![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RS's only please!
--
Pete Tillman (
talk) 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC). Last update:
Pete Tillman (
talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem in using the California Watch source, but I do in using the Grist (magazine) and Climate Progress sources to source what the activist Joe Romm wrote. Grist appears to be an activist website (for example, the story headline "Texas Gov. Rick Perry, climate crank, considering presidential run") and is funded by liberal foundations, while Climate Progress, as part of the Center for American Progress is actually overtly liberal. From WP:IRS, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." Neither source seems to qualify as a "high-quality" source. Drrll ( talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the remarks I made earlier, viz, Romm is a reliable source for his opinion, and his opinion is notable. If you don't like it, dispute resolution is that way. Rd232 talk 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Global Warming Indeed Under Way, Contrarian Panel Says October 20, 2011, 3:08 PM ... A team at the University of California Berkeley that set out to test the temperature data underlying the consensus on global warming has concluded that the mainstream estimate of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature since 1950 is indeed accurate. It has warmed about 1 degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the researchers say. The data sets and research papers are here, along with charts and a video. See http://www.berkeleyearth.org/ For related wikipedia discussion, see Talk:Global_warming#New_study_.28from_BEST.29_confirms_warming_trend 99.35.15.107 ( talk) 04:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
McKitrick's blog ( http://www.rossmckitrick.com/) states that he was one of the peer reviewers for these papers, that he has twice recommended they be rejected, and that the BEST papers don't appear to have been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed journal. If it can be confirmed McKitrick was a peer reviewer, or that these papers haven't passed peer review, this page will have to reflect that. 2.28.218.13 ( talk) 07:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/results-paper-july-8.pdf -- Pjacobi ( talk) 11:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is time to take this issue to the talk page.
IP editor 203.100.215.221 seems unhappy that Muller and Curry are noted in this article as being skeptical of earlier temperature reconstructions. That editor has twice elided reference to this fact. Once it was claimed the source was tendentious and the assertion was wrong. The second time it was claimed to be an uncited assertion.
I think I may have violated the special revert rules that apply global warming articles. I apologize, I wasn't thinking about that. I think the IP editor with whom I disagree may have also violated the rule, but I'm not sure.
If other experienced editors have an opinion, please chime in. M.boli ( talk) 19:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What I got from that is you think there should be cites in this article, specifically hooked to BEST. Very well, Muller's NYT op-ed is now the cite for his position. I don't have a throroughly credible cite for Curry yet that is specifically linked to the BEST study. Curry has decided not to sign to the project's findings, by the way. M.boli ( talk) 06:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the IP guy. My objection was both to bad or non-existent references, as well as the fact that the two scientists positions are much more nuanced than what people with an axe to grind are claiming. M.boli has now provided a cite, which is good, but unfortunately, it's still wrong. Please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/aug/03/scepticism-climate-study-richard-muller
(Emphasis mine) I'm not sure what exactly he was supposed to be a skeptic about.
(Emphasis mine) I think that speaks for itself. Let's leave it out. Cheers 203.100.215.221 ( talk) 09:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Both Muller and Curry before this project had been critical of other temperature record reconstructions. It is the nub of what is noteworthy about their participation on this team. It is what I wrote. Their various other positions related to global warming are being either over-simplified or minutely parsed by assorted axe-grinders, as illustrated above. However that is not germane. What is germane is that two high profile, technically qualified critics of previous studies participated in this study.
When adding the cite, I further quoted Muller on former doubt. Perhaps his language is a little strong, but his claim in his essay is that his disagreements with others' methods led him to doubt that their conclusions were valid. Having performed his own study, he sees no doubt any more. It is all of a piece, and really a narrow issue related to the validity of temperature reconstructions. Maybe I should reword the article to make this more ecplicit? Curry (it seems) still has reason to doubt some of the conclusions, and if a good source shows up that should be added. Anyway, that's how I see it. M.boli ( talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is off the rails. Before this study Muller had been a loud and contentious pain, not only seizing on and repeating every remotely plausible criticism of temperature studies but also gratuitously flinging accusations of misconduct. He says he has undergone a conversion experience about the existence of warming.
That he wrote a physics book where he knows his physics doesn't change that. That he said "global warming is real" in an interview doesn't change that he publicly and loudly disputed most of the temperature reconstructions. Nothing else that 203.100.215.221 has posted here contradicts any of that.
(In fact, that interview is completely consistent with his knowing the physics, and also not believing that much warming had happened yet.)
My language describing him earlier was accurate and sourced, and it stuck closely to the issue at hand.
Let me also note that the Carbon Brief blog also talks about Judith Curry, who seems to have been lost in this discussion. And my sentence describing her position has been completely elided for no apparent reason. M.boli ( talk) 12:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see any criticisms of Muller's published statements, despite numerous RS critical comments, most notably of his (imo, and of many) naively oversimplified CO2 vs temp curve. As it stands, this section is seriously out-of-balance. Will return as time permits. Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this is the first peer-reviewed publication by BEST. Published (or in press) at a new online journal, "Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview" and available online (full text) at http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.php
The most provocative (imo) graph from this study is only available in the press release, http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-press-release-july-29.pdf The chart attributes specific dated temperature drops to known volcanic eruptions, and is very interesting, even if it hasn't yet passed peer-review. Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the page from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature to Berkeley Earth and updated the corresponding text to reflect the nomenclature that the program has been using for about a year now. ("Surface Temperature" was dropped when the program expanded into additional areas beyond just temperature analysis.) In the interest of full disclosure, I work for Berkeley Earth. To avoid COI issues, I don't want to be in the business of making more substantive changes, though there are a variety of details in the page that could be updated. For example, Berkeley Earth is now separately incorporated as its own non-profit, and has separated itself from Novim (the non-profit that originally helped organize the program). Dragons flight ( talk) 05:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Berkeley Earth, my employer, would like to suggest a number of changes to this article. As an employee who also happens to have a lot of Wikipedia experience, I've been asked to relay those requests. Dragons flight ( talk) 00:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to start by suggesting an infobox be added, with the information shown at right as a jumping off point. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Founded | 2010 |
---|---|
Founder | Richard Muller and Elizabeth Muller |
Focus | Climate science, education/communication and global warming mitigation |
Location | |
Area served | Global |
Method | Scientific analysis |
Website |
berkeleyearth |
Formerly called | Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature |
My employer would also like to suggest that the lead paragraph be update to reflect the fact that Berkeley Earth is now incorporated as its own non-profit, as well as a change in name, and expanded areas of focus. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Existing text
Suggested text
The following sentence is somewhat inaccurate, as the stations don't all continue to the present day. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Existing text
Suggested correction
The summary about funding is over 2 years old now. A more up-to-date summary would be:
Existing text
Suggested update
Berkeley Earth has undertaken a number of additional projects since establishing itself as an independent non-profit. See for example: [5] and the subsections [6] [7] [8]. One of my colleagues wrote a couple sentences on this that might be incorporated into this page. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Brief description of expanded scope
Also, as the Berkeley Earth organization now encompasses multiple projects within its own non-profit, the phrase "Berkeley Earth project" used in the wiki article may need to be revised for clarity. Dragons flight ( talk) 02:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
References
Corrections to staffing
Robert Jacobsen, professor of physics: is listed as both current and former. he is former Pamela Hyde, Communications and Project Director: Is listed as current. She is former — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.64.85 ( talk) 01:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The language from before jzG's first edit was awkward and unnecessary puffery: "results were published in peer-reviewed scientific papers." I can see how jzG ( talk · contribs) improved matters by removing that language.
However jzG's edit additionally:
First, this article isn't about the journal. Yes, it is an arguably low-quality journal on Beall's list. But the main effect of jgZ's edit is to denigrate Berkeley Earth. Second, that journal is where they published their first results. There are other cited sources describing the publication of Berkeley Earth's results. But not citing the original Berkeley Earth articles in a Wikipedia page on Berkeley Earth strikes me as extremely odd.
So I put the citations back (with fixed DOIs) and removed the irrelevant (if true) description of the journal. (Also the original "peer reviewed scientific" puffy language is gone.) To my mind, this is straightforwardly correct, on topic, and NPOV.
I'm having trouble understanding why it was reverted. The edit comment is about the journal. But again, this article isn't about the journal. I'm reverting back to what I think is the straightforward NPOV version, I think if there is a problem with that we should discuss it here. And if there is some controversy about where they published their results it belongs later in the article, not the lead section. M.boli ( talk)
Some of the information about the group’s mission and activities comes from the website of the group itself, which can have bias.
A listing of all of the former and current members of the group may be unnecessary and/or distracting. Especially considering most of them do not have links to other pages.
In the “Reactions” portion of the article, approximately 50% of the text is devoted to the reaction of climate change deniers. This viewpoint is potentially being overrepresented.
Additionally, there is very little information about whether the Berkeley Project has been active in the last 3 years, or of its activities during this time.
Most of the links to the citations work, but a couple of them lead to dead ends. Annawhitney ( talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RS's only please!
--
Pete Tillman (
talk) 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC). Last update:
Pete Tillman (
talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem in using the California Watch source, but I do in using the Grist (magazine) and Climate Progress sources to source what the activist Joe Romm wrote. Grist appears to be an activist website (for example, the story headline "Texas Gov. Rick Perry, climate crank, considering presidential run") and is funded by liberal foundations, while Climate Progress, as part of the Center for American Progress is actually overtly liberal. From WP:IRS, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." Neither source seems to qualify as a "high-quality" source. Drrll ( talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the remarks I made earlier, viz, Romm is a reliable source for his opinion, and his opinion is notable. If you don't like it, dispute resolution is that way. Rd232 talk 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Global Warming Indeed Under Way, Contrarian Panel Says October 20, 2011, 3:08 PM ... A team at the University of California Berkeley that set out to test the temperature data underlying the consensus on global warming has concluded that the mainstream estimate of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature since 1950 is indeed accurate. It has warmed about 1 degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the researchers say. The data sets and research papers are here, along with charts and a video. See http://www.berkeleyearth.org/ For related wikipedia discussion, see Talk:Global_warming#New_study_.28from_BEST.29_confirms_warming_trend 99.35.15.107 ( talk) 04:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
McKitrick's blog ( http://www.rossmckitrick.com/) states that he was one of the peer reviewers for these papers, that he has twice recommended they be rejected, and that the BEST papers don't appear to have been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed journal. If it can be confirmed McKitrick was a peer reviewer, or that these papers haven't passed peer review, this page will have to reflect that. 2.28.218.13 ( talk) 07:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/results-paper-july-8.pdf -- Pjacobi ( talk) 11:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is time to take this issue to the talk page.
IP editor 203.100.215.221 seems unhappy that Muller and Curry are noted in this article as being skeptical of earlier temperature reconstructions. That editor has twice elided reference to this fact. Once it was claimed the source was tendentious and the assertion was wrong. The second time it was claimed to be an uncited assertion.
I think I may have violated the special revert rules that apply global warming articles. I apologize, I wasn't thinking about that. I think the IP editor with whom I disagree may have also violated the rule, but I'm not sure.
If other experienced editors have an opinion, please chime in. M.boli ( talk) 19:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What I got from that is you think there should be cites in this article, specifically hooked to BEST. Very well, Muller's NYT op-ed is now the cite for his position. I don't have a throroughly credible cite for Curry yet that is specifically linked to the BEST study. Curry has decided not to sign to the project's findings, by the way. M.boli ( talk) 06:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the IP guy. My objection was both to bad or non-existent references, as well as the fact that the two scientists positions are much more nuanced than what people with an axe to grind are claiming. M.boli has now provided a cite, which is good, but unfortunately, it's still wrong. Please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/aug/03/scepticism-climate-study-richard-muller
(Emphasis mine) I'm not sure what exactly he was supposed to be a skeptic about.
(Emphasis mine) I think that speaks for itself. Let's leave it out. Cheers 203.100.215.221 ( talk) 09:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Both Muller and Curry before this project had been critical of other temperature record reconstructions. It is the nub of what is noteworthy about their participation on this team. It is what I wrote. Their various other positions related to global warming are being either over-simplified or minutely parsed by assorted axe-grinders, as illustrated above. However that is not germane. What is germane is that two high profile, technically qualified critics of previous studies participated in this study.
When adding the cite, I further quoted Muller on former doubt. Perhaps his language is a little strong, but his claim in his essay is that his disagreements with others' methods led him to doubt that their conclusions were valid. Having performed his own study, he sees no doubt any more. It is all of a piece, and really a narrow issue related to the validity of temperature reconstructions. Maybe I should reword the article to make this more ecplicit? Curry (it seems) still has reason to doubt some of the conclusions, and if a good source shows up that should be added. Anyway, that's how I see it. M.boli ( talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is off the rails. Before this study Muller had been a loud and contentious pain, not only seizing on and repeating every remotely plausible criticism of temperature studies but also gratuitously flinging accusations of misconduct. He says he has undergone a conversion experience about the existence of warming.
That he wrote a physics book where he knows his physics doesn't change that. That he said "global warming is real" in an interview doesn't change that he publicly and loudly disputed most of the temperature reconstructions. Nothing else that 203.100.215.221 has posted here contradicts any of that.
(In fact, that interview is completely consistent with his knowing the physics, and also not believing that much warming had happened yet.)
My language describing him earlier was accurate and sourced, and it stuck closely to the issue at hand.
Let me also note that the Carbon Brief blog also talks about Judith Curry, who seems to have been lost in this discussion. And my sentence describing her position has been completely elided for no apparent reason. M.boli ( talk) 12:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see any criticisms of Muller's published statements, despite numerous RS critical comments, most notably of his (imo, and of many) naively oversimplified CO2 vs temp curve. As it stands, this section is seriously out-of-balance. Will return as time permits. Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this is the first peer-reviewed publication by BEST. Published (or in press) at a new online journal, "Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview" and available online (full text) at http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.php
The most provocative (imo) graph from this study is only available in the press release, http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-press-release-july-29.pdf The chart attributes specific dated temperature drops to known volcanic eruptions, and is very interesting, even if it hasn't yet passed peer-review. Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the page from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature to Berkeley Earth and updated the corresponding text to reflect the nomenclature that the program has been using for about a year now. ("Surface Temperature" was dropped when the program expanded into additional areas beyond just temperature analysis.) In the interest of full disclosure, I work for Berkeley Earth. To avoid COI issues, I don't want to be in the business of making more substantive changes, though there are a variety of details in the page that could be updated. For example, Berkeley Earth is now separately incorporated as its own non-profit, and has separated itself from Novim (the non-profit that originally helped organize the program). Dragons flight ( talk) 05:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Berkeley Earth, my employer, would like to suggest a number of changes to this article. As an employee who also happens to have a lot of Wikipedia experience, I've been asked to relay those requests. Dragons flight ( talk) 00:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to start by suggesting an infobox be added, with the information shown at right as a jumping off point. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Founded | 2010 |
---|---|
Founder | Richard Muller and Elizabeth Muller |
Focus | Climate science, education/communication and global warming mitigation |
Location | |
Area served | Global |
Method | Scientific analysis |
Website |
berkeleyearth |
Formerly called | Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature |
My employer would also like to suggest that the lead paragraph be update to reflect the fact that Berkeley Earth is now incorporated as its own non-profit, as well as a change in name, and expanded areas of focus. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Existing text
Suggested text
The following sentence is somewhat inaccurate, as the stations don't all continue to the present day. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Existing text
Suggested correction
The summary about funding is over 2 years old now. A more up-to-date summary would be:
Existing text
Suggested update
Berkeley Earth has undertaken a number of additional projects since establishing itself as an independent non-profit. See for example: [5] and the subsections [6] [7] [8]. One of my colleagues wrote a couple sentences on this that might be incorporated into this page. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Brief description of expanded scope
Also, as the Berkeley Earth organization now encompasses multiple projects within its own non-profit, the phrase "Berkeley Earth project" used in the wiki article may need to be revised for clarity. Dragons flight ( talk) 02:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
References
Corrections to staffing
Robert Jacobsen, professor of physics: is listed as both current and former. he is former Pamela Hyde, Communications and Project Director: Is listed as current. She is former — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.64.85 ( talk) 01:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The language from before jzG's first edit was awkward and unnecessary puffery: "results were published in peer-reviewed scientific papers." I can see how jzG ( talk · contribs) improved matters by removing that language.
However jzG's edit additionally:
First, this article isn't about the journal. Yes, it is an arguably low-quality journal on Beall's list. But the main effect of jgZ's edit is to denigrate Berkeley Earth. Second, that journal is where they published their first results. There are other cited sources describing the publication of Berkeley Earth's results. But not citing the original Berkeley Earth articles in a Wikipedia page on Berkeley Earth strikes me as extremely odd.
So I put the citations back (with fixed DOIs) and removed the irrelevant (if true) description of the journal. (Also the original "peer reviewed scientific" puffy language is gone.) To my mind, this is straightforwardly correct, on topic, and NPOV.
I'm having trouble understanding why it was reverted. The edit comment is about the journal. But again, this article isn't about the journal. I'm reverting back to what I think is the straightforward NPOV version, I think if there is a problem with that we should discuss it here. And if there is some controversy about where they published their results it belongs later in the article, not the lead section. M.boli ( talk)
Some of the information about the group’s mission and activities comes from the website of the group itself, which can have bias.
A listing of all of the former and current members of the group may be unnecessary and/or distracting. Especially considering most of them do not have links to other pages.
In the “Reactions” portion of the article, approximately 50% of the text is devoted to the reaction of climate change deniers. This viewpoint is potentially being overrepresented.
Additionally, there is very little information about whether the Berkeley Project has been active in the last 3 years, or of its activities during this time.
Most of the links to the citations work, but a couple of them lead to dead ends. Annawhitney ( talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Berkeley Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)