Talk:Michael Shellenberger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michael Shellenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Shellenberger. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Someone came in a did a highly unbalanced and POV criticism section based on blog posts critical of Nordhaus and Schellenberger. I corrected it with a section that contains praise and criticism in equal measure. Both the criticism and praise should be from mainstream media outlets and national environmental leaders and focused on their key writings and not get drawn into an on-going blog war.SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — SunshineMeadows2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Response to the above text from "SunshineMeadows2012":

1. "praise and criticism in equal measure" This is a common foil to promote falsehoods and distorted views. If a statement is accurate, then a contrary falsehood should not be granted equal credence.

2. "Both the criticism and praise should be from mainstream media outlets ..." Mainstream media outlets, especially in the US, are notorious for promoting falsehoods, misinformation, and disinformation (to the extent that they even discuss important topics in public affairs at all).

---Dagme (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi SunshineMeadows2012, that "someone" would be me, an editor with almost 1500 edits and 7+ years experience on Wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia policy allows the use of opinionated news sources with restrictions as detailed in Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. In this case, I cited an Alternet writer that quoted Bill McKibben, and attributed the quote to Mr. McKibben. As one of the most cited environmentalists, I think everyone would agree Mr. McKibben has standing enough to criticize Mr. Shellenberger. I also think that most people would agree that Alternet has reliable enough fact checking to assert that this is, in fact, a quote by Mr. McKibben. Alternet is not a "blog", as you asserted, and does have editorial controls. Also, Mr. McKibben has made similar comments elsewhere about Mr. Shellenberger, so this is not an out-of-character comment for him or a selective quote. And though ThinkProgress is also an opinionated news source, this is simply where Joseph Romm chose to publish his writing. My quoting of the article named Joseph Romm and his qualifications, rather than writing something like "ThinkProgress said", the latter of which would have been unacceptable.
When I first read the article, all I saw was glowing coverage, and it needed some critical balance. Like a slew of negative reviews on a bad movie, a "Criticism" section does not need to be balanced between praise and criticism if, in fact, there is more criticism than praise in the real world. From what I can tell, Mr. Schellenberger's writing has been received in a mixed to negative way by basically everyone including mainstream environmentalists, and this is what I wrote in the lede of the paragraph. These comments are not from right-wing think tanks, which are non-notable because they generally criticize every environmentalist. What makes this criticism notable is that it's from other environmentalists, which is rather uncommon. I think a fair representation of Mr. Shellenberger is that both conservatives and liberals don't like his writing. Far from being POV pushing on my part, this is actually co-author's Nordhaus' self-stated goal with the book: "If this book doesn't piss off a whole lot of conservatives and a whole lot of liberals, we've failed". (quote from the Wired article you cited). They expect their writing to be controversial, and to not cover the resulting criticism would be a disservice to both the authors and Wikipedia readers.
Also, I'm sorry to say I have a difficult time assuming that you are editing this article in good faith. In the Wired article titled "Two Environmentalists Anger Their Brethren", you managed to pick a single quote, "[his book] could be the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring",(diff) which seems like a highly selective positive quote in an article mostly about conflicts. In fact, in the 8 months since you registered, 88% of your Wikipedia edits (39 of 44) are to Mr. Schellenberger's article, some of which are removing negative material, and none of which add negative material according to a quick review, which I believe qualifies your account as a single purpose account. Please try to make sure you are editing in a unbiased fashion. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of article changes and points of view on climate change is the reason I stopped going to Wiki as my first reference source. That and an article on Kennedy's disease that the author knew nothing about but refused to accept input. Of course the entire climate change field is full of bias and lacking counterbalance. The COP process is aimed at creating a gravy train of money flowing to the less developed countries. There is massive problem of reproducibility and yes accountability in the published papers in this field. Danleywolfe (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Updated

I updated the page to reflect more recent work, and to be consistent with page of co-author Ted Nordhaus.CindyMeyers (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence, "Nordhaus and Shellenberger were labeled "bad boys of environmentalism" by Bill McKibben and journalists and bloggers accepted that label without assessing their environmental credentials or their funding.[1]" includes an unsubstantiated innuendo and should be considered POV. I deleted it consistent with wikipedia policy. SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

These sentences are not about Schellenberger but about his essay and I so I deleted them. If the contributor wants to add them to the page on death of environmentalism then s/he should do that. "Their language about environmentalism's death reverberated during that election year. After the 2004 presidential re-election of George W. Bush, Adam Werbach made a speech at San Francisco's Commonwealth club related to the notion of the "Death of Environmentalism," providing an "autopsy" of the environmental movement in the context of John Kerry's defeat."

Here is more POV criticism of Schellenberger by an anonymous wikipedia contributor that I deleted consistent with wikipedia policy. "However, independent critics have focused on the book's seeming effort to use rhetoric to manipulate its audience, its co-optation of a number of arguments that environmental activists had made for decades, and its denigration of powerless U.S. environmental activists. Further, the authors' central argument about relationship between environmentalism and postmaterial values had been repudiated by the 2003 Global Environmental Survey, but they did not consult or deal with it in any meaningful way; most of their claims lack citation.[2]" Wikipedia contributors should keep POV to their private blogs and off Wikipedia. SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

More POV that I deleted. "They released the paper digitally without peer review." This does not belong in an NPOV description. SunshineMeadows2012 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/national/06enviro.html?_r=0
  2. ^ http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Shellenberger%20and%20Nordhaus%20as%20Rove.Web.pdf

Vanity

Does anyone else believe that this is vanity before I apply CSD A1 to this article? Sydney Know It Alltalk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An edit seems reasonable but not deletion. Seems to me that entry is fair considering amount of debate and controversy over Nordhaus/Schellenberger death of environmentalism thesis, and new book. Note that entries exist for authors like William McKibben and Michael Pollan. There is discussion there, too, over sourcing, but entries still exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairPlay1 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD A1 refers to lack of context. I'm not seeing anything about using CSD for vanity.66.28.54.254 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)FairPlay1

Dear Sydney, I tried my best to write this as NPOV. However, if you think it needs an edit, please go for it. I hardly think it merits a CSD A1, however! That would seem fairly extreme. I'd say the entry meets Wiki standards of Bios of Living Persons, especially in the context of other authors represented on Wiki. GreenExpert (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could use an NPOV edit, but also an edit for length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.1.213.162 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Breakthrough Institute"? I recall back in the '70s, Omni magazine had a series of satirical interviews with "Grant Swinger," head of the "Breakthrough Institute" -- Swinger being a parody of the "entrepreneurial scientist." This page should be nuked unless the actual existence of an institute by that name can be confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.133.131 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited it for length. A Google search revealed the Breakthrough Institute in question, and link was added.GreenExpert (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of conection to Venezuela Information Office

Cut from article:

At the time of authoring his controversial essay, Shellenberger was contracted by the head of a petrostate, Hugo Chavez, through the Venezuela Information Office.[1]

Is this information reported by any secondary reliable source? A primary source is not enough to assess the notability of this information, especially for putting it in the lead of the article. The relevance of the temporary coincidence with an essay on climate change is very unclear. And, is it necessary to call Venezuela a "petrostate"? JRSP (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this should not be in the lead, and the "petrostate" adjective is not NPOV. Someone should make an effort to find secondary reliable sources regarding Shellenberger's lobbying activities, though; if he's making his living as a lobbyist, that's notable. THF (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I must admit that I am impressed at the synchronicity of your edits in all articles that depict Chavez and his propagandists in an unfavorable light; let alone how you keep violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOT principles. First, JRSP has the gall to call into question the reliability of the US Department of Justice. Second, JRSP questions the notability of the information. Shellenberger is, among other things, a notorious environmentalist. An environmentalist that, at the time of writing his magnum opus, was contracted by the head of a petrostate (will get to that in a sec) --to the tune of $10,000 a month-- to peddle propaganda in the USA. JRSP does not think relevant to highlight the evident conflict of, on the one hand, climate change advocacy and, on the other, being a propagandist of the leader of the world's fourth largest oil producer, which, according to consensus (burning of fossil fuels), is one of the culprits of climate change. As per the definition of petrostate, how else would one call a country that derives nearly all of its income from exporting oil? Petrostate is not NPOV? I won't even address the need of providing secondary sources regarding Shellenberger's propaganda-peddling activities in favor of Hugo Chavez, as the US Department of Justice is a perfectly reliable source.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Alek, you'll be more persuasive if you'll be more concise and if you don't attack other editors, including one that is trying to help you. Your opinion about Shellenberger may well be correct, but unless it's reliably sourced to someone other than your personal opinion, it doesn't get to go in the encyclopedia. Under any circumstances, it doesn't get to go in the lead of the article, because it's not one of the major elements of his biography. THF (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
THF, I am merely being factual. My opinion on Shellenberger has nothing to do with this, and quite frankly THF, it truly escapes me how you could possibly argue that the US Department of Justice isn't a reliable source. So unless you can explain to the wider Wikipedia community why the US DoJ is not to be trusted due to alleged violations of WP:RS, the information is pertinent and deserves to go in the main page. Since you have a problem having such information in the lead of the article, please suggest where we may include it.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem here, Alek, is that these are not "DOJ documents." They're filings that are being hosted on your personal website, and your edit is synthesizing conclusions that do not inexorably follow from the documents. Find a third-party source that discusses this (it can even be a published editorial that you wrote--but not a self-published editorial), and we can discuss where it belongs in the article. THF (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Shellenberger only meets qualification to be on Wiki as a published author ("public figure" status). His controversial status as it relates to his environmentalism is represented here. Every past project, however controversial, does not merit inclusion here, as he is only a public figure due to his writings on environmentalism, which started with "The Death of Environmentalism." He may have been quoted elsewhere on other issues before that, but there is no objective criteria for including some of those clients and not others here. Spokespersons for this or that issue do not merit "public figure" status on Wikipedia. We need to stick more strictly to the public figure criterion to avoid excessively long bios, as this one was previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenExpert (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "May 20, 2004 Lumina Strategies short-form registration" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-02-07.

Lumina Strategies

An editor deleted the section on the several years of work Shellenberger did with Lumina Strategies -- even though that work was widely covered in the press, and every statement in the section is sourced to reliable secondary sources. The page is a biography, and this is part of his career. It should not be deleted. THF (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this. I have consulted to literally dozens of groups since 1996. Alek is a Venezuela activist with a bone to pick. Virtually every project I've consulted on over the last 13 years has been confrontational. Venezuela doesn't merit any more attention than any of the other clients I've worked for -- indeed less since it was a very small short-term project for me. Indeed, Lumina was only around from 2002 - 2005. I worked on Nike and Headwaters for three years, on global warming for 11. If you have people who disagreed with my work on climate or Nike sweatshops or redwoods all using this wiki page as a place to vent spleen, or engage in petty grudges, this page would be unreasonably long. I'm happy to have a section on this page about my other consulting work, but it should start with Communication Works and end with American Environics and mention other clients I've worked for. As for the petrostate stuff, that's pretty ridiculous -- my business partners are Canadians who work for the government plenty and nobody ever seems to call Canada a petrostate. I've been quoted in plenty of articles about Nike, redwoods, rain forests, etc etc. I tried to make these edits -- I'm new to Wiki so my edits may be a bit messed up, but happy to send more links to whoever has been trying to keep this page in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShellenbergerM (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about "petrostate," which is inappropriate characterization in a Wikipedia article, and never made it as a lasting edit. (NB, though, that just as "petrostate" is inappropriate, so is "Nike sweatshops.") Feel free to add URLs that are missing from this article in the talk page. You may wish to review the conflict of interest and autobiography policies (Wikipedia editors are abnormally sensitive about autobiographies), as well as the material on citing reliable sources and primary sources: the key here is independent sourcing as much as possible. The Venezuela stuff is in because Lumina's work with Venezuela was widely publicized. THF (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Alek is a Venezuelan activist with a bone to pick. This is entirely besides the point, for I could argue similarly, though never have advocated for environmentalism while engaged in lobby and PR for one of the world's largest oil producing states. The information is factual and has been widely publicized.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Both of you: No personal attacks, address the edit, not the editor and don't bring your outside battles to Wikipedia. The point of view you each bring to the table is manifestly obvious even if one didn't have access to Google. THF (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Look, the Venezuela work has to be put in context. It was a very small project for a short period of time in contrast to most of my clients over the years. The goal was not "image improvement" -- Alek is just making that up -- but rather to get honest public opinion polling done in a context where the vast majority of polls were biased. (To give you an idea, one of the prominent Venezuelan pollsters at the time told the LA Times that his president needed to be killed.) The polling we did mirrored the final vote count, which was certified as correct by Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell. Venezuela deserves less, not more, mention than my other clients.ShellenbergerM (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, forgot to add, my work was consulting. Lumina was one consulting business among three that I've owned. Erik Curren was only briefly with it for a few weeks. ShellenbergerM (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on reliable sources; the reason that the Venezuela work gets more mention in the article is because more secondary reliable sources thought it was notable. (If you show editors similar press coverage of other activity, then the Venezuela press coverage will not have the same weight.) The words "image improvement" appears only in Alek's statements, and not in the article. Please do not edit-war. (Similarly, PR week mentions Curren co-founding the firm, not him leaving after three weeks. Wikipedia, alas, works on verifiability, rather than truth.) THF (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not making anything up: SFGate has this:
In the middle of the fray has been Michael Shellenberger, president of Lumina Strategies, an El Cerrito public relations firm that was hired by Chavez in June to help repair his poor public image in the United States. link--Alekboyd (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

The source article ([1]) says this: "But a public relations firm working for the government said a poll it had commissioned showed Chavez defeating the recall with 55% of the vote. The Caracas firm of Varianza Opinion based its projection on more than 53,000 interviews, said Michael Shellenberger, president of El Cerrito-based Lumina Strategies." Summarising this as "Shellenberger would speak on behalf of the Venezuelan government in that role." (the role of a lobbyist for Venezuela) can only be described as misleading: a contractor describing their contract work cannot reasonably be said to be speaking "on behalf of" the contracting party. Per WP:BLP it is out. Furthermore, lobbyists usually don't speak publicly on behalf of their clients in the sense the sentence implies - they work more behind the scenes. So the claim needs particularly good sourcing as it is unusual. Rd232 talk 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not misleading: San Francisco Chronicle has published "Bringing liberal activists' political skills to the rough-and-tumble world of Venezuelan politics, Bay Area pollsters and political consultants have played a key role in helping President Hugo Chavez win his historic election victory against a powerful opposition movement backed by the Bush administration. While Bay Area activists have long been involved in Latin American issues, Sunday's referendum on whether Chavez should be recalled is the first time since the 1979 Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua that they have been on the winning side. This time, the victory is partly theirs.... In the middle of the fray has been Michael Shellenberger, president of Lumina Strategies, an El Cerrito public relations firm that was hired by Chavez in June to help repair his poor public image in the United States." Do visit the link.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if you add that as an extra source (and WP:SYNTHESIS), it wouldn't justify the statement. He acted primarily as a contracted lobbyist; giving quotes to 2 newspapers about his work doesn't constitute "speaking on behalf". It is a misleading summary of the available sources. Rd232 talk 16:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

re Alekboyd's edit summary remark on "consensus": at the moment there is a consensus, albeit only 2 out of 3. Try finding others who agree with you, then come back and *discuss* - don't just revert. Rd232 talk 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when did editors of Wikipedia need consensus to include information which is perfectly in tune with Wikipedia policies? Is this some kind of a joke?--Alekboyd (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying not to get how Wikipedia works, or are you just too new to get it yet? Every editor can't have their way - how would you resolve disagreements not resolvable through discussion? Rd232 talk 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am merely trying to include perfectly Wikipedia-compliant information in Venezuela/Hugo Chavez related entries. Is it common practice to ask permission to editors who are bent on suppress such information? Could you point out where can I read about that particular policy? Whatever happened to being bold, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV? Wikipedia must be balanced, as in per every sympathetic bit of info there must be a critical one. Are you prepared to accept that?--Alekboyd (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It's just your opinion that the information is compliant with WP policy. Others disagree. It is not a question of "suppressing" information, it is a question of writing an encyclopedia entry per WP guidelines and policy. So in answer to my question on how to resolve disagreements, you get to decide, even when you're in a minority of one? Perhaps you should start an alekboydipedia... Rd232 talk 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Others disagree, others as in you and JRSP, and of course Shellenberger who seems embarrassed by past actions. Who else? So going back to my previous question, do you or do you not agree that a balanced encyclopedia should not include information that paints overwhelmingly partisan pictures? If I am not to decide, as common sense and objectivity dictates, why should you, or JRSP? What makes your input or POV more valid than mine? Pray tell.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"Common sense" does not dictate that you, alekboyd, interpret WP policies on your own. Back to basics: Wikipedia:Consensus. Rd232 talk 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Break Through

OK, per discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Shellenberger, I propose - per WP:ONEEVENT ("Cover the event, not the person.") - moving appropriate material to Break Through and deleting the article. NB Whilst there are some public references to him for other reasons he is not notable in those roles (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Comments please. Rd232 talk 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done copy to Break Through. Next step (once protection expires in a day or two) will be to AFD this article. Rd232 talk 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Done both (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shellenberger). Rd232 talk 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The entry on Michael Shellenberger was created in December 2007. Only when I exposed the lobbying activities of Shellenberger, a notable person in his own right, on behalf of Hugo Chavez has suddenly the need to delete the entry arisen. Why? Will information about his lobbying be included in Break Through?--Alekboyd (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the way WP works it is normal that articles are created and only much later challenged as to whether they should be included. See WP:AFD and look at some of the discussions. As to whether it's a coincidence that this is after your addition of WP-policy-breaching info (under WP:NPF section of WP:BLP) - no, (as you can see from comments I made at WP:BLP/N) the debate prompted more attention on the article so that the fundamental notability issue was raised. Rd232 talk 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please point to my purported addition of 'WP-policy-breaching' information with regards to Shellenberger. Shellenberger is a public figure, a "hero of the environment" according to TIME, so I disagree with this arguments of him not being notable. Could you please point to the notice board where the discussion on whether or not the entry should be deleted is taking place? Thanks.--Alekboyd (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother with diffs unless you insist, but I believe you're responsible for most of the consulting stuff, which breaches WP:NPF because Shellenberger's notability derives from Break Through. The consulting stuff is not notable. Quoting WP:NPF: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." (NB as you've commented on the deletion debate you've now obviously found the link above.) Rd232 talk 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
NB if we delete the non-notable consulting that shouldn't be there, there is no material in the article that is independent of Break Through. Nor have I seen any actual (reliable) biographical info about him - which rather raises doubts about his notability independent of the book, which is why I cited WP:ONEEVENT / WP:ONEVENT in the deletion. Rd232 talk 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that AFD decision was KEEP, I tidied things up a bit. --NealMcB (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there even a birthday for this individual?

Hello, is there even a graduation year from college for this individual? (NotHaiyanOrThe2013TyphoonYolanda (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC))

I was wondering this too. For an older article about someone running for Governor of California, it's remarkably short on basics like birthplace, birthdate, parents, siblings etc. And then the edit war... Is it okay for people to edit entries about themselves? I am a long time but occasional editor, so don't remember. Eperotao (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Quotes or italics?

"The Death of Environmentalism" is in italics in some of this article and in quotes in other parts. It should be consistent. As far as I know, if it is an essay, quotes are appropriate. If it is a book, italics are appropriate. But, whichever is the case, it should be consistent in the article. SlowJog (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanity/Criticism

These topics have been discussed here before, but I think they warrant bringing up again in light of recent edits. This page has had questionable edits throughout its history, many instances of which are cataloged above. Recently there have been more than a few edits which seem like advertisements for Shellenberger's new book. It is forthcoming, and dustjacket reviews from his frequent collaborators were placed on the page. This has happened alongside some "cleanup" of the criticism areas that seem to be, well, adding or editing so that it features more positive reviews of his last book, Breakthrough.

I'm not sure what to do about this besides consistent monitoring, but I think it might help to again catalog another attempt at recent vanity/advertising on this page, especially by an account known for placing pro-nuclear sources on the Diablo Canyon earthquake vulnerability page in 2016 when Shellenberger led a a campaign to "save" its nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant page itself, and Mark Z. Jacobson's page regarding his ties to renewable energy companies, the subject of which Shellenberger has written about extensively (Example and Example). All of this seems strange to me, especially given the timing of a forthcoming book, and while I don't know what to do about it, I do feel it necessary to document it. Hobomok (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That they "seem" like advertisements or to you is irrelevant - they're factual and correct. Unless you can demonstrate they violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, so are edits to other articles I've made in the past. Quotes to appear on his yet-unpublished book have been removed.

I propose moving the "Writing" section above biographical information because Shellenberger is primarily known as an author - not for his graduation from the Peace and Global Studies (PAGS) program at Earlham College in 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmusic (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm stating that your reviews of Shellenberger's new book seem like advertisements. I understand they exist. I just proposed that we give some time for reviews from people who were not given advance copies to roll in, that is all. You'll note that I did not remove your notes on his congressional testimony at all. I'm also pointing out that the page's "reception" section seemed fine as is to previous editors, and there was discussion of that above two separate times, so there's really no need to make changes there, but I did not undo your Werbach addition. Given the nature of additions about his book and the changes to the "reception" section, which you called a "biased hit piece," although it begins with a quote that says his first book "could be the best thing to happen to the environmental movement since Carson's Silent Spring" (which has also been discussed above), I simply ask that for additions going forward, they're opened for discussion on this talk page.
As for the writing section, I feel as if it should stay where it is, considering that is how the majority of Wikipedia pages are laid out. For example, F. Scott Fitzgerald is best known for The Great Gatsby, but his page still begins with his life after the lead, which mentions his works just like Shellenberger's does. Further, Shellenberger might be more well-known for his work with various institutions and consulting firms, I think? That's an honest question because I'm honestly not sure about that, but that's why I suggest it be brought to discussion on the talk page, especially considering this page has seen an overhaul over the last few days. Hobomok (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Credentials

Can someone find out what exactly his credentials are? Does he have a degree? If so, what is the degree, what year, from what university? It seems pretty clear that he doesn't have a Ph.D. He seems to be a self-appointed activist mostly interested in the limelight and making money from books (which are easier to sell if you take an extremist position). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehasa (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell from monitoring this page for a while, reading two of his books, and actually teaching his nuclear TED Talk, I think your assessment regarding his credentials is correct. He has a Peace and Global Studies degree from Earlham, and a Cultural Anthropology Master’s from UC Santa Cruz, and then he has run various organizations and has been taking a contrarian point of view for years under the guise of an environmentalist that has had various “epiphanies”: first he “woke up” up to the need for technological innovation and “progress” in environmentalism, then he realized nuclear power was the answer to climate change, and now he’s decided climate change and other anthropogenic environmental ills like ocean plastic pollution aren’t really that bad.[1]
I do not think he is an authority on the climate, but he may have experience lobbying for nuclear power, and he has written books that have received popular attention, so I can understand the point of the page. However, it should continue to be monitored, I think, given its history of vanity and advertisement, especially around a new book that the author hopes will be controversial. Hobomok (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


Hobomok, you say it doesn't belong, I say it does. How do we move forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trying to reconnect (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I just explained it on your talk page, but you'll need to begin by creating your own section on this talk page, as this specific section of the talk page is for something else. Hobomok (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Forbes

The Forbes article, and its censorship by Forbes, was an event that was covered in detail by multiple sources, in the US, Australia, New Zealand and Poland. It is at least as notable as the 'Manifesto', which got minimal coverage and where Shellenberger was just one of multiple authors. If the Mainfesto belongs, so does this. Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You should start by listing which reliable independent secondary sources have covered the Forbes affair. If you prefer you could add a proposed text with references below. It would also be useful to review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OTHERCONTENT. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Coverage around this Forbes article seems to, again, follow and be based around the publication of his newest book, which came out three days ago. As I've stated multiple times over the last couple of weeks on this talk page, I really think it would do best if we all paused making substantial edits to the page as advertising for the book moves into full-swing, especially given this page's history of vanity/advertisement from its inception that I think is pretty well-documented here. That is, I do not think that the author's ongoing spat with Forbes needs to be covered in real-time by an encyclopedia, especially as it revolves around his book that came out three days ago. If this proves relevant in some time, then I would invite us to revisit it. On a related note, a quick look at his twitter also shows him courting controversy with other news media regarding interviews and emails. It seems to me that this is going to be an ongoing situation with multiple news outlets surrounding publication of a book, and the book is already listed on this page, so I think it best for us to wait, because Wikipedia is not news, it is an encyclopedia. If this becomes noteworthy in the future outside of book advertising, I believe we can and should revisit it then. Hobomok (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the Forbes incident is directly related to his new book, but I am not opposed to mentioning it in the same section as the one about the book, rather than in its own section. W:NOTNEWS says " routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - but I don't see how that's relevant here. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the beginning of that section in WP:NOTNEWS says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example...". Sports, announcements, and celebrity news are just that, only examples. The page's subject's squabble with Forbes is one episode in a long list of squabbles that he seems to create. If we were to include every episode where Shellenberger called foul or someone questioned him, we'd end up with a diary page, which Wikipedia is not, per WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."
In light of this, I might actually question whether we need that list of every letter he's written in campaigns to save nuclear plants. I think just the statement that Environmental Progress is behind "several public campaigns" and then links to those campaigns would streamline the article and take out some already existent fluff. Of course, his congressional testimony would stay, that seems notable to me. What I'm saying here is, there's already fluff on this article that I think could be removed, and there's no need to add any more. Especially considering he's now battling with other reporters, and I assume he'll continue to do so. That being the case, the notable stuff is here, I think (and then some). Hobomok (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you under the impression he created the issue with Forbes? The way I see it, and the way sources reported on it, it was Forbes who created the incident, by publishing and then inexplicably removing his article. If there is fluff in this article, remove it, but that has no bearing on the notability of this incident. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Whatever Shellenberger's motives are do not matter--I'm not here to figure them out, and his Wikipedia page isn't platform to speculate. What does matter is that there's a long list of his battles with different outlets and different people throughout his career, and it's going to continue to grow as he courts controversy over his book. If someone wants a listing of those, they need go no further than his Twitter page. This is not his twitter page; it's an encyclopedia. This minor disagreement with Forbes isn't notable in the way that other aspects of this page are. Again, this happened less than a week ago. Let's take some space from it, and also and again, let's think about how this spat with Forbes compares to the other aspects of this, and other, Wikipedia pages.--Hobomok (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hobomok: You removed a couple of paragraphs I had written about the article and the response to it from Climate Feedback, and messaged me that "There's currently a discussion happening on the Talk page regarding that very topic and whether or not it should be included there. You're more than welcome to join in!". So I am. I disagree with your removal of my edits. I suggest that there are three separate, if related, issues here: (1) the book, (2) the article, and (3) Forbes' pulling of the article. On issue (1) I don't think there's any dispute that the book itself is notable and should be included on the page. On issue (2): the article is not the book. Whether it should be included depends on whether it is in itself notable. Whilst the content of the article is in some ways a blatant promotion of the book it has also, arguably (and I am arguing it ;-)) taken on a significance of its own in the response it has received from others in the environmental, climate change, and climate denialist worlds. In particular I think the fact that several scientists, including Shellenberger's former colleage at TBI, Zeke Hausfather, have taken the time to respond to the article on the Climate Feedback page I referenced, establish its notability. Issue (3): Forbes' pulling of the article (which I gather they are saying was because of the article's shameless promotion of the book, not because of the position MS was taking). I agree with you Hobomok; I don't think that's notable. But that's not the same as the article itself not being notable John Stumbles (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your points here. I'd say that it's time we invite an outside editor or two into this conversation in order to make an informed decision based on all of these points, rather than continually adding points about this article on the page itself. It will quickly become an edit war. If Forbes pulling the article wasn't notable, and the article is in and of itself promotion for his book, then why do we have it on here? Again, this is recent news. It's going to continue to go back and forth over and over again over the next few weeks as Shellenberger courts more controversy through his Twitter page. This should not be a real-time unfolding of the way that he argues with people and how others respond to him. It's unnecessary that we update an ongoing situation where the author of the book/the page's subject continues to call attention to claims he makes in a book which is already represented on the page, which came out a week ago. Can we not let time decide on this? Again, I feel that this is especially important on a page known for vanity and advertising. I am in no way saying you're engaging in this behavior, I just want to point out that given the page's history, we should be especially careful with what goes on this page, as it's been used for such purposes many times in the past, per its history and the previous posts on this talk page. --Hobomok (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kallis, Girogios; Bliss, Sam (2019). "Post-environmentalism: origins and evolution of a strange idea". Journal of Political Ecology. 26 (1): 466–485.

For completeness (as before I am not suggesting that this spat be included) the Forbes article has now been republished [2] by The Spectator. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about Forbes Article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached: Oppose inclusion . Hobomok (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Should Shellenberger's recent Forbes Article about his new book be included on his page? --Hobomok (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's obviously been some debate here for some time. Per my previous arguments: the page has been known for vanity and advertisement for a while, and prior to the book's publication, various pre-publication reviews were placed on the page, which were removed. After the book's publication the subject wrote an article for Forbes covering the points he makes in his book, which was marked as inappropriate advertising and thus removed from Forbes' website. Shellenberger then tweeted about the removal extensively and it has been covered by a few news outlets. In addition to this, Shellenberger has claimed that other news outlets are biased against him, and is asking for investigations of conflict of interest/bias against him. Most recently he has claimed that Facebook is biased against him, and is calling for Mark Zuckerberg to investigate said bias. In short, it seems to me that the author is courting controversy in order to drum up attention for the book that came out a week ago, and including the Forbes spat on his page is a case of WP:NOTNEWS in addition to advertising for the book.
My main argument for not including these recent occurrences, then, is that it has happened very recently, and we should allow some time away from it before adding it on the page, if it all, given the recent publication of his book and the page's history of vanity and advertising, which is apparent on the talk page. The book's publication on the page is enough, I believe, and if readers would like to see Shellenberger complain about his treatment by the media, they can read his Twitter. This issue can be revisited in a bit of time, I think, and then we can make the decision about whether or not this is actually notable or newsworthy. Otherwise it just ends up reporting on recent news about a recently released book. On the other hand, a couple of other editors disagree with me, so in order to avoid an edit war I bring the issue here to see what others might think.--Hobomok (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (inclusion). This page has promotional problems generally. In addition there are notable criticism's of his positions which are in-explicitly missing (google 'luke warmist'). Furthermore, many climate scientists have called him a liar and spreading disinformation, debunking his ideas point by point. These serious criticisms should be included before we start piling on yet more fawning and non-critical marketing material for his book. -- GreenC 20:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (inclusion). I am concerned by the openly hostile tone of many of the comments in the sections above, and would remind editors that per WP:BLPTALK "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages". Nevertheless on the substantive question I agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. Save it for the Encyclopedia of Meaningless, Ephemeral, Twitter Spats. Coming soon, if it isn't here already. M.boli (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception of "Apocalypse Never ...."

Would it be relevant to collate comments from scholarly relevant scientists about Shellenberger essays? For instance ː https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/ ̴̴̴̴̊̊̊̊ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneza (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Some reviews of the new book and Shellenberger's promotional essays, have been acid. Here is a book review by Peter Gleick.

The most serious flaw, however, is that he assumes a position and seeks data and facts to fit that position rather than, as science demands, using data and facts to develop, test, and refine a theory. As a result, the book suffers from logical fallacies, arguments based on emotion and ideology, the setting up and knocking down of strawman arguments, and the selective cherry-picking and misuse of facts, all interspersed with simple mistakes and misrepresentations of science. Distressingly, this is also an angry book, riddled with ugly ad hominem attacks on scientists, environmental advocates, and the media.

Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy at the Breakthrough Instutite and wrote in that climatefeedback article:

Shellenberger’s article promoting his new book “Apocalypse Never” includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive. Shellenberger’s claims that climate plays no role in natural disasters and wildfires fly in the face of a large peer-reviewed scientific literature showing clear links between climate change and extreme heat events, drought, and extreme rainfall as well as links between hotter and drier conditions and wildfire areas burned in many regions of the world

I think that it would be useful to put some of this material in the article. It must be noted, however, that the publisher garnered a variety of very positive blurbs and reviews, which are quoted at the book's Amazon.com page. M.boli (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that these should be included on the page, as they are neutral reviews from people knowledgeable in the field. However, as you point out, the pre-publication reviews are positive, and while I do not believe those belong here, as they’ve been solicited by the author and publisher, we should probably reach a consensus about the pre-publication reviews’ place on the page before adding these other reviews. I only say that because we need only look at the way previous essays and books have been presented on this page to see that favorable quotes have been cherry-picked, or positive reviews of writing have been included just to offset negative reviews in the past, when in actuality, the majority of reviews regarding this work have been negative. For what it’s worth, I recommend including the Gleick and Hausfather points alone. Hobomok (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Googling for reviews, it seems to me that most reviews so far have been by either non-experts or ideological compatriots. The non-experts take the author's story and assertions at face value. Shellenberger tells a compelling tale. I concur that it might make sense to wait for more knowledgeable reviewers to weigh in. M.boli (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The favourable pre-publication reviews at Praise for Apocalypse Never include reviews from Richard Rhodes, Tom Wigley, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Kerry Emanuel, Erle Ellis, Michael Lind, John Horgan (journalist), Jon Entine, Andrew McAfee, Steve McCormick (executive), Steven F. Hayward, Robert Bryce (writer), Robert Stone (director) and Jonathan H. Adler. These people are not all gullible fools, and several of them have highly relevant experience. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Of these, only Erle Ellis and Kerry Emanuel seem to have any climate expertise. I don't see how any of the others are any more competent in climatology than a random person on the street. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You have something against Tom Wigley? The rest of the list is varied, but includes science and environmental journalists and political scientists, which seems appropriate for a book on environmental politics. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I just overlooked him. The rest is, as I said, hoi polloi. It may "seem appropriate" to you, but that does not mean it actually is. Redefining climate science as "environmental politics" is a nice trick, but it does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well let's look at Tom Wigley's review:

Environmental issues are frequently confused by conflicting and often extreme views, with both sides fueled to some degree by ideological biases, ignorance and misconceptions. Shellenberger’s balanced and refreshing book delves deeply into a range of environmental issues and exposes misrepresentations by scientists, one-sided distortions by environmental organizations, and biases driven by financial interests. His conclusions are supported by examples, cogent and convincing arguments, facts and source documentation. This may be the most important book on the environment ever written.

Redefining a book about "a range of environmental issues" as being solely about climate science seems to be the only trick being tried here, but even in those terms we have a former director of the Climatic Research Unit saying very supportive things about it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Publicity/Vanity

I'm tossing this up here as a reflection of recent edits to this page. As is clear by this Talk history, this page has had some promotional/vanity issues throughout its existence. The same can be said for Shellenberger's frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus and their Breakthrough Institute. I've recently attempted to clean the page up by removing a lot of cherry picked and misleading quotes which either misrepresent what was said in various articles or purposefully cut clauses in half. I think these misrepresentations are because Single-purpose account editing has been rampant across the pages for Shellenberger/Nordhaus/Breakthrough Institute (See: Here, here, here, here, and here). My hope is that I've remedied the vanity on this and Nordhaus's page, so I've removed the banner calling attention to the promotional nature of the page. Hopefully the page will continue to stay streamlined. --Hobomok (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What you did here violates wikipedia policy. You wrote a completely biased attack on me. Somebody needs to come in here and provide some objective moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Page Needs Objective Moderation

Somebody came in and vandalized this page, filling it with misrepresentations and misdescriptions. ~Michael Shellenberger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There were lies added to this page. One included that my coauthor and I called ourselves "the bad boys of environmentalism." We were called that by Bill McKibben.

A grown-up needs to intervene here as grossly biased haters are vandalizing this page.~ michae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, or, rather, Mr. Shellenberger: I am the editor that revised this page. I in no way meant to "vandalize" the page or "slander" you. I edited this page to remedy the promotional nature of the page, which was introduced on this page and others by many single-purpose accounts and has been called into question by a few editors on this talk page. This is reflected in the history of this talk page and the others in question, and when I began making these edits the page was marked as "promotional" via a banner. I sought to correct this. I apologize if it seemed like an attack. I also apologize if Mr. McKibben named you and your co-author the "Bad Boys of Environmentalism," but one cited source names you both as the originators of the moniker. I have tried to reflect what academic literature has said about the writing on this page, which is verifiable critique and comes from trusted sources in trusted academic journals. Julie Sze, for example, is a pretty well-respected scholar in the environmental field, and TJ Demos is a respected art and environmental historian. Their critiques do not amount to "lies," but rather, well, critiques. Including such criticism does not run counter to Biographies of living persons policy, and adding verified academic information does not run contrary to what are sourced and cited reliable sources, as reflected here. Per Wikipedia formatting, the page should read as lead--biography--and then listed works in chronological order, as it previously did prior to your edits here. Arbitration, per both of the articles I've linked in this response, is an option. I in no way meant to disparage you or attack you, and I am not a "hater," I assure you. I can also assure you that I am an adult. If you have an issue with me specifically, my talk page is always open, and my email is attached to it. I wish you the best. --Hobomok (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Just one more note--I wanted to add the academic sources that were added to the page here to reflect academic conversations around the writing presented, as they are verifiable and trusted sources from trusted academics like Sze, Demos, and Jeremy Caradonna/Richard B. Norgaard.
1. "Climate Change, Environmental Aesthetics, and Global Environmental Justice Cultural Studies" [1]
2. "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto" [2]
3. Against the Anthropocene: Visual Culture and Environment Today[3]
I cut it there as I only wanted the page to reflect a survey of the response the works have received, but more could have been added. For example, Joni Adamson and Scott Slovic's "The Shoulders We Stand on: An Introduction to Ethnicity and Ecocriticism."[4] --Hobomok (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I doubt that someone of Shellenberger's stature would be posting on his own Wikipedia talk page, unprofessionally calling people names in a childish manner. Probably a fake account. -- GreenC 21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the same, but was initially careful given that it seems Mr. Shellenberger, or again, another fake account, has been on the Talk page before, above. If that's the case, I'm going to revert these recent edits. Thanks for the feedback here. --Hobomok (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The "bad boys" moniker is from a source over 15 years old and it's a single source. Since this is a BLP in the lead section, it might be a WEIGHT issue. I'd like to remove it failing additional support in other sources. Something like that, of that age, needs more context. -- GreenC 22:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Then please do not make any changes until we can talk. The page your just restored contains outright lies. I am an author, energy expert, and journalist. You lie about me in the very first sentence. I am going to message you privately to see if we can resolve this or if we need to invite third party moderation


References

  1. ^ Sze, Julie (2007). "Climate Change, Environmental Aesthetics, and Global Environmental Justice Cultural Studies". Discourse. 29 (2/3): 384–410.
  2. ^ Caradonna, Jeremy; Norgaard, Richard; Borowy, Iris; Green, Tom. "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto". Resilience.org. Resilience.
  3. ^ Demos, TJ. Against the Anthropocene Visual Culture and Environment Today. MIT Press. ISBN 9783956792106.
  4. ^ Adamson, Joni; Slovic, Scott (2009). "Guest Editors' Introduction the Shoulders We Stand on: An Introduction to Ethnicity and Ecocriticism". MELUS: The Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States. 34 (2): 5–24.

User is biased and should not be allowed to edit this page

This person "Hobomok" appears to have set this account up in 2019, used it once, and then dedicated the rest of his/her time lying about me and vandalizing this page, and trying to come across as some experience Wikipedian in when in reality the edits the anonymous "Hobomok" have made here have been almost entirely directed toward. I would again asked for unbiased moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope other users review this Hobomok's persons edits. He wrote misinformation repeatedly, and left the page with a grossly one-sided attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous IP, or, Mr. Shellenberger. I have explained my edits further below in response to your initial post on this talk page. I assure you, I did not set out to attack you or to write misinformation. As I said below, I welcome any discussion with you on this page, my own talk page, or via the email link on my talk page. I have no ill-will towards you.--Hobomok (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Then please do not make any changes until we can talk. The page your just restored contains outright lies. I am an author, energy expert, and journalist. You lie about me in the very first sentence. I am going to message you privately to see if we can resolve this or if we need to invite third party moderation

I wrote on your page. I see no email link on your talk page. My email can be found through the bio of my web site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Old trick. If you do not like what a person says, declare that person "biased" to shut them up. We get that all the time on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes apparently if the (false) accusations lobbed during the phone conversation with this ip are to be believed, I am part of a vast conspiracy working to discredit the page’s subject. -Hobomok (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

This web site lies about me in the first line. I am an author and journalist. The claim that I am a "public relations professional" is a lie and needs to be taken down 2603:3024:100A:B300:516:1B99:5D1B:639B (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting about the request and will let another editor handle it. In case it can help, It is possible to confirm your identity by creating an account and to contact the WP:OTRS team to have it confirmed (it would be tagged with the {{Verified account}} template). Without this other editors are free to not believe identity claims. In either case, the policy about conflict of interest applies (WP:COI) and posting suggestions on this talk page is fine. —PaleoNeonate – 23:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Taking this in good-faith, I do believe it makes sense to change the lead to "journalist and author" as opposed to "public relations professional." If the IP turns out not to be Mr. Shellenberger, it's not like those edits fail to reflect reality at this point in time. When I originally edited the lead, the information in the career section made sense related to public relations professional. Also, I agree with GreenC's edit r/t "bad boys of environmentalism" nickname above. --Hobomok (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that (a) Schellenberger is not a climate scientist; (b) climate scientists don't consider his views to be at all persuasive and (c) Shellenberger believes that this is oppressing his free speech and visionary perspective. Reading around it in numerous sources, his self-image is way out of line with the independent view of the validity of his writing. Good luck finding middle ground here, and don't forget that in science any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement is an incorrect statement. 148.253.152.122 (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Following outside contact from someone affiliated with this page, I was told to change the “former PR professional” designation from the lede by that person. After much thought I am going to re-add this. It is treated heavily in the background section of the page, and changing a page because of outside pressure is a bad precedent to set, in my mind. Further, the PR background is treated in many media stories (see cited LA Review of Books review of Apocalypse Never/number of scholarly articles cited in lede and paper). If anyone has issue with this and/or would like to request 3rd party moderation I accept that decision and resultant discussion. —Hobomok (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this really belongs in the lead. Coverage in the career section is entirely proper of course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I would say it does, only because it makes up a large section of the career section, but if we have differing opinions this is fine—we can always seek another opinion. —Hobomok (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For now I'm going to move it to later in the lead. Having it right in the opening is an inappropriate concentration on a past career which is largely irrelevant to what he is currently best known for. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Vague assertions and citations in connection with controversy

Particularly on controversial figures, we have an obligation to provide specific examples of promoters and detractors if we report that controversy exists. For example, the previous version stated:

"Shellenberger and frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus have been described by Slate as "ecomodernists".[9][10] A controversial and polarizing figure,[11] Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics [12][13][14][15]."

It goes without saying that critical statements can be found for any controversial author. Citing a group of four widely varying sources with short phrase quotations lends no credibility to the claims, e.g. "inaccurate." I.e., who said "inaccurate"? It was Glieck, but the substance of Glieck's criticism is that Shellenberger made inappropriate use of evidence, a far more substantive critique than "inaccurate."

Further, the assertion of being controversial is pointless without some reporting of the audience perspectives giving rise to the controversiality.

Finally, if we need a page on the collaboration of Shellenberger and Norhaus then let’s add one. The programs of Nordhaus and Shellenberger have diverged sufficiently over the past 12 years that connecting them here misrepresents Shellenberger’s position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstorage (talk • contribs) 06:46, June 1, 2021 (UTC)

It's the lead section, per WP:LEAD the language is supposed to be summary and not overly specific, as you have done. The details are expanded upon in the body of the article, not the lead. -- GreenC 05:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on summary language. You did not address the matter of logical structure of the argument (claim) that Shellenberger is controversial. Unless the reader understands controversiality itself to be a negative attribute, following the claim of controversiality with evidence only of detractors is extremely biased. Further, grouping the subject with another writer who holds a substantially different position from the subject is clearly a "guilt by association" fallacy having no place here. Bstorage (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Both he and Nordhaus are treated in the cited article, as both were called ecomodernists in said article. Collaboration with nordhaus is treated in the article further, so the lead reflects that. Further, regarding the “controversial” and “polarizing” claim, that was added by another editor after much discussion here, and they added the scientific American article cited as evidence of those agreeing with shellenberger. It previously read, “Shellenberger’s positions have been called “bad science” and “inaccurate” by environmental scientists and academics.” If anything, controversial should be removed and that wording should go back to how it was previously. The Tierney article in the WSJ doesn’t belong alongside critiques from environmental scientists and academics. Please discuss potential changes here before changing the lead, esp. as the page was changed recently due to disagreements. -Hobomok (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The summary as written leads a reader to understand that Shellenberger and Nordhaus are current collaborators. Per the body, they have not collaborated in over a decade. The positions of Shellenberger and Nordhaus have diverged significantly during that time. The fact that Nordhaus is treated in the article further does not justify associating the two authors in the summary paragraph. The tone of the summary does not reflect the facts and opinions presented in the body, e.g., "Before publication the book received favourable reviews." The association of Shellenberger with Nordhaus, the introduction of Shellenberger as a former PR professional (insinuating a causal relationship between that history and his current position), and the appearance of the controversial/polarizing claim followed only with clearly negative ("bad science") evidence presents an inaccurate picture of Shellenberger's present program and an inaccurate summary of what follows on the page. Given the likelihood of a reader reading only the summary and the likelihood of his interpreting that summary as overwhelmingly negative, the principles of charity in argument should be applied here. This is bias, whether intentional or not, and it reeks of innuendo. On the matter of appropriateness of citations, the criterion of "environmental scientists and academics" is arbitrary and vague. T.J. Demos is a thoughtful and entertaining writer, but his status as an academic art historian should not give him citation authority unavailable to Wigley or McCormick. Readers given access to sources are generally capable of evaluating arguments on their merit, independent of whether the source meets the criterion of scientist or academic, particularly when the academic has no relevant academic credentials. I agree that "polarizing" has no place here. It is poorly defined and not an attribute of the subject but of the audience. Let's fix the bias in the summary paragraph. Bstorage (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The summary should stay as-is, because it is an accurate summary of the body of the article. Shellenberger and Nordhaus have been frequent collaborators, as the body of the article explains. The polarizing claim is followed by the scientific American article, which is a positive review of his book. Demos is an art and environmental historian—his critique is valid for that reason. As I stated previously on this talk page, there are critiques from other academics in environmental fields that are not included here. The ones that are represented only provide a summary representation of the negative press that Shellenberger’s writing has received. Finally, Shellenberger is indeed a former PR executive, which is also treated in the body of the article, so it belongs in the lead. There has already been much discussion on that claim as well on this talk page, and it was decided that the current wording is how the page would read. Many of the complaints you have here have been discussed on this talk page previously. I would recommend going back through the long, and at times recent, history of discussion on this talk page and see how it was decided that the lead would read the way it does. Much of it reads the way that it does for reasons that are clearly spelled out here. -Hobomok (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Since I was responsible for much of the previous text I wanted to let other people contribute before chipping in, but you won't be surprised to hear that I broadly like the text, which was a careful attempt to weave together both what the sources say and the preferences expressed by various people on the talk page. Frankly I think that the single most obvious point about Shellenberger is that he is a polarising and controversial figure: serious people on all sides of the debate have strong opinions about him, with quite a few being strongly pro parts of what he has said and done over the years while being strongly anti other things he has said and done. Personally I think the current version slightly over does the criticism and under does the praise, but I'm probably in a minority there, and the more important thing is that Shellenberger generates bucket loads of both. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Over the past 2 weeks I've asked people in my field (History of Science) for an assessment of the tone of the introductory paragraph. All of them, including two who identify as Marxists, saw the summary as both framing the subject in a negative light and as being more negative than the article it summarizes. Regardless of the references, the sentence "A controversial and polarizing figure, Shellenberger's positions have been called 'bad science' and 'inaccurate' by environmental scientists and academics" employs negative connotations of his being polarizing with no indication in the sentence that any technically competent reviewer finds merit in his program. If particulars like "called 'bad science'" are needed to explain controversiality in a summary then particulars like {insert praise by competent reviewer} should be also. If no such competent praise exists, then the figure is not controversial in any way that warrants presence in a summary. One need not be a Derrida disciple or hermeneutics expert to guess that bias underlies readers' judgement that the summary is negative. It is a matter of which true introductory clauses or parentheticals are paired with each (yes, of course true) proposition. Compare reasonable (and true) options: Former PR professional -> environmental writer vs. former teen environmental activist -> environmental writer. 76.218.218.207 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to refer back to the previous discussions on this page about what a lead should and shouldn't be. The lead provides a summary of the article, and as the article stands, this is a summary of the article. Many people have stated that r/t this page's lead. Shellenberger is indeed a former PR professional. That has already been moved from the top of the lead after discussion here and after I received phone calls and emails from someone close to the article who had issues with that designation. It is treated in the article, it is true, it should stay. Regarding the "bad science" and "inaccurate" sentence--that is what the body of the article reflects after academic critiques of the subject's writing were introduced to the page. The lead is no more negative or representative of academic response to this writing than the body of the article itself. As I have also stated previously on this page, if you would like me to add more academic critiques of the author, I can, but I feel that the current representation is satisfactory. Nothing has changed that would merit changing the lead of this page. That you claim to be in the field of history of science and claim to have done a peer review with colleagues, two of whom identify marxists, doesn't mean anything in the face of the history of discussion on this page. I am also not sure what these two people being self-identified marxists has to do with anything. Hobomok (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Mentioning the Marxist thing is probably connected to the fact that the typical enemies of environmentalism, free-market fundamentalists, are also enemies of Marxism and, since grasping the concept of having two enemies is asking too much of some people, they often depict those who want to protect the environment as Communists. A great example of this simple-minded way of thinking is James Delingpole's "Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future" - the watermelon is green on the outside and red on the inside. So, to someone who believes that crap, quoting Marxists is supposed to make a statement more credible for someone they suspect of environmentalism.
Of course, the debate is actually about science on one hand versus absurd ideologies which claim that the economy is all-important and nothing else counts, on the other. A description which includes not only market fundamentalism but also Marxism.
Disregarding the Marxist thing, it is important for the IP to understand that one cannot increase the weight of one's opinion on Wikipedia Talk pages by bragging about academic accomplishments or by claiming backup from other academically accomplished people. Instead of just mentioning your education, you should actually apply it: Sound reasoning will work.
Regarding that point, what Hobomok says is simply true: the "bad science" quote, for example, is repeated further down. I guess you want to say that the economists' and journalists' agreement with Shellenberger should also be mentioned in the lede. But all three media outlets quoted are well-known for their pro-free-market, anti-environmental bias, and at least WSJ and Die Welt are part of the climate change denial industry, so their agreement is a dog-bites-man story, not worth mentioning in the lede. The same is true for economists, who are overwhelmingly free-market proponents and often climate change deniers. The position of those loud but essentially incompetent people has been put in the word "controversial" in the lede. That should be enough.
The only positive reactions from people who would count - if published in reliable source - were instead filtered through the site of the publisher of the book, which is not a reliable source. I don't know why we use that one, and I think everything sourced to it should be deleted. The fact that one of the people quoted by it says something different in another venue speaks volumes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using reviews quoted on the the book's website. Of course these have been selected by the publisher, but nobody is denying that these people actually said these things, and so far only one of them has sought to caveat his published remarks. Shellenberger is described as a "controversial and polarising figure" precisely because opinions about him are so varied. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
What about WP:BIASED? When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering The level of indepence is zero, we do not know anything about editorial control, and a promotional site will hardly have a reputation for fact-checking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to add this: nobody is denying that these people actually said these things You would not say that if you had debated creationists for years. Some sources are unreliable not because what they say is not true, but because they omit essential stuff that is also true. A source can "accurately" quote another, repeating things they actually said, but turn the whole picture by 180° by repeating only some parts and omitting other parts. Like creationists, climate change denialists are masters at this game, but a PR department very obviously will also do that. See Quote mining and Cherry picking. Just look at the case we know about: Emanuel added negative bits to what the publisher quoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The sources here are the individuals quoted, not the publisher, so WP:BIASED doesn't apply. And nobody quoted has claimed that these quotes were inaccurate or even selective. Kerry Emanuel is on record that, despite adding subsequent caveats, he has "no regrets about the endorsement" [3]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The sources here are the individuals quoted, not the publisher, so WP:BIASED doesn't apply That is bullshit. The source is a promotional website that quotes people. Of yourse it is not a reliable source. There is no need for anyone to say anything, the source is simply not up to standard, since it is a site which has the purpose of selling something, and tells you stuff with the intention to make you buy. The quotes are part of that. See WP:PROMO: Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chas ehere. Are you denying that Richard Rhodes said "Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book. Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger uses science and lived experience to rescue a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart."? Are you denying that Tom Wigley said "Environmental issues are frequently confused by conflicting and often extreme views, with both sides fueled to some degree by ideological biases, ignorance and misconceptions. Michael Shellenberger’s balanced and refreshing book delves deeply into a range of environmental issues and exposes misrepresentations by scientists, one-sided distortions by environmental organizations, and biases driven by financial interests. His conclusions are supported by examples, cogent and convincing arguments, facts and source documentation. Apocalypse Never may well be the most important book on the environment ever written."? Are you denying that Steven Pinker said "We must protect the planet, but how? Some strands of the environmental movement have locked themselves into a narrative of sin and doom that is counterproductive, anti-human, and not terribly scientific. Shellenberger advocates a more constructive environmentalism that faces our wicked problems and shows what we have to do to solve them."? Are you denying that Jonathan Haidt said "If there is one thing that we have learned from the coronavirus pandemic, it is that strong passions and polarized politics lead to distortions of science, bad policy, and potentially vast, needless suffering. Are we making the same mistakes with environmental policies? I have long known Michael Shellenberger to be a bold, innovative, and nonpartisan pragmatist. He is a lover of the natural world whose main moral commitment is to figure out what will actually work to safeguard it. If you share that mission, you must read Apocalypse Never."? Are you denying that Kerry Emanuel said "The painfully slow global response to human-caused climate change is usually blamed on the political right’s climate change denial and love affair with fossil fuels. But in this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. Disinformation from the left has replaced deception from the right as the greatest obstacle to mitigating climate change."? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I am denying nothing. Stop wall-of-texting, strawmanning, and analyzing my state of mind, and engage with my actual reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I also think the prepublication reviews should be nixed, or at the very least cut back in their treatment on the page. Prepublication reviews solicited by the book publisher from former collaborators (Ellis, Pinker, etc.) don’t hold the same weight as/aren’t neutral like the LA Review of Books, also cited, for example. Second, I question the wording and place of Shellenberger’s response to Gleick and the climate feedback response at Environmental Progress. Shellenberger responds to most critiques of his work—see even this talk page, for example—I’m not sure every one needs to be represented here. Also, it’s not a “publication,” it’s a website. At the very least the wording should change.-Hobomok (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The matter of citations and sources being deemed valid if they are "academic" and invalid if they have any connection to a corporate entity seems utterly naïve and ignorant of the history of science. Critics of science in the 1960's were overwhelmingly concerned about the biases of corporate science. Big tobacco is the textbook case. Yet it was academic science that President Eisenhower worried about on leaving office. He spoke of his concern that the military's sponsorship of, and involvement in, academic science (which he inaccurately termed the "military-industrial complex") had lead to unwarranted influence and a "disastrous rise of misplaced power." Eisenhower's worry was that the government's (military) pressure on academic research lead to bad science. Official science and academic science are subject to the same pressures that bias corporate science. Some historians of science (e.g. Peter Railton, Marx and the Objectivity of Science) argue that corporate science usually still seeks to get the world right, since competition in a free market exerts pressure to do so. Even accepting the Marxist critique that science serves the interest of capital, corporate science is usually nudged toward reliability by causal feedback from natural phenomena and its function within a free market system. No equivalent competitive (market) pressure exists in government and academic science. Again accepting Marx's position for sake of argument, prestige and ideology are present in all kinds of science, but are only steered toward objectivity by the peer review system, which, on Thomas Kuhn's view, has limited effectiveness because the reviewers are literal peers, operating in and defending the same paradigm as those they review. Within a paradigm, close peers mutually advocate for each other and shield commonly held views from criticism. The well-documented decline in cognitive and value diversity in academics over the past 15 years suggests to me that affiliation with a university (which I happen to have) does not grant one a claim to objectivity or an immunity to bias. Many cases of blind academic - even academic-science - dogmatism bear this out, "Race Science" in the early 1900s, eugenics, and frontal lobotomies are recent examples of bad science that were overwhelmingly (if not universally) endorsed in US academics against non-academic protest. Bstorage (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Bstorage, thank you for the history of science lesson re: Eisenhower and the free market's invisible hand in research. As you may well know, this is not the 1960's, and industry-funded science, esp. in the case of climate, has its own sordid history that I won't get into here because it's not the time or the place, as much as you're trying to make a case for an internet debate. Further, there are more than a few people here affiliated with universities, (I am sure some of them are also affiliated with STS in some manner) and none of them are trying to use their position as leverage, so, as other users have explained to you, that's not really going to get you very far.
The points here (which are off-topic in this heading) are that the prepublication reviews were solicited by the publisher, and the academic sources you're casting aspersions on are peer-reviewed. These are not even examples of the industry-funded science you discuss--rather, they are examples of prepublication reviews solicited by a publisher about a book. Regardless of the issues with peer review one hundred years ago that you've cited as examples (or "well-documented decline in cognitive and value diversity in academics over the past 15 years" that you claim), the academic sources are the best sources available, and they're from people recognized as experts in their respective fields, across a number of environmental fields (scientists/economists/historians and other humanists/etc.). Beyond the case of prepublication reviews, which, again, are not the same as the industry funding that you are talking about, my point r/t the website is that it's essentially self-published (SEE: WP:USESPS), so I'm not sure if it holds merit here. Much like the prepublication reviews, it is also not the same thing as industry funded science.
Regardless of any and all of that, it's not the point of this discussion under this heading. That discussion has reached consensus further down and the lede has been changed because consensus was reached. If you'd like to debate the merits of prepublication reviews and self-published responses on a website vs peer-reviewed critique, then feel free to start a new section on the TALK page. --Hobomok (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Rather, the right place for this discussion is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Bstorage is trying to get the rules changed here, giving the reason that the sources Wikipedia considers RS are not infallible. That has implications for this article, but, by the same reasoning, also on every other article in Wikipedia, and therefore belongs on the Talk page of the rule itself. If the rule is bad, and Bstorage has a better suggestion, preferably an infallible source, but at least a type of source less fallible than science, then I am sure that the people who wrote the rules want to hear about it.
Of course, this was sarcasm. The rule will not be changed because there is no viable alternative. Rejecting a type of source because it does not have "immunity to bias" is just postmodern bullshit, a sophism, an empty reason, because the same is true for every type of source. There are types of sources which are more reliable than others, and that is what Wikipedia is based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hob Gadling Lower your weapons. You're reading my mind poorly. I was trying to reduce bias. I agree is there is no bias-free statement, no God's eye view. I meant to address specifically the statement ending "...and academics." Some academic exists who will endorse or condemn every possible claim and will have peers who mutually advocate for them and shield them from criticism. So the summary closing statement that Shellenberger, a controversial figure, has academic detractors is a waste of space in a summary attempting as much objectivity and useful information as we can squeeze into a fair summary. Bstorage (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Your diatribe about academics having made mistakes fooled me into thinking that you were thinking the same thing as you were writing, which was the usual "don't rely on scientists, they have been wrong before" sermon we always get from people who believe in perpetual motion or horoscopes.
Indeed, I cannot read your thoughts unless you write them down first, and if you write down something else, you should not blame anyone for mistaking that something else for your thoughts.
The word "academics" is indeed too vague and should be replaced by a more appropriate descriptor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


Bstorage For an example of peers mutually advocating for others and shielding them from criticism, I think the prepublication reviews discussed here do a good job of that. At any rate, the word “academics” is used here to make clear that a number of academics/experts across a number of environmental fields disagree with the subject’s positions across the author’s publications represented here, in a number of academic publications, for a variety of reasons (as laid out: climate scientists, humanists, social scientists, etc.). The specifics of each critique are reflected in the article. The lead simply summarizes those specifics, so there is no need to be specific in the lead. They are treated in the article below the lead. If the reader would like specifics, they need only read the rest of the article. —Hobomok (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
That is indeed why we originally chose "academics", to indicate briefly in the lede the range of fields involved including humanities and social sciences. Very open to suggestions of a better word of course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that sentence in the lede is clearly pejorative. I think better would be: Shellenberger sharply disagrees with mainstream environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them. In addition to being less loaded, it would be informative regarding the nature of the disagreement.
It's pejorative and extremely vague, to the point of being uninformative. Also, one of the 'expert' sources is to some no name advocacy group. Costatitanica (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I think a problem is that although Shellenberger agrees with much of environmental science, his books rhetorically focus on bashing the parts that the author disagrees with. Shellenberger writes provocations. People are provoked. I think the present lede describing him as controversial and polarizing is loaded and doesn't explain what the divisive disagreement is. But I understand why many people will view that as an accurate description. -- M.boli (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this sets up an issue though--that sentence is not to say that Shellenberger disagrees with mainstream environmentalists. It is to say, as the rest of the article shows, that numerous environmental scholars disagree with him. To change the lede in the way you propose is to change what it seeks to convey, and how it summarizes the article as a whole. If we want to say "A number of environmental academics sharply disagree with Shellenberger over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them," then that would convey the point more clearly, but could be construed as even more negative. In fact, the previous lede was "Many of Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics," which I wrote, but another editor thought that was too negative, so "controversial and polarizing" were added.
Further, changing the wording to "mainstream environmentalists" raises another issue, and one that is an issue across Shellenberger's writing: "Mainstream environmentalists" is vague--the sentence is a representation of response from environmental academics, while "mainstream environmentalists" conflates any number of environmental activists, activist groups, experts, etc. These are very different groups. For example, Shellenberger critiques Extinction Rebellion heavily in Apocalypse Never, and he conflates those activist groups with anyone else he doesn't agree with, like certain environmental academics. At the same time, TJ Demos, whose critique of Shellenberger is in the article in question, also critiques Extinction Rebellion--oftentimes they're not one and the same, environmental academics and environmental activist groups, that is, and there are key differences. [1].
This is all to say, the lede needs to be specific about who is doing the critiquing throughout the article (a number of respected environmental academics, as the article shows throughout), or it should stay as-is. The sentence's independent clause is not vague. It summarizes what is said below regarding academic reception of Shellenberger's writing, and if the reader would like to have more information about what these people have said about the subject's writing, they need only read the rest of the article.--Hobomok (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Costatitanica, the expert source in question is written by environmental historian Jeremy Caradonna and environmental economist Richard Norgaard, among other academics. Each author is an expert in their respective field. The critique is treated further down the page. As I have stated before here, other academic critiques could be added, but I saw no need to add each and every one, as the ones here are representative. See my response r/t the independent clause of the sentence above, ("Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics") which is clear and representative of the rest of the article. ----Hobomok (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hobomok: fair enough, mainstream environmentalists was indeed weaselly and not useful for the reasons you mention. I think Shellenberger's shtick is he attacks other environmentalists, and as you illustrated he is not very discriminating while doing so. How about this:
Shellenberger sharply disagrees with other environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them. Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.
I think your language as it stands is a pretty good condensation of the matter. My one small thought is to briefly explicate what the controversies are about rather than simply labeling him as controversial. This should be both more informative and less pejorative-sounding. -- M.boli (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
M.boli, I think this makes sense, and it solves issues that some might have r/t the lack of distinction around "controversial." I think it might also help to bring up and cite the review of Apocalypse Never from environmental economist Sam Bliss in relation to the second sentence, just so that the critiques are complete. Perhaps it would help to just cite some other critiques there as well (no need to treat them at-length in the article's body) just to close out discussion on this topic? --Hobomok (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Lead changed to clarify Shellenberger's disagreement with those who critique him. Hopefully this solves the issues here. --Hobomok (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Righto! Thank you. -- M.boli (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I've had my mind on other things, but this change looks OK to me too. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Demos, TJ. "Climate Control: From Emergency to Emergence". E-Flux.

Formal Request by the Subject of This Page For Dispute Resolution

Note: Structural edit made to set off quoted material from argument to encourage people entering the debate to actually read the meat. Edits made concern indenting only. — MaxEnt 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This page about me contains inaccurate and misleading information and is grossly one-sided, particularly when compared to other environmental journalists and authors such as Bill McKibben. I request that Wikipedia authors who are not involved in this dispute intervene to make this page as balanced as the one about McKibben and other environmental authors are.

The page inaccurately claims that Ted Nordhaus is a “frequent collaborator,” but I haven't coauthored anything with him since 2015, and the page does not mention that I have coauthored with climate scientist James Hansen in Scientific American in 2017 and in the Wall Street Journal in 2019.

Wikipedia claims to prioritize mainstream publications but the authors of this page exclude both mentions of my articles with Hansen while including links to non-mainstream publications to attack me. I have been covered extensively by the New York Times, and written for the Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, for over 15 years, and yet none of that is mentioned anywhere in the bio page, despite Wikipedia's commitment to prioritizing mainstream corporate publications over activist nonprofit ones.

This Wikipedia page does nothing to illuminate any of the substantive issues and evidence raised by me in my writings and seems aimed at getting readers to dismiss me as lacking standing to write on these issues, even though I testified before the U.S. Congress six times within the last 18 months and have repeatedly testified before several foreign governments, including Japan and South Korea.

The bio calls me polarizing and controversial but only contains negative statements about my work, and doesn't mention the evidence for how my work has been unifying and non-controversial. Why does the bio not state at the top of the page that I have been called a "Hero of the Environment" by Time Magazine and "environmental guru" by Financial Times, "climate guru" by the largest newspaper of the Netherlands, and am the recipient of the Green Book Award?

If I am polarizing on some issues then why does the article not mention, for balance, that I have been unifying on other issues, particularly nuclear energy but also the government's role in the fracking revolution? And why does it not quote any of the praise by some of the world’s leading climate and environmental scientists, as well as leading historians and scholars?

— "Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book. Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger uses science and lived experience to rescue a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship." -- Richard Rhodes, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb
— “Apocalypse Never may well be the most important book on the environment ever written.” -- Tom Wigley, climate scientist, University of Adelaide, former senior scientist National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
­— “Shellenberger advocates a more constructive environmentalism that faces our wicked problems and shows what we have to do to solve them.” -- Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and author of Enlightenment Now
­— "I have long known Michael Shellenberger to be a bold, innovative, and nonpartisan pragmatist. He is a lover of the natural world whose main moral commitment is to figure out what will actually work to safeguard it. If you share that mission, you must read Apocalypse Never.” -- Jonathan Haidt, author of Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
­— "The painfully slow global response to human-caused climate change is usually blamed on the political right’s climate change denial and love affair with fossil fuels. But in this engaging and well-researched treatise, Michael Shellenberger exposes the environmental movement’s hypocrisy in painting climate change in apocalyptic terms while steadfastly working against nuclear power, the one green energy source whose implementation could feasibly avoid the worst climate risks. Disinformation from the left has replaced deception from the right as the greatest obstacle to mitigating climate change." -- Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science, MIT
­— "The trouble with end-of-the-world environmental scenarios is that they hide evidence-based diagnoses and exile practical solutions. Love it or hate it, Apocalypse Never asks us to consider whether the apocalyptic headline of the day gets us any closer to a future in which nature and people prosper.” -- Peter Kareiva, director of the Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, UCLA, and former chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy
­— "In this tour de force of science journalism, Michael Shellenberger shows through interviews, personal experiences, vignettes, and case histories that environmental science offers paths away from hysteria and toward humanism. This superb book unpacks and explains the facts and forces behind deforestation, climate change, extinction, fracking, nature conservation, industrial agriculture, and other environmental challenges to make them amenable to improvements and solutions." -- Mark Sagoff, author of The Economy of the Earth
­— "Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.” -- Steve McCormick, former CEO, The Nature Conservancy and former President of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
­— "Michael Shellenberger loves the Earth too much to tolerate the conventional wisdom of environmentalism. This book, born of his passions, is a wonder: a research-driven page turner that will change how you view the world. I wish I'd been brave enough to write it, and grateful that he was." -- Andrew McAfee, Principal Research Scientist at MIT and author of More from Less
­— "No one will come away from this lively, moving, and well-researched book without a deeper understanding of the very real social challenges and opportunities to making a better future in the Anthropocene." -- Erle Ellis, professor of geography and environmental systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and author of Anthropocene: A Very Short Introduction
­— "Michael Shellenberger methodically dismantles the tenets of End Times thinking that are so common in environmental thought. From Amazon fires to ocean plastics, Apocalypse Never delivers current science, lucid arguments, sympathetic humanism, and powerful counterpoints to runaway panic. You will not agree with everything in this book, which is why it is so urgent that you read it." -- Paul Robbins, Dean, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison

The sections on my writings are one-sided and misleading. The section on the Death of Environmentalism is grossly one-sided and does not include mention of widespread praise for the essay, which was highly influential including even McKibben who praised the essay for Grist. Three of the four paragraphs are attacks on me and my coauthor. The section on Break Through is similarly biased, with two-thirds dedicated to explaining some marginal academic’s critic of the book, with no mention of positive reviews in the New York Times and other publications. The section on Ecomodernist Manifesto is similarly one-sided, with over two-thirds dedicated to attacking the manifesto, and no positive quotes or discussions of the essay’s merits as described by the New York Times, which quoted me specifically.

The section attacking Apocalypse Never is the most one-sided. It is also full of errors. At no point in the book do I posit that “capital accumulation” is the key to environmental progress; that claim is false and should be removed. The book explicitly argues that values and policies also must change in the discussions of plastics and farmed fish; that should be added. The section makes perfunctory mention of the book’s positive reviews but does not quote or even say what the reviewers liked about the book. By contrast, the last paragraph of the section consists of repeating attacks on me by Peter Gleick and other scientists without ever saying to readers of the page what the issue was about or what I said in response. Gleick is hardly a neutral critic. In his review of my book, Gleick defends the Malthusian paradigm that is specifically attacked by Apocalypse Never. Apocalypse Never singles out Malthusian writer Paul Ehrlich who Gleick in his review defends as a friend and colleague. And there is no mention of the fact that Gleick admitted to lying in order to get documents from one of his political opponents.

The page begins by framing me as "former public relations professional" two decades ago without mentioning that I did nonprofit activist PR for strictly progressive, nonprofit and philanthropic causes, including saving the redwoods, criticizing Nike for factory conditions in Indonesia, and advocating for the decriminalization of drugs. I am proud of most of those campaigns, wrote about them in Apocalypse Never, and in my forthcoming book, San Fransicko. Where I disagree with my former advocacy, I have written and spoken about that too, including in my TEDx talks, "Why I changed my mind about nuclear" and "Why renewables can't save the planet." The article falsely describes American Environics as a public relations firm. It was a short-lived public opinion research firm that operated for three years, from 2004 to 2007, did not do public relations and worked strictly for progressive nonprofit and philanthropic organizations.

You can see earlier in my talk chain I reached out to Wikipedia author Hobomak. On our call, he admitted to me that the PR reference was aimed at discrediting me, and he agreed to remove it. He then reneged on his promises a few days later. Hobomak told me he was angry with me because of a critical remark I once made of Winona LaDuke, and because of the impacts of uranium on Navajo. Such remarks suggest a deep ideological bias toward renewables and against nuclear that is not appropriate for editing this page. 2601:18E:8203:86A0:104F:626A:9124:9B72 (talk) Michael Shellenberger

Anonymous IP, I'm not going to go into detail regarding everything you lay out here (although it is strange that you are angry none of the prepublication reviews for your newest book are not mentioned in the lead, but are then angry about your new book's treatment further down the page even though those prepublication reviews have been mentioned). Further, no one dictates their own biography, as much as one would like to (as another user made clear when you commented on my page originally to ask for a phone call, here). There has been substantial discussion of most of your complaints over the course of this talk page.
Most important to me, though, is the way you have misconstrued and totally misrepresented any discussion we have had, especially when I made an effort to listen to your complaints on my own time, and tried to make as clear as possible to you the fact that multiple users edit multiple pages, and no one holds a monopoly over any one page. Probably most importantly, it has to be stated again that there has been no agenda to discredit you. If you want, I will pull up the receipts from the emails you sent me where I explained this clearly. As I have made clear throughout discussion with you on this page and on my own page, when you called me a "fucking coward" and "troll," and you threatened to "call me out" however necessary to get this page changed, I said this is not a good way to have discussion. That type of back and forth consists of threats that you made because you did not like the way that criticism of your writing was added to the page, when previously there was only glowing review. None of those reviews have been removed--only criticism, from trustworthy sources, have been added. There has never been an attempt to "discredit" you, nor has anyone ever said there was an attempt to do so as you claim, on this talk page, on a phone call, or anywhere else. There was also never any mention of Winona LaDuke during our conversation. There is no ideological bias here. I am sorry that you do not like the way that criticism was added to what previously read as advertisement (when I found the page that tag was there). There is a long history of advertisement on this page, dating back to the first talk page discussion here.
Let me be as clear as possible for anyone that does not want to read the text I wrote above: There has been no attempt to discredit the page's subject. The idea that someone said that anything written here was an attempt to discredit the page's subject is a lie. There is no ideological bias at play in editing this page. --Hobomok (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: pre-publiction reviews and blurbs, it is important the author of the views/blurb not be connected to the same publisher. This is a well known COI problem in the publishing industry, and it would fail Wikipedia's RS due to lack of independence. When publishing a book with a big publisher, they may stipulate you write x number of reviews/blurbs of other books by the same publisher in the future. Thus, well known authors get blurbed on the jackets of new books by other authors. One author was so incensed by this shady practice she burned her own books in protest. Since the publishing industry has merged into a few large houses, one has to look carefully to find the connection. -- GreenC 19:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Apocolypse Never was published by Harper. Blurber's mentioned above, who have also published with Harper:
  • Jonathan Haidt
  • Richard Rhodes
  • Steven Pinker
  • Mark Sagoff
  • Andrew McAfee
  • Erle Ellis
  • Paul Robbins
That is most of them. The few missing may have also under a different imprint name. -- GreenC 20:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ecomodernism

This statement in the lead makes me slightly uncomfortable:

Shellenberger and frequent collaborator Ted Nordhaus have been described by Slate as "ecomodernists".

The problem is that ecomodernism is not the main ring of the circus here. From what I've seen of Shellenberger interviewed is that the main ring here is ecorealism.

Maybe nobody else has yet used that term, but it applies to arguments about deploying nuclear now, rather than persisting in the fantasy of fixing global nuclear geopolitics while also sparing the environment.

Given that the term is mildly misleading, I'm not sure this is the right prominence for Slate's descriptive adjective. — MaxEnt 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe relying on slate for the description is the misleading aspect here. Looking at the multiple sources are on this page (Sze and Ziser, Grist, the subject’s manifesto, Bliss, Dotson and Bouchey, etc.), it’s been a descriptor used throughout the subject’s career, both by those covering the subject’s ideas and the subject himself. If anything, the sentence introducing the term should change to reflect that the term has been used across sources to describe the subject’s thought, and more sources should be included there. Has “eco realism” been used in sources to describe the page’s subject? If so, by all means it should be included, but ecomodernism should definitely stay, as it’s been used for years to describe, and in some cases embraced by, the subject’s thought and philosophy. Hobomok (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we need some more sources here. What do you think @Hobomok? I removed one sentence because it there was no source and also out of place as the first sentence in the paragraph. With the right source perhaps it has a place but not sure...
There is also an absence in this section of voices from supporters of ecomodernism. I'd argue that at least some of that discussion has a place here. Granted, the views in the econmodernist manifesto are heterodox; but that's the point and that should be made clear in future edits. Boosters point to how the approach can be far more equitable than the current prescriptions mostly dictated by the developed world. A possible source could be https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/business/an-environmentalist-call-to-look-past-sustainable-development.html?_r=1
Mulling this over to improve the section and just wanted to put it out here, especially for your thoughts about this @Hobomok AliChavo (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This section of the talk page isn't about the Ecomodernist Manifesto.--Hobomok (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that the section is about the mainifesto not Ecomodernism as a whole. I will keep that in mind and add to it.
Meanwhile I took issue with your undo of the change I made -- not sure I see how that reference was a "topic sentence" and I hope you can agree with me or convince me here AliChavo (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It is a topic sentence that sets up the rest of the paragraphs, and refers back to previous writing on the page. That is how topic sentences work. It is long-standing material on the page. Please make a case for deleting it. It is not on me to convince you; rather, it works the other way around. If you'd like to make the change, you must make a case and reach some type of consensus here, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--Hobomok (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Some observations on the Shellenberger contentions

Note: This got too long to retain as an inline response, so I section it, and that wasn't enough to I added quick headings.
one foot in, one foot out

I don't have the bandwidth right now to wade into this very far, but I will make a few quick observations. There are twin debates here about process and balance. It appears that Shellenberger has some legitimate reasons to question balance, but I also don't think he has a deep understanding of Wikipedia process. I also have a vague impression that Hobomok is hiding a bit too much behind process and not taking some of the balance claims as seriously as they warrant (I reserve the right to completely change my mind on subsequent reading).

on blurb COI

Where real progress toward resolution can be made is untangling how process and balance are strange bedfellows on Wikipedia, not always for a malign reason. The blurb COI problem is a perfect example. By Wikipedia's citation policy, in order to state that there's a COI problem, that should be cited, otherwise it tilts into original research (OR). But that tends to be hard to cite other than in generality. What credible source has bothered to commit to the public record that Shellenberger's blurbs are an in-house love fest? This would come across as a personal attack, because this practice is now endemic. But if blurbs do run afoul of being an in-house love fest, quoting them without commenting on the COI does not serve the balance mandate. But we can't properly comment on the COI without external citations, which typically don't exist, and if they did exist, would probably come from a quadrant justifiably accused of axe-grinding. What it finally means is that Wikipedia should on principle abstain from recycling blurbs when there's any real controversy behind the issue. This book was guaranteed to fall into that camp. This is why industries have COI guidelines in the first place: the currency of the blurb depended upon this. But the sheer verticality of the modern publication industry makes upholding their old COI norms next to impossible. That's an unfortunate consequence of scale compaction. But I don't see any way this can not therefore put Wikipedia out of the business of taking blurbs seriously.

on private communication

The business of citing private communications between two people who are obviously not getting along famously is fraught with peril. Sometimes private communication works, sometimes it does not. When it doesn't, the he said/she said rehash only muddies the water. And that happens in marriage too, often without any particular bad faith on either side. Can't see eye to eye is sometimes indicative of bad faith, but by no means always, and there's no sane method to diagnose the difference at the end of the day. You tried, it seems not to have satisfied either party. That's unfortunate, but it needs to be forgotten and what remains needs to be addressed in the public process, without this legacy of private interpersonal friction hanging over it.

on source priority

To Shellenberger on the matter of Wikipedia privileging some sources over others. Yes this exists, but not as an algorithm to compel balance by some kind of robotic adherence. The main reason for the hierarchy is to prevent cherry picking wars where fringe sources displace more central sources, at the hands of a tenacious partisan. And really what the MSM halo represents (most of the time) is sobriety. Big central players indulge less often in outrageous mischaracterization, by the principle that people with smaller sticks to swing find it necessary to exaggerate the follow through. You can still get it dreadfully wrong swinging a giant stick carelessly; dreadfully wrong, but also less lurid. Less lurid is a big deal here. Wrong is simply too big a battle to consistently win. At the same time, just because sources with premium citations halos exist, we're not obligated to use them. What to select of what's available is a balance issue, and the balance issue is not a straw poll of the astroturfed public forum, no matter whether it's the NYT participating in the astroturf (no, not the MSM, you say?)

on BLP ethics

At the same time, this is a BLP page, and the person covered is entirely within his or her rights to show up and point out the lie of the land. We have quite a large moral obligation to characterize the lie of land with at least a rudimentary approximation to notional balance. Shellenberger needs to bear in mind that this is a crowd-sourced environment, which is a process downgrade from herding cats. The problem is that pages never stay put. Even the most conscientious editors are only willing to work so hard to find the magic balance point in the face of inevitable future erosion. I learned this lesson painfully many years ago. I went to a lot of trouble to craft some exposition about some extremely subtle nuances (without overstating the known facts on either side) and with weeks afterwards someone had decided that my careful prose was an impediment to careless reading and it was mangled beyond all recognition for a 5% improvement in making the word order more direct. But since I'm a systems theorist by heart, instead of having a giant rage sulk I assessed the systemic forces and realized I was the one pissing up an unsustainable tree. Balance is important, but clunky and durable wins the day.

on the relentless uphill battle of ecorealism

I'm very much myself in the ecorealist camp and my sympathies lie with those who are brave enough to wade into this space, which can't be done without warts. To live up to the standards of the bitter reaction against Bjørn Lomborg when he first emerged, he would have needed to hold five or ten different PhDs spanning widely diverse fields. This was an insanely smug response from academic institutionalism, who really should have been investing more time discussing their own is/ought problem. Most of these physical science people are highly trained in "is" (what you can measure and document) and not very well trained in "ought" whatsoever (nor is their peer review process even structured in principle to do a solid job in the "ought" domain). Economics is a social science which does at least attempt to get its arm around the ought problem (necessary corrective responses), however dismally. I considered Lomborg to have better credentials in the "ought" domain than 90% of his bitter critics.

on the circularity of divisiveness

The most difficult issue here seems to me to be the circularity of the "divisiveness" issue. Any critique of an entrenched divisive camp is met with allegations of fresh divisiveness. Uprooting entrenched divisiveness is necessarily also an act of aggressive divisiveness. I mean, it's a dumb thing, because how much "broad" consensus was there in the first place? You see statements that 90,000 scientists now all agree that humans are impacting the Earth's ecosystem. Really, you don't say? What a surprise to encounter this incredibly broad consensus that Earth is a closed system in many important respects. But of course, as you move downstream from this foundational doctrine of the "is" space, the many tendrilled hydra of the age-old scientific contest soon rears its ugly head. What would actually be useful is that all 90,000 dozen scientists agreed on the precise order in which we should address the many proposed tipping points. Permafrost methane vs ocean acidification, things like that. But really all we have is a shaggy bag of tipping points, and the rivalry to gain attention for your pet tipping point (and the funding resources necessary to continue research) is largely confined to shadowy assassination in dark corridors within the church.

on blunt process

Nevertheless, my message to Shellenberger is that he needs to reconcile himself to Wikipedia being a rather blunt process in the balance domain. However, within the confines of this admittedly low bar, we really should try to to the right thing here, because how we handle BLP on Wikipedia is the number one test for whether this culture will endure in the long haul. Every day I see more screeds (from both sides) wailing about Wikipedia claiming to represent central truth (by people who only want partisan truth to circulate anywhere). Wikipedia does not claim to represent truth, but this "subtlety"—which is not actually a subtlety, but the most important single plank in Wikipedia's mission statement—is never going to gain traction with those masses. If the wedge does finally arrive to topple Wikipedia, it will arrive via accumulated hostility toward perceived caprice in the BLP space. Low bar by old traditions, yet high stakes in the new world order all the same, as I see this.

mea culpa

Well, it seems I've put my neck out there as the resident camp counsellor, FWIW. My apologies that it's a bit of a wall of text, but I've much exceeded my bandwidth budget just getting my thoughts on record on the way by. — MaxEnt 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Briefly put: Whenever i see an article compiling no less than 10 sources in the introduction to stress a certain PoV, whereas other positions are almost completely ignored in said intro, i immediatedly know there is personal bias involved. That said, Shellenbergers books have apparently been praised by reliable mainstream sources: the article itselfs states so. I dont understand why this is completely ignored, whereas much lesser important sources - mostly opinion pieces in niche outlets - are prominently highlighted in the intro. Very interesting indeed. Rka001 (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Shellenberger/Archive_1&oldid=1125212854"