Talk:Yucca brevifolia

message: How cold hardy are Joshua trees? If they area planted in a raised bed (to keep the roots dry) can they be grown in areas such as USDA zone 5 or 6 that are cold but not a whole lot colder than their natural habitat? Thanks   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.208 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How cold hardy?

message: Should there be something here about the lifespan of a Joshua Tree? How old can a Joshua Tree get?
:Hard for anybody to know, because as the article says, it "lacks annual growth rings, making it difficult to determine the tree's age". I vaguely remember reading about someone experimenting with C14 dating, dunno where I saw it. Stan 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, one of the subspecies forms clonal clumps, so the clump wil be older than any of its above-ground ramets.--Curtis Clark 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I live near the national park. The rangers say the average lifespan is about 150 years, between 145 to 155. Anyone know how I cite a pamphlet from a national park? Shinku Hisaki (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan of a Joshua Tree 

message: We have had some abnormal amounts of snow fall, and the weight of the snow has broken one of the branches on the Joshua tree.  Can I plant that and have it grow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.188.223 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  branch of a joshua tree 

message: I'm not convinced that :Image:Joshuatreesydney.jpg is a Joshua tree; it looks more like a Dracaena or some such. The branching pattern and lack of old leaf bases are both uncharacteristic for Joshua trees.--Curtis Clark 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is not a Joshua tree.  At first I thought that it wmight be a cabbage palm, but after comparing, it does look like more like a type of Dracaena to me as well. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: definitely not a joshua tree Doneloquente (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Joshua tree? 

message: I told my kids that's cause the trees are way old, dating back to, like, the time of Joshua, but no confirmation or disconfirmation here. --Mikedelsol (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, the article explains the name, under "Ethnobotany".--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice the explanation of the name there either. It doesn't really make sense to have it in that section, I'll move it to the top. Druff (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it called a Joshua tree?

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. This name is unique (among English names), unambiguous, and well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Joshua tree" vs "Joshua Tree" is splitting hairs, and irrelevant in the context of search users.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might irrelevant in the context of search by users, but it is not irrelevant to the issue of whether there is a primary usage for each of the two spellings (without and without the T capitalized), the answer to which is yes.  The title about each primary topic should be reflected accordingly. And using a name that is virtually unknown outside of a specialized area is not solution to a search problem, if that's what you're trying to address.  Note that Joshua tree currently redirects to this article, which has a hat note to the dab page.  I see no problem, and actually an advantage, to sending any user searching for the park or town by entering "joshua tree" to this article about the namesake first.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Derivation does not establish a primary topic.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By itself no, but it is one element and in this case none of the other ambiguous names are remotely close. The Joshua Tree album is the only entry likely to be more widely known, and as a title has a distinctive name. older ≠ wiser 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you participated in that discussion?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Septentrionalis, I asked you over there whether you endorsed WP:NC, and you seem to have avoided answering me. I'll ask again: do you endorse WP:NC? Hesperian 00:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that! Wikipedia is a reference about popular culture, pseudoscience, and political POV. Anyone who thinks they can learn any science from Wikipedia should smoke some salvia or weed and chill out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're fond of google, try plugging in ["joshua tree" OR "Yucca brevifolia"], sifting out the false hits on national parks, albums, movies, cities, etc, and check what the title and predominant use is for the pages that are actually about the plant. I did this for the first 100, and the result came out about even. Google doesn't support your position at all. Hesperian 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI, WP:NC(flora) is a proposal right now, not agreed upon, and this very article is one of the debating points. One of the things that we want to be careful about is that this article doesn't become used as justification for multi-month debates on the thousands of other plant articles. Stan (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If general Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions were adhered to in naming these articles, there wouldn't be any debate.  That's why they are established, to prevent exactly the kind of problems that occur when "specialists" try to wiki-lawyerize category-specific rules that contradict, rather than  complement, the general rules. I'm all for category-specific rules that spell out what to do in a given category when the general rules fall short, but the specific rules should only be there to complement, not contradict, the general rules.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This coming from someone who doesn't want our specialised guideline to conform to the general WP:NC policy that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."  How do you rationalise such a self-contradictory position? Hesperian 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but specialist sources don't count. The important thing is that Wikipedia not challenge a user's existing knowledge by suggesting there is more to a discipline than they already know.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What shits me isn't so much the disregard for specialists as the sheer hypocrisy of the position. A mob came to WP:NC (flora) to ram WP:NC down our throats. The latter was policy, and we were told in no uncertain terms that we had no right to a mere convention that wasn't precisely in accordance with it. After neutering our convention in the name of the WP:NC policy, they are now willfully ignoring WP:NC policy in this new debate, since they have discovered that it doesn't actually say what they want it to say. Hesperian 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha ha, amen to that. Be careful what you wish for! Stan (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Hesperian, I apologize for failing to clearly explain the basis for those reverts, though that does not justify your jumping to conclusions about what it was, and stating that I was being hypocritical with respect to following WP:NC (which, BTW, is arguably pushing WP:CIVIL).  As you know, the wording I objected to was, "this is assessed by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the taxon".  I have no objection to the current wording, "this is assessed by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call it".  The problem with using taxon in that context is that taxon implies use of the scientific name for that taxon, because of the dual meaning of the term (one meaning of taxon is a taxonomic group, the other meaning is the scientific name of such a group). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: After reading the Wikipedia page of the Yucca Brevifolia, a.k.a. the Joshua tree, I found the page to be unorganized, but easy to navigate and well informed. The subleaders placement from top to bottom is organized in an educational format. Following the summary, the page discussed the growth and development of the tree, then immediately followed with the habitat. After the summary the next subtitle should be the habitat to understand the trees environment before learning the trees development and growth. Overall the page was well written, but could be better organized. Page Rating: 8/10
The Wikipedia page discusses information about Joshua tree and what you may learn about a Joshua tree. Providing information where this tree is located and other common names. It includes the growth and development and provides how fast Joshua trees grow.  This page should include more specific details about this tree in the growth and development section. This page should also add more background information about the name of the Joshua tree.
The text in this section seems to be quite biased and inappropriate for an Encyclopaedia project.
As I am not used to the wiki I do not want to remove anyone else's work and would like some advice or opinions. [Comment added by 216.246.247.46]
: I've made a start, though the editor in question seems quite tenacious. One piece of advice that I can offer is that you sign comments on talk pages using four tildes (this symbol ~) so that people can track who is talking. Euchrid (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now added a more "solid" reference from a scientific journal to support the main claim, namely that climate change may reduce and alter the species' range. The "giant sloth" theory does seem to me to require more a more reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised that wikipedia is allowing an essay on global warming theory to be used as a reliable source. What are the credentials of the authors, and in what capacity have they performed their research? Global warming has been pretty much discounted. They ignore all the underwater valcanoes that have emerged in the arctic sea over the last 50 years, which would easily explain the shrinking ice cap there. They point to Greenland and note ice formation along the coast has melted, but ignore the fact that the ice mantal overall has increased by 100s of feet on that continent. Same with the antartic. Scientists have long established that the sea level has gone up and down many times over the last 500,000 years, long before the industrial revoluion and the automobile. Over the last few years there have been record cold temperatures everywhere. A few years ago it snowed in Israel for the first time in many years. They have been raving about global warming for 20 years now but the sea level hasn't risen one inch. I was shocked to learn that the biggest recipients of 'green credits' are the big oil companies who have big intereets in mass media, the main mouth organ that tries to promote global warming. When a major volcanic eruption occurs it spews out more CO2 and other green house gases in a few hours than all of New York produces in ten years and in little time it is scrubed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. So why are not auto emmisions also scrubbed out? If CO2 is heavier than air, how does it get way up into the atmosphere to produce the so called greenhose effect? Hello? If global warming scientists discover or acknowledge that there is no global warming they lose their grants, so they are not about to do that. Follow the money. What a circus. -- Robinlarson (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a forum. Please only use talkpages to make specific suggestions for improving articles. Thank you.Euchrid (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Got carried away. What makes the essay a reliable source? Global warming and sea level rise is by no means an established fact. Robinlarson (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does the article suggest that they are. It states that reliable sources (ie essays published in scientific journals) have predicted that the distribution will be reduced, not that it definintely will be. If there are reliable sources with an alternate point of view then they can of course be included, in addition to the ones alreadyy present. Euchrid (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

text:  The source which you are using, the op ed "Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?" has nothing to do with Yucca brevifolia, or anything related to this article. It never mentioned 'yucca brevifolia', 'joshua tree', or any other name for this article's topic. It has no place here. This article is about the yucca brevifolia, not global warming, and the sources chosen need to reflect that. Euchrid (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you are trying to assert something that is not a wilipedia policy. To repeat, the Coleman article doesn't 'have to' be about the Joshua tree to address the point of global warming.  I am not the one who introduced that topic to this page in the first place. If the article is not about global warming, then why don't we get any theories about this idea off the page entirely? Also, you can't bar a source simply because you don't happen to like the wording of the title. It looks like you're just reaching for ways to suppress other views. In any case, thanks for not deleting the last edit and provoking an edit war. It's important that this controversial idea be represented from both points of view and that the article remains fair and balanced. -- Robinlarson (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: ::Sure if you do a search for the items you offered you will get the results you are looking for, but even there you're ignoring not only  what your own search reveals but the wide consensus among scientists who reject all the predictions made with computer models, widely used by many junior scientists who largely go along to please and impress their peers. "Peer reviewed"?? Computer models are only as reliable as the data fed into them and the computer program itself. And the fact that you claim there is no controversy only reveals that you  have ignored much and that your mind is already set on one particular POV, and as such suggests that you are not fit to engage in an objective debate regarding scientific analysis, which should always be approached with an open and objective mind. 
*Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again 
*New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
*U.N. Climate Models Flawed - Grossly Exaggerate Warming Effect
*NASA data proves global warming computer models wrongA new study reported in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing examines satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which show that, from the years 2000 through 2011, the Earth’s atmosphere released much more heat than previously predicted by computer models.
*Climate computer models programmed to find global warming : Several leading warmists – including Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of NASA, and the Met Office – now:1)    admit that mean global temperatures have not risen since 1997 and that the warming trend has stalled 2)    accept that there was only a modest temperature rise in the 20th century,
*Data Disproves Global Warming Computer Models :  As the United Nations defends a scheme to rob the industrialized world of $2 trillion a year to fund its redistributionists aims, the latest scientific evidence continues to undermine the fundamental premises on which the edifice of global warming alarmism has been standing.
*Climate computer models 'programmed to find' global warming.Much of today’s environmental public policy is based on junk science.
*How reliable are climate models? Models are unreliable. "Models are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data.
*Global Warming Computer Models Are Still Unreliable, New Study Warns, James M. Taylor, J.D.Computerized models of the Earth's climate are at the heart of the debate over how policymakers should respond to climate change. Global climate models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models--attempt to predict future climate conditions by starting with a set of assumptions ...
*Climate Computer Models Are Proven WrongGlobal warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures. The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation. They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.
*Computer Models Are Unreliable Due to Faulty Data and Unsound Assumptions
*New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model ReliabilityDec. 12, 2007 — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.
::'No controversy'?? Included above are only a handful of the accounts that have exposed the 'computer modeling' scam. There are many more. Once again, there has been a natural warming trend since the last ice age but at this late date there is no increase to speak of, and in fact, we have experienced record cold temps in the last few years, ice mantels are increasing in thickness, and the sea level has not risen one inch as far back as records will show. As growing numbers of scientists concur, Global warming theory has not been consistent with the facts.
Last, please do not try to suppress a debate about a topic that was included into the Joshua tree article. Once again, the topic of 'climate change' was used to base claims, theories, predictions, about the fate of the Joshua tree forest. Editors have every right to challenge this claim. Obviously you can't deal with opposing views so all that is left for you to do is try to suppress the debate entirely. Also, you used this talk page to include google results that supported your view. Now look at you, trying to suppress others who have done the same as you. This only demonstrates the weakness of your arguments, such as they are.
::Robinlarson (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree for reasons stated. A controversial claim about the fate of the Joshua tree forest was put into the article. That claim is being challenged. Again, you used this talk page to promote your google results, I have also done the same. Please address the topic directly, if you are able, and stop this underhanded harassment in an obvious attempt to suppress views you are unable to refute honestly. -- Robinlarson (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the overwhelming consensus here: reliable sources see this plant as threatened by global warming - no controversy there; any discussion about the broader controversy around global warming needs to be discussed at that article, not this one. First Light (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Source #13 doesn't mention the Joshua tree. Please don't make things up. Shafer et al. (p. 211) say: "Yucca brevifolia (Joshua tree) is found in the deserts of the southwest US and northwest Mexico (MacMahon 2000). Under each of the future climate scenarios, its simulated potential range is fragmented and displaced northward and eastward (Figure 6)." Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Source #13 is linked to the 'Abstract' and evidently to read the entire text you must purchase the entire text. I wrongly assumed the info' was on the page that was linked to. That is not exactly making things up. Please don't distort a mistake to prop up your empty claims and a debate you have yet to address directly or honestly. Robinlarson (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop being so aggressive. You got caught in a falsehood and you're trying to bully your way out of it? No - you were sloppy with the facts, you need to do something to re-assure the rest of us that you'll be more careful in the future, if you expect your fellow volunteers here to spend their time to work with you. Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Source #14 also mentions that Jim Corbett doesn't agree with Ken Cole's "grim prediction about the trees disappearing from the park."  Btw, Ken Cole is a geologist, not a botanist or a climatologist. Why wasn't Corbett's [sic] view  included in the statement in the article? Again, please don't make things up. You neglect to mention that the source goes on to quote Cornett| There's no question that a warming of the climate would reduce the suitable habitat for Joshua trees in the park — but not eliminate it. And again later notes that he "concedes that climate change may be playing a role" in the decline in the number of trees in the 20 years he's been studying them. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote the statement that you claim I have made up. I pointed out an important fact, that Colbert disagreed with a very important point that Cole has maintained. You claim I have made things up and in the same breath do so yourself. -- Robinlarson (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken Cole is a geologist, not a botanist or a climatologist - to begin with, the NPR article says "geologist and biologist". But if you bother to look Cole up you'll see his research is in "Quaternary Geology, Paleoecology, Global Change, Settlement History, Plant Ecology". He's a specialist, speaking about his research. Anyway, I've updated the ref with Cole et al. 2011. Guettarda (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: RobinLarson, you've been repeatedly asked to stop derailing this Talk page with unrelated discussion of global warming. It is not a forum, nor an airing ground for your personal beliefs and ideological battles. This page is for discussing the Joshua Tree, not to rehash the entire global warming debate. Please take your walls of text to one of the many forums, blogs and comment boards where the debate is actually happening. This sort of derailing behaviour is completely inappropriate can result in administrator action. Euchrid (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have repeatedly ignored the fact, along with several reminders, that 'climate change theory' has been used to make statements in the article, and that as such, opens the door to a debate about 'climate change theory'. If you feel you actually have some sort of legitimate complaint involving an actual policy violation then you need to take your complaint to a noticeboard and see if they will entertain your version of matters here. There was no discussion going on here for weeks until I initiated one. You and some of the others have done all you can to 'derail' it, including your underhanded attempt to make up rules about sources allowed.  -- Robinlarson (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no discussion because no-one else was worried about it. Again, do you accept there have been ice ages in the past (i.e. that climates change) or is that a problem too?Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no one was worried about the statement that the Joshua forest is threatened. Ho hum. I have more than acknowledged the existence of ice caps and changing weather...weather that has always changed all by itself long before you or I began making footprints on this planet. When alternative ideas are brought up in scientific debates is this the way they are treated by all the fair and open minded 'scientists' in the global warming circles? That in itself would be an indictment not only to their objectivity but to their integrity as scientists.  In any case, what is your point? Robinlarson (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try this again - read this sentence slowly "Joshua trees are one of the species predicted to have their range reduced and shifted by climate change." - do you see the word "anthropogenic" in it? No? Good, the answer is, in fact, "no". This article does not touch on anthropogenicity - this is my point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To reinforce Casliber's point, the proper venue for a discussion of anthropogenic climate change is elsewhere, see, for example, :Talk:Global warming for discussion of current and future climatological effects of human influences, see :Talk:paleoclimatology for discussion of past climate changes, and see :Talk:Climate change in general.  This article does not address, nor would it be appropriate to address, the issue upon which Robinlarson seems to think that it takes a side. --Bejnar (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Try reading this "slowly". To repeat, the article clearly mentions 'climate change' as the basis for the prediction that the Jousha tree forest is threatened. That the word 'anthropogenic' doesn't appear has no bearing on whether or not other editors can challenge 'this' statement, one that was made in 'this' article. Got it 'this' time? Never saw someone so scared to death of having an idea challenged that they have to resort to rules invention and word games to get over in a debate. What are you so affraid of? Again, this is a controversial idea and is even listed as such here at Wikipedia. Trying to suppress other views not only goes against one of Wikipedia's core principles, NPOV, it reveals the ones behind such suppression of views as intelectually dishonest and underhanded. It would seem if you had sound science on your side you would welcome the challenge. Notice you are deathly afraid of even having 'doubt' mentioned in the section. I can only wonder what would happen if liked minded people got their hands on a 'computer model'. No doubt they would feed it only the 'data' they approved of. We have seen a first hand demonstration of this sort of behavior here on this talk page. Robinlarson (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please abide by our policy on civility and our policy forbidding personal attacks on other editors. Your tone here is unacceptable. Beyond that, I have nothing to add - everything you ask has already been answered...I've pointed you to WP:GEVAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Oh, and the debate you claim we're "so affraid of"...those questions have been asked and answered, many times over the years in our global warming article, which even has a helpful FAQ aimed at people who have questions like yours. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer models

message: Adding other views to the section is  not advancing "fringe" ideas or theories, especially since there are just too many scientists, ex IPCC members, and others coming forward. The following info is added to this talk page because of the claim made here that other views about 'climate change', an idea used in the section, are considered "fringe" and to show, demonstrate, that other views have a basis in fact.
*Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admitted last night on Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory national TV show, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.
*IPCC member Christopher Monckton: As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.
*Devastating Criticism of the IPCC ...from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: "I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)...I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes"
*IPCC Climate models flawed: Journal of Geophysical Research paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerates data.
*New paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerate wind speeds -- A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research compares observations ...
*Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and a lead author and reviewer on previous IPCC assessments, said that as a result of criticisms of earlier reports "IPCC statements are becoming so legalistic that their value as a communication tool is diminishing". ... the IPCC process was partly motivated by a desire "to make a big media splash," as a way of getting key messages through to policymakers.
*International Climate Science Coalition: IPCC'S SUPPOSED 'CONSENSUS' A HOAX 
*Allegations of a “surge” in “extreme” weather events has been quashed by a surprising source – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It is clear that the dissenting views regarding 'climate change', especially man made climate change are not at all fringe and should be allowed to add balance anywhere the idea of climate change is used in Wikipedia, per NPOV, not to mention basic intellectual honesty. Robinlarson (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: RobinLarson, I'm afraid that you need to accept that this discussion is over, and you are now well and truly flogging a dead horse. The unfortunate reality of being a WP editor is that sometimes consensus will go against you. I've experienced it dozens of times, and while it always stings, if you want to have a productive, enjoyable time here then it's something that you will need to become accustomed to. I notice that you are now editing this article and talk page to the exception of all else. In most of the situations in which consensus has gone against me, while I still feel that I was correct in my position, I've accepted that continuing to argue is unproductive and exhausting to myself, with no positive outcome. That's the case here for you. You're clearly an intelligent, educated person, and I'm sure that there are hundred of articles, thousands even, which would benefit from your contribution, and which you would benefit from editing. This advice is honest and well meant - please let this go find somewhere more productive to edit. You really will be glad you did. Euchrid (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are obviously speaking with extreme prejudice and an acute POV, hence your constant attempts to suppress legitimate discussion regarding a controversial topic that was introduced to the Joshua tree page and your refusal to even acknowledge that there may be other explanations to matters.  Unless you can offer suggestions to bring balance to the section you need to stop using the talk page to harass and hound any editor who tries to legitimately bring balance to the section. You should try to come to terms with the idea that the climate change theory, man made or not, and the resultant gloom and doom predictions is largely the product of media distortions,  misguided science practice, largely the result of peer pressure, not peer review and/or ignorance, and that the only thing that supports their theory, 'predictions', is computer generated opinion, cherry picked and distorted data, and a lot of attitude, the likes of which we have seen perpetrated here on this page unfortunately. Regarding consensus, there must be a sound basis to consensus, as was pointed out to you already. Consensus, by itself, does not give you a blank check to make up rules, ignore basic Wikipedia core principles and promote lies or ignorance and it does not give you the right to ignore basic realities when they are presented to you, repeatedly. It has been pointed out to you that underwater volcanoes (1, 2, 3, etc...) greatly impact events in the arctic and elsewhere, while ice mantles in Greenland and the Antarctic continue to grow in thickness, that over the last 10 years there have been record cold temperatures everywhere and that CO2 is heavier than air, readily combines with water (btw, 3/4s of the planet's surface is covered with water, do the math), that CO2 exists in minute quantities and as such can not impact the greenhouse effect nearly to the extent we have been told, by some, and that these ideas are founded in basic scientific fact and are not at all "fringe" as you obviously have been led to believe.  It has also been pointed out to you that computer models and their unbridled 'usage' have come under wide spread scrutiny and have been found to be inherently flawed, that much of the data fed into these contraptions is cherry picked and/or exaggerated and that much of the criticism comes from sources like NASA, ex IPCC members and other well known sources. Hence the transparent attempts to sweep this under the rug without even a scientific discussion.If you had a way to squash the discussion with sound scientific facts and principles you would have done so by now. Instead all you have done is parrot a lot of opinion and attitude and have resorted to underhanded attempts to suppress legitimate discussion.I am still open to ways to bring a balancing comment to the section. Never mind your personal feelings towards me, you should do this out of respect for Wikipedia and the millions of readers who come here for information.Robinlarson (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The theory regarding fringe theories

message: Unless someone wants to challenge any of the scientific information here, I am bowing out, as there is no point in discussing ideas that are only met with a sophomoric attitude, not with scientific analysis. I have presented the other side, and obviously there is much to consider from many reputable sources. I only ask that it be fairly evaluated and that someone will have the integrity to add a balancing comment to the section after the smoke clears here.  Cheers. Robinlarson (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaining no headway here, I see you've decided to linkspam all this stuff at Talk:Global warming controversy  instead.  How wonderful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowing out

message: I know the range map is from an authoritative source, but it is not a good representation of the reality on the ground in southern Nevada, missing for instance most of the populations on the eastern side of the Spring Mountains.  Don't know if there is a better free map out there though. Stan (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range map problems 

message: This section of the article is too broad and it doesn't really incorporate the uses of Joshua Tree. There is no description of specific cultivation methods either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses and Cultivation 

message: The site is unclear as to how long the tree generally lives for. If there is a way to explain how long or what the estimated life span is would improve this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Span Questioning 

message: It stated that the Joshua tree was used for its leaves to make sandals and baskets. It would be better to show examples of the types of sandals and baskets. It would also help to know the culture of the Cahuilla Native Americans by viewing images of the things they created using the leaves of the Joshua tree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of usage of tree 

message: After reading the Wikipedia article on Yucca Brevifolia, more commonly known as a Joshua tree, I have found the wiki article to be very well organized. It was organized in the way it had all of the information I needed to know about this tree laid out for me. Included in the information were links that I could click on to take me to other related articles to help me understand more about my topic. The article also had a side bar that had a picture of the tree along with several bullet facts about it and a map of where the trees habitat is. In the end I think that Wikipedia can be a very useful and easy source of basic information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki response 

message: The Wikipedia page discusses information about Joshua tree and what you may learn about a Joshua tree. Providing information where this tree is located and other common names. It includes the growth and development and provides how fast Joshua trees grow.  This page should include more specific details about this tree in the growth and development section. This page should also add more background information about the name of the Joshua tree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.249 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nina Kim - Joshua tree 

message: It seems like there is no connection between the tree and other living thins such as: animals that consume the tree or the environmental influences it has to the nature. It would be a much better page with that information added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: Wikipedia is an amazing source full of information on any topic you would like to know about brought to you by people from all over the planet. I decided to learn some information on Wikipedia about the Joshua tree. As soon as the page with this information was loaded I was very impressed with simple layout and accessibility to well presented and organized facts about this type of tree. The most helpful part of the page is contents, because it helped me to navigate and surf throughout things I needed to know with great ease. Overall I was happy with my experience on Wikipedia, especially with this page, and I personally really liked it and am satisfied with what I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Assignment:  Information Has Value & Format as Process  Yucca brevifolia - Joshua tree Wikipedia page - Personal view 

message: I consider that this article has less information to tell people how we do to protect this plant and avoid it hurt by climate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yucca brevifolia also bears fruit so my question is it edible and of there is any evidence it was used by natives long ago My IQ >> 160 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  give more information about what people do to protect this plant <improvement>