Talk:CO2 Coalition

The article currently has a few NPOV issues

There are two main areas where I have NPOV concerns. First, the article states that they have "46 climate scientists and energy economists" as if the a climate scientist and an energy economist are both equal when it comes to being able to authoritatively speak on climate science and thus can be lumped together. Just exactly what the ratio of climate scientists and energy economists is is important and should be broken down. It would also be useful to know if all the "climate scientists" they claim to have working for them actually qualify as "climate scientists" by generally accepted definitions (for example, there should be no meteorologists being falsely labeled as climate scientists, for example, unless they also have a degree in climate science.). If it can't then we need to we need to reworded so it's clear they don't specific who these people are and or how many a climate scientists. Secondly, when the article states "...with a focus on promoting increased use of carbon dioxide through the notion that carbon dioxide has a positive effect on the environment by helping plants grow." we really need to add a sourced disclaimer that states the general position of relevant experts have about the idea that "that carbon dioxide has a positive effect on the environment by helping plants grow" and thus is a positive thing. This argument would likely have some support based on reliable sources I have read but only so far, as plants need more then just CO2 and rising CO2 levels would harm the other sources of nutrients and such that plants needs. Plus there is the major fact that the scientific consensus is that rising CO2 levels will negatively effect our climate in ways that would harm humans and thus outweigh any benefits we would get from any benefit to plants from the higher CO2 levels. So we need to point out that this argument only works if there is no such thing as climate change or any other downsides to increased CO2 that would counter the benefits to plants. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article and its talk page are a serious indictment of Wikipedia's neutrality in general. When I saw the "this neutrality of this article is disputed" heading, I thought "yeah, no kidding," and was shocked to find that the dispute is essentially that the claims of the Co2 Coalition are stated as given and not rebutted firmly enough. Notcharliechaplin, who wrote that "we need to point out that this argument only works if..." is apparently unaware that this is an encyclopedia article about the CO2 Coalition, not a debate about their claims.

The same goes, in fact, for this article's only subheading, "Criticism." The "criticism" in question is not criticism by notable scientists or activists of the CO2 Coalition. None of its citations even mention the CO2 Coalition. It is a point-by-point attack on climate skepticism in general written by an anonymous Wikipedia editor.

There is also the note about the organization's funding, which is clearly only there to cast doubt on the CO2 Coalition's impartiality, and because the Kochs are politically unpopular. A similar disclaimer that the American Association for the Advancement of Science receives funding from the Rockefeller Foundation is missing from its Wikipedia article.

While I understand that it's considered in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy to reject climate skepticism in general as baseless, this article goes well beyond that, and is an unabashed hit piece. Articles on Young Earth Creationist organizations show significantly more neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.112.254.236 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Members

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

CO2 Coalition Founders

• Roger Cohen
• William Happer
• Rodney W. Nichols

CO2 Coalition Board of Directors

• Jan Breslow
• Bruce Everett
• Gordon Fulks
• William Happer
• Patrick Moore
• Norman Rogers
• Jeffrey Salmon
• Leighton Steward

Executive Director

• Caleb Rossiter

CO2 Coalition Members

• D. Weston Allen
• Charles Battig
• Larry Bell (architect)
• Samit Bhattacharyya
• Ken Billman
• Edward Bohn
• Howard Thomas Brady
• Roy Buchanan
• David Burton
• Lorraine Yapps Cohen
• Walter Cunningham
• Rupert Darwall
• Donn Dears
• David L. Debertin
• John Droz
• Don Easterbrook
• Leslie P. Eastman
• Neil Frank
• Martin Fricke
• Laurence I. Gould
• William Happer
• Kathleen Hartnett-White
• Charles Hohenberg
• Jim Hollingsworth
• Craig Idso
• Hugh Kendrick
• Todd Kiefer
• Payne Kilbourn
• Richard Lindzen
• Wallace Manheimer
• Gene McCall
• Patrick J. Michaels
• Alex Miller
• Mark Mills
• John Moore
• John P. Neafsey
• Trueman Parish
• John Parmentola
• James Podruski
• Fred P. Rumak
• Lars Schernikau
• Harrison Schmitt
• Roy Spencer (scientist)
• Jim Steele
• William D. Stewart
• Frederick W. Ward, Jr.
• Terry E. Winters
• William van Wijngaarden

Corresponding Members

• William Hayden Smith

Also, they do not add up to 55. I count 61, 48 of them "members". I think the "55" needs attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Plant Growth

The statement in the talk page 'Carbon dioxide is rarely the limiting factor for natural plant growth.' May well be in the given ref. (which is behind a paywall therefore has no place in Wikipedia) but clearly comes from someone without knowledge of the greenhouse industry where the level of CO2 inside greenhouses must be carefully regulated, both to promote plant growth and avoid the disaster of a level of CO2 so low the plants die, a not infrequent occurrence.--Damorbel (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)