This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
The End of Energy: The Unmaking of America’s Environment, Security, and Independence by Michael J. Graetz; MIT Press, 369 pp., $29.95
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, a report by the National Research Council’s Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption; National Academies Press, 506 pp., $47.00 (paper), available for free at www.nap.edu
The followup is unnecessary and inappropriate in this, or possibly any, article. I'm not sure the "review" is necessary or appropriate in the article. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)08:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012 response
An opinion piece in the January 27, 2012 Wall Street Journal[1]
made a number of attacks on the science and credibility of the case for global warming, including quoting Nordhaus' research to argue that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century.
Nordhaus rebutted their contentions point-by-point in an article [2], drawing analogy with the well-documented use of PR by the Tobacco industry faced with financially disastrous scientific findings, to manufacture doubt, rather than by to establish the facts. He quotes their stated aim of fostering confusion.
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.”
Three signatories of the original piece
Richard Lindzen,
William Happer and an ex-
ExxonMobil manager of Strategic Planning & Programs Roger W. Cohen responded to Nordhaus' comments, and Nordhaus replied to the three's response.[3].
Claude Allègre et al., “ No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The
Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012; “ Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming”
Almost everyone is criticized, and, if the criticism is published in a newspaper or magazine, most publications allow the person criticized to reply. I don't see that the fact that he has published replies to published criticism is at all notable. The criticism might be notable, and others' comment on the criticism might also be notable. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)reply
This edit war is at the point where
WP:3RR is out the window. I've removed the material (since it is clearly a point of contention and might be an issue of
WP:UNDUE) and have semi-protected the article. I advise all parties to come to a consensus here or using one of the dispute resolution channels. --Kinut/c04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't see the point. I ask whether there is anyone else who doesn't understand my argument that replies to criticism should not be listed unless particularly important to the subject. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)09:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
^Claude Allègre et al., “ No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The
Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012; “ Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming”