User talk:Kolg8

Richard Too

I would ask to have Richard Too reconsidered, as I believes that he does meet the definition of a "scientist," as defined in this article. Here is the definition of the qualification: "For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology."

Tol has published in several peer reviewed articles. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=richard+tol+the+economic+impacts+of+climate+change+will+be+small&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

One of these articles is "The Journal of Economic Perspectives." That is peer reviewed. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/journal/detail/1095

The challenge to Tol's credentials seems to be that the peer reviewed articles are published in economic journals. However, the requirement is not that the journal be in the field of natural sciences. Rather, the requirement is that the research article has to be in the broad field of natural sciences. Isn't an article entitled "The Economic Effects of Climate Change" 'in the broad field of natural sciences?'

Even if I am misreading the definition, and the peer reviewed journal itself must be in the field of natural sciences, I would point to his article "The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions, an Assessment of the Uncertainties." That was published in "Energy Policy," which "address[es] the policy implications of energy supply and use from their economic, social, planning and environmental aspects." I would think that journal would be considered a journal which publishes in the field of natural sciences.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421504001028 https://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-policy

Additionally, he has published in "Global Environmental Change," described as "a peer-reviewed international journal publishing high quality, theoretically and empirically rigorous articles, which advance knowledge about the human and policy dimensions of global environmental change." https://www.journals.elsevier.com/global-environmental-change

Kolg8 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kolg8! Thank you for your contributions. I am DRAGON BOOSTER and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recreate the talkpage of a deleted page again

Of course the talkpage of a deleted page is supposed to also be deleted. I had great difficulty getting this done after I had closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, because the talkpage history was too big for ordinary deletion. Eventually I had to get a steward to delete it. I'm sorry you then found it necessary to recreate the talkpage to put your opinion on it. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to understand how the word "consensus" is used on Wikipedia. It does not mean that 100% of users agree — if it did, it would be impossible to ever decide anything here. There was certainly consensus for deleting List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, and I closed the discussion accordingly. Please don't recreate the talkpage of a deleted page again. It's a disruptive thing to do, and makes pointless work for other people. (The page you re-created has now been re-deleted, and I have protected it against re-creation.) As you have already been told, for instance here, there are better ways to query my close, such as listing it on Wikipedia:Deletion review. After you have read WP:CONSENSUS I hardly think you'd take the trouble, but you can if you want to. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Kolg8, for reference, see here on Deletionpedia. X1\ (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]