Talk:Environmental science

message: need research on  estate management/valuation relating to estate management.
:This does not sound appropropriate to environmental science. --Alan Liefting 07:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: estate management

message: Sorry folks but this whole article is unfocussed, mixes politics and science irrationally, repeats what is already better explained in other articles and is, in part, simply wrong. I would vote for starting again and would suggest the following starting point.
:Environmental Science is a term used to describe all those scientific activities associated with the understanding of the natural environment and the anthropengenic impacts upon it. Environmental scientists can therefore be found in a wide range of displines including Ecology, Biology, Chemistry,  Physics, Geography, Geology, Meteorology as well as the very many derived disciplines such as Limnology, Geomorphology, palaeontology etc.
:The new understandings that Environmental scientists provide can often lead to difficult political decisions for society as it tries to balance the benefits of  a sustainable natural environment against the need for food, housing and growth. The role of the environmental scientist remains that of providing scientifically verifiable advice and highligting the environmental consequences of proposed political courses of action.
Velela 09:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done. --Stemonitis 14:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, nice job with the inapproriate melee...just edit next time.  Editing works better.  Thank you, I will be re-adding something.  Have a nice day! - Hard Raspy Sci 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i have done a major rewrite on Environmental science and it still needs further work; at least now it is focussed and accurate Anlace 02:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: I don't think that template is appropriate for this article if its purpose is to list environmental technologies which are actually more Civil Engineering than Environmental Sciences.
The other obvious thing about this is article is that it's singler. I think we should be talking about 'Environmental Sciences' of which there are many, rather than this singler thing which is poorly defined. This point is reinforced by the fact that you start talking about subcategories of this 'science' which are infact sciences themselves! ;-) Also, whoever wrote 'Atmospheric sciences' in this article can't really disagree with me. Supposed 06:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no to be honest I agree with you, I was being abit pedantic. hehe. I also graduated in environmental sciences and from a top 10 uni :-). Environmental Science is collection and  integration of Environmental Science{s} but even then that isn't always true. The term seems to be banded around to describe anything that's Environmental, infact, some of the subjects I studied weren't even sciences but they were environmental, they weren't all based on scientific method. So you didn't graduate in 'Environmental Science' or 'Science(s)' in the way  someone of physics would graduate in Physics. Don't you find it a little troubling that some 'Environmental Science' isn't even scientific? It's not a very good name for this discipline. Supposed 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental science template 

message: "but also applies knowledge from other non-scientific studies such as economics, law and social sciences."
However,
social sciences tend to emphasize the use of the scientific method in the study of humanity,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences
I'm troubled because the first quote looks like a reference to the social sciences on the whole.
The point is, this study - environmental science - sometimes incoporate studies that don't necessarily use scientific method. JHJPDJKDKHI! 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific method 

message: Is Environmental science considered a discipline within the broad field of Earth science? It seems reasonable that it should be, at least to me, as Oceanography (a comparably multi-discipline field) is listed as part of Earth science. Just wondering. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? Hello? Knock-knoc k... — RJH (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Science 

message: I'm going to be working on this article some in the next couple weeks, I think it would really benefit from a tightening/focusing
Gcolive 02:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-working 

message: I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages.  I've done a mock up of what this would look like at .  Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental technology template

message: Hello to anyone interested in ES. I am seeking to list an external link with out running afoul of WP rules. The site consists of screened summaries of recent ES related research, policy, and news from specialized journals and many other sources. The justification for this site is that it would be impossible for anyone to stay informed on all the journals and news sources covered therein and it would be useful to have an RSS feed on the subject and its correlates. I believe that this site is extremely useful for everyone in the ES community, but then again I am also its editor and publisher. Since this disqualifies me from self-listing the site as an external link, I am asking for anyone to have a look and then add the external link. Here is the link html which can be copied and pasted directly into the external link editing window: Environmental Science and Policy: http://envsci.xyvy.info
I appreciate your consideration. Utopian100, MPA-JD, Environmental Science and Policy
Utopian100 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed External Link

message: This article is a joke as it currently stands.
The history is incomplete. INterest in Environmental science is much older than NEPA. The topic goes back at least to the Greeks. There are significant environmental writings in the Moslem Golden Ages, and there are significant American writings and thoughts from the 19th century. 
This article appears to be written by masters students at a school for environmental science who have reduced the subject to an abstract of some of their classes and the program definition of the science. 
I do not have time to fix any of this now, but I do suggest that the definition at the beginning be restricted to the impact of humans on the enviornment and the impacts of the environment on humans. 
I have visited this page regularly over the last 3 years and it has been completely changed each time. I find this distressing, as most of the additions and deletions are not justified, reasonable, or directly related to anything I would call environmental science.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly concur. It isn't a joke because it isn't funny, but this article does not describe Environmental science as I understand it - and I worked as an environmental scientist for nearly 40 years. I would also agree that it is extraordinarily US based. This article is also about the science  (or rather it should be ) and not the scientists and their expectations of a career. I would (and possibly might) delete the whole section about careers. It is also endlessly repetetetive - I just got bored with reading that this applies to air, water, soil (or sediment) etc. etc. Let's get that out in the introduction and assume that readers can remember that much as they read the rest. But there is far too much on the categorisation of different types of environmental science (does anybody care about that ?) and far too little on why we do it and what the outcomes might be. Some of the stated outcomes are just plain wrong. Restore ecosystems - really ? Only if they are damaged and that is the best environmental, political and/or socially acceptable option - Environmental scientists are not the unthinking mouthpieces of  the Conserve at all costs faction, they should rather be providing balanced advice to the community, politicians, industry whoever on the issues observed and recorded and the opportunities for moving forward and they should be doing that by presenting well researched data based on good observation and experiment and then presenting opportunities based on sound and well tried experience. Velela (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is a joke as it currently stands 

message: This section doesn't seem to have any point.  Ecology is a disciplin with Environmental Science, as discussed in the secon section of the article.  The text in terminology is incorrect and pointless.  Remove?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoke pond (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: terminology

message: Dear Wikipedia Community,
As a scientist and Wikipedia enthusiast, I am deeply disappointed towards the obvious lack of development in this article. It requires a re-write as well as the addition of lots of necessary new sections. Armed with an environmental science textbook as well as the greatest resource of mankind (search engines and the internet), I intend to revise this article. I hope that I do not face much opposition in my endeavor.
Good editing,
Rifasj123 (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't make it worse and you won't get any resistance. :) danielkueh (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well?  Rifasj123, where's the new content? This is such a rich subject that, yes, this article is a bit disappointing. DDT pesticide bans, lead in gasoline, coal mines, urban 'heat sinks', desertification, global warming, Great Plains of the U.S. aquifer depletion, heavy-metal tuna; the list of issues is vast & entertaining. Jack B108 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Development 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Environmental science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120813211254/http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503251 to http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503251
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, My sense is that the above-referenced section should be either greatly expanded or deleted. Clearly there are more than three 'notable environmental scientists'. Preference? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and be bold and delete this section. In :Category:Environmental scientists there are currently 54 entries. Does not make sense to list only three here. For now, best to use the category, in my view. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable environmental scientists (section) 

message: Hello,
For starters, there is not citation a that shows where the four components came from. Also, I do not think that these components are the best way to divide up the article. An alternative way to divide this article up would be to discuss the different sciences that contribute to environmental science. For example: there are aspects of biology, earth sciences, chemistry, social sciences, etc. and from these aspects stem zoology, hydrology, geochemistry, etc. Bmclark12 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents of the Components Section

message: By my quick count, eight of the first eleven sentences in the lead begin with the word "environmental" and there are 24 words in the leads beginning with the letters "environ" (plus three more shoved in our faces off the get go from the page title and hatnote text). 
Without becoming as picky as Flaubert, this thicket could perhaps be trimmed.  
I actually thought Lucky was pretty bad on the repetition thing, but he's not even close, and eventually his bugaboo wanders:
Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda ...
There's a reason Beckett only motions toward this much repetition: to really go there might have exsanguinated his audience right in their chairs. — MaxEnt 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental overload 

message: I was reading this page and saw that there were some images that did not fit well or were not useful while reading. Particularly, the page has images of the Earths Atmosphere and an Open pit mine, however these images do not relate well with any of the topics discussed in the article. Maybe if we can include sections focusing these aspects that would be good or if we can replace these images with relevant images that would also work. Thoughts? --Lakhdeep97 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. There should be more fluidity and coherence. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we find more relevant images for the page that do not distract the readers but supplement their understanding of this field? 

message: I feel like the rest of the article has at least something to do with the topic of environmental science, but the "Regulations driving the studies" section seems to be nearly irrelevant to the description or definition of environmental science. It is talking about about regulations and acts. I'm not sure it is relevant or should be included in the article. Andrewlin1 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of the "Regulations driving the studies" section? 

message: I feel like this section is missing a lot of information. There is more to ecology than just the ocean. Can we add more information about other ecosystems on our planet? (Tug41875 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecology Section 

message: This is an excellent article. It is so helpfulAmuhannaa (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Science Article. 

message: I think there is much more to environmental science than what has been mentioned here. For example, there is a section about how environmental science came to be with Rachel Carson's book and such. Perhaps make that its own section like "Background" or "History of the field"? There are many words thrown into the lead that is not mentioned again within the components such as biology or environmental engineering, etc. Eriicaayu (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider reformatting/including different talking points 

message: I enjoyed this article very much. 
a question I have about this article is why didn't you go more in depth for each paragraph a little bit more? MichellePumpkinQueen23 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecology  

message: All in all a great page, I would maybe consider rearranging hefty portions into subcategories. --ZoeMarielK (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation  

message: — Assignment last updated by Kellyschisa (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing C1

message: The information included is of good quality and the way the article is presented or set-up makes it easy to read/understand. Good subcategories but could include just a bit more. 173.167.170.193 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating