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.
A new review by Reiner Grundmann, Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Nottingham, UK. Grundmann sees the book as "less a scholarly work than a passionate attack on a group of scientists turned lobbyists and thus itself a partial account. I wonder if it does not do a disservice to the cause it is advocating.
Worthy of a section in the article, imo, to add balance to it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I have some doubts about the reception chapter, it seems far to long a list for me. Some of the entries shoould be used in the main text, some are tending to overselling. Grundmann http://nottingham.ac.uk/Sociology/People/reiner.grundmann is socciologist and dealing with transnational environmental issues. His contribution in so far is more than a newspaper review useable to "add balance" but a sound social science evaluation wjhch describes en detail the content and main topics of the book from an experts view. In so far I would like to not to use it as "just another review" but as a base to describe the books content and main concluions as well. Serten (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I came here form your comment at scientific opinion on climate change and see you are edit warring here as well to get your ozone and Grundmann put in prominently. As far as I can see you have made undue NPOV change. The main stuff about Grundmann should be in the reception section and most of the other changes are pushing stuff that wasn't in the book. Also I really must ask you again to look at your edits before submitting them and check the underlined words as your spelling is atrocious and even if your edits were acceptable otherwise that is a burden for other editors. Your prose also is turgid bordering on the unintelligible, please try harder to use English, even a Google translate would be better sometimes. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a definite no no on Wikipedia to introduce text and citations that aren't directly related to the topic. I know this can be hard sometimes but the WP:OR policy is very clear: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You linked stuff that was not linked, that is OR. Dmcq (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What message is behind that section? I have the impression that it is parroting sme of the believes stated in the book and repeats the more or less grunting response odf one of the counterparts in question. I assume that the article would be better without it. Serten (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
What section? And could you leave out the insults please. Dmcq (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)