Talk:James Hansen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minor edit request

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

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

I believe it would be better:

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

The Mirror Effect

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

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

Article Bias

There are several highly biased remarks in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You raise a number of points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JR2020 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JR2020 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Traptoni Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on Clean Up

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

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

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

Monbiot

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

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

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

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

66.81.160.5 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

66.81.160.172 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hocomd's additions

I don't believe this [1] is reasonable. If anywhere, it should go on global warming controversy William M. Connolley 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

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

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

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

Usufruct & the Gorilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

Djovani thinks that...

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

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

Hansen's work on Global Cooling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rasool? If you're only reading AW you're probably getting a rather biased version. Updating of the T series is done constantly (obviously; otherwise people would complain it was out of date). The RC view is [2]. But for present purposes it seems we agree William M. Connolley 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Hansen's earlier prediction of coming Ice Age

Interesting opinion piece in the Investor's Business Daily based on a story in the Washington Post in 1971. [3] Recently, global warming alarmists have tried to distance themselves from the prediction of a coming Ice Age back in the 70s. But it is hard to distance your camp when one of the leaders of the current alarmism was a leader of the Ice Age alarmism. I think this deserves to be in the article.RonCram 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know about the amount quoted, but the fact that OSI supported Hansen is stated in OSI's 2006 annual report. [4]. Thatcher131 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See also [5]. Thatcher131 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

OSI didn't fund Hansen. GAP provided pro-bono legal help to Hansen. The OSI annual report tells you how much GAP got from OSI. I doesn't provide you any info as to how much (value of advice) Hansen got from GAP [6]. Please stop believing IBD William M. Connolley 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hansens take on this is [7] William M. Connolley 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

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

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

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

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

“ The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. ”

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

Hansen statement

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

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

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

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

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

I rather admire Hansen for sticking to his guns, and agree with him that burning coal is just about the worst way possible to generate electricity. The quote I inserted illustrates his confrontational style and bulldog tenacity, and is both newsworthy and notable. This item also illustrates for the reader a fact-of-life for public figures: Hansen quite properly opened his Iowa testimony stating he was acting as a private citizen, not as a rep of NASA. But note the headline in his hometown newspaper: "More from NASA's Hansen on coal" [8] . Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't agree at all, but feel free to propose a revision -- that's the Wikipedia way, see Help:Reverting, particularly section 1.2: Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. [emphasis in original). Also see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Note that, sfaict, your objection is purely personal -- as I believe I've demonstrated above. Restore. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP/N requested [[9]] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blogged this [10] so I know all about it :-). The quote is accurate but unbalanced. Hansens position is very strongly against coal plants that don't sequester CO2. The article should say this, its a major part of what Hansen is currently pushing. The death trains is an exciting sound bite but less important, and one which he has at least partially backed off from. Mention it if necessary, but only as a small adjunct to the reasonned anti-coal position. FWIW, I don't think this is a BLP problem William M. Connolley (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

James Hansen

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements from page

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

==Statements==

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

• Warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO₂ greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH₄, and N₂O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO₂ and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. [...] This does not alter the desirability of limiting CO₂ emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO₂ over aerosols
• A global tipping point will be reached in 10 years (starting from 2006) if levels of greenhouse gases such as methane and CO₂ are not reduced. Global warming at this point becomes unstoppable.
• Global warming was 0.5–0.75 °C in the past century, and about 0.3 °C in the last 25 years
• Climate sensitivity to CO₂ doubling is 3±1 °C.
• The dangerous concentration of CO₂ can be no more than approximately 450 ppm. However, he now believes that it is "probable that the dangerous level is even lower."
• A feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting greenhouse gases from the air.
• When asked about "science skeptics", he replied that he "actually don't like the word "skeptics" for them; I think it's better to call them "contrarians," because all scientists are skeptics. If you're not skeptical as a scientist, you're not going to be very successful. You have to continually ask yourself how well your theories agree with the real world, and you can't fudge that." [11]

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

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

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

In this because:

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

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

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

death trains of a piece with trials statements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Trains context

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

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

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

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

scibaby started editwar

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

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

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

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

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

The consensus was (as I recall) that the quote was notable, and should be included in proper context. The last version by [[User:Oren0 seems to meet those standards. What -- specifically -- don't you like about it? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tillman - regarding User:Heart of a Lion see: [12]. Scibaby has a distinctive pattern of editing that can be recognized once you've seen more than 20+ of his socks. I was more than 99% certain even before asking Raul (who is a WP:Checkuser). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

People keep reverting based on "talk page consensus." Where is this mythical consensus? The only two editors I see who have opposed any inclusion on talk are KDP and rewinn. Not counting Scibaby, I see at least five people who have openly supported the idea of inclusion [Pete Tillman, Crmanriq, TMLutas, myself, GoRight] and two who seem at least open to it [VSmith ("If the quotes are deemed essential - then place them in context within the appropriate section of the article"), WMC ("Mention it if necessary... I don't think this is a BLP problem")]. So I'm a little confused at excluding the material "per consensus." Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

5-2 might not be ironclad but it's much more consensus than 2-5 is. Interesting that you call out GoRight but not [13] or [14]. But I digress, why wouldn't a notable quote that's been covered elsewhere be relevant? Potentially making the subject look bad doesn't itself exclude well-sourced material from inclusion in a BLP article. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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