Talk:Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Comment
Interestingly, 68.14.217.194 resolves to Peoria, Arizona. Isn't that odd? William M. Connolley 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Notability
This is yet another article meant to promote awareness of a special interest group with an agenda to push. The article fails WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, does not provide references, et cetera.

More disturbing, the sock puppet "Dack Rambo" was created today to prevent a vote on the merit and notability of this article by other wikipedian editors. ( See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dack_Rambo. )  FireWeed 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fireweed. My first Wikipedia edit and I am so happy to find out that other users are as hostile, arrogant and dismissive as you are. You call me a sock puppet for no apparent reason. You call my additions of information "damage". And I really don't understand what you have against this article anyways.

I was engaged in an online disussion regarding climate change today and the other party started citing information from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. I came to Wikipedia to find out more about the organization but found the article lacking. I did my own research and found out some interesting information about the funding of the center and past work of its staff. I thought other people would find this information useful so I added it. Apparently you don't think others people would benefit from this information? Reading your disussion page it appears you frequently act in an overly aggressive manner on Wikipedia. Why is that?--Dack Rambo 06:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FireWeed tried the same agressive attack on Lavoisier Group, another organization whose purpose is to discuss the soundness of climate change science. --Childhood&#39;s End 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the funding little paragraph included. The source is questionionable at best. I move to have it deleted. 66.193.160.162 01:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All the citations regarding the funding/contributions statement essentially do not offer any proof, and end up in places like Greenpeace. This is hardly cited proof and as such, the statement really hadn't ought to be made. 76.28.195.113 (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this reference?
"The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman Environmental Politics, 1743-8934, Volume 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 349 – 385  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.58.165 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has the wrong name
I propose renaming it to CO2 Science as that is what the groups is actually called Comments? mark nutley (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Err, your ref says SHERWOOD B.  IDSO  assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. I've helpfully added bold for the bit you seem to have missed; it was, I admit, rather cunningly concealed in open sight; something along the lines of the The Purloined Letter perhaps. Why did you hack out the funding stuff? I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did`nt hack it out, i moved it. An entire section about funding which has not a lot in it is wp:undue What was wrong with the changes? And drop the sarcasm it`s getting boring mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW i removed the link to exxonsecrets as it is not wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume by your silence that you've abandoned the rename idea. Good. Why is exxonsecrets not a RS? There must be something other than "because you say so" William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no i`ve not abandoned the rename idea, but it seems that the current content issues should be worked out first. Can you tell me please why you reverted all the changes i did? And no exxonsecrets is not reliable on just my say so mark nutley (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't abandonded it? Good grief, just how much evidence do you require? And why are you calling them liars? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the ExxonSecrets stuff isn't that secret. For example Exxon itself publishes information about its tax-exempt donations and this is available online. This enables the ExxonSecrets information to be corroborated. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all tony, unless you wish to engage in wp:or? If the exxon files are available then why link to a dubious site which accuses those whom do not share their point of view as being in the pay of "big oil" or "big coal" or "big tobacco"? And not only mentions the Company of course, but names all the people working within. This is a clear breach of wp:blp you can`t accuse people of taking money to push an agenda in an article mark nutley (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Validating an external source by checking it against primary sources isn't any kind of original research. It's what we always do (or at least, ideally do) to evaluate all secondary sources for reliability on the subject at hand. However there may be another problem. If only ExxonSecrets, of all secondary sources, has flagged up these donations, or if most reliable sources don't make anything of them, then due weight considerations mean that we may end up not mentioning the fact, or at least not making much of it. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ExxonSecrets is not a reliable source for anything; it's a Greenpeace propaganda organ (and I mean "propaganda" in the neutral, not the pejorative, sense.) It does not have a reputation for fact-checking.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should mention that over here WMC you have yet to tell me why you reverted my changes, an entire section devoted to funding is wp:undue Can you tell me what was wrong with the changes i made? mark nutley (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reasons for removing it were invalid. It isn't undue; you merely dislike it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it`s undue, Tell me, how much press coverage does this groups funding get? Apart from the couple of links currently in place there is none. An entire section devoted to these few links is most certainly undue. I will redo my changes unless you actually have a policy based argument to make against it. As it currently stands if fails wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when has press coverage been a measure of due weight? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you guys have said so time and again to keep stuff out of CC articles i suppose. The measure of weight is how much coverage has something gotten, this as i said fails on that mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of our articles on think tanks and non-profit groups discuss their funding. I'm not seeing any reason why we should treat this one any different. If the issue is that highlighting this information in it's own section gives it too much attention, then I won't object to removing the section heading and just incorporating the information into the main part of the article. But the information itself should stay in the article. Yilloslime T C  20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think i see the issue here, you did a blind revert assuming i had removed the lot. I had in fact done exactly what you just said above mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was not a "blind revert". You removed more than the section heading, specifically you deleted this chunk of text: ExxonMobil has contributed $90,000 to The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change since 1998. . Which I restored. Yilloslime T C  21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes per wp:undue The fact that exxon gave them some money has recieved next to no coverage in wp:rs apart from greenpeace who else has reported on this? No coverage = wp:undue It`s enough to say they get donations from corperations i think mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you admit you were wrong in characterizing my action as a "blind revert"? Yilloslime T C  23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes id do admit i was wrong and i am sorry i did not assume good faith. So shall we redo the article the way i had it or do you have a different view? mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear why MN removed the funding info (well OK, it is in fact abundantly clear why he removed it, but I think I'm supposed to pretend I don't know). So I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I took out the verification tag. Why is it there? There is a perfectly good ref. I you want to go read it, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @m.n.: While every factoid included in an article must be verifiable, there's no requirement that each factoid must have been mentioned in the news media. For example, BLPs always include birth dates if we can find them, even the subject's birthday has never been mentioned in a newspaper or magazine article. Likewise, funding, board membership, and senior leadership are always fair game for inclusion in articles on organizations. Nonetheless, I'll point out that according the Center's own website, their exxon funding was noted by the BBC. And in addition to exxonsecret/Greenpeace, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has noted their Exxon funding, as has Salon.com, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.Yilloslime T C  04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I restored the verify source tag, as, so, far, only those editors who have expressed opposition to the organization have "verified" it. Exxonsecrets/Greenpeace, CSPI and UCS are clearly not reliable sources on this issue, as they also oppose the organization's goals. I also question why a (possibly minor) funding source for the organization is relevant.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was removed because an entire section for funding is stupid, five lines of text rates an entire section? And the funding from exxon is wp:undue as only this one organization have focused on it. So i`ll remove the section again and rewrite as before unless i hear an actual valid reason why this does not break wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a rewrite is in order. According to this, they don't disclose their funding but they do accept donations from individuals and corporations. So we don't know much about their funding, but we do that exxon is one of their funders, so I would suggest the section be rewritten along the following lines: "The Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. According to their website, the do not disclose their funding sources b/c '[qyote from webiste]'[cite website]. The are funded by donations from individuals and corporations, and have acknowledged that Exxon is one of their funders.[cite website.] Accroding to exxon corporate giving statements, they have contributed $90,000 to the Center since 1998.[cite exxon docs]"If we can name other funders, then by all means we should, but if we cannot, then that doesn't preclude us from naming the one we can (i.e. Exxon). I don't really care whether this information lives under its own heading or not, but I do think it should be a part of the article.Yilloslime T C  16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still wp:undue. The fact that only exxonsecrets have published this makes it wp:undue and as such should not be in this article. Why do you want this to remain? And if you have a policy based reason to keep it lets hear it mark nutley (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, it's still WP:UNDUE, but I don't think exxonsecrets has anything to do with it any more. Some of the funding can be picked up from the ExxonMobile annual reports (which is why I added verify source, and the group has acknowledged that they have received funding from Exxon, possibly because of the unethical hounding caused by exxonsecrets.


 * It's not WP:UNDUE for the reasons which I've already mentioned and which remain unaddressed by those who keep crying "BLP vio", "not an WP:RS!" , "WP:UNDUE!" But to further demonstrate that it's not undue, I'll point out that their funding has been the subject of several stories in the mainstream media, including USA Today, the BBC, the Seattle PI, Salon.com, and the AP. I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim that it presents a WP:WEIGHT problem to include a fact specifically noted by so many unquestionably reliable, mainstream, major news outlets. Yilloslime T C  02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * usatoday an interview which cites exxonsecrets.org and is also taken from the AP link,so thats two which are no good. And also written 9/20/2006
 * salon.com is just an opinon piece by Katharine Mieszkowski written in Aug 7, 2003
 * seattlepi written June 2, 2003. Given how old these stories are then yes this is most certainly wp:undue you have yet to say what exactly is wrong with my changes and why you feel this should be in? mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that their funding has received wide coverage in the media. That fact strongly suggests that we should be covering here on Wikipedia too. I'm being think that there are no circumstances under which you'd think it would be appropriate to discuss this group's funding. Yilloslime T C  19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No not at all. Look you have 3 sources which mention it, all are 7-8 years old, this did not get widespread coverage back then and certainly gets none now hence wp:undue The only reson to have this in the article is a lame attempt to smear. Can you tell me what exactly is wrong with the changes i made? mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we're not convincing each other, and I doubt further discussion is going to change that. If you'd like pursue this further, I think the next step would be to either take this up at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, request a third opinion, or start a request for comment. Please let me know if you pursue any of these avenues. Yilloslime T C  19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as a point of fact, the USA Today article is neither an interview nor does it cite exxonsecrets as you claim, but rather it quotes the Royal Society.Yilloslime T C  19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From usa today The Royal Society said Wednesday that it had written to Exxon asking it to halt support for groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change this is what your seeing.

The groups — among more than 50 listed on Exxon's website as receiving funding for "public information and policy research" — include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group based in Washington, and the Tempe, Ariz.-based Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which Ward said disputes the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. This is were the info came from. I will do a RFC, it is obvious that this is undue. You have yet to give a valid reason as to why this should be in mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, so you're admitting you were wrong when you called the USA Today article an interview and claimed it cited exxonsecrets? Yilloslime T C  21:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the text, since it looks useful and relevant. I'm not sure what MN thinks is wrong with it, other than IDONTLIKEIT William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because adding disputed text while it is still being discussed is wrong perhaps? Like my edit summary said. It is wp:undue and until a consensus is reached it shall have to remain out. I will now revert your revert mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying it's WP:Undue doesn't make it so. I've explained why funding information, even in the absence of media coverage, is generally included articles on organizations. I've also provided examples of media coverage of their funding in very reputable, widely read sources like the BBC, AP, and USA today. In addition, the Royal Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace have all criticized the group specifically about their exxon funding. All of this adds to up to this being very notable and appropriate for inclusion in the article. Yilloslime T C  21:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuff which was reported eight years ago and which has left no impression in the media, nor has it been brought up again in any wp:rs since the last few reports means this is wp:undue I also said i would do an RFC, would you please hold off on adding more material without consensus till such a time as it is done? mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to do an RFC and I encourage to do so, but the world doesn't stop spinning in the meantime. You cannot cite your intention to eventually start an RFC as reason for reverting. Your "it was 8 years ago" argument is spurious: like any other article on WP, this one can and should cover the topic's whole history. E.g.: Monico Lewinsky happened a lot longer than 8 years ago, and it's mentioned in Bill Clinton. We don't focus just on recent history, see as discussed in this excellent essay: WP:RECENTISM. So if this was notable enough to garner significant media attention 8 years ago, it's notable enough now. Not to mention, the USA Today article is from 2006. Yilloslime T C  19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reason for reverting was that you added disputed material without consensus, the RFC will be done to decide either way. And again, the three articles you posted do not give enough weight, two were clones, the bbc one links to co2 not the bbc the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace are advocacy groups, so not exactly reliable here really. Hence wp:undue I will do the rfc asap could you please hold off of adding more disputed material until such a time please mark nutley (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the reason you reverted was that you didn't like it. I've re-added, because I do like it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article mention this organization's funding and/or the media attention to that funding?
Some editors feel that mentioning this organization's Exxon funding and/or the media coverage of that funding violates WP:Undue. Is it? Basically, the question is, should the paragraph removed in this edit, or some version of of it, be included in the article? Outside opinions would be appreciated.Yilloslime T C  20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [Oppose Inclusion] (involved editor's opinion). The actual funding is clearly WP:UNDUE, except to the extent that media comments on it.  And we must restrict "media" to exclude material written by those supporting or opposing Exxon or this center.  Allowing gratuitous comments that ExxonMobil funded this organization is meaningless without noting that they also funded absurd organizations which support the assertion that anyone releasing CO2 should be shot.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inculsion] The Royal Society sways it for me. They asked the company to stop funding organisations including this one, and that made the international press. There's no need to "balance" this, and doing so in the way Arthur suggests would involve original research. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, the royal society does not actually name co2. In the usa today article that text is seperate from the RS stuff, co3 is only named by usatoday like this The groups — among more than 50 listed on Exxon's website as receiving funding for "public information and policy research Does anyone actually have a list of names from the RS`s letter or is this just a journo padding out an article? Also the refs used are like eight years old with one being 5 years old. This has not stood the test of time and gets no coverage at all apart from exxonsecrets mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's the NYTimes noting that the RS called out Exxon over funding the Center... Yilloslime T C  19:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inclusion w/Modifications] WP:UNDUE states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The significance of the disputed edit is that this organizations happens to rebuff a largely held notion, and a very prominent group of scientists has made note of this & disputes this on scientific grounds.  This was covered in several credible news sources and relates directly to the organizations purpose (and what it's notable for).  I made some modifications to the original excerpt and propose using it:


 * Proposed : The contributions by ExxonMobil to the Center have been the topic of attention by various media outlets, including the BBC, USA Today, the Seattle Post Intelligence, Salon.com, as well as Britins leading scientific academy Royal Society. According to IRS filings, ExxonMobil has contributed $90,000 to the Center since 1998.
 * Also, Yilloslime T proposal seems sound as well: The Center is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. According to their website, the do not disclose their funding sources b/c "[qyote from webiste]"[cite website]. The are funded by donations from individuals and corporations, and have acknowledged that Exxon is one of their funders.[cite website.] Accroding to exxon corporate giving statements, they have contributed $90,000 to the Center since 1998.[cite exxon docs]       --→ James Kidd  ( contr / talk / email ) 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inculsion] It seems well sourced. The USA Today story mentions this group by name and it's funding from Exxon, and gives the context of the dispute. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inclusion] Funding is intrinsically relevant to research and public policy organizations. Unomi (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inculsion] The source of funding for this organization is not only relevant, it may be the only relevant piece of information relating to this organization. It should also be noted in the article that the Royal Society has asked Exxon to stop funding organizations of this kind, and that their views on climate change are rejected by mainstream scientists. --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inculsion] This organization clearly appears to be a poorly vieled political action committee. As such, the its politcal background is open to scrutiny.  Exxon's funding is relevant in this context. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [Support Inclusion without modifications] Funding source is relevant in scientific studies. Having this paragraph in the article allows the reads to raise their red flag and beware of potential bias when reading the results conducted by this institution. OhanaUnited<b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 05:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is another reason as to why exxonsecrets.org should never be used as a source, If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few Yes greenpeace who put`s up lists of peoples names now also threatens those people and encourages others to break the law with regards to those who disagree with greenpeace`s views. I will again take this the the RS noticeboard, such an extremist group can`t be used as a source mark nutley (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. It should be obvious from the lengthy discussion in the previous thread that I support the inclusion of this information, but I though I'd make it "official" by responding here. Much like a birthday or hometown is essential content for any BLP even if they aren't discussed in secondary sources, basic information on funding is essential to articles on organizations. But just how much attention we devote to the topic depends on how much attention it has received in reliable sources. And in this case, the Center's Exxon funding has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles, and they've also been criticized by a variety of other organizations, so clearly this article needs to address this if it's to remain NPOV. Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding sources for expansion
I've restored the Mother Jones article. We've two independent sources verifying the value of the article, so it should be mentioned, though suspect we can find better sources that will far better.

I notice Center_for_Media_and_Democracy has an article on the Center. While SourceWatch is not a reliable source itself, it is often a good place to look for them.

I'm having trouble finding independent sources from simple searches. It's hard to find anything outside the echo-chamber. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. 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/20140208231456/http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. 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/20140208231456/http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)