Jump to content

Talk:Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced fluff

[edit]

I've recently cleaned up the article and removed unsourced and "unduly self-serving self-published" fluff. This edit puts back some of it.

  • There is no source given for the work of Rothbard on clean water and solar ovens.
  • "CFACT Europe which has quickly garnered a strong reputation for its public policy work in Europe" is pure marketing fluff and not even in the given source (which just links to CFACT Europe's main web page).

I've reverted those changes again - please discuss if you disagree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90.184.74.65 (talk · contribs · logs) seems to keep inserting the fluff. I warned him on his talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

[edit]

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect cite in section Copenhagen Climate Challenge 2009

[edit]

In section "Copenhagen Climate Challenge 2009" is the claim: According to Lenore Taylor of The Australian, the attendees had an average age "well over 60",[13] and named Ian Plimer as one of the "star attractions".

What the cited source (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhagen-sceptics-meeting/story-e6frg6xf-1225808821955) actually says is : "For Australian academic Ian Plimer, a star attraction of the two-day event, there were 45 attendees, with an average age well above 60."

This does not say that the attendees of the conference had an average age of well over 60 - it says that the attendees of a specific event - namely Professor Ian Plimer's talk had an average age of well over 60.

Not only does the current wording not accurately describe the cited article, the cited article (from a Diary of Lenore Taylor) itself is bad - it is impossible for Lenore Taylor to know what the average age of an audience is - this is clearly POV reporting and not worthy of an encyclopedia.

The use of scare quotes around "star attractions" is also misleading - clearly Lenore Taylor does not try to be cynical about Professor Ian Plimer being a star attraction - quite the opposite - even the title of the cited article is not negative about him.

Either the cite has to be removed altogether or the wording changed e.g. "According to Lenore Taylor of The Australian, Professor Ian Plimer was one of the star attractions." Cadae (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

[edit]

I undid BoogaLouie's addition of a paragraph on funding from Exxon, the Carthage Foundation, and Sarah Scaife Foundation for reasons we have discussed before below. The only source he cited was Desmogblog, which is a questionable source. Desmogblog, for it's part, cited Exxonsecrets, a source we have already rejected as being an unreliable propaganda site. Also, Desmogblog's source for the funding from the Carthage & Sarah Scaife foundations is a dead link, further calling into question Desmogblog's editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking. Further, even if the sources were rock solid, the funding in question is all from 2006 or older, making their inclusion in a section on current funding unreasonable and off-topic, as FellGleaming noted in the case of Chrysler and Chevron. Not to mention that the amounts in question are trivial in light of CFACT's $3 million per year budget, making it misleading to include them as major donors at all. Turnout8 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the removed content from the Funding section. The article is not dead and the source is reliable as far as I can tell. Turnout8 you can open a section at WP:RSN if you'd like to dispute its reliability. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gaba, looks like we posted at the same time (I merged both to this thread for convenience). So please see my comments above re: BoogaLouie's source. I wasn't saying Desmogblog was a dead link, it is the 2 sources Desmogblog cites in its section on CFACT. One is already considered unreliable, the other is a dead link. Turnout8 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gaba_p, I went ahead and opened a section at WP:RSN. Feel free to add your comments there while we wait for another editor to review it. Best, Turnout8 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can trust Greenpeace's honesty on a claim about Exxon. Their history here is utterly unreliable. However, Exxon discloses all its donations on its site; if this information is accurate, it should be able to be found in a WP:RS somewhere. Fell Gleaming(talk) 05:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to "trust" Greenpeace. We simply report what they are reporting, with attribution. ► RATEL ◄ 04:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't report shaky allegations from non-reliable sources. Greenpeace has a lengthy history of inflating or fabricating claims. I doubt this is being done in this particular case, but it would be much better to find a RS. Fell Gleaming(talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to check, you'd see that the all of Greenpeace's "allegations" are backed up by links to copies of Exxon's IRS 990s and corporate giving reports. There's really no disputing Exxon's funding of CFACT. Yilloslime TC 05:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should reconsider including the Exxon funding & US Council on Energy Awareness parts at all, considering the number of years it has been since the donations were supposedly made. Plus, it has been almost 3 years since this talk issue was started and no one has been able to find quality sources on the subject. The sources that are used are questionable--for example, Mother Jones is ideologically opposed to CFACT and has published multiple hit pieces on them, such as this one.[1] I have already fleshed out the funding section a bit with links to CFACT's 990/audit and to the Charity Navigator site. Unless anyone seriously objects, I am going to remove the Exxon stuff in the near future, but I'd love to get feedback on this since it is probably the most controversial part of this page. Turnout8 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
I went ahead and made this change. If anyone objects, I think the burden should be on you to find recent and reliable sources that show CFACT still receives funding from Exxon et al. Turnout8 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chrsyler and Chevron, the source shows no donations from them for over ten years. I don't think we can reasonably say these companies are "funding" CCT. Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "funding". It says CFACT's backers "have included". Are you blind? ► RATEL ◄ 04:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try to adhere to WP:Civil. In this context, a backer is someone who provides funding. Fell Gleaming(talk) 04:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. ExxonSecrets is unreliable until proven otherwise in each instance, as being a propaganda publication of Greenpeace. It should only be added if the sources they quote are included and verified. I have doubts about some of the others, but that one is not acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gleaming & Rubin, it has been too long since those companies donated and the amounts were relatively small at the time. I have made the change on the page. Turnout8 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting an "off topic" tag on the funding section is blatant tendentious editing. Stop it. ► RATEL ◄ 12:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - "Funding" is a legitimate section. Some parts of it are unnecessary and provocative, particularly the line "Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, admitted the organisation has taken funding from Exxon Mobile". This needlessly repeats the Exxon funding that is already at the beginning of the section. Cadae (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funding 2

[edit]

I think we could add some info on sourcing using these sources: [1][2][3][4]. Are there any objections to any of them? Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are serious objections to most of those sources. But quite aside from that, what exactly are you proposing be added to the funding section? Many liberal environmental organizations' Wikipedia pages don't have a funding section at all (cf. Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council) or are primarily a regurgitation of the org's self-published, self-congratulatory "funding guidelines" (i.e. Greenpeace). Why are we singling out CFACT? Number two, most of the sources you cite are recycling the same claim about Donor's Trust distributing $118m to 102 climate skeptic groups over a period of 8 years (in other words, not very much money at all, really, once you break it down). But there is really nothing unusual about any of that, as this piece in the Washington Examiner explains. In fact, as that article notes, Greenpeace (which is the primary source of the "research" into Donor's Trust) does the same thing through groups like the Packard Foundation and the Tides Foundations. See also [5] www.infowarscom/big-green-oil-money-wwf-founded-with-money-from-royal-dutch-shell/ [unreliable fringe source?] [6]. Point is, if we add these claims about CFACT receiving 'dirty' oil money, we are opening a big can of worms, since that would make conservatives feel justified in adding similar claims to liberal groups' pages. It could quickly devolve into another edit war, which no one wants. Plus, the ThinkProgress source you linked to is a blog, and thus not an acceptable WP:RS (and one explicitly ideologically opposed to CFACT, to boot). Instead of investing effort into funding, why don't we flesh out the rest of CFACT's page, instead? It is pretty bare-bones compared to most other environmental orgs. On that note, thanks for adding the bit about the Supreme Court case, that was a good addition! Regards, Turnout8 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We report on what WP:RS say, it does not matter what other articles might or might not have or what other editors might or might not do as long as our edits in this article comply with policy and guidelines. I understand your objection to ThinkProgress so I'll just use the rest. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im tempted to remove the entire funding section here. Those are primary sources being used for basically irrelevant details. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

[edit]

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages,[7] including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting its supposed mission as its actual one in the lead isn't neutral

[edit]

"[CFACT] advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues."

Does it, though? Does it really? It might claim to, but it spends most of its time and energy lobbying against regulations intended to address environmental issues. It's a libertarian, business-focused think tank that only offers solutions insofar as they are intended to derail actual efforts by government. I'm not saying we need to call them out explicitly, but we shouldn't uncritically parrot their mission statement when we're describing the actual activities it takes part in, as doing so when the facts are at odds is in service to a particular agenda. I suggest altering the wording so that Wikipedia is not saying in its own voice what CFACT advocates for, but only what it says it does. WP Ludicer (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should describe it as Independent Sources WP:IS describe it; I like and support the WP:MISSION essay. I can't weigh in specifically here on the first sentence, since I haven't read much of this article or sources about the org yet, but I'd support removing the (SELF-SOURCED) second sentence. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair they do say they are against energy subsidies https://www.cfact.org/2020/05/08/pulling-the-curtain-off-energy-subsidies/
However if I understand the Free market article right a free market ignores negative externalities such as people killed by pollution? By that definition of "free market" it would be hard to solve many environmental problems. See https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.htm
Carbon pricing is perhaps a "market-based" solution in economist jargon? Not sure if they have a view on that. Anyway it seems politically impossible in US Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow&oldid=1212562697"