Jump to content

Talk:CO2 Coalition

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheoMax42651 (talk | contribs) at 04:36, 13 February 2023 (→Present the material in an unbiased form...: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Members

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

CO2 Coalition Founders

CO2 Coalition Board of Directors

Executive Director

CO2 Coalition Members

Corresponding Members

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@TheoMax42651: what are you even saying here? How is deleting the word "anthropogenic" introducing bias? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:CO2_Coalition&oldid=1139062443"