a section that was argumentative (CO2 satelite versus land stuff). Citing a quote and than saying "but that is wrong" is argumentation. It's also not well-written as it's not clear if the author is saying that she STILL has this point of view (contests the new evidence on satellites) or if she only held it at the time.TCO 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repruned this section. Mr. Quiggan has reverted this change without any discussion in talk, which shows poor wikiquette. This section is argumentative (very long section where a belief is ascribed and than an argument is made against that belief). For one thing the claim is made in present tense and it is unclear what Ms. Balunias's current position on sattelites versus land temps is (with the new values). Nor is it clear that she was unreasonable in her assumptions when the earlier false numbers were beleived true. Nor is it clear that sat/land temps are the only factor supporting her points.

In any case, this whole thing is a very long peice of text and not neutral. There are plenty of places to debate GW or to expose silliness of skeptics. It should be possible to write a neutral, factual article on anything. I could write an article about Karl Marx without having to say, "but he was wrong".

If Mr. Qiuggan wants to compromise on a simple statement that she is a GW skeptic, that is fine. Debating her beleifs when the issues are still in controversy, and when her POV is not represented (or finding selected places where she (may) be in error) is not an encyclopedia article. It would be a fine editorial (maybe with even more depth and examples, on Crooked Timber, though.) If so, it will be an even better piece if explored to be more than just a collection of gotchas, but to be representative and evaluative of all her points. And I say this, with some general feeling that skeptics tend to overreach and be a bit silly when doing so.TCO 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The material was over-long but should be included in some form. Her present views are irrelevant to the fact that she made a sweeping pronouncement that "the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities. The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors" based primarily on data that were known at the time to be incorrect. By all accounts Baliunas is a good astronomer, but when discussing global warming she makes silly mistakes typical of someone operating far outside their area of specialization. The fact that she makes these mistakes isn't our fault, and we have no obligation to cover for her (we do, of course, have an obligation to stick to the facts). Hiding such things would abdicate our duty to the reader. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If she has a STRONG history of making errors, than of course it's relevant, but citing one to judge her overall seems like gamesmanship in Wiki for sides of a battle that still rages, rather than encyclopedia-writing. Everyone makes errors. I still think this is better handled in an op-ed.

But, I can compromise to some smaller section (and it is really a compromise, since the whole thing is in my opinion non-encylopediac). Why don't you take a cut at putting the section back in and making it more omniscient (and shorter!)TCO 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened it William M. Connolley 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version at time of this post is can-live-withable. Well written as well.TCO 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More pruning

I cut some remarks about Singer et als opinions on ozone depletion. These guys may very well have had silly opinions on that, but that is not relevant in an article on Balunias. It's wandering to mention it. (And wandering to make a pointed point.)TCO 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is a joke. I'm not sure what's funnier, this article supposedly about Sallie Baliunas (but which is basically about air time for those who disagree with her), or the author going on about how he's wrote a neutral article.

What would really interest me would be real figures (haha), gathered over time, and not ones cherry picked, that show the earth is actually warming.

I'm attempting to 'dispute the neutrality of the article'. Attempting to. I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm almost certainly posting in the wrong place. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicsinglez (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ozone pruning

I removed two lines re ozone and CFCs there was no verifiable source. Feel free to add it back in if you have the source, although its relevance is questionable. Theblog (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Retired

http://astronomy.fas.harvard.edu/astronomy-alumni

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sallie Baliunas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501052339/http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 to http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043839/http://www.techcentralstation.com/081604C.html to http://www.techcentralstation.com/081604C.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227171156/http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf to http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014045518/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ooajhxkq?url=http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/directory/researchers/sallie-baliunas to http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/directory/researchers/sallie-baliunas
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030225010718/http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm to http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009144009/http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm to http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501052339/http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 to http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed the word "denier"

People who dispute the connection between climate change and CO2 find the word "denier" offensive, many climate skeptics believe "climate denier" is an attempt to link the concept of disputing the consensus to "holocaust denial". Is it really necessary to use the term "denier"? By all means describe the views of other scientists of this position, but surely it does no harm to avoid using a term which the subject of the article might take to be a deliberate antagonism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eworrall (talk • contribs) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

They find it offensive? So what? I find their existence offensive, but I don't expect them to do anything about it. They exist, I am offended, end of story.

And they? People call them deniers, they are offended, end of story? No, they keep whining that people recognize them for what they are.

They are still deniers. It is the correct term used for such people. It is the term used in reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Disappointed Hob. Is it the goal of Wikipedia to be deliberately provocative and offensive towards the subjects of Wikipedia posts, for the crime of holding an unfashionable scientific view? Is the penalty for having the wrong scientific theory to be smeared as being comparable to those who deny that NAZIs murdered millions of Jewish people?

There are a number of examples of academics or prominent journalists comparing or linking the idea of "climate denial" to "Holocaust denial":

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist. The global warming deniers—the Koch brothers, for example—see only what they want to see."

"Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming."

"Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial."

Regardless of the original intent or meaning, the term "denier" in the context of "climate denial" has become inextricably associated with the NAZI holocaust, thanks to its use by prominent journalists and academics. Its use in Wikipedia, against victims who are powerless to remove this label, whose crime is to hold an unfashionable scientific viewpoint, is just a form of bullying.

Eric Worrall (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

While your sensitivity on this point is understandable since you identify yourself as an author on "a prominent climate skeptic website", a few comment pieces saying x is as bad as y doesn't mean the two are "inextricably associated". Climate change denial#Terminology gives examples of academic and educational usage, and also cites John Timmer on exactly the argument you're making. . . dave souza, talk 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

On 20 January 2020 Wiki5537821 changed "skeptic" to "denier" without explanation in the edit summary. It would be nice to see one. The reference later in the paragraph to a 2002 article, which should be linked to here rather than the current dead link, says things like "that exceedingly small positive trend is probably not the result of human activities", i.e. Ms Baliunas believed there is warming and "probably" is a skeptical remark not a denial. Hob Gadling has re-inserted "denier" without seeking consensus first, and so far doesn't have it -- although I'm not interested in the WP:LABEL aspect that Eric Worrall seems to be alluding to, I agree that the earlier wording was better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "capitalismmagazine" is a reliable source for scientific subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Boo hoo, poor anti-science loons, being compared with anti-history loons. See here: the section "no neutral POV" is pretty much the same as sections in Talk pages about climate change deniers. Like identical twins!

As I said, we say what reliable sources say, and they call it "denial". Denialism is a thing, and climate change denial is a big part of it. Don't blame Wikipedia for common usage. Wikipedia does not pander to fringe groups: we do not call evolution "just a theory" because creationists are offended if we don't, and we do not claim acupuncture is science because quacks are offended if we don't. Read WP:LUNATIC.

Climate change denial is not just "unfashionable". That is not how science works. It is indefensible. If you want to be treated like real scientists, behave like real scientists. Do not just steal e-mails, cherry-pick quotes, cherry-pick data, cherry-pick studies, cherry-pick scientists, accuse innocent scientists of fraud, harrass them with legal shenanigans, bribe politicians, and so on. All the despicable methods deniers use have earned them the word "denier". Instead, do real research, without any dirty tricks, and publish it in bona-fide scientific journals. (Of course, this will not work, since you are wrong and the data are against you, but it would be the honest way to do it, the way that does not get you called "denier".) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling someone denialist usually needs an RS, rather than just a (nearly two decade old) comment William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, have sourced it to Powell, James Lawrence (December 2012). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. pp. 22, 102–103. ISBN 978-0-231-15719-3. which on p. 22 describes S & B as "two scientists, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, well-known deniers who have worked for the George C. Marshall Institute and a number of other anti-science organizations." . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But, 1997? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ouch, checks book and it's 1997, have corrected myself. . . dave souza, talk 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Powell (who says "I am not a climate researcher") says that Ms Baliunas is a "well-known denier" without saying where he got this and without saying specifically what she denies. It's just name-calling by an opponent of her views, which even if worthy of mentioning should have been attributed per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. So far on this thread I count two editors (Eric Worrall and I) who object to "denier", and two (Hob Gadling and Dave souza) who support "denier" or "denial" . I am not counting William M. Connolley because this. Not a consensus at this time. By the way, although I admit this does not discredit Mr Powell, his book errs by saying Galileo was found guilty of heresy, it was the lesser charge = vehement suspicion of heresy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Since when do we demand that the reliable sources give sources? Maybe we should also demand that the sources the reliable sources give should also demand sources, and so on?

And since when are decisions made by vote here? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that James L. Powell is well qualified as a science educator and author of books on science history (post Galileo) in the academic press. The book comes with a good recommendation from Spencer Weart. It's not "just name calling", pages 101–103 describe Baliunas's contribution to climate change denial. He cites his sources in endnotes, as is normal. . . . dave souza, talk 14:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I have now been made aware of the Watts Up With That? article Climate Wars: Try Removing the Word “Denier” from a Wikipedia Entry where Eric Worrall says he started this as "an experiment". Oh. Then I shouldn't have taken it seriously. Unless others indicate support, I won't continue this particular argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTLAB probably applies... —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Good faith well and truly burned through. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Broad Brush

• I also have a problem with much of the use of the word "denier", but my objection is not the same as that of those who hold a certain political position and because of that don't agree with the scientific consensus. See WP:YWAB for my positions on this and related topics.

My problem is that the term "Climate change denier" is a broad brush for painting people who hold any of the following views, and that we can find multiple reliable sources that call people who hold each of the following views "deniers":

• The scientists are all lying. It is a huge conspiracy. I read it on Infowars so I know it's true.
• Climate change? What climate change? I haven't bothered to read anything by a scientist, but I don't believe it.
• I believe that the climate is changing, just as it always has. Nothing unusual about the last few centuries.
• I believe that the climate is changing, and that's a good thing. It's ice ages that are bad.
• I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but I am not convinced that the change will be as large as is predicted.
• I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but think that methane has a higher effect and CO2 has a lower effect than claimed.
• I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but not that decreasing CO2 emissions is the answer. I believe that we can reverse it through geoengineering.
• I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but I don't believe that increasing the size and power of the federal government is the solution. The polluters will just buy off the politicians as they always do.
• I believe everything the climatologists say about climate change. I accept all of the climate models and simulations. My problem is with the economic predictions that get tacked on. We have an awful track record on economic predictions.
• I believe all of it. Climate, economy, proposed solutions, I accept them all. I also believe that it is too late. We are doomed.
• I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having western countries reduce CO2 emissions while letting China increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
• I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having the US reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
• I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having California reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the country and the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
• I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having the City of San Francisco reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the country and the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
• I am a scientist. As scientist are in the habit of doing, I question one small part of established science and am doing research into a new theory. I realize that the orthodoxy is usually right, but that's how we do things in science. Alas, I picked an area where any and all opinions that are not in perfect lockstep with the scientific orthodoxy are called "climate change denial"

You can call me a climate change denier now, because the entries about San Francisco and economic models make a lot of sense to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A climate change denier is someone who believes some random bullshit at odds with science, for the purpose of having a pretend reason to be against doing something about global warming. This covers most of your variants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Be more specific, which is why I think it's better to discuss climate change denial rather than "denier". As that article shows, it's unwarranted doubt, particularly associated with organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science. The subject of this article has contributed notably to that campaigning, hence the Soon and Baliunas controversy where, with oil industry funding, they recycled other people's research and misrepresented it to support an old discredited "theory", with results that were used by the GW Bush administration as support for overruling the EPA and editing an EPA report contrary to the science evaluated by the EPA. Beliefs are only relevant to the extent that misrepresentation of science for CC denial is fostered by ideology. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)