A news item involving James Lovelock was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 July 2022. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose the article Sustainable retreat be merged here. It's not particularly notable, and there's room for it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Lovelock has made a number of controversial statements regarding previous positions he has held. Inclusion of new statements into this article has created confusion over his position on global warming. They have also contributed to fragmenting of the article.
A series of mistakes resulted in the creation of a new section when Lovelock's statements belong in the "Climate and mass human mortality" section as they modify his views on climate change. Only the edit by IP user 59.127.20.197 on 25 April was truly inappropriate, the edit by IP user 96.248.81.68 on 24 April was WP:RS had it been attributed to the MSNBC article. Therefore, I will attempt to restore all WP:verifiable content. I will also add content from the article in the Guardian by Leo Hickman titled "James Lovelock: The UK should be going mad for fracking". His recent statements portray Lovelock as continuing his concern over global warming while at the same time criticizing extremism and suggesting alternatives to oil, coal and green solutions which he does not support. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫( talk) 04:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
How does he target a specific molecule to detect? How does he set up the device to specifically detect 1-beta-2-diethyl-crappa-fentanyl-methoxy-premidol for example? How does his device specifically look for just that 1 molecule only rather than getting a false positive? Tomato expert1 ( talk) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In this [18:57, 26 January 2013] edit: (( "diff" page)), a footnote -- (it was footnote number "[34]", last time I checked) -- was added, whose link target now seems to be a dead link.
(
Page Not Found
The page /storage/James Lovelock Letter.pdf could not be located on this website. We recommend using the navigation bar to get back on track within our site. If you feel you have reached this page in error, please contact a site operator. Thank you!
). The wikitext added at the time of that edit -- (as you can see from the "diff" page) -- is just this:
<ref>[http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf James Lovelock letter on wind turbines Broadbury Ridge]</ref>
. The "backups" of the link target that could be found on http://web.archive.org/ (i.e., using https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf) were only these two:
...and they were equally as disappointing as [the original link target] http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf itself.
I do not want to take the time to "contact a site operator". Maybe they could help to find some backup of what used to be there (at that URL) ( http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf ); ...if someone asks politely. Maybe the author of the erstwhile "letter" on that web site (he is the subject of this BLP article -- [right?]) would be willing (and able) to assist the website maintainers, in finding it.
If you have any advice, then please (feel free to) chime in... -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
James Lovelock has not been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Lovelock's work has been fundamental for the development of the work of the Nobel winners, nonetheless he didn't receive the award.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html
http://www.jameslovelock.org/page5.html
I suggest to revise the article.
Best
Could there be some mention of him and/or his theories on the MP on his 100th birthday? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(reset) The OED 'word of the day' had 'Gaia' to celebrate - and the WP main page 'nothing' (or at least 'not when I looked'). 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 14:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a pedantic question about the ordering of items in the bibliography. Should we order according to original publication date rather than the data of the particular edition that's cited? It's rather odd that Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, his original title on the concept, appears more recently in the list of books than later titles that actually build on it. Might it be better to order by original publication date? Actually, I'll just be bold and make the change. — PLUMBAGO 13:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y Shows the claim and him even claiming it!
Theres too many reason it doesnt work, Eg you freeze the brain the brain is destroyed all the electrical activity is stopped and it doesnt come back!-- 139.216.248.236 ( talk) 04:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
PETM CO2 concentration was certainly not 450ppm.
estimates for pre-PETM atmospheric CO2 concentrations range from 600 to 2800 parts per million (ppm), broadly consistent with estimates from proxy data ( 15). Starting from these conditions, an increase of 750 to 26,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would be required to account for an additional 5°C rise in global temperature, which implies an addition of 1500 to 55,000 PgC to the atmosphere alone (see the first figure).
From Pagani et al. 2006, Science. Fatfail ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Sir James Lovelock has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21 § Sir James Lovelock until a consensus is reached. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry - would fix this, but am under pressure right now.
This wording is weak and factually incorrect
... the lack of respect humans have had for Gaia, ... is testing Gaia's capacity 2A02:8012:1E9:0:A88F:A440:FD07:1A2E ( talk) 10:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
A news item involving James Lovelock was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 July 2022. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose the article Sustainable retreat be merged here. It's not particularly notable, and there's room for it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Lovelock has made a number of controversial statements regarding previous positions he has held. Inclusion of new statements into this article has created confusion over his position on global warming. They have also contributed to fragmenting of the article.
A series of mistakes resulted in the creation of a new section when Lovelock's statements belong in the "Climate and mass human mortality" section as they modify his views on climate change. Only the edit by IP user 59.127.20.197 on 25 April was truly inappropriate, the edit by IP user 96.248.81.68 on 24 April was WP:RS had it been attributed to the MSNBC article. Therefore, I will attempt to restore all WP:verifiable content. I will also add content from the article in the Guardian by Leo Hickman titled "James Lovelock: The UK should be going mad for fracking". His recent statements portray Lovelock as continuing his concern over global warming while at the same time criticizing extremism and suggesting alternatives to oil, coal and green solutions which he does not support. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫( talk) 04:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
How does he target a specific molecule to detect? How does he set up the device to specifically detect 1-beta-2-diethyl-crappa-fentanyl-methoxy-premidol for example? How does his device specifically look for just that 1 molecule only rather than getting a false positive? Tomato expert1 ( talk) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In this [18:57, 26 January 2013] edit: (( "diff" page)), a footnote -- (it was footnote number "[34]", last time I checked) -- was added, whose link target now seems to be a dead link.
(
Page Not Found
The page /storage/James Lovelock Letter.pdf could not be located on this website. We recommend using the navigation bar to get back on track within our site. If you feel you have reached this page in error, please contact a site operator. Thank you!
). The wikitext added at the time of that edit -- (as you can see from the "diff" page) -- is just this:
<ref>[http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf James Lovelock letter on wind turbines Broadbury Ridge]</ref>
. The "backups" of the link target that could be found on http://web.archive.org/ (i.e., using https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf) were only these two:
...and they were equally as disappointing as [the original link target] http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf itself.
I do not want to take the time to "contact a site operator". Maybe they could help to find some backup of what used to be there (at that URL) ( http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf ); ...if someone asks politely. Maybe the author of the erstwhile "letter" on that web site (he is the subject of this BLP article -- [right?]) would be willing (and able) to assist the website maintainers, in finding it.
If you have any advice, then please (feel free to) chime in... -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
James Lovelock has not been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Lovelock's work has been fundamental for the development of the work of the Nobel winners, nonetheless he didn't receive the award.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html
http://www.jameslovelock.org/page5.html
I suggest to revise the article.
Best
Could there be some mention of him and/or his theories on the MP on his 100th birthday? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(reset) The OED 'word of the day' had 'Gaia' to celebrate - and the WP main page 'nothing' (or at least 'not when I looked'). 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 14:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a pedantic question about the ordering of items in the bibliography. Should we order according to original publication date rather than the data of the particular edition that's cited? It's rather odd that Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, his original title on the concept, appears more recently in the list of books than later titles that actually build on it. Might it be better to order by original publication date? Actually, I'll just be bold and make the change. — PLUMBAGO 13:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y Shows the claim and him even claiming it!
Theres too many reason it doesnt work, Eg you freeze the brain the brain is destroyed all the electrical activity is stopped and it doesnt come back!-- 139.216.248.236 ( talk) 04:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
PETM CO2 concentration was certainly not 450ppm.
estimates for pre-PETM atmospheric CO2 concentrations range from 600 to 2800 parts per million (ppm), broadly consistent with estimates from proxy data ( 15). Starting from these conditions, an increase of 750 to 26,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would be required to account for an additional 5°C rise in global temperature, which implies an addition of 1500 to 55,000 PgC to the atmosphere alone (see the first figure).
From Pagani et al. 2006, Science. Fatfail ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Sir James Lovelock has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21 § Sir James Lovelock until a consensus is reached. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry - would fix this, but am under pressure right now.
This wording is weak and factually incorrect
... the lack of respect humans have had for Gaia, ... is testing Gaia's capacity 2A02:8012:1E9:0:A88F:A440:FD07:1A2E ( talk) 10:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)