Talk:Andrey Illarionov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrey Illarionov article.
Article policies

William M. Connolley: someone who thinks that climate change is a bad thing criticises climate change; surely Illarionev criticises climate-change theory? Also, why should 'climate change' be capitalised on its first appearance (especially when that makes the internal link go to a redirect)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, with regard to the other changes: I don't see the point of changing '2003 World Climate Change Conference' to the obscure and jargony 'wccc2003', and describing the questions as 'fairly naive' is definitely PoV (and over-egging the pudding). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Expansion of wccc2003 is fine; not sure what you mean about capitalising cl ch; as to what AI is actually criticising I don't know and doubt he does either. Describing the Q's as naive is being kind to him. But I won't fight it.
It looks as though you're right with regard to Illarionov's confusion (which doesn't even seem to be part of a clever but cynical political ploy to gain influence...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Huge Bias

Andrei Illarionov is noted for other things besides his comments on global warming. This article is clearly biased in favor of GW. In fact, GW appears more central than Illarionov himself.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_24/b3787624.htm

Here you will find more substantive information.

(William M. Connolley 21:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) Unfortunately the only people who seem to be interesting in editing this article are those interested in the GW aspects. If you're interested in the rest, why not add some?
I agree that there's a huge POW bias in this article. I found this link through the front page as he was featured in the news section, and having read the article, all I know about him is how he's against the Kyoto Protocol, with an obvious slant that he must be wrong. I don't know anything about him to add more, or else I would contribute.--Ataricodfish 05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It is unfortunate. Presumably he has done other things. He is hopelessly wrong on the science of climate change (I'll leave the economics to other people). William M. Connolley 17:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

Actually the bias seems to have swung towards Illarionov's POV.

I removed the following section:

At the 2003 World Climate Change Conference in Moscow he asked ten questions on climate change which were poorly answered.[7]

This appears to be based on a press conference held by Illarionov when he asked these questions of people that were not present and therefore unable to respond!! - Dean Morrison

[edit] Link does not work

the link numbered [3] that points to:

http://www.ito.umnw.ethz.ch/SysEcol/Articles_Reports/Illarionov_Interv._9.Jul.04.pdf

does not work. Please change/update! ( User User:Msoos, not logged in. 195.56.194.129)


[edit] Profanity and Vandalism

Someone, and I don't know who exactly, seems to have erased this entire article, and then left the words " SuCk My D***" in its place. I don't know exactly how to find out who did it, but it is VERY rude, offensive, and above all makes Wikipedia look like some second rate internet blog that can be erased and vandalized. This looked even worse when one realizes that this was actually an article that was featured on the FIRST PAGE of the WIKIPEDIA homepage as latest news. It demeans this site, and makes WIKIPEDIA look pathetic as an encyclopedia when some a$$wipe goes on to do stuff like this.

I erased the comments, but I don't know how to track the person, if anyone knows how, I think that person should be banned.

It's really sad when some nerd with nothing to do in his shallow, pathetic life decides to do things like this. - - - ->Persianlor

              Seems someone already managed to place the proper text back in, great to see it

[edit] Andrei and Andrey

On a very minor note, wouldn't it be better to say "which uses an alternative transliteration..." instead of "which has an alternative transliteration of the Cyrillic letter 'й'"? Thanks to the person who repaired that sentance, I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that Andrei is a perfectly accurate spelling to Андрeй.

[edit] this is so political

I noticed much of this article seems to be biased as anti - Illarionov, even pro-Kyoto protocol. If you read between the lines of what Illarionov asked you can see he is more trying to prove a point then ask questions. While this may be deceptive in nature, his points are clearly logical and the actual true answers (which are not provided in a specific sense at all, I did look very hard) to these questions would be very telling and extremely pertinent to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As with the many debates of this era, all too often Politics, narrow vision and prejudice trump logic. Whether your personal opinion or belief is for or against Illarionov's point of view, it is impossible to avoid the rational conclusion that to drastically reduce current Human created CO2 emissions will either A- Reduce GNP B- Dramatically increase the availability Nuclear power or C- Create new technologies which decrease our dependence on Fossil fuels. This is sound logic and the basics of what he says minus the specific Russian impact. In a nutshell I think everyone agrees that Fossil fuels are bad for the environment, the question is how bad and what should we do about it. The question of how bad has become so distorted that it is impossible to rationally discuss. I believe both sides are guilty of flawed logic, twisting data and cooking the books to get their opinion across. For example, In America some of the far right seems to say it is all a illusion and there is no global warming and if there even is, Humans have nothing at all to do with it. On the other hand the far left wont even discuss the sound logic that a natural event such as the undersea volcanic eruptions, cows, hot springs and even earthquakes can greatly over shadow anything the human race can or ever has or will produce. Obviously Natural phenomenon is the major cause for climate change by a quite some degree, but we should not be ignorant as to the effects we have on the environment. Nature every once in awhile shows up to the party and shows us all who the true force is in this universe, it humbles everyone from the save the whales but don’t save the unborn children, tree hugging peace activist to the SUV driving , homophobic, my god is better than yours, corporate redneck. It is my hope that those powers that be will use logic and truth; rather than emotions and politics to determine how and when we will reduce the negative effect we as a sentient symbiotic element in this ecosystem create.