Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] On the intro refs

I marked the phrase "The term conspiracy theory is commonly, though not always, used in a pejorative way," with a fact tag, because it was unreferenced. I noticed one editor put a lot of useless refs around other things I wasn't inquiring about. Said editor then removed the fact tag and put this link after commonly, though I don't know why because it seems out of place and the article doesn't seem to be talk about it. The excuse he gave in the edit summary says confirm in conspiracy. Perhaps said editor is unaware, but Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources. Try again. ~ UBeR 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite an authority for your view that "Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources". It doesn't appear to be stated in WP:RS and it is not consistent with the practice of other encyclopedias, which routinely use cross-references for this kind of thing. Obviously, I can go to the article and cite its sources, but this is going to get very cumbersome, very quickly.JQ 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I can. Lest you're lazy, I'll quote it for you: "Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Also, WP:OR makes this fairly clear as well. It makes sense, because otherwise we would just be arguing in circles (circular logic/begging the question). My claims are justified. Are yours? ~ UBeR 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. And although I thought that the relevant bits of the Conspiracy theory article were well-sourced, they actually are not. So, I'll find and add some sources to both.JQ 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this issue can be solved by simply changing the wording from "The term conspiracy theory is commonly, though not always, used in a pejorative way" to "The term conspiracy theory is often, though not always, used in a pejorative way." I don't think there can be much debate on that assertion. Fuzzzone 09:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Done!JQ 09:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article added to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Purported pseudoscience

I just need some citations to justify inclusion in that list. Count Iblis 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" is not a scientific claim. Ergo, it cannot be a pseudoscience. Real science doesn't care why people may or may not lie. ~ UBeR 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should be the in the claims section

From reading this article, it appears only Crichton's State of Fear and Durkin's documentary are being labeled as conspiracy theories. The rest of the sources in "Claims" have not been labeled as conspiracy theories by any sources. ~ UBeR 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it would be better to focus on improving the structure of the article, sources and so forth, rather than trying to delete material. If you want to help on the former, that would be great. JQ 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the unbalanced, unsupported, and other material in violation of Wikipedia policy should be removed first. I will gladly work on improving the article, especially in terms of cleaning it up, etc. after that. ~ UBeR 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We just went over all this on afd. Do you want to reopen proceedings there? If not, I think you should take it that your view that material alleging frauds, hoaxes and so should be deleted does not command significant support.JQ 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article is unbalanced. The "Criticism" section is currently geared towards providing evidence that many notable people have described skeptics as propounding conspiracy theories. I think it should summarise the more substantive arguments that critics of the conspiracy view have made. Of necessity this will need to link back to other global warming articles on Wikipedia, to avoid too much duplication of material, because obviously many of the substantive arguments are actually arguments against what are claimed to be "scientific" arguments made by the GW-skeptics.
Furthermore, the idea that global warming could be a hoax, without being a massive and far-reaching conspiracy, is a wee bit puzzling to me, and therefore the "overheated rhetoric" section could do with an example or being deleted.
This is a point where you could certianly help, UBeR. I included this section because I thought it would be reasonably easy to find people calling AGW a hoax without invoking a conspiratorial motive of some kind, but a trawl through hundreds of ghits produced no good example. You have claimed many times that people who call AGW a hoax are not conspiracy theorists, so maybe you could provide some examples.JQ 10:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As for your claims about improper synthesis in the article: I want to register my disagreement with the synthesis policy - I think it's an overly bureacratic rule which needs loosening - but it's official Wikipedia policy so I'm willing to adhere to it. Having said that, what specifically do you think is still contrary to Wikipedia policy in the current version of the article? —greenrd 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am here to responding to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology. I believe it to be a violation of the spirit and guidelines of wikipedia to do original research, that is, in this case, having contributors classify various claims as conspiracy theories in the absense of one or more secondary reliable sources desiginating the claims as conspiracy theories. See No original research/Primary Sources and Attribution pages. We have a similar discussion going on at Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy. Please feel free to stop by and add your views on a very similar matter. ImprobabilityDrive 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to spell this out further? Are you claiming that it is OR to describe someone asserting the existence of a conspiracy as putting forward a conspiracy theory? And (looking quickly at the link) are you suggesting that natural science perspectives (as against the political and social perspectives of GW deniers/sceptics) are being given inappropriate weight here, as you say they are in the creation-evolution controversy article? JQ 04:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Would call yourself a conspiracy theorist if you believed 13 hijackers flew a plane into a building? ~ UBeR 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The term "conspiracy theorist" occurs only once in the article, in the context of the (directly quoted) statement "I’m not a conspiracy theorist", so your question is moot. JQ 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not moot. It's in an article named "Conspiracy theories." So your claim that "conspiracy theory" only shows up once is moot. ~ UBeR 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Reread. You asked about "conspiracy theorist". If you have a question about "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", go ahead and ask it.JQ 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no question to be asked. By placing people and organizations in an article titled "conspiracy theories" you have labeled them conspiracy theorists. Besides, the RfC commentator has fully concurred with me and others. I'll give you time to remove the unsupported claims. If not, we'll bring it mediation. ~ UBeR 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy enough to confine the article to (a) sourced citations that explicitly use the word "conspiracy" and (b) sourced criticisms that explicitly refer to "conspiracy theory". Would that suit you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
And what exactly do you mean by "sourced criticisms that explicitly refer to 'conspiracy theory'"? Criticism of the disbelievers, or criticism by the disbelievers? ~ UBeR 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Primarily, the kind of material that is in the Criticism section.JQ 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy if you did, then. ~ UBeR 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've now deleted the list of people who claim hoax, lie and so on (Oregon Petition, Mel Phillips, TGGWS), trying to focus on claims that explicitly invoke conspiracy or conspiracy theory, or use conspiracy-theoretic tropes like world government, black helicopters, Bildeberg and so on.JQ 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that fulfills point a. Now what about point b? ~ UBeR 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I follow Uber here. --Childhood's End 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as a precision, at least prima facie, I do not object to showing that some people believe that the global warming stuff is a conspiracy theory or a hoax or anything else, provided they did clearly said that. I would although object to anything tantamount to associating objections to aspects of the mainstream science with claims of a conspiracy theory. This article may be borderline in some regards. --Childhood's End 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming that it is OR to describe someone asserting the existence of a conspiracy as putting forward a conspiracy theory? -- At the level you asked the question, yes. It is original research because the contributor is deciding: 1. That the person making the allegation of conspiracy is notable. 2. That the allegation is not being taken out of context. 3. That the allegation has not been recanted. And so on and so forth. Wikipedia is not a secondary source. This is official wikipedia policy.
On the other hand, it does get dicey when not only has a notable person repeadedly asserted that there is a conspiracy, but his or her opponents also rebutted or attempted to rebutt this assertion, and no third party commentators or researchers have made the observation. Even then this could (or should) be considered synthesis. E.g., providing three citations: [1] Establishes notability. [2]Establishes person has made the assertion by citing person's own work. [3]Establishes that opposing view has rebutted (or attempted to rebutt) asserter. (This would be a huge burden when an entry is disputed and no third party commentators or reserchers have made the observation that the subject is in fact alledging a conspiracy theory).
“ Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions ”
Of course, these are my interpretations of wikipedia policy. I think this area is under specified, and that my interpretation is not agreed upon by (some or many) others. But the issue of compiling such lists only seems to come up in articles that pit issues dear to liberals against issues dear to conservatives. This could be solved by having a class of wikipedians who have editorial powers, but the medicine may be worse than the affliction it's meant to treat.
By the way, I am not saying whether or not any particular item in the list of global warming conspiracy theorists should remain--I am merely offering my views of wikipedia policy and guidelines as guidance on one way to decide which items should remain and which items should be removed. ImprobabilityDrive 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation would appear to preclude the use of direct quotation altogether. How, for example, can it be demonstrated that a statement has not been recanted? Apart from this impossible point, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. The persons listed in the article are nearly all notable enough to have their own entries in Wikipedia, the quotations are direct, and third-party rebuttals are quoted (more to come, by the way). JQ 05:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

UBeR, please indicate which citations you have a problem with, and what points of dispute you have regarding factual accuracy and neutrality. JQ 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just quote Noroton on the sources:
  1. "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" documentary on Channel 4 in Britain: "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but [...]"
  2. The quote from the Cooler Heads Coalition says of someone who criticized another skeptic of promoting a conspiracy theory: "Sounds plausible to us." That was the last line in their press release (or whatever announcement it was on their Web site). Absolutely nothing in the words that precede that statement shows that they seriously believe it's a conspiracy. The quoted statement was a rhetorical flourish (irresponsible, in my opinion, but not a claim that there's a conspiracy).
  3. The Washington Post "article" is a Sunday magazine piece that engages, more than most, in rhetorical flourishes of its own and doesn't pretend to be objective. It characterizes the statement of a skeptic as a "conspiracy theory" but the quote used to back it up (shown in the WP article) could be interpreted as either describing a conspiracy theory or describing ideologues run amok. A couple of paragraphs before, the author writes that both sides have their own charges of a "conspiracy theory, of a sort." Of a sort???. Let's change the title of this article to Global warming conspiracy theories of a sort.
  4. "The general claim that the theory of global warming is a lie promoted by members of one or more interest groups secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes has been made on a number of occasions [...]" (emphasis added). The problem is that none of the citations back this up:
    1. On its Web page, the Oregon Petition does say global warming is "a lie" but doesn't say it's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes"
    2. Melanie Philips calls global warming theory (in 2004) a "fraud". An irresponsible rhetorical flourish, not a charge of a conspiracy.
    3. Same with Martin Dirkin calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." Nothing else in the article where this quote comes from supports the idea that Dirkin actually thinks there's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes." What we have is another rhetorical flourish from a filmmaker hawking his movie.
And what we have overall is an article that is full of holes and not worth keeping. Overheated rhetoric is not conspiracy theorizing. Writing Wikipedia articles is not propagandizing. Or at least it's not supposed to be.Noroton 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)"
~ UBeR 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, a lie is by definition dishonest. If a large number of climate scientists are lying to us, and politicians are involved too, surely a conspiracy must be involved? Please cite a published theory which clearly explains how it can be simultaneously that (a) they're lying, but (b) it's not a conspiracy. Or at least could you provide a relevant historical analogy to illustrate how this could be so?—greenrd 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Gee, UBeR, given your active involvement in the discussion, how did you happen to miss Noroton's subsequent comment?
Comment on changing my vote The article has been improved quite a bit since I saw it last. It proves to me that the charge that there's a Global warming conspiracy has been made numerous times both as an explicit statement and at other times as a clear implication. I think the article should make it clearer up top that this is often more a rhetorical tic than a serious charge (that many of the people who make the charge don't take it seriously is clear from the quotes in the article). But my problems with the article no longer warrant deletion: There's clearly some value here. Kudos to JQ! Noroton 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If your only support is a statement that's been withdrawn by its own author, I'll deleti the tags.JQ 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he supported the article for being kept, but that does not mean his criticisms on the sources vanish. They're still there. ~ UBeR 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The article was edited in response to the criticisms made by Noroton, which is why they were withdrawn. Claims that refer only to a hoax or fraud, with no link to an assertion of conspiracy have been listed separately, and I've noted the possibility of rhetorical overheating. So I've removed your tag and will keep it off unless you can raise specific problems with particular quotes. Also, since you've never made any claim of factual inaccuracy, I've replaced your "totally disputed" tag with a POV tag.JQ 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep note that my original proposition stands. Currently, as it stands, Crichton's State of Fear and Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary are the only pieces claiming "that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" and being labeled as conspiracy theories. ~ UBeR 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What claims of factual inaccuracy do you make? JQ 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I will state it, but I will do so again. Of the 15 works being listed as "conspiracy theories," only two have a sources calling them as such. They should be removed, and if you choose not to, I will. Your excuse to use this in an irrelevant case is apocryphal. ~ UBeR 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is silly,[[User:UBeR|UBeR]. An assertion that there is a conspiracy is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. Like lots of others, I've had it with you. You've consistently failed to make any useful contribution to this article, and it's obvious you have no intention of doing so. JQ 07:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. ~ UBeR 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Er.. you may differ, but wholesale deletion of cited information with the edit summary including deleting unsourced material is rather absurd. Now stop the edit warring and discuss the pros & cons of each of the perceived problem cited bits individually. Vsmith 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this. Some of UBeR's edits did in fact remove unsourced material [1][2][3]. However, in a number of cases UBeR claimed to be removing irrelevant material that appears to be clearly relevant [4][5][6] or blatantly relevant [7][8], and in several cases UBeR claimed to be removing unsourced material that was actually sourced [9][10] or partially sourced [11]. So on most of those, UBeR is out of line. In contrast, Childhood's End has taken a much more helpful approach to dealing with some of the unsourced material which does indeed need to be dealt with [12]. --Nethgirb 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no. No one is doubting that, for example, James Inhofe has claimed he denies global warming. You can source that all you want. What isn't being sourced is that anyone calls him a conspiracy theorist. This is what this article is doing. "If there is no reliable souce saying it, why should we?" It's improper synthesis for us to call people or societies conspiracy theorists if we have no sources to back ourselves up. Feel free to revert yourselves. ~ UBeR 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, in your edit [13] the text doesn't mention conspiracy, but it talks about a hoax, which is relevant and mentioned in the article intro. It is relevant because the widespread support for GW means if GW is a hoax, it shares salient characteristics with a conspiracy (i.e., we're not talking about a couple of pranksters in junior high). Now, arguably, there could be one section of the article devoted to quotes involving "hoax" and one section for explicit use of "conspiracy", or something like that. But simply deleting it is not helpful. And you have 7 other edits to account for besides this.
Maybe we can work on this constructively—UBeR I think would agree that the article doesn't clearly say what should be included (accusations of conspiracy, hoax, biased funding...?) It might be helpful to delineate that in the intro, e.g. possibly saying something like this article discusses accusations of conspiracy or other widespread intentional fraud regarding GW, which would include hoaxes but not (e.g.) Lindzen's accusation that climate scientists are stupider than other scientists. --Nethgirb 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, so you still haven't addressed the fact no one is calling these people conspiracy theorists except for Wikipedia (i.e. you and Mr. Quiggin). Clearly such synthesis isn't allowed. ~ UBeR 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not calling any of these people conspiracy theorists either. Where did you get that idea? The word "theorist" only appears once in the article, in a direct quote from Tim Ball.
Also, after reading the AFD discussion and thinking a bit more, I don't think it's necessary to split the article into "hoax" and "conspiracy" sections—the concepts are close enough that it's fine, as long as the contents is made clear in the intro, as I suggested. --Nethgirb 06:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe you haven't yet checked the title of the article or the intro. I'll give you time for that one. ~ UBeR 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well UBeR, I can see we are not connecting on this, so I'll let you try convincing someone else --Nethgirb 10:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Elge

Under the Motives section, there is a quote from Stewart Elge comparing emissions trading to foreign aid. However, after reading the linked article, it's clear to me that Elge does not himself have any problem with either process. Someone else might want to point to Elge's views as proof that liberal lefties are really trying to promote foreign aid when they tell us we should implement emissions trading, and might argue that foreign aid is misguided, ineffective, or motivated by some "hatred of the west." None of those are views of Elge, however. So I have a problem with this specific paragraph being included. I presume we could find many people skeptical of Kyoto and emissions trading who actually claim that the desire to promote foreign aid is the real motive behind emission trading proposals, and that there is something wrong with that. But we can't impute the latter view to Elge, as the current paragraph seems to imply. Elge is simply saying the two goals (both, to him, worthy) happen to dovetail.Birdbrainscan 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've deleted this.JQ 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

This article is a POV fork, and should be merged with Global warming controversy. The use of the term "conspiracy" here at Wikipedia is a pejorative, intended to discredit AGW skeptics. --Don't lose that number 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All this was debated some time ago at AFD and there was a strong majority for Keep. Read the discussion there and see if you have any new points to raise.JQ 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy merge. "Conspiracy theory" is a disgusting and vastly overused term used by people with political agendas to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. James Callahan 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Global warming controversy is a long article already, 111k. The theory of anthropogenic global warming has been characterized as a "conspiracy theory", "hoax", "fraud", or "swindle". For example:
  • LaRouche Movement in Germany Sets The Climate Against Global Warming Hoax[14]
  • Similarly, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Easter weekend edition) felt stirred up by the LaRouche Youth Movement organizing against the Climate Change hoax in the streets. In the context of reviewing a new climate conspiracy book with the title "Metan" [15]
  • Australian LYM Nails Gore's Global Warming Swindle [16]
  • Boston LYM Discovers Climate Project is a Dionysian Gaia Cult![17]
  • Alexander Cockburn embraces climate change "conspiracy theory".[18]
  • In fact, when it comes to corporate sponsorship of crackpot theories about why the world is getting warmer, the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the Greenhouser fearmongers and the nuclear industry, now largely owned by oil companies, whose prospects 20 years ago looked dark, amid headlines about the fall-out from Chernobyl, aging plants and nuclear waste dumps leaking from here to eternity. [19]
And so on. We should cover this viewpoint. "Conspiracy theory" is more neutral than "cult", "hoax" or "swindle". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that if a merge is to be seriously contemplated, it should be with New World Order (conspiracy). In fact, both articles look quite intertwined, one being a sub-subject of the other right now. --Childhood's End 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Swindle" ref

There are currently 3 references to <ref name="Swindle"> but no original reference that defines it. Does anyone know what that is supposed to point to? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with named refs. If the first citation is deleted the rest go blank. Anyway, I searched history and found that the sources is "Global warming labeled a 'scam'", Washington Times, http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm. However the link is dead. The article is problaby in an archive is someone wants to update the link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. A quick search suggests that there is no free version available that is not breaking copyright. I changed it from a "cite web" to a "cite news" link and removed the url. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think the reference was supposed to go to the "Great Global Warming Swindle".00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)

[edit] 1997 National Review article not about global warming

The NR section misses the point entirely. You can find the text of the article here. It's a polemic against global governance and the very real people who have been fighting for its creation for quite a lot longer than global warming theory's been around.

This is really what the article is about:

And though the crises change --World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the "energy crisis" in the Seventies -- the Left's remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: "If we don't change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Apocalypse soon -- unless international bodies save us from ourselves.

You can argue about whether global governance is a good idea or not but this isn't an article about a global warming conspiracy. It's more a standard center-right polemic against international government no matter what its guise including fighting global warming. TMLutas 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is really what the article is about (agreed):

And though the crises change --World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the "energy crisis" in the Seventies -- the Left's remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: "If we don't change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Apocalypse soon -- unless international bodies save us from ourselves. (emphasis added)

Obviously it's a standard conspiracy-theoretic polemic - it's relevance here is that it focuses on global warming as the pretext for global governanceJQ 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle

This movie is DEFINETLY a conspiracy theory. Where does it go? Downatball5432 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the fact that TGGWS promotes conspiracy theories is mentioned a few times in the Criticism section.JQ (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy?

A conspiracy being "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime." I would have to say that this article is inaccurately named. The mainstream of man-made Global Warming doubters do not believe that a crime is being committed, or that people who believe in Global Warming do so for malicious reasons. They simply believe that the theory is incorrect. This needs to be separated from things such as the 9/11 conspiracy theories and such. This is just not comparable to a conspiracy theory, by definition. It is quite misleading; and poorly written to boot. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)