Talk:James Hansen
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
![]() | This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Famously Wrong
[edit]Why doesn't this article mention a few of his many spectacularly wrong predictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3306:5700:2d6c:7436:817d:4acd (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
For the same reason that this Wikipedia "article" does not mention how Senator Wirth and Mr. Hansen chose the historically hottest day for the infamous 1988 hearing and then sabotaged the air conditioning in the hearing room that day. Here is a link to "an edited transcript of an interview conducted Jan. 17, 2007" courtesy of PBS where Senator Wirth admits to and describes in detail this sabotage. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.107.24.124 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Which predictions? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Lead needs expanding
[edit]This article's content needs a quick summary for the lead. We should have two more paragraphs for a standard lead needed to be complete for a B class article. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"Criticism"
[edit]This section should not exist. See WP:CSECTION. It is also a WP:COATRACK: somebody thinks the research prize was given for something that is not research, the denialist kooks do not like that he is on the side of the consensus on climate change, some environmentalists do not like that he is pro-nuclear. The missing context of "increasingly isolated" makes it seem like the isolation is for the same reasons the kooks name.
Most of the content should be moved to appropriate sections, and the kook stuff should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Moved most of it. I do not know where the rest belongs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, deleted the denialist "criticisms" per WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- So people who disagree with a theory are "denialists" and criticism is not allowed. This is an utterly bizarre view of how science work. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:AD82:3AFB:2C62:B4B2 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- People with no expertise who disagree with a very well-established and near-unanimously accepted model, like gravity or carbon-induced global warming, with their disagreement based on nothing in particular (or nothing save misinformation peddled to the gullible by well-remunerated spin doctors), are termed denialists. Ignoring those who are unaware of the relevant science or dispute its central methods is part of the standard view of how science works. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- So people who disagree with a theory are "denialists" and criticism is not allowed. This is an utterly bizarre view of how science work. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:AD82:3AFB:2C62:B4B2 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also, deleted the denialist "criticisms" per WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class Environment articles
- Unknown-importance Environment articles
- B-Class Climate change articles
- High-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- B-Class physics articles
- Mid-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles
- B-Class energy articles
- Low-importance energy articles
- 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