Talk:Myron Ebell

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

POV

I tried to remove some POV, including content not backed up by references or "referenced" with a blog. The long quotes in the "litigation" subsection may be undue. In any case, are the tags still necessary?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded: Please try to keep your edits as NPOV as possible. This article should not be an attack page. This isn't an essay on climate change either.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Cut the BULLSHIT. He is known for climate warming denial and chosen for THAT. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that he is an analyst of climate change, and that he takes a skeptical view. Please don't be POV-pushing.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Complete fucking denial is not skepticism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we want this article to be NPOV. Take a deep breath. This isn't a far-left blog; this is Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

His beliefs and goals are extremely well documented: "Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief". [1]. So please cut the bullshit! I'm not a newbie you can intimidate with BS and pseudo-policies out of your @ BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC) And please feel free to create 37 more threads on the same subject...

"sometimes described" suggests it is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You repeatedly make false statements, about the article's subject, about science, and about WP policy. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That characterization is POV-pushing and undue weight. It's like describing Ray Comfort as an analyst of evolution who takes a skeptical view. Such descriptions are not consistent with the state of scientific evidence or with the actual activities and roles of these gentlemen. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is the most neutral way to put it. Wikipedia cannot take sides on climate change. We simply describe things as they are, just like an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That is in direct violation of "undue weight" policy. And Wikipedia isn't "just like" an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia -- and other encyclopedias "take the side" of truth. I pointed out how your description is not neutral, and you simply ignored it. "The way things are" is that anthrogenic global warming is firmly established scientific fact and results in extreme and rapid climate change. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OK you're wrong. Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus. Ebell is a skeptical analyst. That's all.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong, but thanks for outing yourself as a climate science denier. Goodbye. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have zero opinion about climate change. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

But you do have an opinion, which you push. What you lack is understanding of climate change and Ebell's roll in that propaganda.. Your edits are only as good as your references. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No opinion whatsoever! Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH has nothing to do with it. You stated an opinion: "Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus." -- and that opinion is factually incorrect. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus" is an opinion on climate change -- an opinion that is contrary to fact. You have repeatedly made proven false claims here. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you claiming something doesn't make it true. Calling the subject a "climate change analyst" is unsupported by and contrary to all reliable sources, and thus is the opposite of neutral. And "Wikipedia cannot take sides on climate change. We simply describe things as they are" is a contradiction. The way things are is that humans cause global warming which causes rapid climate change. There are no "sides" on such empirical matters. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede

User:Mr. Granger: Could you please revert to the edit with the NPOV lede you added? Some IP addresses have vandalized it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded: It is standard to start with the broadest, most neutral description, then go into more detail. Can you please restore, "is a public policy analyst on climate change."? If you open an encyclopedia, they always start like that. This will help with the "clean-up" tag.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

False charges of vandalizing are an extreme violation of WP policy. Calling changes that you disagree with "vandalizing" is proof of bad faith. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You have no understanding of what vandalizing is, or apparently any other WP policy or concept. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Known for

"Climate change analysis" or "Climate change skepticism"? I feel like "analysis" sounds more NPOV. Newsweek uses "skepticism" though.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

He's not an "analyst" of climate change, he's a political hack and lobbyist. He has zero background in science, let alone climate science. He has a fixed position derived from ideology, not study, understanding, or "analysis" of climate science, which he knows next to nothing about. Calling him an "analyst" is POV and inaccurate. Calling him a "skeptic" is the mildest way to let the reader know what he is. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. I question Zigzig20s' apparent intentions to sanitize this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know his intentions, but his arguments are bogus and ignore well-established WP policy regarding scientific subjects. This article reads like Myron Ebell is a climate scientist, which is the furthest thing from the truth. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I see that he keeps adding the text "a public policy analyst on climate change", when there is no reliable source supporting that characterization, which is in fact false. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to improve the article by addressing the issues of tone and clean-up in the tags. He certainly analyzes climate change, so that seems like the most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source for your (false) claim that he analyzes climate change. I changed it to say that he is a global warming skeptic, which is supported by numerous reliable sources. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

He has written about climate change. He is an analyst of climate change. Then, he takes a skeptical view of climate change in his analyses. We always start with the broadest, most neutral description in ledes.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Mr. Granger, for the short sentence you added.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't provided the requested source. Writing about climate change isn't the same as analyzing it. And if you are basing this on your reading of his analyses, that's OR. Look, I know what sort of person you are and what you're up to. Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you ... someone else will have to. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

He who writes analyses is an analyst. It's the broadest, most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't write climate change analyses ... having zero background in science, he has no ability to do so. Lying about him is not neutral. He does write political "analyses", but they are based on climate science denial. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate change skeptic

I think we should say "climate change skeptic" as it is the most neutral term. "Climate change denier" is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

When he denies the science, he is a denier. When he says the world-wide scientific consensus is false, he is denying it. Feel free to keep opening even more threads on your same POV you keep pushing. Please. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Does he deny it, or is he skeptical about it?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

He fucking denies it!!!!! Have you read anything about him? The references in this article? Your attitude is extremely obnoxious and unethical. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please stop using the "f" word? My understanding is that while his critics say he denies it, he happens to be skeptical of climate change.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

READ THE REFERENCES, Dumbass. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Competence is required BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NEUTRALITY.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You have a bias and your head up your @ when you refuse to read and acknowledge the references. You have no interest in building this encyclopedia, so go FYS and go edit comic books or something with a low scientific threshold. I'm done with you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite! But I maintain that this article should not be an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. Also note that following that guideline requires that the editor knows what the scientific consensus is. Since you have "no opinion", according to your own admission, it it obvious that you do not know what the scientific consensus on climate change is. So would you please bow to the superior knowledge of those who do? Ebell is fringe, and "climate skeptic" or "analyst" are euphemisms for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia should be taking sides on the political issue of climate change. I believe we ought to remain neutral and simply relay factual information in an encyclopedic (not political) style. Can you please show me an official Wikipedia policy regarding climate change? If there is one, I will apologize and not spend my time editing on this topic--but I hope other editors will make this article sound less like an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a political issue, it's a scientific one. The science is clear: this a manufactroversy. The science is on one side, and the bullshit on the other. The deniers have nothing to show that doesn't crumble as soon as you look at it. This manufactroversy is only insofar "political" as the deniers do it because the science contradicts their political beliefs - the same way creationists deny evolution because it contradicts their religious beliefs.

Wikipedia does not need a specific policy for every pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Fringe theories is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people (including the POTUS-elect) do not believe that it is fringe, but we could add an official WP policy saying that all Wikipedia editors must believe that it is if you want. Personally, I don't have an opinion, and I don't care about this topic. Either way, it doesn't matter. Right now the article looks terrible, with two tone and clean-up tags. Can a couple of editors please improve the article? The current state simply makes Wikipedia look bad. I do not intend to spend more time on this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Many people believe" - yes, I am familiar with the argumentum ad populum, and I already knew that defenders of pseudosciences use it. Your demand for weird policies is just silly too.

I don't see any problem with the tags: someone remove them, and everything is well. The article does not "make Wikipedia look bad", it makes Ebell look exactly as he should look. Even if Trump nukes all the Wikipedia servers as soon as he can, he is still wrong on the science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that to sound encyclopedic, we must not take an activist stance (on either side of the issue). Apparently you've picked a side; I haven't, and I don't think Wikipedia should either. We should remain neutral. We don't want this article to be an attack page even if some editors have a strong opinion and disagree with Ebell; we want to relay fact-based information, that's all. I hope other editors will spend the time necessary to improve this article in an NPOV manner. I am discouraged and too busy with work anyway. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The position of science is not "activist". Your demand that Wikipedia should "not pick a side" when science has picked a side contradicts Wikipedia:Fringe theories. We don't do this in the cases of astrology, homeopathy, creationism, flat earth, HIV denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories or any other pseudoscience, and there is no reason to make exception for this one. That climate change is man-made is not the position of some editors, it is the result that has emerged from gazillions of scientific studies. As I often say: sometimes the middle ground is half-way to Crazy Town. This is such a case.

Ebell is an important part of the denial industry, and not saying that would be lying by omission. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding another voice to this topic and moving the talk away from encyclopedic values, I think that it is fair (in a NPOV fashion) to classify anyone on Wikipedia as a climate change denier, just as Christine Maggiore is classified as an AIDS denialist (to give an example) or Kevin O'Leary is listed as a "climate change denier". Furthermore, Ebell's quote that "There has been a little bit of warming, but it's been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it's caused by human beings or not, it's nothing to worry about." means that he is a climate change denier as defined by the existing well-fleshed Wikipedia page on climate change denial: "Climate change denial... involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions."MarkH21 (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Zigzig20s's request for a "policy" about climate change, of course there isn't one, and I've told them so on their page, and pointed them repeatedly to the ArbCom decision in the Climate Change case. They have briskly removed all my information, as is their right, but IMO a pity, because I believe it was potentially useful. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

I have zero interest in discussing this topic any more. Hopefully other editors will improve the article and address the tone and clean-up issues. Please respect my time. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, I am very glad you retired voluntarily from this article. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Good riddance to his trolling and obstruction. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"Climate change denier" is POV. -- You have no understanding whatsoever of WP's NPOV policy. Descriptive terms like "climate change denier" are not per se a violation. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up and tone tags

User:MatthewVanitas: You added two tags in 2008: clean-up and tone. Can you please let us know if you believe they should still be here? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that User:BatteryIncluded has removed them without consensus for the second time.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The consensus in this Talk page is that the word "denier" is very well documented, it is not an attack to Ebell as he says so in his writings and statements to the press. His entire career is based on global warming denial. The only editor opposed to this article consensus is you; and your rationale has been shown to be biased and wrong. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No one owns this page and no one owns tags. The opinion of an editor who added a tag 8 years ago is no more relevant than the opinion of any other editor. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe those writing on this talk page believe it would be best to call Ebell a "denier", but the two sources cited in the last line of the lead do not indicate this. In fact, they specifically refer to him as a "skeptic". The first source cited is Vanity Fair. It states: "Many of the skeptics are curmudgeons: old, bald, and bitter. But not Myron Ebell. Tall, slim, and youthful at 53." None of the references in that article regarding "denial" or "denier" refer to Ebell. The other source cited in the lead is Newsweek. In that Newsweek article, it states "Trump, with the eager assistance of Ebell and other climate change skeptics", and the title reads "What a Donald Trump EPA Will Look Like With Climate Change Skeptic Myron Ebell at the Helm". The only mention of Ebell being a climate change denier is "Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief", but this is just an inference. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A reality check on semantics: The PR technique Ebell is using is identical to the creationists' teach the controversy, where they feed the populace the false information that there is a scientific debate on the age of Earth and the existence of evolution. The issue was settled by science long ago, but it took a visit to the legal court system to stop their metastasis into the public school system. Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -and now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time. Be aware that Ebell's PR machine does zero scientific research, so it purposely milks the word "skeptic" to feed the impression that there is scientific legitimacy to his denial. His PR propaganda technique is known, so it is imperative that editors in Wikipedia do not take the use of the word 'skeptic' lightly, when in fact it is a blatant denial. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

POV wordings

• "While not himself a scientist, he is a longtime climate change denier"

The sentence structure makes it sound like a contradiction, but actually the vast majority of climate science deniers are not scientists.

• "Ebell has no formal scientific education and has made no claims as such, however has held positions that require a vast understanding of scientific data."

Which positions are those? Working for the CEI does obviously not require that.

• "Ebell plays a prominent part in producing news releases at the CEI on climate change from an "informed layman's perspective""

In his own words. Scientists would call him disinformed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s is topic banned from all pages related to climate change

Notice just in case he returns. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myron Ebell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001051441/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Character assassination attempt

I gave the ealry version some tags, as they contained obviously biased content. First we do not have to care a dam about science. Economics is much more important in assessing climate change resepectively working on environemntal issues and a large part of the important parts of IPCC assessment is written by non scientists. Thank God. That said, try to describe the person without hatred, and if youre not able to, skip the topic. Polentarion Talk 23:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinions are not relevant. And do try to respect other editors by avoiding streams of typos. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"First we do not have to care a dam about science." Thank you for revealing your intellect and intentions in Wikipedia. Priceless. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A google scholar search about Ebell gets about 260 entries. Non of them has been quoted so far here. E.g. the university of Singapur did a linguistic study on a Ebell versus Trenberth discussion. That said, the article is a typical attack piece based on media snippets and doesn't use the Ebell's coverage in real academia or his actual political role. That sort of "science" is rather amateurish. Polentarion Talk 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, are you thinking of O'Hallearan, Kay L.; et al. (2013). "Multimodal digital semiotics: the interaction of language with other resources". Text & Talk. 33 (4–5). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. doi:10.1515/text-2013-0030. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)? Do you have access to this? From the abstract: A “multimodal digital semiotics” approach .... demonstrated through the analysis of an interview between a climate scientist and a climate denialist on Fox News .... accounting for how the climate denialist emerges as the dominant and convincing interviewee." Which confirms that Ebell's good at conning people. Not sure how well that fits with this article. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The really interesting things and trends are being found in the humanities and yes, O'Hallearan's study is about the topic of this article. Like you, I just read the abstract, but I am sure it would fit. I love to write articles based on stuff like that. Polentarion Talk 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a scientist

The founder of the EPA (and the first politician to introduce global warming as a major policy topic), a man called Richard Nixon was no scientist at all, but like Barack Obama a lawyer. That said, there is no reason to be a scientist to deal with climate change or environmtal issues and no reason to mention that in the lede. To be deleted. Polentarion Talk 00:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? I think it's remarkable that a non-scientist would head an agency with such a large scientific purview. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for the comments - yes - agreed - being aware that Ebell is not a scientist seems particularly relevant to administering the EPA, a science-related agency created to protect "human health and the environment" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Its quite normal and far from being noteable. Already the Manhattan project was lead by a general, not an egghead. Polentarion Talk 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - you may be right of course [edit - actually, and if interested, the "Manhattan Project" is well described in one of my created articles => "The Bomb (2015 PBS film)"] - nonetheless - being a non-scientist administrator of a science-related agency seems relevant - and worthy of note - comments welcome from others of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite see how an Army-led single-purpose project to build a bomb compares to the EPA. PepperBeast (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I am always right ;) The manhattan project was the largest scientific research project of its time and a role model of anything to follow. I happened to be the author that wrote the parts of Politics_of_global_warming which describe how Nixon in 1969 tried to give NATO the lead in global warming research. That said, Opera houses are not being lead by singers as well and an agency needs an administrator: An academic is needed, a lawyer or bureaucrat mostly fits, a scientist mostly fails. Before I started to edit the article, the attack piece lede did not mention at all that Ebell had a university background. Polentarion Talk 01:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

See also overkill

Neither of the links has anything to do with the article. Part of the attack piece effort, nothing else. Should be deleted. Polentarion Talk 00:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The "see also" section seems relevant, and an improvement, to the article - comments welcome from others of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We have a certain policy regarding see alsos, which should be followed. And no, I don't enjoy the current version. But it might take some time till the gang has understood that a democratic vote has an impact, even on settled sciences. Big grin ;) Polentarion Talk 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. It is clear that you are an ideologue, not an objective editor. Go work on something that you have no opinion on. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to whitewash

"a democratic vote has an impact" - This is just an attempt, bolstered by political power, to whitewash someone who has bullied scientists because their results do not fit into his delusional worldview. He is about to get more power, but not enough power to make climate change non-existant, nor enough power to stop Wikipedia from telling the truth about it, nor about him. Read Indiana Pi Bill, and read the influence it had on Pi, and try to notice the limits reality puts on political decisions. That this guy is not a scientist is indeed not as important as the fact that he does not listen to what the scientists say. His first act as EPA boss would be to rename it into "Environmental Destruction Agency" - if he were honest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's significant as Ebell has spent 18 years being presented by media as an equal voice to scientists. So far, I've added "In 2007 he said that, when asked about scientific topics in interviews, he made it clear that he is "not a climate scientist. I'm just giving you the informed layman's perspective". His view is that "If science is going to be discussed in the public arena, then shouldn't people other than scientists be allowed to participate? Isn't that what a representative democracy is?" quoting from VanityFair. No doubt more coverage of this topic can be added. . dave souza, talk 14:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There might be the one or other person that appreciates Ebell having a say on EPA, an agency founded by Richard Nixon btw. If you want to reconvert the article in an attack piece describing a dumbfounded dumbass carbon shill, you haven't understood neither what WP is about nor how government and politics work. Ebell is an academic of international standing and has yearlong experience with environmental policy. So calm down and try to write an article. Polentarion Talk 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Offtopic argument, with no justification: please provide constructive proposals backed by reliable sources, and remember to comment on content, not other contributors. . dave souza, talk 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thnx for your comment on Hobs behavior. He starts with a quote of mine and got sorta offtopic. It has happened before and I have asked him several times to comment on content, less on other users and I asked him as well to reduce gibberish on his prejudices about others. That said, this article needs to reduce propaganda still, but some improvements have been established already. Polentarion Talk 22:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You know that's not what he meant.

Ebell is fringe, and the article needs to treat him as fringe. He spreads crazy conspiracy theories, viciously attacks experts for being mainstream instead of being as far-out as he is, and he is okay with third-world people dying as a result of his ideas. The pompous description "academic of international standing" simply does not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Thnx for your comment on Hobs behavior" -- blatant lying is not acceptable here, Serten. Dave sousa addressed your comment, not anything by Hob Gadling, and your response commits the very violation that Dave directed you to cease committing. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Ebell is an academic of international standing" -Polentarion. Do you have a clue of what an academic is? Or you are just using your dictionary to find big words for your soapbox? An academic is a teacher or scholar in a college or institute of higher education. Ebell never taught a thing in his life! You are trailing user Zigzig20s close behind for a topic ban, so please stop your interference, disruption and your WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that Polentarion has already been notified about discretionary sanctions in the topic of climate change. clpo13_(talk) 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't comment on the IP drivel here. Various authors tried to hide that Ebell a) got various academic degrees (so he is an academic but not a scientist. Just read a dictionary again. (There is a difference between a scholar, an academic and a scientist I am aware of) We already have the sources in the article that he could have started a university career in GB but preferred to earn money in the states. That said, the Scientific American elaborated on Ebell strategy against President Obamas attempt to have the Paris agreement greenlighted withour the senate. [2] You call him fringe - Ebell has been a major political player with regard to the fate of the Paris agreement - already before the Trump election. And even more now. Polentarion Talk 19:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It takes a denier to whitewash a denier. Being a student at an academy doesn't make you an academic, just like flying in a jetliner doesn't make you a pilot, or going to a concert makes you a musician. Thank you again for remarking your biased intentions in this encyclopedia. I'm quite done trying to communicate with you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just start reading dictionaries. Both dict.leo.org and dict.cc confirm my interpretation. Polentarion Talk 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the German word "Akademiker", which means somebody who has been to a university, but which is a false friend. Actually:

• Leo: academic agrees with Battery, not with you.
• Leo: Akademiker does not list "academic", thus agrees with Battery, not with you.
• Dict.cc academic agrees with Battery but also has your interpretation.
• Dict.cc akademiker agrees with Battery but also has your interpretation.
• But you should not try to interpose other languages. [3] is a much better source because it does not replace a word with a word in another language which often has another set of meanings, often leading to a change of meaning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

tldnr - you show that you willingly misunderstood the word, as IP or logged in. So skip the sophism. Polentarion Talk 22:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You were lying again when you quoted Leo, that's all. Leo does not support what you said, and now you are trying to weasel out of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"major political player" - Yup. Doesn't keep him from being fringe. Take the major political player Trofim Lysenko, who Ebell will probably try to emulate. Both men's standing in science is pretty similar, as well as their attitude to science. So your point was? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Be aware that obusing a third person is a violation of wikipedia rules and etiquette. You either ain't serious or not able to deal with the subject of the article without spitting hatred. Polentarion Talk 22:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If you dislike "spitting hatred" you picked the wrong party to support. Seriously, this is a pretty good parallel. Pseudoscience propagandist whose policy ideas are prone to lead into disaster, who viciously attacks mainstream scientists, getting political power by a popular politician from a red party who threatens to jail his political opponents, and who Putin is a fan of. (Building walls around countries is more of a Walter Ulbricht thing though, but at least he was a Stalinist.)

To return to the subject, it's not my fault you don't understand enough science to correctly categorize fringe proponents as such. This is leading nowhere and we should stop doing it. Just inform yourself a bit better, ok? --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hob, you have the tendency to preach pretty funny private POV as the one and only gospel. That is worse than false, it is boring. You recently compared Ebell to a mass murderer, a stalinist and a killer of third world inhabitants. Thats pretty hilarious and beyound any discussion for a nerdy Washington insider. You accused me of lying, repeatedly - fiddling yourself with facts, as often. (Academic - der Wissenschaftler (Wissenschaft is not science, thank God in German and). According our sources and all evidence, Ebell qualified for an university post but "was not English enough to make do with the modest pay of an English academic" (see the Vanity fair piece). You clearly understood what I was saying but preferred to accuse, obuse and misquote me. Ebell is being acknowledged as one of the most vocal opponents of the Clean Power Plan. The plan has been tied up in the courts since it was finalized in 2015 and Ebell deems it as plain illegal, in line with Obamas tutor at Harvard btw. That said, as often, this political controversy is less about (natural) science (it never is) but about law and politics, as always. You could do better if you started to work with academic sources instead of press clippings and POV based rants. Polentarion Talk 04:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, killer? It was not intentional! It was only a consequence of a misguided policy that was installed against the better judgement of the experts. Just the thing Ebell wants to do, right? And those people, to paraphrase Ebell, "would have died soon anyway", so what is your problem? Do you object to Lysenko because he did what he did in the name the the Working Masses, and are all in favor of the same basic idea if it is executed in the name of Free Markets?

No, I do not "clearly understand" what you are trying to say. Especially the "thank God in German" part and the "was not English enough" part, but don't bother to explain it; your tales are usually not very relevant to the matter at hand. The relevant points are

• Ebell's opinion on climatology is just absurd and crazy,
• Climatologists are the experts that need to decide whether that is so,
• they did, and agree it is,
• this remains true independent of whether or not
  • Ebell was taught something at a University,
  • Ebell would almost have worked at a University,
  • Ebell is a major political player,
  • Ebell is the leading world expert on other stuff,
  • Ebell is a personal hero of some WP user or other,
  • whatever other unrelated stuff you happen to think up next,
• and it is not "character assassination" to call it as it is.

The original goal of the Lysenko tangent was only to demonstrate that you can be a nutcase and a "major political player" at the same time, but of course you had to use it as an occasion for a kerfuffle. Are we finished here, or are you planning on introducing more red herrings? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Calling other authors or persons a "killer" is accusing them of a felony. You better stop that. The "was not English enough" part is an important quote from the VF piece, not from me. Just start reading sources, finally. For preaching your gospel, try a forum. Polentarion Talk 18:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I object on behalf of all red herrings and dream of a day when herrings will be judged not by the color of their scales but by the content of their character. David in DC (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that smoked you out. You're not one of those 'Kippers by any chance? I thought they were the ones tending to colour prejudice. . . . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

With regards to colors, I am plain black. (In German terms, describing a Christian democrat. UK election testwise I seem to fit best with the Scottish National party)

Another grandmaster is still not allowed to edit here, but tries his worst on the web. Quite interesting that Ebell already characterized the tactics used on this article. Who’s a climate scientist? Depends on which side you’re on. Lets be aware that railroad engineering as well qualifies to head the IPCC. Polentarion Talk 20:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Knowing how to tell science from bullshit is necessary for a head of the IPCC. Not spreading conspiracy theories is necessary, not putting ideology above science is necessary, listening to reason is necessary, and listening to experts is necessary. Actually being a climatologist is not necessary. Pachauri qualifies. Ebell or you would fail on all counts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I read lots of stuff, often on recommendation from smart people. I see no reason to read irrelevant stuff just because you claim I should.

So, that's all? That is not even an anchovy. You still failed to address the relevant points I named. Since you turned up empty, your attempt to whitewash has failed. Bye. Come back when you learned how to do more than skipping the point, weaseling out of subjects, and muddying the water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So what? Get a soapbox, the horse is dead. Polentarion Talk 06:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as an aside: "Calling other authors or persons a "killer" is accusing them of a felony. You better stop that." It is easy to find out that I did not call anyone a killer. Someone is going all "postfactual" here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You did so. You have been caught lying repeatedly. Same e.g. for the translation of "academic" - you confirm a meaning for ted Kazinsky, an actual killer, which you deny for Myron Ebell. That said, your postings here are falling under mere drivel and drool. Stop it. Polentarion Talk 13:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"You did so" - If that were true, you would be able to supply the quote. All you are doing here is trying to imitate the way people refute your lies, and of course that would work only if I were actually lying. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Also, since Kaczinski was an "assistant prof in mathematics in Berkeley for two years", he was an academic by the everybody-except-Polentarion definition too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you still looking for the line where I call somebody a killer? Why is this taking so long? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Just try a simple search. It was a question in this section. Polentarion Talk 21:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I did a search, and of course I didn't find anything. Stop dodging. Let me show you how it is done. You called Lysenko a killer: "You recently compared Ebell to a mass murderer, a stalinist and a killer of third world inhabitants." This obviously refers to Lysenko because he is the only one I compared him to. Right? See? That's how easy it is. Mark, copy, paste. If you do this, I see which sentence you mean and can show everybody why you are wrong. But you don't want that, and that is why you don't do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that about the same time ExxonMobil funded Ebell was advising the Bush administration on sidelining the EPA, his fellow lobbyist Randy Randol of ExxonMobil asked the White House "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?", and as a result Robert Watson was ousted – in 2002 the Bush administration got him replaced by Pachauri. Who did the job reasonably well, much to the annoyance of Ebell and co. . . . dave souza, talk 22:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I am very much at ease with a historian or an engineer leading a (international) government agency. You don't need a lawyer always. Not any need for science except for minor tekkie stuff, the main points are political. The basic gateway, wether a regional (NATO) or the UN should have the lead, has been much more important than anything about climate sensitivity. The first step have been taken by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a historian and dandy blue dog democrat ante festum ) under Nixon. That said, the chatter about Ebell not being a scientist is mere propaganda (of rather low quality btw). Polentarion Talk 06:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not getting the point, probably intentionally, even after having it explained to you several times. I will try another tack: The problem is the Dunning-Kruger effect - Ebell not being a scientist but still thinking he knows better than the scientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You have not edited much and provided NO (nill, nada, nothing, not any) scholalry sourcing or background to the talk page so far. At any Toastmasters event you would have been disqualified from the very start wich your ranting. Polentarion Talk 18:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Tobacco industry

An editor continues to include the following sentence to the section "tobacco industry":

• "The tobacco company Philip Morris USA hired Ebell in the 1990s as Policy Director to mount a campaign to make regulating the tobacco industry "politically unpalatable", and to advocate for acceptance of "safer cigarettes."

This is the source cited.

A careful read of the source cited yields the following:

• In 1996, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, an early employer of Ebell, wrote a letter to the president of the Tobacco Institute saying that funding from the Tobacco Institute helped Frontiers hire Ebell as its policy director.
• In 1998, Frontiers requested more funding from Phillip Morris for several staff, including Ebell, as part of a broad campaign to make regulating the tobacco industry "politically unpalatable."
• In the 1990s, Philip Morris funded CEI as CEI advocated for acceptance of "safer cigarettes."

The source does not support that Philip Morris ever hired Ebell. The source specifically states that Ebell was an employee of Frontiers. As well, Ebell is not the sole employee of CEI. The deduction that Ebell was ever "hired" by Philip Morris is not correct. I will again remove the sentence from the article, and ask other editors to support the text-source integrity of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in question has been revised to more closely match the source. — TPX 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Current sections

The sections

• 2Global warming denial
• 2.1Environmental Protection Agency and George W. Bush
• 2.2Media coverage

contain unsorted media clippings and are not acceptable for any NPOV. The rest had been sorted chronologically and with a separate entry and should stay so. I would accept a single section about "alleged climate denial" btw. However, Ebell's activities as a lobbyist in Washington need a chronological and content wise structure with a separate and NPOV title. Polentarion Talk 19:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Polesarian, improvements can doubtless be made. It's worth removing Ebell's comments that lack a secondary source for evaluation. However, you seem to be you suggesting pushing a a fringe POV instead of giving due weight to majority expert views on the topic. Ebell's activity in climate change denial is well established by multiple good quality sources. Please don't do that, instead provide well sourced proposals for improvement. . . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

better try to write my id properly. And no, I dont plan anything like that. Btw. I introduced quality sources among them the first one with a doi. There is a difference between Ebell statings things on Facebook and Ebell being quoted and interviewed in the Scientific American. The first is primary, the second a secondary quality source per se. It is not acceptable to categorize various lobbying activities under one controversial category. The latter can be used and needs to be discussed, but that should be a separate section. The Halloran study shows that Ebell is being seen by experts as a showcase climate denier - and a showcase for them keeping an an upper hand in public debates against AGW scientists. It didn't work like that in the Ozone case, where a small network of scholars achieved a major breakthrough to global regulation of FCC. But those guys (not just modellers but e.g. chemists) had some idea how the environment works - both in Washington and in the stratosphere. Polentarion Talk 21:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted a set of changes made by User:Polentarion that have no backing by any talk page consensus. Please don't do that again. Changes of that magnitude are inappropriate while discussion on this talk page about them is ongoing. There is absolutely nothing like consensus to implement these changes. This sort of unilateral editing does real damage to our ethic of collaborative editing and undermines any assumption of good faith. David in DC (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies. The article would look like an article after the suggested changes [4]. I had installed a chronological row of order (nothing contentwise had been deleted) and added two recent Scientific American pieces dealing with Ebel. My suggestion would have contained scientific sources, finally. A scientist quoted in a Vanity Fair homestory is nothing scholarly, but just a media clipping. Polentarion Talk 22:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting essay. Irrelevant to bulding and maintaining the biography of a living person who advocates WP:FRINGE foolishness, but an interesting essay nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.
I've invited BLP- and FRINGE-savvy editors to join us by way of a post to the BLP Noticeboard.David in DC (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ebell is now going to choose the experts, let us see how quick the mainstream adapts. I assume you haven't read my proposal at all and I regret a discussion style that leads to the suppression of actual scholalry studies on the subject. Polentarion Talk 22:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Coming to the talk page by stating Ebell advocates "WP:Fringe foolishness," is not a healthy sign for a NPOV on a BLP. The whole section on this denial bit and the Bush administration/EPA needs to go, perhaps to an appropriate climate change article. As it reads now, it is entirely undue weight, and structured with a negative, non-neutral POV. In addition, there is virtually no counterweight to the tone and edit choices being made to this BLP. There's essentially nothing regarding why Ebell holds these beliefs, nor does it offer a counterweight to climate change proponents, etc. These matters should not be adjudicated here. The page reads like a wall of shame intended to discredit this man. The lede has, "he's not a scientist." So what does that mean? Remember, Ted Kaczynski was a scientist, and look how well that turned out for society. The page needs a good clean up and neutral sources. Move off the soap box and bring back the BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. WP:NPOV does not say there should be counterweight to what the reliable sources say. "The whole section [..] needs to go, perhaps to an appropriate climate change article" What? The climate change articles already say what the scientists say on the subjects and mention that there is ideological resistance. Do you want to add all the deniers' names to an article about the science they deny?

I think you are one of the many people who fell the the propaganda of the denial industry. They do not have a leg to stand on, and they are fringe and covered by the relevant WP rules.

"There's essentially nothing regarding why Ebell holds these beliefs" - Probably because there are no reliable sources about that. I would guess it is because man-made global warming means that free markets did something wrong, which contradicts Ebell's worldview and must therefore be false. Or maybe it is because man-made global warming means the markets have to be restricted to stop it, which contradicts Ebell's policies, so man-made global warming must be depicted as false whether it is true or not. Do you want that speculation in the article?

Finally, the Kaczinski gambit is pretty low. Are you by any chance working for the Heartland Institute? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

re. the gambit, Kaczynski doesn't seem to have been a scientist. Perhaps a post-truth assertion? . . dave souza, talk 20:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

SW3 5DL statement is appropriate. Kaczynski was a child prodigy and became, in his mid twenties, assistant prof in mathematics in Berkeley for two years. The Heartland libel is low even for the known level of Hob Gadling accusations. That said, one just could restore e.g. the Scientific American quotes of Ebells statements about e.g. the Paris agreement or his published views on freedom and environmentalism to restore some NPOV. Hob seems to believe that anything he deletes in wikipedia ceases to exist in real life. Classical Fichte/ German Idealism Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (roughly translating in 'the world is my oyster'). Polentarion Talk 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you talking about Kaczinksi Kaczinski Kaczynski? His only connection to the article is that climate deniers use him to malign mainstream scientists by inappropriately equating them with him for no good reason: first the Heartland Institute did that with its infamous "I still believe in Global Warming? Do you"? billboard which cost them dearly by making the generally abysmal level of sophistication of their reasoning clear to everybody, and now two WP users sympathetic to the same cause - SW3 and you - use him for the same purpose. Don't you people ever learn which tactics are counterproductive? I take that back. Please never learn that. Go on as planned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You and Dave had downplayed Kaczinksis role to bully SW3 5DL. Just stop that. Polentarion Talk 11:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

So what is his "role"? Are all the climatologists working for him? He is not relevant. Do not pretend he is. Refuting bad reasoning does not count as "bullying". Bullying is what Ebell is probably going to do to the people under his heel who disagree with him. --Hob Gadling (talk)

You and Dave had downplayed Kaczinksis role to bully SW3 5DL. You repeatedly come up with false and libelous claims against Ebell or anyone not in line with your POV. Just stop that sort of behavior. Polentarion Talk 12:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I still have no idea what "downplayed Kaczinksis role" is supposed to mean. So I ask again: What role? He is not relevant for climatology, and he never was. Only Heartland (and SW3, and you) seem to think he is. It is natural to associate you, and SW3, with Heartland when you all try to pull the same silly stunt. (BTW, Ted is an academic but not a scientist.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have no idea, just don't do it again. Polentarion Talk 13:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You make even less sense than usual. I have been asking twice what you mean by "downplaying Kaczinski's role" and you hop and skip and try to avoid answering the question because you know it does not mean anything. Nobody is fooled. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record: I refer to that statements about the Kaczinksi gambit/Heartland/ and Kaczinksi not being a scientist or academic - he was both, you denied that. I happened to be the author that wrote the German entry [5], including a section on the billboard failure, which lead to the stop (and loss of funding) of the major climate activities. You seem to have inserted some factual wrong statements (lies) ever since. 22:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether mathematics is a science seems to be a matter of debate. I thought the matter was settled as "not science", but I was wrong. Of course you are equally wrong in assuming it settled the other way. But this is a minor point from a side remark. You still have not answered what you mean by "downplaying Kaczynski's role". "I refer to that statements about the Kaczynski gambit" does not help a bit. I will not even grace your new tangent tale about German WP articles, containing new slander, with a response.

"Downplaying Kaczynski's role" means: Ted has a "role", and Dave and I have said something about his role that downplayed it. I have no idea what role you are talking about, and I have no idea how Dave and I were supposed to have downplayed it. Wait - do you mean "scientist" is a "role"? No, that can't be it. You accused me of downplaying his role before I even mentioned that question.

See, folks? That's what I mean. It is impossible to get a straight answer from this guy. He spouts some random statement which is a kind of attack on one or several fellow editors, then tries to avoid saying clearly what he means by it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Lede

Myron Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. He is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a loose coalition formed in 1997 focused on dispelling alleged global warming myths. [1][2] In September 2016, Ebell was appointed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to lead his transition team for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[6] Donald Trump's decision to announce Ebell, a devoted climate skeptic respectively showcase climate change denier[7] to transition EPA raised fears of failure to act quickly on climate change. It has been deemed part of the Trump taboo at the 2016 Climate conference in Marrakesh.[8]

comments

Polentarion Talk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC) (proposal as above)

FWIW - the "current lede" (see copy below) seems Excellent - clear, accurate and well-cited - and does not need to be changed to the "suggested lede" described above imo atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That suggested lede is not NPOV. "raised fears of failure"? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A problem with the current lead is that the Trump-nomination is not mentioned in the body of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

fixed that NPalgan2 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WP is alarmingly quick sometimes! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The topic is Trump's Environmental Protection Agency transition team rather than his campaign, so I've changed the section title. It's yet to be seen if Ebell will take a prominent position in the administration, judging by current news reports. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that the current lead is pretty good, and better than the proposal. The historical development could be briefly outlined, but this needs to be developed more in the article body at this stage. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Having some impact is always good. Point is, the appointment of Ebell has been a signatory early move of Trump. The audience seems to listen, including Marrakesh. "Raised fears of failure" is quite close to the wording of the Scientific American article. You can accuse me as you like, but you better accept reality and real life sources as not having to play according WP rules. Polentarion Talk 03:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    There is no reason to remove the "presents itself as". Your attempts at shifting the tone of the article from NPOV toward your and Ebell's extreme fringe POV would fail even if they were far less transparent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Copied from the "current lede" of the Myron Ebell article:

Myron Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. He is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a loose coalition formed in 1997 which presents itself as "focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis". In these organizations, Ebell has been central in promoting climate change denial, distributing his views to the media and politicians. Ebell, who is not a scientist, has been described as a climate change skeptic, a climate contrarian and a climate change denier.

In September 2016, Ebell was appointed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to lead his transition team for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

References

Suggested Structure

• TOC
• 1 Education and early career
• 2 Central role as climate denier and sceptic
• 3 Positions stated in media
• 4 Lobbying activities
• 4.1 Tobacco industry
• 4.2 Global Climate Science Communications plan
• 4.3 Environmental Protection Agency and George W. Bush
• 4.4 Opposition to the Endangered Species Act
• 4.5 Clean Power Plan
• 4.6 Paris Agreement

comments

Polentarion Talk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC) (proposal as above)

No, really don't think this works. As shown at present, some of these issues are subsets of his activities promoting climate change denial, others predate that. Segregating his "positions stated in the media" looks like a NPOV problem, they should be related to the specific topic and shown in the context of how they have been received by majority expert views. More sources to come on some of this, so propose expanding the current article then reviewing the structure. . dave souza, talk 19:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sure it should work - at least if we take NPOV and WPBLP serious. Denialist is being used as a buzzword or catchphrase and should not be used as a prevailing category or title. Actually, I doubt anyone would be able to prove that Ebell (like e.g. Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer) is outside the lower range of highly official IPCC climate sensitivity range. And if WP qualifies positions as fringe theories that allow to work at Einsteins Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, WP has a definition problem and became postfactual. Actual reality acknowledges Ebell. Polentarion Talk 03:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What you are sure of does not matter. Denial is now the usual term employed because it fits best. And genius is not contagious: You do not become an honorary Einstein, let alone get your fringe positions accepted, by working at the same place as he did once.

Having to call people's delusions "science", having to avoid calling their baseless claims "denial", just because they have become powerful, is the very antithesis of "factual". If there really were a postfactual age, you would be of of its minions. But there is not, as long as we resist it.

Do you not notice that your meek attempts at propaganda fail when your opponents know what they are talking about? Why don't you just go away? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Shaviv got promoted and acknowledged, Ebell is now in an important position. All against you will and your POV of the one and only truth. What a shame. Polentarion Talk 12:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Is that how you think? When people get promoted or get important positions, it proves they are right? And therefore they must be glorified in their WP articles? It would explain a lot...

I don't think you will be able to convince any smart person that this way of thinking is valid. Though maybe it will lead to a new article argument from brown-nosing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Finally: Ever heard of WP:Civil ? You overdo. Polentarion Talk 13:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You keep justifying your pro-Ebell edits by pointing out how powerful he is. What else is that but attempts to get on Ebell's good side? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I just deleted an overly obusive comment of yours. Polentarion Talk 16:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this edit. Polentarian, that was improper and I've restored the comment. You've still not answered the above point, Ebell's new position of power doesn't make his claims true, or any less fringe. . . dave souza, talk 12:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You accept "brown-nosing" as suitable for a WP:Talk page? Sorry, that sounds like a rather strong bias. The answer tó the varíous questions is Mu (negative) - doesn't apply. Polentarion Talk 17:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This article and talk page are covered by 3 sets of discretionary sanctions - post 1932 American politics and those at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Please read the notice at the top of this page and the edit notice when you edit the article. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Impressive, does he get a prize or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Very impressive, indeed. Some guy intended to have fringe theories sanctions being added. The funny thing is that the one author that successfully called for joint biased action here on his blog is rightfully excluded from editing any BLP article in the climate change realm. Polentarion Talk 04:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Positions of Ebell

It would be rather hilarious if we started to delete positions out of Mein Kampf or Lysenko's speeches in the article about Lysenko or Hitler, independent wether they had been backed by contemporary science or not. But it has happened here, e.g. with the positions of Ebell stated in the scientific American. Will say Ebell is being treated worse than two actual mass murderers. Remember, the guy is a Washington nerd with spectacles, so far he didn't spit flames, hasn't sent Hansen or Schmidt to the Gulag or invaded Poland. The hit piece called an article tries otherwise. Polentarion Talk 07:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is based on reliable third party sources, not a grab bag of statements from the primary source, and to achieve NPOV has to give due weight to how statements have been received by mainstream scholarly sources. . dave souza, talk 22:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are on the wrong track. If we want to describe Ebell's position, his facebook page is primary. Positions stated in an serious magazine is secondary, and as my friend and fellow sceptic Hob Gadling just has proven, if the Scientific American reprints it, you get all the due weight you need. I was the one that reminded you that scholarly sources exist, and I was the one to to introduce the first doi article here. Don't just talk about rules, better follow them. The article is currently based on a POV story about Ebell being part of a Exxon mobile cabal meeting at dawn to get a GOP official fired, I see it is being covered with undue weight. The overall structure and narrative of the article looks like hit and smear in line with the stated zeal of an author that has been banned from editing BLP articles in the climate realm for good reasons. Lets make sure that the article goes along basic BLP rules. Polentarion Talk 09:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"If we want to describe Ebell's position, his facebook page is primary." Don't know that rule. Where can I find it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You better should know it, you aint a noobie. It is a not just a question of competence. You seem to willingly filibuster and haze (compare Wikipedia:Filibuster reform and Wikipedia:Gaming the system this very talk page. Stop that. Polentarion Talk 10:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is relevant. Just because a serious publication like E&E quotes Ebell, that's no justification for taking Ebell's own words out of context and misusing it as a primary source. , dave souza, talk 12:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to describe Ebells positions, using secondary sources with regard to his them. The Scientific American reprint of the E&E article could be used for that. I assume your behavior is as well gaming the system and filibustering as well. You just play the good cop while Hob is way beyond the bad one. Polentarion Talk 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't understand what the objection is to the Scientific American statements . The article must have this man's positions, and not just what leftists are saying about him. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand Wikipedia policies. To repeat, Wikipedia is required to be based on reliable third party sources, and to achieve NPOV has to give due weight to how statements have been received by mainstream scholarly sources. Picking out your own grab-bag of this man's positions also risks synthesis, reinforcing the need for secondary sourced commentary on his positions. . dave souza, talk 22:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Links to be covered

As said, Ebell is an expert lobbyist and e.g. his urge against Obamas support for the Paris agreement was heard in Washington. You won't stop his effectiveness if you delete such points from his WP entry. Quote David Souza "It's worth removing Ebell's comments that lack a secondary source for evaluation." It sounds like they fear Ebell to be too convincing. O'Hallearan, Kay L.; et al. (2013) showed it in a study - they quickly went to delete it from the article. Some links that need to be covered anyway:

• https://www.scientificamerican.com/report/science-and-the-trump-presidency/
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-trump-simply-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/ withdraw
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-and-china-formally-commit-to-paris-climate-accord/
• Ebell started from Berlin on November 17th. He had been invited by EIKE (up to now a minor sceptical outlet related to Benny Peisers GWPF but much smaller in impact compare Ebell with EIKE in 2010 "Tingeltangel in provincial backyards") and had a press conference in Berlin two days ago. None of the major news agencies reported. Ebell stated he gonna have install a stop the funding promised by Obama for UN Climate change agencies and as well to stop participating in the Paris agreement. „We will turn the ship around 180 degrees.“ But see, here it comes. http://www.achgut.com/artikel/wir_lassen_uns_die_erderwaermung_von_trump_nicht_kaputtmachen

With regard to studies and positions of Ebell, we should cover at least

• Avoid Energy and Global Warming Policies that Pose Greater Risks than Global Warming Myron Ebell January 19, 2011
• Increase Access to Energy Myron Ebell January 19, 2011
• The Climate Security Act S. 2191/S. 3036 Myron Ebell May 30, 2008
• Gone with the Wind Myron Ebell June 19, 2007
• My shortcut of main points: Global warming has been described as greatest threat facing mankind, but the policies designed to address global warming actually pose a much greater threat. Policies to ration carbon-based energy are doin little to slow carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but impose enormous costs. These costs fall most heavily on poor people and on the world's poorest nations. The correct approach, according Ebell, is not energy rationing, but long-term technological transformation and building resiliency in developing societies by increasing their wealth. He doubts as well the rationale behind larger subsidies for regenerative energies. With regard to Cap-and-trade, Ebell depicts the schemes as open to Political Favoritism and Corruption. Quote: "It’s not a co-incidence that the biggest promoter of cap-and-trade until its demise was the Enron Corporation". The most ineffective and expensive Way to address potential global warming was - in Ebell's view - the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, which is proving horrendously expensive and unpopular, but is actually doing little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Polentarion Talk 10:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Giving a list of potential sources doesn't justify specific proposals. In this case, your "shortcut" puts what seems to be your paraphrase of Ebell's positions into Wikipedia's voice. That fails to show the mainstream context, or how Ebell's claims have been received, and the lack of citations for each specific point makes your rambling impossible to follow. Try to deal properly with one point at a time. . . dave souza, talk 22:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Dave, the first thing is that e.g. Hob Gadling seems not to be willing to understand anything, but tries to get me out of this discussion first and then make sure that the general narrative of the article results in a obusive hit piece.

An article may have details, that need to be sourced and discussed. I normally start to look for sourcing, think about the overall narrative(s) of the article, set up the structure and elaborate details later. Its like writing a paper, speech or essay. That said, I want to describe Ebell's ideological position and the draft is a first overall draft. If you call that rambling, it sounds like you have a bias. Try to free yourself from that. 08:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC) [comment by Polentarion]

Polentarion, I've got a bias against long incoherent paragraphs which lack explicit citations for each point in the paragraph. As does Wikipedia. Please provide these citations at each point. . dave souza, talk 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

there is no obligaton for explicit citations of each paragraph if one starts a draft or lede, and of cause that is not needed on a talk page. You seem to be biased as you do not require sourcing or appropriate language from persons that smear Ebell as a lunatic killer fringe oil shill. I have a bias against crude violations of BLP and smear. As Wikipedia should and fails to doi so currently. That said, my section is about Ebells positions, it suggests several sources yet to be used in the article and tries to summarize Ebells positions in WP language. I will go in detail if needed and possible. Possible means that we start to write an wp article about a living person instead of trying to write a mudslinger piece on a blog. Polentarion Talk 15:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Polentarion: Your best bet is to be concrete. Write the text you are proposing and the citations that go along with it. As Dave mentioned your paragraph above is quite far from what would be acceptable, with Ebell's opinions being stated Wikipedia's voice. You've listed some primary sources, but remember that articles should be based upon secondary sources (WP:SOURCES). We can't take a bunch of primary sources and summarize them -- that's what secondary sources do. Wikipedia summarizes those secondary sources. Manul ~ talk 16:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been quite concrete. The first thing is that I do not accept the current structure and main titles. They violate basic BLP requirements and are far from useable in an article with an encyclopedic approach. No way. I have provided a draft on Ebells positions, but I won't suggest a mere section in the current version. I do not accept the category "primary source" for e.g. the Scientific american pieces. Primary would be a mere statement of Ebell himself. If he is being quoted in quality press, that is already secondary. Polentarion Talk 16:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say all the sources you listed were primary; I said some were. Namely "Avoid Energy and..." and the others below it that you say we should cover. Those are primary sources because they are written by Ebell. Manul ~ talk 17:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree on that. It is quite normal to quote and describe books or studies of a person to describe his positions. The question is about the wording, we have to convey that NPOV. If we talk about positions of a persons, his tweets or blog statements have not been under third party scrutiny. So we skip them without any third party / secondary sourcing mirroring them. Major studies he authored for an (in)famous think tank are worth while mentioning, but would have to be tagged as controversial - if their conclusions are problematic or fringe. So again, it is a mere wording issue. Polentarion Talk 17:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversial or fringe views that "have not been under third party scrutiny" are exactly what we do not cover. Please read WP:FRINGE, particularly WP:FRIND and WP:PROFRINGE. But there's little to be gained arguing in the abstract. Just propose specific changes, with citations, that reflects the wording you want, and we'll see. Also note that Wikipedia is not neutral with regard to climate change. Manul ~ talk 18:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to have looked through this "Talk" page and found much of the basic information and helpful links that were missing from the article. The narrow focus of this article should be an embarrassment to Wikipedia, at a time when I expect many thousands are accessing this article. I'm not even referring to the POV problems--though there are many--but the simple lack of information that is available even on many organizational websites that oppose Ebell and the CEI. I wanted to find out what scientific and economic foundations Ebell claims, and to learn more about his credentials than the repeated emphasis that he is "not a scientist". These would be expected in an article with an encyclopedic approach. It is clear that I will have to go elsewhere. IEatingHumblePie (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2016

Discrepancy with the goal of WP

Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform. We will name his positions, but not integrate long speeches full of twisted half-truths and distortions. I notice you greedily used WP voice, instead of quotes, probably in order to sacrifice it later to get what you really want: the same thing only with "Ebell thinks" in front. Instead, we should handle him the same way we handle creationists, e.g. Henry M. Morris, Duane Gish, or William A. Dembski, who do not get what you want for Ebell. --Hob Gadling (talk)

I won't try to integrate Ebell's positions in some of the true believers entries here. As said, if we want to describe person, we state his points and positions. Your claim doesn't stand any scrutiny for Morris, Gish, Dembski - all of them got a much better article than the low quality bullshit attack piece we face here. What you call "Greedily used WP voice" may translate into "made a proposal to shortcut his points". Even more, if the person's position are important. Which is the case for Ebell. And if the Scientific American quotes them repeatedly, they are to be taken serious and should be quoted. Maybe the Scientific American is fringe for you now. But this is not the World along Hob Gadling. Thank God ;) Polentarion Talk 12:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you really think those three articles are better than this one, you should suggest improvements that would shift it in the direction of those, not the addition of Ebell's delusions as truth in WP voice.

Yes, Ebell is important. All the more reason to fight attempts to make WP pretend he is also right.

"Maybe the Scientific American is fringe for you now" is just more of your usual fantasy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You actually deleted scientific american based content. No fantasy. Skip the drivel and drool and restore the content. Thats all. Polentarion Talk 13:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I deleted what you wrote because the way you wrote it was, as I said in my edit commentary, repetitive, confused, and badly written:

• the "Paris Agreement" paragraph consisted of one sentence starting with "In September 2016". You added another sentence also starting that way.
• "The legal difference between agreement and treaty is crucial, since a treaty would require a consensus in the house, an agreement could have been greenlighted by presidential decree only" - it is not clear whether the "since" part is supposed to be the reason for the "crucial" part or for the "greenlighted" part.
• "The article referred to Ebell's assumption" - Which article is this sentence talking about?

I could list more inconsistencies. My experience with your behaviour on WP over the previous years tells me that it would have been a bitch to ask you questions about what you meant: I would have to ask five times and get only diversionary tactics, preaching, innuendo, and fairy tales. What you were trying to say probably wasn't important enough to justify undergoing all that. So deleting the "scientific american based content" - the "based" is the operative word here - was the best way to solve the problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you see the need for improvement based on a grammar detail, just improve it. If you do not understand a grammar detail, ask questions without using obusive, evasive, or aggressive wording. That said, lets restore the content and improve it. Polentarion Talk 16:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No. You will botch it with your bad English, you will dodge questions about what exactly you mean, someone will find that the source actually says something else, you will attack the messenger, a bad time will be had by everybody, and the result will be, at best, an uninteresting detail about something only vaguely connected to the article that can be deleted without loss. No reason for all that when we can just delete it from the start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Honey, obviously you have a WP:Competence is required and WP:Civil and a WP:AGF problem. You didn't understand the difference between agreement and treaty and started to spit fire afterwards. That problem could have been solved by a split in two sentences- and by some more respect towards Ebell, which is a layman in climate issues, but an expert in suich legal and political affairs. If anything a single user doesn't understand has to be deleted in WP, the biggest part of the project would be gone. That said, I ask again to restore the deleted content and to expand the article and Ebells position as outlined. Polentarion Talk 21:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said before: attacking the messenger. I only did not understand your bad English. Of course it can be solved by a split in two sentences! Duh. But where? Every normal person would suggest an improved version.

I had a look at the source, and it is actually not a Scientific American article but a reprint of an article from Environment & Energy Publishing#ClimateWire, led by a Wall Street Journal veteran. As I expected, you were not telling the whole truth.

You burned up your AGF years ago with your regular distortion of what sources actually say and general unapologetic dishonesty. Did you find the line where I call someone a killer yet? Didn't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hob Gadling If you have an issue with grammar, just fix it. Stop using it as an excuse to delete what you don't like. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I already explained why I cannot do this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hob Gadling: Youre claim is false, again. It is actually the Scientific American reprinting an article from climate wire. Why not cite it? That said, you and Dave seem to try to have the cake and eat it - the reprint by the Scientific American is a sign of noteability. [6]. If you do ask for secondary sources, there they are. And if you have a problem, provide your own. If you don't like them, add something about the Wallstreet, the East coast, Bilderberger mosaic green reptils and the Elders of the Koch foundation. As you like, something has to explain that a historian like Ebell trumps the climate modelling eggheads. You should be able to base it on sources however, so far you have been rambling about me but not provided a single source anywhere on this talkpage. Polentarion Talk 08:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing against that source, just about the fact that you cloaked it. But what you wrote in the article did not make sense.

When I write something and people don't understand it, I reword it and ask if it is intelligible now. (I said that above already: "Every normal person would suggest an improved version." You don't seem to have understood it, so I am rewording it here.) When you write something and people don't understand it, you complain about their incompetence and get on rants about conspiracies. That is the main reason your piece is not in the article again, in improved form. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right: did you find the place where I call somebody a killer? Or were you mistaken? Or lying?

There are people who never admit they were wrong. Those are the people who still carry with them all the mistakes they ever made in their lives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There are several examples on this page where you were clearly wrong but refuse to admit it. The "academic" debate is another. An academic is "a person who is a teacher in a college or university", as the Merriam-Webster link I gave you says, and as everybody here acknowledges except you. Kaczynski was a teacher, Ebell wasn't. This is really easy to understand for people who listen to reason.

Folks, this user is poison for any Talk page. He is just too slippery to have a meaningful debate with him. Have fun with him, I am done here for the moment. But do not take anything he says at face value - he is denial made flesh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC) [restored by dave souza, talk 12:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)]

Did so. I deleted some Drivel and Drool. Thnx for getting lost. Polentarion Talk 10:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Polentarion; in this edit you improperly removed reasonable comment by another editor, so I've restored it just above. Both of you, please focus on article improvement, not on other editors. . . dave souza, talk 12:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I may have failed to recognize anything "reasonable". 15:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (Polentarion)

User:Polentarion, please make sure to sign with four tildes. If you sign with five, as you must have done several times on this page, it only gives the date and no name. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

Got that. I might be not present for a while due to a real life break. Polentarion Talk 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The tone on this page

Several people on both sides seem to be becoming angrier and angrier, and riling each other into fresh incivilities. You know who you are, I'm sure, and I certainly don't mean everybody (indeed I congratulate some others on keeping their cool). Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Please dial it back before I start handing out sanctions. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myron Ebell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201015906/http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm to http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Climatefeedback.org is a RS

An editor removed text about Ebell's falsehoods claims about climate change, suggesting that Climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. However, Climatefeedback.org is a reliable source.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I reverted Snooganssnoogans's edit here with the edit summary "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN." The cite is to this post on a website named "Climate Feedback" by Scott Johnson -- not a climatologist, just an editor who has a Master of Science degree (so does Ebell, big deal). There is no evidence that the post was subject to any editorial control, which is natural, Johnson's the editor. All that Johnson has done is say Ebell made an inaccurate statement based on excerpts from comments of three other people -- that do not mention Ebell at all. For each, Johnson says "This comment is taken from an evaluation of a similar claim." I concluded it's a self-published non-expert opinion, hence not compliant with WP:BLPSPS. As for WP:WELLKNOWN, I was referring to the words "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I see no other sites that claim that Ebell said that and that it's false, so it's non-compliant with that too. Whether it also is non-compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE looks probable but I didn't see a need to bring them up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Climate Feedback is a reliable source for critique of climate change denialism. It has good standards, an editorial review board, and is widely cited by other RS such as The Guardian, Die Welt and others. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy has re-inserted contentious material which was reverted on good-faith BLP grounds, added a cite to an article that says nothing whatever about Ebell's statement, and repeated the RS claim instead of addressing the issue. Does anyone else have relevant input? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans revived this matter by referring to my revert on my talk page and in a WP:BLPN thread, so I started a WP:BLPN thread with the specific heading Myron Ebell, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert of lead edit and short description

@Peter Gulutzan: Regarding your revert of two separate edits (lead sentence move, short description inclusion):

• Yes there is a talk page, but edits do not require talk page posts beforehand.
• The material is already in the lead. It was moved up to the first paragraph because The opening paragraph should usually state... why the person is notable per MOS:OPENPARABIO and The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences per MOS:LEAD. The majority of significant coverage of Ebell is about his role in the 2016 EPA transition team and climate change denial.
• See WP:SHORTDESC if you don’t know what a short description is for. The current default one is American lobbyist and climate change denialist. I’d also be fine putting that in explicitly in the shortdesc template.

Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my poor edit summary. What you've done is insert "climate change denier" into the first sentence. MOS:LEADSENTENCE says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. ... For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." But that is not the "definition" of Mr Ebell and he is not "notable only for that reason", so there is no justification there for your insertion. Naturally you may think that anybody who is subject to name-calling must be defined that way, but you know perfectly well (if you read the lead before you edited) that that is not the only way that he has been described, so choosing that alone is a WP:NPOV violation. As for the WP:SHORTDESC information page, read it yourself: "Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

But climate change denial is his actual job. He works for a market fundamentalist organization, which is notorious for its science denial, as Director of the subdivision which does the denying. It's not as if he mentioned in passing that he does not accept the consensus. It is his defining property. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree -- I think it's appropriate, it's at the core of what he is notable for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Three editors want the insertion and I'm the only one who wants it out. I self-reverted because (at this moment at least) there is consensus. Of course that does not mean I agree, and if other editors want to look at my original revert, perhaps someday consensus can change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

He has recently retired

See [8]. Andol (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)