Talk:Climate change policy of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses

A recent court decision concluded that the EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses, in response to a challenge form a number of parties. Some relevant discussion and links are in this discussion: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#EPA_rejects_challenges_based_on_the_stolen_emails

It is my opinion that the decision is only tangentially related to the CRU article, but it is quite relevant to this article.

Because the arbitrators of the CC case have asked for a moratorium on editing CC articles, I'm not going to add any of the material until that decision is out. I don't interpret that request as prohibiting discussion of material that might be added, so if anyone wants to discuss how this material should be incorporated, I think that would be a good step.--SPhilbrickT 15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Add "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek ISBN 978-1401323264 on Category:Climate change policy

Add "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek ISBN 978-1401323264 on Politics of global warming (United States) & Category:Climate change policy ... example: Man Up, Climate Skeptics, or Miss Out on the Money: Eric Pooley Jun 16, 2009 or Excerpt ‘The Climate War’ Chapter One: "We Haven't Done a Damned Thing" or Warming Is Real. Now What? by Michiko Kakutani of the NYT published: August 2, 2010; http://www.amazon.com/Climate-War-Believers-Power-Brokers/dp/140132326X ... exceprt from Talk:Climate change denial 99.24.248.207 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Note:Vandals (User:Arthur Rubin & User:Mann jess) have been altering the Talk:Climate change denial page, see "View History" to reconstruct: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&action=history 99.54.143.143 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The only vandals here are the floating IPs; the first time the new section name (too long to appear in edit summaries) was added, it was just annoying; the latter 3 times, a third-party comment was removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This wp article looks outdated, and "The Climate War" is current (2010), suggestions? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A constructive comment? I'm afraid that would be a major rewrite, and it might be more appropriate for politics of global warming rather than politics of global warming (United States). Any more detailed suggestions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not "constructive", as "The Climate War" is ONLY about the Politics of global warming (United States). 99.52.149.217 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Kyoto

In addition to alternet not generally being a reliable source, I recall the reason that Bush didn't submit it to the Senate for ratification is that the Senate passed a resolution opposing the treaty. Some work needs to be done, here. It's still appropriate for this article, and Bush was acting like an idiot, but that doesn't mean that his decision was based on the reasoning here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Add List of climate change initiatives?

Add List of climate change initiatives? 99.155.152.232 (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? And why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Add How Duke Energy's Jim Rogers helped break down his industry's resistance to the carbon cap in recent Businessweek

Add The Smooth-Talking King of Coal—and Climate Change: How Duke Energy's Jim Rogers helped break down his industry's resistance to the carbon cap By Eric Pooley Bloomberg Businessweek editor and author of "The Climate War" ISBN 978-1401323264. Article's main actors are Duke Energy's CEO James E. Rogers, Fred Krupp President of the Environmental Defense Fund, among others, such as World Resources Institute, Alcoa, Dupont, Caterpillar, and BP America of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and USA Politicians. 99.54.136.159 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Fossil-fuel_phase-out#United_States and/or California Air Resources Board?

Add Fossil-fuel_phase-out#United_States and/or California Air Resources Board? 99.24.249.223 (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Democracy's Laboratory: Are Science and Politics Interrelated?

Add Democracy's Laboratory: Are Science and Politics Interrelated? Mixing science and politics is tricky but necessary for a functioning polity By Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, from the September 2010 Scientific American Magazine. 99.52.150.204 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

I'm proposing merging Climate change in the United States into this article (Politics of global warming (United States)). The entire "climate change" article is about politics and political initiatives, not any actual climate change, or non-political mitigation efforts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support The naming of a whole series of "Climate change in..." has been questioned before. I have always said that Climate change is not a national but a worldwide issue. What to do about it has to be decided by individuals, groups, companies, governments etc. Yes, that's politics. --Nigelj (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose. Both articles are notable and therefore deserve their own pages. They are also long enough as standalone articles and merging them would make an overly long article. In my opinion encyclopaedias should have lots of shorter articles on discrete topics rather than longer articles covering a lot of ground. Having said that there is room for overview articles that tie a range of related topics together. That is the purpose of the Climate change by country series of articles. I agree that the name of these articles is not ideal but they are the names that seemed to get consensus. Since all of the topics pertaining to climate change in a particular country are not politics there is a need for the Climate change by country series. Media bias, public perceptions, regional climate change/global warming effects, climate science and (apolitical) climate change organisations cannot be construed as political. To alleviate concerns about the problematic name I would suggest a change to Climate change (United States) in this case, and the same change for all of the similar articles and categories. This would lessen any potential confusion of the readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  I have nothing against there being an article about climate change in the United States. The present article at climate change in the United States is not it. Everything in the article is about (proposed) political action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is a lot of stuff in Climate change in the United States that could be split out to this article. On the other hand there is a lot of stuff missing from Climate change in the United States. Have a look at Climate change in New Zealand. It is quite different to the US article. What do you think about my suggested name change?-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good name for the article you're describing, but, as I said, there doesn't seem to be anything presently in Climate change in the United States that would not fit (better) in politics of global warming (United States). (As an aside, shouldn't climate change in China include something about the dispute about where the ground sensors are, and whether they exist at all?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What is in the article presently or not present is not a reason the completely merge the two. There are three sections that should not be merged: Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States, Campus-level action, and Public perceptions. So if it was a general overview with the suggested name change would you reconsider you merge proposal? Dunno about your comment about the ground sensors at this stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If all the material in the "climate change" article should be in the "Politics" article, then a merge would still be appropriate, even if there should be additional material in the "climate change" article. However, I see your point, although "greenhouse gas emissions" would need to be greatly expanded to be of any use and "Campus-level action" doesn't seem notable. However, the "Regional initiatives" should be moved to this article (or child articles), and summarized in "Climate change". I suppose "merge" isn't quite the outcome I'm looking for, although there is something to be said for "merge and subdivide along different lines". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: There is a centralised discussion on the article names at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change/Climate change articles by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

  It would be nice if you added pointers to that discussion, if official, in all the appropriate articles. There is no reason why I would look there if an article was misnamed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link User:Alan Liefting, you are ahead of the curve as usual. Have fun playing with yourself User:Arthur Rubin, or is it Oneself? 99.54.139.119 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is a discussion therefore not "official". This is one of the problems with WP. It is a bureaucratic behemoth that is difficult to get your head around. That said, anyone who is interested in a particular topic should involve themselves in the WikiProject for that topic. I set up the climate change task force to try and sort out the cc/gw articles. It is not getting much buy-in unfortunately. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I got involved in an edit war on an article fought over by two WikiProjects at one point, so I don't really participate in WikiProject unless the Project takes a visible interest in articles I'm interested in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't write off the WikiProjects based on one disagreement. I should sign off - toooo much alcohol this evening... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm not sure which should be merged into which, but there does seem to be too many articles with the result that elementary factors are sometimes not adequately covered in each of the multiplicity of articles. Fred Talk 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Fred, Nigel, and particularly Arthur Rubin. "Both articles are notable and therefore deserve their own pages" is a non sequitur. Wikipedia should not encourage least publishable units. Just because some use "climate change" when referring to global warming doesn't mean we need two articles on the politics of this issue, per WP:CFORK. Note that we also have Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States, which actually covers some actual climate change as oppose to just political initiatives and criticisms, but even that article should probably be culled of a number of issues best discussed here. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support reorganization. I think there is room for two articles here:
  • a Climate change policy of the United States article which consists of concrete government action and administration policies, including all of the material currently in Politics of global warming (United States) and most of the material currently in Climate change in the United States. This article, once merged, would probably be long enough to need to be divided, probably along the lines of federal policy versus state/regional initiatives.
  • a separate Climate change in the United States focusing on the potential effects of global climate change on the United States, the United States' own greenhouse emissions, and public and media perception of global warming. This would include some sections from the current article of that name, but would have clear avenues for expansion.

Antony–22 (^talk/_contribs) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Additions by the 99. anon

He/she/they/it has been doing the following the following to the article:

1. Adding {{For|current global climate change|Global warming}}
2. Changing "personal opinions" to "individual [[Scientific opinion on climate change|opinions]]"
3. Adding, to the see also section, Economics of climate change mitigation and Carbon pricing
4. (I forgot to mention): In "Political pressure on scientists", the addition of {{See also|Scientific opinion on climate change}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

None of those edits seem appropriate to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Still no reasons given for the repeated edit by multiple IPs who are clearly working together, if not the same person using proxys. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ready to admit your hand yet User:arg?

Fear ...(Fear, uncertainty and doubt)... Denialism, let's make it certain, à la Merchants of Doubt (ISBN 978-1596916104) and Michael Specter's "How Irrational Thinking Hinders Wikipedia Progress, Harms the Human Civilization (Wealth), and ... (ISBN 978-1594202308). (Okay, the title was changed a bit to make it more relevant)." Climate change denial it is for you, as your wp behavior belies your motivation per Talk:Climate change denial's Skeptic (U.S. magazine) link Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers in print now. 99.60.125.10 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, still no reasons given. You are promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason was always given, but your unconstructive User Zombie argument attrition tactics are being triaged presently. 99.54.137.6 (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, reasons were NEVER given. If, as you say, reasons had been given, you might name one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You have occasionally reacted to the Wikipedia:Edit summary reasons given, so this is just more Denialism by you User. Wikipedia:Talk pages have been occasionally used also, but as Discussion pages can easily altered to misrepresent, an example: Talk:Climate_change_denial/Archive_27#Two_different_addition_discussions. If one were to look in the "View History" of a current page of a Discussion, one is able to tediously tease-out what has occurred: an attrition [[1]] goading tactic. You User:Arthur Rubin leave a long edit trail: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Arthur+Rubin so if one/many were to look at your "individual" edit history over the past month, it becomes clear you feign Wikipedia constructiveness and favor Obscurantism. You threaten and insult with inappropriate words, Italic type, bold type, and yell with temper Tantrums in all caps > See Talk:Climate change denial ... it is all too easy to destroy, or in this case obscure by way of denialism, than to create. That is why the creators are so great. 99.155.159.29 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I YELL because you don't listen to reason when I don't. It appears that you don't listen when I do, either, but it seemed worth a try. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Anglophile User substitute the word "attempt" for "try' as that word sounds trying, as in "you are trying..." To Attempt is honorable, To Try is to presume failure. 99.155.155.77 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If global warming (the current climate change) were only about politics then Vociferation and Shoeing might be appropriate, but sadly/opportunistically it is more sober than fr:Divertissement ... "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is only phunny when you see beyond "the box" of "politics" ... the topic of Adaptation to global warming and Climate change mitigation goes beyond Red states and blue states (False dilemma/Argument to moderation/Law of excluded middle) as there is only one thin (Climate sensitivity) atmosphere on Earth with physical limits for Life's habitability. Physics and Chemistry don't have Diplomacy let alone negotiate, but It is indifferent to Human civilization's existence. See Ocean acidification, Anthropocene/Holocene extinction, Biogeochemical cycles, and Planetary management for Sustainability beginning. 99.24.251.27 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of climate change news article

An editor has been adding the following to the Political pressure on scientists section, without sensible comment:

However, in September of 2010, a new study came out that showed that the estimates of polar icecap loss have been greatly exaggerated by roughly half.< ref>http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html</ref>

My concerns are that:

1. This is a tertiary news source, and we need to find the appropriate secondary news source to determine if it is credible.
2. The source (secondary or tertiary) is about the science (whether or not accurate), not about the politics. Unless it were claimed that there was political pressure to suppress this information (requiring another source), it doesn't belong in this article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Koch brothers

I see that in this edit Arthur Rubin "remove[d] paragraph having NOTHING to do with global warming". That's not strictly true, as it did have material about global warming mitigation. I could suggest the following shortened version:

In the August 2010 The New Yorker, Jane Mayer wrote about the billionaire Koch brothers, citing a Greenpeace report as saying "that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups." Koch Industries has said that the Greenpeace report "distorts the environmental record of our companies."

Is this relevant here in terms of WP:DUE WEIGHT? Would it be better placed in the Climate change denial article? --Nigelj (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I misread the paragraph; after all "climate change" appears only once. However, I question whether Greenpeace is a reliable source, even if quoted by The New Yorker. One would also have to do a lot of research to determine whether Mayer's article was intended to be "news" (and potentially reliable, rather than "commentary" (and not reliable). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think we can have left all that research to the New Yorker and to Greenpeace - they published the statement, and afaik haven't withdrawn it and apologised. All we're saying is that they did so. This isn't a truth or a WP:RS issue, it's a WP:DUE one, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be both; even if the New Yorker is generally a reliable source, it's difficult to tell whether this is a column or a "news" item, and it does fall under WP:BLP, the Koch brothers being living. Furthermore, the Koch Industries quote appears to refer to a different comment from Greenpeace, also quoted in the New Yorker article, "... Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States", rather than the one quoted in our article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original contribution for comparison:

In the August 2010 The New Yorker, Jane Mayer writes that "As their fortunes grew, Charles and David H. Koch (of the privately held company Koch Industries) became the primary underwriters of hard-line libertarian politics in America." Also, in the Wichita Eagle, she wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles G. Koch. The articles state the Koch brothers are major funders of the U.S. Tea Party movement, giving money to organizations disabling mitigation of global warming legislation, and underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and groups mounting opposition campaigns against Obama Administration policies. The editorial cites Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity as saying, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."

99.54.138.31 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's unusable on the face of it. The first sentence seems adequately sourced, but the "global warming" reference (which is all that should be in this article) seems a WP:SYNTHESIS of the two sources, even if by the same person. If the statement that the Koch brothers are a major contributor to "organizations disabling mitigation of global warming legislation" (as opposed to Jane Mayer's opinion) can be sourced, then that sentence might be noted. The rest of that paragraph is clearly unusable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The 99. anon is still adding the same BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As is the 209. anon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you attempting to "insult" me now? Please stop this edit warring behavior, and have a discussion per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite. The bold action was adding the quasi-quotes from The New Yorker article in the first place, without establishing relevancy or balance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You show simplistic "black and white" view, i.e. "balance" of what. Do you think this is a see-saw of just two "sides"? Explain why NOT relevant. 99.88.231.191 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of reasons why it shouldn't be included, including WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. Could you name a reason why it should be included? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific than general [[WP:... such as your specific "rule" you are invoking. 99.27.172.114 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't yet given a reason why it should be included. Still, it's clearly libelous, and sourced to published sources we do not consider reliable. That is, except for the Koch Industries comment, which, in the New Yorker column, is a response to a different Greenpeace accusation, so it's completely inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP dispute

The Koch brothers and Koch Industries paragraph are opinions (mostly from opinion columns), stated as fact. They should be removed. At least there are now no statements falsely attributed, as there were before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Zernike article

This citation has been inserted into a few articles, in this one by 97.87.29.188. While the citation does contain a reference to alarmism, so is arguably relevant to the alarmism article, countering alarmism is not the same as denialism. I won't be surprised if someone can find a real link between the Kochs and denialism , but this one isn't it.--SPhilbrickT 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin which page? Paper New Yorker or [2] ?

User:Arthur Rubin which page? Paper New Yorker or http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer for Climate change denial and Koch family (Koch Industries, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch, and two less political prominent brothers)? 99.155.148.69 (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

On the web, the article has 10 pages, and search seems to be disabled, so I can't see if she actually says anything like that, or if you are synthesizing it from multiple statements made in the article, or even if there is anything in the article which says that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• This version [3] is easier to print and search. (I don't know what User:Arthur means by 'search is disabled' because I can search for terms using my browser's search function)
• Related discussion at RSN - Mayer article on Koch Bros. where outside editors conclude that it is reliable because Mayer is an investigative journalist, ie the article is not just an op-ed. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2