Talk:Global Climate Coalition

Untitled
The content of this Article is non-neutral.

A more neutral article, I propose, would start with a more generally-acceptable premise: various groups, for various reasons, have differing ideas on the rate of global climate change, the amount of human impact on that change, and the strategies that each nation should take to deal with that change. The GCC (based on their published charter) advocated a response working on a longer time-scale, and involving more non-U.S. activity, than other responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty. 67.184.231.94 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.231.94 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

do they have another homesite which is in use?


 * No. They are late and unlamented William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. One would hope that the neutrality of Wikipedia info related to the environment, is not being decided based on this William M. Connolley's judgement. For him to post this remark, and not mark the content of the information on GCC as non-neutral, is disappointing. 67.184.231.94 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why has a lot of companies been removed from the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.212.53 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative summarizations of sources

 * 1) Summarization of sources with quotation to identify direct quote and with in-text attribution for possible bias:"According to the home page of their website, GCC was established 'to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.'"
 * 2) Lifted to Wikipedia voice (no in-text attribution for possible bias, no quotes identifying direct quote):"GCC was formed to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming."

Discussion
Two policies are relevant here.


 * 1) WP:COPYVIO A copyright violation in a source may not be used to justify a copyright violation by Wikipedia.
 * 2) WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV We are asked to provide our readers with in-text attribution when a source is reasonably thought to have bias relevant to the claim drawn from the source.

The context of this content is, we provide our readers with brief summarizations of what multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources have to say regarding the reasons behind the founding of the subject of this article, then follow with two sentences briefly summarizes what the subject of this article itself had to say about its reasons for being. The subjects of Wikipedia articles do not get to write their own Wikipedia article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Errrm, but sourcing it to the their own homepage only is dishonest. Its in your ref too William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The org's home page of their website is used to source a brief direct quote from their mission statement, with in-text attribution as per policy, and an academic paper from a Harvard researcher lends some due weight WP:USEBYOTHERS. There are no "my refs" or "your refs", everything belongs to the foundation when you press save. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that you can source it from there doesn't make it the only source. Your ref Glantz (http://live.belfercenter.org/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf) says the same William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The intended purpose at the time of the founding of GCC has diverse treatment in reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources quote directly GCC's mission statement from the home page of their website on first introduction of the GCC, citations available on request, so a brief direct quote from GCC's own mission statement is due weight and useful for balance, and only after reliable secondary sources. Franz closely paraphrased rather than directly quoting; while that may be acceptable editorial practice at the Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, we are prohibited by policy from closely paraphrasing. Also, your most recent preferred edit directly quotes a primary, self-published, biased source, the GCC's mission statement from its website, without quotation marks, and without in-text attribution, in clear violation of our sourcing and neutrality policies. As a clear copyright violation, your most recent preferred edit is eligible for immediate removal and exempt from edit warring guidelines. Kindly self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20010302000601/http://www.globalclimate.org/index.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright statement from source: "Copyright © 2000 Global Climate Coalition, All rights reserved." Hugh (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative summarizations of sources

 * 1) GCC was perhaps formed in reaction to the 1988 establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to NASA climatologist James Hansen's congressional testimony.
 * 2) "Context for the founding of the GCC from 1988 included the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA climatologist James Hansen's congressional testimony."

Discussion
Support 2. We are expected to provide context to our readers so that they can better understand the content of our articles. Multiple reliable sources cover the immediately preceding historical context of the founding of the GCC, and so it is due weight for us to do so as well. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Although only nations and non-profits may send official delegates to the United Nations Climate Change conferences, GCC registered with...
Although only nations and non-profits may send official delegates to the United Nations Climate Change conferences, GCC registered with... doesn't make sense. The GCC was a non-profit, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV in the intro
, why are you using a less neutral intro vs the long standing version of the text? It's worth noting that the source you are trying to use contains an amendment that is a reasonable basis for to use the more neutral "skeptic" vs "denialist" term. It notes:
 * ''The later version was distributed publicly in 1998, but existed in some form as early as 1995, according to an online archive kept by Greenpeace. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was “the rate and magnitude of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ (warming) that will result.”

So it isn't correct to act like the coalition was simply denying GW hence the "denialist" label doesn't really fit. Also, per NPOV we should use more neutral terms vs provocative labels when speaking in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your view that "skepticism" is more neutral than "denial" (instead of favouring these proclaimed "skeptics") is very debatable. There is no reason not to be consistent here with our article climate change denial (see also that article's terminology section). According to the source, they were aware of the changing climate due to their own research yet tried to make it appear as if they weren't convinced. That's not skepticism, that's intentional denial. I'll try to find extra sources if you want, but I've just removed the term for now since it's not that important. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn't say they are a denialist organization. To show that you need to show that they deny any climate change occurs.  You may be right in that anymore people have conflated denial and skeptic but that doesn't mean we should.  The article cites a document filed in a federal lawsuit.  So what they have is not something that has been proven but a claim being put forth by a litigant.  We don't accept court testimony as factual so why would we accept pretrial claims as anything more substantial.  You cite a 2009 article.  Do you have information on the outcome of the court case?  Springee (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that explicitly uses the words "Global Climate Coalition" and "denial" in the same sentence: "Some corporations in these sectors channel their denialist activities through seemingly independent organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE)" It was easy to find. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "long standing text" is an empty argument. See WP:Consensus can change and WP:CONTENTAGE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree consensus can change but when there is a dispute as there was previously the previous text is assumed to be the consensus version. When Prinsgezinde's change was disputed the correct thing to do was not edit war what they wanted but open a discussion and get a new consensus.  That is standard BRD which wasn't being followed.  As for the sources that say denial, Per wp:label we shouldn't use contentious or value laden labels even if some sources do. If the label is wisely used then we must use an in text attribution.  The same is true for accusatory statements such as "The coalition knew it could not deny..." Springee (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to join the discussion only mean to help stay focussed on content and good arguments. You may or may not be right on the editor-behavior comments but this is not the place to toss those back and forth.  Per WP:FOC behavioral complaints and allegations (ironically like this one) belong on user talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A cultural difference maybe. I genuinely could not believe you disputed the claims, which in my opinion were very clearly supported and uncontroversial. It seemed WP:POINTY, which is why I reacted in such a way. I'll assume I was wrong about that then. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Returning to the subject: "Climate change denial" is now the usual wording. Within science, there is nothing "contentious" about it. The WP article about the phenomenon is Climate change denial, and it contains the sourced sentence "From 1989 onwards industry funded organisations including the Global Climate Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute sought to spread doubt among the public, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry.[73][74][75]". Prinsgezinde's edit was fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ruder Finn

 * GCC was run by Ruder Finn, a public relations firm.

This is not historically accurate. GCC was run by the E. Bruce Harrison Company from 1989-1996. It was founded by Patricia Harrison and her husband E. Bruce Harrison. They sold the company in 1996 to Ruder Finn. This error has also been noted by RF reps on their Wikipedia talk page:

"Ruder Finn did not run the GCC, a subsidiary company that was later acquired by Ruder Finn provided counsel to the GCC."

This is important to fix because the history of the E. Bruce Harrison Company has been whitewashed and made almost invisible. They are historically important in the history of climate change denial and anti-environmentalism, and were the driving force fighting on behalf of chemical companies against Rachel Carson and environmental legislation.

Later, they were the PR firm who helped fossil fuel companies fight against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They invented the "clean coal" nonsense, are given credit for inventing corporate greenwashing and are deeply connected to the conservative political movement in the US.

More recently in the news, we've all heard about how Exxon Mobil was filmed admitting that they supported a carbon tax purely as a public relations ploy intended to stall or hinder actual climate mitigation strategies. I think if you look closely at this ploy, you'll find the fingerprints of the E. Bruce Harrison Company. It's likely they invented it decades ago.

The greatest trick they ever pulled was convincing the world they never existed. It's time to fix the historical record and bring them back into the spotlight. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I created Harrison's article and added him here. I've come across conflicting information about whether Harrison founded GCC or joined it later, so I didn't go into any detail. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)