Talk:Craig D. Idso

This Funding Thing

On several pages dealing with people that hold contrary views on global warming, the writers (I'm not sure who) link to Exxon Secrets as though they are a reliable and unbiased source. I think that this is inappropriate behavior. It would be more appropriate to say that such things have been suggested or said about them, but this is clearly taking sides. That is not appropriate. I request that this be either removed or linked to as an example of criticism, but not objective fact. I expect better from you as an online encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.134.134 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) You know what, I made it more unbiased myself. It now has "has been accused" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.134.134 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Accused of of receiving funding from ExxonMobil"

The disclaimer that "Idso has been accused of receiving funding from ExxonMobil" is innuendo. Every scientist receives funds from some source. Most climate scienticst in the UN Climate Panel, I belive, are mostly sponsored by governments. So should'n every Wikipedia article on scientists paid by governments, say that they are accused of receiving funds for politicians and government. I'm willing to put up a web site accusing every one of them of receiving funds from the government, if that's what it takes to get some justice here. Clearly, what this disclaimer is, is a piece of ideologically based innuendo, false ideology, as marxists would put it, that government paid scientist are pure, and that scientists that have received funding from non-governmental corporations are dirty. Another ideology says that it's power that corrupts. Should Wikipedia subscribe to any of those ideologies? So either this disclaimer should apply to all funded scientist, or they should apply to no one.--85.165.64.30 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Innuendo is exactly what it is, and it breaches Wikipedia policy to slander people in living biographies.Alex Harvey (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias, bias, bias by WP... Here we go again with the WP pro AGW position. Let's have the very first paragraph in the Global Warming page site how many hundreds of millions in funding the IPCC pro AGW contibutors recieved to do thier studies. I'm so sick of these eco freak AGW editors on this site !!! 68.56.175.27 (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Looks like there's new attempts to slander/innuendo on this point again. I just did an undo, I don't plan on babysitting it. Theosis4u (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Exxon-Mobil public disclosures support the claim

I note that we have an editor claiming to be the subject of this article and saying in an edit summary "our organization does not receive funding from ExxonMobil. This is false." [1]

However we also have Exxon-Mobil's own public disclosures, such as this one from the ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report, in which Exxon Mobil lists the Center as a recipient of significant donations from Exxon-Mobil Corporation. Harvard Professor Dr. James McCarthy also used this disclosure in his evidence before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science Committee. [2].

In the circumstances, a denial by the recipient carries little weight. --TS 01:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Craig

Can we add this photo of him? A quick google image search showed this image is widely distributed http://cloud.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Idso-Craig.gif Gise-354x (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Heartland Institute scandal

The discussion of Idso's involvement in payments from the Heartland Institute was removed from the article. The leak has been widely reported and is certainly notable. Idso's involvement has likewise been discussed in multiple articles. I can not imagine the basis to say his involvement is not notable or that we lack adequate sources. The Heartland Institute has denied the content is entirely genuine, although we are not required to wait until they do to include it in the article, we merely need to make sure the reporting on it is clear. Objections to restoring the content to the article? --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The basis for saying that we lack adequate sources is the basis named in my deletion edit summary. The Guardian, while making their own sympathies obvious, still makes it clear that they are reporting on documents 'leaked' to a blog, documents of unknown provenance published on a blog that cannot be considered a reliable source. The Guardian article, says in its lead: "Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest." and later: "If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution. [Emphasis mine --B.]

As to the reliability of Desmogblog, I quote from the same guardian article: "Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack." Subsquent developments show that the first assertion, that they came from an insider, was almost certainly false, in that Peter Gleick (an outsider) has acknowledged that he obtained all but one of the documents by deception and that he provided the documents to "journalists and experts working on climate issues."[3]. All this is perepheral, of course, in that Wikipedia policy clearly forbids the use of personal blogs as sources for the Biographies of Living Persons (See WP:BLPSPS).

All this does not mean that I would not find it notable that Idso recieves funding from the Heartland institute, just as a vast number of Wikipedia articles on figures involved in politically charged controversies strive to find a connection between who pays the piper and what the piper pipes (perhaps on the theory that only when someone produces work detrimental to his employer's interests is it provably free from bias). All I ask is that you find a reliable source for the supposed facts. (See WP:RS) I should also mention that usages such as "The documents leaked in the Heartland Institute document leak indicate Idso is paid $11,600...," even if provably true, will not do in a BLP article, unless accompanied by the opinion of a reliable source that what the documents indicate is true — i.e. actually a part of the subject's biography. We should not like to see BLPs with sentences such as, "Documents published on the Free Republic website indicate that James Hansen was paid $11,600 a month by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection for unknown services." I made this up of course, but I'm sure you get my point. Why not look for a better source for this piper-paying info? Perhaps a journalist has already confirmed it with the Heartland Institute, right? —Blanchette (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the Idso-H.I. link is worthy of being promoted into the article text. What the Heartland Institute budget says is that Idso along with his co-authors is being paid a stipend for his work on the NIPCC report. The article currently reads like this (proposed change highlighted):

• [Singer] is co-author with Fred Singer and Robert M. Carter of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a study group of global warming skeptics.[refs]

Without relying on the leaked documents, and the delicate piper-paying question, we could change it to something like this:

• [Singer] is co-author with Fred Singer and Robert M. Carter of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),[refs] a [[climate change denial]] project sponsored by the [[Heartland Institute#Positions]].

To my mind the encyclopedia-worthy content is that Idso is collaborating with the H.I. in this effort. You could find that out right now. The citation for the NIPCC report says it is published by the H.I. -- M.boli (talk) 12:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Blanchette's comments, I don't see a BLP issue here since we're reporting on what was reported in reliable sources, not sourcing anything to the blog. The fact that the original publisher was a blog is immaterial to my read. We report it because the press has found cause to report it. There's a difference between us sourcing original documents published on a blog and sourcing a series of newspaper articles reporting on the same documents. The prohibition on using personal blogs as a source does not extend so far as to prohibit something reported in reliable sources because the same thing was in a blog at one point. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to personalize it for you. Balderdash.com, claims to have obtained secret documents from the computer of the Pacific Institute regarding Wikipedia editor TeaDrinker in which TeaDrinker acknowledges the $10,000 payoff he recently obtained from the Pacific Institute for planting negative information about AGW skeptics on Wikipedia. The Washington Times reports that, "according to the 'Pacificgate' documents obtained by Balderdash.com, the editor known as TeaDrinker received $10,000 from the Pacific Institute to plant negative information about AGW skeptics on Wikipedia.

You're telling me that you honestly believe it is within the BLP policy guidelines to add to the biography of (let's call you ) Tom TeaDrinker the "reliably sourced" information that: "The documents leaked in the Pacific Institute document leak indicate Tom TeaDrinker was paid $10,000 by the Institute for planting negative information about AGW skeptics on Wikipedia as part of its advocacy related to climate science."

Because it was reported in a reliable source, you'd be fine with that, right? Please, as an administrator you surely know that your position is way outside the guidelines, including the spirit of WP:BLP in general, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPGOSSIP ("Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true;..." — Remember, the Guardian says "if authentic."), and WP:BLPSPS.

Why not take a breather and wait until the payments in question are known with some degree of reliability? Personally, I think there is a good chance that these payments are real; so what harm is there in waiting? If you think that this information is so vital that it must be included in Wikipedia right now, I disagree, and I think we should take our disagreement to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard [4]. —Blanchette (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're waiting for, in terms of reliable sourcing. But yes, if a reliable source reported (particularly if it was reported several times) I was taking kickbacks, and I had an article, it most not a BLP violation to include mention in the article. If it is otherwise a notable fact, and it seems like it would be, it should be included in the article. BLP is not some circumnavigation of no original research, requiring us to evaluate reliably sourced information and include only those bits we think are certainly true, it is in place to prevent legal objection for defamatory, unsourced claims. This has been reported in several WP:RS articles, ergo it is not a BLP violation to describe it as they have described it.

How about we add the more recent Guardian article, which describes Idso's payment thus: "Mashey said in a telephone interview that the complaint looked at the activities of Heartland and two other organisations that have been prominent in misinforming the public about climate change , the Science and Environmental Policy Project, run by Fred Singer, and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, run by Craig Idso . Both men were funded by Heartland, with Idso receiving $11,600 per month and Singer $5,500 a month, according to the 2012 budget." I would be happy to discuss this on WP:BLP/N, but we should at least attempt to reach an agreement here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, my instinct was right, and you didn't have to wait long for a supposedly reliable source to decide that the document in question was authentic and report its content as fact, rather than as something that would be fact "if authentic." Be sure to make note of any before/after changes in Dr. Idso's scientific conclusions that may be attributable to his connection to the Heartland Institute, should you have a reliable source, such as the Guardian, for that information. —Blanchette (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that we have information on a change of position because of the funding. However I have added a cited sentence about the funding. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to step on your addition, but perhaps you can fix it up a bit.

1. The reference should be fleshed out with author and url.
2. The amount is wrong. As you correctly noted earlier in this discussion thread: the Guardian says Idso receives $11,600 per month, during 2012.
3. The budget document goes further and says it is a stipend for editing the NIPCC report, the stipend started in mid-2010 and ends mid-2013.

We disagree whether it is particularly encyclopedia-worthy that Idso receives a stipend for editing a big report. But no matter, it is more important that we get it right. M.boli (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions; I had read this article on National Newspapers (a subscription service) which didn't list the author or have a stable URL, however it appears that the Guardian has put it up online. I have amended the citation accordingly. I think we need to find reliable (secondary) sourcing for the rest before we include it, but certainly the more context the better. Its encyclopedic value is, I think, demonstrated in the multiple references to it in the international media. He was mentioned more often for this in perhaps the past year than for other issues, so it seems reasonable to include a bit on it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Craig D. Idso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104165110/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129014955/http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/e23g446528875r35/ to http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/e23g446528875r35/

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) 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)