Talk:New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Climate change

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

academic credentials

I have reinstated some information regarding the academic credentials of the members following this revert. While Bellamy is known as an environmental campaigner, it is worth mentioning here that he is also a botanist of some note (he lectured at Durham University) which is relevant to his membership of any scientific society (if this was a knitting group, then the academic credentials might well be irrelevant). While many scientists do not agree with this organisation's stance, that does not negate the academic status of the members. Gwinva (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree [1] (but I've reverted myself for a while to see where discussion might lead). Bellamy hasn't been a botanist for years, and was never of any note as one. All his fame is from campaigning. You seem to believe that this is a scientific society, presumably because it has the word "science" in its name. But it isn't; its a campaigning society, or more simply a pressure group.

But they don't like their wiki page [2] WIKIPEDIA MISINFORMATION Please note that information about this Coalition displayed on a website called Wikipedia is deficient, erroneous and, we think, intended to be deliberately misleading. It omits references to the original founders (see "Who we are" on this site), casts slurs on Dr Vincent Gray, who has been an expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report ever produced, and makes a completely untrue and unsubstantiated allegation that we are funded in part by Exxon Mobil. As anyone who has ever been traduced by Greenpeace will know, that organisation has developed such a tradition of substitutiing fiction for fact that its co-founder Dr Patrick Moore long since quit in disgust. It is regrettable that such a worthy objective as Wikipedia has allowed itself to become a tool of alarmist propaganda, and placed editing of material relating to climate issues in the care of someone whose edits demonstrate that his personal prejudice against a life sustaining gas such as carbon dioxide over-rides any pretence at scientific knowledge or objectivity.

I wonder what they mean by casts slurs on Dr Vincent Gray. Is there something wrong with being a coal chemist? And what do they mean by It omits references to the original founders? Very odd William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little odd. It cannot be only referring to this page. This page is certainly a stub and omits many things about the organisation - not to be "deliberately misleading" though: merely because no one's got around to expanding the article fully. That is not WP's fault: it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a work in progress. (The scientist founding members are all mentioned, we just need to add the others. Anyone could do that. Including NZCSC). What are the slurs on Vincent Gray? Vincent R. Gray seems NPOV (although very brief), but I haven't seem if he's "slurred" elsewhere on WP. If he is, that's a problem: WP tries to be careful about living people. We certainly need to identify the problem. The Greenpeace thing: fair point; it was poorly worded. In fact, being a blog, it doesn't really meet WP:RS: I'll remove it. But where is the "alarmist propaganda"? And no one's placed any editing in the hands of any one person, so there is no "he" to display personal prejudice. WP is, after all, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. And anyone does. (Meaning: each article has multiple authors, so I'm not sure whose edits they're talking about.) If the climate science articles are prejudiced and alarmist, or even one-sided, deficient of incomplete, then anyone else can get involved. Including NZCSC members. Gwinva (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace / Exxon

I weakened the Exxon bit, the source says The Climate Science Coalition’s lobbyist Owen McShane and retired scientist Vincent Gray were on the speakers list. So presumably Heartland paid them the rather handsome US$1000 fee, plus travel and accommodation at the plush Marriott hotel. Heartland assures everyone that no oil money paid for this conference, but it’s a pretty specious argument given that Exxon’s donations would free up other money to pay for the conference. I'm not sure the Greenpeace crit is notable even William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a blog it doesn't meet WP:RS anyway. Only went in to balance the article which some thought too pro-NZCSC!! Gwinva (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Bellamy

The addition to the NZCSC site to which William Connolley refers is regrettable and I expect that it will shortly be removed. However I am in agreement with Gvinda that a person is entitled to his or her academic and other credentials. Professor Bellamy is entitled to respect. His credentials are: Prof. David J. Bellamy, OBE., BSc., PhD., Hon FLS,. DSc., DUniv., C.Biol., FIBiol., FRIN

Hon: Professor Adult and Continuing Education-University of Durham. Special Professor of Geography University of Nottingham. Hon Professor of the University of Central Queensland.

President of The Conservation Foundation, Durham. Surrey and Birmingham Wildlife Trusts, Coral Cay Conservation, National Association for Environmental Education. British Naturalists Association, Conservation Volunteers of Ireland, British Institute of Cleaning Science, British Home and Holiday Parks Association, Camping and Caravanning Club of Great Britain.

Vice President British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Fauna and Flora International, Marine Conservation Society, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Wild Trout Trust, Countrywide Holidays Association.

Trustee of the Living Landscape Trust, Hon Fellow Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management. Honourary Member of the Emirates Environment Group.

international consultant, author of 44 books, writer and presenter of some 400 television progammes on Botany, Ecology and Environment.

Recipient of the Dutch Order of the Golden Ark, the U.N.E.P. Global 500 Award; The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award for Underwater Research; BAFTA., Richard Dimbleby Award., BSAC Diver of The Year Award, RGS Busk Medal.

Citation: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/

Of course it would be unreasonable to expect the inclusion of all that, but to refer to him as Professor Bellamy is, at a minimum, polite.

In passing I suggest that it be noted that Gerrit van der Lingen was a geologist with the New Zealand Geological Survey and is entitled to be so described.

I am happy to provide a supplementary description of the structure of NZCSC and a more complete list of its founder members if it is not immediately to be butchered.

Roger Dewhurst (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err well I asked above And what do they mean by It omits references to the original founders?, because I didn't know the answer. Feel free to answer it here. I think there is a policy not to use peoples qualifications or titles to describe them, though I can't find it. But anyway thats besides the point: the question is, whether Bellamy *is* (now) primarily a professor of botany, or an envirnomental campaigner (if we are to describe him in one pithy phrase). I would argue that he does none of the things that mark out an active scientific professor - conduct research, publish papers, lecture on science, supervise students - but instead does all of the things expected of a campaigner: speaks to the media, pushes various causes, lectures to the public. Even your own source, if you look carefully, calls him an "honorary" or "special" professor - which means, not a professor. If it walks like a duck (speaking of which, the BB website contains the std septic We should mention that in the early seventies some climatologists were predicting the onset of a cooling period, possibly leading us into the next iceage. The same set of people are today predicting 'dangerous' warming.[3] (see global cooling) so we know they are ducks too William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellamy credentials are suited to his page (if not there already: worth checking) but too detailed for this. As William C. states, WP doesn't use honorifics in text (see our manual of style). But I still hold it is not inappropriate to include "botonist" in Bellamy's pithy phrase, and "geologist" in van der Lingen's. Gwinva (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree: B has not been an active Botanist for ages, and his membership of this group is because of his fame. I also don't think Carter is a palaeoclim spec. Still, I now know why RD is interested William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founders

I do not want to answer that question off the top of my head but will do so as soon as I am satisfied that I can do so without error. The organization is in three parts, scientific, economic and, I think, planning. This explains why there are people associated with it with diverse backgrounds. I do not propose to add to that until I have satisfied myself with the detail.

On the matter of Professor Bellamy I believe custom dictates that senior military officers, university professors and possibly some others are entitled to be addressed or described by the rank or title after retirement.

Roger Dewhurst (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founders: fine. Prof: you're wrong (I'm talking wiki-custom, not that of the outside world). Compare Paul J. Crutzen, who unquestionably is a real prof, yet doesnt get called such, e.g. Montreal_Protocol. And you appear to have missed the point about env camp, and whether Bellamy is a real prof (he isn't) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Vincent Gray referred to as a "Coal Chemist"? Is there a professional specialty in chemistry that I am not familiar with? Why not just Chemist? It seems that the use of the unnecessary adjective "Coal" is being used to try to imply some kind of negative idea about his qualifications ... this is obvious. A parallel would be using 'Big Pharma Biologist" to describe a highly qualified biologist based on his past employment history.

I think it should be removed, particularly since he is long retired and has gone on and done many other things since. It certainly has no bearing on his status as a founder of this organization. KipHansen (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Organisation?

Is this article correctly categorised under Scientific Organization? By it's actions, NZCSC looks more like a lobby group than a scientific entity. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. It seems not to have produced any scientific reports or formal publications unlike, say, the Royal Society of New Zealand (who appear to be a bunch of liars and charlatans; at least according to the NZCSC). One alternative could be to move NZCSC to Category:Science and technology in New Zealand, but deleting the Scientific organization categorisation seems reasonable to me. Parallels could be drawn with the likes of the Heartland Institute and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, neither of which are categorised as a Scientific organization. --PLUMBAGO 09:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at other articles in the category Scientific Organization. I agree the article does not belong there. I agree with deleting Category:Scientific Organization. Mrfebruary (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Notagainst has proposed that this article be deleted, on the grounds that:

This article contains links to a website that has nothing to do with New Zealand. Citation number 4 reads "About Us & Contact". New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. 25 July 2009. Retrieved 12 June 2010." That link does not exist anymore. At the bottom of the page, the link to the official website is a dead link.
At least three of the founding members listed in the article are deceased. No one from New Zealand seems to be monitoring the site.
There is a website called the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition suggesting another organisation has taken over this website. It contains blog articles written primarily by Americans. On the wiki article, it states that "The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has been funded by the American Heartland Institute." In other words, this so-called New Zealand wikipage appears to have been taken over by the Heartland Institute which is mis-representing itself on wikipedia as a New Zealand organisation.

This proposed deletion is contested, because this organisation is notable in the history of climate change in New Zealand. This organisation was very vocal in New Zealand and received considerable media coverage, enabling them to delay action in New Zealand to address climate change. In particular, in response to the points made:

Links to websites outside NZ are not grounds for deletion of the article.
The death of some people involved is not grounds for deletion. Wikipedia is not limited to living persons. Many New Zealanders who were active in this organisation are still alive (eg Bryan Leyland).
Subsequent takeover of the organisation by foreign individuals is worth noting in the article, but is not grounds for deletion.

This organisation is an important and notable part of the history of climate change in New Zealand, and so this wikipedia article should not be deleted.--Pakaraki (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not deleted, at the very least all information to a website that no longer exists needs to be deleted.Notagainst (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some updating, which I'll look to do - but this article should certainly Not Be Deleted - as per Pakaraki's comments. - Snori (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying, trust, status, website

I'll look at making some edits shortly that give more background on the lobbying that came out of this group - and caused very significant doubt among many. This involved dozens and dozens of newspaper articles and questions in parliament. Also to clarify that the court case was brought by a very dodgy trust - not the Coalition itself - and it was the trust (which had no assets) that went into liquidation. Not the Coalition.

Secondly, despite a much lower public profile since 2014, Terry Dunleavy, honorary secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. was still putting out news releases in 2018.

Thirdly, and despite what the article now says, there *is* still Coalition-branded content at the originally registered-in-2006 (2006-05-14) sites: climatescience.org.nz, nzclimatescience.org, climatescience.org.nz. So these are still being actively maintained by an original Coalition team member - ~~WHOIS hides who this is~~ and dnc.org.nz shows this to be Terry Dunleavy. However the domain name nzclimatescience.net registered at exactly the same time is still maintained. It doesn't lead anywhere - but its WHOIS shows it being registered to Allan Manson. He was/is webmaster for the Coalition, and also owns the domain: climatescienceinternational.org which is active with content branded "International Climate Science Coalition" - again, created on exactly the same date as the NZ-branded ones.

Some useful background links to all of this, not all of which are suitable as sources for inclusion in the article:

-Snori (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]