Talk:Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Access to the web site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

The web site http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ does not appear to be accessible from Brazil at the time of writing (7/4/2008 12:45).

In this because:

• the address is not being correctly resolved from where I am accessing the internet?
  (this seems unlikely, as at the present moment I have no obvious difficulty in accessing any other site)
• access to the site really is restricted?
  (perhaps it is restricted to US readers only)
• the site has been closed down because of the recent views on climate change expressed by the GISS head Dr. James Hansen (as reported on pages such as: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions)?
  (as this would be REALLY disturbing, I offer it only as an improbable cause)
• accesses from Brazilian addresses are being denied access for some obscure reason?
  (just a little natural paranoia which seems to fit with the subject and the times!)

Anyone else having trouble accessing http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ ?

Chris Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.4.101.216 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus

OK. Can we have some discussion of the quote before repeated deletions?MarkR1717 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid revision 272977171 by MarkR1717 (talk) rv unmarked revert with misleading edit comment, says WJC. Exactly how was the edit comment misleading?MarkR1717 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WMC? Because your comment says you are editing something out when you're editing something in William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you have obviously misunderstood. I edited out the comments associated with the quote, it was the comments that the previous editor had objected to. I take it you will not have any further objectio to the quotes (without comments) being reinstated.MarkR1717 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

black holes and Wheeler

Wheeler didn't coin the term; it was first used in a letter in 1964. See [1] for one reference. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra Information

Ibis, If we're going to begin tossing out sources because they contain "extra information" not necessary to support the particular text in question, then we'll have to throw out 95%+ of all citations in Wikipedia. Nor can a valid POV argument be formulated, since by leaving in the text the source is supporting, you are making a tacit admission the source's statement of that particular fact is correct. Do you have an reasonable objections to the source? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In articles where we want to focus on science, we use sources in a very conservative way. The problem is that this or similar books are not a good source for the information they contain on other matters for this type of article. For other types of articles like BLP artcles, this may not be a problem.

Compare to a math article for which you want to use a popular book containing the proof of a theorem as a source. Even if there is noting wrong with that book, this may be a problem if there are a lot of similar books who contain both correct and incorrct information. The inclusion of the book as a source would thus be based on Original Research that verifies that in this particular case, the book does not make flawed statements on any other points. So, we shouldn't do this and instead only use those types of sources which are a priori known to be reliable sources for use in science articles. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To address a few of your errors: (a) This isn't a science article. It's an article on an institution with strong political implications. (b) There is no policy in NOR that requires one to verify "a source doesn't make errors on points not cited in the article". (c) The source in quesiton is not an unreliable source, either for the statement in question, nor others. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't an article with strong political implications. Could you (and Cla) perhaps stop importing your politics into it? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't realize the political overtones of Hansen and GISS, you may want to pick up a newspaper dated later than 1991. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Per ANI, no-one seems to think this factoid is worth having (other than Cla). So I've simply removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the ANI discussion, and I don't see anything to what you're referring to in that discussion. As a reminder, we're supposed to be expanding these articles, not looking for reasons to remove reliably sourced information from them. Cla68 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make it, the fellow spent less than a year at Goddard in 71-72 as a post doc (not sure if that makes one a "staff member" but it's hair splitting either way). The bulk of his career was elsewhere, never had a senior position at Goddard, a major impact on the history of the organization, its management, or its role in its areas of expertise. Seems entirely undue to place "so and so once briefly had a junior position at GISS" in an article -- particular when the whole point of the addition seems to be to introduce a contentious source from elsewhere (that he briefly worked at GISS is of course thoroughly appropriate for his biography). At any rate, Stanford still hosts a CV/Professional bio and if it must be included, could source to that. But really, it's not appropriate for this article. Expand this article by all means -- with information relevant to GISS and its role. There's lots of stuff available for people that are interested in doing so.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this about a "contentious source?" Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears you're using a politicized source that most scientists think as trash for a piece of trivial information that doesn't belong in this article and, if it did, far better sources can be used for his CV. It looks like link-spam which im convinced has to do with the tiresome wikipedia global warming wars. The key bit is, though, that in the case of this particular article, this trivia doesn't belong, no matter what "source" is used to back it.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Data errors

I removed the data errors section. It was, in itself, hopelessly unbalanced (as you would expect from the refs FG used). And even if that were corrected, it remains hopelessly unbalanced as a view of GISS's work William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing well sourced material is not appropriate. If you would like to add reliably-sourced information about GISS's work, please do so. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Same old arguments, they were wrong before and they are wrong now. No, you don't add a whole pile of stuff that completely misrepresents their work. And no, you don't throw the burden on me to balance it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The errors were made; they've generated an enormous amount of media attention. You can't bury this information because of W:IDONTLIKEIT. It is accurate, notable, and well-sourced. If you have a specific objection, please state it. Meaninglessly vague pronouncements about "unbalance" don't provide enough information to move forward. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientifically, this is trivia. I've already made my specific objection, and you are responding with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The problem is balance: this was a trivial incident, and it was made no more important by whatever fuss may have been generated. Dump the info into global warming controversy if you like, where it ca sit with all the other trivia and not bother anyone William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that the vast majority of people have heard of GISS only because of these incidents. We report what's notable, and we don't intentionally squelch controversy. These errors may or may not be notable on a scientific paper. But this is an encyclopedia entry about an organization that has become highly politicized, and is certainly far more notable than knowing they "share a building with the diner from Seinfeld". Fell Gleaming^talk 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aassertions are not facts. Wikispan (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the facts are that GISS made these errors, and gained notoriety because of it. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again: this is POV pushing by you, now clearly revealed. All you care about is the supposed "notoriety". As to your recent edit: it addresses none of the problems; indeed, it compunds them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

William, please propose an alternate text that answers your objections. Something better than "I just don't want anyone to know GISS ever made errors" is not going to be acceptable. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly than I already have: it remains hopelessly unbalanced as a view of GISS's work. Adding extra diffs from people saying "it really wasn't important" doesn't even begin to address that problem. Like I said: if you want to add this because it is a juicy controversy, dump it in GWC William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you to state specifically what you object to, and/or to provide a compromise text. Please do so, thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Like William says, a compromize could be to put the text in the global warming controversy article. I would be opposed to putting it here, because the controversy about the data is not notable for this topic. It is only notable in the context of the AGW/sceptics dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The "global warming controversy" didn't make the errors. GISS did. Please explain why notable information about GISS should be put in another article, but not GISS's own. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell, if you would greatly expand this article to contain more information on the history of the institute and its various projects and accomplishments, then the section on the temperature errors might be ok. As it is, I agree that it unbalances the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Open letter to NASA which "blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence" re climate change

Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2012. A decent bit of reporting re an open letter sent to NASA a few days ago by 49 retired astronauts and engineers, including two former directors of the Johnson Space Center. "Although not explicitly named in their letter, the 49 signatories are unhappy with the outspoken head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who is one of the world's most prominent climate scientists." -- per reporter Eric Berger. Berger says "I believe this is probably part of a campaign to force Hansen out." at his Chronicle science blog.

Story has run in a couple other RSs including an op-ed at The Guardian and A. Revkin at his [NY Times "Dot Earth" column]. Probably best to sit on it for a few days. I'll post other RS reports as I see them. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Man bites dog" story. What exactly is the relevance of former engineers and astronauts with regards to climate change? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, Man bites dog (journalism) is kinda the point -- it's a newsworthy event. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTNEWS. And newsworthy != notable. Nor does newsworthy = WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Trash, and this isn't a newspaper. If its still interesting in a month or two, we could consider it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Goddard? Goddard was into rockets and science, not this political malarkey

His family should sue this organization for besmirching his name and reputation.67.189.103.204 (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 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/20110515102527/http://www.franklin-live.net/site/20110512DrJamesHansen.php to http://www.franklin-live.net/site/20110512DrJamesHansen.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)