|This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nils-Axel Mörner article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to .If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Cut 9 August 2007Edit
Cut with some regret from the article...
William M. Connolley 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Rv again: why. And sourcesEdit
This article lacks sources for lots of things: that he was ever at Stockholm, for example.
I reverted  for various reasons. He is a self-declared expert on sea level, but its not clear it was his main thing; and fairly clearly he doesn't know much about it :-). The INQUA bit got re-written to imply that INQUA once subscribed to Morner; of course they never did. Etc William M. Connolley 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Critique of IPCC ResultsEdit
Where does this sentence come from? "This is odd, because satellite altimetry does indicate change, at about 3 mm/yr, which is faster than that observed by the tide-gauge network." This is an unsubstantiated comment on Dr. Mörner's assertions.
BernardP, Dec 13 2007
12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the passage on dowsing and it sounded as a very one sided and quite likely libellous attack. I followed the first link in the passage which appeared to have nothing to do with the subject. The second was quite clearly someone with an axe to grind. They did give a link to a TV show which could have been independant but again the link did not go anywhere.
As the passage is quite obviously one sided and so does not meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion I have removed it in whole pending anyone who has the time to find out the real story and to at least find someone with an independant viewpoint who can give some credibility to the passage and avoid wikipedia being sued.188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seems fair enough to me. The first link leads to a ref to an article by Morner on the subject. You wouldn't be Morner, would you? In which case you can probably notify the Office of BLP concerns William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I’m having trouble finding any good support for this section. The first link says he wrote a paper included in a legitimate scientific book (From Huts to Houses: Transformations of Ancient Societies, ed by J. Rasmus Brandt and Lars Karlsson). I found it on Amazon.com
- The second link is where someone claiming to be James Randi describes a television program where Mörner was supposed to have tried to “show his powers”. Unfortunately, the link to the program does not work. All we have here is an old, untended web page on www.mindspring.com that claims to be James Randi. Why isn’t it at www.randi.org? At www.randi.org I found no reference to Mörner. Further search only found this page.
- It claims he wrote, “Fields from underground tensions”. Or, is that just a name for his theory? In any case there is no reference. Every other hit on Google pointed somehow back to this Wikipedia article. I’m no fan of Mörner, but don’t think this section should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-sailor (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And given the average wikipedia editor's environmentalist bent, you find this sort of sketchy mud-slinging surprising? Of course, this comment will probably be deleted soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All the mud-slinging is back, as is the unsubstantiated Randi comment. Wikipedia really does have an environmentalist bent, doesn't it..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Removed from article:
First of all, the point in time has to be given, when this h-index was measured, because the h-index changes heavily in time. Mörner clearly once had a Hirsch index > 9. It would be fair to give the Mörner's Hirsch index in 2002, i.e. shortly before he came into trouble with the leading opinions on climate change. After 2003 his citations sank also because citing Mörner could be harmful for your career. So 2002 is the best point in time to measure Mörner's Hirsch index. Does anybody know it? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Being that its an encyclopedia, why wouldn't it be written from a perspective of current scientific opinions? Science isn't neutral, it is heavily biased towards facts. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Views on Ales stenarEdit
Sources (last two are in swedish): http://newobserveronline.com/how-old-is-swedens-stonehenge-new-theory-stirs-controversy/ http://www.ystadsallehanda.se/ystad/article1513154/Utgravning-vid-Ales-stenar-har-inletts.html http://www.sydsvenskan.se/sverige/nya-utgravningar-vid-ales-stenar/
So he's got some controversial views on the origin and original purpose of the rocks. I'm not going to write a section about this since I can't say I'm a great writer nor do I know much about the subject.
Something else that I want to note, while maybe it doesn't fit well in an encyclopedic article, I do find it interesting. Every time I've been to ales stenar (iirc) there has been someone sitting on the way to them with flyers or a post, can't remember exactly. Supposedly, according to my parents at least, this is a retired guy with some controversial opinion on the rocks (which leads me to believe it is Mörner) and his wife. I don't know much more so I don't believe it's something that I should put in the article, but if someone can find a source mentioning this it would be very nice.
Looked around a bit more and found Mörner's colleague's site http://www.alesstenar.com/ (he's mentioned in the earlier swedish links). On the site he mentions (close to the bottom of the main page) that he has tours of the rocks (and their theories) every day all summer. I wonder how much Mörner is involved in this. I see now that this is mentioned on Bob's swedish wiki page. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_G_Lind
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) 17:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sea level rise updateEdit
This guy projected 20-40cm sea level rise by 2100, IPCC ~60cm IIRC, USGCRP ~100cm, media in general/al gore/cgi renderings...like 700? Point is, we're now 16 years into the century, seeing as the main point of this article is arguing about sea level rise, maybe a mention of what's actually happened so far...ideally some kinda graph...would be good? I don't think it'd be OR or synthesis to compare estimates of sea level rise with actual sea level rise. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)