Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a243ad4fb939f54b

Jump to content

Talk:James Hansen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 months ago by ~2026-31613-07 in topic Historical inaccuracies of his publications

Lead needs expanding

[edit]

This article's content needs a quick summary for the lead. We should have two more paragraphs for a standard lead needed to be complete for a B class article. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Criticism"

[edit]

This section should not exist. See WP:CSECTION. It is also a WP:COATRACK: somebody thinks the research prize was given for something that is not research, the denialist kooks do not like that he is on the side of the consensus on climate change, some environmentalists do not like that he is pro-nuclear. The missing context of "increasingly isolated" makes it seem like the isolation is for the same reasons the kooks name.

Most of the content should be moved to appropriate sections, and the kook stuff should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moved most of it. I do not know where the rest belongs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, deleted the denialist "criticisms" per WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
So people who disagree with a theory are "denialists" and criticism is not allowed. This is an utterly bizarre view of how science work. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:AD82:3AFB:2C62:B4B2 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
People with no expertise who disagree with a very well-established and near-unanimously accepted model, like gravity or carbon-induced global warming, with their disagreement based on nothing in particular (or nothing save misinformation peddled to the gullible), are termed denialists. Ignoring those who are unaware of the relevant science or dispute its central methods is part of the standard view of how science works. Cambial foliar❧ 19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Historical inaccuracies of his publications

[edit]

Why isn’t there a section outlining the historical inaccuracies of much of his work. His predictions have all been proven incorrect and he essentially brought much needed skepticism to these theoretical models that never correlate to actual events. ~2026-31613-07 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply