Talk:James Hansen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Doctoral advisor

I'm trying to find out who was Dr Hansen's doctoral advisor. U Iowa has a page [2] where they say that abstracts are available for dissertations prior to 1997, but it requires a login. I was hoping someone might have access to this information. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

From 1951 till 1985, James A. Van Allen was the department head, University of Iowa Dept. of Physics and Astronomy [3]

I wrote to Van Allen, saying I thought I was making some progress on trying to do some calculations related to Venus, and that I hoped that in a year I could finish and I would like to apply there. Satoshi went through the roof because his idea was that graduate students should stay several years and write papers with their professor, and so he tried to stop me from getting my Ph.D. But fortunately, although Satoshi was my advisor, Van Allen was then the Chairman of my thesis committee.[4]

BTW, that oral history is gold. But it is not public domain. The note at the top says that we are not allowed to quote it. It is not currently in the main page's references. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the American Institute of Physics is exempt from standard copyright law. There are few imaginable ways by which they could eliminate fair use. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Q. I was about 90% sure who it was, but didn't have a RS. I haven't read through the entire oral history page yet, but it look interesting. -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 9 February 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 Wikipedia 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)

Do the sources have to be online? I got some pages from a published book recording both Hansen's parents and children. His full name is James Edward Hansen. His parents were James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Helen Ray (maiden name), and his children are Erik Edward and Christine Noelle Hansen. Emperor001 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility for climate change section

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it occurs to me that it might be beneficial to move the death trains portion of the last paragraph down into the Controversy section somehow. This way the responsibility section is more focused on what I think Atmoz is trying to achieve there without deleting the controversial aspects from the article. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is in response to this edit. If so, I combined the paragraph because the first sentence of the second paragraph started with "During his testimony, Hansen likened..."; the testimony referred to is the last sentence of the prior paragraph. Thus in my view, there is one idea being expressed in that/those paragraph/s, and that is that Hansen thinks coal is "bad".

I don't particularly like moving it to the controversies section. Hansen clearly thinks that the coal companies should be held responsible for climate change. His comments about the death trains is certainly controversial, however they were about assigning responsibility. I don't think the paragraph should be split, and I think it's better under the Responsibility section, but am open to persuasion. -Atmoz (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was making the edit while you were writing here. I am not complaining about you combining the paragraphs. I just thought you would prefer a cleaner section that focused strictly on the policy views without the controversy included which is a bit of a distraction there. Whichever you prefer is fine. --GoRight (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break for awhile, so hopefully others will chime in. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but your behavior is politically motivated. What Dr. Kramm illustrated in his comment to the article of Rahmstorf et al. (2007) can simply be proved. All data used by him are available. Students of science should be able to calculate correlation coefficients (this is 101 level stuff). Otherwise, they should change their directions. The ArXiv of the Cornell University is well known in physics and mathematics. Many Wikipedia science articles make references to it. Even Hansen's paper "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?" is published in ArXiv [5]. The same is true in the case of the supporting material [6]. Hansen used the results in his presentation "Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near". Is there a two class system in Wikipedia? The ArXiv papers of global warming activists may be accepted, but not those of their critics. From my point of view, the paper of Rahmstorf et al. (2007) suggests that cherry picking for supporting the own research agenda is a recognized method in science. Do you really agree with this suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarque (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. Pretty clear no? -Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I wonder whether you are qualified enough for studying science. I learned from my professors that "cherry picking" is unacceptable in science because it is a form of scientific misconduct. Rahmstorf and all of his co-authors are leading authors of the 4th report of the Working Group I to the IPCC .-Mmarque (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Mmarque please avoid personal attacks, comment on the edits and the content - not on the editor. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vsmith, I read that you have a M.S. in geology and that you are currently engaged as a science teacher. That is fine because two years ago I served as the lead instructor of the Science Teacher Education Program (STEP) 2007 on Global Climate Change funded by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. To work with sixty Alaska science teachers in the matter of climate change was one of the finest experiences I gained during my scientific life.

Even I was already known in the atmospheric science community as one of the so-called "skeptics" (what ever it means) I presented the fundamental information on climate change during my course because I believe that filtering of information or censorship will irreversibly damage science. None of the sixty participants of STEP 2007 can claim that my teaching was affected by political issues. If you are interested, my STEP 2007 ppt-presentation is still available.

I wrote the comment to the paper of Rahmstorf et al. (2007) (see the contribution of mmarque, a good friend of mine who is well familiar with my work) because these authors ignored 14 years of Mauna Loa CO2 observations. This was not the first time that in papers published by Science Magazine available time series data were "favorably" selected to artificially enhance the effect of global warming. In my opinion, such kind of selection of observational material is rather inappropriate. It is not in agreement with commonly accepted scientific standards.

Let me explain what the notion "commonly accepted scientific standards" does mean: In 1900, Max Planck published a voluminous paper entitled "Ueber irreversible Strahlungsvorgaenge" (English: On irreversible radiation processes) in the German journal Annalen der Physik. In this paper Planck derived Wien's radiation formula (published by the Annalen der Physik in 1896) guided by the second principles of thermodynamics. In addition, Planck used a constant his paper which now is known as Planck's constant. Planck was convinced that his theoretical derivation is generally valid. Unfortunately, Wien's radiation formula disagreed with observations of Planck's colleagues Lummer and Pringsheim (1900) as well as Rubens and Kurlbaum (1900) performed in the so-called red range later in this year. Thus, Planck was forced to extend his theoretical derivation to cover the red range, too. He did it with great success in autumn 1900 and published his famous radiation law in the Annalen der Physik in 1901. Planck eventually explained that the months in autumn 1900 were the hardest in his scientific life. With his paper Planck initiated the so-called quantum physics. His work was honored with the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. In contradiction to Rahmstorf et al. (2007), Planck did not lower scientific standards to support his research agenda at all costs, he tried to satisfy them. That makes the difference.

Finally, I convinced my good friend not upload his contribution again. It will only cause an editorial war. This would not be favorable for the Wikipedia project. I will further debate Hansen's work in the scientific literature. -Gerhard kramm 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Kramm for your explanation of your position and for asking your friend to stop. Controversial material in Wiki articles must be sourced to reliable sources especially when criticism of living persons is involved. I don't think we are questioning your work or motives, just that the cited paper doesn't appear to be published as I understand the situation. Vsmith (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingsnorth power station trial

I found the old language that was used to describe this notable controversy, and reinstated it. It must have been accidently deleted with the recent changes (see history). It is obviously warranted to keep this, particularly from the perspective that a US civil servant scientist testified on behalf of a group charged with eco-terrorism, on foreign soil. Hard As Iron Sharp As Steel (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have reinstated the text, but have you read it? They were charged with "causing criminal damage", not terrorism of any kind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been inserted as an attempt to smear Dr Hansen, and should be removed. quack, quack -Atmoz (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this possibly a smear? This actually did happen, right? It is just a report of something he did that seems to be controversial, or at least of notable interest. --GoRight (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it notable to be an expert witness in a rather unnotable trial? WP is not a news agregator. And please specify exactly what the controversy is? (its not in the reference). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"WP is not a news agregator." - Since when? The vast majority of references in wikipedia are news source related. Stop talking nonsense.

Have you even read WP:NOTNEWS? Lasting historical historical impact? While a lot of references are news sources, it doesn't imply that everything in news are a good references or referring to notable content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I read it. I understand what it means. I have not argued that everything printed in the newspaper should be included, have I? You admit below that the power plant is, itself, notable.

Hansen's prominent participation in a notable event is, in and of itself, a notable fact about Hansen. Remember, Greenpeace says that this event "marks a 'tipping point' for climate change movement." That sounds like it will have lasting historical impact, no? --GoRight (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeace is not a reliable source of information. -Atmoz (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? As long as we are willing to apply that standard equally across all GW pages and BLPs I would be most happy to agree. For example, all of those ExxonSecrets (run by Greenpeace) references that are being used to smear the skeptics with a guilt by association fallacy, are you willing to scrub all of those too? Even this article uses a Greenpeace source for some of its main material. --GoRight (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Greenpeace is not a reliable source, neither is Greenpeace-ExxonSecrets. Greenpeace is not a reliable source, evah. Except for information about their own organization. The GP cite in this article is for a Hansen quote that is also in a more RS, and can be removed. -Atmoz (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a more reliable source for the quote, please add it as well. If you want to remove the Greenpeace reference that is fine, but I then expect you to apply the same due diligence for the sake to the project to all the other places where Greenpeace and ExonnSecrets are being relied upon. Are you willing to do so?

I have actually argued as you are here that they are not reliable in the case of ExonnSecrets but others associated with the AGW debate seem to like them. So as long as they are reliable in those cases they must be reliable here. They are either reliable, or they are not, for use as a secondary source of information. You don't get to cherry pick when they are and when they are not. --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The power plant itself is called controversial in the UK press. The trial of the activists and their acquittal were widely covered in the press. Given the argument they used to gain that acquittal Hansen played a key role in establishing the long term harm from global warming that ultimately became the basis of that acquittal. As a consequence, both the trial and Hansen's participation therein are notable simply because of the amount of press the whole episode received. Is his participation controversial? It is with me and probably a lot of other US citizens who pay his salary through their taxes. But if you don't think it should be under controversies that's fine with me. Where else in the article would you suggest? --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"widely covered in press"? Thats interesting since i can find very little. Some of your arguments may be related to the notability of the power plant - but not Hansen. Finally WP is not the ombudsman - its an encyclopedia. We record what is notable in Hansen's life, not what might interest a taxpayer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:ILIKEIT?? It supports my position in that this is WP:V. This is clearly a neutral narrative that is properly sourced, so continuing to remove it is disruptive. Why do you [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] so much? --GoRight (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss this item - once you can demonstrate that its notable. That is the point here. You are giving undue weight to a random trial, where Hansen was an expert witness. As someone said earlier - if we are going to include every little thing that Hansen is involved in ... then its going to be a very long article.

You seem to have misunderstood the whole concept of Wikipedia, we do not include things "just because its cited" or "its a fact". Weight and whether it is notable is the issue here.

If you believe that i'm disruptive - take it to the correct forum. Otherwise i suggest that you focus on the article, and explaining exactly how its notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided an argument. Your repeated assertions to the contrary do not alter that fact in the least. Hansen played a prominent role in a notable event and, therefore, that participation is notable. It has nothing to do with whether I like it or you don't like it. And I am not arguing that "every little thing Hansen is involved in" should be included. That's an obvious straw man. I am arguing that this should be included for the reasons just stated.

Let's look at some other examples that illustrate the point. Joan Baez and Janis Joplin both have mentions of their participation in Woodstock. The notable event there is Woodstock. Should their BLPs not mention Woodstock? Of course they should. Why? Because their prominent participation in a notable event was notable.

And no I am not equating the notability of this trial with that of Woodstock, but the principle is exactly the same. --GoRight (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOTNEWS by now? If so, then you would know why Woodstock and the small graffiti case at King's North are rather different. Woodstock is "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact" - while the KN case has at most a limited impact on both historic and public interest, it has had something very close to zero impact. Its a non-notable event, it has had almost no news-coverage beyond local, and it hasn't had any lasting impact at all.

You still haven't provided any argumentation what so ever for the case having any notability. So far it's a WP:ILIKE argument, and repeated assertions of "its notable!". Since you are attempting an argumentation of "the event is notable, thus X's involvement must be notable", you should first establish that the event is notable, for instance by creating an article on the subject. If the material isn't sufficient enough to merit an article - then its most certainly not notable enough to make a side-line players involvement notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided an argument for why this should be in Hansen's BLP. Quite independent of the players here the same event and Hansen's participation therein have appeared on the Greenpeace article. So this isn't just my private little observation.

Ah! I wondered when WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would surface. Whether or not its in the Greenpeace article has no relevance here. You can talk it over on that article. Greenpeace was the defendant in the case, so there it "may" be more relevant ... although i sincerely doubt it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, you might want to review this discussion. It is not that other stuff exists, it is that this exact same stuff exists elsewhere. You might also want to refer to the following from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:

"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Please read that a couple of times to let the meaning get through. --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical impact of this event? It should be obvious, but apparently it needs to be made explicit for you. The ruling in this case says, in effect, that the defendants where justified in their criminal damage (i.e. not that they were innocent thereof) because it would prevent even greater damage due to global warming. Hansen was a primary factor in making that case. Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such this is actually a landmark legal case in the global warming debate. Presumably this means that other activists could seize control of every coal burning power plant in the UK, use explosives to completely demolish them, and then be similarly acquitted based on the same argument. This implication doesn't seem notable to you? And Hansen's role in enabling it doesn't seem notable for his BLP?

(Insert Kim's disagreement here.)

Thats nice original research (the "presumable") - but its not correct. There is no precedent (or landmark) here - since exactly the same has happened earlier (1996: damage on Hawk fighter jet (£1.8M),1999: damage of trident sub (£80k); 2000: occupation of incinerator; 2000: damages to GM crop field). So there isn't any historical impact here.

It does give us a bit of insight though, into why you apparently, think that its notable though - but it really is something that you need to argue (so it could've been dismissed by pointing out earlier precedents), and so you could have found references for your point of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"since exactly the same has happened earlier" - But it isn't the exact same thing. None of those cases have anything to do with the purported effects of global warming, do they? I believe that I said "Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such this is actually a landmark legal case in the global warming debate." You really should try to understand all the words in a comment as they are important to the meaning of the statement. The fact that this legal principle is being applied in many instances as you have now established only supports my argument that it can be applied as I described. --GoRight (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that secondary sources have noted it does not establish notability? And making an argument based on the established facts is merely WP:OR and so it doesn't establish notability either? Interesting. That doesn't seem to leave much room to work, now does it? So it appears that, in your mind at least, there is no way to establish the notability of anything (independent of, that is, from the need to convince you personally). It appears that you are the sole arbiter of notability here and it is only your opinion that counts. Sorry, but I don't actually buy into that view.

You seem to agree that Woodstock is notable. Notable for what, exactly? What historical impact did Woodstock actually make on the world, or anything for that matter? Woodstock was a single event and you seem to believe that being a single event automatically disqualifies anything as being notable, e.g. the current John Theon arguments you have been making. Show me how you would establish the notability of Woodstock so that I might learn from your example. --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Skipping ahead a bit, is there any point to continuing this ping pong game? You will obviously never acknowledge the notability of the event because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So we seem to be at an impasse. Feel free to delete it again. If no one else defends it I will let it drop. --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a point here. The point is that there isn't even an attempt to attach notability to this event. And it is to make you argue for your case, since you apparently are willing to edit-war over it. I've made several requests for documentation of notable here, which you've dodged. You've finally did cough up an argument here - but it turns out that its incorrect. (ie. its not a landmark case). So now can you please explain to me how its notable?

(Oh - and btw. i'm rather indifferent to the text. I just want to ensure WP:WEIGHT and that we include notable items - instead of whatever random bits random editors can find). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"The point is that there isn't even an attempt to attach notability to this event." - Whatever. I have explained everything I intend to explain. That fact that you can't apparently understand plain English is your problem, not mine. You say I haven't provided an explanation of notability, I say that is a lie and that the evidence here speaks for itself.

"since you apparently are willing to edit-war over it." - Actually, I think the order is you were bold, I reverted, you edit warred rather than discussed. The fact that I didn't let your edit stand was NOT the start of the edit war ... although at this point I have already offered that if you delete it and no one else defends it I will drop the issue. Do you have a problem with that too? Apparently so given your continued posturing. You might want to refer to WP:DICK because based on your current behavior it seems to be applicable. --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing coal trains to death trains

I'm a tad concerned that this section gives too much weight to a minor issue - as far as I can tell, the controversy received no mainstream media coverage, and was only of real interest to bloggers (although this includes a small number of professional media bloggers). As it stands, it seems that Hansen said a couple of lines in a testimony that upset a few people, the mining industry responded, and Hansen apologized for the comments. My feeling is that while this might be sufficient to warrant a (brief) mention in a complete article, especially is if the section on the testimony was expanded, it isn't sufficient to warrant its own subsection. - Bilby (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section, on the grounds that I've been through major news databases and found no reference to the death trains, and almost none to Hansen and the "Hollocaust". It really doesn't seem to justify a separate section in the article. I wouldn't be adverse to including a mention, but perhaps it would be more useful as part of a section more generally about global warming comparisons (Chris Mooney, for example, mentioned in New Scientist that Hansen has a "tendency to use ill-advised Holocaust analogies to describe global warming"), or maybe as part of the Iowa Testimony, if that is deemed sufficiently notable for inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but removing this section is uncalled for. It only has it's own section because it seems to be appropriately located within the Controversy section of the article and it doesn't fit under any of the topics in that section. Merging it into another section will only serve to disrupt that section. Atmoz has done a good job of reorganizing the material so that things are more focused in each of the sections. I don't see what the big deal is here, the material is substantially reduced from what it was previously. The fact that it now has a heading seems trivial.

However, like I said when I moved the material down there, if people don't like the move just revert it back to where it was. You seem to be the only person arguing that the move wasn't an improvement. But if you don't want it in it's own section please merge the updated version back to where it originally was. Personally, I still like it where it is because it keeps the responsibility section focused on just the policy implications. The text will be the same either way, sans the title. --GoRight (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We fought this out when the quote was new -- please refer to the Talk archives for then. It's a notable quote, and should be in the biography. Personally, I prefer it in context with the other coal stuff. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, given your preference combined with Bilby's objection I have moved this material back up to the coal section where it originally was. Let's see if that sticks. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked back - I noticed GoRight's move earlier, and assumed it was something new. That aside, I have no real problem with it being in - it was just that having a dedicated subsection to the quote seemed like undue weight. I'm not really convinced that it is a notable quote, (at least based on the databases I could go through), but I'm very happy to defer to others on this. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --GoRight (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Weather station caption.

There must be a typo in the caption for the weather station picture. It currently reads "A typical automated airport weather station reporting station which automates the routine hourly weather observations of temperature, weather type, wind, sky condition, and visibility. These surface stations are located around the world, and are used to derive a global temperature.". Given the statistics available at [7] this seems to be incorrect. Perhaps this should actually read "Atypical automated airport weather station reporting station ... ?" --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Surfacesstation.org has data on automated airport weather stations? Where? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitol Power Plant Protest

This is the third time that information on the Capitol Power Plant Protest has been deleted. I agree that wikipedia is not a newspaper. However, this story is more than that because it addresses some of the comments related to the Kingsnorth power station trial section above. Specifically, Dr. Hansen is actively supporting a demonstration against a coal steam plant (not even a power plant) where the demonstrators are planning to get arrested. The previous arguments were that Dr. Hansen was simply "an expert witness in a rather unnotable trial". This time he is an advocate for breaking the law. There is even a video where Dr. Hansen is recruiting people to participate in this protest. I will even agree that the protest is not notable. However, the fact that Dr. Hansen is advocating civil disobedience is notable and appropriate for his biography. Q Science (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He is participating in a lawful assembly, as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as a private citizen, not as a government employee, with other notable people such as House Speaker Pelosi. I fail to see how this is anything other than injecting non-notable news reports into an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Q Science that this is clearly notable and further demonstrates just how radical and controversial the man has become. Stop whitewashing the criticisms. --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you've acknowledged your POV then. Now try to actually adhere to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. You can't just blindly insert whatever criticism that strokes your fancy. It has to be notable, and that would mean quite a bit more than what's currently on the blogosphere's lightboard. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the column inches allocated in the existing article. The controversial aspects of the man are completely under represented. Between you and Atmoz you are systematically eliminating any and all criticism. This clearly demonstrates your POV which you are pushing here. Look at the amount of material Atmoz already gutted ... and in a non-neutral way, IMHO. You can't just claim WP:WEIGHT when the article is already so skewed. Removal of properly sourced material in a neutral narrative (which this is) is disruptive per the Arbcom. --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As your sole purpose at Wikipedia seems to be to cause disruption, I consider you a troll. Consider you ignored. -Atmoz (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who is it that has been gutting sections which have long been stable? It wasn't me. --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello--I updated the previous "Capitol Power Plant Protetst Controversy" Section, this time highlighting the heavy winter weather which hampered the global warming protest:

In 2009, Hansen advocated the participation of citizens at a March 2 unlawful protest at the Capitol Power Plant (located in Southeast Washington, D.C.). Hansen stated "We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet". Dr. John Theon, a former senior NASA atmospheric scientist and past supervisor of Hansen said "I'm not surprised ... The fact that Jim Hansen has gone off the deep end here is sad because he's a good fellow...Why he has not been fired I do not understand." United States Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (a member of the House's Committee on Science and Technology) stated "If he wants to have a demonstration concerning global warming, coming to the Capitol is not a right choice. Most of us have always thought he has been hiding behind a scientific facade, and really, he was a political activist all along." Author Chris Horner, who wrote the book "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed" has stated "He's providing ample cause to question his employment on the taxpayer dime. He's clearly abused his platform provided to him by the taxpayer, principally by the way he's been exposed of manipulating and revising data with the strange coincidence of him always found on the side of exaggerating the warming." The global warming protests were ultimately hampered by the heaviest snowfall of the year, in which 15 cm of snow blanketed Washington. Lettson (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm afraid I removed it again. The above text is from a strong POV, reading like a coat rack for negative comments. Even if it was notable enough for inclusion, I'd expect there to be two sides to his involvement. That aside, while I think the snowstorms were interesting, I can't see their relevance in terms of Hansen's support. - Bilby (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, you seem to have an axe to grind that has no place in Wikipedia, the section you have just removed is a factual report, it may not be true but if that is the case there may be an argument for remove it and say so. To call it POV puts you are right out of line. I am restoring an important piece of information about James Hansen.--Damorbel (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a referennce to a Greenpace clip showing Hansen doing just what the contribution says, I think that is good enough for wikipedia verifiability and takes it a long way from POV.--Damorbel (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this message. My main problem, other than the fact that it seems like an incredibly minor issue, is that what has been written here is extremely biased. Even the Fox News coverage was more neutral than this, including the U.S. Office of Special Counsel saying that he is allowed to protest (countering what was written into the article), Greenpeace lending support, and Mark Hess supporting him. I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be even stronger support out there - as evidenced by even a cursory search. I don't care much about Hansen either way, but I do care about WP:NPOV. - Bilby (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Long article

Could the climate change science (GISS and later models) be broken out into a separate article?

That would seem to be be the best way to present it, so the models can be documented separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchpup (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there are several sections that are inappropriate for a bio, and are only general background info...started to work on downselecting this excess material.Thad Riley (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have removed too much. Material on the subject's research is appropriate here unless it's covered in an article of its own. I suggest finding a consensus for your changes before making a radical overhaul.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the text should be moved to its own article and not be here. However, that means that you don't simply delete the text. Instead, provide a one paragraph summary and a link to the new page (ie, please create the new page first). Q Science (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For obvious Scibaby socks (like Thad Riley above), just revert and wait for a CU to confirm and block. The material removed was about Hansen's prior work as a scientist, and as such is relevant to a biography of a scientist. -Atmoz (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Canal photo relevance

The caption for the photo of a canal says, "This photograph taken in Amsterdam shows how coastal areas are vulnerable to sea levels rising."

How does it show this? If it does, the caption should explain. If it doesn't, perhaps the photograph doesn't really belong here. Francis Lima (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Amsterdam canal photo's only tenuously related to the topic, at best: Hansen didn't take the picture, and isn't quoted saying anything about Amsterdam. If nobody can explain its presence between now and June 30, I'll go ahead and remove it. Francis Lima (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that this photograph shows sea level in Amsterdam is completely spurious. There is an organisation called the [Rijkswaterstaat] that has complete control over water levels in the Netherlands. Occasionally there are disasters (1953) and threats of floods but the Dutch spend vast amounts of money avoiding them. The ground water level varies from one place to another but this is maintained by pumps etc., there are no examples of water levels being uncontrolled permanently. There are plenty of examples in Europe of buildings emerging from canals like in the picture Bruges in Belgium and Venice spring to mind without even trying.--Damorbel (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrest at WVA Coal Protest

It's not yet clear if Hansen was cited for trespass (New York Times), or for obstruction and impeding traffic (Associated Press). I went with the Times, but we can change the charges if AP is right. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This new Charleston (WVA) Gazette article appears to be written by a reporter on the scene: "Thirty-one protesters were charged with obstructing officers and impeding traffic after they sat down in the middle of W.Va. 3 outside Massey Energy's Goals Coal preparation plant in Raleigh County."

"Protesters dropped their initial plan to enter the Massey operation, and risk arrest for trespassing, when several hundred coal miners, family members and other industry supporters blocked the entrance to the site." --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

NYT changed story, now cites Charleston Gazette. Changed ours accordingly.--Pete Tillman (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted long quote -- I don't think this really helps the reader, just adds bulk. Anyone who wants to read Hansen's full statement can go to cite. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the entire quote. It gives context that wasn't previously in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hansen's role as a climate activist (new section)

Atmoz reverted, commenting "Undo weight; who are these people?"

Atmoz, please see

• Freeman Dyson, one of the world's best-known physicists.

• Elizabeth Kolbert, award-winning journalist for the New Yorker.

• Andrew Freedman, environmental journalist for the Washington Post, a WP: reliable source.

• Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, formerly Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The WaPo blog is not reliable. In that post, he's not reporting the news, he's making the news. "Personally, I am torn by Hansen's situation..." That's blogging, not journalism. Dyson's opinion on Hansen is irrelevant. The New Yorker piece isn't on LexisNexis yet, but appears to be quote mining. -Atmoz (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• To quote from WP:RS:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

I believe that for our purposes here that the Washington Post can be considered a "a major news organization". So the fact that this particular bit is in a blog style is of no import. Also, that particular section of their website is hosted by a group that includes numerous Meterologists who are certainly qualified to comment on the happenings are the American Meteorological Society. In addition Tillman has taken the extra step of attributing the statement directly to Freedman. This all seems completely within policy to me. --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Dyson's opinion on Hansen is irrelevant." - I don't know. Personally I think that Dyson's opinion of Hansen is at least as notable as, say, Micahel Mann's opinion of Fred Singer. More so, in fact, because Dyson presumably doesn't have an axe to grind whereas Mann obviously does. --GoRight (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz: You're seriously arguing that Freeman Dyson's opinion isn't notable? Published in the New York Times? And you're accusing me of "quote mining" when you haven't even read the Kolbert article?

For the WaPo piece, here's a quote:

"Some AMS members have taken issue with Hansen's outspokenness and political advocacy on climate change, and the reaction from some meteorologists has been harsh. Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo was quoted on the New York Times' Dot Earth blog as saying that the AMS' decision to honor Hansen was "a sad day and embarrassment for a once great society that has lost its way."" Looks like reporting to me. And the Washington Post is certainly a reliable source.

None of your complaints appear to have substance. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is clearly notable, and the sources provided are clearly WP:RS. I note that over time this article has become skewed such that the criticism of Hansen is being persistently whitewashed relative to it's prominence in the media. The majority of press on Hansen for quite some time has been mentioning how controversial he has become in one way or another. This should be reflected in the article and Pete Tillman seems to have been made a good faith attempt to fill that gap. --GoRight (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources were reliable, but they tended towards cherry picking and misrepresentation. To look at each of the four:

• Andrew Freedman was not commenting on Hansen as such, but on the American Meteorological Society. He takes great care in the article to be neutral or, indeed, positive about Hansen. The quote used, "By citing his 'clear communication of climate science in the public arena,' they may have actually sanctioned his political advocacy. Such advocacy... threatens to paint the AMS as having a political agenda too." is clearly not commenting on whether or not Hansen should be politically active, but the AMS's choice of giving him the award, because it ties them to his political agenda.
• Andrew Revkin's comments, "Dr. Hansen has pushed far beyond the boundaries of the conventional role of scientists, particularly government scientists, in the environmental policy debate." reads like a statement of fact, rather than a criticism, and I read it is a positive statement. Significantly, Revkin continues with "He’s been heaped with scorn and honors as a result." That clearly places it as a statement, rather than a criticism.
• Freeman Dyson is being critical. But I agree with Atmoz that he's also well outside of his specialty, expressing a personal opinion. It's not that he isn't notable, but that his opinions on global warming and global warming scientists are of questionable value, even if they make for an interesting article.
• Finally, Eileen Claussen is qualified to comment, and is somewhat critical. The full quote is more positive, but the real issue is taking this in isolation - what about other climate scientists? What is the general view of him? Do others share her concern? Taking it in isolation is cherry picking and problematic.

In short, both Freedman and Revkin are misrepresented, Freeman is of questionable value, given that he's commenting outside of his area of expertise, and the use of Claussen without balance is problematic. I can see an argument for including Claussen, but doing so requires more balance than what is currently presented. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"... is clearly not commenting on whether or not Hansen should be politically active, but the AMS's choice of giving him the award, because it ties them to his political agenda." - I'm sorry, but I disagree, at least at some level. I believe that comment is a criticism of both AMS AND Hansen. Freeman provides the following two quotes: "the AMS' decision to honor Hansen was '... a sad day and embarrassment for a once great society that has lost its way.'" from Joe D'Aleo and "I believe Dr. Hansen's political ideology has taken over his science and renders him no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data," from Craig James. Neither of these can be considered a positive representation of Hansen. I agree that Freeman attempts to be balanced by providing some positives from other sources, but I certainly wouldn't say he took "great care" to do so. YMMV. Either way, the bottom line is that Freeman is admonishing the AMS for honoring Hansen and, therefore, the man himself for crossing the line into political advocacy. If Hansen had done nothing wrong in that regard, why should AMS distance itself from him as Freeman and others claim? I don't believe that you can justifiably separate the two points as you are attempting to do. --GoRight (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you're still misrepresenting Freedman. Freedman didn't say "a sad day and embarrassment for a once great society that has lost its way" - he quoted Joe D'Aleo. And, as you mentioned, the second quote was from Craig James. The point is that Freedman and the article was not criticising Hansen, but the AMS' decision to give him the award. These are very different things, and the current quote in the article is very much about the AMS, not Hansen. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the point of contention is actually the title of the section. You accept the source as WP:RS, so would you feel better if the section title was "controversy surrounding his political activism" rather than "criticism of his activism" or some similar phrasing? I think you will at least agree that Freedman believes that the award was controversial for AMS to make, or am I incorrect on that point? --GoRight (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right. Although I still probably wouldn't have it here, as it seems Hansen is only peripherally involved (it wasn't his actions which the Freedman's comments relate to, but the AMS's). Maybe someone else is inclined to chip in there. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) "Freedman is of questionable value, given that he's commenting outside of his area of expertise" - I disagree that he is operating outside his area of expertise. From his bio on the blog:

"Andrew Freedman is an environmental journalist with a lifelong fascination with the weather. His work has appeared on The Weather Channel's "Forecast Earth" Web site, in Congressional Quarterly, Greenwire and Environment & Energy Daily, as well as Weatherwise magazine. He has also worked for NOAA's National Weather Service and on the summit of Mount Washington as a weather observing intern. A former D.C. resident, Andrew currently resides in Boston where is he is attending the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as part of a dual master's degree program in climate change policy with Columbia University."

In addition his work on this blog includes direct interaction with accredited (I assume?) meteorologists. In any event his comment is related to the political aspects of the situation, not the scientific basis. He clearly states with regards to the scientific basis that Hansen's body of work is "not at issue." --GoRight (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Freeman, not Freedman, with the questionable value statement. (The names are horribly similar - I should have used Dyson, but stuffed up). Freedman may well know what he's doing - my point with Freedman is that he isn't criticising Hansen. Sorry for the confusion. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad on Freeman/Freedman. Well I removed criticism from the section title which I believe addresses the Freedman "disconnect" per above. Even if his comment is about AMS' actions it is also about the award given to Hansen which is still controversy regarding Hansen. On Dyson YMMV, I guess. I am inclined to let this sit for a while and see what others think overall. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the new title to my original -- thanks, GoRight.

As for Dyson, first, he has experience working in climate science, albeit 30 years ago, for Alvin Weinberg's pioneering climate group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. See Freeman Dyson#Career.

Second, he's not criticizing the technical aspects of Hansen's work. He's criticizing Hansen's "true-believer" behavior, and he's certainly qualified to do that.

Third, another Dyson quote is apropos: "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." Yale interview. Which we seem to be seeing here.

Re Freeman/Freedman: I contributed to this confusion by calling Freedman "Freeman" in our article (since corrected). Sorry! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• An editor removed the AMS award controversy (first paragraph). This is well-sourced, stable text, which we discussed at some length above. If you have some new objection, please discuss it here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The AMS award controversy was presented in a misleading way; those quoted in the cited articles explicitly questioned not Hansen's science, but whether the AMS should give an award to a controversial figure, "lightning rod" being a succinct description. I've added clarifying language so lest readers be mislead into thinking it was the science that was at issue. Surely we can agree that Hansen is a lightning rod. rewinn (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but it's not supported by the references. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is both true AND supported by the 1st reference, the "lightning rod" is a direct quote.

"His body of work is not at issue, as Hansen is widely admired in the climate science community...."

"Some AMS members have taken issue with Hansen's outspokenness and political advocacy on climate change..."

"...the AMS, which is a scientific society comprised of about 12,000 atmospheric scientists who mainly specialize in weather and have disparate views of climate science, erred in honoring such a lightning rod of controversy, despite the tremendous value his research has been to the scientific community" [8]rewinn (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Read your edit again.[9] If others are questioning like Freedman you cannot reference that to Freedman. Find another source. -Atmoz (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Global temperature

This section inserted by Nishkid64 without further justification has no relevant information about James Hansen and thus has no place in Wikipedia. It will be removed shortly in the absence of justification.--Damorbel (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a significant work of Hansen. Clarified in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Add link 350 (organisation) [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation)

Add link 350 (organisation) [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.234.152 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the only relation between this NGO and Hansen is the fact that at some point Hansen mentioned '350ppm' and the NGO decided to use that as their name, I think it does not deserve mentioning here. I saw, you added a link to 350 (organisation) to the See Alsos of a number of global warming related articles. Wikipedia is not the right place for advocating a political position... See WP:NOT SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Sustainability advocates

Add Category:Sustainability advocates 99.190.88.247 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is not protected. You can add it yourself if you want. -Atmoz (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

link 47 is to a different paper than the May 18, 2007 =

In a paper published May 18, 2007, Hansen discussed the potential danger of "fast-feedback" effects causing ice sheet disintegration, based on paleoclimate data —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitol Power Plant Protest

Why is this section inappropriate? It's sourced, and not entirely irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps looking at earlier discussions will help (it generally does). Most of all it is undue weight, a cherry-pick of quotes (why these?), and why do we want to quote Rohrabacher? (does she represent any significant faction?) Not to mention that the factual accuracy of the FoxNews story is rather dodgy (citing Theon as Hansen former "supervisor" (which he wasn't)). And of course the final coup de grâce: Its already mentioned in the article. (the catastrophist reference) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh - and i forgot: What btw. was unlawful about it? (hint: all in all the section is a very good example of POV) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unlawful" wasn't in the original articles, so shouldn't be here. My mistake.

However, much of the rest of the paragraph is properly sourced, relevant, and not otherwise included. (The "catastrophist reference" mentions this protest, but it's not in the article.)

What makes this particular event relevant? Why is Rohrabacher relevant? Why would we mention weather conditions? And what makes the quote from Hansen notable enough to be in the article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that Hansen supported the protest is of some interest, but it's not a controversy and doesn't deserve its own section. I added back part of it in the Climate activism section near the end. Arthur, the citations are incomplete. Please always add the name of the author, title of the article, date of the article and name of publisher in your citations. See WP:CITE. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the WP:CITE problem. I just copied the material that was inserted (by 2 or 3 different editors) and removed (by 2 other different editors). Agree with the current placement and weight.

I get tired of reverting the addition of nonsensical "everything a climate activist does is good and related to everything else any other climate activist does" IP edits, that I sometimes want to ensure that when a climate activist apparently does something bad, that it should appear in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is showing. There is nothing bad with protesting. -Atmoz (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He has a point Atmoz, there are people who are not holding their fanboys to the same level of critical thought. Climate change has just become an ideological cheerleeding game that has spread to wikipedia. Both sides are guilty no matter who has the science right.(LVAustrian (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

No mention of Hansen's infamous predictions about the future

The Article doesn't mention the nutty assertions that Hansen has made over the years. It also seems to white wash controversial behavior and quotes by this person. I do not consider this article a decent biographical representation of James Hansen. 82.101.205.224 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg What was scenario a, b, and c? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Translate this article

May I translate this article to portuguese? Please, how can I get this done? I wouldn´t verify each source you put on your article; I just want to translate because I think it is very intersting. Carlalevon (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing against Hansen's ideas at Biosequestration Carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol

Please note that editors have been trying to remove or render unintelligible Hansen's ideas about carbon sequestration at power plants and a carbon tax with dividend inversely proportional to carbon footprint at the above articles. Help in preventing this disruption would be appreciated.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As an interested editor, I shouldn't remove this, but this section is clearly not related to editing this article, and should probably be removed, per WP:TALK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

as this is the core article on Hansen's ideas it's clearly relevant to mention considering linking to discussions of Hansen's ideas in other wiki articles.NimbusWeb (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as you're WP:CANVASSing, let me comment that the paragraphs in question are mostly irrelevant to the articles they have been added to, and (at least) "biosequestration", "geosequestration", and "proportional" have not been attributed to any of the sources presented. I would like to request that those words be tagged with {{syn}} or {{offtopic}} as appropriate, until they are removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

This is a BLP about Dr. James Hansen. Those external links are useful for readers who want more information. I don't see how the article is improved by removing them. Q Science (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have redeleted two of the ELs with more detailed reasoning in the edit history. I have also moved the ELs that really appear to be references to the references section with an template:inline tag. They should be worked in as inline references, or I think they violate various parts of [WP:ELNO]]. I hope this addresses your concerns. Novaseminary (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• There was a problem some time back where people wanted to add all of (or at least many more) of Dr. Hansen's papers to an already long BLP. There was also a problem finding the actual texts of his papers since most of the references just link to abstracts and you need to pay to see the actual works. As a result, a link was added to a good, long, list of references with links to the full texts. That is one of the "external links" that you have removed.

Publications by James E. Hansen, this index contains links to full articles

• Many of the videos provide better references than the embedded references and, in fact, it makes more sense to group these together at the bottom.

• In addition, there have been many edit wars on this page and a lot of those links were important to stopping the wars. I am afraid that a massive change like that will just put us back where we were a year a go and restart a lot of grief. Q Science (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the publications page is a wonderful resource. And it is part of his official website and is linked to prominently from his GISS home page (which is linked more prominently and clearly in the article now). Per WP:ELOFFICIAL it should remain out ("In the 'External links' section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."). This holds for his CV, too.

As for the videos, if the videos are better references than the inline references currently there, that is all the more reason to put them in as inline references. Nothing says more than one reference can't support a given fact. But you might run into WP:OR or WP:UNDUE issues -- see, again, WP:ELOFFICIAL for more on giving too much weight to the subject's own words and take on things. There are better ways to head off edit wars than allowing guidelines to go by the wayside. I would try putting the videos and such into actual inline references and then lets see what happens. I wonder if going this route won't actually discourage more edits wars. Novaseminary (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@QS: I think the order of events is wrong. The edit warring over the pubs list was before the addition of the research section, which is most of its length, to the article. WP:SIZE specifies 6,000-10,000 words as a guideline for an upper limit. This article has about 5,000 words. While it is longer than most article, I don't think it's too long. Nearly all of Hansen's papers are on his website. -Atmoz (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Family?

Why nothing about his family at all? Although known for his work, he's also a regular person too... 129.2.171.41 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Nightvid

Edit request from PeterVogelsanger, 13 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Text wich should be removed: Hansen also has advocated a progressive carbon tax at source on those who mine carbon as oil, gas or coal, with a 100% dividend returned to citizens in equal shares, the actual return varying according to the size of their carbon footprint: those with a low carbon footprint, for example, would get a higher proportion of the dividend.[63][65][66][67][68]

To be replace with (suggestion for new text in place of older text): Hansen also has advocated a carbon tax (or carbon fee) at source on those who mine or import carbon as oil, gas or coal, with a 100% dividend returned to citizens in equal shares.[63][65][66][67][68]

Alternative suggestion for replacement: Hansen also has advocated a carbon tax (now more often referred to as a carbon fee, because the state shall not be the beneficiary of the revenues raised) at source on those who mine or import carbon as oil, gas or coal, with a 100% dividend returned to citizens in equal shares. The net gain or loss from the fee and dividend would vary, according to the size of the individual's carbon footprint.[63][65][66][67][68]

Explanation for request: The current wording is wrong and misleading. Neither James Hansen (nor any other person, to my knowledge) has ever argued in favor of a scheme which the wording of the current version suggests. Also the word "progressive" in the current version is incorrect. The scheme proposed by James Hansen and others is linear on the fee side and constant (or "egalitarian") on the dividend side. Also, "or import" is added in my suggestions, because this would be most often applicable as the "source".

If you wanted to add a good reference, for the term or mechanism of fee and dividend, this is the one, (the number one proponent, as far as the Americas are concerned): Peter Barnes, Who owns the sky?, http://books.google.ch/books?id=wL6Kx-gpYG4C&dq=peter+barnes+who+owns+the+sky&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=de&ei=VJuOTKm6IMWQOIK77ZsL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false (as the copyright is Peter Barnes' I suppose it can be cited. ISBN: 1559638559. Thank you for making these changes. PeterVogelsanger (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Peter Vogelsanger

•  Not done I don't see a reason to make this change, but I'll leave the edit request template active so I may get a second opinion. -- Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He claimed the tax would be "progressive", in some source, but it is logically incorrect. Other statements he made about the proposed tax are logically incorrect, so I suppose we need go with what he said. I'm not sure the statement should be there at all, but the proposed revision is not an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address some of these concerns. First off, I agree that he merely asserts the progressive nature, so I've said that. Second I'm dubious about the more-return-for-lower-footprint: I think that is a consequence, but isn't built in (would go against the keep-it-simple) so I cut that. And also I thin k his strong opposition to cap-n-trade should be noted, esp since its in the same source William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"computer codes"

"Computer codes" is currently in the lede twice. Do we mean algorithm? Computer program ? Pedro :  Chat  19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not algorithm. "Computer codes" covers a broader type of model; algorithm would just be a way of doing one particular bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points. "Process" maybe? Or "system(s)"? Either are surely better "computer codes". Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording appears awkward, so I will try to patch. Feel free to correct my changes! rewinn (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

soros influence

[12] James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"? ... Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. Redhanker (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and Hansen was a well-known scientist and public figure 20 years before the incident. And please clearly indicate when you copy something somewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Category:Climatologists ?

Add Category:Climatologists ? 99.184.231.151 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Organizing 'Controversies'

The 'controversy' section was haphazardly organized, so I re-org'd it as follows

• First, his allegations of censorship; these would be both notable and hard to prove, hence controvesial
• Arrests. Notable and may excite some controversy
• Statements, either as expert witness or in interviews. Frankly, being called as an expert witness is not terribly controversial but another editor seems to think this is important so what the heck. The important thing is that Hansen had nothing to do with the crime that the trial was about, so it's not relevant to Hansen per se.
• Critics. A good controversy section would include statements for and against the proposition in controversy, but this subsection is merely a recitation of criticisms of Hansen; it's difficult to say what may be the proposition unifying all these quotes, except that they disagree with Hansen. If the proposition is whether Hansen is right or wrong about AGW, then the controversy section needs voices on both sides. But I'll save that for another day, hoping someone else will do the work. rewinn (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the expert witness testimony, that's been inserted numerous times by a banned editor. Other than your comment regarding being an expertwitness, the wording falsly makes it appear that the comments he gave were in defense of the graffiti artists. They were, in fact, directed more generally. Otherwise, the restructure looks good. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I especially appreciate your educating me on the witness stuff, which seemed out of place in this article. Cheers! rewinn (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Portal:Energy or replace with Portal:Renewable energy ?

Remove Portal:Energy or replace with Portal:Renewable energy ? 99.181.132.238 (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad URL

Please fix DOI link from: Hansen, J., and S. Lebedeff (1988). "Global surface air temperatures: Update through 1987". Geophys. Res. Lett. 15: 323–326. doi:10.1029/88GL02067.DLH (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks! Sailsbystars (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This oddly not yet included ... Mark Bowen's Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming (2008) ISBN 978-0525-95014-1

Add *Bowen, Mark (2008). Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. New York: Dutton. ISBN 978-0525-95014-1. 99.19.43.72 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That one almost makes sense. If you write it properly with an {{editsemiprotected}}, I might handle it for you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please add to Further Reading 99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unwikilink Kiyoshi Kawabata

Unwikilink Kiyoshi Kawabata. Too much red. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Red links serve a purpose and there are only about four in the whole article, so I won't unwikilink this one for you. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd, possibly malicious sentence interspersal.

"In a 2004 presentation at the University of Iowa, Hansen announced that he was told by high-ranking government officials not to talk about how anthropogenic influence could have a dangerous effect on climate because it's not understood what dangerous means, or how human are actually affecting climate. The human-made influences of global warming are smaller than natural regional climate fluctuations. This is partially because the effects of aerosol, which act to cool the surface, and mask the warming effects of greenhouse gases. He describes this as a Faustian bargain because atmospheric aerosols have health risks, and should be reduced, but doing so will effectively increase the warming effects from CO2.[32]"

The 2nd and 3rd sentences, as written, have nothing to do with the subject of the paragraph, and serve as subliminal refutations of Hansen's work. Please either tie them to the context (e.g. "The officials claimed that ...") if true, or remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.81.178 (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I took out two sentences (even though I don't understand everything about them). Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:350.org#Add_current_events_from_resource_...

From Portal:Current events/2011 August 30 ...

• Environmentalists, citing greenhouse gas emissions and risks of a oil spills, including climatologist James Hansen are arrested outside the White House in Washington D.C. in a protest to urge President Barack Obama to reject TransCanada Corp.'s $7 billion proposed Keystone Pipeline extension from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northern Alberta in Canada to the US Gulf Coast. (AP via Sydney Morning Herald)(Bloomberg) (The Nation) (The New York Times) (NPR) 99.56.120.83 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 99.56.120.83. Unless I'm mistaken this was added to the article already at James_Hansen#Arrests. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

from Talk:2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference by Special:Contributions/Watti Renew ...

According to James Hansen 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. ref [13]. Original report: Whos Holding Us Back

According to James Hansen the single most important action needed to tackle the climate crisis is to reduce CO₂ emissions from coal. ref True Cost of Coal p.66-69. We have more energy resources than the environment can cope with. Finance is essential. Bill Clinton agreed with it. Correct me if I quote wrong. I remember James Lovelock writing that we are like a persons who celebrate in a yacht without considering the river where they celebrate, while the yacht is on its way to the Niagara falls. Report Bankrolling climate change

According to James Hansen now is a critical moment in the history of our planet. The US and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed.

Please take notice to the James Hansen’s winning reasoning.

James Hansen has also commented the Cap and trade: A carbon fee, including in China and India, is the only realistic path to global action. Governments talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests and system that invites corruption. Cap and trade is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe. As our governments turn a deaf ear to the science, the judicial branch may provide the best opportunity to redress the situation. Guardian 26.8.2010

99.181.147.68 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Add link to climate change mitigation

Add link to climate change mitigation, please. 99.190.83.243 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mitigation already linked from global warming template at bottom of page; is there some more specific place you wanted it? -- Limulus (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dying NASA scientist?

Is this the same scientist who put up conspiracy videos about aliens, and other unusual stuff on YouTube? He calls himself Jim in these videos. This is one of his videos. Any thoughts? 35.32.229.158 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Errr... no. Silly. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect publication date

Hansen's first GISS study estimating global temperature rise since the late 19th century was published in 1987, not 1981. Hansen is known for publishing "Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcb0667 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Found this on Storms of My Grandchildren, useful here?

Hansen has advanced an alternative view of global warming wherein he argues the 0.74±0.18°C rise in average global temperatures over the last 100 years has been driven mainly by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (such as methane). ( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875 )

99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil servant

The article never actually mentions Hansen's classification as a civil servant--this has been corrected. Junaji (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that classification is partially redundant (what else would the head of a NASA institute be), and partially problematic. He also is adjunct professor at a (private) Ivy League university, and a successful author (not to mention many other things not quite that directly related to his occupation). His status as a civil servant is certainly not important enough to be in the lede (which is supposed to summarize the most important and notable facts of the article). It also is not referenced at all, which brings us into WP:BLP territory. I've removed it again. Please find consensus on if and how to incorporate this into the article with proper weight.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that everyone knows that the head of NASA is a civil servant, which is not true. People come to Wikipedia to learn new facts--and this is a critical new fact. Not every fact requires a consensus on a talk page. The fact he is a civil servant is noted in the book "Censoring Science" which is referenced as background material. Junaji (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think this fact is in any way "critical" or "new"? And no, Hansen is not "the head of NASA". Also see WP:V: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis mine). There is no doubt that he also is a civil servant, of course. But there is significant disagreement that this is important enough to be in the lede - the extra information conveyed there is minimal. Finally, as stated before, the lede is a summary of the body, so it would need to go into the body first (and, I'd argue, only there). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded intro

Sorry folks, I do not know how to start a new talk topic. I just wanted the authors of this page to note that Dr. Hanses does speak about animal agriculture and plant diet in order to reduce climate emissions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbxeAFk8mY This is not the optimal reference but perhaps you will find a better one. Thanks. Dr. Tushar Mehta Mehtat (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate.

I doubt whether even Dr. Hansen himself would agree that he "understands the earth's atmosphere". Might I suggest "Further refinement of these models were applied to the Earth's atmosphere which led to an improved understanding of the dynamic processes involved in creating our climate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 October 2011‎

Father of Climate Warming

User:ThePowerofX in regard to your removal [14]

Hansen is sometimes called the "father of global warming" for his early warnings about the impacts of rising levels of greenhouse gases. In 1981, he published the model that showed a rise on global temperatures between the 1880s and the 1970s. (BBC 2.4.2013]

this could deserve place since I found several hits to this with the Google, like:

• Father of climate change: 2C limit is not enough
• The Unvarnished Truth about Climate Change and Global Warming

but at the same time

• You’ve been called the father of global warming. What does that means to you and is it actually true?

Hansen replied: Of course it’s not true, in the sense that global warming goes way back into the 1800s. So it’s not accurate to say I’m the father of global warming. I think where that misimpression comes from is the fact that the public didn’t pay much attention to this science until the 1980s, when it became much more widely noticed in part because of the testimony I gave in 1988 [to Congress]. and more

" In fact, that doesn’t make sense from the standpoint of the public or the planet. We really should leave the larger part of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground, and that means especially coal and unconventional fossil fuels. We just have not succeeded in communicating what I think is clear scientifically. So that’s why I keep working so many hours per week – to try to help make that clear" (Autumn 2009)

Watti Renew (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is important. Some refer to him like this, since his Senate hearing back in the lat 80s. If this would be included, his response should be added as well. prokaryotes (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

1988 Congressional testimony neutrality

The lede mentions the subject's pivotal 1988 Congressional testimony, but it is barely covered in the body, except to mention in passing that it is "well-known" in reference to another event in the same year, and a 2006 update to the 1988 claims. Article should include when, context, committee, summary of substance of testimony, reaction, and impact. Coverage is grossly non-neutral with respect to copious reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on James Hansen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041015153937/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html to http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113060351/http://eesc.columbia.edu/faculty/james-e-hansen to http://eesc.columbia.edu/faculty/james-e-hansen
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041015153937/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html to http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on James Hansen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114144734/http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf to http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106094410/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126201600/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0%2C33

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)