Talk:Myron Ebell

Untitled

The POV language of this article needs to be heavily toned down. RickK 06:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Myron Ebell before, but after I read this article I did a bit of looking around on the Web. I came to two conclusions: (1) Myron Ebell is a head case and (2) RickK is right about the article being unacceptably POV. I haven't rewritten the article, but I have gone through it and adjusted it a bit. Here's what I've done:

1. Removed the adjective "scientifically-based" and changed "Climate Action Report 2002" to a link to the report itself.
2. Removed the blurb that said, "CEI receives roughly $1 million a year from ExxonMobil, the world's largest energy company." This point is hardly relevant in a discussion of Ebell. Such a piece of information should go in the CEI article. Besides, the Greenpeace page cited in the article as source number [2] (which may have been the source of this tidbit) mentions only half that amount.
3. Noted that we need a citation for the statement, "In the past, he has equated the dangers of manmade global warming to the dangers of 'being invaded by space aliens.'" I Googled "Myron Ebell space aliens" and found nothing (other than mirrors of this article) that mention his ever having said that. Granted, I wasn't exactly tenacious in my search. If someone else can find a citation, please update the article.
4. Removed the phrase "tracks everything Myron does and says" from the link to The Myron Ebell Climate. It was just a bit too gleeful.

Hope this helps. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Much missing...

Myron Ebell's ties to ExxonMobil (big surprise there)

Myron Ebell, a man recently censured by the British House of Commons for “unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government’s Chief Scientist.” Ebell is the global warming and international policy director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has received a whopping $1,380,000 from ExxonMobil.

via : http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Moron

I just heard this moron on the radio. Among other things, he said that since temperature increases as the logarithm of the amount of carbon dioxide, it is a problem that "takes care of itself." He also said that if we have more hurricanes due to global warming, it is not a big deal, since we already have hurricanes. Not sure if some of these should be added to the page.

Where did this jackass say this stuff? Cowicide 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is very left/ POV critical

This article needs to be marked as overly critical and obviously biased.

Presto1775Presto1775 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I am going to try to clean this up. I already removed some poorly sourced claims, more removals are likely forthcoming. At a glance I see potential violations of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly even WP:BLP. More to come. ATren (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

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)