Talk:Climate change policy of the United States/Archive 2

Koch again
In the section "Attempts to undermine U.S. and state efforts", the first sentence attributed to the New Yorker article is off-topic (and not tied together by later comments), the Wichita Eagle "article" URL is a blog entry, and the second reference to the New Yorker doesn't support the sentences preceding it. There is probably something relevant that can be said just from the New Yorker article, but the Tea Party cannot be tied in to climate change denial without a single source tying up the loose ends. Basically, all we have in that regard is that Koch (brothers, and Industries, and probably Family Foundation) supports AFP, which funded some Tea Party organization. We can't tie AFP's funding of the TP to climate change denial, and I don't see a clear statement even that AFP supports climate change denial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rubin. I was able to search the New Yorker article. In ten pages, there is one reference to "denial" and that is not the New Yorker calling the company deniers, but a brief excerpt of a quote in which Greenpeace makes the claim. That's not enough to support the claim—at best, it supports a claim that someone made a claim, but that's pretty thin gruel. This claim needs far better sourcing than has been provided so far.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
This article is entirely ridiculous. (Until I edited it) It leaves out the Byrd-Hagel resolution, acts as if the Cap and Trade bill passed, and treats liberal blogs as the most reliable sources out there. POV Tag 05:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniortrend (talk • contribs)

What about Cap and dividend &/or "Cap and Share" ?
What about Cap and dividend &/or "Cap and Share" ? 99.181.148.166 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or

The Cantwell-Collins bill (S. 2877), also called the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to regulate the entry of fossil carbon into commerce in the United States, to promote renewable-energy jobs and economic growth. The bill is bipartisan with Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and the Washington (state) Democrat Cantwell. 99.181.135.251 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not? It's false that the bill is "bipartisan", but I suppose we can include it if someone actually said it was.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources ... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2877  http://cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEARAct.cfm  http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-14-defending-the-cantwell-collins-clear-act

99.119.128.141 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By "someone", I mean "a reliable source other than the proponents". You don't have one yet.  For that matter, you don't have a reliable source for the real content of the bill rather than the primary source (govtrack, or thomas).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

== Add March 2011 the Republicans submit a bill to the U.S. congress that would permanantely make the Environmental Protection Agency unable to regulate pollution emissions. ==

March 2011 the Republicans submit a bill to the U.S. congress that would permanantely make the Environmental Protection Agency unable to regulate pollution emissions. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-epa-emissions-bill-idUSTRE7226UJ20110304 Reuters  99.190.83.246 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed to to say what the article really says about the bill, which isn't that. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Source of reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2011_March_3&diff=417218760&oldid=417175669 99.19.45.48 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's wrong there, also. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it quotes the title of the article there, but the statement does not appear in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American

 * Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.86.252 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not in Public opinion on climate change. Oh, it's already there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I detect an attempt at a sarcastic joke? 108.73.112.139 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of your proposed edits are jokes. I thought I'd try a new technique to see if I can write something that you can understand and act on.  It appears to be another failure.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

More insulting "Arthur", please refrain? Doing it for the lulz, User:Arthur Rubin? ... Don't take the bait ... 99.181.146.135 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Relate with Energy conservation in the United States?
Relate with Energy conservation in the United States? 99.181.150.162 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore Rolling Stone reference ...
99.181.144.93 (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Readded, for potential discussion. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagged with the minimum tags associated with the controversial statement:
 * refimprove-section
 * importance-section
 * pov-section
 * accuracy-section
 * Please do not remove the tags without removing the Rolling Stone section. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add news from Portal:Current events/2011 April 6: defeat of ban on EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. Senate defeated a measure that would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations began being applied early this year effects polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, as a climate change mitigation attempt. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-climate-congress-idUSTRE7357HU20110407 Reuters ... make polluters be air pollution? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still seriously overlinked, and not quite supported by the article, but some parts are appropriate in this article.  United States Senate is a perfectly good wikilink; there's no need to divide it in half, and "climate change mitigation" is a conclusion, requiring a separate source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Might you suggest a specific sentence? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where it should appear, but
 * "The United States Senate defeated a measure that would have would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations, which began being applied early this year, effects  emitters such as power plants and oil refineries."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That clears out most of the overlinking, removes the unsourced commentary that it's a climate change mitigation attempt, and removes the pejorative word "polluters". Some rational people still don't define greenhouse gas emission to be "pollution".  It should also be paired with the House bill which the Senate is refusing to agree to.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07epa.html?_r=1 Senate Rejects Bills to Limit E.P.A.’s Emissions Programs by John M. Broder (Published: April 6, 2011)  99.190.86.149 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:NOR, in the sources greenhouses gases, including carbon dioxide (in excess), are pollution, Air Pollution, also per the current Clean Air Act (United States) (cited in the references. 99.35.13.61 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still WP:OR; (1) greenhouses gases are regulated by the EPA as pollution; it doesn't mean they are pollution. (2) The clean air act (United States) is only associated with this (in the references) in a press release by the Obama administration, not in the journalistic voice.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) If something is defined as something, it is something. That is how words work, no?  We are not attempting to write ourselves that far out-of-the-box, we are only human.  (2) See "Portal talk:Current events/2011 April 6".  209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) No. If the EPA (with or without legal justification) defines greenhouse gas emissions to be pollution, it doesn't mean that they are pollution.  (2) you haven't countered that finding at all; the phrase "clean air act" is only spoken by the Obama administration.  Furthermore the "clean air act" is not "regulations", it's a law, so the wikipipe is an easter egg.  You could support "regulations under the clean air act", if you added a source for that statement, such as the Washington Post article.  "Mitigation of global warming" is almost justified, although a reasonable interpretation would be that the regulations are intended to appear to deal with global warming, rather than to deal with global warming.  Both the original articles contain more information to support that than to support an actual attempt at mitigation of global warming.— Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes. There is legal "justification" in this case (United States Supreme Court).  Humans decide what words mean, and words only have the meaning we give them; otherwise they are just sounds (or writing).  You or I are not is a position to define the legality (words definitions and enforcement). (2) See Portal talk:Current events/2011 April 6, and previously added references.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Add wikinews Bloomberg and Clinton create green alliance, Sunday, April 17, 2011
99.112.213.4 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? Perhaps a link to the appropriate subject on Wikinews, but not a specific article?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How would that be done, and why is it different Mr. Rubin? The article was quite interesting Special:Contributions/99.112.213.4, Thank you.  209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are any number of Wikinews articles which would be appropriate to this article. However, Wikinews doesn't have restrictive enough categories to select it.  Most news articles in all three of the wikinews categories Climate change, United States, and Politics and conflicts should be relevant here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the referenced article isn't so characterized on Wikinews, being in category Environment rather than Climate change. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thank you for the post User:Arthur Rubin. 99.56.122.135 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also interesting for the Politics is Michael Bloomberg has been "a Democratic (until 2001), a Republican (2001–2007), and is now an Independent (2007–present)", just an observation. But then he is only just the Chair of the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40).  99.181.155.158 (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How would Environment and Climate change be added to this article? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is now currently in Categories: April 17, 2011 | Environment | Published | Michael Bloomberg | Bill Clinton | New York, New York | New York | United States | North America | Politics and conflicts | Climate change | Science and technology | and Weather. 99.190.85.25 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, sister links to Wikinews should be to categories, rather than to individual news items. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you intend http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Environment the Wikinews Portal for Environment? 99.119.131.205 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Wikinews doesn't have a fine enough portal for this page to connect to.  Environment should connect to n:Category:Environment, but probably very few other articles should link to those Wikinews portals.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Add related information from the IPCC article ...
From section

for example. 99.190.85.25 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Also include Global warming controversy and Global warming conspiracy theory. 99.190.85.25 (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More ...

More ...

99.119.128.170 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of that relates to US politics:
 * Obviously James Inhofe's comments are politics, but Soon/Baliunas and McIntyre/McKitrick should only be in list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, unless they've recanted. Inhofe's comments also fit well with global warming conspiracy theory.  I have doubts about global warming controversy, but I could probably be convinced if you provided information about a politician doubting the details of global warming, but not the overall trends.
 * The "open letter" is a primary source, and cannot be used unless reliable sources comment on it. (The AGU is not a reliable source on the matter.)  I think it fits better in "individual and political action on climate change" than in this article.
 * The "Telegraph" article supports IPCC being listed in politics of global warming as acting politically, but doesn't really support an addition to this article.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why Obviously James Inhofe's comments are politics? Why just his, why not others?   What makes it obvious?  What kind of politics?  99.181.156.137 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Because Inhofe is a United States Senator?  Why is it not obvious?  (And for that matter, why is it not obvious that Soon/Baliunas and McIntyre/McKitrick are not politics?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not others politics? Obvious is a content-free answer.  99.112.214.0 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying all human action is politics? In that case, this article is misnamed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting? 99.181.142.47 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Wikinews Category:Global warming|Global warming and climate change}}
Add 99.181.137.215 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Why this article and not all the articles in Category:Global warming? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That will take some time ... why don't you get started on improving Wikipedia instead of playing "tag"? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag team  99.181.133.112 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out the absurdity of it. Unless you can provide criteria for which articles should be linked to those newsfeeds, none should, as all is absurd.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of Absurdism? 99.181.140.200 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you see this as a Purist (Splitting (psychology))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.140.200 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically "Absurdity" implies Extremism ... à la Paul Collier's book The Plundered Planet. Painfully phunny.  99.181.146.194 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal
There was a discussion above about the relationship between this article and Global warming in the United States, which did not quite reach a resolution. I propose the following reorganization:


 * Move this article from Politics of global warming (United States) to Climate change policy of the United States, as a more standard title.
 * Split the "Regional initatives" section and part of the "Emissions trading" section of Global warming in the United States into a new article, Regional climate change initiatives in the United States.
 * Move the "Policy" section and the rest of the "Emissions trading" section of Global warming in the United States to this article. Import a new summary of the policy article in summary style to replace the one moved out.

This should unite all the policy-related topics in this article, and leave the non-policy topics in the other one. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently Climate change policy in the United States redirects here, so you could just rename this article if there is any difference... doesn't seems "a more standard title" though.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of the public policy articles on Wikipedia have the form "X policy of Y", for example, Science policy of the United States. Also, parentheses should only be used for disambiguation of articles which would have the same title, rather than specifying a child article of a larger topic.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that this article is Climate change policy of the United States, are you planning on changing Politics of global warming to "Climate change policy" (a redirect) or Global climate change policy or something else? Note: The USA still appears to be the only country with a seperate article.  209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some nice additions User:Antony-22, such as List of climate change initiatives. 108.73.114.19 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are useful. I think they are best used to expand Regional climate change initiatives in the United States.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Add EPA delays rules (Clean Air Act (United States)) on oil refineries, chemical plants, paper mills and other factories.
From Portal:Current events/2011 May 17 add ''The Environmental Protection Agency delays its proposed rules for the United States for cutting pollution from industrial boilers used at oil refineries, chemical plants, paper mills and other factories. (Marketwatch)(WSJ)'' It is more current than Portal:Current events/2011 April 6 info. If of further interest, see Political activities of the Koch family and Koch Industries subsidiaries, and Energy Industries subsidies discussion 99.109.124.16 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What specifically? Was this about Mercury (element)?  209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard mercury and others discussed per the Charlie Rose tv show. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mercury from burning Coal I'd assume. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Global warming controversy = "emphasized the uncertainties" in the global warming issue.
... emphasized the uncertainties in the global warming issue."  99.181.140.154 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Easter egg. As it's unsourced and improbable, may I suggest you rewrite the sentence to include an expression which really resembles "global warming controversy"; then, only the cn tag (and probably undue) would remain.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Piped link. 99.181.135.38 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For efficiency, any suggestions? 99.181.156.9 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the entire sentence until a source can be provided? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Clinton also refused to submit the treaty for ratification, and speculating on the reasoning without a source is a clear WP:BLP violation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You talking (writing) with yourself is confusing, please refrain. 99.35.12.107 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please learn to read.
 * I was following up on my previous comment, rather than replying to.
 * You, on the other hand, as 99.181.156.9, were replying to 99.181.135.38. We all know you're the same.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Already cited in article(s) ... ?
Already cited in article(s) ... ?  99.181.128.80 (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite? Reference?  We know that both Bush and Clinton did not submit the treaty for ratification.  Details as to reasons why the treaty was not submitted for ratification could be of interest in the article, but....
 * Kyoto Protocol specifies a different reason, and an WP:UNDUE excerpt from Views on the Kyoto Protocol notes the first clause, and a version of the second clause inconsistent with the statement, and further notes that Clinton, Bush, and Obama did not submit the Protocol for ratification. (It also notes that the Senate specified it was the "sense of the Senate" that the US was not a signatory of the Protocol.  That seems better placed in this article than speculation as to the reasons the Protocol was not submitted for ratification.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not add them also? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it will create edit warring about your interpretation of what few reliable sources we have. "Former President of the United States, George W. Bush, did not submit the treaty for ratification, believing the treaty would strain the economy." is acceptable, but we should also note that the Senate was opposed before (if ever) Clinton submitted it for ratification, and Obama also refused to submit it for ratification.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add citations. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Arthur Rubin where are your references? 99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You first. We have text with sources in Views on the Kyoto Protocol that Bush did not submit the protocol for ratification,  "believing" the treaty would strain the economy, and that Obama did not submit the treaty for ratification, noting " It set very ambitious—and costly—targets for the United States while allowing emissions from the developing world to continue to rise unchecked."  (Sorry, it wasn't Obama that noted that.  Views needs to be edited to match the actual sources.)  And the Senate voted 95-0 against the protocol before Clinton had a chance to submit it for ratification.  (The sources we have do not show whether Clinton actually submitted it for ratification, although that should be easy to determine.)  We do not have a source for "emphasizing the uncertainties" (in global warming), or for linking that to global warming controversy.  Not everything I wrote has a source presently in related Wikipedia articles, but very little of what you wrote does.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rubin, why don't you just add past President's Administration activities beyond just "Undue" comments? 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong with references?
99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Kyoto+Protocol?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Kyoto+Protocol&sa=Search#922
 * 2) http://www.scribd.com/doc/35237743/Kyoto-Protocol-Its-Impact-on-Global-Climate-Change-and-the-Philippines
 * 3) http://www.springerlink.com/content/n242431l30624661/


 * None of them support the statements written. There may be some way those references can be used for the Kyoto Protocol, but there are no references to US policy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read at least some of these before commenting Mr. Rubin. From first reference alone, an excerpt:    bolding is mine.  99.190.81.142 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying these are great references, but your attempted counter-arguments are self-destructive wastes of wikipedia and other's limited resources. Please find a more constructive use of your potential talents.  99.190.81.142 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not in my copy, and I have some doubts about the reliability of references 1 and 2. Even so, singling out Bush is inappropriate for this section.  If that's correct, we should say Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have not submitted the treaty for ratification, rather than singling out Bush and putting words into his mouth (no matter how tempting, considering how often he puts his foot in his mouth).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An accurate and unbiased statement appears there, now. Unless all three gave the same justifications, the reasons had best be left to more detailed articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Content removed by User:Arthur Rubin's edits ...  99.119.128.251 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A much better summary is, as I replaced it: Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and (as of now) Barack Obama did not submit the treaty for ratification.  The specific reasons for each President's refusal should be in the text, if any are.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Restored reference, any specific issues?
One of the references, http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/B000WCNU44/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/187-8412201-1377026 is specifically The Republican War on Science. 99.181.139.6 (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE on two points:
 * It ignores Clinton and Obama's refusals.
 * It ignores other sourced reasons by Bush; in particular, that even if the US eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions, China's projected increase would still increase global greenhouse gas emissions.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Useful comments, Mr. Rubin, why don't you add that content, instead of deleting what is there and sourced? 99.181.158.237 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several problems. For references you have a blog, a dictionary definition, two Amazon links to buy the books, and two questionable left leaning sources.  It would appear that you cobbled all of these together in a poor attempt at original research (particularly the dictionary souce and the two amazon sources).  Your "specifcially" reference also violate linkspan violations because you are linking to a site to purchase the book.  Arzel (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not delete those specifically or modify those with better sources? 99.181.158.237 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not my job to fix your original research in order to make it not original research. Nore is it my job to search for reliable sources which probably don't exist in order to meet basic WP policies.  Why don't you sign up for an actual account and stop using multiple IP's?  Arzel (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As in Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation Mr. Rubin?   (your deletion)  The previous edit was made by the 99.* IP, most of whose edits show a lack of knowledge of the English language.
 * You may have a point, there. It's indirect, and should be in the appropriate subarticle of Kyoto Protocol, rather than here, but you may have a point.  It would make more sense if you made that point first, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: It was your point, see above, "China's projected increase would still increase global greenhouse gas emissions", and you deleted it from the article. 99.19.46.246 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it should still be in the relevant subarticle of Kyoto Protocol, first. And it's indirect, although our article does seem related to that topic.  On the other hand, the detailed reasoning of the three Presidents in question probably shouldn't be in this article, and, if not, the link shouldn't.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a False dilemma, as wp articles are build over time, not all-or-nothing. 99.181.135.85 (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Add "The United States Supreme Court rejects 8-0 a lawsuit ..." from Portal:Current events/2011 June 20.
Add the United States Supreme Court decision from Portal:Current events/2011 June 20.


 * The United States Supreme Court rejects 8-0 a lawsuit against five big power utility companies, brought by U.S. states, New York City, and Land trusts, attempting to force cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The decision favors the Environmental Protection Agency over U.S. courts regarding global warming and the United States Clean Air Act.
 * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin Reuters via Scientific American with Editor Will Dunham
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/us-usa-climate-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3JR20110620 Reuters


 * http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20072702-503544.html CBS News

99.190.87.46 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/06/post_62.html MLive.com
 * http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/supreme-court-backs-obama-epa-states-climate-change/1 USA Today
 * http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf
 * Analysis on PBS NewsHour by National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june11/scotus_06-20.html)

More ... The Atlanta Journal-Constitution       99.181.135.108 (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And from the Huffington Post ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/supreme-court-climate-change-lawsuit-ruling_n_880340.html ... 99.181.135.108 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really seem significant, in spite of Reuters' — unique — interpretation of the decision. NOTNEWS.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, the Reuters quotation is not unique, most if not all the references mention the significance of this decision. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the current version ...


 * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin (Scientific American), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20072702-503544.html (CBS News), http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/supreme-court-backs-obama-epa-states-climate-change/1 (USA Today), http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/us-usa-climate-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3JR20110620 (Reuters), http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/06/post_62.html (MLive.com), http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june11/scotus_06-20.html (PBS NewsHour)  99.109.124.69 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an acceptable sentence, but most 9-0 and 8-0 United States Supreme Court decisions are not notable. We would need a specific source on why that one is notable, especially when it states it covers no new ground.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read all the reference completely? What "no new ground", it doesn't go to the Supreme Court if not new ground.  99.181.141.190 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One way a controversy can get to the Supreme Court is that if an appellate court violated a clear mandate of the Supreme Court. That seems to be the basis for this ruling.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I didn't originate the statement that the decision covered no new ground. The decision asserts that it covers no new ground.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to the exact quote, Mr. Rubin. 99.181.135.203 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears I made a mistake. They said that a previous decision (Milwaukee II) recreating federal common law didn't apply to this case, setting a different standard for preemption of "federal common law" than the Appellate Court chose.  They didn't comment as to whether the standard selected by the Appellate Court was unjustified, just that it was wrong.  If they said the standard was unjustified, we would have a good basis for "no new ground".  I still don't think it's relevant in this article.  In addition, the decision does not put a final resolution to the case, as they remanded for consideration of whether state common law might apply.
 * If they had simply ruled that the Federal courts didn't have jurisdiction over a political question, that really wouldn't have been new, but they divided 4-4 on that issue. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is curious that when asked to quote your "sources" you either don't or it was a "mistake" ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is Art. 99.181.131.237 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of source in Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy too, I see. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

== Resource: EPA to Require New Pollution Cuts: Power Plants Will Need to Sharply Curtail Soot and Smog; Rule Draws Fire From GOP, Businesses. ==

Resource: EPA to Require New Pollution Cuts: Power Plants Will Need to Sharply Curtail Soot and Smog; Rule Draws Fire From GOP, Businesses. in WSJ by Ryan Tracy and Tennille Tracy within the past 24 hours. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment ... *Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter, in September/October 2009 Foreign Affairs with Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Jessica Seddon Wallack. (From Climate change mitigation). 99.112.213.202 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Black carbon. 99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see Ozone, Ozone depletion and Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource reference
Overrun by Chinese Rivals, U.S. Solar Company Falters by Russell Gold via WSJ 17.August, 2011; introduction excerpt ... 99.181.138.215 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reference for this removed section?
99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Some potential sources for references ... Rick_Perry ... 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Or from Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012 ... 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"congress" section needs big improvement or deletion
Seems like the section labeled "Congress" is presently worthless. A heap of bills - frequently representing polar opposite policy positions of other introduced bills - are floated in congress each session but none of them represent policy (the subject of this article) until they become law. As it currently exists, the "congress" section simply lists a bunch of failed proposals, and IMO that doesn't say a whit about what our policy actually is. I suppose the fact that they failed implies something like "no policy" but we're not supposed to be making inferences of that sort WP:OR. Anyone have ideas for improving this section, or alternatively an argument why it should be preserved the way it is?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

resource in current issue of Environment (Vol. 53, 5, Sept/Oct 2011)
Resource in current issue of Environment (Volume 53, Number 5, September/October 2011)

http://www.environmentmagazine.org/

Article Legislating Climate Change on a National Level by Terry Townshend, Sam Fankhauser, Adam Matthews, Clément Feger, Jin Liu, and Thais Narciso. 99.181.150.29 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On page 9's table, President Obama's Executive Order 13514 of Oct. 5, 2009., regarding such items as Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings (whose construction and operation is to create zero net emissions of greenhouse gases).  99.19.47.31 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Only primary sources; it might be notable, and relevant, if reliable secondary sources report on it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf
 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-signs-an-Executive-Order-Focused-on-Federal-Leadership-in-Environmental-Energy-and-Economic-Performance
 * 99.119.128.169 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Still primary sources. Any source that it's a notable or important climate change policy?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/September-October%202011/climate-change-full.html previous
 * http://www.good.is/post/obama-s-secret-climate-adaptation-plan/ per Good (magazine)
 * http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/03/09/2011-5405/instructions-for-implementing-climate-change-adaptation-planning-in-accordance-with-executive-order per Federal Register
 * 99.181.131.7 (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you've got a point. That's one secondary source, one unreliable, and one primary.  If you use a secondary source to support it, it might go, but it still shouldn't have a red Wikilink.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be more clear in your suggestions, please. 99.190.80.8 (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some news articles ...
 * White House to Go Solar in 'Clean Energy' Push by Emily Yehle of Greenwire, published October 5, 2010 in The New York Times, excerpt
 * Feds Hope to Be Role Model for Private Sector on Sustainability by Emily Yehle of Greenwire, published October 22, 2010 in NYT; excerpt ...
 * Contractors Advised to Look at Carbon Footprint as Agencies Strive for Sustainability from Daily Environment Report™ by Andrew Childers in Bureau of National Affairs September 13, 2011; excerpt ...
 * http://denver.dbusinessnews.com/viewnews.php?article=bwire/20100528005177r1.xml
 * 99.190.85.146 (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's probably one more reliable secondary source among those, although there are clearly some which aren't reliable. You may have a point.  However, try writing an article, first, before creating links.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also in Table 1 Flagship Legislation is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the US, stating "authorizes a stimulus package that supports new and existing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs to teh value of USD 18.6 billion." The Table lists 16 major world economies, including G8+5 as well as Indonesia, South Korea, and the EU; covering 155 laws, regulations, policies and decrees of comparable status. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Executive Order 13514. 22:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Executive order for background. 99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"climate remediation" geoengineering resource in the NYT
Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change by Cornelia Dean, published October 4, 2011 in The New York Times, excerpt ... 

Also cited are the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. the Task Force on Climate Remediation Research and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp), climate expert at Stanford University and a panel member Ken Caldeira, fellow at the Center for American Progress and influential Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm, Royal Society in Britain, Government Accountability Office, John Holdren and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S. Global Change Research Program (http://www.globalchange.gov/about/overview), and former chief climate negotiator Frank E. Loy. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikilinks from currently deleted quotation (by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) ... extreme engineering techniques, Tipping point (climatology), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Environmental Protection Agency, ozone, Obama administration.
 * The Task Force on Climate Remediation of the Bipartisan Policy Center (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ founded by four senators Democrats and Republicans), a 18-member panel, included David Keith (Harvard and the University of Calgary), David Goldston (of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former chief of staff of the House Committee on Science); who say research is already under way in Britain, Germany and possibly other countries, as well as in the private sector.
 * 99.19.47.14 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic has been covered in other sources ...
 * New Report Urges U.S. to Fund Research on Geoengineering - ScienceInsider by Daniel Strain in Science (journal)
 * So you want to manipulate the Earth’s climate 4.October.2011 The Washington Post by Brad Plumer
 * "Geoengineering Goes Legit" by Jeff Goodell in The Rolling Stone
 * Geoengineering task force recommends White House look into "climate remediation" by Torie Bosch on Slate.com
 * The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering experiment, known as SPICE ... http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/SPICE/SPICE.htm
 * SPICE put on ice in Nature (journal) 30.Sept.2011
 * The Problem With Geoengineering: What if It Works? by Rebecca J. Rosen, in the 3.October.2011 The Atlantic.
 * Linked in those sources are Rio+20 and the European Parliament http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/new-report-urges-us-to-fund-rese.html?ref=hp
 * Previously, reference to Convention on Biological Diversity Ban ... [ Geoengineering faces ban] on 2.November.2010 in Nature (journal)
 * Eli Kinitcch; Q&A: Geoengineering Is ‘A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come’ by Alexis Madrigal March 23, 2010 on Wired.com
 * List of Task Force panel members: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2011/10/blue-ribbon-task-force-climate-remediation-releases-report-calling-feder
 * 99.19.40.148 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per policy, we do not Wikilink within quotes, so your statement about "Wikilinks from currently deleted quotation" is an oxymoron. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is some more ...
 * Panel recommends US geoengineering research program October 04, 2011 in Nature (journal) by Rosalind Peterson of the Agriculture Defense Coalition
 * The voice of science: let's agree to disagree by Daniel Sarewitz October 05, 2011 in Nature (journal) 478, 7 (2011) doi:10.1038/478007a
 * 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other panels members currently with wp articles: Richard E. Benedick and Stephen Rademaker. 99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the quotation without most wikilinks per another editor's comment (see View History) ... Earth, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/, Washington, Democrats and Republicans

99.190.87.183 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed all but the wikilinks, of the quotation deleted by Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin (see View History(s))  97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that necessary (or even appropriate by wp guidelines)? Seems to be setting-the-bar too low.  99.35.15.199 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An example of private is Intellectual Ventures (Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold). 99.190.81.110 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Presidential Executive Order. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource on politics of global warming (United States) in particular
Capitalism vs. the Climate; What the right gets - and the left doesn't - about the revolutionary power of climate change. by Naomi Klein November 9, 2011. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation (pages 11-21). 99.181.147.59 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Add candidates positions?
Add candidates positions for United States presidential election, 2012? 99.181.134.134 (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait until two major party candidates left? 99.181.142.231 (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why were these sections removed?
See Political activities of the Koch family 99.181.153.207 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You really should find a way so that the references appear here, rather than pointing off into the sunset. In any case, noting the failed verification, and the statements which are clearly opinion by a partizan, and the absence of relevance to this article, there's no reason they should be there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the naked links:
 * http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
 * http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2010/08/koch-article-a-talker/
 * 99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The second quote isn't supported by the URL either, although it may be accurate, and there may be an article somewhere that supports it. The first one might be correct, but it's relevance to this article is questionable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The blog is not a reliable source. The first paragraph is saying that the Koch brothers are libertarians. That is not relevant to this article. There is no link to the Wichita Eagle article and even if there was, that information is not very relevant either. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Upheld by Federal Appeals Court added
^ references 99.181.141.52 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26, 2012
 * “This is how science works” on global warming, court rules June 26, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine)

URL tampering? reference 2 is NOT to a PDF, but is instead the EDF site
URL tampering? reference 2 is NOT to a PDF, but is instead the EDF site

This is not acceptable, as the fer 2 CLEARLY shows a PDF label.

Cannot this not be validated automatically at WP, i.e., the bogus URL does not lead to a PDF resource so is almost certainly not a PDF download link

The reference FORMAT is bogus IN THAT SECTION. This is a dangerous practice if not robo-validated, IMHO.

the link takes you to https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-impacts

The reference CONTEXT states plainly that this is a PENTAGON report from 2003.

In a section on International Law, for a WP article at an en. site that is ENGLISH, i.e., not American, but used by UK, AUS, NZ, Canada etc, this is outrageous.

My concerns ARE International Law and Climate Change, but this is so utterly unacceptable as a reference to a US military risk assessment internet resource via URL.

99.251.239.140 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Climate change policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060218033501/http://climatechoices.org:80/CA_Policies_Fact_Sheet.pdf to http://www.climatechoices.org/CA_Policies_Fact_Sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks OK-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Climate change policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210073501/http://ctclimatechange.com:80/ExecutiveSummary.html to http://ctclimatechange.com/ExecutiveSummary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320104451/http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_000.pdf to http://ctclimatechange.com/documents/ExecutiveSummary_CCCAP_2005_000.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Climate change policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019045906/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin to http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supreme-court-rejects-global-warmin

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Climate change policy of the United States. 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 tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_co/congress_global_warming_6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805213620/http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf to http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070130113153-55829.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225094640/http://apps1.eere.energy.gov:80/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12144 to http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=12144
 * Added tag to http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/WCI_Documents.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/GlobalWarmingLit_CourtsReport.pdf

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) 13:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)