Talk:CO2 Coalition

The article currently has a few NPOV issues

There are two main areas where I have NPOV concerns. First, the article states that they have "46 climate scientists and energy economists" as if the a climate scientist and an energy economist are both equal when it comes to being able to authoritatively speak on climate science and thus can be lumped together. Just exactly what the ratio of climate scientists and energy economists is is important and should be broken down. It would also be useful to know if all the "climate scientists" they claim to have working for them actually qualify as "climate scientists" by generally accepted definitions (for example, there should be no meteorologists being falsely labeled as climate scientists, for example, unless they also have a degree in climate science.). If it can't then we need to we need to reworded so it's clear they don't specific who these people are and or how many a climate scientists. Secondly, when the article states "...with a focus on promoting increased use of carbon dioxide through the notion that carbon dioxide has a positive effect on the environment by helping plants grow." we really need to add a sourced disclaimer that states the general position of relevant experts have about the idea that "that carbon dioxide has a positive effect on the environment by helping plants grow" and thus is a positive thing. This argument would likely have some support based on reliable sources I have read but only so far, as plants need more then just CO2 and rising CO2 levels would harm the other sources of nutrients and such that plants needs. Plus there is the major fact that the scientific consensus is that rising CO2 levels will negatively effect our climate in ways that would harm humans and thus outweigh any benefits we would get from any benefit to plants from the higher CO2 levels. So we need to point out that this argument only works if there is no such thing as climate change or any other downsides to increased CO2 that would counter the benefits to plants. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you are very unlikely to find people qualified to discuss this matter possessing degrees in "Climate Science." For example, Michael Mann, one of the leading proponents of Climate Change, has degrees in Physics, Math, Geology and Geophysics. James Hansen, another proponent, has degrees in Physics, Math and Astronomy. As for skeptics of Climate Change, Richard Lindzen has degrees in Physics and Math, and Willie Soon has one in Aerospace Engineering. No one questions their expertise on the subject of Climate Change (only their conclusions). Kolg8 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article and its talk page are a serious indictment of Wikipedia's neutrality in general. When I saw the "this neutrality of this article is disputed" heading, I thought "yeah, no kidding," and was shocked to find that the dispute is essentially that the claims of the Co2 Coalition are stated as given and not rebutted firmly enough. Notcharliechaplin, who wrote that "we need to point out that this argument only works if..." is apparently unaware that this is an encyclopedia article about the CO2 Coalition, not a debate about their claims.

The same goes, in fact, for this article's only subheading, "Criticism." The "criticism" in question is not criticism by notable scientists or activists of the CO2 Coalition. None of its citations even mention the CO2 Coalition. It is a point-by-point attack on climate skepticism in general written by an anonymous Wikipedia editor.

There is also the note about the organization's funding, which is clearly only there to cast doubt on the CO2 Coalition's impartiality, and because the Kochs are politically unpopular. A similar disclaimer that the American Association for the Advancement of Science receives funding from the Rockefeller Foundation is missing from its Wikipedia article.

While I understand that it's considered in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy to reject climate skepticism in general as baseless, this article goes well beyond that, and is an unabashed hit piece. Articles on Young Earth Creationist organizations show significantly more neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.112.254.236 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

True. The article opened with a plainly false accusation: that the CO2 Coalition "spreads misinformation about climate change."

I've just now tried to make just that paragraph more neutral, by changing it to say, "Its membership consists of scientists who contest the scientific consensus on climate change," and by quoting the organization's stated goals.

In fact, even that toned-down statement does the CO2 Coalition a disservice. According to the scientific literature, the consensus on climate change is merely that:

(1) “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen,” and that

(2) “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

- Doran & Zimmerman (2009) "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union 90(3) DOI:10.1029/2009EO030002

The CO2 Coalition does not contest those facts. (If they did then I would not be a member.) It is only the claims of harmful consequences which they dispute. NCdave (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

M.boli reverted my deletion of the false accusation that the CO2 Coalition "spreads misinformation about climate change," without any Talk page discussion. Please don't do that, M.boli.

It is possible that you're unfamiliar with the positions of the CO2 Coalition. They are all well-supported in the scientific literature, and many of them are well-supported in the IPCC's own Assessment Reports. From their website we can read that they contend that:

• "CO2 emissions began accelerating in the mid-20th century" (Agreement w/ IPCC)
• "The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases" (Agreement w/ IPCC)
• "Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average CO2 levels in the last 600 million years" (Agreement w/ IPCC)
• "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented"[2][3] (Disagreement w/ IPCC, but well-supported)
• "For human advancement, warmer is better than colder" (Disagreement w/ IPCC, but well-supported)
• "An “ideal” temperature is not that of 150 years ago" (Possibly in disagreement w/ IPCC, but well-supported)
• "CO2 is plant food" and "More CO2 means more plant growth" (Agreement w/ IPCC, e.g., AR6 WG1, Chapter 5, Table 5.1, but seldom mentioned)
• "More CO2 helps to feed more people worldwide" (Disagreement w/ IPCC, but well-supported)

All of their positions are well-supported in the scientific literature, and none of them are "misinformation."

M.boli, accusing them of spreading misinformation is untruthful, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. It needs to be made POV-neutral. Will you please help me do that? What do you think about changing the first paragraph to read as follows?

The CO₂ Coalition is a 501(c)(3) non-profit scientific advocacy organization in the United States, founded in 2015. Their membership consists of scientists who accept the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are warming the Earth, but who disagree with the IPCC's contention that the effects are harmful. They emphasize the benefits of CO2 Fertilization for agriculture and natural ecosystems, and they contend that "for human advancement, warmer is better than colder."

NCdave (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This is bullshit. It is easy to find misinformation in their statements. "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one" is a lie, "Carbon dioxide [..] does no harm" is a lie.

Quoting a few technically true but partly misleading statements does not change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new here, Hob, and are unaware of the rules, like WP:Civility. Please read up on it.

The fact that you disagree with the CO2 Coalition's members (including me) does not make what we say "bullshit," or "misinformation," or "lies." On Wikipedia it is supposed to be possible to disagree respectfully. Please try.

"There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one" and "Carbon dioxide does no harm" are not lies, they are opinions with which you happen to disagree. I do not. Those statements are consistent with my considered opinion, and the opinions of many other fine scientists.

It is not your agreement or disagreement which determines whether those statements are "lies." It is not even whether the statements are correct. It is whether the opinions are honestly held, which they are.

The evidence that those statements are correct is, in my opinion, compelling. For instance, the globally averaged temperature of the Earth, these days, is estimated to average between 1.0 and 1.3°C higher than it was in the late 1800s, i.e., the end of the Little Ice Age. Yet there is a general consensus among historians and most scientists that our current, slightly milder climate is superior to the climate of the Little Ice Age. I presume you know that.

In other words, the warming we've experienced, so far, has been benign, or even beneficial. That obviously gives us reason to hope that future warming will also be benign, or even beneficial.

The fact that the peak of the Eemian Climate Optimum (about 125K years ago) was also almost certainly much warmer than our current climate, without triggering any disastrous "tipping points," adds to confidence that future warming will not be harmful.

So far, the only major impacts of rising CO2 levels have been beneficial: improved agricultural productivity, and a greening Earth. None of the major predicted harms have come to pass, so far. Sea-level rise acceleration is either zero or negligible (studies vary). Tropical cyclones, hurricanes and nor'easters have not worsened. Tornadoes have significantly declined (nobody knows why!). There's some reason to think that floods could slightly worsen, but AR6 confirms that no such trend is detectable, so far. Droughts have not worsened, either, and drought impacts have declined, because CO2 makes plants more drought resilient and water-efficient.

Those are all well-documented facts. If any of them are surprising to you, I would be happy to provide references, from the CO2 Coalition website and elsewhere.

The predicted "climate crisis" is predicated on predictions that warming of more than 1.5°C (above the late Little Ice Age baseline) will be very harmful. But we've already experienced three-fourths of that warming, and, thus far, no significant harms have resulted.

You may think it plausible that the prospect of anything beyond the remaining one-fourth of that warming (i.e., about 1/3 of 1°C of additional warming) nevertheless constitutes a crisis, but I do not. I will not accuse you of "lying" for disagreeing with me, but there is plenty of evidence to support my opinion. NCdave (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new here See here. Did you never learn how to check if someone is new in all your 18 years of Wikipedia? And did you never learn how to apply WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE? We follow reliable sources, which means, in the area of climatology, the science of climatology and not the ravings of anti-science ideologists like the Coalition.

Also, it happens every day that on some Talk page of an article about a pseudoscience or pseduoscientist or pseudoscientific organization, such as the Coalition, someone complains that the article is "not neutral". See here. The articles never become more "neutral" after that, meaning that no, we do not go halfway to Crazy Town by saying "some say 2+2=4, some say it is not".

Your reasoning here, claiming that the scientists are wrong and the market fundamentalists of the Coalition are right, is as irrelevant as any other rant by random people on the internet. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hob, again I ask you, please stop violating Wikipedia's rules. I've already pointed out to you that your name-calling and insults (using words like "ravings," "anti-science ideologists," "pseudoscience," "pseduoscientist," "pseudoscientific," "crazy," "bullshit," "misinformation," "lies," "stupid," "disingenious") are clear violations of WP:Civility. I asked you to please follow the rules, and try to disagree respectfully.

Where did you get the idea that discussions of CO2 and the CO2 Coalition are only about climatology? The effects of CO2 emissions on agriculture are far more important than its effects on climate -- which you would know, if you had read the excellent material on the CO2 Coalition website.

If you had read that excellent material then you would also know that it is an organization made up of scientists, not "market fundamentalists." Although economists are represented among the many scientists who make up the membership of the CO2 Coalition, they are a small minority.

Nor does the CO2 Coalition "claim that the scientists are wrong." That's what is called a straw-man. If you want to know what the organization actually claims, you can find that information on the CO2 Coalition web site.

Reliable sources are not limited to the field of climatology. Studies from the peer-reviewed agronomy literature are reliable sources, and the CO2 Coalition relies heavily on that literature to inform its positions. (In fact, most agronomy studies are more rigorous than most climatology studies, climatology being a field which is heavily politicized, unlike agronomy.) For instance, here's a study of the effects of CO2 on potatoes, from the European Association for Potato Research:

Yubi, et al (2021). Combined Impact of Elevated CO2 Concentration and Climatic Warming on Potato Yield and Quality in Semi-arid Regions. Potato Res. 64, pp. 97–113. DOI:10.1007/s11540-020-09466-w

Excerpt: "Compared with the [control] treatment, the tuber weight in the IT + IC [+2°C & 650 ppmv CO2] treatment increased by 54.9%."

Scientific results in the field of agronomy, like that one, are not "pseudoscience," or "crazy," or "stupid," or "lies." They are high-quality, robust, reproducible science.

The CO2 Coalition is focused on CO2, and all its effects, not merely climatology. Their (our!) positions are scientifically sound, and well-supported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If you are only interested in climatology, that's your business, but it means your interests are very different, and much narrower, than those of the CO2 Coalition.

The article's accusation in the opening paragraph, that the CO2 Coalition "spreads misinformation about climate change," is both false and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I want to work constructively with all interested editors, including you, if you can do so civilly, to reach consensus about how to make at least the first paragraph of this article neutral. Will you please stop insulting me, and the organization which is the topic of this article, and of which I am a member, and try to engage constructively? I propose the following revised (neutral!) opening paragraph:

The CO2 Coalition is a 501(c)(3) non-profit scientific advocacy organization in the United States, founded in 2015. Their membership consists almost entirely of scientists who accept the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are warming the Earth, but who disagree with the IPCC's contention that the effects are net harmful. They emphasize the benefits of CO2 Fertilization for agriculture and natural ecosystems, and they contend that "for human advancement, warmer is better than colder."

That is a slight revision to my previous proposed version. I welcome suggestions about how to improve it. NCdave (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop whining about alleged rule violations here, it is off-topic. If you think I violated any rules, go to appropriate pages.

We have reliable sources saying they are denialists. If you want to remove that, go get more reliable sources saying they are not. (The Coalition itself is not a reliable source.) We are finished here until you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We have sources that say they spread climate misinformation. I can provide more if you want. Nobody is going to debate climate change with you on a Wikipedia talk page. Furthermore I point out that the raison d'être of CO2 Coalition is to oppose regulation of the primary greenhouse gas, which is decidedly climate change denialism.

That was a great quote from the CO2 Coalition's Walter Cunningham biography, by the way. Thank you for providing the reference. Since 2000, he has been writing and speaking out on the hoax that humans are controlling the temperature of the earth. Quotes from their SEC public comment are on this very wikipedia page: There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one (scare quotes in the original) Carbon dioxide, the gas purported to be the cause of catastrophic warming...."

The current article text is sourced, and furthermore it matches the evidence, so I see no reason to change it. If the coalition happens to publish some correct things that doesn't change the picture. -- M.boli (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

On every politically sensitive topic you can find sources on each side of the argument to call the other side's claims "misinformation." That's not grounds for disregarding WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not supposed to be the arbiters of which side of a political or scientific argument is right. The simple fact is that there's a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the CO2 Coalition's positions, and calling those positions "misinformation" is a false accusation and a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

Now, lets see if we can work together, and find a WP:consensus about how to improve at least the first paragraph of this article. Here's a neutrally-written introductory paragraph, similar in tone to Wikipedia's articles about other 501(c)(3) advocacy groups. Please tell me what, if anything, you think is incorrect about it:

The CO₂ Coalition is a 501(c)(3) non-profit scientific advocacy organization in the United States, founded in 2015. Their membership consists of scientists who accept the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are warming the Earth, but who disagree with the IPCC's contention that the effects are harmful. They emphasize the benefits of CO2 Fertilization for agriculture and natural ecosystems, and they contend that "for human advancement, warmer is better than colder."

If you have good ideas about how to improve it, I'm all ears. NCdave (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You do not understand how WP:NPOV works. Please focus on the section Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance to find out that your claims about this article violating NPOV have no basis in reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not going to debate global warming with you. The one and only point of the CO2 Coalition is to oppose regulation of the primary greenhouse gas. "Even more CO2 is good for us" is decidedly climate change denialism. It is not a 'scientific' organization arguing that point in the precincts of science. A drunk who yammers "Yes I drink, but studies show that wine is good for your heart" is in denial about their drinking problem. Appending "yes I drink" or "yes the climate is warming" isn't a get-out-of-denial-free card.

I did understand your point of adding the stated goals of the CO2 Coalition. Which is now the 2nd paragraph.

Looking for article improvements, it could be reasonable to expand the "Activities" section, or include a list of some of the reports and position papers. Because this is what the organization does -- it lobbies.

But I don't see why to turn this Wikipedia page into a billboard for CO2 Coalition climate-denial or to pretend what they do isn't denial. Many of the members are scientists who engage in the scientific discourse. Their contributions to climate science, and their disagreements with it, are properly noted on their Wikipedia pages and debated in their usual forums for debate. -- M.boli (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

M.boli, the CO2 Coalition does not engage in "climate-denial." They (we!) are a scientific organization, with a focus on education, whose positions are informed by the wider scientific literature, including the fields of agronomy, atmospheric physics, systems science, economics, and climatology. Their positions are generally well-supported in the scientific literature.

It is not true that, "the one and only point of the CO2 Coalition is to oppose regulation of the primary greenhouse gas." The fact that you think that suggests that you have not read the excellent educational material on the CO2 Coalition's web site.

You really should do so, before editing an article about the organization. That seems like basic due diligence. NCdave (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been quoting CO2 Coalition material in the wikipedia page and quoting some of it here in the comments. Yes, I familiarized myself with their website, their public responses to regulatory proposals, their presence in the news and other web sites.

I was being generous when I said their only goal was to oppose regulation of CO2. To wit: the globalist climate agenda is a crime against humanity, fossil fuels are the greenest energy sources, an astonishing hatred of electric vehicles and batteries (not sure how that is a threat), average temperature flat for the past decade, the planet was warmer 600 million years ago, yada yada. It is a climate change denialist organization.

Regarding your desire to educate people about the wonders of CO2, I suggested below in another comment thread (and pinged you) regarding two Wikipedia articles salient to this point. I think you are in touch with a lot of the literature on that topic.

But this article is about a certain climate denial / misinformation advocacy organization and its activities. -- M.boli (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Globalist Climate Agenda is a Crime Against Humanity" -- press release from CO2 Coalition six months ago. I was perusing the web site to see if there were some noteworthy Coalition activities to mention in the wikipedia article and ran across that gem. -- M.boli (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that unfortunate article to my attention, M.boli. I reached out to the CO2 Coalition leadership, and asked how that article got onto the site, since it obviously expressed viewpoints which have nothing to do with the positions taken by our organization. I was told, "It is in the News section because it is not one of our posts."

The News section of the CO2 Coalition web site is a compilation of articles from other sources which mention our organization and its members' work. Those articles do not represent the positions of the CO2 Coalition.

Note that the article was not a "press release from CO2 Coalition."

I shared my opinion that that article reflects badly on our organization, and as a result it has now been removed from the site, to avoid such misunderstandings.

Again, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

The CO2 Coalition's positions are all well-supported by scientific evidence. That particular article was someone else's political diatribe, which appeared to be recycling Extinction Rebellion hyperbole.

If you find anything else on the CO2 Coalition web site which seems out of character with the organization's absolute commitment to scientific focus and scientific accuracy, please let me know. NCdave (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Since I can't coax any of the people here who hate the CO2 Coalition to suggest specific improvements to the introduction, I've boldly taken another stab at it, myself.

It's a compromise. I don't like it nearly as well as my previous proposal, but it is less blatantly antagonistic, and less misleading.

The compromise version now accurately reflects the organization's actual positions, and its points of agreement vs. disagreement with the IPCC et al, instead of making the misleading blanket claim that the organization's positions conflict with the scientific consensus on climate change.

This compromise version retains the false accusation that the organization spreads misinformation, but it explicitly describes the accusation as an accusation, rather than trampling WP:NPOV by stating the accusation as if it were a fact.

That accusation really should not be included at all, but I'm trying to work with you folks! True neutrality would require removing the accusation. Wikipedia's articles about organizations and individuals on the other side of the climate debate (no matter how extreme they are) never include such accusations. [1] [2]

I look forward to your reactions. Please try to be civil and constructive. NCdave (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Four of the cites at the end of the first sentence for "Climate denial and disinformation" are reports about what Climate Feedback said or are Climate Feedback, so ultimately they're only one opinionated source. I'm not sure about the one by Zahra Hirji in Buzzfeed. The one which M.boli added yesterday ("Don't stop me now") is a recent blog post by Ana Romero-Vicente who according to linkedin.com has masters degrees in teaching and journalism. I'd conclude that NCdave is correct to call it an accusation, but I see that Hob Gadling has reverted and gone to another forum to say "User with a WP:COI tries to whitewash the article." so let's see what effect that has. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me, since Hob Gadling did not. I'd never heard of that noticeboard.

I've replied there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#CO2_Coalition

This is what I wrote:

Hob Gadling's accusation refers to me. (He didn't notify me that he was making this accusation, but, fortunately, another editor noticed it and informed me.)

I have no conflict of interest which would prohibit me from contributing the the article. I'm just a member and an unpaid volunteer for the very worthy 501(c)(3) scientific educational charity which is the subject of the article.

The reason that Hob Gadling knows that I am a member and an unpaid volunteer for that charitable organization is because I revealed it, per the WP:COI guidelines.

Because of my connection to the organization, I reviewed WP:COI before editing the article. I concluded that my unpaid volunteer work for the organization did not make me ineligible to contribute to the article, but that I should be open about my connection, which I was.

Hob Gadling's post here is, itself, a false accusation, on two counts:

* First, because the CO2 Coalition does not support or promote fringe theories, and

* Second, because I'm not trying to "whitewash" anything.

There's nothing to whitewash, with respect to that very worthy charity. I'm just trying to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV, and make it accurate. The fact that someone reading the current article might mistakenly conclude that the CO2 Coalition supports or promotes fringe theories is simply a reflection of how inaccurate and misleading the article currently is.

It is clear that Hob Gadling despises the CO2 Coalition, but he has not revealed why. I've repeatedly asked him work with me, to improve the article, but he just reverts and insults. Examples of his name-calling and insults include: "ravings," "anti-science ideologists," "pseudoscience," "pseduoscientist," "pseudoscientific," "crazy," "bullshit," "misinformation," "lies," "stupid," and "disingenious."

His violations of WP:Civil are so extreme that I thought that he must be new, and didn't know the rules, so I gently directed his attention to WP:Civil and WP:Respect. But it turns out that he is a very experienced editor, who has made over 14,000 edits, and who has been editing Wikipedia since 2004. Obviously, his rule violations are intentional.

NCdave (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy-paste of longish screeds will not help your case. Write your text once, then link to it.

I told you you need reliable sources talking about the Coalition. You are not listening. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

opinionated source A source that agrees with the scientific consensus and informs about those who do not is "opinionated" only in the eyes of those who are opinionated against the consensus and of those who have elevated uninformed fence-sitting to a dogma. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Briefly, a few points:

• Climate feedback is a wp:rsp reliable source in its area of expertise. @Peter Gulutzan should not be dismissive. I do get the point that the reference list could trim out repetitions of the same incident.
• CO₂ Coalition work product is what I have quoted or described in my Wikipedia edits, viz: two public comments documents filed with regulatory agencies. (I also quoted from their biography of Walter Cunningham.) These are not miscellaneous posts from other sources which they put in the website news tab.
• The list of CO₂ Coalition founders / board of directors / members / etc. indeed is chock-a-bloc with climate deniers / contrarians / whatever. Many are (or were) working scientists who (as @Hob Gadling notes) promote fringe theories of climate change. Happer and Lindzen, go-to scientists among the climate deniers, are the main sources of the public comment documents.
• The egregiously-titled news-tab article I called out (which @NCdave quite reasonably had removed) was there to quote CO₂ Coalition's own embarrassing article by staff member Vijay Jayaraj:

  Arctic Ice at Decade-High Level: Can Doomsayers Explain?

  (Snarky version: Arctic Ice: So There! Nyah!) The article is a classic denialist cherry-pick and sadly typical of the CO₂ Coalition's public education activities. Claiming that tne news tab is not indicative of CO₂ Coalition people and product is a bit deceptive, when the posts are there partly to advertise quotes of CO₂ Coalition people and product.

Enough for now. It seems there aren't many mainstream reliable news sources covering CO₂ Coalition. Possibly because it manufactures disinformation and denial and it isn't a major player? -- M.boli (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The CO2 Coalition is widely recognized as expert on the subject matters upon which they focus. That's why, for example, they were invited to testify to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, as you can read on the Democrats' web page, here:

• https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/subcommittee-on-environment-to-examine-impact-of-global-warming-on-public-health

Do you dispute that house.gov is a reliable source?

I don't think slight variations, up or down, in Arctic ice extent, are particularly interesting, but Vijay Jayaraj's article was factual (though the caption was oddly inconsistent with the article). Contrary to your accusations, the CO2 Coalitions "founders / board of directors / members / etc," including Profs. Happer and Lindzen, are not "climate deniers." They never "promote fringe theories of climate change," and they do not "manufacture disinformation and denial." They are contentious scientists, many of them very highly credentialed, who base their opinions and positions on their assessments of the best evidence.

You seem to have "climate science" tunnel vision. If you want to assess the net effects of CO2, positive or negative, you can't do it by focusing on just one narrow aspect of those effects, and ignoring the rest.

In that respect, the most important field is agronomy, not climate science. That's why the CO2 Coalition focuses so heavily on agronomy: because the largest effects of CO2 are on agriculture, not on climate.

The fact that more CO2 is highly beneficial for agriculture is settled science among agronomists. That's why the use of CO2 generators by growers is widespread: because agronomists know that more CO2 makes plants healthier, faster growing, and much more productive.

In fact, the value of elevated CO2 for plants has been settled science among agronomists for over a century. Here's an article about it from Scientific American, way back in 1920:

• Gradenwitz, Alfred (1920). Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air. Scientific American, November 27, 1920. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549

To understand why the CO2 Coalition focuses so heavily on agricultural effects (and why Wikipedia's article about the organization should do likewise!) you need to consider the relative importance of CO2's effects on plants and agriculture, and on temperatures.

The effect of elevated CO2 on temperature is detectable, but slight. The 45% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the mid- to late-1800s late Little Ice Age is generally estimated to have contributed about 2/3 (per Keihl & Trenberth 1997, etc.), of the estimated 1.14 [1.02 to 1.27] °C of average warming (source WMO) since then. That means if all of the warming since the late Little Ice Age was anthropogenic, then a 45% increase in CO2 concentration raised global temperatures by about 3/4 °C.

That's slight. It corresponds to an average isotherm shift of about 40-50 miles. It's effect on temperatures is about the same as an elevation change of only 115 meters. It's only about half of the (generally unnoticed) typical, continual fluctuations in indoor temperatures, due to the "hysteresis" or "dead band" built into home thermostats.

In contrast, the direct CO2 fertilization effects on plants are major, and very positive. They are "greening" much of the Earth, especially in arid regions. Here's a paper about it.

• Zhu, Z Piao, S, Myneni, RB, et al (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 791–795. doi:10.1038/nclimate3004

The benefits for agriculture are even more important. That 45% rise in CO2 level has increased global agricultural yields, and productivity of C3 crops, by about 20%.

That is a very big deal, and it is certainly not a fringe theory to think that it's a more important consequence than 3/4 °C of warming. It's why over 30,000 American scientists signed a petition, expressing their shared conclusion that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." NCdave (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The CO2 Coalition is widely recognized as expert on the subject matters upon which they focus. By Republican politicians and other scientific illiterates. They don't count. They are not reliable sources on scientific topics.

Listing true things the Coalition believes does not matter. It's a waste of time. You need reliable sources talking about the Coalition and saying it is a scientific organization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Members

From their website: in case anyone wants to mention specific members we have articles on.

CO2 Coalition Founders

• Roger Cohen
• William Happer
• Rodney W. Nichols

CO2 Coalition Board of Directors

• Jan Breslow
• Bruce Everett
• Gordon Fulks
• William Happer
• Patrick Moore
• Norman Rogers
• Jeffrey Salmon
• Leighton Steward

Executive Director

• Caleb Rossiter

CO2 Coalition Members

• D. Weston Allen
• Charles Battig
• Larry Bell (architect)
• Samit Bhattacharyya
• Ken Billman
• Edward Bohn
• Howard Thomas Brady
• Roy Buchanan
• David Burton
• Lorraine Yapps Cohen
• Walter Cunningham
• Rupert Darwall
• Donn Dears
• David L. Debertin
• John Droz
• Don Easterbrook
• Leslie P. Eastman
• Neil Frank
• Martin Fricke
• Laurence I. Gould
• William Happer
• Kathleen Hartnett-White
• Charles Hohenberg
• Jim Hollingsworth
• Craig Idso
• Hugh Kendrick
• Todd Kiefer
• Payne Kilbourn
• Richard Lindzen
• Wallace Manheimer
• Gene McCall
• Patrick J. Michaels
• Alex Miller
• Mark Mills
• John Moore
• John P. Neafsey
• Trueman Parish
• John Parmentola
• James Podruski
• Fred P. Rumak
• Lars Schernikau
• Harrison Schmitt
• Roy Spencer (scientist)
• Jim Steele
• William D. Stewart
• Frederick W. Ward, Jr.
• Terry E. Winters
• William van Wijngaarden

Corresponding Members

• William Hayden Smith

Also, they do not add up to 55. I count 61, 48 of them "members". I think the "55" needs attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Several of these are not the right people, of course... --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The CO2 Coalition website lists:

3 Founders (2 of them deceased)

9 Board members

1 Director Emeritus (deceased)

117 Members (including me)

1 Corresponding Member

and 8 staff (including the Executive Director) NCdave (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Those numbers can be used with attribution only. Pseudoscientific organizations like to bolster their credibility by making long lists of supporters and by putting out declarations for people to sign. Creationists, COVID deniers and climate change deniers are relatively current examples.

BTW, most of the people listed here who have a Wikipedia article are even having their climate change denial mentioned in those articles: Happer, Spencer, Michaels, Moore, Idso are the most well-known ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Plant Growth

The statement in the talk page 'Carbon dioxide is rarely the limiting factor for natural plant growth.' May well be in the given ref. (which is behind a paywall therefore has no place in Wikipedia) but clearly comes from someone without knowledge of the greenhouse industry where the level of CO2 inside greenhouses must be carefully regulated, both to promote plant growth and avoid the disaster of a level of CO2 so low the plants die, a not infrequent occurrence.--Damorbel (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Rarely" means "only in relatively few cases". "Inside greenhouses" is one of those few cases: a very special case, because too little CO2 can only be a problem in closed rooms - plants will never be able to lower the CO2 levels of the open air so much that it is dangerously low.

You do know that most plants on Earth are not located within greenhouses, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Damorbel, Outdoor CO2 levels vary greatly near the surface of the Earth, but currently average about 420 ppmv, which is about 140 ppmv higher than the approximately 280 ppmv pre-industrial level. Commercial greenhouses typically use CO2 generators to raise daytime CO2 levels to between 1200 and 1500 ppmv (i.e., 780 to 1080 ppmv higher than average ambient), at significant expense, because doing so greatly improves plant growth, health, and productivity.

The 140 ppmv increase in outdoor CO2 levels has already improved global agricultural yields by more than 15%. The beneficial effects of elevated CO2 have been studied by agronomists for over a century. Thousands of rigorous studies have confirmed that elevated CO2 is beneficial for all major crops.

For example, here's a paper about how elevated CO2 ("eCO2") benefits wheat:

Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Global Change Biology 22, 2269–2284.

Here's a paper about how it benefits corn (which, significantly, is a C4 crop):

Xiaojin Xie, et al. (2018) Effect of Elevated [CO2] on Assimilation, Allocation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus by Maize (Zea Mays L.), Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 49:9, 1032-1044, DOI:10.1080/00103624.2018.1448413

eCO2 is especially beneficial for legumes, like beans, peas, and alfalfa, which are grown for their protein content. So eCO2 helps mitigate protein shortages in poor countries. Here's a paper about it:

Yansheng Li et al (2017) Elevated CO2 Increases Nitrogen Fixation at the Reproductive Phase Contributing to Various Yield Responses of Soybean Cultivars. Front. Plant Sci., 14 Sept. 2017, Sec. Agroecology, Volume 8 - 2017. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2017.01546

All major crops have been studied, and all benefit from elevated CO2. NCdave (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

All this is stupid. People learn in school that plants use CO2, and pointing it out as if the climatologists did not know it is disingenious. The problem is somewhere else (greenhouse effect), and the plant stuff is missing the point. It is like telling a drowning man that drinking water is healthy. Yeah, it is, but breathing it is not.

Please stop trying to turn Wikipedia into a pseudoscience propaganda site, it will not happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new here, Hob, and are unaware of the rules, like WP:Civility and WP:Assume_good_faith. Please read up on them.

The fact that you disagree with the CO2 Coalition's members (including me) does not make the peer-reviewed scientific studies we cite "stupid," or "disingenious," or "pseudoscience propaganda" (or "bullshit," or "misinformation," or "lies" -- all words you used in another comment here). On Wikipedia it is supposed to be possible to disagree respectfully. Please try.

The fact that "plants use CO2" is not what I pointed out. That fact does not, by itself, indicate what happens to plants when CO2 levels in the air are higher. To use your analogy, is there so much CO2 that plants are "drowning" in it, or are they still "thirsty" for it?

The answer to that question is that they are very thirsty for it. Optimum CO2 concentration for C4 plants is well over twice the current average outdoor level, for C3 plants it is over four times the current average outdoor level, though the benefits of additional CO2 generally begin to taper off above 1000 ppmv. That's why commercial greenhouses typically use expensive CO2 generators to raise daytime CO2 levels in greenhouses.

There are, literally, thousands of agronomy studies, measuring the effects of varying CO2 level on various plants, both by itself and in combination with other factors. It turns out that all major crops benefit from elevated CO2, and most do so under nearly all circumstances.

Here's a FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) study of rice, which compared 380 ppmv CO2 to 550 ppmv CO2. They found a 30% grain yield improvement from that 170 ppmv CO2 concentration increase, despite the fact that FACE studies tend to underestimate the benefits:

Zhu et al (2015). An indica rice genotype showed a similar yield enhancement to that of hybrid rice under free air carbon dioxide enrichment. Scientific Reports, 31 Jul 2015, 5:12719. DOI: 10.1038/srep12719

The fact that elevated CO2 is highly beneficial for crops has been settled science for over a century, in the field of agronomy. It is neither "stupid" nor "disingenuous" to cite the peer-reviewed scientific studies which have quantified those benefits.

Now, let's see if we can work together constructively and civilly, to reach agreement on how to make at least the first paragraph of this article comply with WP:NPOV. Please?

This is the rewrite which I've proposed:

The CO₂ Coalition is a 501(c)(3) non-profit scientific advocacy organization in the United States, founded in 2015. Their membership consists of scientists who accept the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are warming the Earth, but who disagree with the IPCC's contention that the effects are harmful. They emphasize the benefits of CO2 Fertilization for agriculture and natural ecosystems, and they contend that "for human advancement, warmer is better than colder."

Please critique it, above, in the Talk section entitled This article is not neutral. NCdave (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseam, repeating the same text several times, will not help you here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, your text is actually different from the second sentence on. Well, again, pointing it out as if the climatologists did not know it is disingenious. The same, pointing out stuff that has been studied by agronomists for over a century as if it were not already known is disingenuous. It is a red herring, it has nothing to do with the actual problem. Again, your rants do not matter. Give us reliable sources that say that the Coalition is not a denialist organization, then we can have a meaningful discussion about improving the article. At the moment, we are still in the explaining-to-you-how-Wikipedia-does-not-work stage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hob, why do you persist in violating the rules? Calling people and their words "disingenious" (or "stupid," or "pseudoscience propaganda," or "bullshit," or "misinformation," or "lies") is prohibited on Wikipedia. I've repeatedly asked you to stop doing that, yet you keep doing it anyhow.

But, since you asked, here's an example of a reliable source citing the CO2 Coalition as climate experts:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-blaming-climate-change-hurricane-ian-odds-science-experts-say NCdave (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fox News is the opposite of a reliable source for science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

This article is entirely criticism, and doesn't really have any other content. So even as a critical article it doesn't have much value. I'm none the wiser as to the activities of this organisation. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just removed the 'Criticism' section entirely. It was essentially an essay arguing against the arguments made by this group. The odd thing is that (as you said) the article didn't even say what those arguments were, it only contained the counterarguments to them.

A criticism section would be fine if it was reporting criticisms made of this group in reliable sources (which I'm sure exist); but it should not be making those criticisms directly in Wikipedia-voice. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Text in the lead that says the page is biased

Adding text to the lead that says "everything below this point is biased" is not how Wikipediaing is done. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"The group informs about the benefits of the current levels of CO2 for agriculture"

Everybody learns in school that plants use CO₂ in photosynthesis. A group that points this out is simply not needed, and a group that pretends that climatologists did not go to school and did not learn that is dishonest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think is a safe assumption that most people already know that the 50% increase in average atmospheric CO2 concentration (from 280 ppmv to 420 ppmv) has increased global crop yields by more than 15%, and that elevated CO2 also mitigates drought impacts, by making plants more drought resilient and water efficient. Did you know those things, Hob? NCdave (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@NCdave: I think the Wikipedia articles salient to your interest in educating the public might be Effects of climate change on agriculture and CO2 fertilization effect -- M.boli (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The CO2 Coalition has a strong focus on this topic, because it is, by far, the largest and most important effect of CO2 emissions and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration. NCdave (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Not going to suggest any changes here this is not a topic I can really edit on I came here to look from the discussions on COI. I am a biologist and specialise in extinction basically, over time including the impact of changes in atmospheric gases. The concept that CO2 is plant food is a terribly misconception of how this all works. Within a closed system such as a greenhouse fine you can control for other factors. But planet wide this is not a good thing. Yes it makes plants increase in density, leading to increases in Oxygen. But this is not a great thing in the wilds as this leads to changes in combustability, ie the more oxygen there is the more forest fires we have. So its a feedback loop, ie more CO2 leads to more plant density leads to more Oxygen leads to more forest fires. This in turn leads to changes in local precipitation which leads to desertification. By saying CO2 is plant food and therefore is good is not the truth, it leads to extinction. Scientists do not support the notion that more CO2 is a good thing. Biologists understand the death sentence that leads to. Anyway just a comment. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Present the material in an unbiased form...

For example, a contributor deleted 'anthropogenic' in reference to climate change, which is bias and naive as anthropogenic means "relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature;' therefore, please check the bias and allow the information to be presented and correctly sourced as changing the diction to drive an agenda or belief system will only influence people against your position. Also, Facebook's (a private Company) internal policy might be interesting but it isn't relevant here and certainility isn't a source. If it is important to state then it should be its own section that speaks to their policy as it relates to the coalition and with the correct source. TheoMax42651 (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheoMax42651: what are you even saying here? How is deleting the word "anthropogenic" introducing bias? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

See it was deleted, one is left to assume you didn't know the definition of anthropogenic and assumed it was used to describe Climate Change in a manner that did not fit your bias. This is reasonable to draw this conclusion as anthropogenic is defined as:: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature; thus, is the basis for the scientific consensus that humans by burning 'fossil fuels' is a factor / if not the factor behind climate change.

Improving the diction is critical the wikipedia community but we must all attempt to remain unbiased even if we don't agree. TheoMax42651 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheoMax42651: you're not making sense. I know what "anthropogenic" means. Repeatedly calling other editors biased is not going to convince anyone here that you are right.

Your use of Many believe is weasel words. The CO2 Coalition pushes WP:FRINGE theories that do not need to be treated as valid when they are contrary to the overall scientific consensus. It is not biased to describe a fringe theory as fringe. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I pleased you know what anthropogenic means.

Let put forth our biases so we can come to an agreement here:

I believe in anthropogenic climate change; however, my personal beliefs are not relevant in the wiki community.

I am unable to find the weasel words 'many believe' in your link (I am not passing judgement if they are aren't indeed 'weasel words' as such characteristics I would imagine are highly subjective) but here is something I am going to believe about you and all wiki contributors: we are going to strive to strengthening our community by presenting sourced data in the most neutral way possible.

Let's break this down further:

"The CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy organization in the United States founded in 2015. The coalition is made up of individual content contributors, researchers, and other interested individuals who hold a variety of undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate degrees all with the goal of educating the public on the vital role carbon dioxide plays in our environment.[1]

Many believe the coalition is producing content that is at odds with the 'scientific consensus' on anthropogenic climate change and is spreading misinformation on climate change."

Some have viewed it as the successor to the George C. Marshall Institute."

There is nothing I can find in these statements,sources, and per wiki policy this isn't correct but I am open for you or anyone else to educate me where I am incorrect in my assessment. I/we may not agree with the coalition's mission, values, and work but the statements highlighted are correct and sourced.

If the issue for you is "Many Believe" then I am sure we can improve that language. May I suggest, "The coalition produces content that is at odds with the 'scientific consensus' on anthropogenic climate change."

Also, providing content that is correctly sourced that describes the coalition's work as Fringe is welcomed and encouraged and should be given the same level of thought and care. Again, our beliefs are not what matter. However, maybe again I am missing something but I don't see anywhere in this wiki where any entry says the CO2 Coalition isn't fringe, what am I missing here? It might be your personal opinion they are fringe and do not deserve the same wiki process as other topics, which if that is the case then add content and source it to add to the discussion. TheoMax42651 (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheoMax42651: you have still not explained why you view the previous version of the article as biased. The edits you keep re-introducing cite the CO2 Coalition's website for a significant amount of information; everything in the Funding and membership section, for example, is not cited to a reliable source. Same with the second sentence in the article lead, which implies their claims about climate change are true (even though we both know they are not). Putting the words scientific consensus in MOS:SCAREQUOTES in the second paragraph is also not good. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

TheoMax42651, I think this is a good time to address another question: do you have a conflict of interest with this organization? Please see WP:COI and act accordingly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: the editor had to go and continue edit warring after I warned them; I blocked them from editing the article. For now they're still able to edit this talk page. I see that I asked them twice now to address any conflict of interest and they haven't responded, so that partial block might be expanded. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this rated “mid” importance for climate change project?

Article could perhaps explain their influence or lack of influence in the Republican Party. Or it could be rerated as “low importance” Chidgk1 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed to low importance Chidgk1 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream content

Oh for heaven's sake, then add the mainstream content. It's not that easy. It needs to have a source that explicitly talks about the Coalition saying this and refuting it. Just adding the mainstream content with a source that does not mention the Coalition would be WP:SYNC. Better to delete that text until a good source is found. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The reverted text is a quote from a CO2 Coalition filing, a public comment on a proposed regulation.

In context I didn't think there was any danger that the reader would think Wikipedia was endorsing the quote in Wikipedia voice. It is in the middle of an article saying this organization produces nutty utterances, some of their nutty utterances were flagged in the previous paragraph. It freaking looks like a nutty utterance. The statement even includes goofy scare quotes around the word "science". I added [sic] macros by the deliberately mangled names of the IPCC and USGCRP.

However even if the editor thought I was putting UNDUE weight on a fringe utterance, thoughtlessly deleting it was sloppy and wrong. Even minimal checking shows it wasn't some drive-by insertion by an IP editor or SPA. It wouldn't take much to say that the IPCC is considered authoritative. You wouldn't even need a reference for that--just wiki-link the organizations being dissed. Or open up a quick comment saying you think the quote dissing these organizations is UNDUE weight.

I'm kind of fed up with with this behavior. I delete quite a bit myself, my median edit is probably a revert. I understand why that is needed. But I also know a number of people who have been chased away from Wikipedia by the thoughtless automatic-delete police, who don't often enough stop to think and engage. And pretty frequently I find that the addition that looked revert-worthy could actually be an improvement if I add a reference or fix it up.

Enough. I added the disclaimers. If the editors had simply something instead of reverting I would likely have done it. But sometimes I feel that my biggest obstacle to editing Wikipedia is thoughtless editing more than the random vandalizers and disimprovers. -- M.boli (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding further, I completely understand that fixing-up ill-thought-out additions to Wikipedia can be tiresome if done correctly. Which is your point. And I also know you as a valuable ally in the ongoing battle against the vandalizers and enthusiastic fringers. -- M.boli (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The recently-added "criticism" section

The Criticism section recently added by @SchallundRauch seems it might be one big WP:SYNTH that should be deleted.

Nothing written in this section is necessarily wrong. It is a collection of sourced paragraphs explaining why air pollution is a problem, that the consensus on climate change is real, that focusing on CO₂ as plant food is deceptive and misses the point, and other topics related to identifying air pollution and climate change as needing attention.

But even given that it was written and added in good faith, the added material doesn't relate to this article. The section is called "criticism", but contains no sourced criticism of the CO₂ Coalition. In the first two paragraphs the author seems to be personally arguing points regarding climate change. But that seems hardly useful for this article.

Finally note that this section duplicates material from elsewhere in Wikipedia, viz: articles on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and Effects of climate change on agriculture and so forth. Each paragraph seems like it belongs in (or came from) a separate, different, article. Perhaps the author would better address those articles instead.

So I recommend that this section be deleted. -- M.boli (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the section for that reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:PUFFERY

In May 2023, John Clauser, the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, joined the board of the CO2 Coalition.

I have repeatedly removed mention of the Nobel per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. The fact that Clauser won a Nobel in a different field of expertise (not climate science) has no relevance to him joining the CO2 Coalition or to his pronouncements about climate science. I understand that the climate denial industry does this on purpose, as it uses appeals to authority to convince gullible members of the public that because Clauser is an expert in one field, that must mean he’s an expert in another. But that’s not how it works, and Wikipedia doesn’t help climate deniers promote propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Education

[1] Obviously, the Coalition itself is a bad source for what it is. What it does is the opposite of education. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

One may disagree with its education, but it is legally classified as an ‘education organization’. Of course it is educating from its viewpoint and though the present consensus is contrary, others agree with it. Even the consensus has evolved over time and other strongly supported scientific conclusions have been found wrong in the long run. Until its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status is revoked we must consider it legally as an educational nonprofit. Perhaps as a compromise we may drop ‘education’ as well as ‘advocacy’ and just leave it as a 501(c)3 nonprofit and let the reader decide how it is to be viewed and preserve wp:NPOV. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think reading the discussions earlier on this talk page would be of benefit to you, particularly where WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE are mentioned. It is clearly an advocacy group for climate change denial and misinformation, and this is reliably and extensively sourced in the current article, omitting this information wouldn't be NPOV, it would be making the article worse in pursuit of false balance.

With regards to "Even the consensus has evolved over time and other strongly supported scientific conclusions have been found wrong in the long run", I hope the FAQ on Talk:Climate_change will also be useful to you. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

others agree with it and other strongly supported scientific conclusions have been found wrong in the long run have to be two of the weakest arguments ever. They are the sort of thing people say when they have nothing else left because their position has no merit whatever. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious

"Carbon Dioxide is Essential for Life"

Come on, this is obvious trolling. Why are we treating this organization as if it is serious and respectable? Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)