Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 2 February 2009 (→Recent edit by GoRight: And please look at the policy I linked above, GoRight). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Histrefverif

Minor edit request

I'm not sure how to go about such a request, but I believe a minor edit in the Statements section should not be controversial. In the statement that begins 'When asked about "science skeptics" I believe that the way it is currently written makes it sound like Dr. Hansen improperly used English grammar in his statement, which is incorrect. Instead of saying:

he replied that he "actually don't like...

I believe it would be better:

he replied "I actually don't like... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedonnelley (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mirror Effect

Hansen claims the government has been editing his work, but that is exactly what he's been doing to anyone who disagrees with his doomsday theory. Ironically, he and his supporters have been going out of their way to discredit anyone who is skepitcal of his work. unsigned contribution by 63.231.72.96 at 00:14, 24 October 2006

How do you propose to improve the article? rewinn 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Bias

There are several highly biased remarks in this article.

"He is a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's ideology on climate change."

In this context, *Ideology* implies that all the facts are on only one side of the issue. I suggest using *position* instead.

"Opposing Greenhouse Skeptics" "He lists a number of areas where he disagrees with the global warming skeptic"

And similar comments. Granted *skeptic* is the term Dr. Hansen uses to try and undermine his opponents - but it is really name calling, and, as such, is a form of bias. Dr. Hansen himself is just as skeptical of the opposite side.

Remember, if other scientists were not trying to prove the other side of the theory, then this would be a religion - science requires that both points of view be investigated.

Using terms like "greenhouse gas theory opponents" would be better.

Of course, if it is a quote it must not be changed.

Remember, the antropogenic global warming theory is still not proved. At best, even if Dr. Hansen is correct, it will take over 200 years to prove climate change simply because any changes over a shorter time period are just weather.

Q Science 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The word skeptic is NPOV and accurate. A skeptic is one who disbelieves, which is the case for Global Warming Skeptics. In science, no theory is ever completely proven since science by definition is always open to contrary data. The statement "it will take over 200 years to prove climate change simply because any changes over a shorter time period are just weather" is simply false. rewinn 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why some interesting facts about Hansen were omitted, thereby making this article highly biased and hagiographical? James Hansen asserted before the US Congress 1988 that until the end of Century temeprature will rise 0.3 degrees and sea level about three feet (temperature rose o,1 degree and sea level maybe 1 cm!). Further, he predicted that sea level will rise in the next century 50 m, and than corrected himself, decreasing prediction at 10 m. Why do you conceal from readers those very interesting facts? Also, highly biased and partisan is description of his dispute with Bush administration on so called censoring. Why didn't you mention that Hansen was on pay roll of Heinz foundation, run by Tereza Heinz, wife of Jim Kerry, in the very moment he atacked Bush environment policy, a couple of weeks before elections 2004? --Trapatoni 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you supply some links here on the talk page, we can discuss your proposed revisions. Until then, there's nothing to talk about. I would suggest that you stop blanking the article; it doesn't help. rewinn 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You wanted to say that editor didn't know (and don't know now) that Hansen was on Heinz foundation's payroll (received $250 000 grant from them)? Just compare silence about this fact with extensive coverage of Lindzen's ties with fossil fuel industry. NPOV? It took me less than two minuts of googling to find the link for this http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200603%5CPOL20060323a.html. If you request, I could provide you with much more material to correct this highly biased article on Hansen.--Trapatoni 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In the very same article I linked you had one more interesting citation, showing Hansen agreed with Schneider in justifying political misuse of science in order to improve "political awareness" of the public: "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue." "Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions." It is possible to insert additional sentence or paragraph in th earticle, noting that oponents charge that Hansen justifies political misuse of science, adding above citation in main text. It is also possible to add a link towards some of the Michaels' papers or articles claiming Hansens's inconsistencies about scientifical issues. If you say that you have no sources I shall again provide you with links.--Trapatoni 09:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise a number of points

• A Heinz foundation grant.
  • You have offered no reputable link for the claim; "cnsnews.com" appears to be a blog. If the grant really exists, please find a link to it; best of course would be the foundation's own site.

Well the problem with that link is that it doesnt mention, or confirm, the $250,000 awarded to James Hansen, just that he has won an award from the Heinz foundation. The implication in the article is that Hansen compromised his integrity by supporting and endorsing the Kerry's in exchange for the $$$. As the Heinz award fails to mention the cash it doesnt support the point being made (and thats why wikipedia is so cool). This NASA link, his employer at the time, is much better as it mentions the speech, the award and the cash on its official web site:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010305/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.96.79 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • What is notable about such a grant? If you are going to list every grant the fellow won, the article will probably be very long
  • How would mentioning such a grant improve the article, and where would you put the content? Please specify.
• Political misuse of science.
  • Again, please supply a reputable link.
  • The entire quote supports the concept that Hansen supports "demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions". How is that political misuse of science?
  • Please note that the word "may" in the first part of the quote does not support your claim that Hansen agrees with Schneider. When a scientist uses "may" in such a context, it means that the scientist is not in that sentence offering an opinion on the issue. The quote does not support "political misuse of science"
• Since you wish to edit the article, it really is up to you to find reputable sources. Blanking the article is never a good idea rewinn 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hansen received an award from the Heinz foundation. This is not a grant. It was in the late 90s. You could google it.

Hansen said>Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue." "Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions He admitted in first centence that previous scenarios were misuse of science. In the second centence he warns that now its time for more realistic models since politicians and public accepted agenda. So, maybe (this is your scientific "may") it was justified to use flawed and alarmists scenarios in the past, but not anymore because people already bought our story in the meantime.

Oh, how you are uniformed. You even don't know if Hansen received that grant from Heinz foundation. In the text that I linked he himself conceded that! Read careffully. HE HIMSELF CONCEDED. But, ok, you don't believe him. So, I again googled for a minute and voila, what I found. Acceptance speach of James Hansen, posted on official website of Heinz foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6. Award was received, as you can see.

Mentioning this grant would improve the article in the same manner in which mentioning Lindzen's ties for fossil fluel industry improved article on him. Further, Hansen sharply critisized Bush, in capmaign 2004 and later accused his administration for censoring, and this controversy was covered in the article. Wouldn't be interesting and informing for readers to know that Hansen has a very close ties with democrats, and that even received $250 000 from them? Without this part, the story would not be complete (maybe this could undermine Hansen's moral posture, but we sloudn't care about this, I hope...).

I didn't know that blogs are not reputable sources. I have found on climate topics on wiki a large number of blogs linked as reputable sources, specially realclimate.org. Maybe you want to suggerst that some blogs are reputable while the other ones are not?--Trapatoni 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Concerning the grant: you now say you have sourced to the website of the grantor. Congratulations! That would be the sort of scholarship that wikipedia intends! Now, how would you put it into the article in a useful way? Remember, top scientists get a lot of grants from a lot of people, so you will want to review the policy on undue weight
• Concerning blogs, please read at the top of this talk page the following:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,

If you follow the link "poorly sourced" you will learn why blogs are not appropriate sources in general.

• Concerning the "Emphasis" quote: your characterization of Hansen's attitudes flies in the face of the plain text; it is not an admission of anything.
• Concerning your ad hominem remarks: they don't improve the article. I have treated you with respect, and hope you would do the same if you wish the respect to continue. rewinn 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

JR2020 comments

I agree with Trapatoni. This article strikes me as very biased. I agree that the section “Opposing Greenhouse Skeptics” would be better named “Greenhouse Opponents”. Though it is true that skepticism is part and parcel of good science, the global warming debate has, unfortunately, become highly politicized. Proponents of the anthropogenic GHG global warming theory routinely use the terms ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ as pejoratives when speaking to less scientifically literate political adherents as a way of attacking and marginalizing opponents.

This bias is also clearly present in the block quote from Hansen. The quote would be equally true, but oppositely biased, if the term “skeptics” was replaced by “proponents”. It is suggested that this quote block be removed entirely.

Furthermore, in reading the above discussion I get the impression that Trapatoni has been very “respectful”. Rewinn’s suggestion that he has behaved otherwise is undeserved. JR2020 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Concerning article bias: you offer no evidence. An editor's opinion is not evidence
• Concerning "Skeptics": the word is not perjorative
• Concerning "respectfulness": the phrase "Oh, how you are uniformed" is but one example of an ad hominem attack, since it concerns an editor rather than the article or the subject of the article. If I were to point out that the above is your only contribution to wikipedia so far, and that the only link on your talk page is to a singularly idiotic blog propounding the widely discreditted theory of the solar cycle theory of catatrophic global warming, that too would be an ad hominem attack. So I won't. rewinn 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!! Now there’s a rude introduction to the wild world of Misplaced Pages discussions! A few mild comments yield a nasty ad hominem outburst (cute denial notwithstanding.) Trapatoni’s 'disrespectful' remarks were the model of benign politeness by comparison.

But I suppose this is just one more example of how politicized global warming advocacy is doing damage to discourse on the subject not to mention damage to science in general.

But you’re right that “skeptic” is ordinarily not pejorative. In its proper scientific context skepticism is an indispensable virtue - every good scientist is a skeptic by nature and training. However, it is pejorative if the user intends it to be, as is all too common in the current highly politicized AGW debate. It’s kind of like “lawyer” isn’t pejorative - that is, unless it’s intended that way (Eg. “expletive expletive lawyer” - which those hostile to lawyers take to be triply redundant.)

You want evidence? Well, there’s lots of it, as I’m sure you’re aware. For example:

- Ellen Goodman’s recent piece in the Boston Globe (“...Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers...”) epitomizes the ‘skeptic as pejorative’ mentality. I hardly think she would consider AGW skepticism a scientific virtue.

- The Hansen quote is another, much less extreme example. But then Hansen is a scientist and Goodman is just a demagogic journalist.

- Then, there’s your own obvious bias, made even clearer with your casual dismissal of the entire solar research community (including those at the Danish Centre for Sun Climate Research, The Max Planck Institute and CERN) as “widely discredited.” These scientists are attacked by AGW zealots simply for the sin of doing science that could lead to an ‘undesirable’ conclusion - that solar variation and not AGW is the primary driver of climate change - an intuitively reasonable idea from the get-go. Though much of their work is very promising, none of them would be so arrogant as to suggest any of climate science is “settled.”

JR2020 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see that my example has taught you how inappropriate ad hominem attacks may be. I hope you and Traptone will refrain in the future
• You may wish to use indenting to facilitate discussion threading
• Your Goodman quote does not use the word "skeptic" and therefore does not support your claim about the word "skeptic"
• Your claim about "my" obvious bias rests solely upon a purported dismisal of MPI and CERN data; however you don't point out where I have done so nor do you point out where MPI and CERN claim the solar cycle is more important than anthropogenic factor. To save you a little time, I will point out that of course there is data that the solar cycle impacts the earth's temparture (we would inhabit a chilly little ball without the Sun) but that cycle's impact on GCC is much much smaller than human-induced factors: neither MPI nor CERN dispute that.
• It's important to remember this is the James Hansen article, not the Global Warming article. Discussion of the latter topic belongs on the latter page. rewinn 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example. So, I point out your over-reaction to Trapatoni’s gentle tap and you assault me with a two-by-four to ‘teach me a lesson’. Nice.

Goodman quote. Please. Both you and I know that ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ are routinely conflated by AGW zealots. Again, do you really think Goodman’s ‘deniers’ excludes ‘skeptics’? Anyway, examples are plentiful - see here, here, here and here.

Science vs hype. I recommend that both you and Dr. Hansen view the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” at YouTube. It’s full of scientifically credible ‘skeptics’ / ‘deniers’ / ‘heretics’ from the round the world (the IPCC too) concerned about the global warming hysteria being pumped by Al Gore, environmentalists and the media. Despite the inflammatory title it’s well done. JR2020 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Traptoni Comments

Concerning the grant - what we concluded? In the context of Hansen-Bush relationship you think the fact that Hansen have close ties with Bush's political oponents, including receiving $250 000 grant from them, is not important for your readers. So much about NPOV.

I described in my previous post how I think it could be possible and appropriate to include in the article materials I provided for you. Please read againg. If you don't want to include them because they crush your hagiography of Hansen, say that openly and we shall not waste our time anymore.

I apologize if you thought my remarks were ad hominem. I just was puzzled that you hadn't enough time to google half a minute to find out interesting data about Hansen's ties with democrats. All of that was commonly known and widely commented in the public, so I concluded that you intentionally omitted "inconvinient truth" in order to preserve your hagiographic picture of Hansen. If the articles on every single "sceptic" on wikipedia 9such as Lindzen include their funding, and most often their ties with fossil fuel industry, why article on Hansen shouldn't include similar information. Or you think that climate alrmists are people of "special kind"?

Your extreme bias is obvious also in refusing to quote Hasen about adopting "more realistic climate models" (since in the past we used to promote extreme scenarios and alarmist agenda).

Concerning poorly sourced claims you objected to me, in the Lindzen article on wiki there is only one newpaper text as a "source" for his alegged FF ties. What's the difference? Did you, per Lindzen's analogiam, would think I found reliable source if I cite some newspaper article on Hansen's Heinz connection? --Trapatoni 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• About the grant: you haven't proposed how to update the article. It's not my job to do edits you think are important. If you want to list all Hansen's awards and grants, go ahead; just be NPOV about it
• As to googling: it is not my job to do research you think is important
• About "extreme bias": you have to distinguish between the article, which you claim is biased, and the individual contributors. If by "your extreme bias" you are referring to a particular contributor, whose only crime is to decline to make contributions you want, I'm afraid you need to reexam the edit history, and to re-read ad hominem
• As to the Hansen quote: you misquote him; as has been discussed above, he did not in that quote say he ever promoted extreme scenarios. This Talk page is not a blog; it is about improving the article; repeating an unsupported and near-libelous claim does not improve the article.
• As for a purported Lindzen article: (a) if you want that article to be considered in discussing this article, you need to link the article (again, it's not my job to do your citation work), and (b) if you don't like that article, go edit that article. rewinn 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Grant - I propose following: In the section Rewriting the science, you can include information that opponents say Hansen was motivated to confront Bush by his close ties with Democratic party officials, for example Al Gore and Jhon Kerry. Hansen critisized Bush many times, including presidential campaign 2004, three years after he received $250 000 grant from Heinz foundation run by Sernator Kerry's wife Tereza. In New York Times Hansen himself conceded that endorsing Kerry in that circumstances could harm his reputation reference my first link). You can link his speach on official website of Heinz foundation, and include first link I provided into external links. If I correctly understood, none of those you posted is not critical on Hansen. Isn't it litle biased? Further, I don't know why do you constantly talk about "all awards" Hansen received? We are talking about one specific award granted by foundation of Bush's main political opponents' wife. And we debate aboout this award in the context of his crititique of Bush. Conflict of interests, similar of one other climate scientists probably ahve that are funded by fossil fuel industry. Why it is not interesting and relevant for you is beyond me. Your silence only strenghten my doubts that political reasons are in question.

Quote - I challenge you to explain how I "misquoted" Hasnen? He doesn't say he promoted extreme scenarios, but praises scientific community for doing that, noting that that is not necessary anymore. If you choose to ignore elementary rules of logic and common sense and to deny obvious facts in order to preserve your hagiography of Hansen - go ahead, I cannot force you to show more intelectual honesty.

Extreme bias - how would you describe an article on controversial public person in which there is not one single critical note or reference or link, and in which some very inconvinient but publicly widely known and hotly debated facts are simply hidden? I thought you were author so I addressed to you personally. --Trapatoni 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Grant. You propose adding a claim that Hansen "confronted" Bush critics due to money from a grant, and to support this claim by evidencing the grant. This gives undue weight to the grant since (a) Hansen's attitude on global warming long preceeding the grant, (b) there is no evidence that Hansen has changed his attitude due to any grant, (c) mentioning one grant without mentioning at least the quantity of others he has received is a type specimen of undo weight.
• My motivations. Are not relevant to the article. Please use this Talk page to discuss the article
• Quote. Your ad hominem attack on me is duly noted. As to the quote itself, please quote where Hansen "praises scientific community" for having "promoted extreme scenarios". There is no such language there.
• Article Bias: See policy on biography of living persons, above. The mere fact that libelous charges are levelled against a person is insufficient reason to repeat them here. rewinn 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I achieve my goal. You clearly demonstrated bias and refuse to include any material that would endanger your hagiography of Hansen. I think it is sufficent for neutral observer to see how wikipedia in this context is completely partisan and unreliable source of information.

I wonder, whether you, as an author, have an obligation to defend some universal criteria held of authors in writing articles on wiki. If in many other cases of climate scientisits their funding or alegged funding is often cited as a reason to doubt their motives to hold peculiar scientific attitudes, why it would be any different with Hansen? Aren't many "sceptics" were sceptical long before they received any money from oil or other industries, just as Hansen was alarmist even before he received $250 000 from John Kerry's wife? Or you here are state within the state on wikipedia and have noting to do with standards that otherwise are paramount?

Citation> Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue." "Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions' said Hansen. Why "emphasis on extreme scenarios" was justified when "public and decision makers" were not aware of global warming problem but not anymore? And what he meant by such an "emphasis", if not scientifically dishonest fabrication of unsound scary stories in order to indoctrinate public and politicians (Schneiderian "combination of honesty and efficiency")? I am very curious to see your esoteric interpretation of those two sentences which will show what he really wanted to say, and why my exoteric, commonsensial understanding was not correct. You failed thus far to give any different interpretaion.

I think that dialogue with religious fanatics writing hagiographies of saints and not biographies od living persons is not possible. Only problem is that such medieval fanatism here is dressed up in scientific neutrality. --Trapatoni 08:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose that you be more polite and give up this "medieval fanaticism" nonsense. Otherwise you're too unpleasant to talk to William M. Connolley 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The poor fellow is just trolling now and I shan't feed it. rewinn 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article on Hansen is hagiography, and his hagiographer refuse to include any facts, even they being in full accordance with NPOV, that undermine saints' noble posture. I am sorry if hearing that simple fact is so "unpleasant".--Trapatoni 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, you included information about Heinz prize. But without any link or explanation why that could be interesting or even worth of mentioning. You critisized me for pointing this particular award while he received many other. Why did you made the same mystake?

Aditionally, I have one citation to propose for inclusion in the section with Hansen citaions.Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately than is generally realized…we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of ¾ +/- 1/4ºC, a warming rate of 0.15ºC +/- 0.05ºC per decade. This is from publication Hansen, J.E., and M. Sato, 2001. Trends of measures climate forcing agents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 14778-14783. Isn't this interesting - Hansen thinks that even low end of IPCC projected temperature rise may be exaggerated? To add salt on injury, Hnsen in other article criticises IPCC for being "undully pesimistic" about future global warming and confirms his low projections of T rise of 0,75 degrees C in next 50 years! Link towards Hansen's article is here: http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf.

Those two citations and links I provided show that Hansen in science is not as alarmist as in the public and in ideological arena. I think that including this citation will improve the article by pointing out complexity of Hansen's attitude towards global warming. I can propose you link with usefull comments http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/10/28/blowing-your-own-whistle/, which covers some of the issues I discussed earlier on here, and you dealt with in the article - "censoring" and so on. --89.216.167.216 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should surprise the reader from our editor. After he vigourosly defended Hansen's support to scientific lying in public interest denying it was any disputable, he suddenly included note on this topic, but without citation, in the very same paragraph where citations of Hansen's alarmist mantras are given, from the very same paper in which he wrote sentence on lying. If that sentence doesn't mean what I asserted it meant and what every reasonable person could see easily, why our editor failed to provide us with this 'benign' citation directly, instead via link toward 30-page paper in which reader must find on his own some sentence or paragraph (he doesn't know actually what to look for) that substantiate phrase from the article that "HAnsen wrote on past usefullness of climete models" blah blah. Why such an effort is made to hide this citation, specially if we take into account that five or six other citations are given from the same Hansen's paper? I propose to editor not to be so affraid. If he really believes that I wasn't right in saying that by that sentence Hansen supported lying in public interest let him simply share this sentence with readership. Go ahead - give to readers the chance to read directly how professor Hansen sees calling of scientist.

Apart from this strange maneuver to hide the sentence on lying, it is interesting also that editor doesn't cite from the very same Hansen's paper forcast of very small future warming I reffered to in my previous post.

So, reader should be aware that his article is highly biased and even deceptive in many ways unless serious changes are made. --89.216.167.216 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Clean Up

Although James Hansen's views are a part of the controversy about global warming, this page should is not the global warming controversy page. This page should give the reader a better understanding of James Hansen and not the areas of disagreement between him and his critics. The comparing of views of global warming skeptics and James Hansen should be moved to the global warming controversy page.

Also there should be a quotation section with James Hansen's quotes and a citation for the source. Not only will this allow the reader to determine the source of these comments, but also the date as climate science is changing quickly as well as the truth of his comments.

--Id447 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Monbiot

Hansen's recent paper Climate change and trace gases (currently ref 8) should not be explained using quotes from George Monbiot. Monbiot has paraphrased the paper fairly fairly (I think: I'm not a climate scientist) but that's not the point. Both Hansen and Monbiot are controversial figures. Having one describe the works of the other is unencyclopaedic - or it does neither of them any favours, anyway. Vinny Burgoo 17:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to "An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted."

Dr. Hansen is not only a climate scientist but a public figure who has his critics, such as, Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton, Patrick Michaels as noted on this page. This section addresses those concerns in way that does not require a scientific background.

The heading 'Opposing Greenhouse Skeptics' is incorrect since that section has nothing to indicate opposition to greenhouses. Does the author mean 'Opposing Global Warming Skeptics'? The 'Opposing Greenhouse Skeptics' section does very little to illuminate the life and works of James Hansen and should be deleted.

66.81.160.5 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

66.81.160.172 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hocomd's additions

I don't believe this is reasonable. If anywhere, it should go on global warming controversy William M. Connolley 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Hello - this article was one suggested for cleanup. I've started fixing the references, but there are a few other things I would like to do. The 'publications' section and 'who is responsible...' sections should not be just large quotes - if no one minds, I'll change that.Hal peridol 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...or I can just wait until someone else does it while I'm on the talk page :) Hal peridol 02:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

heh... Somebody needs to get rid of those butt-ugly boxed quotes, too. Raymond Arritt 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Usufruct & the Gorilla

Raymond says that there's no evidence that Hansen discovered usufruct in August 2007. Sure there is. In the referenced PDF of August 2007, he thanks a Jim Wine for schooling him in usufruct. By all means delete the quote as irrelevant or snide or misplaced but get yer facts straight. Vinny Burgoo 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. I didn't notice the acknowledgment at the end. As for irrelevant or snide, well... Raymond Arritt 22:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if this is left in, some context is needed? I can't understand what point is being made here. Hal peridol 23:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. I doubt if one person in a hundred knows what "usufruct" is so context is necessary if it's to be left in. The tone of the material suggests its originator was poking fun at Hansen, which is not appropriate for a biographical article. Raymond Arritt 00:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The snippet either needs expanding or dumping. It doesn't serve any legitimate purpose as it stands. (Sorry about that. It was, er, late.) An expanded version would mention that in the last year or so Hansen has become more overtly political, his pronouncements on global warming have become more extreme, and his behaviour and language have been somewhat unusual for someone who is both a senior civil servant and a senior scientist (at least by British standards). In a public e-mail about the discovery of errors in the US temperature record, Hansen apologized for the language he had used in a private e-mail sent a few days earlier to journalists: it was "immoderate. It was not ad hominem, though." A few days later he used strange and immoderate language in a second public e-mail, complaining about "the infamy, the infamy of the captains of industry" (they've all got it in for me), "big fish, really big fish" who employ "court jesters" to "serve as a distraction, a distraction from usufruct" - so godnose what the language in the private e-mail was like. And this week he claimed that the temperature records for South America and Africa (which, for the first time, he acknowledged are "regions of exceptionally poor data") are all but irrelevant to the big picture of global warming: Hansen made his name incorporating the southern hemisphere into the global record and now he says that most of the land in that hemisphere is irrelevant. He really does seem to be going off the rails. Not that Misplaced Pages should say that. But something should perhaps be said about the politicization of US climatology under his leadership. I also reckon there should be some mention of the US temperature errors, of this week's forced (should have been automatic) disclosure of GISS's method of adjusting global surface-station records and of Hansen's, at best, undignified responses to these events. But that's just me. Perhaps that would be too political or personal for Misplaced Pages. Something does need to be done to the article, though. Hansen is both quoted as saying that climate alarmism is no longer justified and reported to have become more extreme in his predictions in recent months. That apparent contradiction needs explaining somehow. Can it be explained without mentioning the alleged worthlessness of the African and South American data? The slight errors in the US record? The inappropriate reluctance to release the adjustment code? Hansen's loathing of public scrutiny and of big business? His increasingly odd language? Dunno. Vinny Burgoo 13:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of that stuff would belong, if it does, under global warming or gossip. It may all be true, but it's not necessarily notable in re bio James Hansen rewinn 15:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Djovani thinks that...

I think that in the section Statements must be included a critique of IPCC scenario prof Hansen developed in article that is already linked http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html. In that article Hansen among other things, says that "There are reasons to believe that the IPCC scenarios are unduly pessimistic. First, they ignore changes in emissions, some already underway, due to concerns about global warming. Second, they assume that true air pollution will continue to get worse, with O3 and CH4 and black carbon all greater in 2050 than in 2000. Third, they give short shrift to technology advances that can reduce emissions in the next 50 years…" and add that "current trends” growth rate of climate forcings…is at the low end of the IPCC range of 2-4W/m2. The IPCC scenario of 4 W/m2 requires a 4% per year exponential growth rate of CO2 emissions for 50 years and large growth of air pollution. The 4 W/m2 scenario yields dramatic climate change for the media to fixate upon, but it is implausible."

Such citations show that Hansen thinks the low end of IPCC projections is only justified. --Djovani 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC) F

Hansen's work on Global Cooling

I see several of you are fighting about including information on Dr. Hansen's possible support of Global Cooling back in the 70's. I agree that writing a program does not imply support. However, I have a problem with simply deleting the info because an "editorial in Investors Business Daily" isn't reliable enough - I agree that that is a bad reference, but a simple search found this September 19, 2007, Washington Times article which appears to be a reliable source. Unfortunately, I was not able to locate and read the original Science article - Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate - (because they want money to read it). Note that there is already a reference to it in Global cooling. At any rate, I think it is better to discuss the issue here than simply deleting edits. Q Science 00:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to read the article -- all you need to do is to notice who the authors are (it's the old Rasool and Schneider article, for those who want to save a click). Notice especially who isn't an author of that article. Raymond Arritt 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The latest version, apart from unfortunate grammar and lacking souce, tells us that Hansen's software was used to predict global cooling. This is about as relevant as "Gates's software was used bei the Hussein regime to prepare execution orders" in an article on Microsoft. Unless a stronger connection can be made, this is simply pointless. --Stephan Schulz 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

One source says that Hansen wrote a Washington Post article on the topic: "Global Warming Scientist Once Warned Of 'Ice Age'" Doug Ware - KUTV, Sep 22, 2007. There's no question that climate science has grown enormously in the last 36 years. And even modern scientists assert that aerosols have offset some of the warming that would have occurred otherwise. I think it would be better to include what we can find out about the 1971 or article to put it into context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

...and the reliability of that source is about nil. They cannot even keep apart CO2 and aerosols. Having access to the alleged WaPo article (if it exists) would be useful indeed. And looking again at the WaTimes article above that may be the ultimate cause of all this: That article does not claim that the 1971 article is by Hansen, only that he "appears" in it - apparently a program he wrote for Venusian atmosphere analysis was taken by someone else and applied to Earth. Hum....--Stephan Schulz 19:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The archive of WP issues that I have access to only goes back to 1987, so I can't track it down. If the work Hansen did was actually concerning Venus then we should mention that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this one will quietly die the death it deserves. Repeat after me "I must not believe things about science I read in newspapers unless corroborated by a reliable source". See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php for the gory details William M. Connolley 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

From my experience with matters like this, it is better to debunk an incorrect idea then to simply omit all reference to it. If omitted, helpful editors will keep trying to replace it. If it's more accurate, we should say something like, "An early climate model created by Hansen was used by other researchers in a 1971 paper that described the action of aerosols in atmospheric cooling." That would be better than igonoring the issue entirely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a totally non-notable issue that some partisans are trying to use to tar Hansen with. If its still around in a months time (which I don't believe and will put money on if you like) then we can debunk it in the article. This isn't wikinews William M. Connolley 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Either a month or five re-insertions, whichever comes first. Regardless of this recent editorial-page controversy, I'd be nice to get more info on his life and work prior to 2000. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply deleting references to Hansen's earlier work focusing on global cooling does not make this previous work disappear. Wiki community will keep working to stop this censorship. ObdediumObedium 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as we could find out, Hansen's early work dealt with the amosphere of Venus. If you have useful sources showing something else, please present them. --Stephan Schulz 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The first paper I'm aware of where he works on Earth's atmosphere is the 1974 Lacis and Hansen shortwave parameterization. As for the accusation of censorship, see Arritt's First Axiom here. Raymond Arritt 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have been following this story via Anthony Watt's blog. I must say that as a scientist, I find Hansen's behavior in many ways to be questionable...refusing to make the details of his calculations public, making unannounced and undocumented changes to datasets that are relied on by other scientists, and so forth. However, on the issue of global cooling, he seems to be in the clear. I have uploaded the 1971 Wash Post story under fair use for the purpose of scholarly review and discussion at Image:Hansen Wash Post.pdf. It makes clear that Mansool used an atmosphere software model that Hansen developed for study of Venus and applied it to atmospheric aerosols on Earth. Thatcher131 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rasool? If you're only reading AW you're probably getting a rather biased version. Updating of the T series is done constantly (obviously; otherwise people would complain it was out of date). The RC view is . But for present purposes it seems we agree William M. Connolley 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, Rasool. Sure, datasets change all the time, and I can't really get excercised over a change that was documented a week later, that seems NBD mostly. I am more concerned that McIntyre had to reverse-engineer the adjustment calculation because Hansen, a publicly funded scientist who has chosen to expound in a very public way, would not divulge it. And it turned out to have at least one error, of course. Thatcher131 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My version of Acrobat complains that the file is corrupted. I'd like to read the article, so could you give it another try? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It works with Apple Preview, Adobe 8.0.0 (Apple) and ghostview. Are you sure your download was ok? --Stephan Schulz 23:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It comes up OK in my Acrobat Reader v.7, but some of the text appears to overlap. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like a problem with the PDF, but with the original scan or even like a misprint of the newspaper. If you zoom in enough, you can make out most of the text (starting with the last good line):"in scattering or absorbing radiation from the sun or the earth". To overcome this difficulty Rasool and Schneider turned on (?) one of the world's largest and fastest computer at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers' Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University. --Stephan Schulz 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, tomorrow I'll try reading it on a real (i.e., non-Windows) computer. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can mail you a GIF version (136k) if you want it now. --Stephan Schulz 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a short article, and only a portion concerns Hansen. I'm about to step away from my computer, but maybe someone can simply transcribe the relevant portions? Stephan Schulz has already started us off. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I had an extra minute so here are a couple of paragraphs:

• "The area of greatest uncertainty," that study concluded, is "our current lack of knowledge" of the optical properties of man-made dust "in scattering or absorbing radiation from the sun or the earth". To overcome this difficulty Rasool and Schneider turned on (?) one of the world's largest and fastest computer at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centers' Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University.
• They also had available a computer program devoloped by Dr. James Hansen there to study the optical properties of the clouds of Venus. They applied the same program to make what Rasool called the first sphisticated calculations of fuel dust's sunlight scattering properties.

The latter paragraph is the only mention of Hansen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the Washington Post article. Did anyone else notice the following (in column 3)? Where did it come from? I know newspapers are lousy sources, but I don't believe the reporter just made it up.

A new ice age would flood the world's coastal cities ...

Does this mean that both global warming and global cooling will flood our cities? Q Science 05:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My guess is it's just your typical scientifically-illiterate reporter. At the last glacial maximum sea level was 120 meters lower than present. Raymond Arritt 05:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim Hansen's earlier prediction of coming Ice Age

Interesting opinion piece in the Investor's Business Daily based on a story in the Washington Post in 1971. Recently, global warming alarmists have tried to distance themselves from the prediction of a coming Ice Age back in the 70s. But it is hard to distance your camp when one of the leaders of the current alarmism was a leader of the Ice Age alarmism. I think this deserves to be in the article.RonCram 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wake up Ron, read the section above William M. Connolley 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Read the section just before this and weep. This tells you something about the quality of IBD as a source on science, not about Hansen. A simple sanity check also helps: In 1971 Hansen was a 30 year old postdoc. That is an achievement by itself (I never managed that ;-), but it also makes it rather unlikely that he was a leader of anything. --Stephan Schulz 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hansen has responded to the Looming Ice Age (non-)issue. Court jesters are out; swift-boating is in. (Back in?) Vinny Burgoo 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla

This heading is just silly. It's not explained in the text and will mean nothing to most readers. Iceage77 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, though, the title Hansen choose to discuss this matter under. Hansens chief involvement in this is his response, which is the document we've linked to. You might have chosen a different header, but you're not Hansen William M. Connolley 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that using for the title of the section Hansen's response to his critics violates NPOV and Undue Weight (not to mention being incomprehensible to 99% of our "Customers"). They are legitimate criticisms, even though he has offered a strong defense. Thatcher131 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe. I think the section needs to make clear that Hansen has never claimed anything sig over the 1934/98 matter - as far as I can tell he isn't changing his mind now. When it swapped from 34 to 98 sometime after 2001 no-one seemed to care much, or even notice William M. Connolley 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a problem with the popular press et al. Since this is his bio, coverage of this issue should be limited. More thorough coverage in Instrumental temperature record or Global warming controversies or some such. Thatcher131 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Investor's Business Daily provides more information on the funding behind the so-called 'lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government' in The Soros Threat To Democracy. Asteriks 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We might give that more weight if IBD had been more careful in reporting on Hansen's 1971 work (see above). •:• Will Beback •:• 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the amount quoted, but the fact that OSI supported Hansen is stated in OSI's 2006 annual report. . Thatcher131 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See also . Thatcher131 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was more than just a little bit of help. OSI (i.e. George Soros) supported Hansen to the tune of $720,000. That's a whole LOT of help! Hansen is not engaging in pure science here. 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoserjoe (talk • contribs)

Eh, IBD says up to $720,000. That's a lot of wiggle room and they don't say where that figure comes from. I agree that Hansen is not a poor apolitical scientist just trying to do his work; he's very political, just in the opposite direction from his critics. I am not aware of any scientist in my field calling someone who questions his findings as "court jesters." However this is my opinion only. Thatcher131 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This Soros funding is key to the Hansen bio. It will take a few days for the story to develop. Likely NASA General Counsel will rule on this, as all such outside funding must be reported to NASA as per civil servant rules. Will keep monitoring the situation, and include details as appropriate.Obedium 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Have people here ignored that this is an Editorial? And since we already have an example, (within the same week?,) that the IBD, is very lax in its review process and in factual checking, to the point of giving directly wrong information - it fails even basic rules of WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to extend that argument to include all editorials used on Misplaced Pages? After all, any editorial could be picked to pieces by editors. Its not whether the particular article is "reliable" but rather if the publisher qualifies. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) >

OSI didn't fund Hansen. GAP provided pro-bono legal help to Hansen. The OSI annual report tells you how much GAP got from OSI. I doesn't provide you any info as to how much (value of advice) Hansen got from GAP . Please stop believing IBD William M. Connolley 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats what the secondary source is for, to quantify the value. Its from a WP:RS and meets the criteria for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IBD has demonstrated its an unreliable source. Meanwhile, your new version is still wrong: there is no evidence that OSI arranged the funding for Hansen. OSI funded GAP, and was subsequently pleased to note that GAP helped Hansen. GAP is (I presume) funded by many people. You have no reason to pick out the OSI funding William M. Connolley 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IBD meets all the requirements spelled out in WP:RS and your assessment that is demonstrated its an unreliable source, is your opinion, and clearly not shared, as IBD is used as a source in lots of articles. I picked out OSI, because they specificly take credit for helping Hansen in the report.

Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your blockquote is fine; that GAP is an OSI grantee is true. Obviously OSI are happy to take credit for helping Hansen; perhaps the info belongs on the OSI page. But it doesn't work backwards: from the Hansen side, there is no reason to pick out any one funder. And, of course, you didn't pick out OSI for the reason you gave: you picked Soros because of the IBD piece. And of course IBD *doesnt* meet "all" the RS reqs: indeed it fails the very first one, ie "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". IBD has proved untrustworthy and biased in relation to Hansen William M. Connolley 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a HUGE reason to single in on one funder, a secondary source has singled it out, not any particular editor. Secondly, while IBD is not an “expert” on scientific matters, they are certainly notable on “political” matters, and that’s what this falls into, politics not science. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, IDB is in no way a reliable source. It's not even a classical newspaper, but a blown-up investors' brief. Anyways, the IBD article does not actually state any useful fact, it just produces a lot of spin. And your (TDC's) reasoning is a classical case of WP:SYN. The only reliable information we have is that GAP provided advice to Hansen, and that OSI provided some money (apparently not more than US$ 720000, although even that number seems to be fairly unconnected to the rest) to GAP. If you check out GAP, you can find their 2006 budget is just under US$ 2000000, so they have very significant income apart from OSI. --Stephan Schulz 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a terribly good interpretation of WP:SYN. The IBD is the secondary source, and it “specifically mentions” the OSI report as its primary. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The IBD is, quite simply, wrong. It also is extremely circumspect: "by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program That may have meant that". Also, this is not a report, but an editorial, i.e. an opinion piece. It is completely useless as a source.--Stephan Schulz 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if this standard was applied consistently. But on sceptic biographies, Exxon funding just has to be mentioned even if it's been channelled through multiple intermediaries. Iceage77 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency would be nice. Do you have a good example? William M. Connolley 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Milloy is the obvious example. Iceage77 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a very good one, if you mean stuff like In 2005, it was reported that non-profit organizations operating out of Milloy's home, and in some cases employing no staff, have received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News William M. Connolley 08:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hansens take on this is William M. Connolley 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

After looking at all the discussion here on talk, there is obviously a POV debate on this article. Your removal of the tag was unwarranted considering that despite what you personally may think of the material in question, many editors find it acceptable for the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A "POV debate"? Would that be about the correction made to Hansen's temperature calculations that made no significant difference to their answers then? That such a "weighty" matter only found a home on someone's blog rather than, say, a prestigious scientific journal, should give one pause for thought. William M. Connolley and Stephan Schulz have both been very clear on why this material is dubious. And, as for the claimed expertise of IBD, if its spouting nonsense on science (the most objective evidence we have), how can one begin to take it seriously on politics (among the most subjective arenas)? Furthermore, since this is a biography of a living person, we should be especially careful about publishing contentious material that (a) casts a potentially unfavourable light on the subject, and (b) smacks of recentism. Couldn't we just wait to find out what happens next? --Plumbago 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a POV problem. We have a disagreement about what should go in to the article, certainly. I would say that if you want a POV tag, you should have a distinct talk section to say so. I also think the tag should go only into the section in question (unless you really thinnk its the entire article). Note also that the text you think is worth a POV tag George Soros’ Open Society Institute has been arrainged legal and media advice to Hansen through the Government Accountability Project is wrong (or rather, there is no good evidence for it): we don't know that OSI arranged anything William M. Connolley 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on when an {{npov}} tag is inappropriate. The text merely says

It does not say that there actually is a POV problem—it merely says the neutrality is disputed. Clearly that's true here. On the other hand, all it takes is one editor for the neutrality to be disputed, and I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but it seems to me that some people will never change their minds. So, is the {{npov}} tag a badge of shame that should be removed once it is determined that a sole editor (for example) is holding an article hostage with it, or is it merely an informative tag that announces to readers that there is at least one editor who disputes this POV? Ben Hocking 16:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hansen statement

I recently added the following Hansen quote to the "statements" section:

• When testifying (as a private citizen) against construction of new coal-fired power plants, he stated "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

REFS: Climate, Coal and Crematoria Hansn's testimony before Iowa Utilities board More from NASA's Hansen on coal

Editor User:KimDabelsteinPetersen immediately removed the quote, commenting "rv cherry picked statement that fails to capture Hansens meaning (ie. carbon sequestration)"

Hansen's statement caused considerable controversy, documented in the references I cited. He's apparently used the crematoria analogy a couple of times: see http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/holocausts/ . The coal industry wasn't pleased at being compared to Nazi mass-murderers, but Hansen was unrepentant: in a letter to the National Mining Association, he wrote, "If this paragraph makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should.”

I rather admire Hansen for sticking to his guns, and agree with him that burning coal is just about the worst way possible to generate electricity. The quote I inserted illustrates his confrontational style and bulldog tenacity, and is both newsworthy and notable. This item also illustrates for the reader a fact-of-life for public figures: Hansen quite properly opened his Iowa testimony stating he was acting as a private citizen, not as a rep of NASA. But note the headline in his hometown newspaper: "More from NASA's Hansen on coal" . Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hansens statement may have caused considerable controversy - when taken out of context it seems extremely ...well.. extremist - but it is taken out of context. Hansen is not arguing for no new coal-plants in his testimony - he is arguing that "dirty" coal or coal without sequestration technology is bad.

Thus cherry-picking the statement and placing it without context is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV - and in this case also a violation of WP:BLP. And you aren't making it very much better by only presenting one side of this issue here. Sorry.

Having a section describing the various reactions in a neutral way here is not a problem - its the approach that you've chosen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree at all, but feel free to propose a revision -- that's the Misplaced Pages way, see Help:Reverting, particularly section 1.2: Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

My objection is per WP:BLP - which is the most important rule for biographies. And i'm sorry if you feel that my reversion in some way or form assumes bad faith - it doesn't. I took the time to read the reference first to determine if the quote was representative of Hansens view - and it wasn't. Quote's are specifically problematic since it is very hard to determine whether these are picked in a WP:NPOV way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To explain even further. If you take a look at the various links that you've provided for your argument that the quote should stand alone - then each and every one of them includes the caveat from Hansen that he is specifically talking about coal plants that do not have CCS technology. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I now have some idea of what your objection is, and can attempt to accomodate it.

I must remind you, though, that Hansen really did say what he said, and he has vigorously defended his comment. As you agree, it is noteworthy and, well, unusual for a senior Federal official to compare a major domestic industry to Nazi mass-murderers. Extended context, it seems to me, is secondary to such a deliberately inflammatory public statement. I think you'll agree, there's no question Hansen knew exactly what he was ssaying, and fully intended the resulting uproar.

I've reviewed Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons and see only NPOV as a possible objection to this quote. In my opinion, it's NPOV now. You don't agree. I'll see if I can accommodate you, but really, the onus is on you, I think, to edit the contribution. That's how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of biographies, WP:NPOV is specifically important (it has to be adhered to strictly). And as Hansen has very clearly stated that the statement is only valid with the caveat - then your addition is not WP:NPOV - and thus per WP:BLP must be reverted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to save a quote from Hansen to that effect? I haven't had time to look. Suppose we change the first sentence to "When testifying (as a private citizen) against construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking CCS technology, da da da." Would that suit you? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hansen's letters re his crematoria boxcar comments are at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/NMAletters_20071121.pdf . As you can see, his sequestration comments were not so closely connected as you suggest. Nevertheless, I will repost the quote to reflect this and give the more specific ref. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And once more - try reading Hansen's comment starting with "The only additional required explanation, clearly stated in my testimony...." (notice the focus on carbon capture). And of course the very last short paragraph: "For better understanding, I recommend a more careful reading of my testimony" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, this appears to be a pointless exercise. Tillman has inserted a referenced quote, and attempted to modify it to specify coal fired plants that do not perform carbon capture, and you simply have reverted it wholesale, including replacing the typo that Tillman fixed with the original typo ("climatoligists"). Wouldn't it be more productive to modify his wording to reach a compromise position rather than a complete revert? Crmanriq (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Kim, you are (again) clearly violating Misplaced Pages rules: see your talk, topic "Reversions" -- and many other users' complaints. This is your THIRD WARNING. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted per WP:BLP as said. You have to keep a strict neutral point of view on biographies. This particular quote without context is giving a false impression - not allowed per WP:BLP. And i'm very sorry - but i'm not going to do your work for you.. If you want the quote or articles referencing that quote - then you have to adhere to Misplaced Pages rules, that means strict adherence to NPOV on biographies - and more than just a quote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And will you please stop those threats? You are welcome to post a complaint about me - or take this particular issue to WP:BLP/N. You could also try to get a third opinion. But i'm rather certain about what the outcome will be. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I've attempted to accommodate your stated concerns, by adding a ref to the context and sharpening the cite to Hansen's exact remarks. I left a proposed rewrite here for three days, to no objection or reply. Your response, as usual, is simply to revert my contribution. Perhaps you simply don't want to see the quote here under any circumstances? Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a compromise - Tillman can do what WP requires: Write a NPOV description. Simply adding the quote, presents it without context - and with a contentious quote like this, it violates BLP policy (and for that matter policy on all articles). Tillman seems not to want to work out that particular NPOV description, and i have to say that i don't think that the quote is particularly interesting, so i am not going to do the work for him (which apparently he thinks i should).

To summarize: there is no doubt that Hansen said this - but there is also no doubt that it is said within a specific context - without that context the quote is presenting a scewed picture - violating NPOV. To add it, it has to be presented with a context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "compromise" and NPOV objection appear specious to me -- all of the background and context you request is briefly stated in the intro line, and readily available at the references. Don't you think that interested users can read these, and decide for themselves on the relevant context? If you have specific concerns, please edit the piece, don't delete it.

I see from your talk page that you are familiar with the 3RR. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ugly. Can the two of you agree to take this to WP:BLP/N, and to abide by whatever outcome is reached there? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A good idea - and the board is of course the final say on things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N requested ] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blogged this so I know all about it :-). The quote is accurate but unbalanced. Hansens position is very strongly against coal plants that don't sequester CO2. The article should say this, its a major part of what Hansen is currently pushing. The death trains is an exciting sound bite but less important, and one which he has at least partially backed off from. Mention it if necessary, but only as a small adjunct to the reasonned anti-coal position. FWIW, I don't think this is a BLP problem William M. Connolley (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From Tillman's last edit, it looked like he put the caveat in that this was related to non-capturing carbon plants. It seems that if one assumes good faith, (or at least assumes that Tillman is not vandalizing the page with his edit), then it would be incumbent on the follow-up editor to modify his change to be more NPOV, rather than simply reverting the entire change (including the fixing of a typo) back. The complete revert, followed by the "I'm not going to do your work for you" implies a sense of ownership of the page, where any editor would have to meet some unknown but arbitrary standard before the edit would be "accepted", otherwise it would simply be reverted. What would be an acceptable NPOV wording that would present this quote which Hansen seems to stand behind within the context that Hansen intended when he made the quote? Starting with

"*When testifying (as a private citizen) against construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking CCS technology, he stated "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." , , ."

The caveat is made that he testified as a private citizen. The further caveat is made that he was speaking against new plants which did not capture carbon. What further caveats, or other changes might be required? Crmanriq (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that quote is so potentially incentive and controversial, that more than just a little context is needed. What i'm looking for is a paragraph that explains the context in which the quote was delivered - and the various responses to it. The quote that Tillman is trying to insert isn't even complete - its taken from a paragraph the full quote is:

Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels. Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.

While i'm not assuming bad faith here, i have to say that i believe the quote is cherry-picked.

In a biography we are striving to provide a biographical description of a subject, and to include relevant and well-sourced material to (as good as possible) describe our subject. As the quote stands from Tillman - i do not see that it does so. A good way to present it would be to add a paragraph or more to describe Hansen's at times confrontational style, and give this quote as an example of this. I don't think that the quote in itself is notable or presents us with more insight into who Hansen is, what his opinions are or even is a specifically good example of Hansen's style. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you edit the section, rather than repeatedly reverting it? You have now reverted my contribution NINE times. Why don't you put some of this energy into trying to improve the article, rather than obstructing another editor? Pete Tillman (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tillman, i have reverted exactly as many times as you - and i have been constructively involved in the discussion here. This has gone beyond anything i've been involved in yet - and am strongly thinking about asking for a block for both of us here - because of revert violations. Its correct that i accidentally broke 3RR, since i knew that your reversions where timed with mine - so if you reverted, then i could safely do so. But i couldn't because you gamed the system by doing a 3RR violation - and then dragged me with you (hint: i may stand at 4RR but you are now at 5RR). The icing on that cake is the "warning" that you then placed on user page. Frankly a ban for both of us too cool down is called for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I don't think either of you should be blocked, but some cooling off is clearly in order. I've requested that the page be full-protected for a while. I'd do it myself but I'm "involved." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the page as requested. Please use this talk page and the BLP noticeboard to resolve the issue- not constant reversions. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Stopped by because the page protection caught my attention. Seems the entire section of "statements" should be removed as they are all contextless snippets and do appear to be cheery picking. If the quotes are deemed essential - then place them in context within the appropriate section of the article. So, why not delete the "bowl of cherries" and insist on proper context. As is the section has definite BLP problems. Vsmith (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some of these should be fleshed out though (if they aren't already), to present them in context. Quotes/statements without context are always problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This actually would solve a lot of the problems. If you prune the whole article back to what is especially notable, then you can get rid of a lot of the back/forth on the quotes. The "minor controversy" section under publications should go, as it does not appear any more notable than the "death train" quote, and the whole censorship claim could be pared back to about a paragraph to get rid of the question of undue weight. Would this be a more acceptable way to go for the page? Crmanriq (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As per KDP. They should be text-ified into a section something like "Position on global warming"; that could absorb "Responsibility for climate change", "Publications" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vsmith's comments and suggestions seem reasonable to me. At this point, I don't believe either KDP or myself should do the rewrite {rueful grin}. I would also draw attention to the "Correcting Climate Record Database" section, which is rambling and unbalanced.

As an interim measure, I suggest letting the contentious quote stand, but add a note that Hansen later apologized for his remarks (with cite). See BLP Noticeboard. Oh, and to lighten the air: Those Krazy Koal Kids! (last post). Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Hansen's death-train quote (and Kristallnacht "apology") is Yet Another validation of Godwin's Law... <GG>, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Kristallnacht other than by Pete Tillman for whom I would be reluctant to invoke Godwin's Law. rewinn (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This was in his "apology" for his coal-train crematorium remarks: "Can these crashing glaciers serve as a Krystal Nacht , and wake us up to the inhumane consequences of averting our eyes?" It's discussed at Misplaced Pages:BLP/N#James_Hansen -- the full, rambling apology/rant is at Hansen's site at Columbia. To quote myself, even Congresscritters, when caught slandering someone, generally manage to stay on-message for the duration of their apology. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Who was slandered, other than the crashing glaciers, who have so far stayed out of the discussion? rewinn (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Page unprotected, seems resolved? It looked like article protection was just preventing development, GDonato (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements from page

Removed the following. If they can be tied in to content, then put 'em back in context. Vsmith (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

==Statements==

Hansen has made a number of statements concerning global warming. Among these are:

• Warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO₂ greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH₄, and N₂O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO₂ and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. This does not alter the desirability of limiting CO₂ emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO₂ over aerosols
• A global tipping point will be reached in 10 years (starting from 2006) if levels of greenhouse gases such as methane and CO₂ are not reduced. Global warming at this point becomes unstoppable.
• Global warming was 0.5–0.75 °C in the past century, and about 0.3 °C in the last 25 years
• Climate sensitivity to CO₂ doubling is 3±1 °C.
• The dangerous concentration of CO₂ can be no more than approximately 450 ppm. However, he now believes that it is "probable that the dangerous level is even lower."
• A feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting greenhouse gases from the air.
• When asked about "science skeptics", he replied that he "actually don't like the word "skeptics" for them; I think it's better to call them "contrarians," because all scientists are skeptics. If you're not skeptical as a scientist, you're not going to be very successful. You have to continually ask yourself how well your theories agree with the real world, and you can't fudge that."

• When testifying (as a private citizen) against construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking CCS technology, he stated "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." , , .

Access to the web site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

The web site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ does not appear to be accessible from Brazil at the time of writing (7/4/2008 12:45).

In this because:

• the address is not being correctly resolved from where I am accessing the internet?
  (this seems unlikely, as at the present moment I have no obvious difficulty in accessing any other site)
• access to the site really is restricted?
  (perhaps it is restricted to US readers only)
• the site has been closed down because of the recent views on climate change expressed by the GISS head Dr. James Hansen (as reported on pages such as: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions)?
  (as this would be REALLY disturbing, I offer it only as an improbable cause)
• accesses from Brazilian addresses are being denied access for some obscure reason?
  (just a little natural paranoia which seems to fit with the subject and the times!)

Anyone else having trouble accessing http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ ?

Chris Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.4.101.216 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

death trains of a piece with trials statements?

So far we seem to have some stability with Hansen's advocacy for trials for crimes against humanity. But I think that there needs to be more context to the section. I believe that it's reasonable to resurrect the earlier death trains/crematoria statement in this context. To my eyes, they seem to be related and indicative that Hansen didn't just go off the deep end one day but that there's a progression of thought that led to his current advocacy which is deeply problematic, at least insofar as the US Constitution is concerned. TMLutas (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

oppose - this article is already plenty long enough without adding quotes that add no new information. In addition, the reason you give is to convert this article into a personal attack upon the article's subject (cf. "problematic"), which is not permissible. You are entitled to your personal beliefs but wikipedia is not a blog. rewinn (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable question to ask, where the heck did the idea to start holding show trials for currently non-illegal acts come from in James Hansen's head and the article doesn't draw a narrative right now. It currently gives the impression that this self-described middle-of-the-road conservative just decided one day that energy company executives should face a modern Nuremberg. Frankly, it makes a lot of sense that if you're drawing parallels between coal trains and death camp trains one year, down the road you're going to pop off about crimes against humanity and nature and advocate trials. There's a reasonable progression, a narrative that helps understand the man and where he's coming from. Now you can agree with the narrative or not as a POV but I don't think that Hansen would find the effort to place his idea within the context of his previous statements necessarily an insulting or aggressive act or an attack at all. Are the two related? Are there other statements and proposals that fit into this theme that he's made in the past? I think you find this to be a personal attack because you're embarrassed and feel that Hansen came off like something of a brownshirt. That's your problem. Quotations of a man's work that are not stripped of context but provide evidence of a theme or ideology or progression of thought definitely belongs. My question is whether there's more than just the crematoria stuff. Two items is pretty weak right now. If there were four or five and we picked the most representative three I'd be happy. Until then, it's a useful discussion in talk but not in the article. TMLutas (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

strong oppose - you're proposing original research into the article subject's mental processes. rewinn (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing original research. Frankly the man comes across as somewhat deranged as the article currently stands. Right now it's something like "Hi ho, I'm just a climate scientist pointing out an important scientific development and, oh, btw, I'd like trials for crimes against humanity putting in the dock major CEOs because I don't like their marketing". This sounds nuts unless you provide context. Frankly, I suspect it might sound nuts even after providing context but who knows, maybe not. Fine, you're anti-context but don't imagine that this does Hansen's image any favors. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (sorry, that was me TMLutas (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

* "It's a reasonable question to ask, where the heck did the idea to start holding show trials for currently non-illegal acts come from " proposes original research.

No, it does not. A proposal for original research on these lines would look like "Hey, let's figure out on our own what Hansen's up to". It would be structured in the form of a declarative sentence or group of sentences. A question, which is what I actually did, may be answered in a number of ways, one of which might very well be original research and thus not within the rules of Misplaced Pages as it currently stands. But there are other ways of answering such questions within the Misplaced Pages rules like finding reliable sources that have already answered that question and creating edits that cite those reliable sources. The question itself says nothing about the method of answering it. Your preconceptions have supplied that. TMLutas (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

* If it is your opinion that the quotes inaccurately represent the subject of the article, feel free to remove them; they aren't terribly representative of why the scientist is famous. Misplaced Pages is not a quote dictionary; quotes should be sparing especially when not central to the reason for the subject's notability; in this case, the article would be more solid without those quotes. rewinn (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove them? I think not. It is my opinion that the stated position of Hansen in favor of trials is of a piece with his more famous activism. It's a consequence of his earlier positions, some of which have been airbrushed out of previous versions of this article (see above). That was a semi-reasonable position prior to his latest round of interviews and congressional testimony. I think that it is less so now. TMLutas (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone else weighs in on this. You've made your position quite clear and, I hope, I have made mine clear. Let the process work thru. Remember, this is wikipedia and not wikiquote rewinn (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I wasn't letting the process work its way through. I proposed salvaging something that used to be in the article in the past with a new rationale (it may shed light on a larger theme in Hansen's activism) that avoids the past criticism (that the previously eliminated section was just a random selection of quotes and not encyclopedic) that got it pulled in the first place. I did it in talk instead of slapping it in the article. I'm answering criticism and looking for consensus. I am open to different ways to include this and other material. In fact, I've not actually backed a specific formulation in order to let the give and take of this conversation have the maximum chance of avoiding an edit war. I'll give things a week or two and answer other objections if they arise. TMLutas (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck with re-posting the coal-train = death-train quotes. I agree that they are significant and indicative of Hansen's character and personality (and not all negatively so), but there is a group here that adamantly opposes adding anything they consider "negative" about Hansen. I'll support you if you do repost this stuff, which is well-documented in the page history, or should be -- the discussion got scattered into several places. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC), Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

I'm not after a hit piece on the guy but NPOV doesn't mean turning human beings into plaster saints. Accuracy and balance should be the goal here as elsewhere. I hope that you're wrong that there's some sort of unencyclopedic cheering section camped here. We'll see. TMLutas (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine as is. Biographical articles are not wikiQuote, and do not nor can not include every quote that excites a subject's fans or detractors. Accusations of "cheering sections" or that editors seek to make the subject of the article "plaster saints" are unfounded and unhelpful.

Generally, biographies should avoid quotes unless the quote has become so famous that it has entered the general language (e.g. "Don't give up the ship!"), and in that case they go into a "quotes" section because the bare fact that a person can talk is not notable.

Using quotes to comment on a subject's "character" is OR; if that aspect of the subject's character is notable, the evidence of that character must be sourced to an authority, not implied by an editor's careful selection of quotations. In this case, the "larger them in Hansen's activism" that the quote is supposed to "shed light on" is ... what? The proposed quote sheds no clear light; more encyclopediac is to quote an authority on Hansen to state the desired theme explicitly, e.g. "Some people think Hansen opposes our Constitution or wants show trials or is generally problematic" or whatever it is you're trying to prove. rewinn (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If, as appears to be the case, Hansen believes that there is a viable coal burning = holocaust analogy and he uses that theme in his commentary over time, it is permissible and even laudable to lay out his thinking so people don't think "where the heck did *that* come from?" the next time he opens up in stark terms on coal industry execs or whoever fits in the category of his thematic villain, a modern day climatological SS. Now that isn't to say that this theme, this collection is established sufficiently for Misplaced Pages purposes. Certainly everything should be properly sourced and it be clear that this is indeed what Hansen believes. I think that there is a NY Times reporter that's already done yeoman's work digging this out, confirming with Hansen himself that he was not being libeled by this. Your characterization of my edits on this page is aggressive and tendentious, also false. Please don't make a habit of that. TMLutas (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Trains context

I came across two NY Times blog postings on the death trains controversy which I think adequately provide context and establish that this should be included in Hansen's page. The articles are here and here. After looking over this larger body, I think that that the trials statements and the death trains (as well as a trial balloon to throw in Kristal Nacht for good measure) do belong together but not as part of the section on censorship. Rather they look to me to fit better into their own section as Hansen seems to be clearly valuing humans as equal to other species (Peter Singer writes to agree), something that seems utterly unaddressed in the page as currently written. I'd like some discussion as to whether these two sources are a fair representation of Hansen's views and provide sufficient context. If you want to add a reference or two that's ok as well. Once we've agreed on what would make up a reasonable corpus to work from regarding this aspect of his views, we can work through how to capture them in an appropriate encyclopedic way. TMLutas (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. "Death trains" in any event is hardly notable. rewinn (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think saying that this isn't notable is a big stretch. I've re-added this with proper context. Oren0 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, but there's a contingent here that doesn't -- see above, and below. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

scibaby started editwar

We seem to have an editwar again on the article. This one started by a what is with high likelihood is a User:scibaby sockpuppet. I suggest that people calm down, and discuss it through.

If the quote should go onto the page - then a consensus to do so has to emerge, and that hasn't been the case. I haven't commented here since the last time that this issue was up - mostly because rewinn has argued the case from much the same point of view, as mine, and i suspect that the same is the case for many others.

Consensus can change, its part of the working process of wikipedia - but change it first before reinserting the quote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I read through Talk:James Hansen#Hansen statement above and I don't see any sort of consensus for exclusion. I see mainly you opposing it, which doesn't a consensus make. WP:CONS doesn't require broad agreement on every change to a page. In proper context, why should this quote be excluded (the fact that it could reflect negatively on Hansen is not a reason)? Oren0 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that this page seems to be heading "full steam ahead" towards full protection again. I'd also like to point out that reverting something like this (i.e an edit that several editors agree upon and obviously isn't vandalism) using rollback is a misuse of that privilege. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was (as I recall) that the quote was notable, and should be included in proper context. The last version by

I note with interest that User:Raul654 tagged his revert as "minor".... --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the consensus was to write a section describing Hansen's position without quotes - as far as i can see, this was agreed in the section Talk:James_Hansen#Page_protected and supported by WMC, VSmith, myself, Tillman and crmanriq - in effect everyone involved in the last edit-war. And there most definitively wasn't an agreement on the notability of the quote - and using a sockpuppet to game here is not really a good thing. I'm going to disengage as i find the current climate (pun intended) non-constructive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim, IB you are misreading the section you quote. Forex, User:Vsmith proposed: "If the quotes are deemed essential - then place them in context within the appropriate section of the article." Which is exactly what we are trying to do here.

And please stop your incessant ad-homs against User:Heart of a Lion --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tillman - regarding User:Heart of a Lion see: . Scibaby has a distinctive pattern of editing that can be recognized once you've seen more than 20+ of his socks. I was more than 99% certain even before asking Raul (who is a WP:Checkuser). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came out in favor of trimming the whole article back. This article is way too long for the notability of a minor functionary at a governmental agency, no matter how loud he squawks. Crmanriq (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. Well, in Climate "Science" he's a pretty Big Cheese.... though he doesn't seem to do science much anymore. Definitely provides entertainment value, in the great AGW hoorah! I mean, how many Fed Sciocrats do you hear calling for show trials for industrial chiefs, for "high crimes against humanity and nature"? You couldn't make up stuff like this. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought edit warring was supposed to be considered disruptive. At least that's what I have been told. It appears to me that Hansen said what he said, he doesn't deny or apologize for what he said, and the quote is properly sourced. So what's the problem here, folks? The key point of the quote is that he chose to compare the coal industry to the Nazi's extermination of the Jews. That shows extremely poor judgement on Hansen's part and is particularly notable for obvious reasons. I would argue that the quote should thus stay in. If people feel strongly that the fact he was "only" talking about powerplants without controls is key here or somehow saves his butt for his despicable statement the propose a way to add that for context. Either way the quote seems notable to me and it is accurate and clearly acknowledged by the speaker. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

People keep reverting based on "talk page consensus." Where is this mythical consensus? The only two editors I see who have opposed any inclusion on talk are KDP and rewinn. Not counting Scibaby, I see at least five people who have openly supported the idea of inclusion and two who seem at least open to it . So I'm a little confused at excluding the material "per consensus." Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, but with two (now three) editors disagreeing the insertion of the paragraph, there is no consensus for inclusion either (as claimed here). Hansen may have chosen some harsh words with his comparison, but I don't see how this adds any relevant information to this encyclopedic article - unless of course you want to give the reader the impression that he is a nut. So let's stop the quote mining... Splette :) 10:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

5-2 might not be ironclad but it's much more consensus than 2-5 is. Interesting that you call out GoRight but not or . But I digress, why wouldn't a notable quote that's been covered elsewhere be relevant? Potentially making the subject look bad doesn't itself exclude well-sourced material from inclusion in a BLP article. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the bar for having reached consensus? 5-3 is 62.5% in favor. Consensus, as we hear so often, does not mean that everyone has to agree. Clearly the majority here are in favor of inclusion so why are the minority not accepting this consensus? --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not every single editor has to agree, but that is an interesting understanding of consensus. So, if the majority would be, lets say, 51% instead of 63%, should the minority still accept the consensus? Splette :) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is, of course, exactly why I asked the question. You are arguing that 51% would be insufficient yet acknowledging that 100% would not be required. So, as I ask above, where is the bar to be set? Obviously somewhere between 51% and 100%, exclusive. You also seem skeptical of 62.5% being sufficient. So what do you require? 75%? 95%? --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability and consensus

In re: Hansen's coal-train/crematoria statement. (I can't believe I'm doing this again.)

Since this is once again turning into a revert-war, and full consensus seems unlikely, I offer the following stipulations, that I hope everyone involved can agree to, as a step towards resolving the controversy:

Stipulation 1: Hansen really did make this statement, he has stood by it (with minor caveats), and his statement, its context and its background are amply documented in the public record, in the page history here, and in the proposed article addition (see for article context).

• When testifying against the construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking carbon capture and storage technology, he stated "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

(Sidelight: the Des Moines Register link has expired. When you search on the article title ""More from NASA's Hansen on coal", the site asks, Did you mean "More from Nazi's Hansen on coal"? )

Stipulation 2. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed (emphasis added) to be notable." Hansen's statement was published in the Des Moines Register (where he testified), commented on twice in the New York Times , and widely discussed on the net and in print.

In my personal view, it's difficult to see how one could argue that this topic is not notable.

Stipulation 3. WP:BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

My conclusion: Hansen's statement is well-documented, meets WP:Notability and WP:BLP guidelines, and is relevant to Dr. Hansen's views on coal use and climate change. It belongs in the Hansen article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

References

1. Climate, Coal and Crematoria
2. Hansen's correspondence with NMA re "coal crematoria"
3. More from NASA's Hansen on coal
4. James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, Valdar Oinas (2000). "Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97 (18). Retrieved 2007-09-27.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Catherine Herrick/Bill Owens (2006-03-19). "Rewriting the Science". CBS. Retrieved 2007-06-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. ^ Hansen, James (2007). "Climate change and trace gases" (PDF). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A. 365: 1925–1954. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
7. Climate, Coal and Crematoria
8. Hansen's correspondence with NMA re "coal crematoria"
9. More from NASA's Hansen on coal
10. Climate, Coal and Crematoria
11. Hansen's correspondence with NMA re "coal crematoria"
12. More from NASA's Hansen on coal Link expired, convert to "More from NASA's Hansen on coal" Des Moines Register, November 7, 2007
13. http://search.desmoinesregister.com/sp?aff=1100&skin=100&keywords=%22More+from+NASA%27s+Hansen+on+coal%22&x=26&y=12]

Straw Poll

Those in favor of inclusion:

• --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• --Oren0 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those against inclusion:

Comments

I guess it is clear that Hansen really has made the statements and also that there has been some media coverage about it. But just because a certain topic got some media attention doesn't mean it is necessarily noteworthy for its corresponding wikipedia article. (see 'presumed' above) So why exaclty is this particular quote important for Hansen's biographic article? I don't think that a bunch of extreme quotes (maybe each of them picked to push a certain POV?) make a good biography. In fact there are far too many quotes in this article in general... But with this particular one, I get the feeling that some people might want it included just because it makes him look like a deranged extremist. If, on the other hand, as Tillman suggested earlier in the debate, the whole point is to document Hansen's confrontational style (I don't know, is he?), then we should write that in the text and give the 'death train' example as a reference, rather than having the 'death train' statement out of context by itself. Splette :) 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Presume, v.tr., To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary. So it's noteworthy unless we have a good reason to say otherwise. So far, the reasons I've heard are that we don't like quotes or that it only serves to make Hansen look bad. If this was really about quotes, we could just add the material in a paraphrase. And making Hansen look bad isn't a reason for inclusion per BLP as quoted above. So, again, given that we're presuming this to be worthy of inclusion, what reason is there to exclude it. Oren0 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"But with this particular one, I get the feeling that some people might want it included just because it makes him look like a deranged extremist." - (1) Strictly speaking, our personal motivations are likely to be varied but in any event they are not particularly germane to the determination of whether this quote is notable or not. We don't decide such matters based on the personal views or desires of the wikipedians, right? (2) Hansen himself is obviously not at all ashamed of the quote so why should you seek to exclude it on that basis?

"So why exactly is this particular quote important for Hansen's biographic article?" - Because it is particularly illustrative of how strongly he feels about and views the topic.

"... rather than having the 'death train' statement out of context by itself." - I for one am not advocating taking anything out of context. If the current version is lacking in context then by all means add the required context and improve the article from that perspective rather than obstructing legitimate content.

"In fact there are far too many quotes in this article in general..." - I would point out WP:PAPER, and we seem well within the limits specified in WP:Article size, see , since the "search method" of determining the size of an article, see , currently reports "26 KB (3896 words) - 14:35, 30 July 2008". --GoRight (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Y'all taking this WAY too seriously

• My most recent comments were in the context of someone else wanting to add a quote about trials, explicitly as a means of showing Hansen's start of mind; the editor stated the intent to make him out as an extremist who values humans as equal to other species and somehow related to Pete Singer --- and basing this not on actual sourcing but on blog postings by a third party f'r gosh sake! can you imagine a less reliable source? --- and the same or another editor wanted to quote to show Hansen's disrespect for the American Constitution. From there, it swiftly devolved into a controversy about the death train quote.
• There is no need to be cute about why this editting issue arises. While the decision whether to include a particular edit must and always must be strictly on the merits of the edit, it is worth noting when edits are made with a clear political purpose, in this case, to make Hansen out to be anti-human and/or anti-constitution. I mean, c'mon, the editors said so right here on the talk page. Let's talk honestly now; we can all afford to be honest here; there is no penalty to it. The pro-inclusion editors consistently argue that it's important to include these quotes to explore or illustrate Hanson's state of mind; yet the highly subjective concept of state of mind is very unlikely to be objectively sourcable. An editor who picks and choose quotes to make an argument about Hansen's state of mind is conducting OR. It would be allowable, instead, to quote an authority regarding his state of mind but that has not been done. If, for example, Hansen were to say "I am a Pete-Singer-style Extremist!" that would be proper sourcing for that proposition; but to quote "death train" or "crimes against humanity trials" to establish that proposition is simply wrong.
• As I wrote above, and no-one has refuted, biographies should avoid quotes unless the quote has become so famous that it has entered the general language (e.g. "Don't give up the ship!"), and in that case they go into a "quotes" section because the bare fact that a person can talk is not notable.
• So why could the quotes be possibly notable? It seems undisputable that there is a controversy - on this talk page anyway - about the quotes. Proper sourcing of the controversy would be to refer to the controversy itself - for example, to say "on a blog, someone had a controversy", but no editor has proposed that. It is clear that the quotes describing his state of mind, or what-ever your purpose may be, are themselves the controversy. Therefore, they belong in a controversy section. That's an easy and proper solution.
• I have accordingly re-arranged the sections, adding/deleting nothing but section headers, keeping all the same content, but putting the most objective information first, then the most notable controversy (censorship claim), then the other controversies (seems to be 4 or 5 of them). This way, everyone gets to have their favorite quotes, in the correct context - that there is some controversy.
• And ... finally and most importantly, everyone is being a little too serious about this. This is only wikipedia - you won't change the fact of global warming by making Hansen out to be an extremist. So include the quote, don't include the quote, in reality it don't matter; but if the quote must be there, it goes in the proper place. Mostly likely wikiquote but what the hey. rewinn (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to having these controversies included in an over-all controversy section but I do object to elevating one of them above the others. This is a subjective decision on your part as to what is notable and what is not. There is no reason to consider the censorship controversy more notable than the others. This is just another thinly veiled POV push IMHO. Leave them all on equal footing and allow the reader to decide which are notable and which are not.

You state above that biographies should not include quotes and that no one disagreed. Well I am disagreeing here and now. The use of quotes eliminates any controversy based on a particular editor's POV in the paraphrasing thereof. Allow the speaker's words to represent what the speaker meant. The is no more WP:NPOV way of conveying the speaker's intent. If the context becomes an issue then allow both sides to include the relevant information along with the quote so that the reader is properly informed without the editorial POV pushing, e.g. such as elevating one's preferred "controversies" above those of others. Report the facts and loose the editorial interpretations. --GoRight (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for using quotes, per User:GoRight above. Paraphrases are tough to make NPOV, and what's the point? And, yes, it is only Misplaced Pages, but some of us have devoted considerable effort to improving it to professional standards -- --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The point, as clearly stated above, is that there is no more WP:NPOV means of describing what someone said than a direct quote. So, if the goal is as wikipedia policy dictates (i.e. to be WP:NPOV) then direct quotes should be preferred, not shunned. As always, with appropriate context provided, of course. Also note, there is nothing unprofessional about using quotes. Professional writers use them all the time. --GoRight (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• About whether one controversy is more notable others:
  • The Censorship controversy: This is a real, notable controversy. It has been extensively covered in the media, been the object of attention (for AND against) in the US Congress, featured in a movie, etc. There is no question that it is notable.
  • The Fast-Feedback and Climate Database controversies: These are not about the subject of this article. They are controversies about science, about which the subject of this article has commented. They may (or may not) be notable in themselves, and merit coverage either on their own wiki Article or within Global Warming, but are clearly not at the same level as the Censorship controversy for the purpose of this article
  • The quote controversies: These are esoteric and little-known controversies; they reflect no third party action, no Congressional action, nothing (on the evidence) EXCEPT the reaction of some people in the blogosphere. While they may or may not be somewhat notable, they are not remotely comparable in notability to the censorship controversy.
  • Finally, as to "subjective": Every word in a wikipedia article reflects a subjective decision on the part of an editor to include it. There are objective reasons above as to why the censorship controversy is far more notable than the others. Your claim of POV-pushing is mistaken; like I said, y'all take this much too seriously.
• As to "Professional writers use quotes all the time": That is irrelevant. Professional writers editorialize, conduct original research, and do a lot of things that don't belong here. Using wikipedia to push the idea that there is a notable controversy is not professional, and it's not the purpose of wikipedia. If a quote is the genuine subject of a notable controversy, then it is appropriate to include the quote to illustrate what the controversy is about, but you can't bootstrap a purported controversy into notability by including the quote in wikipedia.
• There is no need to be cute about the reason for including the controversial quotes; you think Hansen has a certain state of mind which you wish to illustrate by selective quotations. Fine! But to do this, you must find an article by an objective journalist (not a blogger) exploring Hansen's state of mind and why it's controversial; you can't just selectively quote the guy. I'm not arguing that Hansen does not have the state of mind which you wish to advertise ... I genuinely don't know and don't really care ... but rather that it's not our job to research it.
• And, like I said, you're taking this WAY too seriously. You're not going to stop the science behind global warming by editing wikipedia. It's a powerful tool, but not that powerful. rewinn (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hansen's Allegations

I see Raul is starting to edit war over this issue, so perhaps a discussion here is appropriate. In the sources provided Hansen offers no evidence to support his allegation of there being a disinformation campaign. Therefore with respect to his actual statements these are allegations not statements of fact. Even if other sources can be shown to claim that such a disinformation campaign actually exists, combining those sources with Hansen's statement requires WP:OR, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see fresh from his RFC and newly instituted community ban, GoRight has decided to start an edit war on this article. He's also brought along his habit of making distorted claims about Misplaced Pages policies too.

Hansen was commenting on the well-established, well-known fact that the energy industry funds global warming deniers. There are tons of sources that establish this. It is inaccurate and misleading to say that Hansen "claims" they do -- it gives the reader a false impression that (a) he's the only one saying it, and (b) that it might not be true. Nor, as you falsely claim, is it original research to establish the basis for his comment using such sources. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started no edit war. I made one change to improve accuracy which didn't involve a revert. --GoRight (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now made a second edit to this same effect based on the significantly revised text for the same reasons cited above. --GoRight (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't increase accuracy - the paragraph starts with the premise that this is Hansen's view, to state it once more, in the same sentence is redundant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can accept that as a valid argument. --GoRight (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You made a change which decreased the accuracy of the article, gave a false impression to readers, and effectively reverted Kim's prior change (and thus was a revert). And given your second revert, you have also violated your own alleged self-imposed 1 revert restriction. Raul654 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a funny way of counting reverts. My first edit did not revert KDP's material, nor has my second in point of fact. --GoRight (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have an unfunny way of trying to wikilawyer your way around your own misbehavior. Just because you weren't reverting to the exact prior revision doesn't mean they weren't reverts, your own false claims to the contrary not withstanding. Raul654 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of these edits were within both the letter and the spirit of WP:0RR. --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, as usual - "What is a revert? - A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." - Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. And yet another instance of you making distorted claims about policy. Raul654 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of WP:0RR which states:

Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints.

In the case of the first edit I did not remove KDP's point, I merely augmented it for accuracy based on the context of the statement. This cannot be called a revert in any sense of the word. In the case of the second edit I did the same exact thing, although if you want to consider my making the analogous point in the second edit a "revert" after you had removed my first edit, then fine, I have made one "revert". Still consistent with WP:1RR but I think this is a stretch on your part. --GoRight (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I made a couple of minor changes for accuracy, but since this para. is so contentious, it might be best just to quote Hansen's entire statement:

"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

But the conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation if we pass on a runaway climate to our children..." -- from his "Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later" --with appropriate adjustments to the para to avoid duplication. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed to death? See for instance the section above, with rewinn's comments on just quoting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In re: cites for Hansen's allegations. Can you please quote where in these cites (or elsewhere) that demonstrates that "fossil-fuel companies have actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming", and that this isn't just Hansen's (& others) opinion? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the entire Complex-compound sentence as a whole - instead of focusing on a single short sentence, you'd notice that this is Hansen's opinion that we are specifying. It starts with "Hansen has called .... " and ends with a punctuation. And if you read the actual references, you'll find that Hansen is only calling for trials for those that have misinformed the public, for short term goals. That is the context for that specific quote, and without that information, we are misrepresenting Hansen's views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we shouldn't have a complex-compound sentence, then, because it sure looks like we're presenting opinion as fact to me. Tagged for NPOV. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, this whole discussion reminds me of the "saying scientist is a statement of fact and so it needs to be attributed to LS" argument KDP was making a while back ... only then he was arguing the opposite side. Hmmm. Perhaps you should review The Deniers and Lawrence Solomon and try recycling those arguments here. Just replace "scientist" with "fossil-fuel companies have actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming".  :) On the other hand as your quote points out, Hansen never actually said this so in point of fact I guess this isn't his opinion and it would be wrong to attribute this to him as such. I guess this is actually KDP's opinion. --GoRight (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oren0 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:) It is true that we could have a list of canonical answers and simply refer to them by number in these conversations! --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats it then - i'm stopping the discussion here. The level of comments on a personal level has become to high. (funny that - i thought there where actual policies about this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Which policies are you referring to? --GoRight (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a parting comment i should turn to another canonical: Address the content not the editor? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But my comments above ARE about the article and the topic being discussed. They are not about you, per se, as you were only mentioned as the author of some other arguments that Tillman might find useful in his attempts to convince you on this page given the obvious parallels between the two situations. As for the canonical comment, that wasn't mine, but it's also not an attack of any sort, is it? How is noting that you would likely make the argument referenced an attack or being uncivil, or do you have some other objection to referencing that argument? --GoRight (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AEB

Having gone back and read this again, I must say that I do sort of agree with Tillman. KDP has made an argument above that the entire sentence is prefaced as being part of Hansen's interviews and thus it should be clear that these are his opinions. Let us test that point by constructing an analogous statement for comparison purposes:

In his 2008 book, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon discusses the ideas and positions of world renowned scientists, including Edward Wegman and Richard Lindzen, which go against the IPCC positions on global warming, because these and other scientists dispute the science and the politics of the IPCC and there is no consensus on the science of climate change.

Is it clear here that all of these statements are the opinions of Lawrence Solomon? Would you be OK with us making this statement? --GoRight (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not acceptable to use that statement. It gives undo weight to a tiny minority. Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, ignoring the question actually being discussed. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your defintions of WP:WEIGHT and thus WP:FRINGE regarding GW appear to be opportunistic at best Raul. Per Jimbo Wales, as quoted on WP:WEIGHT, If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Claiming that these are all science articles and thus require peer reviewed adherents is a straw man when describing completely non-scientific coverage such as this.

The version of the article you were reverting to presents Hansen's allegations as fact. Are you, through wikipedia, claiming to have some kind of right to declare guilt based on having read an oped in Newsweek? Trials are used to decide guilt, and given the wording in the disputed paragraph was not a quotation, IMO presenting it as a fact that xyz is guilty pre-trial is pushing beyond a mere POV violation. I suggest you read weasel words and stop treating every edit made by GoRight as a bad faith attack on whatever you think the "reality of global warming" is. Jaimaster (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Tillman indirectly makes another point as well: perhaps the current sentence is too complex? What reading level should be we writing to here? --GoRight (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new try, shorter & sweeter(?). Less ambiguous, I hope. BTW, what's AEB? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AEB = An Edit Break --GoRight (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Didn't work, I see. Sigh. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, your supposed parallel ("In his 2008 book, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon discusses the ideas and positions of world renowned scientists, including Edward Wegman and Richard Lindzen, which go against the IPCC positions on global warming, because these and other scientists dispute the science and the politics of the IPCC and there is no consensus on the science of climate change") is not comparable, since "discusses" does not introduce reported speech. It thus allows only one interpretation. On the question of ambiguity, I don't think there's much there for most people; but one could herd readers in the right direction by putting "on the grounds that" rather than "because" and moving the references to the end of the sentence. N p holmes (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"... does not introduce reported speech. It thus allows only one interpretation." - I don't know what you mean by this. Can you please explain further. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Bill said "John demanded their resignation, because they had lied". "They had lied" might be Bill's or John's opinion (either shared by Bill or not). 2) "Bill said "John discussed the lies told by those liars". That they had lied and that they were liars is Bill's opinion (presumably agreeing with John). N p holmes (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that Raul continues to edit war over this topic. He is now up to 5 reverts (more than any other editor) with the most recent 2 being just outside the WP:3RR window. Raul, I remind you that edit warring is disruptive and WP:3RR is not an entitlement to edit war within limits ... as you obviously already know. --GoRight (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, one of the reverts was undoing everything done by a sock, and the fact that it was a revert of this exact subject matter was nothing more than a coincidence. Jaimaster (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So noted (now), how do you know there was a revert of a sock? --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The user reverted (Phonecloth 554) was banned for socket puppetry and vandalism, and Raul reverted a whole pile of its edits in one go, hitting this one more or less by accident Jaimaster (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs

It seems that, for balance, we should have some response here from the "accused". Anybody? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For balance of what? This is a biographical article on Hansen. Not a general discussion. We can leave out this whole section entirely - its already undue weight to a small controversy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nice try. These comments are notable statements from Hansen so they should be discussed. I agree with Tillman, though, if Hansen insists on making these types of allegations without providing any proof it is appropriate to discuss any response from those he is attempting to smear. This is needed to maintain WP:NPOV on an encyclopedic level. Misplaced Pages should not be introducing bias here by omission. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems only fair to run a response from an "accused", given that Hansen says he wants show trials. If you (KDP) feel the para's getting too long, we could trim the lobbyist stuff, which seems peripheral. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only if it has WP:WEIGHT. When you search for the 'trials for fossil fuel chiefs' you will find lots of articles about Hansen's statement but almost none about any reactions from the accused (the one you give as reference seems more like an exception to me, no?). It seems they decided to ignored his statement pretty much. If that should be the case we paint a wrong picture by mentioning a single response. However I don't think we should remove the entire section. It appears the statement has been covered by too many newspapers. But yes, lets cut the last sentence about the lobbyists. By the way, what about the section above? It has the two tags sitting there for a while. Any sources?Splette :) 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would you expect a letter written directly to the author of the piece being quoted to be carried widely in other news media? That seems silly. Those other media outlets would have no reason to point people to their competition, right? Besides, I would argue that this particular response is directly pertinent in this context because it is a direct response the specific article that was referenced for Hansen's quote. --GoRight (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that is the Misplaced Pages policy on weight and npov. If its not being covered to a degree that merits the weight - then it shouldn't be mentioned. Remember that npov doesn't mean equal time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

True. But this is clearly a case where WP:IAR applies. This could be the poster child for that policy. The following points seem directly applicable:

• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Misplaced Pages:Use common sense.)
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a 💕 trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Misplaced Pages:The rules are principles.)
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Misplaced Pages:Civility.)

In other words, if following the letter of WP:WEIGHT causes us to lose the spirit of WP:NPOV, as it clearly does in this case, then we should ignore WP:WEIGHT. --GoRight (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not clearly a case where WP:IAR applies. Why is it common sense that any response of the accused has to be inserted if there hardly was any? The whole reason why we include Hansen's statement in the first place is not because he made it but because he made it and it got much press coverage. I may be wrong but it seems that his statement got very little response from the oil coal companies - or at least it wasn't covered in the media. So, if we ignore all rules and include a response, the article will give the wrong picture of an open dispute between Hansen and big oil the coal industry over his accusations. Splette :) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(starting over at left) I think Splette is right re Big Oil. Big Coal has been Hansen's main target, and he's been after them hot & heavy. Simple fairness would indicate we should give at least one line to the coal company's reply. Note that the cite is a reliable source -- the NY Times. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I could mix up oil and coal (but hey, they both evil fossil fuels, right? :-) But I have actually read the statement. Still, I think that there was too little response to be notable (even though NY Times is a reliable source). Also, an encyclopedia is not about fairness. Splette :) 13:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also, an encyclopedia is not about fairness." - Yes, you seem to be making that point very clear. However it is the policy of this encyclopedia to be WP:NPOV and the spirit of that would argue in favor of inclusion since the spirit of that is reasonably summarized as being about basic fairness. But of course this has all been pointed out already. Either you (generically speaking) believe in fairness or you argue against it, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not about fairness - nor is it about truth or equal time. Its about weight. Try to actually read the policy - and you'll find that NPOV doesn't mean what you've just indicated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the entire policy and not focus on one section thereof. While weight is one aspect of fairness, the fundamental principle that even raises any discussion of weight is the need to achieve fairness.

Even so, this whole focus on how many times a given side was picked up in the media is a red herring in this context from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. For the specific topic being discussed here, namely whether fossil fuel company CEOs should be put on trial, there are only two sides: Hansen's and those of the fossil fuel companies. In that context there is no WP:WEIGHT issue here at all. There is an issue with POV pushing by omission, though. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"There is an issue with POV pushing by omission..." Yes, exactly so, and I'm taken aback that neither Splette or KDP can appreciate this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find enough sources that do present the reply, so that it gets equal weight - then by all means present them. NPOV is a weighted point of view - not a neutral (as in equal weight) one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(later addition) As GoRight points out (above), Peabody's response is from a note sent directly to the NY Times columnist cited in our article. WP:WEIGHT is irrelevant here, and the response is impeccably sourced. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly look at the article and compare the number of lines devoted to Hansen's attacks on the coal industry vs. the number of lines devoted to the coal companies replies (currently zero). Then ask yourself if this is NPOV. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the wikipedia article of Hansen, not the court trial "Hansen vs. Coal industry", where both sides have to have the chance to defend themselves. In particular, lets not forget this article is about the person James Hansen, not the coal industry, so we don't need to count the lines devoted to them. Splette :) 11:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Splette: "...this article is about the person James Hansen, not the coal industry..."

The Hansen article at present has about 300 lines (excluding headers, TOC, infobox etc). Of these, about 50 are about coal and/or fossil fuels, so your statement is simply not correct. Our article correctly reports that Hansen has compared the coal industry to Nazi death-camps, advocated show-trials for the CEO of Peabody Coal (etc), and proposed the near-future shutdown of the coal industry. Are you seriously saying that there is no place in these 50-some lines to report the coal industry's response? And that eliminating such a response meets Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(squeeze in) Yes, I am saying that this is a biographic article of a person and therefore the focus lies on Hansen. If the article would be "Hansen_vs_coal_industry_controversy" we would have to include the response of course. But not in a biography about Hansen, not a log of the sequence of events that may be somehow related to him. The coal-related lines are in the article only because Hansen has made comments about it and it was covered in the media. As you know some editors felt that with these 50-something fossil-fuel-lines that aspect of Hansen't biography has been given too much weight already... Thus, this is not a good argument for adding even more of that.I am seriously saying that the response of the coal industry is irrelevant for a NPOV article about Hansen's life. What the reader of this article needs to know is who Hansen is. Splette :) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Hansen, as noted above, has spent considerable time and energy attacking the coal industry. This is a valid part of his biography, and so should be the responses to his allegations. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a court trial, which is very true. Why then have the wikipedians protecting this article from the inclusion of the coal industry's response to these controversial claims apparantly taken it upon themselves to declare Hansen right and "Big Coal" guilty? If the section was correctly worded neutrally in such a way that you could not see where the sympathy of the authors lies, this entire talk page section and associated edit war would not exist. Why not replace the contested sentence with a quote from Hansen rather than ambiguously summarising it in such a way as to leave it open to interpretation? Jaimaster (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have problems following your interpretation, that we declare Hansen right and Big Coal guilty by not including their response. I strongly oppose putting more quotes. Are you saying that the 'Trials for fossil fuel chiefs' paragraph is written in a POV way? I really don't see how this would be the case but I am open for suggestions to improve the wording. If I am not mistaken the entire discussion here is not about the formulation of that parapraph but merely about the question whether a response should be included or not. That is why Tillman put the POV tag. Am I mistaken? And by the way, noone here has engaged into an edit war. Splette :) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying that the 'Trials for fossil fuel chiefs' paragraph is written in a POV way?" - "That is why Tillman put the POV tag. Am I mistaken?" (Chuckles) That might have been your first clue, right there. He didn't put up the "they won't let me include a response" tag, now did he?

"I really don't see how this would be the case but I am open for suggestions to improve the wording." - "... about the question whether a response should be included or not." (Chuckles again) And that should have been your second. I hereby suggest that we improve the wording of this paragraph by including the Coal industry's response. --GoRight (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No one edit warring? GoRight changed the line, Raul654 reverted to original, Tillman changed, Raul654 reverted to original, Oren0 reverted to Tillman, KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted to original, GoRight reverted to Tillman, Raul654 reverted to original, Tillman added a citation needed tag, KDP added a citation, Tillman added an NPOV tag. Jtjn6 reverted all the way back to the middle of the edit war, Will Beback undid this revision, Raul654 reverted out the NPOV tag. Phonecloth (now banned sock puppet) reverted the NPOV tag back, Raul654 reverted the NPOV tag out again while undoing everything the sock did. Tillman re-added the dispute tag. Tillman attempted a compromise. KDP reverted the compromise. Tillman re-added the dispute tag.

There is edit warring there. Just because no one tipped past the arbitary line of 3RR doesnt make it okay.

Back to the point, either change the section into a quote of Hansen saying why he believes Big Coal should be on trial or include Big Coal's response. WP:WEIGHT is not a licence to use WP:WEASEL words. Jaimaster (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, which is (sadly) typical of any attempt to make this page less of a hagiography for St. Hansen (sorry). I don't know why I bother. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• After careful review of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, I'm unable to find support for User:Splette and Kim D. Petersen 's objections (above) to including a brief response from Hansen's "accused". Both articles stress the importance of Neutral point of view in Misplaced Pages biography articles; WP:BLP lists NPOV first among WP policies that must be followed. Since we seem unable to resolve this section's NPOV problems here, I'm referring the section (and page) for review to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and will tag it accordingly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...if this is really that important to you. Splette :) 08:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the big problem here. The section reports what Hansen proposed, and I think readers, if they want to judge that, are perfectly capable of doing so given the text as it is. Just the facts, ma'am--that'll work here. No, I also don't see the need to include a response from the oil and coal executives--I don't want to disregard 'bias by omission' in general, but in this case (esp. since it's such a short section), wouldn't their response be absolutely predictable? "The executives disagree"--that would be the gist of it. I'm curious to know where this is going to go, as I'm learning about Misplaced Pages. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose

• The statement about trials by the subject of this article is not very notable; his fame stems from his contributions to science, not in the realm of law, and he is not in a position to initiate criminal proceedings.
• Adding a response by coal industry executives would require a great deal of OR, eg. identifying who's a relevant executive is not trivial since there have been no actual charges lodged.
• The argument that a response by the executives (once you have researched who they bmay be) would be required by NPOV is without merit and based upon a misunderstanding of NPOV; this article is not about a trial of the executives (for which a neutral presentation of the relevant facts would be required) but about the scientist Hansen; a neutral presentation of his statements does not require a discussion of the views of those whom an editor presumes opposes those statements. For example, an article on the Bible does not require a presentation of the presumably opposing views of the Devil.
• Including tendatious quotes from persons not the subject of this article is to give undue weight to the manufactured controversy about the quote.

For all these reasons, the proposed edit is opposed rewinn (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy is probably the premier talking shop for center-right lawyers in the US, possibly for all US lawyers. I got reverted on the grounds that it was unreliable. Please discuss here and either validate the reliability or feel free to submit better sourcing for the idea that the first amendment has little room for the kind of show trials Hansen's advocating. TMLutas (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? Your supposed source is a blog. The contributors are at best pseudonymous. And your interpretation of the inherently unreliable blog posts is a classical case of original research as well. Please don't waste our time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the contributors are mostly well known constitutional law professors. TMLutas (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean Professor Uthaw, Professor Oren, Professor Malvolio, Professor therut and Professor The General, to pick the first five contributors to that thread? The blog owners may well be notable experts, but the comments are effectively anonymous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, sourcing should be better. What's your alternative? TMLutas (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would need to be MSM. The MSM doesnt care that what Hansen called for is probably legally impossible, that wont sell papers (or more recently, online ad space). A nice headline saying "leading climate scientist calls for oil execs to be put on trial" does both. Dont worry yourself too much over it, most people should know what Hansen is asking for here is not really possible, be it for whatever reason they choose to believe (legal, unrealistic, right-wing conspiracy protecting oil chiefs, whatever). Jaimaster (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that without any sort of context setting, people who aren't too familiar with US legal rules get something of an NPOV impression about the matter. Not everybody reading en.wikipedia understands the US Constitution. TMLutas (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Freudian slip? The evils of neutrality... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fire James Hansen

There's a current effort to get James Hansen fired for violating ethical guidelines when he went over to the UK and testified in favor of the Kingsnorth Power Station vandals. Anthony Watts started the ball rolling on Sep 11 and there are several outlets that have picked up the call. I don't think that it's significant enough for its own section but a few words in the vandalism trial section seem appropriate TMLutas (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend waiting a few days for more reactions to come in. Here are a couple of non-blog opinion pieces:

• "Top NASA climatologist James Hansen endorses eco-vandalism" at National Review
• "Climate change chicanery" at The Telegraph

You will need to be scrupulously neutral in wording your addition: forex, you should cite sources that praise Hansen's testimony -- I noticed a number of these at The Guardian. Citing a few more reliable sources will help you make it stick. Good luck, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are the very definition of POV and have no place as sources. Misplaced Pages's job is not to promote (nor to discourage) politicking. rewinn (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingsnorth Power Station trial

I've made some minor edits to this section, which was a bit rough--and it still is. I cannot rightly figure out why the final remark, by this Ms. Hall, is relevant: ""The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?" First of all, grammatically 'tis a bit unclear--the 'they' in the last sentence, that's the jury? Why would a jury in a case like this make any kind of acceptance or rejection of Hansen's position? And if they did, doesn't that contradict the previous statement that "the jury accepted the lawful excuse argument"?

But second, it strikes me that this introduces a POV, especially since it's the final word in the article--made in a context that has no relevance to even the court case. I propose striking that last sentence: it preserves the general NPOV (I've read the discussion, and I think this article is pretty neutral), and structurally it makes for a stronger section. Any thoughts? (I know this is article is a hornet's nest!) Drmies (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support striking last sentence, and agree that the para. needs a rewrite. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who created the section and put in the Ms. Hall quote. Ms. Hall was one of the acquitted defendants and her quote is directly from the Independent news article. It seems directly relevant to the trial (since she was presumably present during her own trial) and provides some context about why Hansen's testimony was relevant to the outcome of the trial. I don't see how this is POV.kevinp2 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't addressed the grammatical ambiguity. Moreover, not everything in the world is relevant, especially not since this article is not about Ms. Hall's actions. Of course she was probably present during the trial (that's trivial), but surely you'll agree that she is hardly an impartial observer without an interest in Hansen's words. I mean, really. Besides, I have argued that the POV-pushing derives here from rhetorical context. The placement of the quote practically gives Ms. Hall the final word in the discussion, and that is not how an encyclopedia article is supposed to work (that I probably agree with Ms. Hall is beside the point). Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your paragraph above is confusing to read, but anyway, I have decided to not argue this point.kevinp2 (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

does not belong in this article

The trial is not noteworthy enough to merit its own wikiArticle; Hansen's testimony in it is likewise not noteworthy. This is not an article about litigation in a country of which Hansen is not a citizen. If his every statement is to be included in this article, it would be a very lengthy article indeed. rewinn (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The trial clearly is noteworthy: it's had a lot of UK press coverage. As a part of Hansen's biography, it's less important: a whole section is perhaps excessive. I don't see that Hansen's nationality is really relevant. N p holmes (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RV: I reverted Rewinn's blanking of the paragraph. The trial has been widely reported and Hansen's testimony is actually quite remarkable. The section can be reduced in size - I wanted to give fair context about the trial and the testimony, but if others can preserve the context and reduce the size of the section, then have at it.kevinp2 (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The trial is an instantiation of Hansen's legal strategy, of using the judicial system to get his way. The various sections need to get reworked but the power station trial is certainly important TMLutas (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats very nice original research. Now can you support any of those claims, with backing in reliable sources? (legal strategy etc.?) If not - then i suggest that you keep your POV to yourself - and stick to what can be supported by reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore's science advisor

The lead claims this on the basis of an article in The Register, which I don't regard as a reliable source. I took out a different reference, which didn't make any such claim earlier. Has anyone got anything reliable? As far as I can see, google gives pages of climate crank blogs and a few sites that got their info from us. It wouldn't surprise me if he's advised Gore, but in what sense – a formal position, the only science advisor, the chief advisor? N p holmes (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The register article is junk (in terms of the science its trying to describe) and the sci-adv to Gore is just a by-blow; so I don't think its at all reliable. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to Hansen himself, its incorrect. He did review the slideshow and comment on it, though. (of course this could've changed since Hansen's commentary - but i doubt it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by NASA

The aspect of NASA review of Hansen's public statements is distorted in this article. It is standard operating procedure for all NASA civil servants to have their public statements/press releases/articles reviewed, to ensure they do not reflect poorly on the agency, and to ensure they are ITAR compliant. There is nothing ominous about this. NASA scientists are not tenured professors, and must follow the rules of NASA (which is pointed out in several of the noted references). A statement has been included to capture this key fact, that has been left out.Gabriel Tuttle (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. Why don't you have a go at it? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted undue OOC quote

I don't think this is acceptable. Certainly the inline comment isn't. Stripping a small piece of text out of a paper is OR (I'm assuming that this isn't the major point of the paper?) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The paper is at . It's essentially on forcings and feedbacks. The comment points out a problem with the data in the context of discussing the match between calculated temperature record and ice core data. Far from claiming that this is a singular error, its taken as one particulary obvious example of a persistent problem. Reverted. Q Science, did you actually read the paper, or did you use a secondary source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually read it. When you compare the Vostok temperature and CO2 timings and analysis in his paper with those based on the published data, they do not match. Dr. Hansen is trying to explain why he changed the data in only one place by 5,000 years because the entire paper is based on his new interpretation. Q Science (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that. What I don't understand is how you justify pulling it out and putting it into the article. Firstly, shuffling spikes in data on the basis of mistakes in timing is commonplace. Secondly, how do you justify pulling this one thing out? Because its something that caught your eye and interested you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with adjusting spikes. I have a problem with Dr. Hansen claiming that it is ok because his theory requires it. No other reason is given. There is no discussion of methodology problems, errors in data measurement, or anything like that. The reason he gave is exactly what I quoted. I tried very hard not to change the meaning. It also bothers me that he does not reference any paper by someone in the ice core field that supports that specific adjustment. So yes, I guess this sort of "caught my eye".

As for "pulling one thing out", another section of the wikipedia page (Fast-feedback effects) already discusses the conclusions of this same paper. I simply did not think that the information on adjusting the data should be mixed with that section. Q Science (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the conclusions of the paper seems quite reasonable; its saying something notable. But I still can't see the justification for pulling this one thing out. That there are dating errors is, as you agree, commonplace. Putting it in as you've done seems to imply otherwise: that Hansen has been up to something nefarious William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Censorship controversy

KDP has reverted a reasonable and on-topic edit here. His claim is undue weight which is clearly laughable. The statement is 100% on topic in that section and the facts are uncontroversial since Hansen himself has acknowledged them.

Your edit summary seems to suggest that I am presenting only one side of the story on this basic fact and that I have somehow hidden Hansen's answer to the fundamental question. I have not. I imagine the interaction must have gone something like this:

Question (Issa to Hansen): How many interviews have you given in recent years?

Answer (Hansen to Issa): Over 1,400.

Please explain how the number of interviews conducted is not relevant to a discussion of claims of censorship? --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my sentence is more on-topic than the one that follows it. What do Hansen's political views have to do with whether he is being censored or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRight (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should read the reference, to see why the journalist found it relevant? (and why Waxman, Issa and Hansen did as well?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I answered this question in my revert. While Issa's question may be interesting, you have to stick to due weight. And Issa already has a whole paragraph in this section. Can you explain to me why it is "laughable" to stick to due weight? We can't write everything that everyone has asked Hansen, despite it being 100% on topic and uncontroversial. Cut down on other comments if you want that one in.

As an outside comment, though, its quite plain that the question is a red herring, It has nothing to do with whether Hansen was censored or not. Most films aren't censored, and despite that, censorship in films exist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to understand my point, apparently. I am not claiming that it is laughable to stick to due weight. I am claiming that calling the introduction of a simple, non-controversial fact that is relevant to the discussion a due weight problem is what is laughable.

You say Issa has been given a "whole paragraph". This is true but it exists within a section that contains 7 paragraphs supporting Hansen. My change won't change these facts. Issa will still have one paragraph. If you disagree with making that an entire sentence then let me append it to the end of the existing sentence, although I think it reads better the way I have done it.

I suppose you can consider this measure a red herring if you want, but it actually isn't. The fact remains that Hansen has had no trouble what so ever getting his message out and his side of this issue has been more than adequately represented within that section and from multiple angles. Issa's position or that of any of Hansen's detractors has only been represented from one. If anything that is undue weight with the sign reversed. --GoRight (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that its controversial, but instead that you are expanding a paragraph beyond the due weight. You are giving too much detail, Issa's comments are worth a sentence - but they aren't important enough in the whole picture, to merit more. What we instead should consider was to add Waxman's comments about Issa's questions. (but then again it would be too much detail). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand: Issa is one voice amongst many, and considering the amount of writing that the controversy has gathered - and the percentage of this, that is dedicated to Issa - its frankly already dodgy weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clear also that "the number of interviews conducted" is "relevant to a discussion of claims of censorship" only as a form of original research arguing that someone is not being censored because that person has given a number of interviews. A proper means of introducing such evidence would be to find an authority who states "Hansen is not being censored because he has given interviews"; of course, this might require a balancing authority arguing "Just because a person gives interviews doesn't mean he has not been censored". Rather than devote bandwidth to secondary indicia of censorship (or lack thereof) much better would be to provide evidence of the censorship itself (or lack thereof). At any rate, on the evidence given, Issa is not an expert on the number of times Hansen has given an interview, nor on censorship, so giving him two sentences is generous. rewinn (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to present an established fact. Let the facts speak for themselves. As to whether Issa is an expert on how many interviews Hansen has given, it doesn't matter. Hansen has confirmed the figure and he certainly should know how many interviews he has given. --GoRight (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But you do not "present an established fact"; you present a purported quote and use that to argue for the existence of a fact. In addition, Issa's expertise is certainly relevant as to whether he's a reliable source on the subject. If Hansen "confirmed the figure" then cite him. rewinn (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point unless someone else expresses interest in pursuing this I shall simply let it drop. It is a minor point at best and not worth further effort from either side unless additional support shows up. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Family

I want to add a short paragraph about his family. I know a little about his parents because he's my 1st cousin twice removed. My gandma and him share the same paternal grandparents. I could include these names and maybe even scrounge up some more appropriate info. Should I? Emperor001 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources. Otherwise it's known as original research. Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do family records count as reliable sources. The Hansen family keeps very accurte records. This James Edward Hansen is the son of James Ivan Hansen, who is the son of James Edward Hansen and his wife Katherine Magdalene Hansen (maiden name von Tersch. Emperor001 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Published where? Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything published online. I everything's kept on the computers of my distant cousin who, every once in a while, will print copies for the rest of us and give us CDs. The Mormon church may keep some of this because many of my distant cousins are mormons. That's why our ancestor, Ingvert Laverne Hansen, came to the U.S. My grandmother has a binder with family records kept and sure enough, this James Hansen is in it. It may be published online somewhere, I'll have to check. Emperor001 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is probably not reliable in the Misplaced Pages sense, even if self-published online. See WP:RS for a discussion about reliable sources we can use. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Family information (e.g. parents) should go into the infobox. You might look into online obituaries as a citeable source. It is uncommon that ancestry further back than parents would be noteworthy. rewinn (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit by GoRight

I've reverted an edit by GoRight on grounds related to the Biographies of living persons policy. There are doubts about whether the edit properly represents what James Hansen said. I would prefer to see Hansen's actual words used, especially if we put something in quotes. --TS 18:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Follow the reference (which is different from the first one but was referred to by it). The part I have in quotes is exactly the part that was in quotes in the lead-in to the reference. If you read the article itself it is obvious that this was, in fact, his position. Again, removing properly sourced material is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)The reversion was correct. The material attributed to Hansen was misquoted. He actually said "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead." Hansen is not quoted in that article saying anything about flooded cities, species extinction, or climate catastrophes. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And please look at the policy I linked above, GoRight. The onus is on you. And since Hansen didn't say what you put in quotes, I'd say you're in a bit of a sticky position. --TS 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance