Talk:Phenology: Difference between revisions
Xenobot Mk V (talk | contribs) m Bot) Tagging for WP:CCTF, (Plugin++) Added {{Environment}}. |
Arthursilva (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
With respect the point is not compromise but balance and objectivity. To represent Keenan's point is not about compromise but about avoiding taking sides. [[User:Plantsurfer|Plantsurfer]] 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
With respect the point is not compromise but balance and objectivity. To represent Keenan's point is not about compromise but about avoiding taking sides. [[User:Plantsurfer|Plantsurfer]] 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
arthur Silva 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*the paragraph: Jean Combes in Surrey, maybe the reference(s) is needed. |
Revision as of 21:23, 22 May 2010
Environment: Climate change Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
There are two separate points here. First, Chuine et al. did demonstrate a good correlation between harvest dates and instrumental temperatures. That is clear, and I believe it is reasonable for the article to tell about that.
Second, Chuine et al. argued that 2003 was unprecedentedly warm. Keenan refuted that argument. It is incorrect to try to find some middle ground, such as “Keenan challenged that argument”. If I say that 2+2=4 and someone else says that 2+2=22, are we supposed to compromise and say 2+2=13? There is no compromise. Keenan refuted the argument. But Keenan did nothing to refute the general correlation (see especially his last sentence).
I do not, though, see why the argument and refutation about 2003 is important for an article on phenology. So I suggest dropping the point.
TheSeven 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect the point is not compromise but balance and objectivity. To represent Keenan's point is not about compromise but about avoiding taking sides. Plantsurfer 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
arthur Silva 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- the paragraph: Jean Combes in Surrey, maybe the reference(s) is needed.