Talk:George C. Marshall Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] bias

This article is biased. It is less about information on the Institute and more an exposé on their funders and members. I am going to re-write this article when I have time, unless those who wrote it origially care to remove biased statements and replace them with actual information about the institute. Ehidle 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is biased. Its on wikipedia and its about global warming. Need I say more? :) The machine512 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Financial motives

Regarding this addition:

Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, says that scientists who question whether global warming is real "are quickly labeled [as] having received money from the petroleum industry. The media considers their findings and their opinions to be somehow tainted because they've got a financial relationship. If you believe that financial interests drive results, then you need to look at everyone's financial interests and agendas." (National Journal, April 2, 2005)

This is a rhetorical quote that has no place or meaning in the article. "you need to look at everyone's financial interests" what does that mean? that other people are being funded by partisan sources? In fact most scientists work in an open manner and if there were any problem, don't you think we would have heard about it by now? Kueter is making a generalized unsubstantiated accusation -- if it is included in the article it needs to be done so for a reason, and not just non-factual rhetoric and spreading more FUD. -- Stbalbach 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how the views of the institute's president could be considered unworthy of inclusion in the article. How about balancing his viewpoint with an opposing one? --Uncle Ed 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the point of this article to get into a debate about the nature of funding in the sciences. If there is a reason for putting this quote in the article than say so, but just because the president said it doesn't give it any special authority - for all we know this is his personal opinion and not that of the institute. People say a lot of things but that doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach - the article from which the quotation is taken starts out Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, complains that the mainstream media does not respect climate-change research conducted by industry-funded groups, such as his Washington think tank. How in the world can you think what he said, to a reporter, and then had republished on the institute's website, is a "personal opinion"? Or that he wasn't specifically attacking the critics of (and I quote from the first sentence) his Washington think tank. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Is part of the group's purpose to publicize contrarian views? If so, the director's assertion that views are driven by money would relate to his group's purpose. His view is in conflict with Stbalbach's view, but that alone is insufficente to remove it.

Can we agree here that well-referenced information should not be deleted from an article simply on the grounds that it advance a particular point of view? --Uncle Ed 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)