Talk:James Lovelock

message: 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)
replies: text: I concur, it will fit nicely into the Geoengineering proposal section. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur.  There should be a redirect left under Sustainable retreat, but otherwise a full merger with James Lovelock seems like an obvious choice. 24.220.149.32 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Apparently I forgot to log in before making my remarks above^. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sustainable retreat 

message: 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.
*As of 13:37, 24 April 2012, user Grahamboat added comments made on MSNBC, citing the article: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change.
*As of 19:58, 24 April 2012, IP user 96.248.81.68 added a new section titled "Reversal on Global Warming Theory". In the new section James Delingpole of "The Telegraph" quoted from the same MSNBC article .
*As of 21:30, 24 April 2012, IP user 74.90.12.122 deleted all information in the above section claiming to: "remove false information & insert reliable source" citing the article: 'Gaia' Scientist Takes Back Climate Change Predictions.
*As of 00:55, 25 April 2012, user Jonathan A Jones consolidated all the previous statements into a section renamed "Global warming alarmism".
*As of 10:10, 25 April 2012 user Grahamboat removed the word  "alarmism" from the section name.
*As of 21:26, 25 April 2012, IP user 59.127.20.197 copy edited the Global warming section, without attribution, calling Lovelocks comments a "marketing gimmick" intended as "book hype" thereby creating WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR issues.
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)
replies: text: I could see it was getting fragmented but couldn't really see how to fix it without a substantial set of moves - so thanks for taking this on.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit rationale 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specificity of his electron capture detector? 

message: :Hello!  Now it appears that [the original link target] http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf is no longer quite such a dead link any more;  although, as the entries in the Wayback machine show, (see the "backups" of the link target that could be found on http://web.archive.org/ and are listed above), I was not just imagining the (temporary) difficulty.  ("see also" the excerpt headed "Page Not Found" above.) 
:I have taken this opportunity to make a Webcite [archive] "backup" of the .PDF file, now that the link to it (at least the one from http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/25/lovelock-recants.html ) seems to be working OK.  
:The results may be seen in the revised footnote.  Enjoy.
:
:PS: There was something wrong with the usefulness of the revised footnote.  (I was unable to successfully "click on" it, nor even to get a "preview" to show up, when the target was so far away as to require that;  also, the link that is supposed to be "clickable", from the up-arrow [or "circumflex"] near the footnote, back to the referring section, does not seem to work.)  I eventually figured out why. The problem has now been fixed via this recent edit.   --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few minutes later (the same day) 

message: 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
:The article doesn't say that he shared the prize - I think that you've just misread what it does say.  However, this may mean that it could be slightly tweaked to be clearer.  --PLUMBAGO 11:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel 1995 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography ordering 

message: 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)
replies: text: They were only superficially and briefly frozen before being warmed (which our articles fail to explain sufficiently). The article says "60% of the water in the brain crystallized into ice" but there's no reason to think that areas such as the limbic system were impaired. (The same goes for reports of people frozen outside overnight before being found and rejuvenated.) UpdateNerd (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of bring back to life frozen hamsters using microwaves and claiming legit papers exist for this! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. But I struggle to find an actual value, rather than talk of how much was added. So, really, we don't greatly care; I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETM CO2 Concentration is incorrect 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sir James Lovelock]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor wording