Talk:Global Climate Coalition

Untitled

The content of this Article is non-neutral.

A more neutral article, I propose, would start with a more generally-acceptable premise: various groups, for various reasons, have differing ideas on the rate of global climate change, the amount of human impact on that change, and the strategies that each nation should take to deal with that change. The GCC (based on their published charter) advocated a response working on a longer time-scale, and involving more non-U.S. activity, than other responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty. 67.184.231.94 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.231.94 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

do they have another homesite which is in use?

No. They are late and unlamented William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. One would hope that the neutrality of Wikipedia info related to the environment, is not being decided based on this William M. Connolley's judgement. For him to post this remark, and not mark the content of the information on GCC as non-neutral, is disappointing. 67.184.231.94 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why has a lot of companies been removed from the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.212.53 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote from subject's mission statement from home page of subject's web site presented in Wikipedia voice

Sources

• "Home". Global Climate Coalition. Archived from the original on March 2, 2001. Retrieved February 18, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

  The Global Climate Coalition is an organization of trade associations established in 1989 to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.

• Franz, Wendy E. (1998). "Science, skeptics, and non-state actors in the greenhouse" (PDF). Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Retrieved February 12, 2016.

  The GCC was established in 1989 to coordinate business participation in the science and policy debate on the climate change issue.

Alternative summarizations of sources

1. Summarization of sources with quotation to identify direct quote and with in-text attribution for possible bias:

   According to the home page of their website, GCC was established "to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming."

2. Lifted to Wikipedia voice (no in-text attribution for possible bias, no quotes identifying direct quote):

   GCC was formed to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.

Discussion

Two policies are relevant here.

1. WP:COPYVIO A copyright violation in a source may not be used to justify a copyright violation by Wikipedia.
2. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV We are asked to provide our readers with in-text attribution when a source is reasonably thought to have bias relevant to the claim drawn from the source.

The context of this content is, we provide our readers with brief summarizations of what multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources have to say regarding the reasons behind the founding of the subject of this article, then follow with two sentences briefly summarizes what the subject of this article itself had to say about its reasons for being. The subjects of Wikipedia articles do not get to write their own Wikipedia article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Errrm, but sourcing it to the their own homepage only is dishonest. Its in your ref too William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The org's home page of their website is used to source a brief direct quote from their mission statement, with in-text attribution as per policy, and an academic paper from a Harvard researcher lends some due weight WP:USEBYOTHERS. There are no "my refs" or "your refs", everything belongs to the foundation when you press save. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that you can source it from there doesn't make it the only source. Your ref Glantz (http://live.belfercenter.org/files/Science Skeptics and Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse - E-98-18.pdf) says the same William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The intended purpose at the time of the founding of GCC has diverse treatment in reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources quote directly GCC's mission statement from the home page of their website on first introduction of the GCC, citations available on request, so a brief direct quote from GCC's own mission statement is due weight and useful for balance, and only after reliable secondary sources. Franz closely paraphrased rather than directly quoting; while that may be acceptable editorial practice at the Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, we are prohibited by policy from closely paraphrasing. Also, your most recent preferred edit directly quotes a primary, self-published, biased source, the GCC's mission statement from its website, without quotation marks, and without in-text attribution, in clear violation of our sourcing and neutrality policies. As a clear copyright violation, your most recent preferred edit is eligible for immediate removal and exempt from edit warring guidelines. Kindly self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20010302000601/http://www.globalclimate.org/index.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright statement from source: "Copyright © 2000 Global Climate Coalition, All rights reserved." Hugh (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Summarization of historical context of founding of subject of article

Sources

• Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Organized climate change denial" (PDF). The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. pp. 144–160. ISBN 9780199566600.

  The Global Climate Coaltion (GCC), formed in 1989 in reaction to establishment of the IPCC, was an early front group designed to combat evidence of climate change and climate policy making.

• McGregor, Ian (2008). Organising to Influence the Global Politics of Climate Change (PDF). Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference. Retrieved February 16, 2016.

  One of the reasons given for its formation was that in 1988 there was a “very alarmist presentation by James Hansen of NASA to a Senate Committee that climate change was taking place.”

• Mooney, Chris (May 2005). "Some Like It Hot". Mother Jones. Retrieved April 29, 2007.

  The concept of global warming didn’t enter the public consciousness until the 1980s. During a sweltering summer in 1988, pioneering NASA climatologist James Hansen famously told Congress he believed with “99 percent confidence” that a long-term warming trend had begun, probably caused by the greenhouse effect. As environmentalists and some in Congress began to call for reduced emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, industry fought back. In 1989, the petroleum and automotive industries and the National Association of Manufacturers forged the Global Climate Coalition...

Alternative summarizations of sources

1. GCC was perhaps formed in reaction to the 1988 establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to NASA climatologist James Hansen's congressional testimony.

2. Context for the founding of the GCC from 1988 included the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA climatologist James Hansen's congressional testimony.

Discussion

Support 2. We are expected to provide context to our readers so that they can better understand the content of our articles. Multiple reliable sources cover the immediately preceding historical context of the founding of the GCC, and so it is due weight for us to do so as well. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Although only nations and non-profits may send official delegates to the United Nations Climate Change conferences, GCC registered with...

Although only nations and non-profits may send official delegates to the United Nations Climate Change conferences, GCC registered with... doesn't make sense. The GCC was a non-profit, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Global Climate Coalition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

• It's all good, but for sake of stylistic purposes, I would allow some adequate spacing before and after the "equal" signs in the infobox
  •  Done

Lead

• The lead is a bit too small for an article of this length; with the information out there available, I would add a bit more detail here
  •  Done lede expanded a bit
• You could perhaps expand on this statement (for an example): "The GCC dissolved in 2001 after membership declines in the face of public criticism." ... Why did the "GCC" received public criticism?? Just a thought
  •  Done

Founding

Paragraph 1

• "The GCC was formed to represent..." --> "The GCC was also formed to represent..."
• "mitigate global warming.[5][6] and to challenge..." --> "mitigate global warming,[5][6] and to challenge..."
  •  Done
• "The government affairs offices of several corporations..." --> "The government affairs' offices of several corporations..."
  •  Done
• "The government affairs offices of several corporations..." --> Which corporations?
  •  Done clarified "five or six" as per source

Paragraph 2

• There are two back–to–back "According to" statements here; please reword one of them (either or, I have no preference in this situation.)
  •  Done

Paragraph 3

• You use "GCC" quite often, and could substitute the word for things such as "the organization", "the group", "the advocacy group", etc.
  •  Done GCC referred to itself as "the coalition" on its website
• "GCC reorganized independently in 1992.[2] GCC’s first chairman of the board of directors was the director of government relations for the Phillips Petroleum Company.[14]" --> "GCC reorganized independently in 1992,[2] with the first chairman of the board of directors being the director of government relations for the Phillips Petroleum Company.[14]"
  •  Done

Advocacy activities

Paragraph 1

• "lobbyists..." --> Shouldn't it be "lobbyist groups"?
  •  Done
• Rest is great

Paragraph 2

• Again, you use "GCC" quite often; please do a few substitutions here and there
  •  Done

Paragraph 4

• Please insert "US" in between "In 1990, after" and "President George H. W. Bush..."
  •  Done

• When did the GCC distribute a half–hour video entitled The Greening of Planet Earth? Include the year here please (and approximate month and date if applicable of course.)
  •  Done

Paragraph 8

• I don't know how useful this information is within the entire scope of the article; yes, the reference is a really good one, but the facts from the given article are a bit trivial and unfortunately do not really contribute to the article as a whole (I'm recommending you remove this paragraph altogether.)

Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer

• "The draft document was disclosed as part of a 2007 lawsuit.[54][55]" --> Could you expand on this? What lawsuit? What happened in the lawsuit? Who(m) or what parties were involved in the lawsuit? Etc.
  • added additional detail of lawsuit from reliable source The New York Times

IPCC Second Assessment Report

• Again, you use "GCC" quite often; please do a few substitutions here and there
  •  Done
• "In 1996, prior to the publication of the Second Assessment Report, GCC distributed a report entitled The IPCC: Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing to reporters, US Congressmen, and scientists, which said that Benjamin D. Santer, the lead author of Chapter 8 in the assessment, entitled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," had altered the text, after acceptance by the Working Group, and without approval of the authors, to strike content characterizing the uncertainty of the science." --> This sentence is way too long; I'm not saying it needs to be condensed, because all of the information within this statement is really good and factual, but what I'm saying is you need to break it up into several sentences (at the very least, more than one sentence)
  •  Done

Opposition to Kyoto Protocol

• Please do a few substitutions here and there
  •  Done
• "50¢ more..." --> "50 cents more..." (Just because I noticed on my iPad it wasn't appearing properly.)
  •  Done
• "GCC opposed signing of the Kyoto Protocol by Clinton.[70]" --> "GCC opposed the signing of the Kyoto Protocol by Clinton.[70]"
  •  Done

Membership decline and dissolution

• Please do a few substitutions here and there, again
  •  Done
• "In 1999, Ford Motor Company was the first US company to withdraw, "the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming," according to the New York Times.[85]" --> I don't think this reads properly; whatever is leading up to the quote needs to be reworded so that the reader knows what the quote is pointing at
  • clarified

Reception

• Please remove the link to the article for the Los Angeles Times, as you previously linked this article in the section titled "IPCC Second Assessment Report"
  • earlier wikilink not found
• You could probably put all three of these paragraphs into one
  •  Done

Members

• So that the article doesn't look much larger than it actually is, I would put a double colspan on this so it looks a bit reduced, but you're not actually removing any information from the article (and maintaining character count.)
  •  Done

End of GA Review:

A very good article with some minor issues. I will be placing this article "ON HOLD" for seven days to allow for these changes. Please @PING me with any further questions, comments, or concerns and I will try to respond as soon as possible. Thanks and good luck! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

@HughD: Please @PING me once you are done. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Thank you very much for your thorough and careful read! Hugh (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV in the intro

@Prinsgezinde:, why are you using a less neutral intro vs the long standing version of the text? It's worth noting that the source you are trying to use contains an amendment that is a reasonable basis for to use the more neutral "skeptic" vs "denialist" term. It notes:

The later version was distributed publicly in 1998, but existed in some form as early as 1995, according to an online archive kept by Greenpeace. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was “the rate and magnitude of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ (warming) that will result.”

So it isn't correct to act like the coalition was simply denying GW hence the "denialist" label doesn't really fit. Also, per NPOV we should use more neutral terms vs provocative labels when speaking in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Your view that "skepticism" is more neutral than "denial" (instead of favouring these proclaimed "skeptics") is very debatable. There is no reason not to be consistent here with our article climate change denial (see also that article's terminology section). According to the source, they were aware of the changing climate due to their own research yet tried to make it appear as if they weren't convinced. That's not skepticism, that's intentional denial. I'll try to find extra sources if you want, but I've just removed the term for now since it's not that important. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say they are a denialist organization. To show that you need to show that they deny any climate change occurs. You may be right in that anymore people have conflated denial and skeptic but that doesn't mean we should. The article cites a document filed in a federal lawsuit. So what they have is not something that has been proven but a claim being put forth by a litigant. We don't accept court testimony as factual so why would we accept pretrial claims as anything more substantial. You cite a 2009 article. Do you have information on the outcome of the court case? Springee (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is a source that explicitly uses the words "Global Climate Coalition" and "denial" in the same sentence: "Some corporations in these sectors channel their denialist activities through seemingly independent organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE)" It was easy to find. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "long standing text" is an empty argument. See WP:Consensus can change and WP:CONTENTAGE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree consensus can change but when there is a dispute as there was previously the previous text is assumed to be the consensus version. When Prinsgezinde's change was disputed the correct thing to do was not edit war what they wanted but open a discussion and get a new consensus. That is standard BRD which wasn't being followed. As for the sources that say denial, Per wp:label we shouldn't use contentious or value laden labels even if some sources do. If the label is wisely used then we must use an in text attribution. The same is true for accusatory statements such as "The coalition knew it could not deny..." Springee (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to join the discussion only mean to help stay focussed on content and good arguments. You may or may not be right on the editor-behavior comments but this is not the place to toss those back and forth. Per WP:FOC behavioral complaints and allegations (ironically like this one) belong on user talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A cultural difference maybe. I genuinely could not believe you disputed the claims, which in my opinion were very clearly supported and uncontroversial. It seemed WP:POINTY, which is why I reacted in such a way. I'll assume I was wrong about that then. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the subject: "Climate change denial" is now the usual wording. Within science, there is nothing "contentious" about it. The WP article about the phenomenon is Climate change denial, and it contains the sourced sentence "From 1989 onwards industry funded organisations including the Global Climate Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute sought to spread doubt among the public, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry.[73][74][75]". Prinsgezinde's edit was fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ruder Finn

GCC was run by Ruder Finn, a public relations firm.

This is not historically accurate. GCC was run by the E. Bruce Harrison Company from 1989-1996. It was founded by Patricia Harrison and her husband E. Bruce Harrison. They sold the company in 1996 to Ruder Finn. This error has also been noted by RF reps on their Wikipedia talk page:

"Ruder Finn did not run the GCC, a subsidiary company that was later acquired by Ruder Finn provided counsel to the GCC."

This is important to fix because the history of the E. Bruce Harrison Company has been whitewashed and made almost invisible. They are historically important in the history of climate change denial and anti-environmentalism, and were the driving force fighting on behalf of chemical companies against Rachel Carson and environmental legislation.

Later, they were the PR firm who helped fossil fuel companies fight against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They invented the "clean coal" nonsense, are given credit for inventing corporate greenwashing and are deeply connected to the conservative political movement in the US.

More recently in the news, we've all heard about how Exxon Mobil was filmed admitting that they supported a carbon tax purely as a public relations ploy intended to stall or hinder actual climate mitigation strategies. I think if you look closely at this ploy, you'll find the fingerprints of the E. Bruce Harrison Company. It's likely they invented it decades ago.

The greatest trick they ever pulled was convincing the world they never existed. It's time to fix the historical record and bring them back into the spotlight. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I created Harrison's article and added him here. I've come across conflicting information about whether Harrison founded GCC or joined it later, so I didn't go into any detail. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)