Talk:James Lovelock

Sustainable retreat
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)


 * I concur, it will fit nicely into the Geoengineering proposal section. -- Cdw ♥'s  ♪  ♫  ( talk ) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Apparently I forgot to log in before making my remarks above^. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Full merge to this page leaving redirect is good. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit rationale
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)


 * 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)

Specificity of his electron capture detector?
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)

Dead link in footnote "[34]"
In this [18:57, 26 January 2013] edit: (("diff" page)), a footnote -- (it was footnote number "[34]", last time I checked) -- was added, whose link target now seems to be a dead link.

("").

The wikitext added at the time of that edit -- (as you can see from the "diff" page) -- is just this: "". The "backups" of the link target that could be found on http://web.archive.org/ (i.e., using https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf) were only these two:


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20130616160655/http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20130909055725/http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf

...and they were equally as disappointing as [the original link target] http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf itself.

I do not want to take the time to "contact a site operator". Maybe they could help to find some backup of what used to be there (at that URL) (http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/James%20Lovelock%20Letter.pdf ); ...if someone asks politely. Maybe the author of the erstwhile "letter" on that web site (he is the subject of this BLP article -- [right?]) would be willing (and able) to assist the website maintainers, in finding it.

If you have any advice, then please (feel free to) chime in... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

a few minutes later (the same day)

 * 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)

Nobel 1995
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.  --P LUMBAGO  11:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
Could there be some mention of him and/or his theories on the MP on his 100th birthday? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You might have to explain what this "MP" is first. Given that a symposium is being run to commemorate it (see here), I think that some sort of mention of his 100th birthday is relevant. But if it were only candles on a cake, not so much. —P LUMBAGO 08:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Main Page naturally - and anything reasonably relevant (ditto other persons reaching 'a great age').
 * The link does not seem to work. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Got you. Sorry about the link, it still seems to work for me, but there's related information about U. Exeter's events around his birthday here and here for specifically public events. Cheers, —P LUMBAGO 08:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Link working now: and some of the connections can be less obvious than others (eg a Kirk Douglas film on his birthday). The point being the people are notable for things other than reaching that age (or 'first (category X) to reach (age)'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a 100th birthday is a significant enough reason to feature a scientist/scholar of his caliber on the main page. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be some 'people in category X' who are notable only for reaching a particular age and other trivial/quiz factoid reasons. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which may still be a sufficient reason for bringing an interesting article on the person/what they are linked to, to the main page for general interest. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(reset) The OED 'word of the day' had 'Gaia' to celebrate - and the WP main page 'nothing' (or at least 'not when I looked'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography ordering
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. —P LUMBAGO 13:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Claims of bring back to life frozen hamsters using microwaves and claiming legit papers exist for this!
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)


 * 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)

PETM CO2 Concentration is incorrect
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)


 * 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)

"Sir James Lovelock" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_James_Lovelock&redirect=no 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. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Poor wording
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)