Talk:Goddard Institute for Space Studies

message: The web site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ does not appear to be accessible from Brazil at the time of writing (7/4/2008 12:45).
In this because:
<UL>
the address is not being correctly resolved from where I am accessing the internet?
(this seems unlikely, as at the present moment I have no obvious difficulty in accessing any other site)
access to the site really is restricted?
(perhaps it is restricted to US readers only)
the site has been closed down because of the recent views on climate change expressed by the GISS head Dr. James Hansen (as reported on pages such as: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions)?
(as this would be REALLY disturbing, I offer it only as an improbable cause)
accesses from Brazilian addresses are being denied access for some obscure reason?
(just a little natural paranoia which seems to fit with the subject and the times!)
</ul>
Anyone else having trouble accessing http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ ?
Chris Scott  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.4.101.216 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access to the web site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ 

message: OK. Can we have some discussion of the quote before repeated deletions?MarkR1717 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WMC? Because your comment says you are editing something out when you're editing something in William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have obviously misunderstood. I edited out the comments associated with the quote, it was the comments that the previous editor had objected to. I take it you will not have any further objectio to the quotes (without comments) being reinstated.MarkR1717 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus 

message: Wheeler didn't coin the term; it was first used in a letter in 1964.   See  for one reference.  Fell Gleamingtalk 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  black holes and Wheeler 

message: I removed the data errors section. It was, in itself, hopelessly unbalanced (as you would expect from the refs FG used). And even if that were corrected, it remains hopelessly unbalanced as a view of GISS's work William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing well sourced material is not appropriate.  If you would like to add reliably-sourced information about GISS's work, please do so. Fell Gleamingtalk 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same old arguments, they were wrong before and they are wrong now. No, you don't add a whole pile of stuff that completely misrepresents their work. And no, you don't throw the burden on me to balance it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The errors were made; they've generated an enormous amount of media attention.  You can't bury this information because of W:IDONTLIKEIT.  It is accurate, notable, and well-sourced.  If you have a specific objection, please state it.  Meaninglessly vague pronouncements about "unbalance" don't provide enough information to move forward. Fell Gleamingtalk 10:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scientifically, this is trivia. I've already made my specific objection, and you are responding with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The problem is balance: this was a trivial incident, and it was made no more important by whatever fuss may have been generated. Dump the info into global warming controversy if you like, where it ca sit with all the other trivia and not bother anyone William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact remains that the vast majority of people have heard of GISS only because of these incidents.  We report what's notable, and we don't intentionally squelch controversy.  These errors may or may not be notable on a scientific paper.  But this is an encyclopedia entry about an organization that has become highly politicized, and is certainly far more notable than knowing they "share a building with the diner from Seinfeld".  Fell Gleamingtalk 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aassertions are not facts. Wikispan (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the facts are that GISS made these errors, and gained notoriety because of it.  Fell Gleamingtalk 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again: this is POV pushing by you, now clearly revealed. All you care about is the supposed "notoriety". As to your recent edit: it addresses none of the problems; indeed, it compunds them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly than I already have: it remains hopelessly unbalanced as a view of GISS's work. Adding extra diffs from people saying "it really wasn't important" doesn't even begin to address that problem. Like I said: if you want to add this because it is a juicy controversy, dump it in GWC William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm asking you to state specifically what you object to, and/or to provide a compromise text.  Please do so, thanks. Fell Gleamingtalk 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like William says, a compromize could be to put the text in the global warming controversy article. I would be opposed to putting it here, because the controversy about the data is not notable for this topic. It is only notable in the context of the AGW/sceptics dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "global warming controversy" didn't make the errors. GISS did.  Please explain why notable information about GISS should be put in another article, but not GISS's own.   Fell Gleamingtalk 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fell, if you would greatly expand this article to contain more information on the history of the institute and its various projects and accomplishments, then the section on the temperature errors might be ok.  As it is, I agree that it unbalances the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data errors 

message: Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2012.  A decent bit of reporting re an open letter sent to NASA a few days ago by 49 retired astronauts and engineers, including two former directors of  the Johnson Space Center. "Although not explicitly named in their letter, the 49 signatories are unhappy with the outspoken head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who is one of the world's most prominent climate scientists." -- per reporter  Eric Berger. Berger says "I believe this is probably part of a campaign to force Hansen out." at his Chronicle science blog.
Story has run in a couple other RSs including an op-ed at The Guardian and A. Revkin at his [NY Times "Dot Earth" column]. Probably best to sit on it for a few days. I'll post other RS reports as I see them.  --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Man bites dog" story. What exactly is the relevance of former engineers and astronauts with regards to climate change? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Man bites dog (journalism) is kinda the point -- it's a newsworthy event. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:NOTNEWS. And newsworthy != notable. Nor does newsworthy = WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open letter to NASA which "blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence" re climate change 

message: His family should sue this organization for besmirching his name and reputation.67.189.103.204 (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goddard? Goddard was into rockets and science, not this political malarkey 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515102527/http://www.franklin-live.net/site/20110512DrJamesHansen.php to http://www.franklin-live.net/site/20110512DrJamesHansen.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)