Talk:Ted Nordhaus

Untitled

I made two restorations. The first was restoring "Slate Magazine" which another editor had changed to the name of the reporter, Keith Kloor. It is customary to refer to what publications say, not specific authors. The article notes that Death of environmentalism was covered by particular publications, not particular people. Same should be true for Slate reference. The second was specifying the complaint by Nordhaus and Schellenberger against green culture. The quote marks added by the prior editor left the impression that the article used the words "fatuous" and "empty" which I couldn't find in them.CindyMeyers (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical analysis

Hello. Here is a link (found by chance via Google scholar while I was looking for info on ocean acidification (serendipity) that contains a critical analysis that seems interesting about the "embarrassing" (according to the authors) nature of the work of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger when they attack the environmental movement : https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22150+scientists%22+26++acidification+++oceans&btnG= I am not English and do not feel able to practice English to integrate this into the article. --Lamiot (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I’d be happy to take a look at this and potentially add it, especially as I try to edit down the promotional nature of Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s pages. However, I’m not sure which article in the google scholar results that you’re referring to. Could you point me to to the specific article you’re referencing? - Hobomok (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for pinging you—ignore my previous comment, I found what you are referencing. Hobomok (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your message/ping --Lamiot (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC).

PR article

The article seems to have been written as an advertisement. It follows the "collect everything positive that has ever been somewhere said about them and build it to an article"-principle, without giving a real relevant overview of the reception and activities. As usual the interpretations are also questionable, for example "Breakthrough Institute analyses of energy, conservation and innovation policy have been cited by US President Barack Obama". 1. Were their analyses a main point for him somewhere or does he regularly cite them or so? (the government cites tons of things) 2. The source doesn't say that. The articles simply states something from a report from them (and other institutions) and states something about Obama. Guess that's enough to bring in the Obama name for recognition. The contributions leading to the articles look suspicious (several accounts created just for Nordhaus and his partner), which may explain the article. [1][2][3] --2001:A62:489:8701:5C3D:ED24:A98:BBB0 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Publicity

As many have said here, this page was created by the same accounts that created the Michael Shellenberger page, and it reads almost exactly the same (as promotion). I've recently tried to cut a lot of promotional fluff from Shellenberger's page, so I've done the same in the same manner here. --Hobomok (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Breakthrough Institute founded in 2003?

According to the institutes websites about page, it was founded in 2007. Curiously, the institute is already mentioned in a 2005 article form the NYT. The article is used as source for this page, however, here it reads founded in 2003? It doesn't help that reading Mr. Shellenbergers page on the institutes website one finds the date mentioned on this page, yet one might be cautious using the organizations own website as source especially considering the inconsistency observed. So we got three different dates, each used for a different wiki article. Might be good to look into making it consistent across all three pages, hence I will start this topic for the other two pages as well.

Kind regards, 178.115.75.53 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)