Talk:Historical climatology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:04, 17 April 2007

This page is completely unreferenced; and just about every statement in the intro is questionnable:

Historical climatology is the study of historical changes in weather and their effect on human history. This supplants the traditional study of only ice ages and other dramatic effects. This differs from paleoclimatology because historical climatology studies the correlations of human history and climate change and not merely ecological effects. The study seeks to define periods in human history which were either warmer or cooler than the present.

Until the article comes up to a better standard I don't think it should be linked to William M. Connolley 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a start in an important area of the debate about climate. Of course it should be improved, but mathematicians like Connolly should recognise other areas of scholarship. Presumably anything without a number attached can be safely ignored. There are numerous references to other Wiki articles. I suggest Connolly looks at the abysmal standard of his own contributions. Peterlewis 08:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:37, 17 April 2007 edit William M. Connolley (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 65,848 edits comment		Revision as of 08:04, 17 April 2007 edit undo Peterlewis (talk \| contribs) 16,110 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Until the article comes up to a better standard I don't think it should be linked to [[User:William M. Connolley\|William M. Connolley]] 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)		Until the article comes up to a better standard I don't think it should be linked to [[User:William M. Connolley\|William M. Connolley]] 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

			::: It makes a start in an important area of the debate about climate. Of course it should be improved, but mathematicians like Connolly should recognise other areas of scholarship. Presumably anything without a number attached can be safely ignored. There are numerous references to other Wiki articles. I suggest Connolly looks at the abysmal standard of his own contributions. [[User:Peterlewis\|Peterlewis]] 08:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)