Talk:Global cooling/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Orbital forcing?

This section is poorly referenced and I have no idea how anyone can assert that orbital periods will not repeat. Where are the citations to this idea -they are called cycles for a reason! The fundamental in the ice age period looks strong. 125.237.14.235 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

STOP WIKI from using "scientific consensus" in any debated theory

That's bolscevism (majority), not science. Also, how can you write that scientific consensus is on global warming (not true that there is consensus) after writing that they thought there was a cooling. How incoherent.83.103.38.68 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki only uses the scientific and media driven information that fits the model they are pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.27.99 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Times

I guess we're due another tedious edit war over [1]. So...

The Times first used the term a global cooling on 28th January 1975. In June 1976, in response to press reports predicting a Little Ice Age, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning that a very significant warming of global climate was probable; the actual term global warming was first used by The Times on 2nd December 1976.

I haven't verified that the refs are correct; but even if they are, they don't help, because they are simply refs to articles in the Times using those terms. Those articles can't prove the assertion that those were the first uses. Secondlt, even if you can find a source for that assertion, it really doesn't help, because The Times ceased being the paper of record around about 1800 or thereabouts; in other words, its just one paper and not particularly interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is two editors adding the material and just you warring with them to remove it. If you just stop reverting it there won't be an edit war. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1 I am Happy to email WMC the original articles (although I must add that I have added roughly 800 referenced edits to Wiki and did not realise WMC needs to verify them). 2 WP:RS states Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as ...The Times in Britain....3 I am replacing an unreferenced statement with a referenced statement. Lucian Sunday (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its undue weight to a specific article, with little to no specific relevance. The Times doesn't get more important by you bold-facing it. Perhaps you should try to expand the original sentence with a citation - instead of removing it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the article in the Times that is referenced, doesn't even describe this particular concept. But instead uses "global cooling" in an all together different context:

"The great sheet of ice that covers the West Antarctic, and becomes the Ross ice shelf where it floats on the sea, is of worldwide importance. If this ice were to melt, sea levels would rise dramatically and many coastal areas would be flooded. If, on the other hand the ice were to spread over a wider area, reflecting back more of the Sun's heat, it could cause a global cooling, even a new ice age."

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ie we have a documented media usage of the term global cooling on 28th January 1975. Is there a documented media usage use of the term global warming before 2nd December 1976? If earlier references can be found, they should be inserted; until then the Times references should stay. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all it isn't used in this particular article as a term. And secondly the Times is a rather poor statistical basis for such documentation. And third will you please read our policy on original research. Your original research on when the Times first used the wording (not the term) "global cooling" is not something that can (or should) be included in Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that I had already removed the term First. Your attempt to define what The Times meant when it used the term a global cooling is original reserach on your part (as is reinserting an unreferenced statement for that matter). Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not original research to read the article. Its not about global cooling, nor is the usage of the wording used as a term. (as you well know if you have read the article).

As for your removal of "first". If its not the first, then why would it be interesting at all? Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information (see WP:NOT). Why would the Times article even be notable in this context? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw:

“…J. O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that man had ‘Only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.’”

From the NY Times 21 dec. 1969 "“Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution. ”". And this one doesn't go in either - because it would (once more) be original research to claim that this one is notable, or even close to being the first. But we can see (at least) that the Times' usage of global cooling is after the usage of global warming. Which makes the Times article completely irrelevant (even in your argumentation). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that insertion of The NY Times reference would be original research; but I am happy that an earlier references for global warming has been found. I am inclined to add The NY references to the article - It is after all the reason I posted to the talk page in the first place! Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its original research to think that this is the first - or even a notable article. And just to point this out - here's an even older one (Indiana Times Nov 6, 1957):

Air Pollution One of Biggest Problems Facing America Today ... The conditions which ordinarily would squeeze the moisture from the upper reaches of air are lacking and the vapors move onward, picking up greater quantities until suddenly conditions change and a part of the country is treated to a downpour never recorded before. Now our scientists, particularly those of Southern California are studying the possibility that this continued pouring forth of waste gases may upset the rather delicate carbon dioxide balance in the earth's general atmosphere and that a large scale global warming, with radical climate changes may result. It's a serious problem, friends.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would be, if I had done that. And thank you for your fascinating research - It really should be incorporated into the article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is not to find individual articles, or the first use, but an overview of when the term became popular. Having just asked a historian, I now suspect that the relevant overview doesn't exist. Absent that, he recommended looking at the google news timeline view cooling warming, which is quite instructive; there is a huge peak for "global cooling" for 1975, which turn out to be mostly later references to the 1975 newsweek article, which ironically doesn't mention the phrase at all.

His conclusion was In sum, both terms were introduced prominently in titles of articles in leading scientific journals in 1975 (maybe there were earlier references, of course, but the Science and Nature articles would be the first important ones). However, "global warming" did not become a common term in the scientific literature or US popular press until 1987-1988, and "global cooling" became common only after 2000, almost entirely in a contrarian context.

However, I'm not proposing that the above is usable as a ref - clearly it isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My bug here is unhappiness with the sentence

The term "global cooling" did not become attached to concerns about an impending glacial period until after the term "global warming" was popularized.

attached can be wiki-verified by a single reference; popularized can only be wiki-verified if 'a WP:RS has put a date for popularized in Print. The point is there remains a need to fiddle with the above statement. My first choice preference would be to add the above UK & US references and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we disagree about what it means. To me, "attached" is just a way of avoiding saying "popularised" twice; the uses should be symmetrical. I think the statement is true, but I don't think I can find any refs to support it (when was GW popularised? we don't know). I'd rather delete it entirely William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New section on JASON?

I'm thinking that Oreskes' reporting on JASON might be discussed here. [2] Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While this earlier article appears reliable, we probably need to be more careful with some of her more recent newspaper articles on the 1979 JASON report. In any case, I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be a better fit in a warming-related page. Smptq (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've thought there should be some kind of "history of climate change science" page it might belong to, but AFAIK that doesn't exist, and it also seems relevant to the scientific non-belief in global cooling in the 70s. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My faith in Oreskes has been somewhat dented by the Nierenberg stuff. But she may be reliable on JASON. I too doubt it belongs here, though. history of climate change science is an idea William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Global cooling prediction 2009, Old Farmer's Almanac

I've just been reverted on the grounds that a prediction of global cooling is off topic and irrelevant to an article on global cooling. I'm not quite sure how that's justified so I'm taking it to talk. The truth is that there are a number of people who have recently said that we're due for a spell of global cooling due to Sun inactivity. The Old Farmer's Almanac is just one of them. TMLutas (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OFA is obviously a joke. IF you can find anyone serious, you might have some sort of a case William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is currently structured that there were few real scientists worried about this and that it was a press phenomenon. Well, fine, if that's the consensus to be used here then press accounts including OFA are relevant and should be used. If you're advocating a rewrite so that the press panic of the 1970s is not relevant, well, good luck and I'd like to see your edits. I'm looking for a bit of consistency here.

Finding someone serious

WMC suggests that if one could "find someone serious" talking about global cooling today, we should put that in. That's fine by me. Links and briefs to follow:

Forget warming - beware the new ice age - George Kukla, micropalentologist and Special Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

More to follow TMLutas (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Year of global cooling David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. TMLutas (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is a conservative think tank a "serious" source for whether global cooling is happening today? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the title of the section. It is the scientists who are serious and if I found the mass market stuff and political sites first that does not discredit their professional opinion. At this writing I'm up to 4 scientists with sourcing of various quality. It does not matter for encyclopedic inclusion whether they are right. It matters that it is in the news and their claims should be addressed in an appropriate NPOV way. I believe that it is now demonstrably false that Global Cooling is only a 1970s media phenomenon. It's a 2007-present media phenomenon and there may be some thin scientific backing to it that has not, to this point, been falsified. TMLutas (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not even Solomon makes Kukla claim imminent change to cooler climate. He carefully weaves 30 year old claims, out-of-context quotes, and very weak current remarks, so there is very little real beef in the article. Deming is not predicting global cooling either, but describes some anecdotal evidence for cold weather during part of one year... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Year of global cooling David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. TMLutas (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy's article talks about a single year, talks about trying to prove that there isn't any warming, and tosses out a whole batch of short-term weather observations. He doesn't predict a long-term cooling trend. Smptq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

David Deming#Deming on global warming has a relevant pull quote where Deming talks about temperature not rising over the past 9 years (2007). It's now 10 years. Is 9 years (now 10 and the effect is more pronounced) still a weather observation that is short term? TMLutas (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a propaganda technique, which takes advantage of a weather-related temperature spike in 1998, rather than a serious belief about climate. Smptq (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the sunspots R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. TMLutas (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This fellow does indeed seem to be talking about long-term cooling, but does so on the basis that "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries". However, from what I can tell, the scientists who study the sun more or less agree that we're not seeing anything particularly out of the ordinary. See for example What's Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) Smptq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there is no consensus that we're in a global cooling phase. I'm not trying to say that there is a consensus that we're entering global cooling. I'm trying for something much more modest, that there exists some people who are in the mainstream popular press as well as serious scientists who are modern believers of some theory of global cooling. Granting that much means that we need to rework the article in a few places to recognize that fact. You granted that this guy is talking about long term cooling. You have not said he's disqualified as a serious figure, merely that the solar scientists you are familiar with disagree. That's fair but it's moving the goalposts as to what I want accomplished which is to accurately recognize the number and scope of global cooling believers today. TMLutas (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that we're in the early phase of something and we would be wise not to get too far behind the reporting. It *could* be true but I don't want global cooling hype to replace global warming hype. (I left these up on my screen prior to the SS response and am popping them back in after an edit conflict) TMLutas (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But wait, there's more:

Russian scientist predicts global cooling Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov (Russian: Хабибулло Исмаилович Абдусаматов; with initials transliterated either H.I. or K.I.) is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and a researcher at the laboratory of solar physics [3] at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory (link, photo) of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

This is just after a few minutes of Google fu. I refuse to believe that I'm so good that in maybe 10 minutes of googling snatched between my day job tasks I've got everybody. I think a reasonable section on modern predictions is warranted and perhaps a reworking of the lead that this article is only about the 1970s. I don't think it is justifiable that it should continue to be. TMLutas (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at [4] and didn't find anything to support what you say. Could you quote the bit you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these seem to talk about weather rather than climate. Smptq (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, thanks to new evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age. That makes the current period of global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional indication of the ice age to come.

The referenced research needs to be found. Then we need to have an actual discussion of how imminent a prediction of global cooling needs to be before it should be in the global cooling article. My first thought on that one is, not very. But that's for another day. Right now we're just getting out of denial that there are people in this decade who are claiming global cooling. I think that we're already past that low threshold and should start considering some consensus text of how to deal with their claims. TMLutas (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If he published at all, it is somewhere sufficiently obscure that Google Scholar doesn't find it. Smptq (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The referenced research needs to be found - well, you certainly need to fnid it before you can use it. The quote there is so vague that its useless... perhaps the blip lasts 1000 years... who knows; geologists do funny things to time scales. there are people in this decade who are claiming global cooling: if you find anyone, do let us know William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just did, try rereading the section for comprehension instead of condescension. I listed 4 scientists, you attempt to debunk one and want to put the matter to rest? That's simply a non-starter. This is putting aside the fact that we are dealing with something that is both a press and a scientific phenomena both back in the 1970s and today. I would go along that the press was more important than the science in terms of notability and influence in the 1970s. That seems to be a consensus claim. That means that press accounts today count too and should be mentioned because of their influence regardless of how nailed down their science is. TMLutas (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be going for quantity rather than quality. I found your first reference wanting, and stopped there. If you're no longer pushing him, or aren't prepared to find this research that you assert needs to be found, OK, we'll put him aside for the moment. Please indicate what your best #2 is William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(Darned edit conflicts reposting then answering) Regarding Kukla, I think I've chased down what he's going on about and it was a symposium. Earth Institute News Archive I take your point on geologists and time scales. The article seems to talk about the same cooling phenomenon happening right now and in 5000 years, though it's unclear whether Kukla is part of the consensus on 5000 years.

If one forwards two sources and one is debunked one cannot just stop there while being NPOV. Would one moonbat in favor of global warming discredit everybody else who is advocating the theory more responsibly? Obviously not, each scientist, theory, press account all need to be evaluated individually so long as you don't have a recycling of the same arguments previously discussed. And Kukla himself presents something of an unusual situation as he seems to be saying that the process for global cooling is starting now and we'll be in a full on ice age in 5000 years. So does that mean that he's pro or contra global cooling? TMLutas (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. When you've abandoned #1, and settled on your #2, let us know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if you're not going to address #2-6 at this point (the last article has a number of global cooling enthusiasts in it) within a reasonable time frame, they're going to go into the article. If you can't be bothered to address something, that does not constitute reasonable grounds for its exclusion from an article. TMLutas (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tossing out a huge number of weakly researched references in the hopes that others won't have time to check them all is NOT an ok approach. Pick your strongest one, tell us which one it is, and why, and people will check it. Smptq (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

6 != huge and if you aren't looking at them, isn't it a bit premature to characterize them? Either you're looking at them or not. You can't have things both ways. I'm not negotiating with you either individually or as a clique. The contention is that nobody serious believes this stuff. I've come up with 6 (more really if you dig through the last article but I wasn't going to get pedantic about it) somebodies and that's a reasonable first cut IMO to demonstrate that 'nobody' says so is simply false and the narrative that global cooling is a 1970s only thing is simply not supportable. I will continue to be patient in hopes of either you or WMC coming to your senses and actually being constructive or other editors chiming in. Absent that, I'll go forward with edits as best I can. What I'm not doing at the present moment is adding more sourcing (yes I've found more) because of my perception that it would just exacerbate problems. There seems to be published paper out there talking about the disappearance of sunspots around 2015 and how bad things would be if present trends continue. TMLutas (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaand here's two more, http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/ Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev who actually have a $10,000 bet running on the question. Is this not worth mentioning? TMLutas (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an indication of the reliability of your sources, your above article says that they actually made a bet, but the article it cites as a source [5] says that no bet was agreed upon. In any case, the proposed (but not agreed upon) terms of the bet make it clear that the proposed bet was on short-term temperatures (eg: weather) rather than climate. Smptq (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please undent if you're talking about the deltafarmpress.com article? Your current style is confusing. The finalization of the bet is irrelevant to their opinion that the globe is cooling. Can we focus here please on the task at hand? We're talking about whether people notable enough for inclusion in the article believe in current or coming global cooling. We're talking about whether the current message of the article, that global cooling is just a 1970s failed theory that has no adherents today is accurate or should be reworked. This page is not a mere debating shop (though that can be fun) but working toward consensus on edits in the article. If you admit that the bet (and from your link it's turning into multiple bets, I hadn't realized Lindzen was playing the same game) was offered and carried in press reports, this is something that could be included in the article.

If the argument is that x guy isn't predicting global cooling, that's a legitimate ground for exclusion (and WMC is taking that tack with Dr Kukla and he might be right). If the global cooling advocate is essentially the crank at the corner bar, that's also legitimate grounds for not including them. But not including an event because the bet wasn't accepted? That's not kosher. TMLutas (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems here. The first is that you're choosing to cite authors who appear to lack basic reading comprehension. This means that we can't use them as a reference, and therefore can't include your suggestions as proposed.

The second problem is that the reputed terms of the proposed bet indicate two things: that it was essentially a bet about weather, rather than about climate, and that the apparent cooling forecast is not one which the Russians who are making it have a high degree of confidence in. We wouldn't include a mention of whether two people think there's a 51% chance that it will be colder on Thursday than it was on Tuesday, and this makes about that much sense. Smptq (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to start up a search for suitable references in a sandbox subpage or here on this page with proposed consensus text if you and others would agree to work on removing the false idea that nobody currently thinks the globe is cooling and collaborate in improving the article by adding rock solid sourcing for those who do think that global cooling is going on today.

As for the specific objection to the bet, I've no problem in striking any one or two of the 6+ people I've got so far (and the further ones I'd be able to list if I fire up Google again) if I could get serious engagement and admission that some of the others are good. Abdusamatov, for instance, has garnered no criticism that he isn't actually holding this position but nobody's come out and commented that they would support his inclusion as a modern day believer in global cooling either. The only reasonable response is to wait a decent interval and just edit the article, taking silence in the face of requested comments as acquiescence. TMLutas (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the reason for their not being objected to yet is that nobody has bothered looking at most of them. Let us know when you've abandoned your #1 above, and maybe somebody will actually take a look at your #2. Smptq (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

It was nonsense on stilts when WMC said the same thing and it's just as bad when you do it too. If you choose not to bother addressing my points, that is not a valid reason for non-inclusion in the article. After a decent interval, the ones not objected to will be included. TMLutas (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you're starting from unreliable sources on this topic (eg: the Financial Post, Washington Times, and UPI) which appear to be engaged in a propaganda campaign. The only one from your list who seems to actually make a global cooling climate prediction is [Khabibullo Abdusamatov] who comes across as not merely a propagandist, but a total nut as well. Smptq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know that Newsweek is a reliable source (as it's in the article already @ 3.7) for this article but the Financial Post is not. Did you really mean to assert that? I just want to make sure that I'm being fair before I react to the statement. For my own position I don't think that the Financial Post, the Washington Times, or any other general circulation publication should have any more prominence than Newseek in 3.7 and some should have less. But they should have some mention because the articles are there and they are influential in certain segments of public opinion and denying them their place in this article is POV pushing. TMLutas (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek isn't a RS, except about itself; nor is it presented as such. But it is notable. The FP isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A number of your suggested articles contain writing which is sufficiently incoherent that they fail to rise to the level of being reliable sources as to the opinions of the author. Newsweek, whatever its other failings, contains material which is sufficiently well written that it is clear what the author is trying to say. Smptq (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we have that bastion of the right wing press, the BBC stating:

• A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

So is the BBC incoherent, not big enough, too politically biased, or are we done with these games? The right wing might have been the first to notice it but the meme has certainly gotten beyond them. TMLutas (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confused... Is this page about Global Cooling theories or about disproving the global cooling craze of the 1970s and later? If that is what you are attempting to do, then maybe this should be under pop culture of the 1970's and 80's and not about Global Cooling. Ozien (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunspots meme

Do we want to have a mention of the ~2006-2008 "sunspots will cause an ice age real soon now" meme?

From what I can tell, it was started by Khabibullo Abdusamatov, and subsequently picked up by the English-language right-wing press. As time went on, articles dropped his name, presented his views as if they were widely held by scientists, and often so completely mangled things so that you can't particularly tell whether they're making a prediction or not. As of 2008, repetition of the meme reached the point where folks at NASA felt it necessary to issue a press release indicating that they hadn't seen anything out of the ordinary going on with the sunspot cycle[6] and James Hansen to include a calculation in one of his letters showing how a long-term disappearance of sunspots would only offset about 7 years worth of human CO2 emissions. [7] Smptq (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If its become notable, then I suppose so. As long as we base it around the NASA science, it should be OK William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on the notability. The actual sources are not generally notable, but there do seem to be a lot of people repeating mangled versions of the sunspots meme, enough so that we've seen responses from notable institutions and individuals. Smptq (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And the problem of private notability standards rises again. Newsweek's an ok source (circ, 2.xM) but the Old Farmer's Almanac (circ ~4M) is not. The article is currently set up as examing both media and scientific threads. TMLutas (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Farmer's Almanac didn't make sense because they make regional weather predictions, not global climate predictions. The basis of the predictions doesn't change the fact that they're regional weather predictions. The weather predictions (which they make every year) are also well-known to be no better than chance, and are therefore not notable. Smptq (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the publisher stated in at least one interview that we're entering into a period of global cooling. Just because they only publish for the US and Canada doesn't mean that they don't privately calculate for the globe nor that they never say anything about non-US, non-Canada weather. I guess I'm going to have to actually find a copy of the thing and see if the global prediction is really in the 2009 edition. TMLutas (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three big problems here. First, the area of the predictions isn't global, even if the author has personal beliefs to that effect. Second, the time scale of the predictions is a single year (eg: they're about weather, rather than climate). Third, they're so widely known to be unreliable that their readers are no more likely to believe the predictions in the OFA than readers of The Onion are to believe The Onion's quotes of various public figures. This lack of trust is why you don't see people citing the OFA as a source, and is why it isn't notable. Smptq (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure its worth talking, if you don't bother reading, but I'll repeat what I said before Newsweek isn't a RS, except about itself; nor is it presented as such. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet isn't exactly that sort of treatment what I was looking for regarding the Old Farmer's Almanac? If you thought I wanted anything different than equivalent to Newsweek treatment, you were mistaken. TMLutas (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek is frequently cited and quoted in debates of this kind. OFA isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Newsweek article is from the 1970s and the OFA ref is for the 2009 edition, I think that this would be the expected result, no? There hasn't been time for anybody to cite the thing other than some quick moving blogs. That's not relevant to its cultural impact and cultural impact in the popular imagination is what's relevant to the inclusion of mainstream press accounts. TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this page, really talk about global cooling? This page seems to be a mental re-direct to address global warming... Am only an amateur astronomer but I do know some basic Solar facts associated with real Global cooling... What is needed here is for a Solar expert to put up this page so as to enlighten the other so-called experts about the very real cause and effect of Solar Sunspots/Solar Flux to global cooling. This isn't something for debate as science has made this association for hundreds of years now... IE Maunder minimum in the late 1600s. Of note is the present solar cycle is more then 12 months late. Then once Global Cooling is actually talked about, on a Global Cooling page, then we should ask the question as to how fast our planet has cooled over the last 12 to 24 months and how much does that short term cooling trend offset the long term man made global warming trend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.118.198 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question as the page is supposed to be about "This article is about global cooling in climatology. For the obsolete geophysical theory about the formation of natural features, see Geophysical global cooling." I say that the page needs to be renamed and that this article should be about theories of global cooling, or the lead in to the page should clearly state what this article is really about, which is an attempt to show that the craze of global cooling during the 1970's and later was false. Ozien —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Proposed lead text

For the end of the first paragraph:

A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present has renewed some popular interest in the theory.

Are we ok with this modest addition or am I going to have to cite HADCRUT after the word present and put in the FP, WT, and OFA references after theory? TMLutas (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Theory is far too strong a word, and the language used improperly leaves the impression that the temperature fluctuations since 1998 are indicative of a statistically significant cooling. How about something more like:

A 1998 temperature spike has been used to advance the hypothesis that the earth is cooling.

Mind you, this doesn't mean we've reached the point of agreeing that the metions of cooling are in fact notable yet. Smptq (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed text is not factually consistent to what the advocates are saying. The people advancing the hypothesis are not just using the 1998 temp spike but also the subsequent pause in warming and the 2007-2008 (to present) downward deviation. My proposed text includes all three phenomena, yours doesn't. I'd be willing to sub in idea for theory at the last word, better? TMLutas (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like including a one-year drop, since that's not notable, and highly likely to require future revision. We're far better off not mentioning it. Similarly, the alleged "pause" is not in any way notable. Smptq (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times disagrees stating "the episode is even playing into the global warming debate". Furthermore, Wikipedia even has tags alerting that events may be on the move and that an article or section might be outdated or overcome by subsequent events. I'd have no problem in including such a tag. That a real phenomenon might pass sometime later after half a year of its existence is not reason to ignore the present existence of the phenomenon, especially when it is starting to gain further mainstream press notice. I'm ok with treating this as a media phenom and adopting a clear wait and see on the science. Why aren't you? TMLutas (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposed text (for 10/6 or later inclusion): A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present has renewed some popular interest in the idea

I think that a 2 week period is sufficient debate for a modest addition. TMLutas (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to treat it not as a media phenomenon, but as a right-wing rhetorical phenomenon. Claims to the effect that we are in a cooling period or to the effect that the sun is about to cause global cooling are not generalized across the press. Instead, we're largely seeing such claims in right-wing opinion outlets. Smptq (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for signing on board to the idea that global cooling is not just a 1970s phenomena. I look forward to your proposed edits correcting the present text. TMLutas (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed that there is a phenomenon of people talking about cooling, but its a rhetorical one largely confined to right-wing opinion pages, and essentially consists of repeating (often without attribution, and often in highly mangled form) Abdusamatov's claims. It is not a generalized "media phenomonon", and it isn't clear that it is in fact notable, since the folks who are repeating Abdusamatov's claims tend to be so untrusted that their own readers don't believe what they're saying. Smptq (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the readers of Hot Air or National Review or Little Green Footballs have any more credibility problems than the readers of Newsweek is not inherently obvious. You're going to need to demonstrate that. In fact, I would suspect that these days it is quite the reverse. People read Newsweek much more for the salacious gossip and fashion tips and give it less credibility than your average right-wing opinion mag reader gives his title about serious issues like global climate. TMLutas (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems, mentioned above. There is also the problem that, as I understand it, there isn't a downward trend, even starting from 1998. Do you have an RS that says there is? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got it very much right. It isn't even a question of unsettled science -- solar variation makes almost no difference to the earth's climate during the instrumental era. [8] Its a question of there being a whole lot of rhetoric. Smptq (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be adopting the idea that this is a science article and that's all. It is not as presently constructed, but rather one that handles both the popular press and the scientific issue. I've been patiently working for edits on the popular press side of things, not the science side, that will come later as more data comes in. TMLutas (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that because the science is settled, the only folks who even say anything about cooling are right-wing opinion pages, and sources which are so unreliable that their readers don't believe them. As such, its a bunch of rhetoric. Its kind of hard to argue that mere rhetoric is notable -- you need to have it be claims that the people reading and hearing are apt to believe. I'm not at all clear we've crossed that threshold. Smptq (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not true that this is a right wing only phenomenon, as the mentions in the BBC and the NY Times demonstrate. Right now we've got something of a negative deviation from the previous trend line. That's settled. We've got the AGW theorists who state in pretty unequivocal terms that this is just a random blip and nothing's changed. We've also got a small number, mostly of solar scientists, saying that something seems to have changed and they've got a couple of theories regarding solar variability and cosmic rays. The balance of opinion in the scientific community handily favors the AGW advocates but that does not mean that the science is settled. The proper discussion is regarding WP:WEIGHT and how minor a mention to make of the current uptick in global cooling reports and theories. TMLutas (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is important. And I'd argue that the current uptick in global cooling reports deserves no mention in this article. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not... Also, regarding the magnitude of the 1998-present trend, it depends upon which source you use. They are: +0.010, -0.001, -0.0051, -0.0070, and +0.0074 (all C/year) for GISS, Hadley, UAH, RSS, and NCDC respectively.[9] WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE are also relevant here. - Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

5 guys in an office would be an 'extremely small (or vastly limited) minority)' but I would submit that once the BBC and the NY Times have got around to mentioning it, we've long passed that hurdle because they're not going to be leaders but rather followers due to their own biases against any resurgence in global cooling talk. HADCRUT3 is a high quality source, unless you're going into fringe land yourself. You're reaching here. As noted in WP:FRINGE just one mention in a major publication is enough to get it beyond the hurdle, whether or not they're debunking the idea. Look at the nutshell description.

But I take your point that I should be more precise. TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your nutshell argument makes no sense - both the BBC and the NYT do not mention it extensively - but rather do it in passing, and reference it as being a fringe position. Try to actually read the text of the "in a nutshell". Try finding an article in a respectable rs that actually does cover it extensively.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that many of the more extensive treatments such as this 2007 New Statesman article as well as the next month rebuttal don't use the term, 'global cooling', preferring to use the language that 'global warming has stopped', or not. They're talking about the same phenomenon of course. Does this change your perspective or are you going to insist that the actual term 'global cooling' has to be used? If so, look below for a better NY Times article. TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYTimes articles mentions temperature once: From the middle of the 17th century to the early 18th, a period known as the Maunder Minimum, sunspots were extremely rare, and the reduced activity coincided with lower temperatures in what is known as the Little Ice Age. No mention is related to the "recent cooling". The BBC says that Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific... and ...the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Neither source supports the text you wish to insert. - Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're somewhat correct. This NY Times article is much better (Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell) for my point. I popped in global cooling in the NY Times search engine and came up with that. So much for Google which buried that link on my last several searches. Still think it's fringe to the point of having zero MSM coverage? TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WMC - I'm sorry, what is the trend then? For the soucing, reread the last sentence of my original entry in this section. TMLutas (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the trend rather depends on exactly when you calculate it over. But if you want to assert its negative, then *you* need to provide a RS (and thats before we even argue about notability). Your original entry is A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present has renewed some popular interest in the theory. so you don't mean that. What do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations are only supposed to be used in matters of controversy. You're supposed to be working in the field. Are you really stating that it's controversial that there's a tiny negative trend out of the HADCRUT numbers if you start your graphs at the 1998 raw numbers peak and that a statement noting that must be sourced/documented with a RS citation?

And this is clearly controversial. You said For the soucing, reread the last sentence of my original entry in this section which appears to offer sources. Please provide them, or withdraw your offer William M. Connolley (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by the word *this*. I don't think you mean that it is controversial that the raw monthly HADCRUT3 numbers from their 1998 peak to today have a negative slope when you graph them because if you do mean that, you've departed from reality. So what *do* you mean when you say that *this* is clearly controversial? TMLutas (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no sources. Please provide one William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no controversy. Please provide one or stop manufacturing one. What, exactly, are you protesting regarding the HADCRUT3 numbers? Be clear so I can address the controversy if it actually exists. TMLutas (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time. You can't say A small downward trend in global temperatures using 1998 through the present without a source for it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really so hard to say, "I'm saying that there is no downward trend in HADCRUT in the relevant time period, that's the controversy"? You're working awfully hard at *not* saying it, wasting lots of electrons and HD space at Wikipedia *not* saying it. I'm asserting that it's noncontroversial that from the late 90s peak to today there is a negative slope in HADCRUT3's raw data and that's all that the sentence is referring to, the existence of the negative slope and the use that some have put that fact to. You're saying it needs sourcing but you've never actually identified the controversy. So what is the controversy? You have to identify a controversy before you can legitimately demand RS. Identify it or stop wasting *my* time. TMLutas (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The monthly anomalies over the last ten years have a trend of -0.0021 +/- 0.0033 °C/year, which is marginally negative, though I suspect most researchers would describe that as "negligible" or "consistent with zero" rather than saying negative. Dragons flight (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonably close to what I understood the case to be, a very light negative trend within the margin of error. That cooling trend is the closest we've gotten to negative in some time and it *has* stimulated global cooling speculation. There's some reasonable graphs of HADCRUT available here though the fellow doesn't give the specific cherry picked graph that I've seen elsewhere. Is there support for a graphic of the 1998 peak to present HADCRUT numbers as a visual support for the statement? TMLutas (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No. - Atmoz (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing Atmoz, would you like to explain why? TMLutas (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the data is cherry-picked. 1998 was a large positive deviation in ENSO. There was a recent large negative deviation in ENSO. It is not surprising that if one chooses those time-frames as the start and end dates respectively that the OLS trend will be less than the overall long-term trend. Choose a different starting date +/- a year or two from 1998, how do the trends change? I bet they are now positive. What does this say about the robustness of the trend from 1998? - Atmoz (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You might not have been paying attention but I already conceded that, several times in fact. It still is significant because it's the data that's being used to justify the revived discussion in global cooling, you know, the article that we're discussing how to improve? Take it as given that global cooling is bullshit and you still need to document it in the global cooling article in an NPOV manner. You really ought to click the link I cited above on graphs. If you had, you would have know that you actually have to go as far back as 4/1997 to today to even get a flat slope out of the HADCRUT numbers as of 9/2008. If you pick 5/1997, you still have a negative slope. The trend lately has been to lengthen out how far before the peak you have to get before the negative slope goes away. A significant chunk of the 1970s concerns were the popular press cherry picking and taking out of context sober scientific treatments. It would not be out of bounds to note the problem of cherry picking but what is out of bounds is the current state of the article which significantly underweights post-1970s global cooling advocacy/theory. TMLutas (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did click that link. And a few others on the site as well. I did find this graph on this page. I thought it best just to ignore it the first go around. Thanks for the laugh though. You still haven't provided a RS. - Atmoz (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, who's cherry picking now? First of all, let me make it clear that I was offering to create a graphic that is similar to most of the stuff that Global Warming Art has been providing to Wikipedia, publicly available data set up in as similar a manner as possible, with the only difference being the start point. Demanding that I provide reliable sources before it's fit for Wikipedia is pretty similar to trying to invalidate the Global Warming Art stuff since it would be derived in the same manner from exactly the same sources. Do you really want to go down that road?

The blog I'm about to discuss was never proposed as a source for the graphics but merely as a ready made "this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about" site. You are fundamentally barking up the wrong tree by your hit on our pseudonymous author above. The attack's still unwarranted though.

The site is a blog by an actuary who has a sense of humor (refreshing actually). You might have gone one article back from your cherry picked jpeg to The Validity, or Lack Thereof, of Data presented by a self-proclaimed Idiot for a reasonable examination of the issue. The site is done by a professional actuary which generally means that it should be good for backward looking charts and not that bad for forward looking stuff within the timeline that is reasonable for normal actuary work. Perhaps you can explain why we shouldn't be using least squares (as the chart you dismiss does) but that's hardly a laughing matter that deserves no actual discussion. (oops, forgot to sign) TMLutas (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposed text as per Atmoz's criticism on sourcing: A small downward trend in global temperatures using HADCRUT3's 1998 peak through the present has renewed some popular interest in the idea.
Unless WMC comes back with an actual controversy, this is going to be it. TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I say, no. But I agree: we've wasted enough time here on talk. I suggest you try it, and see what happens. I'll revert you; I don't know if anywoe will support you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not stick words in my mouth. I do not think it a waste of time to ask you to actually state what is the controversy. I call it, 'seeking consensus'. You seem to differ and also to be courting an edit war where we scurry off and each try to find the biggest gang of supporting editors to tire out the other side. Is that your vision of how Wikipedia should be?

When Atmoz or anybody else comes up with what I concede a valid point, I adjust the proposed text which I've done twice now over the course of weeks of debate. I've also encouraged others to propose their own edits. I thought this was how Wikipedia was supposed to work. You seem to differ. You find it wasteful to actually formulate a concise, positive statement of what is the controversy you are objecting to. I can think of more than one possible controversy, though so far I think they're all bogus (I've given concrete evidence that I'm persuadable otherwise). What I would find a waste of time is adjusting the statement to take into account a potential controversy that you don't actually have a problem with. I'm being quite patient. You're the one closing down conversation and threatening to revert instead of improve the article. I've tried being bold on pages you monitor WMC. That doesn't seem to bring out the best in you. Now I'm trying to work it out ahead of time. You don't seem to like that either. What *do* you want? TMLutas (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to take this to WMC's talk page in case he stopped coming by here and hadn't seen what I last wrote. The final result can be seen in this diff where he blanks it with the comment "if you have nothing new to say, don't say it". I cannot come up with an alternative explanation than he rejects the idea that requests for reliable sources come with an obligation (at least when challenged) that some sort of controversy has to be attached to the request and one cannot willy nilly request RS and refuse to say why. TMLutas (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the added text[10] as there is consensus not to add it. Further, it was added without any source. - Atmoz (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Same assertion as WMC, same question from me, what is the controversy that requires the statement to be sourced? There have been enough links kicked around on talk over the past several weeks we've been discussing it that it's become pretty obvious that there is a class of people saying that we are having global cooling, many are pundits and bloggers but we have the occasional credentialed scientist saying the same. The HADCRUT3 number was used in the text so there's no need to cite the same thing. What is your objection to the present text? You've actually given past objections and I've adjusted the text so what's wrong now? TMLutas (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

consensus - Is there a recent uptick of people who think that we're starting to have global cooling

Atmoz seems to have read some tea leaves and made up his own mind that there was a consensus on this. I'd actually like to put the question because I believe that what we actually have here is a sort of false consensus based on a very tiny sample size. What do you think? TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice canvassing. [11][12][13] - Atmoz (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice unresponsiveness to the actual issues at hand. Golly gee whiz, let us make this all about side issues instead of the edit. You assert a consensus that doesn't exist and protest that a few other editors, none of which I've been in contact to date with mind you, got a little note inviting them to participate. Afraid your claims of consensus are a bit fragile? TMLutas (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[14][15][16] Add your text again. I won't revert it, but I bet someone else will. - Atmoz (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't good. Neither was your edit [17] which has no sources at all. Neither was your edit comment, the distinctly deceptive well discussed change - yes its been *discussed*, no it hasn't been agreed or anything even vaguely close. You don't seem to be able to find a RS for your assertion that the temperature has cooled (or even a defn). You need one William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While canvassing (a whole three people randomly selected to give a bit broader look at this page) can be a bad thing, it is certainly a venial sin comparing to refuse to engage on the substance. When you refuse to give your reasons why you're demanding RS, you're ceding the field. Really, WMC, would you tolerate the mirror image of this "I don't have to tell you my reasons for demanding RS" were it coming from a viewpoint you disagreed with? TMLutas (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new addition to the discussion, even the folks over at RealClimate don't buy into this artificial consensus recognizing that there are, in fact people who recently have been talking about global cooling. The RealClimate crowd thinks they're wrong, of course. That's fine, the statement under discussion doesn't make any evaluation of the truth of it, merely noting that such people exist. What's even more delicious is that one of the authors of the article is one William Connolley. Is that any relation WMC? Or did you actually help write that article and the entire multi-week discussion including threats of an edit war is merely an exercise in ill will and griefing ill befitting someone who is an administrator? TMLutas (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If there have been people who recently have been talking about global cooling (and their opinion is in any way notable) then it would seem the simple answer to this dispute would be to cite them. The chief issue with your addition is that it is uncited. Whether the opinions of these people are correct or not (and you'd hope that they'd at least be built upon something factual) is, as you say, not the point. What's important is that they are notable, verifiable and without undue weight, none of which can be demonstrated without cites. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Escape Orbit - This little charade started as an honest attempt by me to improve this article. I've read press accounts talking about global cooling. I've seen graphs here and there. It was out there and I've brought in plenty of links in the talk page, some of which could have been used. WMC has played an entirely negative role in this process. I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but it's extremely unlikely that he isn't the author of the 3/08 article trying to debunk global cooling claims. He's known that these people exist. He doesn't agree with them. That's fine as far as it goes but now he's just going Orwellian in his efforts not to have their theories covered in the global cooling article and that's so far against the spirit of Wikipedia that it's breathtaking. TMLutas (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me about William M. Connolley ability to talk around issues he doesn't wish to address, but the fact remains; your addition is uncited. It needs a cite because it is clearly controversial. What you are adding is at odds with what most readers will have been told (rightly or wrongly) about climate change. They need a cite. A cite puts an end to this disagreement. If you have no cite then no amount of discussion will get the addition into the article.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that any cite offered will be found defective and reverted which is why I haven't bothered, especially in response to bad faith objectors who refuse to provide a reason for their requests for citation. Still, you've actually raised a new point, and as has been my pattern, I'll come up with an adjustment to try to address it. TMLutas (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. TML: no, you didn't canvass at random, unless you expect me to believe that random selelection just happened to hit on 2/3 people who identify themselves as GW skeptics. As to RC: that lead me to http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcru-8yr.jpg. All the recent lines there look +ve to me. If you want to insert into the article "A small downward trend in global temperatures using HADCRUT3's 1998 peak through the present" then it needs a source, as a very basic minimum. It also needs an explanation of what is meant: LS fit to monthly data, or what? If true, it also needs a clear disclaimer that this is cherry-picking; and that the trend, when not-cherry-picked, remains +ve. You also seem to want to add "has renewed some popular interest in the idea." Naturally enough, this also would need a source. But there is a further problem: the article currently says In this article it refers primarily to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. As far as I'm aware, no-one is suggesting that, even the wackos. So it would need to be clear that those (whoever they might be) reviving this idea are reviving a much weaker version William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WMC, are you, or are you not an author of the March 2008 article discussing a renewed interest in global cooling in an attempt to debunk it? If you are not, say so. If you are, you've perpetrated a dishonest bit of griefing here, raising spurious objections on a subject you yourself have written about and know perfectly well is a real phenomenon. You can say that they're wrong but you can't airbrush them out of existence, especially when you've already written about theme on your own group blog.

There really isn't anything left to discuss with you on this topic until you clear up whether or not you are one of the authors of the 3/2008 RealClimate article on global cooling. I would have been open to reasonable improvements in saying the obvious including using your own article (if it is yours) as a RS. Instead you've given no effort to improve, merely to stand in the way of any change recognizing the obvious, that there are those who say that the 10 year (not 8 as you tried to shift the discussion to) graph shows cooling and they tend to use the HADCRUT3 data. I see that finally you're making some sort of nebulous concession that some sort of "weaker" version could possibly pass muster with you after multiple weeks of stonewalling but that's not nearly good enough if you've known all along about this and have been coming at the topic dishonestly, hiding your expertise on the subject in order to slow down the improvement of the article. TMLutas (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

global cooling revert

[Moved from User talk: Stephan Schulz --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]

If you would have looked at the talk page on global cooling, you would have noticed a NY Times article, a BBC article, a RealClimate article written in part by WMC himself (though so far he doesn't want to admit it) recognizing that there are real live people (some of whom are even reputable scientists) advocating the idea that we're entering a period of global cooling. You could have followed normal editing protocol and put a citation needed tag. You could have been constructive and picked one of the three (or one of the other 6 links on point for the subject in the multi-week discussion you've waltzed into) and just added the citation yourself. You could have commented on the talk page and participated in the discussion. You did none of those and just reverted the edit. That was not a well thought through action.

I'm not putting any one of these cites in myself because I maintain you actually have to cite a controversy before you can legitimately demand a reliable source. Whenever I have asked for this controversy now for the past 3 weeks, it's been like pulling teeth. So no, you don't just get to revert anything you don't like and make those with different viewpoints dance to your tune. When challenged you actually need to say something along the lines of "the edit is controversial because". I've already made two changes to the proposed text in order to answer challenges like that. If you would like to give a real objection that the edit is controversial, I very likely will make a third to take into account your reasonable objection. I only ask that you state it in clear english and work on actually improving the article instead of shutting down edits by reverting without contributing to the extremely long discussion. TMLutas (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, everything that needs saying has been said over and over again. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is not normally cured by yet another repetition. No, none of the sources you mentioned remotely supports your claim, namely that "A small downward trend in global temperatures using HADCRUT3's 1998 peak through the present has renewed some popular interest in the idea." I find that claim extraordinary, since most people who make up "popular" have no idea what HadCRUT3 is. The causal link is unsourced, and so is the "renewed interest". And you fail to adequately distinguish between the 1970s press event and Abdusamatov's fantasy today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The addition of specifying the source as HADCRUT3 was to satisfy a previous objection. If you'd like me to go back to an earlier version, that wouldn't be a problem. TMLutas (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We've said all this before. To say something new: you can't add in text [18] with the comment Pick one of the 9 links already in talk if you want a source. Obviously enough, the sources have to be in the article, not in the talk William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What you haven't said, however, is that you knew very well that there's an uptick in this because you wrote an article on the phenomenon in March of this year. Keep hammering your disingenuous points WMC. You could have resolved the need for a citation by simply offering up your own March '08 article several weeks ago. The controversy was manufactured. TMLutas (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparative Interest & Importance

"Currently, global cooling is of little interest; global warming is the important issue."

Could the editors supporting this uncited assertion in the article please indicate where it is coming from? It can either be an opinion or a fact. If opinion; please cite whose. If fact; please cite the study where interest in, and importance of, global cooling has been measured and compared with that of global warming.

Besides that, I really don't see what point there is to this being in the article. This article is not about global warming, and the reader can decide for themselves what is of interest and what is more important without Wikipedia telling them. If we're going to start judging importance of subjects, what other articles should this be added to? I'm sure we could agree that global warming is more important than many other article subjects.

As it is, it sticks out like a sore thumb as a blatant POV with nothing to support it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the bleedin' obvious to me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I have had to remind you before, the criteria for inclusion in this article is not what is obvious to you. Wikipedia contains what can be verified, something you were perfectly happy to insist on in the section above. If it is obvious then it doesn't need to be said, the reader can read the facts and decide themselves. If it is an opinion and uncited it can be challenged, some may be of the reverse opinion. It should either be cited, removed or rephrased. Can I suggest something like;

"Current concern by the majority of climate authorities focuses on global warming rather than global cooling".

This has the advantage of being factual without voicing an opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can be verified - review the IPCC. Or look at some of the references on Scientific opinion on climate change (hint: cooling is a climate change as well). Since its obvious (from these references, and the rest of the article), it will be rather difficult to provide a direct reference for it - but the opposite position, that of GC being of (more than little) interest now, only requires notable references... (see: Negative proof) - so if its not a correct statement, then please provide citations for it being notable, it would in that case be something that is needed in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is true, it is whether it can be verified. It is impossible to verify because it is making a comparative statement (degrees of interest & importance) that is impossible to measure. Therefore it can only be an uncited opinion. Saying it can be verified by reference to other articles in Wikipedia is not providing a cite.

The sentence, apart from anything else, is a needless opinion. Rephrasing it would remove the issue. The position of the IPCC can be reflected in the article without the article voicing an opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but the IPCC report directly makes a quantitative analysis of whether global cooling or global warming is the thing to worry about - and guess what? It says what this article does. So reference Chapter 9 of the AR4 if you absolutely want a reference. What you apparently think, is that we have to have a direct reference to every sentence in our articles .... and that is wrong. The sentence is verifiable - but you will have to read more than just a fragment of a newsarticle, to verify it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What I think is that sentences that have been repeatedly challenged and removed as uncited, as Wikipedia guidelines suggest they may be, require citing rather than constantly reverted without any attempt at explanation. I will alter the article to reflect what you say. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just because a known sock-puppeteer seems to dislike a specific sentence, doesn't make it controversial. Its citable - and you can cite the IPCC if you really feel for it. WP:V does not require verbatim or specific 1:1 agreements on sentences. The IPCC report specifically adressess this subject, and comes to this conclusion - so we can make a citation that comes to this conclusion - and with a source that is authoritative on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what makes the current version, a sweeping statement without any direct attribution, better than the one I added, that makes it clear whose authority it is based on and where it is sourced? And the snarky Op-Ed comment about a reference work?? Your revert performed the exact opposite of what it claimed! It removed a reference and re-instated an unattributed opinion. And your claims of known sock-puppetry appear to be baseless. Looking over recent edits on this sentence show no editors with any documented claims or proof of sock-puppetry.

I have to say the way this issue is being treated shows a sad lack of sense and disregard for policy. The way to resolve disputes over unattributed comments is to cite them. Yet here there is an entrenched attitude of reverting without any attempt to discuss, a dismissive attitude to attempts to resolve the matter, baseless claims of sock-puppetry and a distinct impression of article ownership being displayed. The sentence in question was clearly problematic, yet editors here would rather argue over its factual accuracy based, presumably, on their personal knowledge and opinion, than rephrase it neutrally, attribute or cite it. Wikipedia simply doesn't work that way. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I think this is all a waste of time. You're adding nothing of value to wiki William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a cite added to an otherwise contested statement, something that is central to the value of Wikipedia. I'm sorry you don't consider that value. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice: I first reverted and then reinstated a citation. Think of it as one edit. And with regards to the comment on authority. Unless you can come up with any other authoritative source that either contradicts or casts doubt upon the IPCC conclusions, there is no reason to attribute it specifically in the sentence - since: A) The IPCC is the authoritary source on climate change, B) Attributions such as the one you gave - is for opinions from individuals, not authoritary scientific assessments such as the IPCC's (that btw. are backed by all relevant scientific organizations - again see: Scientific opinion on climate change). As for the sockpuppeteer, maybe i'm wrong - i didn't check - but i'd be surprised if User:scibaby has missed out here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well at least things have taken a step in the right direction. But now you're just arguing in circles. The reader doesn't need the attribution to an authoritative source, because it comes from the authoritative source, and therefore the reader doesn't need to be told it comes from an authoritative source? What kind of logic is this?.

And if it didn't need attribution in the sentence, they where else is this attribution? The article cites a number of authorities, not all of them are in agreement, many are disputed, many are now generally agreed to be wrong. So of course the reader needs to know where the next statement comes from. Is it a bad idea to give statements authoritative attribution? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it simpler then: The IPCC represents the current scientific opinion on climate change .... not the opinion of a single individual/organization or the like, but rather the collective opinion of the scientific literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong.65.12.145.148 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The IPCC summary is neither a fair representation of the accuracy of current computer models nor even reflect the scientific tenet that correlation is causation. If you actually go and read the drafts and the reviewers comments you will discover just how biased and unscientific the IPCC really is. What I find much more depressing is how a few editors of Wiki bias the information within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.8.219 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough.... I have read the drafts (i've even read significant parts of V. Gray's rather funny (in a sarcastic sense) review), and from your comments i can see that you didn't. Perhaps it would be better if you actually tried reading some of the science, instead of relying on 2nd hand information? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling wars again

Re [19]. Ah well, another round. As far as I'm aware, the policy is and has been for rather a long time For articles about chemical substances Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry). as you may just possibly have noticed, this article is called "global cooling" which is not a chemical substance. This is not an article about a chemical substance. Which is why IUPAC spelling on science article is a misunderstanding of policy. So we're back in the familiar ground of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English which tells us what we already know... Retaining the existing variety: If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used... and so on. Who was the first major contributor? Hard to guess, I suppose we could check the edit history..., oh, wait. Why do I have to say this? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it is no reason for you to editwar over it. Please stop. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at my previous edit, you'll see that the f/ph bit was just a small part. I have no desire to edit war over f/ph as you seem to want to do. And your wikilawyering above is old and tiresome as was that revert cultural imperialism from your edit summary, methinks you're just itchin' for a scrap. In addition, deleting Guido's comment was rather uncalled for - I've restored it. Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

William has been a little selective in his reading of the relevant MoS page here. Let's read on a little further (my emphasis):

"...Aluminium not Aluminum, Sulfur not Sulphur Caesium not Cesium

These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article.

This convention should also be applied to all compounds and derivative names of these chemicals: e.g. sulfate not sulphate; sulfuric not sulphuric; etc."

As this is clearly a "chemistry-related article", even though it is not primarily about a chemical substance, we obviously should use the IUPAC spelling "sulfate" here. It seems obvious to me and I am baffled as to why an experienced and respected wikipedian would be edit-warring over restoring the olde-worlde spelling. --John (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with William M. Connolley, (despite his usual attitude). Reverting one edit to the article's previous state is not "edit-warring". Nor is UK spelling "olde-worlde". And I'm at a loss to identify the chemistry in this article. Could you point it out for me? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, three misunderstandings in one post. Two reverts to replace an idiosyncratic spelling contrary to MoS is edit-warring. UK spelling is inherently "olde worlde" in this instance, see Sulfur#Spelling and etymology. As for being unable to identify the chemistry in the article; have a look at the article and count up the mentions of chemical substances. I make it 17 mentions, at a quick scan, though I may have missed some. This makes it an article which deals with chemistry, I would say. --John (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Chemical substances do not make an article "chemistry-related". Count the chemicals on Coca-Cola, is that "chemistry related"? If the MOS meant that the international standard spellings for chemicals should be used on all articles that mention chemicals, then it would say all articles, without qualification.

"Olde worlde" is a rather disparaging term and not helpful in discussions about regional variations of English. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Read the link, inform yourself, then come back and make a better comment, please. --John (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You are referring to it as "olde-worlde" in the context of the debate about the IUPAC standard spelling. As I explained previously, (and William M. Connolley said at the start) this is irrelevant. The reason it is spelt sulphur is because this is its modern day spelling in the UK. In this context, calling it 'olde worlde' is not helpful and just a little disingenuous. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Coca-Cola does contain discussion of chemicals and the article is in compliance with MOS, acesulfame potassium is a sulfur containing chemical and is spelled with the f. Per the MOS linked above, any article discussing chemicals should comply with IUPAC spelling and I've just fixed that on Coca-Cola for aluminium. Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How it spells the words isn't the point, but the reasoning behind it. It is no surprise to have an American product feature American spelling. My point was just because an article mentions chemicals doesn't make it chemistry. And if you read the MOS it does not state what you claim. It is not "any article discussing chemicals", it is "For articles about chemical substances" (my emphasis) and "all chemistry-related articles" (again my emphasis). It is stretching it to say either Coca-Cola or this article applies. It is not about a chemical substance, and there is no chemistry discussed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about physical climatology, as even a brief perusal of the article will tell you. IPCC std is ph [20]. No you cannot claim it for chemistry. You've made a mistake; don't cling to it. Haven't you got something better to do than start spelling wars? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

John did not "start a spelling war" - he simply made a spelling change along with header formatting fixes. The editor who has made two reverts based on spelling is the one "starting a spelling war" - don't you have something better to do? And this discussion has nothing to do with improving this article - the spelling debate belongs elsewhere, and this talk page is way too long without it. Vsmith (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit heated, it seems to me. OK, if you start/continue this debate elsewhere, please drop me a note William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Early 20th century concerns

I removed the following paragraph from the article due to concerns about it. (See User talk:Awickert#Arrhenius). I know I've heard of questions about global cooling and glaciation stemming from related statements from Arrhenius, and later from Milankovitch Cycles, but now that I think of it, I'm not sure if it should be here, because this typically speaks to longer-term cooling instead of a rapid cooling event.

"During the turn of the twentieth century, scientists who studied past glacial periods worried about the possibility of another Ice Age, which could be devastating to human agriculture and industry. In 1908, Svante Arrhenius published a popular science book, Das Werden der Welten (in English, Worlds in the Making), which stated that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions would be necessary to keep the Earth from entering another ice age."

Awickert (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-warming

It is true that the Earth has undergone a warming trend. However this is due to the reduction of atmospheric particulates (i.e. pollution), which act as a reflecting mechanism. The past 30 years or so much of the world has been reducing airborne pollution, and the result is what we see today. So in effect, if we wish to stop global warming...then we need to revert back to polluting the atmosphere at the rates we did in the 1950's. But of course that would be irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this from "Early 20th century concerns" b/c I saw no relevancy. And although some particulates reflect heat, you're ignoring effects that absorb heat... so basically, what you're talking about is balancing your checkbook by subtracting expenses without adding income. Awickert (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

An idea..

Maybe this article should mention the scientists that support this idea even today. I have heard about several who have just recently claimed we are entering a new ice age. This article doesn't appear to take a neutral stance at all.

68.51.41.46 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the historical discussion. But if you have reliable sources about notable current scientists that support this idea ("imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation"), please bring them on. "I've heard about it", unfortunately, fails WP:V. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse the fact that this article needs at least links to scientists who think this is occurring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here's several sites that mention different scientists who support the idea that the Earth is cooling.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/top_russian_scientistglobal_co.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/12/four-scientists-global-warming-out-global-cooling-in/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling

http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/

I feel that if you don't feature these, you are being biased and ignoring important opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. Even if they were, I don't think any of the names mentioned are "new". -Atmoz (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please don't talk such rubbish. This is the most lame excuse from a very obvious biased and inward looking group. Please tell me where in the wikipedia policy it says: "Only people who believe in manmade global warming are reliable sources?" ... it doesn't, for the same reason as it doesn't say: "only those employed as professionals in religion may comment on religion" ... because quite obviously they will be biased. Most people employed to be "climate scientists" were employed to prove manmade global warming, and therefore to exclude anyone who has not recently been employed to prove manmade global warming is clearly, obviously and uncontrovertably biased. For "not a reliable source", read: "not someone who believes in manmade warming". 88.109.195.230 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Who employs scientists "to prove manmade global warming"? Name some of these so-employed scientists among the authors of the IPCC WG1 AR4 report, please! Reliable sources on scientific topics are peer-reviewed publications in respected journals and proceedings, or statements by well-respected scientific societies, or even most textbooks from reputable publishers, not opinion pieces in the popular press, or their third-hand retelling in some blog. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, none of them are reliable. How exactly do you define reliable? Until you state what you mean, your simply stating a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Reliable Source page and the links seem fine to me.

Perhaps I missed something, could someone else review this? VisioNaryD (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

68.51.41.46: If you want cooperation in working through adding valuable content to Wikipedia, you should not start a discussion with "fightin' words", such as "This article doesn't appear to take a neutral stance at all." Second, if you want to add what you say are scientists' opinions, grab Google Scholar and get primary sources from journals. Secondary sources such as the news media will say anything. Unfortunately, some scientists will say anything too, with or without good reasons, but that opens up a whole new can of worms, in which you have to check out the unbiased physics of things like Milankovich cycles and etc. But overall, just calm down and try to find some good support and then push for the changes you want... Awickert (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't fighting words, but it is how I feel about this. Just like most of the so called credible sources here, it's my opinion.

I'll be sure to find "credible" sources next time.68.51.41.46 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth taking the references to bits, if just for fun. The AT says highly credentialed Russian scientist, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin... Dr. Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute... The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin... In other words, we should believe him because he has status. This is a fallacious argument, but even on its own terms its a losing game, as the IPCC folk have far far more credentials. So we ignore all that, and ask, why should we believe him? The answer seems to be The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. - there is no evidence or reference to any research at all. It appears to be a personal opinion of a non-notable person. We *could* have a section on such opinions, but it would have to be something like "The following non-notable people, who have published no research on the subject and produce no evidence at all, none the less have a personal opinion that the earth will cool". Would you be happy with that?

#2 in an unreliable blog, so we can't accept any paraphrases from it. It is probably true that Gray said We’ve reached the top of the heat cycle,” he said. “The next 10 years will be hardly any warmer than the last 10 years.” but I'm not sure how you interpret that as a prediction of cooling.

#3 needs to read this page. Perhaps you could let them know.

#4 presents some more personal opinions and calls them "solid evidence", which is odd. But the comments about #1 apply William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a few scientists who have been paid to make opinions on global warming too, so this can really split to ways. It seems like to me that anything that is against global warming is discredited here. So I can understand why people would complain about this, especially considering wiki users will go to people complaining and say "if you don't like it, you can change it". They just have to get over the wall of bias first.

Another observation, take it for what you will.

Perhaps this discussion should be closed as there really is no point.VisioNaryD (talk)

I would believe that a number of wikipedians would personally feel strongly against global warming. However, I think that going into the research literature is better than random articles on blogs of questionable accuracy - and I would say so on either side of the global warming debate. I'll pick on our poor Russian doctor here. For the full article, I go to the source cited by American Thinker, [21]. Paragraph by paragraph:

"Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases."

There is no climate cycle that I know of that happens on this time scale. He's probably speaking of after the Little Ice Age, which is really within the bounds of natural variations over that time-scale. [22] has some decent plots of that history.

"The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate."

All true reasons for climate change, except these typically are important either on shorter temperature scales (i.e., sunspot cycles) or longer time-scales (i.e., orbital parameters).

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

The 11-year sunspot cycle changes incoming solar radiation overall by 1 W/m^2, which is the same as daily fluctuations, and is less than 1% of incoming radiation. This would change the temperature on Earth by about 0.05 degrees C. The long cycle, of 200 years, has an even smaller effect on the power output. These really aren't a big deal.

"This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check."

Nitrogen peroxide is a greenhouse gas, but not one of the most important. Arrhenius actually studied CO2, so this guy has to brush up on his history of science. (As a side note, Arrhenius thought that global warming would be good for crops, etc., and thought that it would be beneficial to humans.)

"It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?"

Rhetoric only.

"Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming."

There really is evidence - a first place to look is the radiation and absorption bands of important greenhouse gases such as H2O and CO2 - they fit the bill perfectly in the IR spectrum that the Earth radiates. There are more sophisticated interactions between particulates, clouds, etc., but his example is not a good one. Heat is redistributed across Earth by air currents, yes, from the equators to the poles. This results in a better equilibrium in temperature across Earth. However, this has nothing to do with the overall heat energy balance except insofar as it affects temperature gradients and radiation to space (it decreases the gradient but provides a larger area over which there is a reasonable gradient).

"The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect."

He cites no reasons. Yes, there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature - we agree. He says causality is doubtful, though a mechanism by which higher CO2 results in higher temperatures is known, as well as vice versa, suggesting that this is a combined positive feedback that will result in global warming.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.

So the surface ocean mixes faster? Whoop-da-doo. It does not contain the full ocean's carbon, and this would require 1000-10,000 years to equilibrate, I believe, so we should be worried about shorter time-scales that we care more about.

"Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles."

Carbonic Acid is an atmospheric form of CO2. He gives no reasons.

"Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air."

This is true - the Earth will be more jungle-ey if there is more CO2. Though it strays from his main point, that the Earth is cooling.

"Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect."

I don't know much about this, but he now seems to be arguing against adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean."

False. solar activity --> .05 degrees C. Greenhouse gases --> 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, so probably in the ones of degrees.

"Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution."

Earth's temperature fluctuates over geologic time, and remember, on the planetary scale, from which his examples of consistency are based, a few degrees C is small beans, though for Earth, it's a big deal. And over geologic time, its temperature has fluctuated a ton.

"The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period."

True. However, more clouds also mean more water vapor, which is the most important greenhouse gas. It also means less ice, which is an extremely effective reflector. So he trades 1+ for 1+ and 1-.

"What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."

Rhetoric first. Ice sheets blatantly false, look at satellite images. 100,000 year orbital (Milankovich) cycles correlate well with ice ages, but this is (a) on a time-scale with which we care little as humans and (b) who knows if we will enter another ice age if we start to push the Earth out of the climate glacial-interglacial equilibrium. And if we don't put it out of the equilibrium, I would argue that the new ice age would come sooner, on the 10,000-year time-scale, as the previous pattern has been.

"Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that."

We honestly don't know whether or not it will stay the same, regardless of warming.

So there you go. I think I'm all debated out for now, but this is why it is important to cite peer-reviewed scientific sources. A few simple calculations and some knowledge of basic orbital mechanics and radiation can show that these claims are physically implausible and bolstered by rhetoric.

Awickert (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

^ I had a feeling some of that stuff was inaccurate. But I could just as easily pick through the opposite article on global warming and it's so called "accuracy" in sources.

I think there needs to be more materiality as well in this article if better sources can be found. The general idea that this wasn't supported isn't entirely true. Just because the top scientists of the world didn't support it doesn't mean it didn't at least gain some scientific support.

I'd like to see some of those here if possible. Or I'll try to find some. VisioNaryD (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So you say that you can do this to a global warming article. All right. Here's your challenge: pick one that this article (or the global warming article - maybe we should move that discussion to there) uses for an important piece of information, and pick it apart here. Then we'll try to figure out how to fix the article to make it more accurate.

In your second paragraph, what do you mean by "this" and "it" not being supported? And same deal in the third paragraph with "those"?

Awickert (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Global Cooling and it's scientific support. I will try to find some sources that did support it.

My only problem with this article, and the opposite one, is that any attempt to edit the article with criticism over the warming or cooling articles is automatically deleted. I understand the reliable sources thing, but there are sources on the global warming article that doesn't measure up.

They aren't deleted as fast, and sometimes they stay there for awhile. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not try to push any one thing over the other, staying neutral is the key to that. But on these controversial articles, little attempt is made to make them non biased.

That's really my only issue. If more criticism can be done, to at least balance it out. Especially on the Global Warming article. It only seems logical to add the scientific opinion that doesn't support one side if you add one that does if you truly want to be neutral.

Surely that is reasonable?

I'm no expert on either subject, but I am concerned about this. I read about a teacher who let their students use Wikipedia on Global Warming, and they failed their tests. All D's or F's. The article itself was about the same it was today. I've heard about this before in other places.

That doesn't mean it's all inaccurate, but the idea of pushing the hysteria and making it into something it's not is not being honest and is making the readers have to pluck truth seeds out of a top soil of fanaticism and bad edits.

VisioNaryD (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. I'm actually a sedimentary geologist, so I'm no climate scientist either. I feel that there is a lot more evidence for anthropogenic global warming than there is against, but I also feel that there's way too much out there that is either junk, completely biased junk, not science at all, or pseudoscience masquerading as science, all aimed at misleading the public towards one point of view or another. So I'd be totally happy if you started reviewing some of the sources, and would be happy to help. Awickert (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll start as soon as possible. Do you have any specific place I can post my findings, and perhaps they can be verified or such, keeping in mind that I don't have a degree in this, but also have studied it for awhile. I actually might study it some more before I start picking through just to be more accurate.

About this article, I am still trying to verify some of my findings. I will post them when I get some more time to do so, so they can be reviewed.VisioNaryD (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can make a section on your userpage, and drop me a line on my talk page when you've created it. Then I'll watch that page and pipe in whenever I think I'll be useful. Awickert (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've created the section, please go there as I will need your assistance. Thank you!VisioNaryD (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - cool - I'll go there. Awickert (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)