Talk:Ivar Giaever

message: John Giaever was a distant relative (second cousin once removed), not significant enough to mention in article.  Gene Nygaard 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, i consider that relationship significant and would have wanted it mentioned in the article. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Second cousin to John Giaever

message: Can anyone point to a source for this statement? "(funded by the Norwegian oil and gas company, Statoil)"  I doesn't appear to be footnoted.  Also, can anyone point to other cases, outside the climate science area, where the source of funding for an academic position is given such prominence? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding source for University of Oslo 

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Why does the article have to state six times that Giaever has called climatology a "religion"? Also, we should avoid questionable and unreliable sources such as Marc Morano and The Wall Street Journal, which are part of the denial industry echo chamber and which tend to quote each other ad nauseam, multiplying everything any one of them says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the bit about religion is repetitive. Marc Morano's blog would be unacceptable, but that is not the case here -- a cite is made to what looks like a copy of a government page epw.senate.gov on which Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV posted a copy of a "U.S. Senate Minority Report", he's not the author. As for the Wall Street Journal, claims of general unreliability could go to WP:RSN. Anybody: please let me know if such a claim gets posted there so I can disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When the subject is climate change, the WSJ may even get it reliably wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echo echo echo echo... 

message: User:Peter Gulutzan, why did you revert to a version which has a redlink as header of a chapter? (I used the same redlink as the header of this discussion thread.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reverting an edit that was re-inserting wording that had been originally inserted by 79.235.250.11 on April 20, here, which were the object of contention (another IP had vainly tried to adjust to something less contentious). I missed that 79.235.250.11 had also added square brackets, I have removed them now, and gone back to the established version, "global warming" without additional words or brackets. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Global warming views]] 

message: Removing any and all doubt regarding his climate skepticism.  I did thoroughly enjoy the intellectual destitution masquerading as NPOV refuting this to date.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf2601:46:C801:B1F0:605B:9C1C:8838:6AB8 (talk) 2601:46:C801:B1F0:605B:9C1C:8838:6AB8 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you trying to say? Since this is a Wikipedia Talk page and not a forum, it must be about improving the article, but I cannot see how. It simply seems as if you are excited about a bunch of mostly clueless ideologues signing a misleading declaration and think that the fact that they did proves anything. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is a signatory to the World Climate Declaration