This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this article is as far from a neutral point of view as it gets. And linking to an unconvienient truth as a reference is just ridiculous. It would be better to remove it entirely than to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.227.186 ( talk) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Heat pollution - in the sense of direct heat output, rather than greenhouse gases - is not a significant contributor to global warming. This article needs work William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Edit conflicts. I saved mine as I'd hacked so much out. I may have gone too far. My opinion: this article should indeed be about heat pollution. Its not about global warming, or GHG, since we have articles for those. It should clearly state the minor role that HP plays. I don't know a good academic source for that (I know one very very bad one though) but I do have the numbers from <ahem> my blog William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well yes. You're right. It is a published paper, and I did think twice about removing it, because of just that. It represents a viewpoint and it could be included based on WP:V. I decided to remove it because I found a separate (harsh) critic of the paper. You're welcome to put that material back into the article, but my thought was that I'd rather take the advice of a scientist that is here working with us on the article; someone that shows interest in improving this article. My next move is to include another statement and reference from John Christy. I would though, like to represent both sides of the argument... What are your thoughts? E_dog95' Hi ' 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We should not use the Nordell paper. It is junk, and it has public rebutals which point out exectly why it is junk. There is no rule on wiki that says you *must* reference such a source; we should just quietly pass it by as an embarassment. No-one would ref Fleischmann (sp?) and Pons in an article on electrochemistry, despite it being a published paper, except to illustrate the scandal William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, the article has changed just up to this section. The new text has provided prose along with references that presents this area of the topic. Because this is already covered, I will be removing this section entirely. The remainder of the article will be used to present the perspectives of the climatologists and scientists. E_dog95' Hi ' 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this article is as far from a neutral point of view as it gets. And linking to an unconvienient truth as a reference is just ridiculous. It would be better to remove it entirely than to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.227.186 ( talk) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Heat pollution - in the sense of direct heat output, rather than greenhouse gases - is not a significant contributor to global warming. This article needs work William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Edit conflicts. I saved mine as I'd hacked so much out. I may have gone too far. My opinion: this article should indeed be about heat pollution. Its not about global warming, or GHG, since we have articles for those. It should clearly state the minor role that HP plays. I don't know a good academic source for that (I know one very very bad one though) but I do have the numbers from <ahem> my blog William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well yes. You're right. It is a published paper, and I did think twice about removing it, because of just that. It represents a viewpoint and it could be included based on WP:V. I decided to remove it because I found a separate (harsh) critic of the paper. You're welcome to put that material back into the article, but my thought was that I'd rather take the advice of a scientist that is here working with us on the article; someone that shows interest in improving this article. My next move is to include another statement and reference from John Christy. I would though, like to represent both sides of the argument... What are your thoughts? E_dog95' Hi ' 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We should not use the Nordell paper. It is junk, and it has public rebutals which point out exectly why it is junk. There is no rule on wiki that says you *must* reference such a source; we should just quietly pass it by as an embarassment. No-one would ref Fleischmann (sp?) and Pons in an article on electrochemistry, despite it being a published paper, except to illustrate the scandal William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, the article has changed just up to this section. The new text has provided prose along with references that presents this area of the topic. Because this is already covered, I will be removing this section entirely. The remainder of the article will be used to present the perspectives of the climatologists and scientists. E_dog95' Hi ' 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)