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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
It’s 2019 now, folks. Everyone now knows that the George C. Marshall Institute and Fred Singer are inveterate climate deniers. Should we really be highlighting this fringe POV in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar conclusions were already drawn, among others on Frederick Seitz and William Nierenberg in the book Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change (2010) by Australian academic Clive Hamilton.
Both books were published in 2010. Even if Hamilton's book was published earlier in the same year, that seems too late for likely influence. Shouldn't we say "Similar conclusions were also drawn..."? Daask (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]