Talk:Jan Veizer

Untitled

I think that to be 'disputed', a work needs to be disputed in a reputable journal, not a blog.65.12.145.148 23:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That he has researched global warming (ie. the current warming period) is not in a reputed journal either. His research is on the million year scale - not on the century to decadal. Realclimate is covered specifically under the exceptions noted in WP:SPS, they are climate scientists and they are writing within their context of their expertise. --Kim D. Petersen 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A blog is still a blog though. It isn't like that blog is subject to any independent criticism. The RC people are entitled to their opinion but it is still a blog. --Surgical Stryke (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RC is accepted as a WP:RS. You can try to overturn that, but you won't do it by edit warring on this page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RC is still a blog and an intensely partisan one at that. It certainly isn't reputable, as User:65.12.145.148 requested. If there is reputable dispute out there, it should be available somewhere other than RC, don't you think? --Surgical Stryke (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertions, RC is considered a reliable source. Your personal views on whether its reputable or not, is rather irrelevant - but lets just say that both Science and Nature disagree with you. As for being partisan - thats an opinion, and also rather irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean irrelevant like the unsupported characterization of the number of people who express an opinion on Veizer's work? That sort of irrelevant? --Surgical Stryke (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

4.500

Considering the discussion style and some edit comments I just wonder what is happening here, it however mirrors the style of discussion on the upper level as well. Veizers record on palaeoclimate and isotopic reseach is impressive. Its exactly what brought him the Leibniz Prize. A major data base for any far reaching palaeoclimate study and in that respect as well an important base for validation of climate modelling, e.g. for retrofitting with ice ages and empiric determinations of climate sensitivity. Insofare the time scale point doesnt hit the bulls eye completely. --Polentario (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic rays

The section about cosmic rays is clearly written by person(s) advocating Veizer's theories. Could someone make this more npov please? --Sarefo (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given it a shot, but you're right, much work remains to be done. Jinkinson talk to me 04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look here, his "theories" use up a large amount of the page on paleoclimatology ..., discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paleoclimatology#Controlling_Factors Prokaryotes (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the section. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

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) 19:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan Veizer. 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/20061002220613/http://www.esd.mun.ca/~gac/MEDALS/medal.html to http://www.esd.mun.ca/~gac/MEDALS/medal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104144355/http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf to http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan Veizer. 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/20070817202651/http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~veizer/default.html to http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~veizer/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)