Revision as of 05:04, 10 November 2016 editBatteryIncluded (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,192 edits →Climate change skeptic: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:08, 10 November 2016 edit undoZigzig20s (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers192,440 edits →Climate change skeptic: reNext edit → | ||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
::::::::].] (]) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC) | ::::::::].] (]) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::You have a bias and your head up your @ when you refuse to read and acknowledge the references. You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold. I'm done with you. ] (]) 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC) | :::::::::You have a bias and your head up your @ when you refuse to read and acknowledge the references. You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold. I'm done with you. ] (]) 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::::::::Quite the opposite! But I maintain that this article should not be an attack page.] (]) 05:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:08, 10 November 2016
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions. |
Untitled
The POV language of this article needs to be heavily toned down. RickK 06:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd never heard of Myron Ebell before, but after I read this article I did a bit of looking around on the Web. I came to two conclusions: (1) Myron Ebell is a head case and (2) RickK is right about the article being unacceptably POV. I haven't rewritten the article, but I have gone through it and adjusted it a bit. Here's what I've done:
- Removed the adjective "scientifically-based" and changed "Climate Action Report 2002" to a link to the report itself.
- Removed the blurb that said, "CEI receives roughly $1 million a year from ExxonMobil, the world's largest energy company." This point is hardly relevant in a discussion of Ebell. Such a piece of information should go in the CEI article. Besides, the Greenpeace page cited in the article as source number (which may have been the source of this tidbit) mentions only half that amount.
- Noted that we need a citation for the statement, "In the past, he has equated the dangers of manmade global warming to the dangers of 'being invaded by space aliens.'" I Googled "Myron Ebell space aliens" and found nothing (other than mirrors of this article) that mention his ever having said that. Granted, I wasn't exactly tenacious in my search. If someone else can find a citation, please update the article.
- Removed the phrase "tracks everything Myron does and says" from the link to The Myron Ebell Climate. It was just a bit too gleeful.
- Hope this helps. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Much missing...
Myron Ebell's ties to ExxonMobil (big surprise there)
Myron Ebell, a man recently censured by the British House of Commons for “unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government’s Chief Scientist.” Ebell is the global warming and international policy director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has received a whopping $1,380,000 from ExxonMobil.
via : http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
Moron
I just heard this moron on the radio. Among other things, he said that since temperature increases as the logarithm of the amount of carbon dioxide, it is a problem that "takes care of itself." He also said that if we have more hurricanes due to global warming, it is not a big deal, since we already have hurricanes. Not sure if some of these should be added to the page.
- Where did this jackass say this stuff? Cowicide 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is very left/ POV critical
This article needs to be marked as overly critical and obviously biased.
Presto1775Presto1775 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess
I am going to try to clean this up. I already removed some poorly sourced claims, more removals are likely forthcoming. At a glance I see potential violations of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly even WP:BLP. More to come. ATren (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
POV
I tried to remove some POV, including content not backed up by references or "referenced" with a blog. The long quotes in the "litigation" subsection may be undue. In any case, are the tags still necessary?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:BatteryIncluded: Please try to keep your edits as NPOV as possible. This article should not be an attack page. This isn't an essay on climate change either.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Cut the BULLSHIT. He is known for climate warming denial and chosen for THAT. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding is that he is an analyst of climate change, and that he takes a skeptical view. Please don't be POV-pushing.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Complete fucking denial is not skepticism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, we want this article to be NPOV. Take a deep breath. This isn't a far-left blog; this is Misplaced Pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- His beliefs and goals are extremely well documented: "Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief". . So please cut the bullshit! I'm not a newbie you can intimidate with BS and pseudo-policies out of your @ BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC) And please feel free to create 37 more threads on the same subject...
- "sometimes described" suggests it is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- His beliefs and goals are extremely well documented: "Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief". . So please cut the bullshit! I'm not a newbie you can intimidate with BS and pseudo-policies out of your @ BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC) And please feel free to create 37 more threads on the same subject...
- Sorry, we want this article to be NPOV. Take a deep breath. This isn't a far-left blog; this is Misplaced Pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- That characterization is POV-pushing and undue weight. It's like describing Ray Comfort as an analyst of evolution who takes a skeptical view. Such descriptions are not consistent with the state of scientific evidence or with the actual activities and roles of these gentlemen. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it is the most neutral way to put it. Misplaced Pages cannot take sides on climate change. We simply describe things as they are, just like an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- That is in direct violation of "undue weight" policy. And Misplaced Pages isn't "just like" an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia -- and other encyclopedias "take the side" of truth. I pointed out how your description is not neutral, and you simply ignored it. "The way things are" is that anthrogenic global warming is firmly established scientific fact and results in extreme and rapid climate change. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK you're wrong. Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus. Ebell is a skeptical analyst. That's all.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm not wrong, but thanks for outing yourself as a climate science denier. Goodbye. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have zero opinion about climate change. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- But you do have an opinion, which you push. What you lack is understanding of climate change and Ebell's roll in that propaganda.. Your edits are only as good as your references. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- No opinion whatsoever! Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- But you do have an opinion, which you push. What you lack is understanding of climate change and Ebell's roll in that propaganda.. Your edits are only as good as your references. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have zero opinion about climate change. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- That is in direct violation of "undue weight" policy. And Misplaced Pages isn't "just like" an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia -- and other encyclopedias "take the side" of truth. I pointed out how your description is not neutral, and you simply ignored it. "The way things are" is that anthrogenic global warming is firmly established scientific fact and results in extreme and rapid climate change. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it is the most neutral way to put it. Misplaced Pages cannot take sides on climate change. We simply describe things as they are, just like an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Complete fucking denial is not skepticism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding is that he is an analyst of climate change, and that he takes a skeptical view. Please don't be POV-pushing.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Cut the BULLSHIT. He is known for climate warming denial and chosen for THAT. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Lede
User:Mr. Granger: Could you please revert to the edit with the NPOV lede you added? Some IP addresses have vandalized it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:BatteryIncluded: It is standard to start with the broadest, most neutral description, then go into more detail. Can you please restore, "is a public policy analyst on climate change."? If you open an encyclopedia, they always start like that. This will help with the "clean-up" tag.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Known for
"Climate change analysis" or "Climate change skepticism"? I feel like "analysis" sounds more NPOV. Newsweek uses "skepticism" though.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- He's not an "analyst" of climate change, he's a political hack and lobbyist. He has zero background in science, let alone climate science. He has a fixed position derived from ideology, not study, understanding, or "analysis" of climate science, which he knows next to nothing about. Calling him an "analyst" is POV and inaccurate. Calling him a "skeptic" is the mildest way to let the reader know what he is. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right. I question Zigzig20s' apparent intentions to sanitize this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know his intentions, but his arguments are bogus and ignore well-established WP policy regarding scientific subjects. This article reads like Myron Ebell is a climate scientist, which is the furthest thing from the truth. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I see that he keeps adding the text "a public policy analyst on climate change", when there is no reliable source supporting that characterization, which is in fact false. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have been trying to improve the article by addressing the issues of tone and clean-up in the tags. He certainly analyzes climate change, so that seems like the most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Provide a reliable source for your (false) claim that he analyzes climate change. I changed it to say that he is a global warming skeptic, which is supported by numerous reliable sources. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- He has written about climate change. He is an analyst of climate change. Then, he takes a skeptical view of climate change in his analyses. We always start with the broadest, most neutral description in ledes.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:Mr. Granger, for the short sentence you added.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You haven't provided the requested source. Writing about climate change isn't the same as analyzing it. And if you are basing this on your reading of his analyses, that's OR. Look, I know what sort of person you are and what you're up to. Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you ... someone else will have to. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- He who writes analyses is an analyst. It's the broadest, most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Provide a reliable source for your (false) claim that he analyzes climate change. I changed it to say that he is a global warming skeptic, which is supported by numerous reliable sources. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have been trying to improve the article by addressing the issues of tone and clean-up in the tags. He certainly analyzes climate change, so that seems like the most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right. I question Zigzig20s' apparent intentions to sanitize this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Climate change skeptic
I think we should say "climate change skeptic" as it is the most neutral term. "Climate change denier" is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- When he denies the science, he is a denier. When he says the world-wide scientific consensus is false, he is denying it. Feel free to keep opening even more threads on your same POV you keep pushing. Please. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Does he deny it, or is he skeptical about it?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- He fucking denies it!!!!! Have you read anything about him? The references in this article? Your attitude is extremely obnoxious and unethical. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please stop using the "f" word? My understanding is that while his critics say he denies it, he happens to be skeptical of climate change.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- READ THE REFERENCES, Dumbass. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Competence is required BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NEUTRALITY.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You have a bias and your head up your @ when you refuse to read and acknowledge the references. You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold. I'm done with you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite! But I maintain that this article should not be an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- You have a bias and your head up your @ when you refuse to read and acknowledge the references. You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold. I'm done with you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NEUTRALITY.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Competence is required BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- READ THE REFERENCES, Dumbass. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please stop using the "f" word? My understanding is that while his critics say he denies it, he happens to be skeptical of climate change.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- He fucking denies it!!!!! Have you read anything about him? The references in this article? Your attitude is extremely obnoxious and unethical. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Does he deny it, or is he skeptical about it?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages requested images of people of the United States
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions