Talk:Richard Tol

COI?
Guilty as charged. I edited the page about me. Did I introduce anything that is not true or biased? I do not think so, and nobody told me so. The warning sign should be taken down unless someone shows that there are errors on the page. Rtol (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a flagrant violation of the Conflict_of_interest rules/guides for Wikipedia, and says a lot about the public credibility and academic standards of the person in question. Absolutely no way will I stand for any removal of the COI tag because the COI perpetrator asks for its removal! jmanooch 15:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The pretension that one can greatly edit an article about themself without introducing anything that is biased already suggests something. The warning sign is there because what it says is true.

A question you could ask yourself is: how many people with your h-index don't have an article on Wiki? Then start researching and writing their articles instead of yours.

I have tried to make your opinion on climate change issues more clear, please do correct me.

MiG-25 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job on making this finally a neutrally-worded bio! --Crusio (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I completly agree that the warning sign should be put up on this page. Mr. Tol has enough space to write about himself on his personal homepage. This is actually where people will expect information that is edited by himself. Editing ones own biography in wikipedia is really bad style! --Rumburak2 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point being... ????? --Crusio (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably that Wikipedia has to be both unbiased and seen to be unbiased (a long shot I know, but...) Ben Finn (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that he goes against mainstream thinking about climate change, i would expect significant criticism of his viewpoints by other academics, but the article only talks about his interviews and his viewpoints, not the reactions of others thereupon. A "Criticism" section should perhaps be added. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

New Scientist Ref
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626324.000-economics-demands-action-on-climate-change.html

This is cited in support of the statement that "Tol argues the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits", however there is no statement to this effect in the article. Can someone come up with a more appropriate place to cite this? It does seem worth including, but citing things of no relevance to a sentence is not on. Dduff442 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Original Research
The article contains many references to his ranking in systems rating economists' standings. Does this not constitute original research? The inclusion of this information is not in keeping with precedents set by other economists' bios so far as I can see. For example, the bio of Gary Yohe, who recently collaborated with Tol on a paper, contains no such information. I have not encountered any references to Tol's rankings elsewhere and the notability of this information would appear to be in question as well.Dduff442 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging the "top 250" claim for being original research is silly, the cited footnote proves it. IDEAS is regularly used as Wikipedia source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.241.230 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

LS as a source
Per Christopher Landsea and User talk:Cla68‎, LS's opinions aren't notable. So whilst I'm just about prepared to hold my nose and OK the use of "the deniers" as the source of uncontroversial facts (though I'd rather we left them uncited) I don't think that "According to Solomon..." is tolerable in the text. Nor is putting his inclusion in the deniers in this BLP, because he isn't, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree that Solomon's opinion isn't notable, he is a columnist for one of Canada's major newspapers, but I don't object to your edit. Cla68 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tol says upcoming climate report 'alarmist,' pulls out of writing team
News report here. Since Fox News is a red flag to some, might be better to use a different source. Does seem worth adding to his wikibio.

Quote: "It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them," he said. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kåre Fog
Using any criticism by this Kåre Fog person is inappropriate. He is not authoritative; he doesn't even have his own page on Wikipedia. His sources are links are to blog pages in complete violation of Wikipedia policy. This should be removed immediately if this article is to have any credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.162.50 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Richard Tol. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5nRJGz2dt to http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

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) 08:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

AR4
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf is the wrong place to look for Tol, since he was WGII, not WGI. However (https://www.thegwpf.com/richard-tol-why-i-resigned-from-the-ipcc-wgii/) he wasn't actually a lead author in the end; weirdly, Lawrence Solomon turns out not the be an RS. Or did Tol walk out of AR5, not 4, in a huff? I really can't remember and perhaps no-one really cares any more. He is listed as a contributor to AR4 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/annexessannex-ii.html) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Tol. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719103630/http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/tol/RM8133.pdf to http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/tol/RM8133.pdf

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) 18:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)