Jump to content

Talk:James Hansen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mehtat (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 26 February 2015 (Poorly worded intro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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)[reply]


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 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 24 October 2011‎

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Father of Climate Warming

User:ThePowerofX in regard to your removal [1]

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:

but at the same time

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)[reply]